Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

That covers the main Government amendments, which I commend to the House.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the amendments in the group. These are a completely new set of provisions on child protection, which the House did not have the opportunity to deal with on Second Reading or in Committee, so we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss them this afternoon. The House has, however, had several excellent debates on child protection over the last year, which is testament to how seriously colleagues of all parties take these issues and want to engage with them.

The amendments before us are the result of hard work and concern across the House. I want to pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for her sterling work. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose new clause appears in this grouping; to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who has done an enormous amount of work on this subject; and to my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins).

Government new clause 8 is the lead amendment in the group. As the Minister has set out, it is designed to make a sensible addition to the offences that can lead to action being taken against those who commit them. As we know, this came out of the tragic case of Maria Stubbings, who was murdered by her ex-partner, Marc Chivers. The Independent Police Complaints Commission recognised that there were gaps in the law in respect of the supervision of offenders convicted overseas. The Opposition are pleased to support this sensible new clause.

Government new clause 14 deals with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, while I understand Government new clause 15 deals mainly with saving and transitional provisions. Government new schedule 1 provides for the practical introduction of the new orders, alongside new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and 67 other hon. Members, as the Minister pointed out, which creates the new child sexual abuse prevention order.

The Opposition support the need to amend the current law. The sexual abuse and grooming cases that occurred in Oxford shocked the country, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has rightly gained huge respect from across the House for the serious way in which she has looked to address the issues with the Childhood Lost campaign. I know that she has worked with a number of charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, ECPAT UK, Action for Children, and many others.

We are pleased that the Government have accepted the need for change, and have tabled their own amendments. We especially welcome the fact that the Government amendments extend the risk of sexual harm orders to adults as well as children. We should be interested to hear how the Minister intends to address the other key activities of the Childhood Lost campaign which are important in keeping our children safe.

Ten years on, it is right for us to think about what was done by the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 and what parts of it need to be updated. The Act was a milestone that played a crucial role in improving our legislation on sex offences in many key respects, for instance by outlawing grooming. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for the key role that he played in introducing the legislation.

The sad truth is that sex offenders, more than any other group of offenders, are prone to reoffend. We must accept that most sex offenders continue to pose a threat to children after their initial offences. That does not, of course, mean that all offenders will reoffend, but it does mean that we should try to identify those who pose the greatest risks, and try to do everything possible to mitigate those risks. Labour introduced three distinct powers which were intended to control the risks posed by known sex offenders.

The Minister referred to the sexual offences prevention order, which was the first order that could be imposed on someone who had been convicted, and was to be applied at the time of conviction—or subsequently by the police—only if there was evidence of dangerous behaviour after offending. It covered both children and adults. The order allowed the courts to impose conditions on the offender that they considered to be necessary to reduce the risk of sexual harm. The risk of sexual harm order could be imposed without a conviction if a chief police officer had a reasonable belief that someone within his region had twice committed a sexual offence, and that an order was necessary to protect the public. That covered only children. The foreign travel order could be imposed only after conviction, but required evidence of post-conviction behaviour that gave cause for concern. An example was the order imposed on Paul Gadd, also known as Gary Glitter.

I think that all those measures were important, and demonstrated the commitment of the last Government to combating sex crime. However, it is clear that all three now need to be improved. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has undertaken important work in that regard in considering how we can improve the operation of the orders. I pay tribute to the recent report by the Association of Chief Police Officers and Hugh Davies QC on the workings of the current regime. New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Lady, would reform the risk of sexual harm order and establish a child sexual abuse prevention order extending to children under 18 rather than 16. It also—importantly—covers children and young people both inside and outside the United Kingdom, and would remove the requirement for two contact offences to be considered before an order could be made.

The Government’s proposals create two new orders. New clause 14 creates the sexual harm prevention order, which can be applied to anyone who has been convicted or cautioned for a sexual violent offence, including offences committed overseas. It will replace the sexual offences prevention and foreign travel orders. The new order will be required for the purpose of protecting the public generally, or any particular member of the public, from sexual harm. I understand that the new clause removes the requirement for a risk of serious sexual harm, which takes it down one level. The Opposition welcome that. The court must be satisfied that the defendant’s behaviour makes it necessary for an order to be made. Again, only one contact offence is required, which means that more people can be included in the grouping.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is providing a very helpful summary of the changes. I think that the removal of the word “serious” is a very important change, because it significantly widens the ambit of police activity in this area. The word “serious” creates quite a high threshold, and far too many cases were slipping through the net because they did not meet that criterion.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks from a great deal of experience as a member of the Bar and so fully understands the implications of the removal of the word “serious” from this definition.

Sexual risk orders can be applied to any individual who poses a risk of sexual harm in the UK or abroad, even if they have never been convicted, and replace the risk of sexual harm orders—again, these orders will apply to both adults and children. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, the Minister confirmed that the sexual risk order could be applied to a child sex offender but did not deal with the other issue she raised about the rehabilitation of a child who was subject to one of these orders. Will he deal with that in his closing remarks and say what is being put in place to support those children and young people to rehabilitate them?

One key theme of these new orders is that both are equally committed to protecting children across the world. That is vital, because sex crimes are committed across the globe and, increasingly, paedophiles will cross borders to commit abuse. The global nature of sex crimes means that it is right that we make it easier to prevent foreign travel by known paedophiles and that we give equal prominence to crimes committed abroad when we are looking at the imposition of a civil order to protect children in the UK. We also need, however, to examine the issue of people who have not been convicted but pose a threat to children. I understand that the changes proposed today will also make it easier to impose an order when a criminal offence has not been committed. Such an example may be where an individual has attempted grooming on the net, for example, by impersonating a young person on social media, but has not actually, at that stage, committed a crime. Will the Minister explain whether the Government have any plans for introducing changes to legislation to make the grooming of a child on the internet an offence? I understand that it is only at the point when the person physically meets the child that an offence is committed.

One thing that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has drawn attention to in the very good briefing she has provided is the fact that very few risk of sexual harm orders have been imposed each year. We hope that these new provisions will make it easier to acquire an equivalent restriction, by making orders applicable to cases where a crime was committed aboard or where the behaviour does not constitute an offence at this time. However, I wish to refer to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), which related to the standard of proof required.

One reason it is hard to impose a risk of sexual harm order is that such orders demand a criminal standard of proof, even though they are civil orders, and that difficulty may remain in respect of the future orders. The demand for a criminal standard of proof was not actually in the Sexual Offences Act and there was some confusion therefore about the standard of proof required. The Home Office did issue guidance, which suggested a civil standard of proof—the “reasonable belief” approach. However, the courts tended to take a different approach and it was only in 2012—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is about to intervene. It was only in 2012 that the issue was settled by the courts in the case of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v. Robert Ebanks, which established a binding precedent on the criminal standard.

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Lady is making a very important point about the standard of proof. One key consideration is that breach is a criminal offence, and therefore there is a serious issue to consider as to the criminal consequences of a civil order that could be obtained by a civil standard of proof. That consideration was uppermost in the mind of the court considering that case and should be uppermost in our minds. As legislators, we need to get the balance right, and so the standard of proof should be a high one.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Again, I know that he speaks from great experience. I simply ask why so few orders have been taken through the courts and whether we need to consider the whole issue of the standard of proof that is required. We support the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which we think have a lot of merit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I find it extremely annoying that when Liberal Democrats get to their feet on child protection issues, when we are making sure that our children have the protection that we all want to see, this is the issue that is pursued. I am asking how best we can protect our children. There is genuinely a question to be asked about the standard that is used in the orders. The Government have chosen to introduce some new orders, which I fully support, but it is worth considering whose side we are on. Given some of the abuse cases that we have heard, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, we need to think long and hard about where our instincts should lie in ensuring that our children are protected.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

I will continue, because I have a feeling that this debate could go on all night with the Liberal Democrats.

I want to ask the Minister and the hon. Lady whether they feel that the threshold might be too high. I accept—the Liberal Democrats will like this bit—that there is a significant cost to the individual on whom an order is placed, reputationally, and particularly if that becomes public. We know that, because of public disgust associated with sex crimes, the effect of a sex offence order being imposed on an individual, whatever it is called, will be devastating to that individual.

It has not helped that the risk of sexual harm orders that were previously in place have been called, I think wrongly, sex offence ASBOs, because the higher standard of proof makes that comparison unhelpful. At the same time, we must accept that there will be many occasions when the police have a well founded, reasonable belief that someone poses a risk to children but are not able to secure a conviction, because, for example, they cannot present in open court the evidence required. In particular, the situation could arise if a vulnerable witness is not in a position to give evidence in court. In such cases, we may want a civil protection order, precisely because we cannot get a conviction at the higher criminal standard. Will the Minister comment on whether the new orders will allow for far more cases to be subject to the orders?

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

We have learnt that many of the problems in this area have been a failure of enforcement—a failure of the various agencies to work together or to understand what was going on. However, I want to press the hon. Lady on the previous question. If someone has a civil order and then breaches it, could they go to prison for up to five years without at any point the criminal standard having been satisfied?

[Diana Johnson]

The new clauses and amendments have been tabled by the Government and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and they are best able to comment on that. My understanding of them is that a term of imprisonment of up to five years is applicable if an order is breached. I am asking a genuine question about whether what we want to achieve through the orders will be achieved by having a criminal standard for a civil order. The hon. Gentleman might want to take that up with the Minister when he responds.

I am conscious of time and of the fact that many other hon. Members want to speak so I will raise only a couple of other issues. Will the Minister explain the situation on appeals and rights of review that might be open to people who are put on the orders? With the scrapping of indeterminate sentences, might we have people on the street subject to the orders who in the past might well have remained in prison, and is the Minister satisfied with that situation?

The hon. Member for Mole Valley raises an important issue in new clause 7. It is topical given that at the weekend W. H. Smith had to withdraw information and e-books from its website. It has taken too long to obtain acceptance of the fact that viewing child abuse images is an integral part of the abuse process. Only the abusers deny that now. We know that viewing abuse often triggers behaviours in individuals. We know that Stuart Hazel and Mark Bridger had both been viewing legal pornography simulating violent sex and abuse prior to committing appalling crimes. The new clause, which deals with the written form of that abuse, is worth looking at. I hope that the Minister will comment further on that. We need to be careful, because we do not want genuine literature that describes abuse in a totally acceptable way to be captured.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

If the hon. Lady looks at the new clause, she will see that the second half covers that point, so “Lolita”, for example, would be all right.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm when he responds that that is the legal advice he has received. On that basis, it is really important that the issue is addressed.

Finally, if the provisions set out in new clause 7 are introduced, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which is now part of the National Crime Agency, will have more work to do. It already struggles with the images it has to look at, so if it will have to deal with the written word as well. I think that there is a case to be made for the Minister addressing how resources for that will be made available.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their opening remarks. I will speak to new clause 5 and the Government amendments relating to prevention orders. I think that by now colleagues will be familiar with my reasons for tabling the new clause. The vast majority of children in this country grow up free from fear, but a vulnerable minority never know a safe or happy childhood. I will never forget sitting in the Old Bailey and listening to truly harrowing evidence of how a violent organised crime gang systematically groomed girls on Oxford’s streets to sell them for sex from as young as 11, plying them with hard drugs to make them more compliant to being repeatedly raped by strangers and conditioning them to believe that that was what real relationships were like. Too many colleagues in this House have had the same experience as me, as cases have emerged across the country. Every police force and local authority needs to take positive and proactive preventive action to root out this vile crime.

Patterns of grooming behaviour are now much better understood. We should be aiming to disrupt the process before it progresses to systematic sexual abuse, because the consequences of failing to intervene are both well documented and appallingly destructive. However, over the past few years case after case has emerged in which child protection agencies in possession of detailed intelligence have seemed unable to intervene.

In our inquiry into child sexual exploitation, the Home Affairs Committee came to a number of conclusions on why it was happening. The wider conclusions are for another day, but even leading forces, such as Lancashire police, who are proactive not only in innovative investigative techniques, but in disrupting grooming behaviour using methods such as abduction notices, licensing enforcement and dispersal orders, found that a key tool—civil prevention orders—just was not working. They have been on the statute book since 2003, as we have heard, and should be at the forefront of the fight against grooming, but instead they were found to be fundamentally flawed by a 2012 review commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers and written independently by Hugh Davies QC and a team of experts.

Since 2003 our understanding of patterns of sex offending and disruption techniques has progressed significantly. The purpose of new clause 5 is to reflect that progress and resolve the flaws in the existing orders. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the case for reform and tabled amendments today. Put simply, the reformed orders will protect more vulnerable children from sexual exploitation. That could not be more urgent, because the Children’s Commissioner estimated only this year that 16,500 children are at risk of sexual exploitation, but the prevention orders are still failing to protect them.

Before explaining how the proposed reforms will address that, let me explain why the current orders are not working. Three orders were legislated for in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: the sexual offences prevention order, the foreign travel order and the risk of sexual harm order. A SOPO can be sought on conviction, or on proof of relevant offending behaviour subsequent to that conviction, to protect a UK adult or child. An FTO can be sought on proof of offending behaviour subsequent to previous sexual conviction and can be sought to protect non-UK children. Despite some misleading coverage of this campaign, the ROSHO is already a pre-conviction order, and it can be sought on proof of two contact offences to prevent serious sexual harm to children under the age of 16. Neither new clause 5 nor the Government’s amendments would create a revolutionary pre-conviction order today. That has been an accepted necessity since 2003.

No one in this House would disagree with the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, but in no way would that be compromised by these amendments. The case against a defendant would have to be proved to the criminal standard, and a defendant’s procedural rights under the proposals would be identical to those in place under the current provisions. The fact is that a criminal prosecution is not the only mechanism that is necessary to achieve an acceptable level of protection against the sexual abuse of children.

Criminal prosecution is not always possible. In some situations a prosecution is found not to be in the interests of a child victim, and therefore not in the public interest. In other situations there might be compelling evidence or some technical reason why the evidence is not found to be admissible. In other cases, as we have seen recently, a vulnerable witness might simply find the court process too traumatic and so the case collapses. Anyone who follows the progress of policing and the criminal justice system will recognise that uncomfortable reality. That is why this year there were more than 23,000 reported sexual crimes against children but only 4,051 of them were prosecuted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who gave a fantastic example of her grasp of the details of this subject and her attitude to it. I served with her on the Committee during its inquiry into child sexual exploitation in response to localised grooming, when we all shared experiences that will stay with me and, I am sure, with her for the rest of our lives. Some of the things we saw and heard about were absolutely horrific. It is to her great credit that she has responded in a very measured way to try to address this. Her speech was exemplary in that regard.

We all think that abuse of children and of any vulnerable adult is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is a heinous crime. Everybody in this House opposes it and wants to see it ended; that is absolutely clear. It is also clear that a crime of this nature is a crime regardless of where it happens. When people go overseas to abuse children, that cannot be okay just because those children happen not to be British. That much is absolutely, completely and utterly clear.

The hon. Lady outlined very well a number of improvements in what the Government are suggesting. For example, it seems odd that a rule was brought in saying that there must be two offences before a breach of something becomes a serious matter. I struggle to think of any other examples where someone would have to do something twice before there was perceived to be a problem. It is absolutely right to get rid of that.

I was very surprised by several of the comments by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). There is a danger that we get trapped in the idea that we must do anything to protect children. It becomes a mantra: “Won’t somebody think of the children?” We do need to protect children but in a way that will work and will not cause us problems. It is an important principle that people do not get jailed based on anything less than the criminal standard of proof. I was genuinely horrified by her suggestion that it would be worth considering something else. I accept that this is a deeply emotional area, and we all want to protect children. I hope that on reflection she will reconsider some of her comments about my perspective on that. We all want that protection to happen, but we must also ensure that we do not break some of the principles of the rule of law.

[Diana Johnson]

In discussing civil orders I merely raised a question about the appropriate standard of proof. I was not suggesting that we should move to a lower standard but merely questioning whether keeping the higher standard was the best thing to do and asking the Minister and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) to reflect on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express that properly when he refers to my views and not try to suggest that I was putting forward any other view.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. My own view is that I would not even want to consider the idea of jailing somebody without going through the criminal process, because that is a fundamental position of our law. She was indeed only questioning it, but I am still surprised that it would even be questioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

The purpose of the amendments is to preserve the position of the authority of Scottish Ministers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. The new firearms offence of possession for sale or transfer of any prohibited weapon is committed where the conduct is undertaken

“without the authority of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers”.

The existing functions of the Secretary of State under section 5 were transferred to Scottish Ministers by order under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 on devolution. Additional functions under section 5 need to be transferred to Scottish Ministers in relation to new offences created by the Bill. Therefore, new clause 20 revokes the entry in the 1999 order in respect of section 5 of the 1968 Act, and transfers afresh all the Secretary of State’s functions under that section to Scottish Ministers. Amendments 100 to 105 are consequential on new clause 20.

I suspect it will help the House if I respond to new clause 4 before the Opposition deal with it, in that peculiar way we sometimes have. The new clause has been tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench and relates to two firearms licensing issues that we discussed in Committee and during the Westminster Hall debate initiated by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) in early September. The first part of the new clause seeks to create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm meets one of the stated criteria, the police should not grant a licence. The stated criteria include evidence of domestic violence, mental illness, and drug or alcohol abuse.

As I said in Committee, the police already have the ability to take those factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. I understand that there are particular concerns about domestic violence and abuse, and in response to those, on 31 July we published specific guidance on that issue, providing greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. Just last week, we published a new consolidated guide on firearms licensing law. It is therefore fair to say that the Government have taken on board the many important points that were raised in Committee, and we have been quick to act. As the House will agree, decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but guidance is clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that an application should be refused. That new guidance is being applied now by police forces up and down the country, which I hope will be welcomed across the House.

New clause 4 also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I consider, however, that guidance must remain just that. It is right that chief officers have discretion to assess applications for firearms in their local area, taking into account the merits of each case and the newly published guide. Chief officers are ultimately responsible for public safety at local level. The Government have sought to make decision making a local responsibility wherever possible. I do not want to undermine that, which is what new clause 4 would do.

We are ensuring that where national action can support local decision making, it does. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms and explosives licensing to ensure that police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. The College of Policing will be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to our guidance. In order to assess standards, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice, and we will use the findings from the exercise to drive up the consistency of decision making across the country. Again, that was a legitimate point made in the course of our debates and outside. People wanted greater consistency and, again, we have taken action. As I said, HMIC is now doing that work.

The second part of new clause 4 seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief police officers before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. I reiterate that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process and we accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. That is why we are introducing a new online licensing system, which cuts the administrative burden of the old paper-based system. We do not need primary legislation to make this happen.

Until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current paper-based approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees fourfold in order to achieve, in one giant step, full cost recovery, which I assume is the purpose of new clause 4. As I have said in other forums, we are considering proposals for an interim fee increase and I will make an announcement on that in due course.

In conclusion, I hope the Opposition Front-Bench team will acknowledge that progress has been made in all the significant areas where criticism of the system could legitimately be made a few months ago. I hope I have persuaded them that further legislation is unnecessary. On the off-chance that I have been unsuccessful in persuading the Opposition Front Bench that new clause 4 is unnecessary, I will have no hesitation in inviting the House to reject it.

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the Minister for setting out his amendments. The Opposition think these are entirely sensible and we support them. However, we depart from the Government on what more needs to be done. That is why I shall speak to new clause 4 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

The new clause would do three things. First, it calls for a broader range of better background checks to be included as part of the licensing process. Secondly, it would amend the Firearms Act 1968 to introduce an explicit presumption that anyone with a history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness would be prevented from acquiring a firearms licence unless they could provide exceptional evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, it would introduce full cost recovery to ensure that the cost of a licence reflects the cost to the police of processing it.

Why is this needed? There are 146,426 people in the UK who have firearms certificates, covering 498,048 individual firearms, and 570,726 people who have shotgun certificates, covering 1,333,701 individual shotguns. Given that this involves nearly 2 million weapons, we should be thankful that gun crime is a relatively rare phenomenon in the UK. This is an indication that in most cases the licensing system does work and the overwhelming majority of members of the shooting community are very conscious of their responsibilities and of public safety. The problem is that when a gun crime does occur, its effects tend to be catastrophic.

We all know of the horrendous case of Derrick Bird, who killed 12 people, including himself, with a legally owned firearm. In the past five years there have been 43 female gun deaths in Great Britain and in at least 23 of them a legally owned weapon was used. In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents. In 2009 that figure was 100%.

I want particularly to mention the case of Michael Atherton, to which the Minister referred. Michael Atherton killed his partner Susan McGoldrick, her sister Alison Turnbull, her niece Tanya Turnbull and himself on new year’s day 2012. He did that with a legally owned shotgun. Michael Atherton had three legally owned shotguns despite a history of domestic violence, alcohol abuse and mental health problems. A note attached to Atherton’s first application for a firearms licence in 2006 said:

“Four domestics, last one 24/4/04, was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner and son and daughter. Would like to refuse, have we sufficient info to refuse re public safety?”

Durham constabulary decided that it could not refuse; in fact, Michael Atherton was allowed to keep his weapons despite the police being called to domestic incidents on another two occasions, including one in which he threatened to blow his head off with his own guns.

Since that tragedy, Alison Turnbull’s son, Bobby Turnbull, has been campaigning for a change in the law to prevent such tragedies from happening again. I pay tribute to Mr Turnbull for the brave and committed way in which he has gone about his campaign. I know that the Minister has met Bobby Turnbull and that the Minister, along with all members of the Public Bill Committee, received a letter from Mr Turnbull supporting Labour’s new clause.

There were multiple police failings in the case, but, as I have pointed out, it was not a one-off and the Durham coroner, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Select Committee on Home Affairs have all proposed tougher rules to prevent people with a history of drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness and violence, especially domestic violence, from acquiring firearms. That is why Labour is proposing new clause 4 to enshrine a clear principle that there should be a presumption that anyone with a history of domestic or sexual violence, drug or alcohol problems, or mental illness should not be allowed a firearm. I do not agree with the Minister that that undermines local decision making; it helps and strengthens it.

Never again should the police, looking at the file of a violent offender, think, “I would like to refuse this application but I am not sure whether I can.” Owning a gun is a privilege and not a right. In Committee, a number of hon. Members were very concerned about using mental health in such a way. We have had a number of debates to discuss mental health and the discrimination that might be faced by people who have had mental health problems. I reiterate that the proposal is to set down a presumption that can be rebutted if there is good evidence—for example, if someone had mental health issues many years ago but has not suffered recently. We are also not saying that people with a history of mental illness cannot take part in shooting. They can, but at registered clubs, not with their own guns to which they would have access at home.

The Government claim that the introduction of the new guidance, which the Minister mentioned, addresses that issue. The Opposition question whether that is enough. We know that the Gun Control Network has said:

“The Home Office says it is issuing new Guidance to the Police on Firearms Licensing but the new draft does not change the ethos. There is no statement anywhere that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.”

The problem is not just whether the new guidance is sufficient but whether guidance could ever be sufficient. Let me share with the House the case of Mr X, in which the police attempted to block a firearms application only for that attempt to be turned down on appeal.

Mr X’s shotgun licence was seized after he was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault against a 17-year-old woman. The police thought the allegation was plausible, but the young woman did not want to appear in court so the charges were dropped. That was not the first allegation against Mr X. Other women had previously made complaints about him. His GP also reported that he was suffering from acute stress. The deputy chief constable of the relevant police force took the decision to revoke Mr X’s shotgun licence. However, despite the deputy chief constable’s taking a day to appear in front of the court, Mr X had his shotgun licence returned by the court. I appreciate that the Minister will not want to comment on individual cases, but I would like him to confirm to the House that the outcome of that case would not have been altered by the new guidance.

The Opposition have tabled new clause 4 because we believe that the firearms licensing system, particularly for shotguns, needs to be more robust to protect the public, but we also recognise that the system could be better. I pay tribute to the work of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the constructive way in which it has engaged in the debate on gun licensing. It has considerable expertise and I am grateful for its assistance. The association is right to point out that the firearms licensing system often fails to serve the shooting community. There are big discrepancies between police forces and sometimes big delays. It is not uncommon for a renewal to take many months. There is a general consensus that the system needs to improve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

The protections are the new guidelines, the new professional standards issued by the college and any recommendations that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary comes up with from its inspection. Those things will make the whole system more robust, so that the specially trained individual police officers who will be making those investigations will be better trained than ever before to judge whether, for example, an accusation is malicious or whether it is a genuine accusation and there is evidence of domestic violence or abuse and that therefore the individual should not be permitted to possess a firearm. Clearly, what one can expect and demand in such cases is that the individual officer taking the decision is as well trained as possible and is operating to very clear guidelines. That will be the case, and it is the best protection against malicious accusations. Equally, or perhaps more importantly, it protects those who may have been victims of domestic abuse and who may be victims of something worse if a gun is left in the wrong hands. That is what hon. Members on both sides of the debate are seeking and, as I say, it is an argument about practicality.

The third aspect to this debate relates to the costs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked a number of questions, and the answer to her question about e-commerce and the new system is that 24 forces are already signed up to phase 1, which comes into force either this year or next year, with eight other forces involved in phase 2. Thirty-two forces have therefore already agreed to do this, and I know that the national policing lead on firearms is energetically going around the country to ensure that all other forces eventually sign up.

The hon. Lady made the point, quoting the Treasury document, about full cost recovery. It is true that, in principle, full cost recovery within the Treasury’s policy on managing public money does apply to firearms licensing. Of course, we are in discussion with the Treasury on the subject of firearms fees. As I said, we are working towards full cost recovery as our ultimate objective. However, in this period our commitment is to increase the efficiency of the licensing process, as a first step. That is essential to achieve a balance between increased income and increased efficiency. The trick—this is true in all areas of public spending—is not to regard full cost recovery as a given, because we can always bring the costs down. We have already seen in the early pilots of the use of an electronic system for licensing not only that people get a quicker and better service, but that it is considerably cheaper for the police to operate, and so there is a benefit all round. One hon. Member cited a figure of £200 from the Gun Control Network, and I know that the police have come up with a figure of about £190 for full cost recovery, but the figure will be much lower under an e-commerce system. That is to the benefit of the police and of those applying for licences, be it for working purposes, as is the case in many rural parts of the country, or for recreation, which various hon. Members have mentioned.

[Diana Johnson]

Given that such huge cuts are being made to public services these days, does the Minister feel entirely comfortable saying that he thinks it is acceptable for the public purse to subsidise people who want to have a gun and get a gun licence to the tune of £18 million? I understand what he is saying about the future, but the reality today is that lots of police forces are under pressure, so should the full cost recovery not be brought in now, rather than at some future date?

[Damian Green]

The point that I am making is that it is today; the use of an electronic licensing system is available. Some police forces are piloting this already and this will lead to a much more efficient system. As I say, our ultimate aim is full cost recovery. We are moving towards that, but at the same time making sure that the full cost that is recovered is much less than it was before, not just to save the money but because that will lead to a much better and more efficient system.