Draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2019

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 General Committees

[Mr Sweeney]

Absolutely. This all combines to affect the individual’s income, which I am trying to set in the wider context. I hope you will indulge me for a little longer, Mr Hanson, while I do that. It is important for policy makers to understand the consequences of such decisions.

The Department for Work and Pensions’ universal credit claimant survey found that more than 65% of claimants in rent arrears fell into debt after they had made their first claim. Some 44% of claimants surveyed said that three months into their claim, paying their bills was a constant struggle and they were falling behind in payments, and that after nine months, there had been little improvement. The same survey found that 40% of claimants were struggling to cope well financially on universal credit.

There are a host of problems with the advance payment mechanism, such as that the repayments do not take into account people’s ability to afford them, that small deductions can have a huge impact on people who are living on a financial knife edge, and that people are hit with multiple repayments at once. The system works by loaning the individual up to 100% of their first universal credit payment, which is then paid back through deductions to the claimant’s monthly payments as soon as they begin.

That is vital in the context of what we are discussing, because the evidence shows that when the deductions are made, people are pushed further into poverty. That is exactly what I fear will happen with deductions from an individual’s benefits to pay the VSF.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I listened to what the Minister said and I have read the explanatory notes. It appears that the system is that there is a sliding scale of deductions depending on the fine levied. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows, or will press the Minister, on whether there is any discretion in the matter or whether it is an absolute deduction.

[Mr Sweeney]

My understanding is that it is a blunt instrument and it may not be applied intelligently. The detail will be subject to the decision making of Scottish Ministers and Members of the Scottish Parliament, who will determine the full nature of the roll-out as it pertains to Scotland.

I sound a cautionary note. As I said, the evidence shows that the deductions push people further into poverty. Citizens Advice Scotland has expressed concerns, which are detailed in the document that it helpfully provided, about the level of deductions that can be made from universal credit payments. It highlights cases where claimants have been left with as little as £49 to survive an entire month. Hon. Members sometimes do not like to hear it, but unfortunately that is the reality of what is happening to the most vulnerable people in our society who have fallen on hard times and are reliant on our social security system. It is failing them.

I have a further point on the policy’s principle, which links to the practicality of the order. About seven months ago, Police Scotland released a report that stated that

“welfare reform, including the introduction of universal credit, may have helped push robberies up by 30% over the five-year average.”

That is a damning statistic, which leads me to the substance of the order. The people who are included in that Police Scotland report are the same people who are likely to be affected by the order.

It is not necessarily the place of the Committee to block the order, which ultimately deals with a procedural issue, so, on that basis, the Labour party will not oppose it. It is blindingly obvious, however, that there is a complete absence of detail as to how the VSF will operate in Scotland when the order has commenced, as alluded to by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer some questions about how he envisages the scheme working.

First, does the Minister have any idea of the sums likely to be recovered directly from benefits? The explanatory notes state that no impact assessment was undertaken. It would be helpful to understand what value he expects to be returned. I am also interested in his thoughts on whether the administrative cost of collecting directly from benefits outweighs the sums of money likely to be obtained.

Secondly, can the Minister say anything about the operation of the VSF? For example, what model for imposition is likely to be chosen? If it is linked to the court fine that has been imposed, there may have been some factoring in of the offender’s financial resources, so that the VSF imposed would be proportionate to the offender’s means. However, as the Minister will know, there are various ways in which the VSF can be imposed that are far more punitive and do not take into account the offender’s financial resources. I would be grateful if he could shed some light on that. On that point, I would like to say to the Minister that I believe that the VSF is imposed in England and Wales without being means-tested. As a result, many would argue that it is a second penalty on offenders who have already been punished for their crimes, whether through a financial penalty or a custodial sentence.

The process that needs to be followed with regard to repayment means that many fines remain unpaid. In other words, an offender has to make payment of any direct compensation order to the victim, then the victim surcharge and then a fine. Logic would surely dictate that adding a further fine in the form of the victim surcharge is somewhat counterintuitive.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could clarify a couple of final points. In court, judges are made aware of the financial circumstances of the offender on conviction, as well as the circumstances of the offence. With a victim surcharge, how should this be considered when the judge is sentencing in order not to impose a draconian penalty on the offender who cannot pay the total sum? I appreciate that without details of how the VSF would work in Scotland, it is not easy to predict such things but it seems clear to me that, when the operation of the VSF does become clear, its relationship to sentencing must form part of the judicial training provided by the Judicial Institute for Scotland. What appeals mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that appeals, of which there are likely to be many, are dealt with swiftly?

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what intergovernmental discussions have been had about the practical operation of this system. It seems logical that, if we are seeking to bring the Scottish system into line with England and Wales, there should be co-operation on this issue between the different Governments, to ensure that offenders in Scotland are dealt with in the same manner as those in England and Wales.

As I said earlier, the Labour party will not oppose today’s order, as it is a procedural issue. However, there are a lot of unanswered questions on detail, pertaining both to the principle of this policy and its practical operation. It is vital to take full cognisance of them as we make this decision today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and to Sammy for their work in highlighting the terrible situation and looking at what more can be done. I know that she had a positive meeting with my hon. and learned Friend and we are determined that the family court system should never be used to coerce or re-victimise those who have been abused. My hon. and learned Friend is liaising with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services in respect of councils’ obligations and has invited the president of the family division to consider clarifying the practice direction on notification.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Public Accounts Committee held an inquiry into children’s social services yesterday. Does my hon. Friend agree that domestic violence is one of the key causes of the growth in the number of children being taken into care in local authorities? Will the Department work closely with the Department for Education to ensure that children’s social services have the information and finances that they need to deal with that growing problem?

[Edward Argar]

I can offer my hon. Friend the reassurance that we are working extremely closely with colleagues across Government to do that. We often see that some of the young people who end up in the criminal justice system have come from homes or families where they have witnessed domestic abuse. It is incumbent on us all to do all we can to tackle that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker,

“We will scrap the Conservatives’…White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on…the Single Market”

and putting “the economy first”. That was the manifesto on which Labour Members stood only a few months ago. We said that we would scrap this Bill and send it back. I beg Labour colleagues who are thinking about voting with the Government to consider that they stood, only a few months ago, on scrapping the White Paper, and I urge them to stand by the manifesto they stood for.

Some Conservative Members would, like ostriches, like to shove their heads into the sand—they want Brexit on any terms—but they are a minority. I believe that the majority of Conservative Members genuinely want a decent Bill that will aid the transition between our being in the European Union and being out of it.

I am a remainer. Just like most of my constituents, I would love to remain in the European Union—we will make that case—but I am also a democrat. However, being a democrat is not about just handing all powers to the Executive; it is about holding them to account each step of the way.

I have listened to lots of the arguments from Members on both sides of the House about how the Bill could be improved. There is a strategy—a legitimate strategy—of saying, “Let us pass it tonight and amend it in Committee.” However, I think that that is incorrect, because the flaws in the Bill are so huge and fundamental that if we followed that strategy, we would be fiddling with the deckchairs on a sinking ship. Unfortunately, what we must do is to send this Bill back.

I will outline a few areas in which the Bill fundamentally fails to live up to decent democratic principles and restricts the rights of our people. It removes the charter of fundamental rights from UK law. Let us be very clear that that charter provides digital rights, asylum rights, pension rights for LGBT people and safeguards for maternity rights. At the moment, for example, it ensures that a gay couple who marry here in the UK have their marriage recognised elsewhere in Europe.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the charter of fundamental rights. What is wrong with our Supreme Court, which is one of the most respected judicial systems in the world, providing those very same rights?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

There is nothing wrong with our Supreme Court, but what better than to have an additional protection? I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a ridiculous argument.

My next point is about safeguards for the current statutory instruments. Much of EU law has been brought into UK law as statutory instruments. Those statutory instruments are underpinned by EU law, which includes an ability to fine Governments for overstepping that law. If EU oversight is removed but the statutory instruments continue to exist, they will be weak to amendment through the negative procedure. That puts people’s rights to things such as TUPE and the working time directive at risk. Clearly, therefore, those statutory instruments should have additional statutory underpinning such that they cannot be removed using the negative procedure.

Policing and Crime Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I look forward to seeing the terms of the review, and I trust the Minister when he says it is going to be useful, but right now constituents in rural and urban areas are very distressed at the way in which face masks are used to terrify and to hide the identity of criminals. The sooner this matter is debated—with reasonable time to conclude it—on the Floor of this House or in the other place—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am one of the co-signatories of my right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause. The problem with the situation at the moment is that the constable on duty may require a face covering to be removed but he does then require post-authorisation from a senior officer on duty. In the Blackpool case and in my own case on the badger culls, where someone was parked in a car late at night for several nights with masks on deliberately to intimidate the residents inside the nearest farmhouse, I am not sure whether the constables on duty knew whether they would or would not get that prior authorisation or post-authorisation, and my right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause will make this crystal clear if it becomes part of the Bill.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support, and I hope our new clause will make it easier for the police to do what the public require them to do, which is arrest frightening people who are intent on doing criminal things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and I understand that we have to balance all these things. I am trying to ensure that legislation puts pressure on agencies to provide sufficient resource to meet a clear need. That is not the case at the moment.

I conclude by saying that the amendments and new clauses in this group are all designed to improve the rights of people with mental ill health, who are too often let down by the system at the moment.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I wish to address new clause 23 and take the Minister on a very short metaphorical journey with me, although perhaps nowhere near as far as new clause 23 seeks to go. I am sorry if I am trying the patience of the Minister and the House, because the Minister has been exceptionally courteous today, as he has been to me on previous aspects of the Bill.

Let me explain the mischief of face coverings, with which the House is well acquainted. In my intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), I mentioned two events: the Conservative party conference in Manchester, and an incident in my constituency in which, during the badger cull, two people in masks parked outside a farmhouse several evenings in a row as it was getting dark, deliberately intending to intimidate. A similar thing happened at the Blackpool conference. I was there when people, women in particular, were intimidated by people in masks. If only the police had been able to ask those people to take off the masks, I think the intimidation would have stopped almost on the spot. I suspect that in those two incidents, the mere act of the constable on duty asking those people to take off the masks would have stopped the mischief there and then.

That is the journey on which I want to take my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is perhaps not the entirety of new clause 23, but let us simply look at section 60AA of the Public Order Act 1994, which requires a constable on duty to obtain prior written consent before a mask is taken off—[Interruption.] The Minister is going to intervene. May I just explain where I am coming from on this? Very often, a constable will get on the radio and obtain verbal consent, and the written consent is given afterwards. Technically, a crime is being committed because they have not got prior written consent.

Let us do away with the whole issue of written consent. We train our constables to a very high level, and we put a great deal of trust in them. Let us trust them in individual situations. If they think that face masks are a problem, we should give them the power to demand that the face masks be removed immediately. It may even be possible to do this by secondary legislation. Section 60AA—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Minister want me to give way? If he does as I suggest, I think we will achieve what we want to achieve.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I want to speak to new clause 24, which stands in my name and those of several of my hon. Friends. I will also refer to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the fact that the state’s power to deprive someone of their liberty is one of the most draconian acts at its disposal. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said, someone who is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, other than under sections 135 or 136, is entitled to a mental health advocate. If they are detained under sections 135 or 136 of that Act, they are not. The only way in which they could access legal advice, as I think the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, is if they are detained at a police station.

Quite rightly, the Government want to prevent people from being taken to police stations in the first place—I give them credit for this—because a police cell is clearly not the correct place for someone who is in mental health crisis. The important thing is that such individuals need some advocacy. At the moment, if an individual is not taken to a police cell or a police station, they will not have access to independent legal advice or any type of advocacy. New clause 24 is designed to get some parity with the rest of the 1983 Act, in which people do have advocacy. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who responded to a similar amendment in Committee, has just taken her seat. She has promised to look at this issue.

I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, but it is important that we put in place a system under which people who are detained under sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act can, at least, access some advice. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk in new clause 59, which is designed to do a similar thing by ensuring that individuals have access to an adult who could speak or advocate on their behalf. I have had discussions with the Minister, and she has given undertakings to look at how that could be done.

I agree with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) that many of the things in the Bill are not necessarily the responsibility of the police. They have stepped up to the mark, in many cases, to fill a gap created by a lack of funding or support. In some cases, because of the disjunction between mental health services, local authorities and others, the police are seen as the last resort. He is right to highlight that.

That brings me on to new clause 26, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, and which I welcome. There is good practice already in many police forces, which undergo mental health training—in Durham, the chief constable has instigated a whole force review to make sure that people have access to mental health training—but it is important that we have consistency. Police forces will be empowered and given greater expertise if they know how to use not just sections 136 and 137 of the 1983 Act, but other sections. I pay tribute to police forces up and down the country, because there is some good practice.

In Committee, we referred to the concordat, which is a good move forward in ensuring that there is a joined-up approach at local level between police forces, local authorities and the health service. I tabled an amendment in Committee to put that concordat into some sort of statutory framework. I know that the Minister is exploring with colleagues at the Department of Health how we can get some agreement, or some sort of reporting, on what is happening at a local level.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk has the done the House a great service by tabling new clause 40 because it concerns a subject that is not being talked about. I totally agree with him; I can envisage no circumstances in which it would be necessary to use a Taser on a mental health ward. The right hon. Gentleman praised Black Mental Health UK, which has done a lot of work on the issue. When I met Black Mental Health UK, I was struck by the stark fact that something has to be done. I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister have looked at the figures, and the only mathematical conclusion we can reach is that people from black and Afro-Caribbean communities are being detained under the 1983 Act disproportionately compared with any other section of the community. Those figures cannot just be the result of chance. I urge the Government to look seriously at the matter and think about how we can put mechanisms in place to ensure that that is not the case.

On new clause 43, I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne that if the use of Tasers is not going to be prohibited, we should at least have statistics to show when and where they are being used. New clause 58 is similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee. I give credit to the Government for their efforts to ensure that people in mental health crisis do not end up in a police cell, but unless we have very close monitoring and reporting, we might end up in the de facto position that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk has just mentioned in relation to sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act.

Policing and Crime Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

In short, I think that this proposal gives the Secretary of State the power to make a clear name change to ensure that at the next national elections people will understand that they are voting for a combined role of police and crime commissioner and fire commissioner. However, that title must cement in their minds the fact that although those roles have a combined leadership, they remain absolutely separate and their operational independence is protected under the Bill.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is surprising what inspiration one can get when sitting in this place. I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments, and I do so in the very good hope that I can curry favour with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and that they will give me everything I want when we come to discuss the next group of amendments. I therefore hope that they listen very carefully to what I have to say.

I think that this is an excellent clause, because it is enabling but not prescriptive. It enables fire and rescue authorities to be taken over by PCCs, but it does not compel them to be. That is where I take issue with the Opposition provisions. I have huge respect for fire and rescue authorities, which do a fantastic job. In my area of Gloucester, the authority is under the control of the county council, and—this is why I am pleased the clause is enabling not prescriptive—I would not want it to be transferred to the PCC, who is an independent and who is not doing a particularly good job. That is why the clause is excellent: it deals with everything on a case-by-case basis.

Having said that, I must mention my experience of having the Fire Service College in my constituency. The college provides major training for the fire service and does some amazing blue-light collaborative training involving the fire, police and ambulance services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) said, it is essential that those services work as collaboratively as possible in an emergency. The services in Gloucestershire are coterminous and relatively small, compared with some of the larger, urban authorities, and the chain of command works incredibly well, with each service knowing exactly what it is supposed to do in any given circumstances. It is essential, particularly with more sophisticated and frequent emergencies—whether flooding or, regrettably, things such as terrorism—that the blue-light services work closely together.

Training for such events could be improved. Resilience training for all three blue-light services, working together in emergencies, could be improved. If, God forbid, they are ever really tested in a big emergency—particularly one that takes place at multiple locations—they will need their training and collaboration to be of the highest order. That is where some of the mergers of fire and rescue authorities and PCCs could help.

Having said that, my area is looking at an ever-increasing fire and rescue service operating under the county council. It is not just operational efficiency that I am looking forward to from the Government’s proposals, but administrative efficiency. Let me give the example of Cirencester—the biggest town in my constituency. The fire station there was formerly operated by professional firefighters; it is now moving towards retained firefighters, and there will not be quite so many of them. The premises is vast, and it is maintained at public expense, but the police could usefully use it for their authority too.

We therefore begin to get the idea, which should be pushed more and more, that our precious public resources can be better utilised—in the case of property, if more than one public authority occupies it at once. However, that requires a different mindset from authorities. The police are used to having their police station, and the fire services are used to having their fire station, and hitherto, in some cases, the two have never felt it appropriate to mix. We can achieve significant efficiencies by merging the two, particularly when it comes to property.

[Jake Berry]

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that, when we go out and talk to our constituents, we see that they really care about the people out on the street and the frontline. We cannot measure a service by how many buildings it occupies in our town. Is my hon. Friend aware of the shared fire and rescue training and police training in Northern Ireland, which has saved tens of millions of pounds? That shows that, where co-operation is done right, and the police and the fire service maintain their independence, significant savings can be made.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that gives me the opportunity yet again to praise what the Fire Service College is doing in Moreton-in-Marsh. It is a large establishment on about 600 acres. It is on an old airfield, and it includes a runway used as a practice motorway on which motorway pile-ups can be simulated using real scrapped cars, so that the police, fire and ambulance services can then train in a big joint exercise. The college has offices they set on fire, and the police, fire and ambulance services can use that to train. It also has a ship it can set on fire. It has all sorts of huge facilities.

[Bob Stewart]

On a runway?

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

In case my hon. Friend misunderstands, let me say that they do these quite sophisticated training exercises using a model ship, a model aircraft and an actual office block. This is a really good example of how collaborative training should be run. We should do much more of that, and we need much more of it to involve resilience, so that we can train people for the really sophisticated emergencies we face.

The Cotswolds have suffered considerably as a result of flooding in recent years. When we have had flooding, it has been distressing to see people taken out of their houses and sometimes evacuated, and to see their belongings completely wrecked. I must praise the emergency services hugely, because they are always there in the middle of the night and in the most difficult circumstances—often cold and wet—trying to deal with very demoralised and unhappy people.

We should act more collaboratively, but we should pay a great tribute to the emergency services, because they do a hugely good and dedicated job on behalf of all of us.

[Mike Penning]

May I praise, as I did in Committee, the tone of the debate and the measured way in which it has been taken forward, even though we will obviously disagree on certain issues?

Thirty years ago, I wrote a paper on better collaboration between the emergency services, covering the ambulance, fire and police services. I was wrong, because it should have included the coastguard—as a former shipping Minister, I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Let me say at the outset that I have much sympathy with some aspects of the provisions that have been tabled today. We may be able to look at some of them again and to bring back proposals in the Lords. However, I fundamentally disagree with others, because they would rip the heart out of the Bill—I am looking at the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who knows exactly what I mean.

Let me also say that I am enormously proud to be the first police and fire Minister, and that role is perhaps an indication of how seriously the Government take some of the concerns the fire service and the shadow fire Minister have. I actually gave up huge swathes of my policing portfolio, including responsibility for the National Crime Agency and organised crime, to other Ministers, so that I could take on this portfolio. The work has taken up a huge amount of my time—that is not just because of this Bill—because I have been on an enormously steep learning curve from when I was a fireman all those years ago. The job has changed, although some of the semantics and language have not. Some things have changed enormously fast, but some have not changed as fast as we would perhaps all like.

Because we have a fantastic fire service, there has been a decrease of 17% in fire-related fatalities and of 50% in reported fires over the past 10 years. I am concerned about the correlation between those two figures, and I have asked my officials to look at that. As the shadow Minister said, there is an increase at the moment. We should not take one year as an example, and there may be, very sadly, some one-off events. I vividly remember, as roads Minister, going to the terrible fire on the M5 following a road traffic collision where many people survived the RTC, got out of their vehicles, and sadly lost their lives to fire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It is vital that we get the title right and that there is a national title for those taking on those responsibilities. At the same time, there will be consultation not only with the FBU and the other unions and with the chief fire officers and their association, but with the chief constables and the Police Federation. The title will be with us for a long time. When I first joined the fire service—I think it was the fire service, not the fire and rescue service, at the time—I was, sadly, a fireman; I say that because in my time we did not have fire ladies. We were not called firefighters then. I think it is sad that that change did not happen many years earlier.

I want to touch on the issue of flooding. I was so impressed by our firefighters and ambulance crews, and by the local communities, volunteers, local authorities and police in areas where flooding took place. Flooding is becoming more and more a part of the fire and rescue service’s work. However, that is not new. There is a lovely place on the edge of Epping forest called Theydon Bois—it is in Essex, but quite close to east London, where the shadow Minister resides—where flash floods were a regular occurrence, and we used to go there. As a full-time firefighter, I regularly used to go there.

In Committee, I said that I would keep an open mind about the need to change the title to reflect areas of responsibility. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with money. Normally, I agree with nearly everything that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) says, but on this occasion, I do not. Her constituency is only partially affected by the Bill, because the Mayor has now taken over direct responsibility for the fire service in London—that had been called for for some considerable time—so I am not surprised that PCCs are not at the forefront of conversations when she knocks on constituents’ doors in her part of the world.

There are real benefits to come from the collaboration that can take place. I am not saying that no collaboration is now taking place, but much more can be done. In particular, there is more work to do with ambulance services, especially with the triage units on blue light vehicles. I will soon have the honour and the privilege to go to America to pay my respects at the site of 9/11 in New York. No policing and fire Minister has yet done that, which I think is a sad indictment. One of the main reasons why I want to go to New York is to look at its firehouses, as they are called. Another reason is the fact that paramedics are carried in the back of fire appliances, which we need to consider very carefully in this country.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I have enormous sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying. It is absolutely clear that we need closer collaboration. However, in Gloucestershire we do not at the moment want the fire and rescue service to be put under the control of the PCC, so will he give us an assurance that it will not be forced to do so against its wishes?

[Mike Penning]

I cannot do so because that is not part of the Bill. The Bill provides for agreements where they can be made. Where no agreement can be reached, as will happen in many areas, the PCC can make a business case to the Home Secretary, if the PCC decides to do so; frankly, if there is so much opposition in Gloucestershire, the PCC might see the writing on the wall and decide not to do so. The business case will then go out to independent review, and only then will the Home Secretary make a decision.

I am enormously keen not to make this a one-size-fits-all provision. However, there has to be a backstop provision in case no one can reach an agreement and no one can move forward. In a perfect world, we would not be in a situation where we had to make it a statutory requirement to collaborate, but, frankly, collaboration in some parts of the country is not of the standard we would expect in the 21st century. We therefore need measures to take forward such collaboration.

Finally, amendment 21 is about the concordat. I have talked about that, and other bits and bobs, particularly with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I do not think it would be good to put that on a statutory footing—in other words, to make that law. The concordat seems to be working really well, so let us see how that evolves with these agreements. The shadow Minister did not refer to that, but it is relevant. We spoke about it in Committee and I will keep a really close eye on how the concordat works, but I do not think that at this early stage putting that into law is the answer .

I hope that I have alleviated the concerns of my hon. Friends. I hope, although I do not expect, that the Opposition have listened to the assurances that I have given, not only here but in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

You have caught me out of my place, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that what I have to say will still be perfectly valid.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think you left your place.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I probably did. I start by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, and I am a shotgun and firearms certificate holder. I have tabled several amendments that are technical, so I will take them slowly. They have the support of the British Shooting Sports Council, the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Those associations cover very large numbers of lawful certificate holders.

I rise to speak to new clauses 7, 8 and 9 and amendment 1. New clause 7 has three purposes. First, subsections (2) and (3) relate to expanding ammunition. Expanding ammunition is required under the Deer Act 1991 and the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985 to shoot deer, and it is the humane option for pest control and humane dispatch. It is therefore widely possessed. Certificates are rendered more complex by the inclusion of the additional authority to acquire and possess it. Expanding ammunition is also safer than fully jacketed ammunition, being less prone to ricochet.

It is my understanding that the National Police Chiefs Council has asked for a revision of this provision. Currently, special authority has to be given on a firearms certificate for the possession of expanding ammunition, which requires additional administration for the police. The new clause would simplify the licensing process, save resources for the police and facilitate the movement of such ammunition for the trade. Moving expanding ammunition back to section 1 of the Firearms Act would reduce the administrative burden. It is also illogical to have a type of ammunition that is banned by one Act, but required to be used by another.

Secondly, subsection (4) of my new clause 7 would replace the existing section 7(1) of the 1968 Act to address an anomaly in the Act as regards section 7 permits. The insertion of words “or authority” would extend section 7 temporary permits to cover section 5 items held on a firearms or shotgun certificate. That would help in a variety of circumstances when temporary possession has to be authorised—for example, when there are firearms or ammunition among a deceased person’s effects that have to be disposed of by the executors.

Thirdly, subsection (5) of new clause 7 would clarify the law with regard to certificate renewals, and replicate the provision in Scottish legislation that ensures that the possession of firearms remains lawful when there is a delay in renewal. This has happened to me. An application may be made to the police in good time, but because of the number of certificates that the police have to inspect and then decide whether to grant, they do not actually renew the certificate on time. Unless they issue a section 7 temporary permit, the person holding the firearms or shotguns is doing so illegally because the certificate has not been renewed. I therefore suggest the adoption of the Scottish solution.

A recent freedom of information request to all police forces in England and Wales has shown that there has been a substantial increase in the number of section 7 temporary permits issued during the past five years. For example, the number of permits issued in Hampshire has increased by over 15 times, from 79 in 2010 to 1,205 in 2015. It should also be noted that some of the police forces inspected by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary have failed to issue a section 7 temporary permit to individuals whose certificates have expired, placing those individuals in an illegal situation through no fault of their own. Of the 11 police forces inspected by HMIC, between one and 168 firearms holders were currently in that category in each police force area. Simply by deeming the existing certificate to be in force until it is renewed by the police would reduce the administrative burden on them, and not place the individual certificate holder in the invidious position of holding illegal firearms.

New clause 8 would extend Home Office club approval to cover section 1 shotguns and long-barrelled pistols used for target shooting at clubs approved by the Home Office. These clubs are very strictly vetted. They may possess firearms for the use of their members, who may temporarily possess one another’s firearms. This allows the club to instruct new members in safety and shooting skills, as it is required to do under its licence, and for a range officer to take possession of a firearm on the range in the event of a problem.

At present, the Home Office may approve target shooting clubs to use only rifles or muzzle-loading pistols. Long-barrelled pistols and section 1 shotguns are increasingly popular for target shooting, but because of the limitations placed on firearms for which Home Office approval may be given, only the person—this is the critical bit in relation to new clause 8—on whose firearms certificate the long-barrelled pistol or shotgun is entered may use it at the club. This has adverse consequences in that clubs may not possess such arms for the use of members, and may find that the possession stricture makes safety instruction difficult and, critically, prevents range officers from taking control of such firearms should there be a problem. For example, if the weapon jams or, even worse, if something serious, such as a heart attack, strikes the user of the firearm, the range officer in the club cannot lawfully take possession of the firearm. New clause 8 seeks to amend that provision.

New clause 9 addresses the problem caused by the term “occupier” in relation to the borrowing of a shotgun without a shotgun certificate under section 11(5) of the Firearms Act 1968, and the borrowing of a rifle without a firearm certificate under section 16(1) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I will cut a lot of verbiage from my explanation of the new clause by illustrating it with an example. Suppose, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I invite you to shoot on my shoot and I am the occupier. If you bring a friend, he can borrow my gun, because I am the occupier, but he cannot borrow your gun, because you are not the occupier, even though you might be a lawful certificate holder.

Recent inquiries made to police forces suggest a lack of clarity as to how the term “occupier” is understood, but it is construed narrowly. The organisations that I have mentioned carried out a survey. When asked under a freedom of information request for their definition of “occupier”, the majority of police forces relied on guidance. Sussex police force replied that “occupier” meant

“either the owner of the land or the person possessing the sporting (shooting) rights over the land”.

The Durham police force, however, defined “occupier” as

“an owner, lessee or authorised person over the age of 18 years who holds a firearm certificate and who owns or is responsible for land that has rights of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game”.

Those two examples make it crystal clear how different police forces construe the meaning of the word “occupier”.

The Law Commission’s scoping consultation concluded the following on the lack of definition:

“It has been reported to us by a number of stakeholders that this provision poses real problems in practice for shooting enthusiasts. This is because it inconsistently limits this very temporary, restricted loan of shotguns, with the result that some novices wishing to shoot are arbitrarily forced to take out shotgun certificates in their own names”.

By simply replacing the word “occupier” with

“the owner, occupier or authorised person”,

anyone granted a lawful certificate by the local constabulary would become the authorised person. The new clause deals with the anomaly.

Moving rapidly on to my amendment 1, this Bill will give the Home Office the right to produce statutory guidance by which the police will have to abide, but the shooting organisations fear that they will not be consulted as part of that process. That would be monstrously wrong, because the thousands of lawful certificate holders would not have a say in that guidance. My amendment simply states that other organisations must be consulted on that statutory guidance.

I would like to spend 30 seconds on the Opposition’s amendments on full cost recovery. If they look carefully at the work of the fees working group, they will see that all the organisations, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Office and the shooting organisations, agreed that the system allows for full cost recovery. Put simply, the police must adopt the new, computerised efficiency systems to give them those reductions in costs. Unfortunately, not all constabularies are complying with that new e-commerce system. I ask the Minister to encourage all 42 constabularies to adopt the system so that they can get the maximum efficiencies and keep their costs to the lowest possible level. That would benefit all certificate holders. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I want to speak to new clause 19, which appears in my name and those of many right hon. and hon. Members from parties on both sides of the House. Members may recall my promotion of a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject in question a couple of weeks ago, so I hope they will indulge me while I provide a quick summary.

My new clause seeks to ban those attending live music events from carrying or using flares, fireworks or smoke bombs. In 2014 there were 255 incidents involving such items, which can be very dangerous as they can burn at temperatures of up to 2,000 °C. Although we are lucky that no one in this country has died from such incidents recently, such deaths have occurred elsewhere in the world, so we should try to act now to prevent that from happening here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

The law is clear. Selling a knife to anyone under 18 is against the law, and anyone who does so is breaking the law. What we are seeking is the best way in which to ensure that that responsibility is upheld and there is appropriate enforcement of the law, and that means ensuring that retailers adhere to the code of practice. It is a voluntary code of practice, but we want the onus to be on the retailer rather than on the Government. The key issue is effective implementation and enforcement of the law as it exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate pointed out that such matters are not generally covered by primary legislation, and tend to be dealt with in, for instance, codes of practice. I shall be happy to look into whether there are suitable ways of enabling the code to be implemented by prosecution services or others, and I will keep my hon. Friend apprised of developments.

Let me now deal with the new clauses relating to firearms which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has left the Chamber, but I sensed that he was about to support them as well.

The purpose of the firearms provisions in the Bill is to close the most pressing loopholes in the current legislation, which are open to exploitation by criminals. The Government accept that firearms legislation needs a general overhaul, but our priority must be to address the issues that pose the greatest risk to public safety. The Law Commission recommended that firearms legislation be codified, and we are giving careful thought to the case for that. We may be able to consider some of the proposals in new clauses 7, 8 and 9 as part of such an exercise. The provisions in the Bill have been subject to detailed consideration and consultation by the Law Commission, unlike the proposals presented by the British Shooting Sports Council. We need to think carefully about the impact on public safety before legislating on any of these matters, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will do just that.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

With great respect to my hon. Friend, it sounds as though she is shunting my new clauses into the very long grass, which would simply not be acceptable to the millions of lawful holders of firearms and shotguns. There will be a great deal of pressure on my hon. Friend. Will she please assure us that she is not shifting this into the very, very long grass?

[Karen Bradley]

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. I understand that he had a productive meeting with officials yesterday to discuss his new clauses. As I have said, our No. 1 priority must be to promote public safety, but I accept that we also need an efficient licensing regime that minimises bureaucracy and inconvenience both to the police and to legitimate holders of firearms certificates. We will study my hon. Friend’s new clauses further, and if there are elements that can sensibly be taken forward without our compromising public safety, I shall be happy to look into whether it might be possible to do that in the Bill. I will keep my hon. Friend informed of progress in advance of the Committee stage in the other place.

I recognise that amendment 1 is intended to enable those with practical expertise to contribute to the development of the guidance to the police. We will consult widely on the first edition of the new statutory guidance, and that consultation will consider the views of shooting organisations as well as of the police. However, this is not a matter for legislation.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has tabled amendments relating to firearms fees. Currently, combined, the authorisation and licensing of prohibited weapons, shooting clubs and museums cost the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 a year. It is our intention that licence holders, not the taxpayer, should pay for the cost of the service. The proposed fees will be set out in a public consultation and the Government must consider any evidence put forward about the impact of the fees on particular categories of licence holders. I cannot pre-empt the consultation but, for example, organisations in the voluntary or civil society sector might put forward a case.

Fees for firearms and shotgun certificates issued by the police are separate and were increased in April 2015. Those were the first increases since 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds talked about the police’s new online e-commerce system. Once that has been introduced across all 43 forces, fees will recover the full cost of licensing.

Draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2016

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016.

It is a great pleasure, Mr Davies, to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time.

The draft regulations are to be made by the Secretary of State under the power in section 19 of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015. They can be made only if they have first been approved by both Houses of Parliament. They were considered and approved by the other place on 22 March. The purpose of the power in section 19 is to make provision adding or removing circumstances in which a person is potentially within the scope of the 2010 Act.

The draft regulations will add to the list of circumstances in which the 2010 Act may apply to corporate and other bodies that are subject to certain sectoral insolvency regimes or, with limited exceptions, have been dissolved. When the changes have been made, the 2010 Act will be able to be brought into force without adversely affecting people who are within the scope of the 1930 third parties legislation that is to be replaced by the 2010 Act, but are not within the scope of the 2010 Act. The reforms to be introduced by the 2010 Act are supported by insurers and claimants alike. The benefits of the legislation apply to insurance of all kinds and will be particularly beneficial in cases of long-tail industrial diseases, such as mesothelioma. To set the draft regulations in context, let me explain briefly the principles underlying the third parties legislation.

Third parties legislation has existed since the 1930s. It is so called because the claimant is a third party in relation to the contract between the insurer and the insured. The current legislation is the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, which applies to England, Wales and Scotland, and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1930, which applies to Northern Ireland. The purpose of the 1930 Acts and indeed the 2010 Act is to protect the interests of claimants against insured persons who have a liability to the claimant, but who no longer have effective control of their assets. Typically, this occurs if the insured person is insolvent.

The basic effect of the third parties legislation is to transfer to a third party to whom an insured has incurred a liability the contractual rights of the insured against the insurer as regards that liability. This has the effect that the proceeds of the insurance policy are paid to the claimant not the general creditors of the insolvent insured, which is particularly important when insurance is compulsory otherwise the purpose of having compulsory insurance would be negated. To put it crudely, the aim of the legislation is to prevent creditors from trumping victims. That is the basic point: a dry technical detail that is difficult to get one’s head around.

To trigger the application of the 2010 Act, an insured must both incur a liability to a third party against which it is insured and undergo an insolvency or analogous event specified in the 2010 Act. Unfortunately, following enactment of the 2010 Act, it was found, at least in some respects, to have a narrower scope than the 1930 legislation. This was partly a result of the terms used in the drafting of the 2010 Act and partly because of developments in insolvency law following the financial crisis of 2008.

The operative provisions of the 2010 Act have therefore not yet been brought into force and will not be until these defects have been remedied. It is this remedial process that is so essential to realising the benefits of the 2010 Act, which is intended to extend and improve the protection conferred by the 1930 legislation. That is the point of the regulations. Part of the remedial process was effected by amendments to the 2010 Act made by the Insurance Act 2015 and the draft regulations will complete the process.

Let me now describe the working of the amendments to be effected by the draft regulations. First, they extend the list of circumstances where the 2010 Act may apply by adding the sectoral insolvency or administration procedures listed or referred to in the provisions to be inserted in the 2010 Act by regulation 3 of the draft regulations.

Those additions cover the possibility of insolvency or administration under special legislative regimes that generally follow, but are distinct from, procedures under the Insolvency Act 1986 in a wide range of important business sectors where company failure has the potential to damage the public interest or cause market contagion, for example, the kind of things that might follow the collapse of a financial services, postal or energy utility company.

Secondly, regulation 4 extends the scope of the 2010 Act in relation to dissolved bodies, which do not have effective control over their rights and assets. The 2010 Act currently applies to dissolutions under sections 1001, 1002 or 1003 of the Companies Act 2006, but not to other types of dissolution. Regulation 4 broadens the scope of the application of the 2010 Act to include those other kinds of dissolutions, to ensure they are all covered.

The proposed coverage of dissolutions generally will, however, not extend to the dissolution of unincorporated partnerships. Our view is that that exception is sensible, as technically at least a partnership dissolves each time a new partner leaves or is added.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am sure that in relation to regulation 4 my hon. Friend was coming on to explain the point made in paragraph 7.9 of the explanatory memorandum.

“Unincorporated partnerships are excluded from the dissolution provisions in regulation 4 and the provisions of regulations 5 and 6 because they dissolve whenever there is a change in membership (for example the retirement of one partner).”

The provisions are supposed to cover dissolutions in the sense of bankruptcy. The question I put to my hon. Friend is: what happens if an unincorporated partnership goes bankrupt? He will probably tell me that partnerships are jointly and severally liable, which they are, but what happens in the event that the partners themselves go bankrupt?

The explanatory note says:

“Regulation 4 inserts new section 6A in the 2010 Act, extending its coverage to all dissolved corporate and unincorporated bodies except when the body in question is an unincorporated partnership or is treated as not having been dissolved as a result of subsequent events (the latter may still be “relevant persons” by virtue of another provision).”

That last part is what makes the situation unclear. What is the position with unincorporated partnerships?

[The Chair]

I call the Minister, after that very long intervention.

[Mr Raab]

That was almost worthy of a separate speech, and perhaps my hon. Friend might wish to give one.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Do not encourage me.

[The Chair]

No. That was quite enough.

Arrests of Chinese Protesters

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

With all due respect, this might become slightly repetitive. The police made a decision operationally on the ground, which we should respect. We should wait for the investigation to finish and then we can all make our commentary on the facts. If people want to make a complaint, there is a certain way that that can be done and it certainly does not involve this House. It happens after the case is finished.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these potential breaches of the peace will be subject to the same investigation and same due process as they would whether they had involved the Chinese President’s visit or anybody else’s visit? Will he also say whether the powers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission will be invoked wherever necessary?

[Mike Penning]

If an individual wants to make a complaint pertaining to this case to the police complaints authority, that is for them to do. It does not matter whether this was a Chinese demonstration or any other sort of demonstration; if the police decided at the scene that an arrest was needed, I will back them for that. I think that the whole House would support that decision, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Both our jurisdictions have a great deal to learn from one another. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for mentioning that, and for the very constructive tone she took in last week’s Westminster Hall debate on these issues. I hope to have the chance to visit prisons in Scotland soon and to talk to the Scottish Justice Minister about some of these issues.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

3. What plans he has for the future of the court estate in Gloucestershire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The court estate in Gloucestershire, and across England and Wales, is a major asset of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Any new proposals on the future of the courts will be subject to consultation.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will my hon. Friend, as part of the Courts and Tribunals Service reform programme, consider establishing one purpose-built building to house all court services?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am very mindful of the state of affairs of Gloucestershire’s court estate. It is important that court buildings provide value for money and meet local demand. I will certainly ensure that his comments are taken on board.

Firearms Controls

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Sheridan, during this important debate on firearms control. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing it and for the moderate and reasonable way in which he portrayed his case, particularly the dreadful incident involving Mr Atherton and some of his constituents, for whom we all have great sympathy, particularly those who legally hold firearms certificates, and the shooting fraternity. Whenever such an incident takes place, it tarnishes the shooting community and those who legally hold firearms certificates. I welcome the Minister because he knows a great deal about the subject and always handles it sympathetically and pragmatically.

We all want a robust firearms-licensing system to prevent cases such as those the hon. Gentleman has talked about, but I emphasise that such incidents involve a mere 0.01% of firearms licence holders in this country. Such cases are dreadful and dramatic, but involve a very small number of those who legally hold firearms and shotgun certificates. In this debate and in Parliament we are discussing giving the police more time to deal with those cases and to ensure that such people never hold a firearms certificate. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I do not agree that the way of dealing with the matter is through further legislation. We must ensure that existing legislation works properly.

First, I will outline how the Home Office’s new guidelines will protect people suffering from domestic violence. So much of the debate today has been about that. Secondly, I will highlight the importance of the guidelines being implemented properly. Finally, I will specifically mention the Atherton case, which occurred in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

The new guidance published by the Home Office recently includes specific provisions to ensure that individuals with a history of domestic violence are not entrusted with a firearms licence. As part of that guidance, police offers are told that they should speak to the family of any applicant with a known history of domestic violence and that speaking to an applicant’s spouse or partner might be considered essential. Such discussion would be in complete confidence and a partner would not be asked to approve or not approve a firearms licence. That guidance will ensure that the correct consultation takes place when anyone with a history of domestic violence applies for a firearms licence.

While the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was thinking that when I first became a Member of Parliament 21 years ago the law did not require police officers to investigate domestic violence at all unless bodily harm was involved. That shows how far we have come on domestic violence and I suspect that the law and practice relating to firearms certificates and domestic violence have not caught up with the general trend in society.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Perhaps I was a little unclear about the specific case, but domestic violence was cited by the officers who sought to revoke Atherton’s shotgun licence. A senior officer looked at case law and, because a firearm was not used in the four earlier recorded incidents of domestic violence, the judgment was made that the courts would not support revocation of his firearms licence. The guidance is not strong enough in such circumstances and we must ensure that the courts will back up the police.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I know a little about the subject, and I think it is often easier for police officers to grant or re-grant a firearms or shotgun certificate than risk the possibility of judicial review. In fact, they should be more robust and say no if they believe that someone should not be granted a shotgun or firearms certificate and should, if necessary, defend the case robustly at judicial review. In my experience that does not always happen and it is when it does not happen that there are problems such as the Atherton case. There was clear evidence, which I will come to later, that the police should have decided to revoke the certificate. In any case, I think the new guidance that was published at the end of 2012 will help. I have no doubt the Minister will mention it in his summing up and I look forward to hearing what he says.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise, Mr Sheridan, for not being present at the beginning of the debate—I was in a Committee meeting that has just finished—but I am interested in this subject. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of many other incidents? I am aware of allegations in my constituency by ex-partners or ex-wives against their spouses that are then unsubstantiated.

The process that applicants for firearms certificates must go through is laborious, and they may be removed or reinstated. A balance must be struck. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the legislation, which I understand the shooting bodies support, is balanced?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend—I call him that because I know he knows a great deal about the subject—is absolutely right. Of course, a balance must be struck and, as he said earlier, often a judgment must be made. If an experienced firearms-licensing officer, hopefully with the appropriate training, has made a judgment that a licence should never have been issued or should be revoked, they should stick to that judgment robustly, even if it leads to judicial review.

My hon. Friend is right, and there is always a process that must be gone through, inquiries to be made, and a judgment to be reached. The experience of firearms officers should ensure that a wise judgment is made. According to the guidelines, every new incident of domestic violence should automatically prompt a police review and police officers would not have to rely only on actual convictions of domestic violence in making their decision, allowing them to use their discretion on whether they believe an applicant is suitable to hold a firearms licence.

My second point is the lack of need for specific legislation on firearms licensing. I understand that the hon. Member for Easington wants consistent application of the rules throughout all 43 police forces and I strongly agree with him. It is critical that the guidance on firearms control is implemented fairly, equally and consistently throughout the country. I have spoken to the Minister about that and I believe that he has some sympathy with it.

I agree that it would be more rational to have a national licensing authority instead of licensing decisions being made separately by 43 different authorities. That would achieve much greater consistency in the application of the guidelines and gun licensing legislation, as well as being quicker and cheaper for applicants. It would ensure that all current shotgun or firearms licence holders are immediately entered on the police national database.

[Bill Wiggin]

I wholeheartedly agree that a national firearms register is the right way forward, but ultimately the visit will have to be done by a local officer, so we will return to the problem of a subjective judgment needing to be made. At least the cost would be consistent and uniform, because I fear—I hope my hon. Friend agrees—that forces such as West Mercia police in my constituency are trying to add to the cost of owning a firearm in the hope of discouraging people. That must be wrong.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will refer in a moment to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and licences. I envisage that many local police firearms officers would still be employed by the national agency to make the local inquiries, so there would still be an element of localism in a national firearms licensing organisation.

If the new guidelines are recognised and implemented consistently throughout the country, they will be able to protect against inappropriate decisions being made. The guidelines are there to be implemented, and it is crucial that they are used by police officers when making decisions on issuing firearms licences.

In line with that consistency, I also want to see an improved system of health checks for firearms licence holders, which the hon. Member for Easington also talked about. We need to have proper arrangements in place so that doctors are required to pass on any related health developments to the police. One way of achieving that may be to negotiate such an obligation into the GP contract. That duty must be done on a continuous basis, and not just at the application or renewal stage of a firearms licence. That is because a very small number of people’s medical circumstances can change dramatically; for example, if they become a severe depressive, or addicted to alcohol or drugs. That should be reported to the police by a medical professional and should lead to serious consideration of a revocation of a licence, which in normal circumstances, only occurs every five years. There should also be a robust check when a licence is granted or re-granted to assess whether any information is being withheld by the applicant from the doctor or police.

[Jim Shannon]

I just want to put this point on record. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some police forces in England share data with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for example. Because of that, and the fact that data can be used by other—well, we do not know what it can be used for, of course; that is the question we are all asking. However, does he feel that when it comes to the data that the police hold, they need to ensure that the data are for use within the control of the police and that they are not for use by any other organisations, whatever their motives might be?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Where I do agree with my hon. Friend is that there should not be a two-way share of information; I think the police should be able to gain their information from any source they like. However, I, too, read the reports that the police are sharing their information with the RSPCA and I wholly deprecate that. It is quite wrong for the police to share any information that they have with any other organisation. After all, it is of a confidential nature and it should remain confidential. Perhaps the Minister may care to say something about that when he winds up.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) after his intervention, a comparison is to be made with the issuing of a driver’s licence. Although there is no legal obligation on the medical profession, there is a strong public duty on a doctor to report a change in a driver’s medical condition. Doctors can report their concerns to the DVLA. GPs are able to do that at any point and are not expected to wait until a licence is due to be renewed. I understand that the DVLA follow up medical investigations that are reported to it. Indeed, it has its own medical team to carry out medical investigations and assessments. There should be a similar, although perhaps stronger, obligation on doctors in relation to firearms certificates.

I would also welcome a codification of the existing pieces of legislation. As the hon. Member for Easington said, there are 34 separate pieces of legislation relating to firearms. Bringing them into one document would provide clarity and understanding, and I would completely support that move. However, I am opposed to increasing the amount of legislation, as I do not think it will be any more effective in protecting vulnerable people against the consequences of putting guns into the wrong hands.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I think we would all agree that unsuitable people should not be able to obtain firearms licences, but I want to pick up on a point my hon. Friend just made. Clearly, he would agree with me that the danger of having legislation imposed in this area is that unintended consequences flow from it, particularly for those law-abiding people, in the vast majority, who hold firearms licences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

That is precisely why I do not want to see any further legislation in this area. I want to see it consolidated into one completely clear piece of legislation, so that for the 43 police forces—if we have to have 43, rather than one national licensing authority—it will be easier for their firearms licensing officers to interpret exactly who should have a certificate and who should not. I repeat that it is the 0.01% that we need to be concentrating on to see whether they should have a certificate. Those are the people who wreak such havoc, causing damage and loss of life.

The Minister has previously highlighted that firearms control in the UK is already among the toughest in the world, and he is right. However, where there are gaps, we need to ensure that that they are tightened up, but further legislation is not the way to go about it. After all, the majority of gun crimes are carried out with illegally held firearms. If the guidelines are applied consistently across all 43 police force constabularies, they will succeed.

That brings to me to my third and final points. The actions of Michael Atherton, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Easington, were appalling under any circumstances, and no one wants to see them repeated. He should never have been given a firearms licence, given his history. Indeed, in September 2008, following an incident where he threatened to commit suicide, his guns were taken away from him. However, they were returned to him later. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of judicial review in the courts, but if the police reckon that they had the grounds to take them away from him in the first place, surely they had the grounds to ensure that he did not get them back again, unless there was compelling evidence that something had changed. As far as I am aware from the case’s circumstances, nothing had changed. It was a catastrophic error on the part of the Durham constabulary, as his licence should have been permanently revoked, as it almost certainly would have been in similar circumstances under a different police. Had the guidelines been followed by the Durham constabulary and Atherton’s licence revoked, we would not have seen the tragic events in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

The case highlights the importance of police forces using published guidance, because that clearly was not used in the Atherton case. That was highlighted during the inquest, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, following the tragedy, where officers dealing with Atherton’s licence claimed never to have seen the Home Office or ACPO guidance. Those guidelines had been published 10 years previously, so there is little excuse for a firearms licensing officer to be unaware of them. It is obvious that if a police force does not use the guidance given to it, these tragedies will occur.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I will happily accept the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but before he speaks, I was about to make a comment that may be the subject of his intervention. This issue concerns the training of police firearms licensing officers. Given that there are only 43 constabularies, and given that most constabularies only employ one or two firearms licensing officers—so we are dealing with between 40 and 80 officers, because some forces amalgamate the function among themselves—it should not be too difficult to ensure that they all receive better training. I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my intervention and answered my point. What he said would be completely sensible, and I find it difficult that the Home Office and Ministers say that it is not practicable. It clearly is, and it is in the interests of public safety to do it.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman and I agree on a great deal of things surrounding the whole issue—except, perhaps, on the need for additional legislation.

It is obvious that if police forces do not use the guidance given to them, these tragedies will continue to occur. In similar cases, other police forces have used the guidelines to revoke the licences of individuals who have displayed patterns of inappropriate behaviour. It is that failure that needs to change to ensure that people like Atherton are never given access to firearms. Increasing the amount of legislation around firearms will not improve public safety any more than implementing the current guidelines.

Let me return to where I started. The Atherton case was a dreadful tragedy and I praise the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Bobby Turnbull, for his campaign. It is right to ensure that effective measures are in place to prevent firearms from landing in the wrong hands. I note, however, that there are 146,000-odd firearms certificates in England and Wales, up to the end of March 2013. That was up 3.2% on the year before, slightly refuting the comments of the hon. Gentleman’s neighbour, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), about the huge proliferation of firearms. There are 570,726 shotgun certificates in existence. That is up 1.4% compared with the year before. This is where the 0.01% of serious incidents comes from; there are a very large number of firearms and shotgun certificates in existence and an incredibly low number of significant incidents. Having said that, one incident is too many, and that is what the debate is all about today.

I strongly believe that further legislation is not the best way of achieving our aims. If new Home Office guidelines are listened to and implemented by police forces across the country, we should never again see the tragedy that took place in County Durham. The incident was not a failure of the law or of the guidelines; it was a failure to implement them consistently across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important point, which we need to reflect on. However, other domestic violence deaths occur because of the use of the body—the hands—or of day-to-day items around the house, such as knives. We cannot control or legislate for such potential activity, but we can reduce the risk posed by access to shotguns, which are not day-to-day items readily available around the house, where there is substantiated evidence that people—this is not about all the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or all my constituents—are guilty of violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse. That, in a sense, is what the guidance said previously, and it is what the revised guidance, announced at the end of July and issued by the Minister, is trying to do.

The discussion we had in the Committee considering the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, and the discussion we are having today, is about whether we could back up that guidance with the rigour of legislation. That would reduce the ability of the courts to make a determination about the judgment of the police. ACPO has made representations to me, saying that police forces refused an application for a firearm licence on three separate occasions, but, despite the deputy chief constable or the chief constable appearing in court to defend the decision, the courts upheld the appeal because there were not sufficient legal grounds to refuse the individual’s application.

If we look at the wording of my new clause 4 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which will be debated in October—[Interruption.] I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will examine it with interest. Let me tell him, however, that I doubt it is perfect; I do not have the great back-up of the Home Office, as I once did when I held ministerial office. However, the Minister does, and he could reflect on the principle of new clause 4 over the next few weeks before Report to see whether legislative back-up of the guidance is practicable and deliverable. That would at least ensure that we had a black-and-white judgment, rather than a judgment based on a court interpretation.

Members do not need to listen to me, although I hope they will. They could, however, listen to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Having looked at my hon. Friend’s constituency case, it said in its first recommendation:

“The Home Office should revise the current legislation and guidance to allow for a single uniform test for the assessment of suitability and fitness to possess both firearms and shotguns. ‘Fitness to be entrusted’ should form a specific element of the shotgun application process to ensure clarity and consistency around both applications.”

The word “legislation” was included by the IPCC. In finding 3 of the report it said:

“The Home Office, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the College of Policing should devise clear guidance and tighter restrictions around applications for firearms or shotgun certificates”.

I venture to suggest that the guidance element has been examined, but will the Minister confirm that to date the IPCC’s legislation recommendation has not been met?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The right hon. Gentleman has just made my case. He has read out two paragraphs from the report. One asks for legislation about a person’s fitness to hold a shotgun or firearms licence. I do not know quite how legislation about someone who has been involved in a domestic incident would be framed, or the exact nature of the incident that would contribute to someone’s not being a fit person to hold a firearms licence.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to guidance. It is much easier to frame such matters in guidance. Before he rushes to call for extra legislation, does he know how many times, in other force areas, someone who has been involved in a serious incident of domestic violence has not had his licence revoked?

[Mr Hanson]

The IPCC also said in its report that the legislation should be devised in particular to

“take account of bind-overs, arrests and police call outs for domestic violence and an accumulation of convictions for offences where the penalty falls short of that requiring prohibition”.

That means that if someone has a history of a range of matters to do with domestic violence, but has not yet fallen foul of the guidance so as to prevent their having a shotgun licence, that should be sufficient in legislation to ensure that the guidance is tighter. That should be backed up by strong legislation, and we have attempted to draft such legislation in new clause 4 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. I sense a difference between my view and that of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds. That is the nature of our debates, but our intention is to put to the Minister, in the measured way of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, suggestions for helping to reduce such incidents.

My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of full cost recovery for shotgun and other firearms licences. There was a nugget in the remarks of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, about improving the licensing procedure, that sparked some interest in me. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members that only this year ACPO gave the net cost to police forces of shotgun licences as £18.6 million. The debate has focused primarily on domestic violence, but the Minister needs to reflect on what he will do to ensure that we deal with the current costs.

I will give three examples. North Wales police spent more than £417,000 on issuing licences, but recouped only £113,000 in licence fees, which means that taxpayers in my constituency faced a net cost of £303,000 for supporting the issuing of police licences. In Devon and Cornwall, a £1.2 million total cost generated only £514,000 in revenue. In Thames Valley, £928,000 of cost generated only £148,000, leaving a net cost to the local ratepayers of £780,000.

At a time when we are potentially asking more of the police in relation to shotgun licensing, with legislation at hand, this is an appropriate moment for the Minister to reflect on the cost of licences, and whether taxpayers and ratepayers should continue to subsidise people who apply for them to the tune of £18.6 million this year. The figure is worthy of examination. ACPO has said it would like the fee for a shotgun licence to rise to about £94. That would not mean full recovery of costs, but given that the figure for a licence has not changed in 10 years, there is scope for the Minister to reflect on the matter, or to explain why he is happy for £18.6 million of ratepayers’ money to be taken from police budgets to support the cost of issuing licences to be used for work or sport.

I have touched on only two points, but there is a strong case for the Government and Parliament to consider tightening legislation, to ensure that what happened to Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull and Tanya Turnbull does not happen again, to give the police extra support to work positively on the issue, and at the very least to begin examining the issue of recovering the cost of gun licences. That cost is already a considerable one for the 43 forces, which are hard-pressed by what are, by any stretch of the imagination, severe cuts in their grants.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington and other hon. Members for their thoughtful speeches. The Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will consider new clause 4 after the September recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I agree with the point; I shall come to the training point in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

Overall, the low rates of gun crime in this country support the view that the legislation is robust. Figures from the Office for National Statistics, which my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds cited, show that firearms offences account for fewer than 0.2% of all recorded offences. Provisional figures show that in the 12 months to March 2013, there was a 15% fall in firearms offences, and the volume of firearms offences has more than halved—it is down by 54%—since its peak in 2005-06.

Nevertheless, I, like everyone else, am deeply concerned by the fact that Atherton had been permitted to continue to possess guns despite a history of domestic violence that was known to the police. I want to make it very clear that, although each case must be assessed on its merits, evidence of domestic violence and abuse will generally indicate that a person should not be licensed to possess a gun. To that end, on 31 July we published new firearms guidance on domestic violence as a specific issue. It sets out how the police should handle firearms applications where it may be a factor.

It has been proposed that it should be mandatory that the partners of firearm applicants are directly involved in the process and that they should be interviewed to establish whether they support the application. We sought views on that proposal, including those of domestic violence organisations, and our collective conclusion is that we should not adopt that approach. We are concerned that it could put victims of domestic violence at greater risk, particularly if an application is subsequently refused; or they may feel unable to speak openly for fear of reprisals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said that he had been regarded as instrumental in preventing a licence from being granted and he was subsequently blamed for that. Imagine how much more difficult it would be for a potential or actual victim of domestic violence to be put in that position. We think that it is better to have a system in which the police can interview widely if the evidence suggests that that is merited. It can include interviews with partners or ex-partners. In that way, their views can still be sought, but without making them a specific and identified component of the decision-making process.

The firearms guidance on domestic violence provides a framework for the police in handling cases sensitively and linking up with domestic violence teams and other agencies. I intend this revised guidance to have a real and positive impact in supporting the police to make robust and evidence-based decisions on applications where domestic violence is a factor.

During this debate, much of the time has been spent discussing legislation. The hon. Member for Easington and the shadow police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), have said that new guidance is not enough and that we must go further and change the law. The hon. Gentleman co-sponsored the new clause that was debated during the Committee stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. That new clause was designed to amend the Firearms Act 1968 to mandate that background checks be carried out by the police and to introduce a presumption in favour of the refusal of an application where there is substantiated evidence of violence, mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse.

The right hon. Gentleman has already advertised that he has tabled a similar new clause for Report in October. In Committee, I explained why we do not support such an amendment to the Firearms Act, and that remains our position—I will spare the right hon. Gentleman the speech that he heard from me a few weeks ago—mostly because the police can already take these factors into consideration when they consider a firearm application.

The Firearms Act specifies that, before a licence can be issued, the police must be satisfied that the applicant can possess a firearm or shotgun without danger to public safety or the peace. As I said, the revised guidance, which we issued in July, after the Committee stage of the Bill, sets out the factors, including any history of domestic violence, that must be considered in more detail. I believe that the law is sound in this respect and there is no need to change it. In fact, inclusion of that level of detail in the firearms guide, rather than in law, enables it to be updated rapidly when necessary. I invite the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to consider that point.

It has also been suggested that the firearms guide should be statutory or an approved code of practice. I do not think that that would be the right way forward, either. The law provides the police with discretion in recognition of their responsibility for issues of public safety in local areas. That is important because each application is different and needs to be considered on its merits. I have not seen any evidence or heard any compelling arguments to indicate that that is the wrong approach.

I should say that I am not ruling out legislation in all areas of gun control, because we have introduced legislation to combat the illegal import and supply of guns. That will help to tackle the threat posed by middlemen who supply firearms that are used to harm others, particularly by gangs and organised criminals. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will increase the maximum sentence to life imprisonment for illegal importation and exportation. We are also creating a new offence of illegal possession of a prohibited weapon for sale or transfer. That will also carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and will attract the mandatory minimum sentence within the existing legislation.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

What action is my right hon. Friend the Minister taking with the Department of Health to address the medical questions in relation to the granting, re-granting and revocation of firearm and shotgun licences? I know that he has to collaborate with colleagues in the Department of Health. He knows that there is considerable inconsistency at the moment as to how such matters are dealt with. Some forces require a medical certificate prior to the granting of a licence, while some do not. We need consistency across the country and a robust system that works.

[Damian Green]

I am happy to tell the House and my hon. Friend that we are in discussion not only with colleagues at the Department of Health, but with the British Medical Association, the police and, as he knows, shooting organisations over the role GPs can play in ensuring that the licensing process is as effective as it can be. The police generally now contact an individual’s GP when a firearm or shotgun certificate is granted or renewed. That means the GP has the opportunity to raise any concerns they may have, and has resulted in a number of revocations of firearms licences. We now want to explore whether we can build greater safeguards into that arrangement by making the consultation with GPs part of the application process. In doing so, we obviously need to ensure that there is balance around burden and cost. Those discussions continue.

The hon. Member for Easington made a good point about training. The police are taking steps to improve consistency and promote high standards across police firearms licensing departments. Authorised professional practice on firearms licensing will be introduced by the College of Policing early next year to complement the firearms guide. He will be interested to know that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is undertaking a scoping exercise on this very issue with a representative number of forces. I hope he welcomes that.

The conclusions of the scoping study will determine whether a full inspection should take place at a future date. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, first, the College of Policing—a new body designed to enhance professional standards in the police—is producing a new code on the very specific issue he raises, and, secondly, that HMIC is looking at forces to see how the system works in practice. If it decides that the system is not working on the ground, it will mount a full inspection. I am confident that if HMIC concludes that the system has not improved, it will say so and police forces around the country will act.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that whether we are talking about guidance or legislation, we need to get it right, but it is at least equally important that individual firearms officers in police forces across the country do their job effectively and consistently. We have taken steps to ensure that that happens.

As I said, we are in the process of revising and updating the whole firearms guide. I am glad to say that that task is nearing completion and should be completed this year. As hon. Members observed, firearms law is complex. There are a large number of separate pieces of legislation, so the revision of the document is a significant step forward in aiding understanding of the law. Sixteen chapters have now been published, and the aim is to complete the revision by the end of September.

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in the Home Office that just as guidance is open to judicial interpretation, so is legislation. I have been involved in passing various laws that the courts have interpreted in a way that surprised me, as the Minister who introduced the legislation. To some extent, it is a distinction without a difference.

Whether we are talking about legislation or guidance, it should be written clearly enough that the amount of judicial interpretation is minimised. That is a job for this House and we need to get better at it. We need to be able to respond more quickly than we have in the past, and, as I said, changing guidance is easier and quicker than changing legislation. With the forthcoming revision of the guide, for the first time, we are ensuring that it can be updated online, which means that updates will be made faster in future. If anomalies arise, perhaps as a result of judicial interpretation, we will be able to respond much faster.

There has been discussion this afternoon about a national licensing authority. We are worried that a central authority would not be in touch with the kind of local information known to police. In his report on the Dunblane tragedy, Lord Cullen recommended that licensing functions remain with the police. We should listen to what he said in the wake of that terrible tragedy.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful for the comprehensive way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister is putting the case for how the system will operate. I have one question. If he has rejected a national firearms licensing authority, can he tell us how the 43 police forces will not only operate consistently according to the guidelines, but operate an efficient system consistently, so that the worst performing constabularies come up to the level of the best performing constabularies and the licence holder knows what to expect from the police?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. We are taking a number of steps, as I explained. The College of Policing is producing a new standard, which all forces, obviously, will apply. As he knows, we are moving to a different licensing system, which will be online.

We are making other changes—for example, a new single form for firearm and shotgun applications is due to be introduced shortly. I hope that greater consistency will be built into the system from the start. It is impossible for any Minister to guarantee that all 43 police forces will perform at the same level in all areas of activity. We all recognise that there are likely to be better and worse performers in each area. It is sensible to ensure that the system is flexible, clear, as simple as possible in this complex area, uses new technology to assist with the desirable changes we want and guarantees the consistency and competence that people of all views wish to see.

I shall talk briefly about the Select Committee on Home Affairs report, because the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned it.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

That is true, but I maintain that the key question is whether the requirements contained in the five principles, which include repatriation and the primacy of national Parliaments—on which the European Scrutiny Committee has insisted on a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House because of the implications for economic governance—are all part and parcel of what has been going wrong in the European Union. I welcome the idea of the referendum, but with the caveat that I do not think the timing is right, although that is a separate question.

Turning to article 352 of the treaty for the functioning of the European Union, my hon. Friend made an excellent speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). They are all on the European Scrutiny Committee and very familiar with the intricacies of the arguments, although they are not that intricate. In fact, the provisions of article 352 derive, in effect, from article 308. I have now served on the ESC for 27 years, and those who have been around for as long as I have—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Not long enough.

[Mr Cash]

Not long enough, says my hon. Friend. The fact is that article 308 is and always has been a very contentious issue. It is reflected in provisions in our own domestic law that deal with whether or not, when something is enacted, anything that flows from it can be done without the need for further primary legislation. It so happens that article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has similar words:

“If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously…after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.”

That means that there is already a big amber light in relation to the acquisition of these further powers, although there is no legal base for them.

That is, in a nutshell, the reason for the Bill. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2011 Act do not apply to the two draft decisions that were made under article 352. An Act of Parliament is therefore required. That is a safeguard. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is right that it is important that we have an Act of Parliament, despite what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, not because of the nature of the provision in question, but because the 2011 Act, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham was so keen to endorse, did not provide for circumstances of this kind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I will give way in just a moment, if I may.

The problem is that when we provide for amendments to be made to matters that have been through the Council of Ministers, we are obliged under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to continue to pass that legislation through our Parliament. That poses the very questions regarding the role of national Parliaments that the Prime Minister raised in his recent speech. The European Scrutiny Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into scrutiny and that is among the matters that we are considering.

If the House of Commons—or indeed the House of Lords, although I will stick to the House of Commons for my purposes—were to take exception to a provision that was included in an Act of Parliament for lack of a legal base or for some other substantive reason and wanted to vote against it, that would raise the very question that was embedded in the White Paper of 1971, which led to the passing of the 1972 Act. Under section 2 of that Act, we must implement all decisions that have been decided in the Council of Ministers, irrespective of any other factors. Under section 3, we must agree to all decisions of the European Court.

In the context of the Prime Minister’s speech— I welcome his comments on the referendum, although I think it will come too late—we have to evaluate where the power lies in passing legislation. We need an Act of Parliament for the provisions contained in the Bill for the reasons that have already been given, which I endorse. However, could Parliament veto the provisions that it covers if we did not want them to go through? We should be allowed to do so, and that will be part of the inquiry that the European Scrutiny Committee is now conducting. It is difficult to justify to the British people the fact that if they vote in a general election to have certain legislation implemented, they can then find that it is all decided in the Council of Ministers, where 91.7% of votes go in favour of European proposals. That brings up the whole business of how UKRep advises, or even decides, on such legislation, which is a vital question that affects the daily lives of this country’s voters.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s Committee on bringing this matter before the House. Clause 2 of the Bill contains an important provision. How can it be right that a small country such as Luxembourg has equal representation on the Commission with a complex country such as ourselves? That surely makes no sense whatever. Furthermore, the clause seems to indicate that however many countries join the EU, they will each get a commissioner, so we could end up with 30 or more commissioners. How can that make sense?

[Mr Cash]

It is difficult to make sense of a lot of things that come out of the European Union, and I am reminded of what Alice said in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” about believing half a dozen impossible things before breakfast every day. That is possibly one example.

The reality is that there are 27 member states, and there was a lot of discussion about whether there should be an equivalent number of commissioners. It was decided that each member state would continue to have a commissioner. I understand well what my hon. Friend says, and it is quite difficult to justify given countries’ comparative size, geography, GDP and so on. On the other hand, if some countries were to be denied a European commissioner, I suppose some people would say that they were being treated unfairly. Finally on the number of commissioners, I have argued in the past that the European Commission should be relegated to the role of a secretariat rather than the role that it currently enjoys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who does such sterling service to the House in his capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I think I am the first person to speak in this debate, apart from the Front Benchers, who is not a member of that Committee, and I pay tribute to its members, who have ensured that we have the opportunity to hold the Government and the European Union to account in tonight’s debate and on subsequent occasions.

I shall confine my remarks to the aspect of the Bill dealing with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the Lisbon treaty was being discussed, our Government said that they were against the Fundamental Rights Agency because they thought it completely superfluous and unnecessary. They said that all it would do would be to duplicate the work of the Council of Europe. That is exactly what it has set out to do—to usurp the Council of Europe and duplicate its work.

I am disappointed, given that the Government are newly playing hardball in Europe, that we are not taking on the agency and saying, “Hold on a minute, why are you expanding your ambit of activity? Why have you got a substantially increased budget?” My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) referred in his excellent contribution to the agency’s budget having risen to €21.3 million a year. Only a few years ago, it was hardly €100—it was a small, miniuscule budget. A lot of that budget is being wasted, and I will give the House an example.

About 18 months ago when I chaired the committee on migration, refugees and displaced persons at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I was lucky enough to be invited by the Fundamental Rights Agency to address a conference in the centre of Warsaw. To my incredulity, I found that a whole 40-storey hotel in the centre of Warsaw was taken up with guests of the Fundamental Rights Agency who, on inquiry, had all had their expenses paid by that agency and had come from all over Europe, and beyond, to discuss issues relating to fundamental rights. That seemed an unnecessarily extravagant way of getting information—the Fundamental Rights Agency is to provide expert advice and support to European Union institutions and member states, not to give jollies to people from non-governmental organisations who want an outing to Warsaw at the expense of the European taxpayer.

When I read the brilliant research paper from the House of Commons Library and saw some of the background on how the Commission reached its conclusion, I was a little dubious. It states that on 13 December,

“the Commission proposed a new Multiannual Framework…and consulted the Management Board of the Fundamental Rights Agency”.

In other words, it consulted the producer interests and received a preliminary contribution. The paper went on:

“The Management Board consulted the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Platform (a network of cooperation with civil society)”.

I suspect that most of those in the hotel I described were members of the agency’s fundamental rights platform. Unsurprisingly—such people are used to receiving that sort of indulgence at the expense of the European taxpayer—they were in favour of expanding the ambit of the Fundamental Rights Agency, as set out in the revised multi-annual framework. What an extraordinary state of affairs. I am surprised that the Government have not played a harder ball on the issue, although I am sure we will have the chance to focus on it by tabling an amendment to delete that provision when we discuss the Bill in Committee or on Report.

When commenting on the results of the consultation to which I have referred, the European Parliament stated:

“One hundred and eight organisations took part in the consultation process. Most organisations support the Agency’s work in the current areas, and would like it to continue…particularly in the areas of…asylum and migration.”

There was a lot of support for extending the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency, and I am not surprised.

If we must have such an agency, it would be better if it stopped duplicating the work of the Council of Europe. All members of the European Union are also members of the Council of Europe, but the Council of Europe’s budget is not going up because its European Union members say that we cannot afford to spend more money on it. The costs of the European Court of Human Rights continue to increase, but the Council of Europe’s budget is being squeezed in all other areas, including research. Meanwhile, such research is increasingly being done by the Fundamental Rights Agency with money that should rightfully be contributed to the Council of Europe.

In a sense, I am disappointed that the Government seem to go along with the expansion of the Fundamental Rights Agency. How does that fit with the policy of this Government and this Parliament of trying to reduce the size of the European Union budget? The challenge given to those of us who want a real-terms reduction in that budget is always: “What are you going to cut?” Well, expenditure on the Fundamental Rights Agency is one thing we could cut, and we could do it by cutting that agency’s wings in the multi-annual framework that started this January and continues for the next five years. If we had not agreed to the expansion of that framework and had instead insisted on it being reduced in scope, we would have secured real savings and contributed to the genuine reduction in the European Union budget that everybody—certainly on the Government Benches—wishes to see.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I praise my hon. Friend for his work in establishing the budget of this new organisation. Since the Council of Europe gives the European taxpayer such good value for money in having its budget reduced each year, instead of having a new agency, why not give all its functions to the Council of Europe? In that way, we could reduce the European budget.

[Mr Chope]

I think that is a brilliant idea, and for a long time I thought that was the policy supported by the Government. It is certainly supported by almost every member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, including many from core European Union states who regard themselves as being Europhiles in the extreme, but even they ask what the point is of duplicating the functions of the Council of Europe with those of the Fundamental Rights Agency. I hope my hon. Friend will take that idea forward.

If we are to have a Fundamental Rights Agency with a multi-annual framework, as stated in the Bill, why not concentrate on one or two areas with an obvious need for further work? At the moment, the management board mentions “thematic areas”, which include:

“Immigration and integration of migrants; visa and border control; asylum”,

and the European Union is fundamentally failing in that area at the moment.

The week before last I was in Greece where I visited the Greece-Turkey border and received briefings from Greek Ministers and the Hellenic coastguard about the problem of illegal migrants coming into Greece, mainly from Turkey. One problem in Greece that contributes to the

“racism, xenophobia and related intolerance”—

that is thematic area (j)—is that it is virtually impossible for Greece to return illegal migrants to the countries from which they came.

Let me give the House an example. When visiting a detention centre in Athens, I went up to the wire fence and asked whether anybody spoke English. To cut a long story short, I started a conversation with a person who said that he had arrived in the detention centre having set out from Afghanistan—he is an Afghan national—and that he had paid smugglers $8,000 to get across Iran and Turkey. He wanted to go from Turkey across the Aegean sea and on to the Italian eastern seaboard so that he could make his way to the United Kingdom. I inquired about that and asked why he wanted to go to London. He replied that it was because he had been there for five years until a few months ago, and that he had lots of friends in London who had paid the $8,000 for his return trip. He had been deported from the United Kingdom after playing our system for about five years, and within a few weeks of getting back to Afghanistan this wholly undeserving case was presenting himself in a Greek detention centre.

Unfortunately for that man, the boat from Turkey foundered—I suppose it is fortunate that the Greek coastguard rescued him and he was not drowned—and he found himself in the detention centre, but the Greek authorities had no way of returning him back to Afghanistan, because Afghanistan does not accept anyone in Greece who emanated from Afghanistan. If he is detained in Greece for the maximum of 18 months, he will be released and will join all those other people in Greece—this also happens in Italy—who do not belong or do not necessarily wish to stay there, which contributes to feelings of racism and xenophobia on the part of the indigenous population. Something like 60% of people in Greek prisons are non-Greek nationals.

If there is a need for the Fundamental Rights Agency, it should deal with that sort of thing rather than mess around with the other expanded areas to which hon. Members have referred. For example, if the FRA looked at the inability of people to claim asylum in Turkey because it has opted out of many Geneva convention provisions, it might help to focus attention on the need to strengthen the Turkey-EU border.

[Mr Chope]

I was not aware of that and am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out. As hon. Members often say, it is an issue of priorities. People and organisations must be judged on the priority they give to different issues. In the light of the enormous crisis in Europe and on European borders, it is odd that that should be a priority as opposed to the problems to which I have referred.

The debate gives us an opportunity to go into many other aspects of asylum and border control, but I will not do so. I have highlighted why they are important. If the organisation has to exist, it would be better if it got on with dealing with serious issues rather than trying to expand its remit.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

To whom will the FRA be accountable? Who will set its agenda and control its budget?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and normally addresses the Chair. This is not a private conversation between two Back Benchers. We have allowed the debate to drift, but I hope we will come back to having it through the Chair rather than having a private conversation.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sitting so close to my hon. Friend that it seems as if we are having a private conversation.