Firearms Controls

Debate between Grahame Morris and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I join other Members serving under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, in addressing this important issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on bringing the matter of gun control to the House again and on raising it so effectively on numerous occasions.

The debate is about a specific aspect of gun control: how we reduce the small percentage of gun deaths resulting from actions taken by individuals with a history of domestic violence or of alcohol and other problems. We have had a useful debate, including the contribution from the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), which contained nuggets worthy of pursuit. He raised issues about the way in which firearms are licensed, which the Minister should address. Although there was a swathe of his comments I cannot agree with, he has raised some important points.

It is also worth mentioning that the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have taken the time to come to the debate to intervene and to add their expertise to our discussions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington approached the issue in a measured, reflective and considered way. On his doorstep, he has faced what can only be described as an enormous tragedy, with Mr Michael Atherton’s murders of Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull and Tanya Turnbull on 1 January 2012. That has highlighted to him a way in which we could tighten the legislation to prevent such incidents in the future. As he said, he has not jumped to conclusions; he has looked at this matter.

I, too, have not jumped to conclusions; I have looked at what the Home Affairs Committee, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Durham police and ACPO have said about the steps the Government could take to mitigate the circumstances we are talking about. I agree with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds that they may be small in number, but that does not mean we should ignore the issue. There is real merit in looking not only at the guidance, but at whether we need legislative back-up to reduce the potential for incidents such as the one that took place in my hon. Friend’s constituency last January.

I fully accept, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, that this boils down to judgment. Judgment is important, but it is now coloured by not only the old guidance, but, potentially, the new guidance issued this month. However, it can also be coloured by legislation, and my hon. Friend made the case for small tweaks during the passage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill to strengthen previous and current guidance, applying additional rigour and scrutiny to applications for gun or shotgun licences. It is that potential which I support.

As we have heard, there is a pressing need for action better to control firearm violence, small though the number of cases may be. My hon. Friend pointed out that one in three women killed by their domestic partner is shot with a legally owned weapon. Some 64% of those murders involved shotguns. In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in a domestic setting; in 2009, the figure was 100%. Whatever our view of the small number of deaths caused by shotguns or guns, that figure shows that a high percentage of women who die in domestic violence situations do so as a result of someone using a gun or shotgun.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Those are important figures. Members are saying that the problem is relatively small, given the large number of licences that are issued, and that people use firearms properly. However, evidence from Canada suggests that if we went down the route I suggested, we could dramatically reduce the number of fatalities—particularly those where partners or ex-partners involved in domestic violence use a firearm.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has an opportunity to clarify the Government’s approach to the provision of child care. That is clearly linked to clause 35, because the Labour Government’s original proposals were designed to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend has indicated. That point is made, and I want the Minister to clarify his approach to child poverty and how the Government propose to fund child care places for two-year-olds.

Agencies and organisations outside the House have made a range of comments on clause 35. It is worth giving the Minister an opportunity to respond to them, and I hope that he will offer some reassurance. Some of the comments also relate to the accompanying schedule. I appreciate that the Committee is not considering that now, but it is very much linked to the clause.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which, as the Minister will know, is an initiative of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, has raised with me some real concerns about clause 35 and schedule 8. It is concerned about the complex interactions of tax-free vouchers with tax credits and child care cost support, the dynamics of which it believes changed again after 6 April 2011. It is important that the Minister responds to its concern about the poor channels of advice for employees and employers about the implementation of the scheme proposed under clause 35.

The group believes that there may have been errors—under the previous Government, I admit—in HMRC’s online calculator, and it is concerned about how the implementation of these measures will be taken forward. It is particularly concerned that although the system is designed for fairness, the results that it produces may not be fair. I shall give some examples, if I may, of its concerns about clause 35.

The group is particularly concerned that the clause will remain reliant on interpretation according to guidance published in draft on HMRC’s website, which it believes is inconsistent with the clause. I am not making any assessment of the group’s judgment call on that matter, I am simply placing it on the table because this Committee debate gives the Exchequer Secretary the opportunity to examine whether that concern is justified. He may be able to provide some comfort by giving his interpretation.

The group has raised the concern that under schedule 8 —the schedule will be discussed in the Public Bill Committee, but it is worth mentioning now—the changes will apply only to those whose employer estimates them to be higher rate or additional rate taxpayers at a particular point in time, rather than to those who are actually found to be so by a final assessment. It is important that either now or when we discuss schedule 8 in the Public Bill Committee, the Exchequer Secretary reflects upon that concern and provides some clarity about when the assessment will be made on whether individuals are higher rate or additional rate taxpayers. We need to know at what stage in the financial year that assessment will be made, who will make it, how much of a burden it will be on employers and employees and whether the figures and facts that HMRC will use in the calculation are sound and to his satisfaction. They must be seen to be just and fair.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has expressed concern that the change may have equality impacts, for example on employees who become long-term sick or disabled, on women or on those who switch to part-time work in the course of the year. It suggests that there should be some flexibility in the interpretation of clause 35 and schedule 8.

The Library has calculated that overall, families will be some £1,700 a year worse off due to the Government’s tax and benefit changes, of which clause 35 is one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, the Prime Minister promised to lead the most family-friendly Government ever, and I should like to hear from the Exchequer Secretary where the proposal, when linked to the proposals on child benefit and the working tax credit and the others that we know about, fits into the Government’s overall strategy for child care.

We accept that there will have to be difficult and challenging decisions, and I reconfirm that the previous Labour Government wished the targeting now set out in clause 35 to progress.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Is there not also an issue to consider about clause 35 breaking the principle of universality—the idea that benefits apply irrespective of income?

[Mr Hanson]

There is, and my hon. Friend will know that we have been very clear that the Government’s wider proposed changes to child benefit are not fair or equitable, and that child benefit should remain universal. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, decided that child care was poorly targeted, but that if universality was to be broken, we must provide help and support to the poorest families to ensure that they had child care for two-year-olds. The Labour Government planned some 65,000 to 68,000 child care places as a result of the measures that are now in clause 35. The current Government have accepted those measures in principle, as we did, but unless the Exchequer Secretary tells me otherwise I do not believe they are delivering the outputs that we planned as a benefit of saving resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

We have known each other since our elections to the House on 9 April 1992, Mr Evans, and as ever, I shall try to keep to your strictures as the good Chairman that you are. You will note that amendment 8, which you did not select, would have prompted a wide-ranging discussion on the impact on child care. I am trying to focus on clause 35 and not to stray into amendment 8 or the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) touched on. However, those issues are important when we are looking at the impact of clause 35 on a particular group of people, because that same group of people will lose child benefit and a range of other child care support measures because of their income, and that will shatter the principle of universality that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned.

The Opposition will listen to the debate on clause 35, but we might oppose it. However, there are important points to be examined and answered in detail today. First, how do we use the resource? Secondly, how do we implement the policy? Thirdly, will the Minister answer the challenges made by external bodies about the operation of the clause in practice?

[Grahame M. Morris]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has already indicated, clause 35 introduces schedule 8, which contains the provisions for reducing child care relief for higher earners. My understanding is that the latter measure will be dealt with at a later stage upstairs in Committee.

As has been indicated, Labour considered proposing a similar change, but at its heart, it was trebling the number of free child care places available for the most deprived two-year-olds. That is the problem with the Government’s measure. The Labour party considered better ways of targeting support for child care to support both child care and the family throughout its time in government, but it seems that the coalition is taking money away from families completely, without retargeting it at those who are most in need. There is a basic contradiction between Labour’s position and that of the coalition Government. Indeed, the Government’s policies across the board seem to be an attack on families, and other groups in our society. Under their policies, middle-income and working-class families are hit harder than those at the top of society, and their policies do not redirect money into better-targeted child care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the original proposals of the previous Labour Government to increase the number of child care places for two-year-olds in the poorest areas would have benefited Easington, County Durham and many other poor areas in the north of England, as it would have benefited similar parts of constituencies elsewhere? That is why we are focusing on the impact of clause 35 not just on tax relief for higher earners but in respect of what could have been done with the spending.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to place that excellent point on the record.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to take a breath and reflect further on clause 35 rather than digging into the position announced last October, as the provisions will not be implemented until two years from now. Why does the Chancellor not agree to look again at the effect of his taxation policies? He has an opportunity to do so before 2013. He needs to reflect on the impact of the removal of child care tax relief, child benefit and child tax credits, which, taken together, mark an attack not just on families but on the welfare state as a whole.