Corrosive Substance Attacks

Debate between Lyn Brown and Adrian Bailey

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government response to corrosive substance attacks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I welcome the new Minister to her post. From the little I know of her, I trust that we will have a good and constructive debate today.

Sadly, Newham has been labelled as the acid attack capital of Britain, and the extent of the problem has made headlines not only locally, but nationally and internationally. It is not a reputation that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) or I embrace for our borough. The challenge posed by the attacks is undeniable, and an effective response is urgently needed. There have been 82 attacks using corrosive substances in Newham in the past year; in the whole of London, there were 449 attacks. Since January 2012, the number of acid attacks in London has gone up by a horrifying 550%.

The police have flagged 14% of the attacks this year as being gang-related, 22% as robberies and 4% as being related to domestic abuse, but even my maths tells me that the data is therefore incomplete and we do not have a full picture. We need a clear picture of what is going on and the motivations behind the attacks if we are to create an effective remedy to them.

Members will not need to be reminded of the horrifying damage that corrosive substances can do to the human body or the psychological trauma that inevitably follows. We should not forget the fear of attacks, which can be corrosive within communities. Throughout this year, I have heard from constituents whose lives have been blighted by fear. Some have told me that they are afraid to leave their homes. They tell me stories about home invasions or carjackings where corrosive substances have been used to terrible effect. Whether such stories are an accurate reflection of events or simply urban myths is almost irrelevant; people are living in fear, and that is utterly destructive.

I want to start today by talking about victims. Katie Piper was attacked in 2008 by an accomplice of her then boyfriend Daniel Lynch. He was driven by misogyny, narcissism and a dangerous need for control. He had previously raped, assaulted and imprisoned Katie in a hotel room for more than eight hours. Lynch conspired with his accomplice to attack Katie with acid in the street. She was approached and high-strength acid was thrown directly over her head. Katie’s face had to be completely rebuilt by cosmetic surgeons. How she felt is encapsulated in this quote:

“When I held the mirror up I thought someone had given me a broken one or put a silly face on it as a joke. I knew that they’d taken my face away and that it was put somewhere in a bin in the hospital, but in my head I assumed I’d look like the old Katie, just with a few red blotches…I wanted to tear the whole thing off and make it go away. There was nothing about me that I recognised. My identity as I knew it had gone.”

Katie’s courage and her will to survive and thrive are simply amazing. She has had to undergo more than 250 surgeries since the attack. Understandably, she still has bad days, but she has transformed her life. She now dedicates herself to improving the lives of other acid attack survivors, partly by telling her own story of survival and partly by funding groundbreaking cosmetic procedures through her charitable foundation. I wanted to start by revisiting Katie’s story, because victims like her need the Government’s help. It is important that the policy response to the issue should be comprehensive and effective. I ask the Minister to remember Katie’s story, because the use of acid as a tool of the misogynist could be forgotten as we talk about access to corrosives, the concentrations they can be sold at and the legal responses to this crime. Our policy responses have to be broad and preventive, but we also need a victim-focused strategy.

The Government have made a number of policy announcements in the months since we last had the opportunity to discuss corrosive substance attacks in this place. Consultation has just finished on several proposed new offences, all of which are designed to bring the law around the possession and use of corrosive substances into line with the law on knives. That is exactly the right principle; I and other colleagues have been calling for that, and victims want to see it put into place quickly. I strongly welcome the announcements, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us when the new offences will be brought on to the statute book.

An area where more action is necessary is the sentencing of those found guilty of these horrific crimes. In late July, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would be seeking much tougher sentences for offenders who use corrosive substances across every category of the existing law, and that is welcome. As we know, sentencing is a matter for judges, based on Sentencing Council guidelines. Campaigners have argued for years that the sentences handed down are inconsistent and often far too light. Will the Minister clarify what is happening in that area? I know it is not in her brief, but unless the Sentencing Council takes action, the welcome shift by the CPS may not have the intended effect.

The first steps that the Government have taken have been promising, but they are playing catch-up. A number of changes to the law were made in 2015 as part of the Deregulation Act 2015—the red tape bonfire. The Act scrapped the obligation on sellers of dangerous substances, including acids, to be registered with their local council. That was despite opposing advice from the medical experts and the Government’s own advisory board on dangerous substances. I fear that those changes are partly responsible for the rise in acid attacks. Removing the licensing system allowed the big online retailers and a wider range of small shops to sell these dangerous products, making it easier for corrosive chemicals to be accessed by criminals and children alike. It would be appropriate for the Minister to comment on that abolition of regulation. Does the Home Office stand by it, or does it now accept that there perhaps were unintended consequences?

Let me help with the thinking. The Minister must be aware that it is currently extremely easy to buy the corrosive chemicals, such as concentrated sulphuric acid, that have done so much damage. They can now be bought by anyone from any kind of retailer, subject only to a standard labelling instruction and a requirement to report “suspicious transactions”. There are a number of practical problems with that requirement. It is unlikely that it has any success at all in preventing attacks. The responsibility to report suspicious purchases exists for all retailers, including massive and impersonal online retailers. As a matter of practicality, how are such companies going to assess whether a purchase is suspicious?

The guidance that the Home Office has produced does not contain any specific recommendations for online retailers that would solve the problem. The general recommendations it offers are not realistic for online sellers. The current guidance is in the “Selling chemical products responsibly” leaflet, but that was published in 2014, so it does not reflect the changes made in the 2015 Act. It contains a list entitled “How to recognise suspicious transactions”. The signs listed include noticing that the customer

“Appears nervous, avoids communication, or is not a regular type of customer”,

and

“Is not familiar with the regular use(s) of the product(s), nor with the handling instructions”.

How is an online retailer supposed to use that guidance? They do not have access to face-to-face communication and do not ask detailed questions before accepting an order.

It is equally unclear how the Home Office checks that the reporting requirements are being complied with, even by local retailers. I asked the Home Office about that previously, and the Minister’s predecessor said that test purchases are a tactic sometimes used by the Home Office. The Government are vague about whether any test purchases have actually taken place; I think they should have done some to monitor compliance with the regulations after two years. There is also no evidence that the law has ever been enforced by the taking of a retailer to court for failing to put procedures in place to stop suspicious transactions.

The Government implied that answering my written questions properly would jeopardise operational security. Really? I honestly cannot see how that can be true. I do not want names and dates. I just want an indication of whether there is a programme of test purchases to monitor the suspicious purchases requirement. I do not expect that information this afternoon, but I hope the Minister will provide more information about it soon.

Thankfully, Newham Council is taking steps to address this issue in the absence of legislation. It is working with the Met and local retailers, and recently launched a scheme encouraging shops voluntarily to restrict the sale of acid and other noxious liquids to young people by challenging their age. Some 126 retailers are participating in the scheme thus far, and I hope it will provide an effective stopgap to prevent easy local access to corrosive chemicals. The Minister will be aware that such schemes have limits—they are voluntary, they are restricted to a relatively small geographic area, and we cannot rely on the force of the law to enforce them—so I fear that stronger regulations are needed quickly.

The Poisons Act 1972, as amended following the bonfire of 2015, creates a category of substances known as “regulated poisons”, which require a licence for purchase. Sales must be restricted to those presenting a photo ID. The simplest and most effective way to limit access to dangerous corrosive chemicals is to move them into the regulated poisons category. I am sure that can be done simply through a non-contentious statutory instrument. The Government say that they plan to move concentrated forms of sulphuric acid into the regulated poisons list. I welcome that, but when will it be done?

Furthermore, as the Minister will know, sulphuric acid is far from the only corrosive substance that can inflict serious trauma. The British Burn Association advised me that the strongest-level restriction should apply, at a minimum, to phosphoric and hydrochloric acids and to the alkalis sodium hydroxide and ammonia. The Met performed forensic testing on 28 samples from corrosive incidents between October 2016 and March this year, and 20 contained ammonia, which is not regulated. Hydrofluoric acid is also extremely dangerous. Exposure to it on as little as 2% of a person’s skin can kill. It, too, is currently not subject to licensing.

All the chemicals I mentioned can currently be bought without a licence and from unlicensed retailers. The evidence about exactly which chemicals are being used in corrosive attacks is not fully clear. Even if most recent attacks have involved a smaller range of chemicals, such as sulphuric acid or ammonia, a broad approach is obviously needed. The regulations need to cover every corrosive substance that poses a threat to our communities; otherwise, those wishing to use corrosives as a weapon will simply switch from one chemical to another. I accept that there might be a problem with definitions—we faced that problem in relation to the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016—but we need to look at this issue properly and in the round.

Campaigners have suggested a number of promising reforms to the regulations. For example, purchasers of poisons could be restricted to those willing to use a bank card, which would link purchases to individuals and aid criminal justice professionals with investigations and prosecutions. Raising the chance of being caught after committing an attack would hopefully increase the deterrent effect. I would like to hear from the Minister whether that is one of the changes that the Home Office is considering. Given the extent of the increase in attacks and their impact, we cannot be content with token changes to the rules that make no difference to the availability of dangerous chemicals to perpetrators. Any new restrictions have to be effective in practice.

I am sure hon. Members know that there is no age restriction on purchases of dangerous chemicals. As news reports and Met briefings have indicated, many of the suspects identified in connection with corrosive attacks in recent months have been under the age of 18. I am pleased that the Home Office is now consulting on a new offence of supplying people under 18 with certain corrosive substances, but sadly it has been unclear about three essential elements. We have not heard yet which substances the Government have in mind in connection with under-18 sales or what the process will be for putting that list in place, and as with other issues I have raised today, we have no timescale.

These decisions need to be made clearly, transparently and in a way that allows for parliamentary scrutiny. The system we use for implementing and amending the schedules for illegal drugs might be a good model, because it allows for scrutiny on the basis of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ expert advice. Before the 2015 deregulation, there was a permanent advisory body on toxic chemicals called the Poisons Board. If it had not been bonfired, it could have played a similar role to that of the drugs advisory council.

I hope the Minister will reflect on the need to maintain scientific expertise and links with victims’ advocates to ensure policy keeps apace with the situation on our streets. If the Government do not want to re-establish the Poisons Board, they need to ensure they have a team within the Home Office that has the resources, time and expertise necessary to keep track of the situation and do this important work.

We also need to consider the effectiveness of our first responders—our police officers, ambulance crews and fire fighters. Thanks to changes made by the Met earlier this year, rapid-response cars are now more likely to carry bottles of water, and the fire service is more likely to be called on to help with corrosive injuries in London. Quickly applying water to a corrosive injury can make a big difference, but specialist rinses, such as Diphoterine, are designed to do that job better than water alone. I want that option to be fully considered. Victims of such attacks deserve the best possible chance of a full recovery from their ordeal. Just to be clear, Diphoterine is not cheap, so that change would cost money.

Before I finish, I want to return to my point about the impact of the changes made in 2015. I genuinely cannot see any reason not to have licensing on both sides of the transaction—for sellers as well as buyers. That seems a straightforward way to maximise public safety. I believe that a comprehensive review of the regulations is needed to answer the questions I have raised, so that future changes are timely, realistic and effective, and to ensure that every aspect of the problem is considered.

As Katie Piper’s case should remind us, corrosive substances have long been used as a tool of misogyny against women and girls. Although stronger regulation and improved criminal laws should help with such crimes, unfortunately they will not solve the problem on their own. We need a longer-term strategy to deal with the root causes of the recent upsurge in youth and gang violence. We also need a strategy to deal with the violence within relationships, primarily against women and girls, which has long been a common feature of corrosive substance attacks in the UK and around the world. Survivors of such attacks deserve to know that the problem will be understood, that the Government will see it resolved and that people in my community will no longer live in fear.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister about her plans to make changes and her timescales for them. I commit to working with her to ensure that effective improvements to policy can be made quickly and in a way that works for our communities. I accept that she might not yet have considered some of the things I have raised this afternoon and so might not have a note in front of her, but I am happy to receive something in writing at a later date.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

For your guidance, I intend to call the first Front-Bench spokesperson at 3.30 pm, subject to any interruption from votes in the main Chamber. That should give ample time for Back Benchers who wish to contribute to do so, but take more than 12 or 13 minutes and I might start to get a little fidgety because that would take time from subsequent speakers. Bear that in mind.