Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I lived in Ilford as a young man, until I was drummed out of town when the locals discovered that I was a closet Tory. It is a great pleasure follow him and to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on this Bill, which is not only of great importance for justice in this country but of great emotional importance to my constituents and others who are either gay themselves or who have friends, family and colleagues who are gay and feel that they have been judged by a different standard over the years.

The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) is my colleague on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and I am incredibly grateful to him for using his coveted allocation of time to bring forward these proposals in a private Member’s Bill and for sharing his ideas with me over several bottles of rosé a few weeks ago. He has done valuable work to make this a truly cross-party initiative. I thank him for including me in this and I am proud to be on my feet today in support of what he wants to achieve through the Bill. We have heard some impressive contributions, and I particularly want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who made a moving speech.

Equality before the law must be not only our fundamental principle, but our fundamental practice. That means that not only must justice be done, but justice must be seen to be done. The Government’s previous disregard scheme was a step in the right direction towards justice in that it helped to ameliorate the repercussions of a criminal record for those convicted under what we now rightly consider outdated, unfair, discriminatory laws that treated sex between men differently. To truly rectify the injustice we must go further and, as the Bill proposes, grant pardons and admit that the convictions were immoral, which does not really happen under a disregard scheme. Justice will then be seen to be done and, importantly, the wrongfully criminalised and their families will feel that it has been done.

The Government’s official apology for the shameful treatment of Alan Turing was an important moment. I am pleased that the deep gratitude we now correctly feel toward Turing’s crucial contributions to Britain’s defence provided enough of a focal point that his famous cause could trigger that apology. No matter how famous or anonymous, however, no one citizen has a greater value nor a greater right to justice. That pardon was just for Alan Turing, but there is no tenable case for every other individual affected not having the same right. Like Turing, each individual is someone’s family, someone’s friend, and they deserve acknowledgement of their fundamental equality before the law.

I welcomed the comments of the Minister when he said yesterday that the Government will adopt some of the proposals in this Bill and use the Policing and Crime Bill to put right some of the injustices. However, I found the Government’s last-minute scrambling or dancing around handbags—not something I have done myself—a little slippery and disrespectful to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire and his Bill, but I look forward to the Minister’s further remarks.

Other colleagues and the Bill’s promoter have made eloquent moral and legal cases, so I will conclude my contribution on the subject there, but I want to finish by taking the opportunity to issue a mea culpa. During my first term in office, I voted against marriage equality for a whole host of reasons. I thought at the time that what I was doing was right, but having reflected and having seen how the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has made such a positive difference for thousands of couples around the country, I deeply regret that decision—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—and many in this House will know how difficult it is for a Yorkshireman to admit that he got something wrong. If I had the opportunity again, I would vote differently and I want to apologise. I apologise to friends, family members and constituents who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. I want them to know that I believe in their full equality. I am unable to change that previous vote, but I am pleased to have the chance today to stand in support of equality before the law, and I am more than happy to support my friend’s Bill.

Policing and Crime Bill

Nigel Adams Excerpts

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

[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.

Police Funding Formula

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The purpose of my standing here making a statement is to say that the possible losses that Durham would have had with the new formula will not happen because it is going to stick with the original formula. We will have to wait for the autumn statement.

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

The Minister will be aware that North Yorkshire is the largest policing area in England, and the force gains approximately £8 million under the current formula because of its rurality. Will he assure me that our police and crime commissioner, who does a fantastic job, will be properly consulted and listened to during this welcome extended process?

[Mike Penning]

I pay tribute to the North Yorkshire force, and I fully understand the pressures on it as a rural force. One reason why I got into this situation was that I was working with the 43 PCCs, writing to them and telling them exactly what was going on. I will continue to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady will understand that there are restrictions on the types of work that can be offered in a custodial environment, but there are jobs that will contribute to prisoners’ qualifications and experience. However, there is a wider point, which is that, for a great many prisoners, who simply have no experience of the world of work, the softer skills they need to be employable—working in a team, getting up in the morning and going to work for a full day—are valuable, too, and we will seek to extend those skills as far as we can.

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

11. If he will take steps to ensure that in cases where a person has disappeared and is presumed dead, their family and loved ones are better able to deal with the practical and administrative issues that arise. [R]

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

13. If he will take steps to ensure that in cases where a person has disappeared and is presumed dead, their family and loved ones are better able to deal with the practical and administrative issues that arise.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

We are working with the General Register Office to create the rules and regulations necessary to implement the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which will create a single certificate of presumed death equivalent to a death certificate.

[Nigel Adams]

I welcome that response, and so will the family of missing York woman Claudia Lawrence. We have certainly moved on in the past few months and I am very grateful. Can my hon. Friend confirm that a Bill will be put before the House to deal with the issues around guardianship, and will she tell the House the likely time scale for that?

[Mrs Grant]

A consultation on guardianship will be launched this year, with a view to taking a final decision on guardianship next year.

Reburial of King Richard III

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Bayley]

I do not for a minute disbelieve that that is the sentiment in Leicester. Indeed, an e-petition with 7,500 signatures supports the proposition that the King’s remains should be laid to rest in Leicester cathedral. There is also an e-petition with 24,000 signatures supporting the proposition that the mortal remains should be buried in York minster, which is where Richard, during his life, gave notice that he would like to be buried. The Government must find some fair, independent process for arbitrating between parties on this question.

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

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman believes that this should be a decision for the state—that is, in some ways, correct—but does he not think that there should be some consideration and weight given to the views of the late King’s family and descendants?

[Hugh Bayley]

The late King’s descendants—17 of them—published a statement recently supporting the proposition that their ancestor should be buried in York minster. Their voices ought most certainly to be heard in the process that I propose, as should those of the royal family, the Church of England and the Catholic Church, which I mention in deference to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who is chairing our proceedings, on the Floor of the House last week. The voices of many people with interests should be considered before a final decision is made.

In preparing for this debate, I consulted a number of people. I have mentioned Richard Buckley, but I also consulted Dr Sebastian Payne, former chief scientist for English Heritage, who is a member of the advisory panel on the archaeology of burials in England. I spoke to Simon Mays, the scientist responsible for human remains at English Heritage; to Wendy Moorhen, deputy chairman of the Richard III Society; to Paul Toy, curator of the Richard III museum in York; to Vivienne Faull, Dean of York minster, and to others.

The licence issued by the Ministry of Justice to Leicester archaeological services unit to excavate the car park permitted

“the removal of the remains of persons unknown”.

Richard Buckley told me that the prospects for finding King Richard were remote and that that was known by the Ministry of Justice when the licence was issued. Indeed, the licence application contained the phrase,

“in the unlikely event of finding the remains of Richard”,

so it is no surprise that the decision was taken in relation to persons unknown, rather than in relation to a former king.

Courts Service Estate

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we did take those into account.

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

What consideration was given to the fact that just two years ago the thick end of £1 million was spent on making Selby magistrates court Disability Discrimination Act-compliant? I fully understand that the Government inherited a financial mess, but if Selby magistrates court is now to be closed and sold off, the taxpayer will be facing a huge loss. My constituents will be keen to see the impact assessment on which that decision was based.

[Mr Djanogly]

Investment has been made in various parts of the estate at various times, but the courtroom capacity at York magistrates court, coupled with the flexible listing practices, will enable Selby’s work to be absorbed effectively into York.

Court Closures (Yorkshire)

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing this Westminster Hall debate. Although I understand that the consultation is ongoing, I would like to use this opportunity to put forward a case for retaining Selby magistrates court.

Both Selby and Goole magistrates courts are in vital positions, and the closure of either or both presents a real risk of what my hon. Friend referred to as a justice black hole in our local area. If Selby magistrates court is closed, the nearest courthouse for my constituents is York, which will involve defendants and witnesses leaving the constituency to travel there. For my constituents in the southern district of Selby and Ainsty, that is a particularly long journey. It is incredibly inconvenient to get to York using public transport, and it would be almost impossible to arrive on time for an early morning hearing. From the south of my constituency—below the M62—there is no direct access to buses or trains to York and constituents would instead have to go via Selby or Leeds to travel to York magistrates court.

The Magistrates Association has specified that everyone should be able to reach their local magistrates court within an hour. For people in the south of my constituency, that will not be possible if the court in Selby is closed. I have been informed by the area director of Her Majesty’s Courts Service in north and west Yorkshire that no HMCS staff are currently based at Selby magistrates court, and that it is now seen as a satellite court. However, it would be preferable for court staff to travel from York to work, rather than to expect, hope and assume that witnesses and defendants, particularly those from the south of my constituency, will make the extra journey to York magistrates court.

The rolling monthly average percentage of courtroom utilisation in Selby magistrates court was 60.6% in the financial year 2009-10, which is just below the national average of 64%. Courtroom utilisation is defined as the time a courtroom is used, against the hours that it is available for use. Given that the usage of Selby magistrates court is aligned with the national average, it does not make much sense that it is closed instead of other magistrates courts, such as those in Blandford, Bournemouth, Poole, Weymouth and Wimborne in Dorset. The overall reduction in work load in those courts led to a utilisation rate in Dorset in 2009-10 of just 38.8%, which is almost half that of Selby. The situation is similar in Lincolnshire; there are courts in Boston, Grantham, Lincoln, Skegness, and Spalding, and courtroom utilisation is just 37.2%.

Over the past 18 months, Selby magistrates court has actually transferred certain motoring and trading standards cases to, among other places, Northallerton magistrates court. Those courts were under threat of closure because of lack of work. Selby came under the threat of closure in 2003, but—as is the case now—the proposal came up against strong opposition from the Selby bench, and a casting vote at the North Yorkshire magistrates court committee decided the matter.

Is the Minister aware that after securing the future of Selby magistrates court in 2003, substantial improvement and remedial work was carried out on the courthouse, which cost the taxpayer around £821,000? It was reopened in 2008 following that refurbishment. The overhaul included facilities for the disabled, which are not provided in York. Selby is therefore the designated court for York’s disabled population. We also have vulnerable witness capabilities at Selby, such as a specialist court for hearing domestic violence cases, and the technology to view CCTV evidence and to use video links for vulnerable witnesses. None of those facilities is provided at York magistrates court.

By bringing York’s services up to the same standard as those in Selby the Minister would be creating more expense for the taxpayer. It is estimated that an investment of £170,000 would be needed to provide the facilities required under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and which are currently available at Selby. The dock in court two at York would also need refurbishment if the decision to close Selby went ahead.

There is a case for retaining Selby magistrates court in light of the £821,000 recently spent and the special facilities it offers. I fully appreciate the dire financial legacy that the previous Government have left behind and the need to make cost savings, but I would find it difficult to justify closure of a service that has recently cost the taxpayer almost £1 million. Selling off the whole building would not realise anywhere near that sum. I urge the Minister to take those points into account during his consultation.