Offensive Weapons Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Louise Haigh

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is understandable why the tone of the debate has changed today. We have had a very co-operative cross-party approach so far. However, I hope the hon. Lady will not make the mistake of saying that there is a simple answer. I think she was alluding to this at the end of her speech. There are such things as personal responsibility and parental responsibility for serious crimes and we should not ignore that fact. The Government are spending more than £800 billion this year and Government net spending is increasing, but the most important thing we need to consider is that local decisions are being made. I get the hon. Lady’s point about police numbers, but in West Mercia, for example, we had an announcement yesterday of an increase in police numbers of 100. That is because of the choices that individual police and crime commissioners are making. We need to consider local responsibility as well.

[Louise Haigh]

I am not suggesting for a second that this is a simple issue—indeed, I believe I said explicitly a few minutes ago that these are very complex issues. No one is suggesting that a simple rise in police officer numbers will stem the surge in serious violence. That is why new clause 25 covers such a wide variety of the issues identified by the Home Office in relation to the rise in serious violence.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Louise Haigh

Thursday 19th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

Q Finally, is it just the energy value element that you object to? Do you have any issues with the bump stock part?

Christopher Graffius: I have no issues with the proposals in the Bill on bump stocks; I think you are quite right to do that. When it comes to the energy, though, there is no ballistic relevance to that energy limit. Indeed, it is quite possible that the rifle can be altered so it comes underneath that limit. If you try to legislate by limit, it may be possible to alter the rifle to comply with that.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q Mr Harriman, you said that you believe that instead of banning these rifles, we can better meet the concerns by specifying a high level of security. What would that mean?

Bill Harriman: One way I would always go at security is what people refer to as dispersion in separate units. You have the stock and the barrel in one steel cabinet, the bolt somewhere else—preferably in another room—and the ammunition somewhere else. You have to do three things to get the rifle, its component to make it function and the ammunition with which to fire it. I go back to what a Crown court judge said to me in, I think, 1991: security is a series of difficulties presented to a burglar. The more difficulties you present by dispersing things, the better the security is.

Offensive Weapons Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Louise Haigh

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

Q Just to come back on that, the Government would obviously argue that they have a serious violence strategy and that there are measures alongside it. Do you actually oppose mandatory minimum sentences for under-18s?

Rob Owen: There have got to be two things. One is that there have to be regulations and laws, and I completely get that. At the same time, there has also got to be some form of common sense and humanisation about that situation and about what the best thing is for that person to ensure that they do not create another victim.

My experience of parents of victims, sadly, is that what they are most obsessed about is ensuring that no other child suffers and no other parent has to go through what they have gone through. What we are trying to achieve is that the best environment for that to happen is available. But that is often not just about sentencing; that has got to be about a package of support that is put in place.

Patrick Green: It is a difficult one. Certainly, from the victim’s perspective, many of the young people who have been victims of knife crime are often concerned that the perpetrator is back on the streets very quickly, and that heightens their feeling of insecurity. Our view in terms of first-time offences is, yes. Young people carry knives for a range of reasons; some of them may be around protection, and people are just making a mistake. Certainly, when it comes to second offences, there is due concern there about the young person falling into a trend and sentencing really playing a part in helping take that young person off the street.

The key issue is the support from the first offence to the second offence. I am not entirely sure that young people who are caught with a knife are getting the right level of support to help them and deter them from coming back on to the street the second time. The “two strikes and you’re out” should absolutely be the final option, but there should be a range of support. This is about rehabilitation and helping—as somebody said earlier on, if you are carrying a knife, it is almost a cry for help, and we should be doing far more around that.

John Poynton: Earlier this year, with Sarah Jones, we had young people from all around the country attend the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime to talk about their experiences. One of the overriding messages from them was that their experience of prison or the threat of prison was not a clear deterrent to being involved in risky or criminal behaviours. As Rob says, there needs to be a clear package of support. I think it is really important that that strategy is recognised. It is about vulnerability and safeguarding, and we need to look at how we support the young people.

The comment was made that young people are very clever at finding loopholes. We had a number of young women who talked about the fact that they are coerced into carrying weapons so that the young men are not caught carrying them. I am just making the point that the young people carrying the weapons are very possibly not the young people likely to be using them. That is a statement—just to recognise that young women and very vulnerable young children are coerced into behaviours that they would not otherwise deem normal on their own.

You cannot have a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am very aware that the strategy is not saying that—it is putting a raft of support in to look at how we work with these young people—but my concern would be the classic “cry wolf” issue or the “but what about” point that Patrick made. Young people will always know of someone else who has been stopped twice holding a weapon, who, perhaps quite rightly for a number of reasons, may not have been given a mandatory sentence. The issue is that that will always become the narrative, “In that case, it is not going to happen to me.”

I would push for a really broad package of support for young people and a very simple narrative around the issue, so that young people recognise that they should not be carrying weapons. We also need to look at why these young people are being coerced into carrying weapons or drugs or other things that they would not normally do on their own.

Jaf Shah: May I flip back briefly to an earlier question around engagement with schools? As I mentioned, our engagement in the UK at a programmatic level is embryonic, but what we know from our work overseas in terms of engaging with schools, schoolchildren, teachers and so on, and engaging from a very young age, is that it is a very effective way of engaging with children about the repercussions of a violent act—in particular acid violence. By the very nature of acid attacks, the face is targeted, so you have a very visible form of violence. When survivors go into schools and talk with children, the impact is very strong. They certainly realise that there is a human beyond the facial disfigurement and that they have their own narrative, and that story carries a very strong message.

I was very interested when I visited Scotland and met Dr Christine Goodall from Medics Against Violence. I thought that their work was absolutely brilliant. It is a strand of work that could work particularly well with survivors of acid attacks engaging with school children.

To fast-forward to the most recent question, it is enormously difficult around the mandatory sentencing of under-18s, because there are many complicating factors. I have been hearing locally that young children are actually carrying acid in schools—but as protection, because it has become so commonplace. I think it is a very difficult subject in terms of having an absolute answer. It requires, as everyone else has mentioned, a far more sophisticated package of engagement with groups who might be affected.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q Mr Owen, I think you mentioned earlier that you are hearing about children as young as 10 or 11 carrying knives. At what age are children actually perpetrating acts of violence or being victims? How young are we talking about?

Rob Owen: Same age.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Louise Haigh

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

Q Could I get ammunition that easily as well?

Gregg Taylor: The ammunition is the issue. There are people out there who go to great lengths to make the ammunition to fit these obsolete calibres. As I have said, the gun itself is in full working order but is exempt as an antique under the Firearms Act.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q These questions are probably more for the detective chief superintendent. Can you give us some idea of the scale of firearms in the UK? How many people have firearms at the moment, and what are the trends? Is this going up; is it going down?

Detective Chief Superintendent Chilton: NABIS collects data only on firearms that have been used in criminal offences. We do not collect data on the firearms that are held. With antique firearms, there are no restrictions, so there is no way of knowing how many people have an antique firearm. We look only at the criminal use of firearms.

In terms of the criminal use of firearms, from 1 April last year to 31 March this year—our performance year—there was a slight decrease in firearms discharges, compared with the previous year. However, from 2012, we are still high compared with previous years. In the last quarter of this performance year, from 1 April to the end of June, we have had 150 discharges, resulting in nine fatalities, compared with three fatalities from January to March, so at the moment we are seeing an increase in firearms offences.

Mark Groothuis: These are the statistics as of 31 March 2018 and as produced by the Home Office. There were 157,581 firearms certificates, covering 577,547 weapons on firearms certificates. There were 567,047 shotgun certificates, covering 1,359,368 shotguns; that is on a shotgun certificate.

Digital Economy Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Louise Haigh

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

No, that is exactly my point. Whether or not the BBC gains responsibility for this provision is moot. The BBC is an unaccountable organisation when it comes to setting welfare policy. This represents the start of a slippery slope. Where does it end once the Government start asking other bodies to make decisions on who gets benefits? This is yet another broken promise—one promise has already been broken in part 3—so we are not doing very well. I am sure the powerful older voter lobby will not take this lying down.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that this measure was not imposed on the BBC? The deal was negotiated with the BBC in exchange for other things, including opening up revenue opportunities such as by closing the iPlayer loophole.

[Louise Haigh]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman makes that point, because I was just about to say that I am sure the Government will argue that the BBC has been rewarded handsomely in the charter renewal process and that the BBC will decide its funding policy for over-75s within that context.

From 2018, the BBC is being asked to shoulder £200 million of the annual cost of free TV licences, and it will assume the full £745 million annual bill from 2020—that amounts to more than a fifth of the entire BBC budget. It is more than enough to fund Radio 4 ten times over, and it is almost enough to fund the entire budget of BBC 1. The BBC has been asked to take control of setting the entitlement for over-75 licences because the Government know that they cannot afford it at its current rate. We accept that the BBC has asked for responsibility for this policy, but that is because the cost of the policy was enforced on it through negotiations. It is outrageous that the BBC is being asked to fund it at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

That is absolutely right. The Opposition made clear in the debate on the BBC charter our utter condemnation of the underhand, aggressive, bully-boy way in which the Government “negotiated”. It was not a negotiation. As a former trade union rep, I recognise a negotiation when I see one, and the way the Government handled the previous licence-fee settlement was nothing of the sort. That led us to the position we are currently in. The BBC should never have been given the responsibility for delivering on a Conservative party manifesto pledge. It should have felt able to reject even the suggestion that it take on the cost of free TV licences for the over-75s.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the BBC is not capable of effective negotiations? Its senior executives include Labour’s former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

[Louise Haigh]

The point is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the BBC was essentially in negotiations with a gun to its head. It was not a free and fair negotiation. The individual to which the hon. Gentleman just referred does not sit on the BBC board, and I do not believe he was involved in the negotiations with the Government.

The fact that we have reached this point—that the BBC was in essence forced to agree to become an arm of the Department for Work and Pensions—says a lot about the overbearing, menacing way the Government treated an organisation that they should cherish, and the cavalier disregard they have shown to the over-75s to whom they made a promise last year. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that promises should be kept. Behaviour like the Government’s brings disrepute on all Members from all parties. It makes people think that it is exactly what politicians do: we promise things in elections that we have absolutely no intention of delivering. It is a problem for all Members, whether Government or Opposition.

Despite public outcry, the Government have still not ruled out further stick-ups of the type that have got us into the position we are in now. They have refused to establish a transparent process to set the licence fees of the future. The Opposition do not consider it a done deal. With new clause 38, we are seeking to guarantee free TV licences to over-75s. That would give the responsibility for the policy and the funding of TV licences back to the Government, where it belongs. There would be no more wriggling out of a decision that should be laid firmly at the Minister’s door.

If the Conservatives want to rid themselves of the cost of the free TV licence, they should have the courage to say that they are doing it. They should have put it in their manifesto and campaigned on it; they should not have created a non-ministerial branch office of the DWP in the BBC to do their dirty work for them. That is why if our new clause was accepted we would be calling for the scrapping of clause 76 in its entirety.

The new clause is very clear: it should be for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to specify the conditions under which people are entitled to concessions, and to provide the BBC with the necessary funding to cover the cost of those concessions. That is how it was set up under the previous Labour Government, and it is under those conditions that it should continue. The responsibility should not be delegated to any body other than the Government themselves. They should not be allowed to get away with delegating the responsibility and effectively forcing the BBC to take the rap.

This is a point of principle for the Opposition. We cannot accept a policy that takes the responsibility for even a tiny part of our social security system and gives it to an organisation with no direct accountability to the electorate. Unaccountable organisations do not have to face the consequences of their decisions, especially given the announcement we have heard today from the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Even HMRC does not want to see private sector involvement in decisions on tax credits. A non-ministerial body has said that the private sector should not be involved in who does or does not receive tax credits, or any other type of benefit. That is exactly the argument we are making.

Private sector organisations are the wrong bodies to be involved in deciding who gets benefits, not only because they are incentivised by profit but because they are unaccountable. They do not have to stand for election based on those decisions, and therefore they should not be allowed to make them. It is the equivalent of outsourcing children’s services to Virgin and, in the process, asking them to pick up the tab for child benefit and requiring them to decide who gets it. Our social security system is far too precious for BBC executives, however noble their intentions or professional their considerations, to decide who is and who is not entitled to a benefit of any description. Labour introduced the free TV licence for the over-75s. It cannot be a BBC executive, unaccountable to the public and unaccountable to all our constituents, who calls time on it.

If the amendment falls, it will be high time that the Government were honest about what they were doing and honest with the voters. If they are not, Labour will do everything in its power to make it clear to those millions of over-75s exactly what is happening: their TV licence entitlement will be reduced or taken away not by the BBC, but by the Government who knowingly and cynically engineered the change.

Digital Economy Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Louise Haigh

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

Q In your first speech as Information Commissioner you made much of the need for businesses to establish trust in relation to data sharing, with which I obviously completely agree. Do you think this Bill could have done more to put safeguards around data sharing in the commercial space?

Elizabeth Denham: Again, I think that trust and transparency go hand in hand. Part 5 is about Government data sharing and sharing with Government providers, so the focus there needs to be on transparency and trust. All Governments are really struggling with this issue, especially in the face of new technologies. How can you make transparency easy and understandable? We have just issued a privacy notice code of practice, which we introduced last Friday. What would help this Bill is if there was a reference to following our privacy notice code of practice, which again is across the public and the private sector and would lend more trust among the public.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q The UK is one of the most advanced digital economies in the world, yet we heard from witnesses on Tuesday that, in terms of Government data sharing, we are well behind the curve, well behind other countries—that is partly because they are probably more focused on the opportunities. Does this Bill, in your experience, bring us more in line with the best practice you are seeing in other countries?

Elizabeth Denham: I think the approach that the UK is taking in this Bill is a responsible approach. My recommendations are to up the safeguards and improve the transparency. Breaking down the data sharing by type, function and purpose of data is a good way forward. There are some draconian data-sharing regimes in other parts of the world, which are concerning to data protection commissioners. I generally think that the approach here is right, but there could still be some strengthening of the Bill. That would go a long way to assuring more public trust and therefore more buy-in and participation in the digital economy and digital services.

Digital Economy Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Louise Haigh

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

Q In that period of consultation, was the detail around transparency never discussed?

Dr Whitley: It depends. There has been talk along the lines of there being codes of practice and liaison with the Information Commissioner’s Office, so at a very high level there has obviously been some discussion. But at the very specific level—for example, the civil registration clauses talk both about allowing a yes/no check around whether there is a birth certificate associated with a family, while on the other hand there will be bulk data sharing within Government so that different Departments can know stuff and possibly make things better for society.

One half of that seems to be quite specific, and you can see how it could well be designed as a simple “Does a birth certificate exist for this person?” and the answer is yes or no. The privacy protections around that are reasonably well known and not very much data is being shared. Then the other illustration just says, “we will share these data with other bits of Government” and there is nothing there about what kind of privacy protections might be put in place. There are many different ways in which that can be done, but until we have some specific details, we cannot give you sensible reviews as to whether that is a good or not so good way of doing it.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q Mr Coates, what role should wireless technologies play in achieving the universal service obligation?

Scott Coates: There is no doubt that for the last 5%, maybe a greater proportion than that, wireless technologies have a significant role to play. Six of the seven trials run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport earlier this year were of a wireless-based structure. I think there is a role for it. It is also interesting, as you look beyond 10 megabits to the future when universal service means something far more substantial than that, that a new disruptive technology is coming.

Everyone is talking about 5G; it does not really exist at this stage, but we know it is going to be ultra-high bandwidth, ultra-low latency, with the potential to be a disruptive technology and replace fixed line to the home. Some countries around the world that have not had the wave of fixed line technology roll-out will be moving straight to wireless as their domestic broadband service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q Once we work that out, which I am confident we will, where are the opportunities? Where is the up side? Where is the positive stuff coming out of this? How can Government be better as a result of this? I am always an optimist.

Dr Whitley: Done right, there are fantastic opportunities. Government is digitising. The GDS has got lots of experience about how to manage and handle and do attributes checking, which is what most of this is. There are definitely opportunities and the skills, but somehow something has gone wrong with regard to these proposals.

It is not as if the proposals have been rushed through in the past few minutes. We have been looking at these and asking for more details since July 2013 and we are still here without even a resemblance of a code of practice. Part 5 has six codes of practice that need to be developed and none of them is here. Yes, please, but some detail. I am academic; I want to see the detail.

[Louise Haigh]

Q As you say, it is an enormous shift in terms of data sharing within Government. Clause 29 would allow personal data on citizens to be shared if there is a

“contribution made by them to society”

or wellbeing to be gained. That basically covers anything, doesn’t it? Why have the Government not produced even a draft code of practice at this stage? How can we possibly be expected to vote on this while plainly placing blind faith in the Government?

Dr Whitley: You are basically saying what I was going to say. If you compare the comprehensive replies that Mr Coates has been able to give, talking about very specific details, with the vague “we don’t know anything” comments that I have made, you see that it is a real problem and also an issue for more general scrutiny of technological issues. If you do not have details about the different mobile phone frequencies that you are talking about, you cannot make detailed policy. Yet when it comes to data sharing, there is a sense that it will all work out in the end because we have the right people to do it.