Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We are talking about genuine equality. That means legal equality, as well as symbolic or any other kind of equality.

That tribunal was a landmark case. Interestingly, the Government lost the case, so one could argue that agreeing to my amendment 49 might save them money, as they would not need to pay out in future legal cases that might go against them. If the law remains as it is for civil partners and that inequality is extended to those in same-sex marriages, it could be several decades before gay couples achieve real equality in pension provision. I see no justification for continuing to permit discrimination in this area. I hope very much that colleagues will support amendment 49 and join me in overturning an anomalous and discriminatory provision.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate on this group of amendments.

I have been quite conflicted over this entire subject. I am a godfather to a lovely little boy who has been adopted. His parents are in a partnership and they are both gay. I see myself very much as a progressive Conservative, and I certainly recognise that society’s attitudes have advanced, which is reflected in the fact that we are debating the amendments in such detail today. Of course we do not send children up chimneys any more, or allow only privileged landowners to vote, and we got rid of slavery long ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Speaking as a gay man in a civil partnership, I had no idea that my pension rights could be curtailed until someone wrote to me about it. The reason my hon. Friend might not have had much about that in his postbag could be that most gay people in a civil partnership have no idea that they are being discriminated against if they are in a contracted-in scheme.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The question is whether the Bill should be the vehicle for making those changes, but I very much respect his views.

I represent the beautiful, very diverse constituency of Bournemouth East. It has a substantial elderly population—some Members of Parliament have chosen to call Bournemouth “God’s waiting room”—as well as a vibrant town centre with a huge gay population. It is also a university town. So it has an elderly population and a young generation, as well as a large gay community. I have talked to members of the gay community about the Bill. I have also made an effort to speak to religious groups, individuals and organisations across the town, not only about pensions but about matters such as gender recognition. We debated those matters in schools as well. I have to say that I heard no significant call for these proposals generally, and certainly not for the provision in amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). There were no planned demonstrations or pent-up anger because the issues had not been addressed.

Many people in the gay community like the general proposals in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has just pointed out, certain aspects in life need to be corrected, and this debate has been helpful in that regard. In general terms, however, most of the people I spoke to said, “Go away and focus on the economy.” They suggested that this was an important issue, but wondered why we were dealing with it right now.

The Bill was not mentioned in any Queen’s Speech, and I believe that the Government could have helped themselves by following the normal protocol of announcing that the measures would be introduced in a particular legislative period. Given that backdrop, I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and her Ministers for their stamina in pursuing the amendments they have tabled. They must have known from the start how controversial the amendments and the Bill as a whole would be. I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s assurances, especially on Government amendment 25.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, as I always do. The Bill as a whole has certainly been controversial—it has divided the parties and the country—but does he agree that amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is not controversial and should attract widespread support across the House and outside in the country? It represents a bit of unfinished business from the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.

[Mr Ellwood]

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I step back and wonder whether all these amendments are required right now and whether this is where society wants to go right now. Many Members have been forced to make a decision, and there is naturally a tendency to want to support the Bill and not to view it as out of place. My question is why these issues are being brought to our attention at this moment in time. As I say, I did not see the deluge of calls for this measure, although the trajectory of society moving forward means that this is very much how we would anticipate the Bill and its amendments.

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to conduct this debate, which has prompted us to think about the wider issues of the role, purpose and values of marriage in our society. We are debating amendments relating to gender recognition and so forth, which has educated us about the historic role of the state in respect of the Church.

The Bible is full of commands that are unknown or ignored by many Christians today. That reflects how society is very much moving forward. Wives used to be subject to their husbands; children arguing with their parents used to be taken out and stoned to death; women used to have to cover their heads in church. Those things are either unknown by Christians today or simply ignored because they have no place in modern society. The Church has changed its views over the years—indeed, the Bill has changed as we have debated it over these last few months.

The Church remains divided on many subjects: the burning of witches, abortion, contraception, the status of illegitimate children and so forth. On a wider perspective, it is the role of Parliament to challenge the Church on these issues and through the Bill and amendments, as we did on the grander issues in the past. Slavery was indeed defended by many bishops because of the Bible; the Old Testament regulated for slavery; divorce was clearly condemned by Jesus in the Gospels, and those who had divorced were not permitted to remarry. In the Church of England, marriage was “Till death us do part”; it was long thought to be lifelong and indissoluble, yet divorce was formally introduced in this place in 1857.

What, then, are my thoughts on this Bill? I am absolutely supportive of the concept, but, like many of the Government amendments, it is ahead of its time. That puts many of us in an awkward position. Do we support the Government amendments and the Bill, which I believe to be somewhat messy and not well handled, albeit on a subject to which I do not object. Should I vote against the Bill and the amendments for which many of my constituents have called? A significant number of them were moved enough to call me to make sure that I did not support specific amendments or indeed the Bill as a whole. Then there is the final option, which is to abstain on the amendments and the Bill, thus honouring many of the calls not to support the Bill’s proposals while ensuring that my vote is honest to myself.

I shall conclude because I know others wish to participate in this important Report debate. I hope I shall not digress too far from the subject matter by mentioning that the FTSE 100 yesterday recorded its highest value in 24 years; despite being a significant economic indicator, it got no mention in this place. I hope that after Third Reading later today, we can back to considering the economy. The subject of gay marriage is significant and should be brought into law, but I remain to be convinced that it should be a priority for now. Those who will benefit from the change in the law are calling for the change now.

[Jim Shannon]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 27 and 28. It will not be a surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear that I am deeply unhappy about the Bill. I have said that in Public Bill Committee and in this Chamber in the earlier debate, I said it yesterday and I will reiterate it today.

I want to thank the Government for at least listening to me and my party on one issue. The Bill proposes that same-sex marriages formed in England and Wales should be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the way in which overseas same-sex marriages are currently recognised in the House.

I was a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. When I say “scrutinised”, I mean that the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) scrutinised it very thoroughly. Most of the Committee’s members, however, sat in silence throughout the five days of our debates on the clauses, and most of them tabled precious few amendments. They seemed to see themselves as cheerleaders for the Bill, rather than the scrutinisers that they should have been. Never before, during my short time in the House of Commons, have I known members of the official Opposition to abdicate their responsibility to hold the Government to account quite so thoroughly.

Some of us did table amendments, and took the time and the trouble to speak. I pointed out to the Committee that Scottish Ministers were to be asked to give their consent to legal changes allowing recognition of English same-sex marriages, whereas Northern Ireland Ministers were merely to be consulted. Amendments 27 and 28 give us an opportunity to align the law with that in Scotland, which is good news.

As I said in Committee and have said in the Chamber, the Bill has generated the biggest single postbag I have received on any issue in all my years as an elected representative—

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking the Front Bench speakers from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as those from other parties located in their area of the House, who are too numerous to mention, for the good natured way in which the Bill has been discussed, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Bill has excited many different views, but we have always conducted ourselves in the best ways of this House.

While I am giving thanks, I also thank the officials who have worked very long hours to ensure that the proceedings of the House took place in a seamless manner, that questions were answered, and that papers were made available. My heartfelt thanks go out to them all for the hard work they have put into the Bill.

I have spent some time thinking about how I would address the House on Third Reading. As I have said, for many reasons, the subject draws strong opinion from Members on both sides of the House. Just as the Civil Partnership 2004 Act was discussed in pubs, homes, church halls and communities throughout the country, so has the Bill. Over the past few months, I have listened carefully to many different voices within and outside Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had passionate but fair debates. In the best traditions of the House, we have maintained respect for one another’s views, and had open and constructive discussions with all involved.

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point on discussions with constituents. It might be wrong to generalise, but does she agree that there is a generational aspect to approaches to the Bill—the younger generation very much supports it, but the older generation is concerned about the society in which they have grown up?

[Maria Miller]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am not sure whether he puts me into the older generation —I hope not. There are differences in views across the generations, and differences in views in different parts of the country and different communities. We must accept that people have different views for whatever reason. The most important thing is that we maintain respect for people’s different views. Such an open approach, which we have taken throughout proceedings on the Bill, has meant that the Government have been able to take action to improve the Bill, and to reassure hon. Members on some of the issues they have raised.

The Government have throughout remained committed to the principle that people should not be excluded from marriage simply because of who they love. The institution of marriage underpins our society. Over the years, as society has evolved, so has marriage. As such, it has remained our bedrock. The values of love, commitment and stability underpin marriage—they are the values on which our society is built. Despite our differences in opinion, no hon. Member would dispute that those are the values we should promote. If the values of marriage are the values on which we want to build our society, they must be available to all, and they must underpin an institution that is available to all couples. Our country is renowned the world over for its tolerance. We have a rich tapestry of faith, belief and culture. That is unique—it is part of what makes us British. Those strong traditions will enable same-sex couples to marry.

In no way will the measure undermine those who believe—for whatever reason, whether religious or philosophical—that marriage should be between a man and woman. They can continue to believe that. That is their right. No religious organisation or individual minister will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they choose not to do so, and nor will religious organisations or individual ministers be forced to have same-sex marriages conducted on their premises. The quadruple lock that the Government have designed provides robust and effective protections. The Government are also clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right. Teachers will still be able to express their personal beliefs about marriage as long as they do so sensitively and appropriately. Employers will be unable to dismiss or discipline a person simply because they say they do not believe in same-sex marriage.

I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed on those issues. The right for people legitimately to express their beliefs is why we have committed to do all we can to clarify or strengthen the protections on freedom of expression. I understand the importance that right hon. and hon. Members place on that.

If, through the Bill, we can strengthen marriage and protect it as the bedrock of our society in these changing times for the decades to come, provide protection for those religious organisations and their representatives who do not want to marry same-sex couples, and reassure those who disagree with same-sex marriage that their right to express such a belief is protected, then we should do so confidently and assertively. I am confident that we have struck the right balance. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and we have made changes on the basis of those concerns.

Family Justice (Transparency, Accountability and Cost of Living) Bill

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Friday 26th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

I thank the hon. Lady for that support. Many people wish to see the Bill proceed, and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services is the only collective body I know of that is opposed to it.

The group 4Children said that it supports many of the aims of the Bill, in particular the emphasis on the role of the extended family in supporting vulnerable children and children in care. It stated:

“Our family commission in 2010 called for all families facing family court proceedings to be offered a family group conference, so we warmly welcome in particular the provisions in part 1 of the Bill.”

The British Association of Social Workers said that, although it will not support the Bill formally, most elements relate to good practice, and we have made changes following consultation with it. I have also spoken with the Government who, even if the House gives its assent to Second Reading today, remain in control of the Bill’s progression. For a Bill Committee to meet will require a motion tabled by the Government.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a number of organisations that support his Bill. He named one group that does not, but did not say why. For reasons of clarity and inclusivity, will he elaborate on why that group has concerns about the Bill?

[John Hemming]

I circulated a copy of a letter from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services that stated merely that it opposed the Bill although did not explain why. I have provided all its reasons for opposing the Bill—perhaps it will give me other reasons. One aspect that would cause concern is the independent scrutiny of children in care that is built into the provisions, but the association has not explained why it opposes the Bill. I circulated a copy of its letter to all Members, and I would be happy to read that out if the hon. Gentleman would like me to do so.

[Mr Ellwood]

indicated dissent.

[John Hemming]

No—the hon. Gentleman is quite happy. This is a contentious area, and it is challenging to find a measure that will take the issue forward without any stakeholder raising a major concern. The Bill is substantially supported by the people to whom things are done—the children and the families—but the people in overall control, the directors, are not so enthusiastic about it, but they will not explain why.

I have always said to the Government that I am willing to compromise on the details of the Bill. I am sure that the Government agree with me on the objectives, and some of the clauses have been deliberately phrased to facilitate improvement in Committee, because that is where we need to work on the details of how to deal with the issues in the Bill. As is often the case, there are siren voices in Whitehall calling for delay and suggesting that everything could be dealt with in a later Bill. That implies that there is no urgency and gives the impression of a bureaucratic machine attempting to repel all boarders on the basis of “not invented here” syndrome. Is that an adequate reason to prevent the progress of the Bill?

The previous Government, admittedly of a different hue, made attempts to deal with the issue of transparency in 2005 and in 2009. Although those changes—made through statutory instruments—made improvements, they were not adequate and problems remain. The creation of the independent reviewing officer has not protected children in care well enough. The problem is essentially that an employee of a local authority is not independent of the local authority. Whitehall still does not recognise the managerial conflicts of interest to which employees of public agencies are subject.

The question for the House and the Government is, why now? Why not listen to the siren voices calling for delay and the Sir Humphreys calling for the Bill to be exterminated on Second Reading? Earlier this year, Professor Jane Ireland’s study of expert evidence raised concerns about the quality of psychological reports in two thirds of family court proceedings. However, things have moved on.

During the summer, the Slovak Republic became officially concerned about the way in which Slovak citizens had been treated by the English and Welsh family courts. On 23 August, a statement was published on the Slovak Justice Ministry website which, translated by Google Translate, is headed, “Declaration on adoptions case of Slovak children without the relevant reasons in the UK”. The key to this declaration, according to JUDr Marica Pirošíková, who is the Slovak Republic’s representative at the European Court of Human Rights, and to JUDr Andrea Císorová, who heads up the central authority in the Slovak Republic—their equivalent of our Official Solicitor—is that the decisions forcibly to adopt Slovak children, who are Slovak citizens, living in the UK away from their families, are illegal. In case hon. Members do not know, JUDr is the abbreviation for doctor of law for Slovak citizens. The Slovak ambassador has also expressed his concerns to me, and I have been told that the Slovak Republic has identified 40 cases in the English courts, involving 89 children, in which it is unhappy with the lawfulness of the process.

It is worth spending a little time to explain how all of this works. Under the international conventions on child protection—the Hague convention and Brussels II bis—the courts in the area in which a family is habitually resident are the courts that have jurisdiction in respect of the laws for child protection. England is out on a limb in comparison with the rest of Europe in having a child protection system in which the most likely outcome for a child under five leaving care is to be adopted. In the year to 31 March 2011, 5,200 children under five left care in England, 1,900 were adopted, 1,110 were subject to residency orders or a special guardianship order and only 1,100 returned to their parents. That is a substantial shift from 1995, when it was the norm for children to return to their parents. There is no sense arguing about the merits of that at this point. The key to the transparency aspect of the Bill is to ensure that there is greater academic scrutiny of the merits of such decision making, which, essentially, is absent at the moment.

Over the summer, we have had a change in that the Slovak Government have publicly expressed concern about 40 cases, involving 89 children, but they are not the only Government to be concerned. Justice for Families has recently had contact with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Latvia about cases. Two weeks ago, a case was reported from Haringey in the London-based newspaper Polish Express, obviously in Polish. This case has all the symptoms of similar Slovak cases and I would not be surprised if the Polish Government became involved in the near future.

Yesterday I received a letter from Isil Gachet, who is the director of the office of the commissioner for human rights in the Council of Europe. It refers to concerns raised with the commission about the process for the placement of children for adoption in the UK. The key part of it is that the commissioner for human rights, Mr Nils Muižnieks, had received information from various sources on this case. It states:

“The Office of the Commissioner is therefore closely following on the situation regarding the placement of children and adoptions in the UK. However, I would like to stress that the Commissioner’s mandate excludes the possibility for him to investigate into specific cases.”

It also draws attention to an inquiry on human rights and family courts by the Council of Europe.

If the Government seriously wish to argue that there is no urgency in introducing greater academic scrutiny in family court proceedings, they need to explain how they can ignore—

[Mr Ellwood]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully. He started by mentioning the “not invented here” syndrome, which I have also come across and which is very frustrating, but is he aware of what the Government are doing? The Minister may wish to intervene later to confirm this, but I understand that in January the Government are planning to look at provision for families and children in the law courts. Has the hon. Gentleman taken that into account?

[John Hemming]

I accept that the Government are progressing issues. To be fair, I have been working on these proposals with bodies outside Parliament, so I have not gone into the minute details of the Government’s proposals. My concern comes back to the issue of academic scrutiny, although other aspects come into it as well. I wish to see progress in this area, but I am not too bothered about how we achieve that. I would prefer it if the Bill were considered in Committee. If a lot of the clauses are dropped in Committee because that seems appropriate, so be it. What is important is that we achieve the outcome of a reliable judicial system with decisions taken on the basis of the best academic knowledge available at the time. That is not what we have at the moment. It is the outcome I am focused on—getting a better system—and I am not particularly bothered about how we do that.

If the Government are to oppose the Bill, they need to explain how they can ignore the serious concerns of other countries. In June, we were aware of the maltreatment of girls in care and the prosecutions that had resulted. However, the true enormity of the magnitude of abuse of children in care over many decades, not all by Savile, had not been revealed at that point. I was personally aware of the cover-up at Haut de la Garenne, and I highlighted that in September when I referred to the banning of the US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, who had been excluded from the UK in an attempt to stop her reporting on the saga at Haut de la Garenne. I did not, however, know exactly what had been covered up. The Government may try to argue that the existence of the independent reviewing officer means that there is no urgency about making any changes. However, the cases in Rochdale and Rotherham, as well as the case of the children in A and S v. Lancashire county council, demonstrates clearly that the existence of an employee of a local authority who is called “an independent reviewing officer” is not sufficient to protect children from abuse while under state control. Can we really accept that there is no urgent need to ensure that children in care are listened to? The recent report from the children’s rights commissioner revealed that children in care had been running away—and one was living in a cave—because they had not been listened to.

A further issue, which has arisen since June, is the revelation of the cover-up at Hillsborough. I would not claim that the Bill would definitely have prevented that: however, the provisions on judicial review will make it easier for more ordinary people to ensure that public authorities do what Parliament has said they should do and facilitate the revelation of cover-ups at an earlier stage. Making it an offence to threaten and prevent people from talking to regulators or elected representatives would help to prevent cover-ups, many of which succeed because people are intimidated into not reporting things to the appropriate authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

I shall follow your guidance, Mr Speaker. We have strayed quite substantially from the Bill, because it does not propose any subsidies. It merely says that we should, through statute, guidance and regulation, improve efficiency. That does not require Government funding or subsidy; it can be entirely funded through the private sector. There is no debate about subsidy because none is proposed.

[Mr Ellwood]

In response to your guidance, Mr Speaker, I shall try to be more specific. Britain has lagged behind other European countries in the level of insulation in our dwellings and seeking to improve it is an honourable pursuit. However, I am confused by the fact that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing code level 6 insulation when the Government’s target is code level 3. Code level 6 is clearly higher, but would add an additional cost of about £30,000 to any dwelling that will have to come from somewhere—for example, from the local authority or the Government. Why is he saying code level 6 when the Government are saying code level 3?

[John Hemming]

The idea is to move in that direction over time. In Committee, I might accept that we could stick with the Government’s limited objectives—[Interruption.] Yes, without subsidy. The key objective is to do this without a subsidy. The Bill does not require additional public funding; its aim is to improve the lives of families and family justice in the widest sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

That might be a debate for Committee. These are all issues of important detail, but the nub of the Bill is not to look for further public subsidy but to focus on how we can reduce people’s energy bills without it.

[Mr Ellwood]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying and his knowledge about all these matters of family law and so on is hugely impressive, but we must tie into current legislation and thinking. The Government have made a commitment that by 2016 all new homes will be zero-carbon and I must make it clear that the target for code level 6 already stands as a voluntary target.

[John Hemming]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Bill sets a target for 2020 and perhaps in Committee we will feel that we should extend it. Those debates must be held in detail, however, and the principle must be improving efficiency in an cost-effective manner. We are discussing issues of detail, but we need to make progress down this route.

Earlier, I emphasised how the news over the summer highlighted the urgency of taking the actions in the Bill. I conclude that the Bill should urgently make progress to Committee. I am entirely happy to work positively with the Government to make steps towards a better future for children and families and I therefore ask Members to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As a junior doctor, I worked at Stoke Mandeville hospital, and as a Member of Parliament I represent Broadmoor hospital, which puts me in a unique position. I met Jimmy Savile in a hospital corridor at Stoke, and I have visited Broadmoor. It is beyond comprehension that he was given a set of keys enabling him to move around Broadmoor. The most remarkable decision was to give him responsibility to oversee the management of one of this country’s three high-security hospitals. I would like to know who made that decision at the Department of Health, which was at that time responsible for that hospital. I suspect that Jimmy Savile probably would have passed his CRB check, because he had not been convicted of anything, and that is my point. Why put in a system that will not prevent what it seeks to prevent?

[Mr Ellwood]

This CRB issue is very important. The fact is that one local authority does not recognise a CRB accreditation from another local authority. For example, my sister taught at one school and yet she had to pass the CRB accreditation process to pick up her children from, and use a minibus at, another school. Would it not make sense to have a CRB system whereby accreditation is recognised nationally?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I know that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) realises that he needs to come back to the Bill. Although he and other Members may be tempted to discuss CRB checks in general, they can do so only in so far as they relate to the Bill and not with regard to a rewriting of the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

I do not want to stray too far from the subject of the Bill, but if we spend huge amounts of money on our energy, whether via subsidy or not, that will lead to families struggling to meet their bills. We have to revisit how we are setting about securing sustainable and low-carbon energy generation that the country can afford in the medium to longer term. I suggest that there certainly needs to be more work on nuclear energy.

[Mr Ellwood]

The fundamental questions in the argument about fuel poverty are about how we generate energy, the security of supply and the costs, including the knock-on costs to the general public. Does my hon. Friend agree that had the last Government taken some of the bigger decisions about nuclear energy, the cost of Britain’s overall energy package would be lower and fuel poverty would not be such a big problem today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who spoke with such passion and expertise about the various aspects of this wide-ranging Bill. He is perfectly placed to discuss these matters as he sits on the Energy and Climate Change Committee and is also a doctor.

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on his success in the ballot. He has introduced a wide-ranging set of ideas—perhaps too many for one Bill, but I will come back to that point. Clearly, he has shown enormous dedication, expertise and effort in preparing this Bill and introducing it today. It reflects an understanding of, and a passion for, a subject that is important to him, and should be important to all hon. Members. Indeed, I am sorry that the Opposition have only managed to conjure up a single offering to the debate, other than a brief intervention from an Opposition Whip. Perhaps now that we are coming to the end of the debate, Opposition Members will rush in to try to make a final contribution. On the other hand, perhaps the lack will be made up for by the shadow Minister’s comments. We certainly look forward to them.

The issues of families in courts and the protection of children in that arena are ones that we all face. We see this through the work of our local authorities, which have to deal with it every day, and in dealing with the families, individuals and children in constituency cases when they are unfortunately forced to deal with the family justice system. I have two particular cases that are still not concluded. One is a divorced father who is seeking access to his child but has been denied the opportunity to develop that relationship. His relationship with his wife has fallen apart, but that should not mean that the child grows up without being aware of who his father is. It has taken far too long for the law courts to recognise his legal right to see his child. I am not in a position to say whether the decision is right or wrong, or how much time he should have with his child, but the process of making the decision must be expedited. We must be able to come to a judgment far faster, so that the stress caused is minimised.

The second issue that has come to my attention—I am sure other hon. Members have bumped into it too—is the time it takes for children to be adopted, once it is clear that they can be adopted. The length of time and bureaucracy involved causes increased stress for the birth parents, for the parents who wish to adopt and, especially, for the child. Ultimately, it is the child we need to think of in this. In one particular case some years ago, I was involved in providing witness statements on the credibility of one of a couple wishing to adopt. It took more than two years to complete the process, and that is too long to spend making an assessment of whether people are of good standing and conduct and able to take on a child. I know that the Prime Minister has spoken with passion about this issue, and I hope that the Government will address it in the Bills that will deal with these issues in January.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, who is unfortunately no longer in his place—I understand that he is poorly—mentioned “The Waltons”. Much as it is amusing to remember that black and white series, it had some powerful messages that we can recognise today. It had three generations living under one roof and showed how they dealt with day-to-day problems. While my hon. Friend’s comment may have been a flippant attempt to illustrate some of the challenges that we face today, it reminded me of a discussion I had on Radio Solent this week about war veterans and national service veterans in which grandparents said they did not feel they had the respect of the younger generation. The discussion related specifically to their contribution during the war and after and to the place of grandparents in society, communities and families today. That role, it would be fair to say, has changed over the past three or four generations since the time of the Waltons.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned the influence of grandparents, access to them and their role in providing stability during unstable periods of life, whether during divorce, resettlement, adoption and so forth. The role of grandparents is fundamental to a more palatable answer to looking after children’s needs. Speaking on Radio Solent, these veterans raised concerns that today’s generation did not look up to them in the same way that perhaps my generation or my parent’s generation did. That shows that the role of the elderly—the seniors, if you like—has changed. Perhaps the distractions of growing up today—television, internet, mobile phones and so forth—and the fact that we live such diverse lifestyles and much further from families and grandparents has challenged the contribution that grandparents make. They simply do not have the same amount of access as they did in yesteryear.

That needs to be revisited. We, as a Parliament, a country and a society, need to underline those values and remind ourselves that we want citizens not only to pay taxes and obey the law but to be part of a community, whether a village society, a residents area or whatever. We need to underline the family bonds and connections that help in the good times and, most importantly, provide security and support in the bad times. That is why I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about provision of access to grandparents. Children should not be denied access simply because one of the disputing parties decides to alienate one of the family names.

The justice system makes life-changing decisions affecting many thousands of children every year. Churchill spoke passionately about the welfare state and talked about a safety net for society catching those who fall from their place in life and require the support of the state. The trouble with that analogy, however, is that if somebody falls through the net, they will be on the wrong side and will find it difficult to get back. I prefer another analogy: those huddles of penguins in the cold, those communities of penguins sharing body heat, while others are on the outside and exposed, through no fault of their own. They are reliant on the whole community to see them through and to get them back into the centre. If we do not help them, those on the outside of our communities and society will be unable to weather the storm and move forward. That needs to be encouraged. I put my hand up: the Conservatives, in particular, need to emphasise that message more than those on any other side. I am glad to say that the Government are trying to do that.

As I said, the decisions are taking too long, because of unnecessary bureaucracy, which is leading to a lack of trust in the system, increased stress and—let us say it—a waste of taxpayers’ money, which needs to be spent wisely, particularly in these difficult times.

I certainly welcome the spirit of the Bill and what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is trying to achieve. I would, however, question the strategy and tactics that he has adopted. He acknowledged that the Bill was busy, and he covered an enormous amount of background, which was given licence but has now been cut down by Madam Deputy Speaker as we wandered away talking about anything from wind farms to child protection orders and all sorts of other aspects that are perhaps related to this enormous Bill. The hon. Gentleman seemed to say, “Fine, there is a lot there, but if need be, we can drops things in Committee.” He also recognised, however, that the Government are doing a number of things in various areas.

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I will happily accept his interventions after I have finished my point. In my interventions on him, I alluded to a number of areas where the Government are taking initiatives forward. Most specifically—I hope the Minister will clarify the point when he concludes the debate—legislation is expected in January, which will cover many of the areas that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

[John Hemming]

I did not check the draft legislation for the family justice review because I assumed it covered only the family justice review, with which I disagree. In fact, it does cover that and I have now reviewed it. First, I do not think it fixes the problems; and, secondly, I think it creates even worse problems in certain respects. It is obviously always possible to introduce a Bill and I realise that some elements could be introduced later. My argument is simply that on certain urgent issues, the Bill will allow us to start solving some problems rather than just kicking them down the track.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I think everyone would agree with his last comment, in that the Bill provides an important opportunity to debate these issues. Not all the private Members’ Bills that we debate on Fridays make it on to the legislative book, but they allow individual Back Benchers to share new ideas, test where the Government are in respect of them at the time and ensure that the public are made aware that we are debating the issues. Subsequently, the public can enter into the debate and comment. In that, the hon. Gentleman has certainly succeeded. We await the Minister’s comments—we are all salivating for them—before we find out exactly where we are from a Government perspective.

Dare I say it, there must be some sort of agreement between us and Opposition Members? My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell made the point well—that there should be cross-party agreement on the messages we are sending out and, indeed, to some extent, on the legislation itself. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, and I do not want to detract from the mammoth amount of work he has done, which needs to be acknowledged. Today’s debate is a healthy step forward, but I would like to know more about where the Government sit on a number of the issues. It is important to clarify Government thinking.

In an earlier intervention, I specifically mentioned the family justice review. This is the big piece of work being done by the Government. The foreword is written by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and the Secretary of State for Education. The Government responded to 130 recommendations from the family justice review, which was published in November 2011. It sets out a number of reforms to public and private family law, as well as reforms to the structures and governance of the family justice system. The Government response, which I have in my hand, was produced in February 2012.

I shall not go through all 130 responses, but I would like to share my view of three of them, if I may. The first is on page 28. It states:

“Judges and magistrates should be enabled and encouraged to specialise in family matters.”

The Government’s response is:

“The Government agrees with the Review’s analysis that enabling and encouraging specialisation in family matters will improve judicial continuity and create a more experienced family judiciary. The President of the Family Division has said that he favours a more specialist bench and that consideration should be given to the merits of setting a minimum sitting requirement for family ticketed judiciary.”

That sets out a direction of travel in relation to the time taken by these processes.

The next recommendation states:

“A single family court, with a single point of entry, should replace the current three tiers of court. All levels of family judiciary (including magistrates) should sit in the family court and work should be allocated according to case complexity.”

The Government’s response is:

“The Government agrees with the Review on the benefits of clarifying and simplifying the family courts, and making their operation more transparent, by establishing a single Family Court for England and Wales.”

If I may test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall give one more example. The recommendation states:

“There should be flexibility for legal advisers to conduct work to support judges across the family court.”

The Government’s response is:

“The Government agrees that there is scope for legal advisers, who currently work only in the magistrates’ courts, to take on some of the judiciary’s quasi-administrative functions across the whole of the Family Court once it is established.”

I have quoted just three of the 190 recommendations in the family justice review, but those who read the whole document will see that the Government accepted the majority of them. That is a very positive result, but it has yet to be turned into legislation, which is, of course, the next step.

Part 3 deals not with court procedures but with a related but separate subject, namely energy and fuel poverty. As I made clear in an intervention earlier, there is a connection between the amount of energy that we create, where we get that energy from, how we use it, and how much we charge the nation for that process. I agree with what my hon. Friends have said today. Until we make those big decisions about new nuclear build, it will be very difficult for us to ensure that there is security of supply, and without security of supply we shall not be able to control the costs of the power that we generate. We shall have to import more energy, in which event we shall be governed by prices that are fixed outside this country. The consequences of that will affect fuel poverty; indeed, they will affect us all. That is why the Prime Minister announced the week before last that the tariffs would be looked at. I am pleased to see a smile of approval on the face of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).

The tariffs need to be set in a certain way. First, they must be made far simpler, so that all users can recognise the tariff that they are on if they want to switch. Secondly, people must be encouraged to be on the lowest tariff. The present system is very confusing. I believe that there are 124 tariffs across all the energy boards, and that is far too complicated.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We have gone from “will be” to “might be” to “could be” to “will be encouraged to be”, and now the tariffs are to be “looked at”. Does that represent another step back from the Prime Minister’s position of two weeks ago?

[Mr Ellwood]

I can use the first words quoted by the hon. Gentleman: the words “will be”. The Government and the Prime Minister are absolutely firm about their intent. I can write the hon. Gentleman a letter and include those words so that the position is unequivocal.

It is clear that people are being obliged to pay far too much for their energy, and that the process is far too complicated and needs to be simplified. The hon. Gentleman quibbles about the words used by the Prime Minister, but, dare I say it, his Government had 13 years in which to gain control of energy policy and develop an energy strategy. They did very little about it, and we are now having to deal with the consequences. Unbelievably, a third of our coal requirements are met by Russia, which is a bizarre state of affairs in a nation that ought to be able to generate its own power. The important aspect is that we keep the cost of energy and its generation down, which will have a knock-on consequence for all users, including the most vulnerable.

The Bill deals with the building regulations for social housing. It desires a reduction in fuel use, which would mean that fuel bills would be lower. That would be a positive step forward, and the proposal makes sense. However, it ignores the fact that building regulations have changed and are changing. An awful lot of powers are bestowed on local authorities to make these very decisions, rather than to have them made nationally. There is a commitment to introduce a zero-carbon requirement for all new homes built after 2016. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has come back into the Chamber, because he may wish to comment on this. The Bill would require that new dwellings comply with the level 6 standard—a very high standard. He may be aware that the Government’s standard is level 3. What is the difference between the two? Level three is deemed as providing the necessary insulation that will save on fuel costs, whereas levels 4, 5 and 6 take us into the bells and whistles. Those levels dramatically increase the cost of the build by about £30,000.

[John Hemming]

It is an issue for Committee.

[Mr Ellwood]

That is a wonderful line, but if this reaches Committee, perhaps its members would recognise that level 6 includes things such as rainwater harvesting. That is why I disagree with the provision. Rainwater harvesting may be something that an individual would like, and we would all aspire to use rainwater sensibly as it comes off the roof, but the scale of the social housing problem that we face in each of our constituencies—the shortage has been mentioned time and again in this House—means that promoting level 6 would make things unworkable. So the hon. Gentleman may be wise to amend his Bill in Committee. As I say, social housing is already obliged to comply with level 3, and local councils can demand, for example, where a new housing estate is being built, an increase to level 4, 5 or 6. Councils can impose that as part of the planning application process, but that is done in the town hall, not from here.

In conclusion, the family justice system continues to require reform to reduce delays, and to improve support for families and, specifically, for children. Every two months of delay represents 1% of a young child’s childhood, yet the average case now takes 55 weeks to complete. There is certainly still work to be done, but a lot of homework has been done on looking at these issues: the Munro review’s recommendations on child protection; Martin Narey’s work on adoption, legal aid and civil justice reforms; the family justice review, which I have referred to on a number of occasions; the Government’s response to that review; and now the ideas contained in this Bill. The coalition Government have done an awful lot of homework, but it is now time to legislate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the negotiations that are being conducted with broadcasters are taking place on the basis that they will be paying for the service.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Today is the fifth anniversary of the Corston report, which called for radical change in the way that women are treated throughout the criminal justice system. I am sure that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) will be pleased to hear me say that there have been real improvements in the five years since the report, including significant investment in women’s community centres to address the underlying causes of women’s offending, such as drug and alcohol addiction, mental health issues, and often long histories of abuse. We are fully committed to addressing women’s offending, for their own good and that of the public. The National Offender Management Service has committed to an additional £3.5 million each year to continue to fund 30 women’s community services. Women offenders will also be included in two payment-by-results pilot areas to link productive work to reducing reoffending.

[Mr Ellwood]

In these tough economic times, more people are borrowing money, getting into debt and, sadly, having to deal with the bailiffs, who are, on occasion, aggressive and intrusive. What is being done to ensure that creditors and debtors are aware of their rights and responsibilities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government are clear that aggressive bailiff activity is unacceptable, and we are committed to bringing forward effective proposals that protect the public and ensure that such action is proportionate. We have made a start by publishing our updated national standards for enforcement agents, and we have followed that up with a consultation paper issued on 17 February on a new, legally binding regulatory regime for bailiffs.

Victims and Witnesses Strategy

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady has ingeniously raised a point that is wholly relevant to the legal aid provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is in another place, and not to this statement. In family law it is by no means unusual for the parties to face each other, and if one starts behaving badly towards the other, the judges just have to use the powers available to them to stop that happening. It is simply not possible to make every aspect of a dispute in court free of any stress or problem for both sides, because usually the parties in such cases are arguing about very stressful and emotional things about which both parties are considerably overwrought.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome this statement, and in particular the commitment to support British victims of terrorism overseas. As the Secretary of State implies, this is long overdue. As compensation goes, I think terrorism falls into a different category from a broken finger, which he mentioned, or a robbery. It is a brutal message from the state. Terrorists do not recognise borders, but our compensation system does. Will he confirm that Britons affected by terrorist attacks, such as those in Bali, Sharm el Sheikh or Mumbai, will be supported in the same way as those affected by 7/7, including for loss of earnings?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend has campaigned strongly on this subject—again, ever since he has been in the House—and I am very much aware of his views. What I have announced for the ex gratia arrangement—that is, the one that is paid under no legal obligation, but which we have agreed to pay for those whose claims will predate the new scheme’s coming into effect—is in exactly the same terms as what was announced under the previous Government, which was agreed to by both my party and the Liberal Democrat party. That arrangement does not include loss of earnings, and we are not going back to try to revalue it. However, in future claims will be eligible for compensation on exactly the same basis as they would have been eligible for compensation for a similar crime in the United Kingdom.

Reforming Civil Justice

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I think that people will think twice, as it were. At the moment, they are lured into making a claim by an advertisement on the back of a bus or in some local office. There are many people with perfectly legitimate personal injuries claims and the method I would wish them to pursue is to go to a solicitor who will consider the reasonable prospects of success and take it on on a no win, no fee basis—on the sort of terms that were always envisaged when we introduced the system into this country in the 1990s. People will have to think more carefully; there will be fewer purely speculative actions; and there will be fewer actions brought in the hope that the size of the legal costs is so great that the other side might be bullied into making an offer of settlement, regardless of their chance of success. I hope, however, that legitimate claims will prosper under a no win, no fee system, which is much closer to the lower-cost systems that other jurisdictions operate.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Thanks to the blame culture that developed under the last Government, one school in my constituency deemed it necessary to concrete over a very shallow paddling pool, in case a child had an accident and the school were sued. Another school considered cutting down all its trees in case children were to fall out of them, injuring themselves so that the school might be sued. I hope today’s statement will be the start of a fresh approach to this compensation culture.

[Mr Clarke]

I feel strongly, as does my hon. Friend, that we have an unacceptable compensation culture in this country. Like him, I notice it in my daily life. I think that doctors, teachers, policemen and most professional people are constantly concerned about the possible risk of litigation when they do perfectly ordinary things in the course of their daily lives. I dare say that the kind of submissions coming to Ministers are, in comparison with when I first received them, now so full of concerns about judicial review, the Human Rights Act and other legal constraints on what can be done that we are getting further and further away from common sense whereby people can exercise their judgment and, of course, be accountable to the law when they are at risk of breaking it—but only when they are at risk of breaking sensible law and might face litigation at reasonable cost.

Firearms Control

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do that. One of the things that was impressed on me when I visited Cumbria and received a briefing from the chief constable of the Cumbrian constabulary and his team was the role that the police at Sellafield—the civil nuclear constabulary—played in helping to respond quickly to the events as they unfolded. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Copeland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who have admirably provided a voice to their constituents. I know that in tight-knit communities, the effects of such events have been all the greater. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have shown great leadership in their communities, particularly in Cumbria, where so many people lost their lives.

Although the police investigation in Cumbria is ongoing, and inquests in both Cumbria and Northumbria are yet to be held, a review carried out by Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, chair of the ACPO firearms and explosives working group, recently reported its findings. Mr Whiting has extensive knowledge of the subject matter, and we are grateful to him for his report. The review considered whether the decisions made and actions taken in granting and renewing the firearms and shotgun certificates issued to Derrick Bird were appropriate, or whether any actions could have been taken to prevent the tragedy from occurring. Mr Whiting found that the decisions made and actions taken by the constabulary on firearms licensing were reasonable. Mr Whiting did not identify any immediate changes to legislation that would have prevented those offences. However, he did make a number of general suggestions that he thought might improve public safety. Those included a number of suggestions that have been taken up by the Home Affairs Committee, to which I shall refer later.

It is clear that, following two events of such scale, lessons must be learned to ensure that, wherever possible, action is taken to help prevent such crimes from occurring again. It is crucial that proper controls are placed on those individuals who seek to own a firearm. However, it is also important to acknowledge, when discussing this issue, that licensed firearms are only one side of the debate. It is generally acknowledged that the vast majority of guns used in crime are illegally held.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend raises an important aspect of the debate in mentioning the difference between weapons that are lawfully owned and those that are not. Page 10 of the Select Committee report states:

“There is a lack of data in the public domain showing the extent to which legally-owned firearms are used in gun crime, partly because it is difficult to collect accurate data”—

because the gun is not always left at the scene of the crime —

“and partly because the Home Office does not routinely publish the data that it does collect.”

May I invite my right hon. Friend to reconsider, and to put into the public domain more information about whether the firearms used in such events are legally or illegally held?

[Nick Herbert]

Of course we will consider carefully all the recommendations in the Select Committee report. We are also considering very carefully the question of which data the Home Office should collect. We need to strike the right balance between imposing ever more onerous conditions on local police forces and ensuring that the necessary data are collected centrally, and we will have more to say about that in due course. I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point on board, however.

Much of the harm caused to our communities by firearms is caused by those who are not licensed to own a gun. The Government attach great importance to tackling the problem of illegal firearms, and we will continue to work to ensure that whatever measures necessary are taken to cut the use of illegal firearms in criminal activity. By setting up the national crime agency, we will be introducing a body that will build on the Serious Organised Crime Agency and that will be empowered, in partnerships with police forces, to target the types of serious crime that frequently involve illegal firearms and to eliminate them from our communities. Combining early intervention work with tough enforcement, and empowering local communities to prevent the spread of violence, will be crucial. This area of work will be informed by the Government’s new crime strategy, which will be published shortly.

It is important, however, to emphasise that gun crime thankfully remains relatively rare in this country. Provisional data indicate that firearm offences accounted for just 0.2% of all recorded crime in 2009-10, and that figure has been going down. However, that still equates to nearly 8,000 recorded offences. Gun crime causes significant and lasting harm to individuals, families and communities, and, however small the number of incidents that occur in the context of the overall number of crimes, the impact of these incidents must never be underestimated. Thirty-nine lives were lost to gun crime last year, and there were 336 serious injuries. That is unacceptable, and we must work to bring the numbers down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

Again, I accept my hon. Friend’s counsel. We intend to strike a proper and proportionate balance, and we will respond in a timely fashion to the Select Committee’s report. We will then come forward with any specific proposals.

It is frequently said that we have some of the toughest gun controls in the world. Firearms control in this country has a long history and has evolved gradually, with frequent tightening of the legislation by Parliament. The first British firearms controls were introduced by the Vagrancy Act 1824. Firearms certificates have been required since 1920, and shotguns have required a certificate since 1967. There have since been amendments to the Firearms Act 1968, which sets out the framework for today’s legislation, in response to the shootings in Hungerford in 1987 and in Dunblane in 1996, banning semi-automatic weapons and handguns respectively. I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that the system has been made progressively tougher. In its current state, it places tight restrictions on individuals who wish to own a gun. Guns are used legitimately for pest control and sporting purposes, and the Government certainly do not believe that such activities should be curtailed provided that there are proper controls, but it is of course right to keep those controls under review and, in particular, to reconsider them in the light of recent incidents.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way.

The debate is entitled “Firearms Control”. It deals with a wide variety of guns and their use. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the use and legality of handguns As he has said, they were made illegal following a disaster, but given that we are to host the Olympic games, we are in the embarrassing position of having to send a British Olympic shooting team abroad to train. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend about the issue, and I feel that it should be examined. We need cognitive legislation, such as the new Bill, rather than an outright ban.

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend has illustrated the importance of striking the right balance. We all understand why the action was taken in response to the dreadful Dunblane incident in 1997. However, the issue of competitive shooting at the Olympics has been raised with the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, who I am sure would be happy to discuss it with my hon. Friend.

The Government welcome the timely report on firearms control that was published today by the Home Affairs Committee. I thank the Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for its work on the issue. As I have said, we will consider its recommendations carefully, not least in the light of today’s debate. The House will understand that it would not be right for me to respond in detail today, but I want to deal with three key points.

First, the Committee recommended that the Government should codify and simplify the laws relating to firearm ownership. As I made clear when I mentioned the history of firearms legislation, those laws are widely dispersed across different Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, they are very complex. I believe that the issue would benefit from further attention, and we will therefore consider that recommendation carefully.

Secondly, the Committee recommended tighter restrictions on the granting of firearms licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity. That concern clearly arose from the shootings in Cumbria, and I raised it with the chief constable myself when I visited the area in August. There may be an opportunity for careful adjustment, but that will depend on the nature of the offence. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), will listen carefully to what is said in the debate and will use it to inform any future decisions. However, we welcome the Committee’s recommendation.

Thirdly, the Committee raised the issue of the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot. I understand why that issue has been raised, but I think it important to appreciate that many young people enjoy shooting in a safe and responsible manner. Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting told the Committee:

“The evidence in relation to young people shooting does not give any cause for concern”.

We will of course consider the Committee’s response in full, but it is important for legislative changes to be proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

Clearly, the decision about whether a certificate should be issued rests finally with the police. The information that GPs can provide should be factual and based on what they know.

Some 93% of shooters are male, the majority being over the age of 40. That group does not go to their GP as often as they perhaps should, so the opportunity to identify problems may be limited; it has been made clear that Derrick Bird had little contact with his GP. In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has identified only six individuals a year where involvement with a medical practitioner might have had an effect in notifying the authorities that there was a problem. So this issue has to be kept under review in the weeks and months to come.

The law relating to young people and firearms control is complicated and, at times, confusing. Members of the public who read the report will raise an eyebrow when they see that 26 10-year-olds currently hold shotgun licences. The report by ACPO did not examine the age at which a certificate can be issued to a young person, as that was not relevant to the events in Cumbria; nor did this give ACPO any particular concern when considering the wider issues. However, the report referred to inconsistencies that could be addressed on some issues—for example, the definition of an “occupier” in relation to the supervision of a young person. The Committee commented on the need for a review of the minimum age limits on the use of firearms and the eligibility for firearms certificates, with the aim of reducing the inconsistency and complexity associated with the use of firearms by children.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about the age at which people should be exposed or given access to weapons. I have had the opportunity to work with some youngsters who, in a different world, would not get to see these weapons. They would see them on telly and in video games, and they would consider them as trophies—the bits of kit that youngsters need to have. By allowing such youngsters to use these weapons in a safe environment and exposing them to how they work, they gain respect for these weapons and their air of mystery is removed. Does she agree that more such education is required, so that the youth of today are allowed to understand the importance and danger of these weapons and the respect that they must give them?

[Diana Johnson]

I hope that the Government will consider that very point when they consider the Committee’s recommendations. We need to wait to see how they will respond to the issue. Interestingly, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice talked about the need for a proportionate response and recognised that young people are involved in many positive activities involving shooting, for example, through the Scout Association, which holds an annual rifle competition. In addition, the use of target shooting activities is increasing in the schools sector, Sport England provides funding for shooting and the activity is also recognised by the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme.

Let me now deal with the recommendation relating to criminal activity. Concerns have been raised that people with criminal convictions have been able to obtain certificates. It appears that people with suspended sentences are not prevented from obtaining a certificate, and the Committee agreed that that needs to be examined. The Committee also recommended that those who receive shorter custodial sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms, and we agree that that should be considered seriously by the Government. The Committee also noted that police licensing officers are now encouraged to take into account intelligence about criminal behaviour that has not resulted in convictions, as well as convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences, when considering whether to grant a licence. The Committee felt that it must be made explicit in police guidance that officers are expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously, particularly in cases of bind-overs, arrests and police call-outs for domestic violence, and that accumulation of convictions should also be carefully examined.

That leads me to the recommendation about the further consultation that should be undertaken when an application is made for a shotgun or firearm licence. The Committee suggested a requirement to consult the domestic partners of applicants on whether to grant a licence in order to try to identify whether there are domestic issues of which a firearms licensing officer should be aware. I noted when I read the report that the Committee was particularly concerned about the use of firearms in domestic violence incidents. Evidence was given to the Committee about a system introduced in Canada, whereby the current spouse or recent ex-spouse is required to sign the application form of any individual applying for a firearms licence. Any failure to do so prompts an additional level of investigation by the registering authorities. Since the system was introduced the gun murder rate of women has reduced by 40%. The ACPO lead has also said that adults in a domestic relationship should be inquired of when an application is made for a firearm or shotgun. The Opposition believe that this recommendation merits serious consideration by the Government, and I was particularly pleased that the Minister talked about examining the matter and making careful adjustments, where appropriate.

The Committee recommended that fees should be raised to cover the costs of licensing to ensure that funding cuts do not jeopardise the rigour of the licensing process. We know that police forces are facing 20% cuts to their budgets over the coming years. Clearly this type of work is one of those areas that the report by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was referring to when it said that although only 11% of police officers were available to the public, 89% were performing important work on behalf of the public, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that dealing with firearms licensing falls into that category.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I was trying to hedge a little because we have our personal views based on our interest in the subject, but the Committee as a whole took no view. I think it was right not to take a view because we had not taken a huge amount of evidence on the age limits. We therefore did not want to interfere with the current arrangements. We thought further examination was merited. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not an expert on these matters so it came as a surprise to me that children as young as 10 were able to shoot. It had to be explained to me at Bisley what they were all up to and that they were doing it for a purpose. I understood much better when I had heard that.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman’s report raises a number of issues, and this one is worth looking into in more detail. More information is required if we are to dabble with the numbers. It is clear that people cannot own ammunition until they are a lot older. It is clear that they cannot even use a weapon unless they are supervised or of a certain age. By discussing the ages, we are getting into semantics and away from questions about when the gun will be used and in what context. We are talking about the age of 10, when children cannot even buy ammunition or use it unless they are supervised.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we batted the issue over to the Government for them to look at. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is the parent of two very young children, because they are regulars at the Westminster kids club party. Any parent would be concerned if they were not in the know about what is going on. We are not saying, “Let’s make it 10.” Let us consider the issues and let the Government perhaps come back with a view in the two-month timetable that they have given themselves.

My second point is about the 34 pieces of legislation covering this area of policy. It is a no-brainer that we need to consolidate. We need to make sure that the police and those responsible for holding such firearms know the law, which needs to be clear, so that nobody is under any misapprehension. That is why clarity of law and consistency are extremely important, and that is an easy one for the Government, as the Minister hinted in his very careful speech from the Dispatch Box.

There was a debate in the Committee about the role of GPs, but we concluded that we can live with the reasonable deal struck between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers—and therefore the Home Office. We should not try to interfere in the judgment of a general practitioner. Let the general practitioner alert the authorities if he or she feels that it has to be done. GPs will be very careful when they write their references or provide any information to those making such decisions, because they will not want to make mistakes. They also have a duty of confidentiality, however. The Committee was reluctant to intervene on that duty, but we felt it necessary to bring it to the attention of GPs themselves, if they needed reminding, because they have a crucial role in ensuring that proper consideration is given when licences are granted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to participate in this important debate and to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) who, if nothing else, has reminded us why it is important to have a proper, thorough debate on this issue, rather than to jump to conclusions before we know all the details and understand the ramifications of any legislation that we wish to make.

I will begin with a declaration of interest. In the armed forces, I shot a number of weapons avidly. I am involved with the training of the Olympic pistol team and am vice-president of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is an umbrella organisation that deals with a number of associations from across the board in the shooting fraternity.

This debate was always going to focus on the three huge tragedies that have affected British society and, indeed, Parliament—the Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria shootings. I hope that I speak for all hon. Members in saying that our thoughts go out to the families whose lives remain shattered by those unprecedented events. Those events are as shocking as they are unprecedented. The responsibility of dissecting what went wrong is enormous. It involves not only helping the victims’ families to come to terms with the events and to seek justice, but recommending changes to the law that might prevent similar incidents.

I am pleased that there was a delay after the Cumbria shootings in which to take stock and regroup before debating or deciding on firm legislation. The legislation will therefore be based not on passion, but on logic. There is a desire to act swiftly, but we must also act soberly. Given that we can see such tragic images unfolding in real time, thanks to 24-hour television, it is understandable that the majority of people, and indeed journalists, were horrified by the events that we saw and called immediately for tougher action.

I gently remind the House that it is not only such massacres that we must consider. Gun crime, in one form or another, is committed in every hour of every day, sometimes with tragic results. Those events do not take place in the media limelight or on our television sets, but they do shatter the lives of the individuals who are affected in exactly the same way. When we debate the major issue of firearms control, we must not let the issues become polarised by looking simply at the major tragic events.

The world of legal gun ownership and use, and the laws that govern it are extremely complex. On the whole, it operates with the high level of responsibility that society expects. As has been said, 34 Acts of Parliament relate to firearms. I was pleased that in the report, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) called for some kind of consolidation of that legislation. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is not possible to legislate to stop a switch being turned in somebody’s head, but we can make it easier for those who have to use the legislation to operate in this environment.

We cannot un-invent the weapon. It has legitimate uses in the rural community, in sports, including Olympic sports, and in law and order. However, weapons can and do fall into the wrong hands. The bullet may be the cause of death, but it is the owner’s finger that is guilty of causing harm. Our job here in Parliament is to ensure that the public are properly protected. There must be a balance in law between our being a fair society and allowing legal gun ownership, and ensuring that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

The hon. Member for Derby North spoke at some length about wanting to ban guns entirely. I hope he did not wish to mislead the House by saying that he was calling for children not to have access to guns and that it was ridiculous that children could have a licence at the age of 10. He knows that a child cannot be in possession of any weapon unsupervised while under 14, or under 15 in the case of a shotgun. We have to keep the full context of the law in perspective, and that is why the debate is important.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that at the age of 14, an individual is a child and not fully aware of the consequences of the use of a firearm? Does he agree that if we are still to have guns in society, some consideration should be given to increasing the age at which an individual can have a firearms certificate, perhaps to 18, when they are an adult?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman puts his point on the record, but what is the consequence of making weapons illegal? It makes them a trophy, a gang culture accessory and an object of desire for certain people. Introducing people to a wide variety of guns at a very young age takes the mystery out of the weapon and teaches them respect. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, the Scouts and the cadets operate guns. I would like to see statistics on the respect or otherwise that people gain by being exposed to guns at an early age. If we had that, the hon. Gentleman would then be in a commanding position to say whether the current situation worked, and we could move forward from there.

[Chris Williamson]

I think the hon. Gentleman is conflating two issues. Young people involved in gang culture already see the illegal ownership of firearms as a badge of honour, and regrettably they are all too willing to use them. That is a separate matter from my point, which is that allowing young people to have a firearms certificate sends the inappropriate signal that it is legitimate for them to have firearms at their disposal. That is why it is important that we empower youth organisations to deal with the illegal ownership and use of firearms by young people in gangs.

[Mr Ellwood]

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and I would encourage him to go out and speak to the clubs and so on that participate in shooting. I have been involved in initiatives that take people from the gang culture, but who have yet to be exposed to guns and the world of crime, to a range so that they can understand what happens there. That teaches them some respect for the weapons that they have previously seen in video games or on television and thought they wanted. If he sees such initiatives, he might come back to the House with a very different view.

[Justin Tomlinson]

On youth engagement, surely the best thing to do is to involve sports clubs, the Army Cadet Force and other proper organisations that can provide respect for weapons and hands-on knowledge, rather than some do-gooding youth worker saying, “Just don’t do it.”

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I look forward to his speech, which I hope will elaborate on that point.

I welcome the general thrust of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which states:

“We do not believe that a total outright ban on ownership and use of section 1 firearms and shotguns would be a proportionate response to the risks posed by these weapons.”

I fully agree with that, and we should bear it in mind that only one in every 330 crimes involves a gun. If we exclude air weapons, firearms offences decreased by 17% in 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available.

I have huge concerns about the data that are available. The hon. Member for Derby North rattled off a series of horrible events, but he did not once say whether the weapons involved were illegal. In the key facts section on page 3 of the Committee’s report, there is a long list of facts and figures about crimes, but again there is no indication of whether the guns used were illegal or legal. It would be a lot easier for us to debate the matter in detail and with understanding if we had that information.

[Mr Offord]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the shooting in Finchley that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) mentioned was actually a gangland hit? I do not believe that the person involved held the firearm legally, but even if they did, that crime did not just occur because firearms are legal.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said in an intervention, the Home Office does not collect or produce such data. The situation is tougher because the perpetrator of the crime does not conveniently leave their weapon at the scene, but nevertheless, statistics that differentiate the use of illegal and legal weapons would be helpful, as the hon. Member for Derby North said.

I am concerned about the data. There were 14,250 recorded offences, but we do not know how many involved the use of illegal guns. There is some breakdown analysis, because some categories of weapons are illegal, such as handguns—there were 4,275 incidents involving handguns and all those are illegal. Imitation weapons are not totally illegal, because they are used on TV sets and so forth, but they can be altered. We do not know how many are illegal. Those data would be helpful when we debate the Government’s recommendations.

Paragraph 14 on page 10 of the report states:

“There is a lack of data in the public domain showing the extent to which legally-owned firearms are used in gun crime”.

I hope the Minister can qualify that in his summation. Can such statistics be made public? In its evidence to the Committee, the Home Office states that

“the evidence suggests that the vast majority of crimes involving firearms are carried out with illegally-held guns”.

Parliament has a duty not to throw the net of legislation across the entire gun community in the hope of pulling up some illegal weapons.

Hon. Members have pointed out the contribution that legal shooting activities make in our country. More than 1 million people participate in one form of shooting or another—whether for game, clay pigeon or targets. That makes a huge impact on the economy. The industry is worth more than £1 billion and involves the equivalent of 70,000 full-time jobs.

A recent Cambridge study showed that two thirds of the shooting community is also involved with the management and conservation of our countryside. The industry is therefore not simply about using guns and weapons, but about a relationship with the areas in which shooting takes place. Around £250 million a year is spent by those involved with gun communities. That goes towards the habitat and wildlife management of those areas.

The importance of exposure to weapons at an early age was mentioned. I hope that we agree on that now. Such exposure takes the mystery and glamour out of the weapon. That is recognised by the Government, because Sport England invests heavily to try to take out that mystery, so that people are not encouraged to get hold of an illegal weapon just to be part of a gang.

There is too much legislation, going back to the Firearms Act 1968. Firearms are also an aspect of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and of subsequent violent crime legislation. When there is a big terrorist explosion in the UK, there is a desire for the Government to be seen to do something and for them to look strong on the day, but I am pleased that we have taken a slower approach towards firearms legislation.

It would be useful for the Minister and the Committee to qualify the role of general practitioners. I agree that a relationship between the police and GPs should be developed when the police are deciding whether to award a licence, but should a certificate be granted before or after a GP assessment? The Association of Chief Police Officers report states that we should go further and suggests some form of tagging, but that would be a step too far.

The report suggests tighter restrictions and better guidance in the granting of firearms and shotgun licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity already. Does the Minister believe that those serving suspended sentences should qualify for a firearms or weapons certificate?

There is also the need to consider previous unconvicted behaviour. This is when the police are allowed to consider evidence and information on their database that do not form part of a criminal conviction. This gets a bit blurred, however, so I think that the Minister needs to be clear on whether such evidence or intelligence can be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the idea of consulting domestic partners and ex-spouses is moving us into another blurred area. If the person is an ex-spouse, it suggests that things have not gone too merrily. Would an ex-spouse really want to help his or her former partner? Again we are getting into a blurred area that could be prone to abuse.

I was interested to read what has been learned from practices in America, where they have a two-year licence instead of a five-year approach. Fingerprints have to be submitted, and there must be an hour of firearms training along with further registration every three years. Is the Minister aware of what America and other countries are doing, and could we learn anything from them?

One of my biggest concerns, however, is about the blending of licences issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and shotgun licences. This is not a sensible move. The present system of shotgun licensing is more effective and efficient because it focuses on the person, not the firearm, whereas with section 1 firearm licences, a lot of time is wasted on the minutiae of the firearm type, calibre and whether the person should hold one. I shall give some examples of where section 1 licences might not work: a vermin controller would have to go through a huge amount of red tape, at great cost to himself and the police, just to swap a .22 inch rifle for another; or a deerstalker changing his weapon of choice from a .308 inch rifle to a .270 inch rifle would have to go through the entire process from the start. That would apply to any change from one calibre to another. It does not make sense. However, one section of the 1968 Act requires that good reasons be given and conditions set, and I believe that that should remain in place.

My next concern is about paragraph 84 of the report, which deals with current police guidance on firearms legislation. The guidance is out of date. Lord Cullen’s report on Dunblane suggested that better training must be put in place for our police, but there is still no standard training on firearms certification in the UK. That must definitely change. This also relates to the point about the Olympics that I mentioned in an intervention. This is an example—I look to the hon. Member for Derby North—of legislation being hammered through this place at a rate of knots that did not serve this country well. Yes, a handgun was used in that horrible massacre, but there are ways to prevent handguns from being used by the general population. For example, they could be held and stored in armouries and taken out only by professionals. That would mean that people could still use them. It would also mean that our Olympic team could train in the UK. That would be a sensible approach to the use of handguns on which the Minister knows that I have been lobbying hard.

[Chris Williamson]

If the hon. Gentleman believes it appropriate to store handguns in a secure armoury, does he agree that it would be appropriate to store all firearms in a secure armoury in a similar way?

[Mr Ellwood]

That is exactly how this debate should proceed. I am saying that on this issue, about which I have endeavoured to learn a lot, it makes sense to allow handguns to be used in the UK, if they are kept under lock and key and if appropriate measures are put in place, such as a requirement that the safe be opened by three key owners. That would make sense. If the hon. Gentleman would like to roll that out further, he could put forward that proposal. The point that I am making, however, is that because of the legislation handguns were made illegal, yet there is now more handgun crime and it is the one area that is growing.

[Mr Offord]

In addition to the number of handguns held illegally, is my hon. Friend aware that between 1997 and 2006—since the legislation was introduced—the number of offences increased?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes my point, which is why it is important to debate such matters thoroughly before we jump to a conclusion that we believe will satisfy the nation’s appetite and anger. That is our role; it is what Parliament must do. This place operates badly when we rush through legislation, a point reflected in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and other examples.

My final observation on the detail is about the proposals on the clarification of the age. There is no point in going into that further, but just to elaborate, no one under the age of 14 can own any form of weapon. They may be able to have a piece of paper saying that they have a certificate, but they cannot use a weapon unsupervised. That is a sensible way forward.

My penultimate point—a point made in an earlier intervention—is about the Press Complaints Commission. There is no need for me to dwell on this, but hon. Members will be aware that my family have endured our own tragedy, with the loss of my brother in a terrorist attack. When it happened we were deluged by the media, which is exactly what happened in Dunblane, in Cumbria, and so forth. The media pile in with such an intense and relentless level of intrusion that it really becomes an invasion, and this at a time when people feel at their most vulnerable. I spoke to those at the Press Complaints Commission, which has a process to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, they are not the people whom those affected would naturally want to phone up when such things happen. However, it is important to send out the message that when such events take place, the media have a responsibility to act responsibly—and not as they do at the moment, which is very invasively indeed—and to give people the space to manage their grief.

To conclude, firearms are part of the dangerous and complex world that we live in. However, we ignore at our peril the growth of gun crime on our streets. We cannot wish away the problem by legislating against those who use guns responsibly. It is the duty of the Government and Parliament to ensure that we carefully monitor what is happening on our streets, in our society and in our communities. It is also important to have that balance of legislation, so that we support those who want to use guns and weapons legally, and deny those who want to use them illegally. I very much welcome this debate, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to speak in it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s concluding remarks and to our being able to debate the legislation when it comes through in, I understand, the spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

It has been made clear that we cannot legislate against another attack. Sadly, there is likely to be another attack such as Dunblane or Cumbria, and indeed another terrorist attack. Our purpose in this place is to ensure that we have the correct legislation, and interestingly the Committee Chairman admitted that his knowledge of firearms extended only to carrying a water pistol. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that, unless we have a cognitive, sober and detailed debate to ensure that we understand the full issue, our decisions in this place will not be made on solid grounds?

[Clive Efford]

I agree. The Committee Chairman made that point himself, noting that he and members of the Committee had gone to great lengths to understand a great deal, had been educated and had even had their views changed on certain aspects of what I would call the legitimate firearms industry and legitimate firearms sport. It is important that people are well informed when they legislate, whether on guns or anything else. That is the logical thing to expect of people involved in passing legislation.

The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made a number of commitments on the recommendations. He said that the Government would consider reviewing convictions in terms of the renewal or revocation of licences. On additional regulation, we would not want the police to spend more time enforcing regulations on the legal ownership of arms at the expense of dealing with the illegal use of arms. In addition, the police should be identifying and following up cases where we might want to call into question someone’s ownership of a licence, rather than investing a great deal of time in renewals. That is why the Select Committee recommends that, rather than having a renewal period of every two years, the existing five-year period should be retained.

The Minister also indicated that he would consider the issues surrounding ages and the recording of what types of weapons have been used and whether they are legal or illegal. During the debate, several hon. Members referred to the need for there to be a crime reduction strategy to tackle wider illegal activities—for example, the issues surrounding the illegal drug trafficking industry, organised violent crime and the use of weapons in domestic violence incidents. All those matters were referred to by the Select Committee and we would like to see them mentioned in the Government’s response.

Many hon. Members have said that we must not have a knee-jerk reaction, and I think we would all agree that if one legislates in haste, one repents at leisure. However, we should remember that individuals such as Derrick Bird had legal access to firearms and therefore it is absolutely right for the Select Committee and the House to review the laws on the licensing of guns.

The report makes it clear that we have the tightest regulations on the licensing of firearms anywhere in the world and that we have a relatively low level of gun crime, despite all the serious incidents there have been. The report concludes that legal firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases where weapons are discharged or used in crimes. In legislating, we should prioritise public safety. If we introduce regulations, they should not harm the future of the legal use of weapons in the pursuit of sport but, where necessary, we should legislate to protect the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

There may be matters relating to landlords and tenants. We must consider carefully the issue of storage, as the Home Affairs Committee has done. I am happy to reflect on that matter further, but we must be careful and cautious so that we do not impose restrictions without properly considering their implications. Such restrictions might create more risk, rather than reducing the risk. However, he has fairly highlighted the issue.

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) described the shocking impact of gun crime by highlighting specific examples and issues. This will always be an emotive issue, on which there are strongly held views, and I thank him for bringing that context to this evening’s proceedings. He wanted further clarification on GPs, and I will come to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) discussed the Olympics, which is a matter that we have corresponded on and discussed. I have inquired of the Minister for Sport and the Olympics whether the existing restrictions are hampering preparations for the 2012 games, and I am advised that they are not. We will review the arrangements post-2012 to consider whether further changes are required.

[Mr Ellwood]

Only those who have been selected for the squad have been given licences to participate in training in the UK. Will the Minister consider the long term and the legacy of the Olympics? Looking forward to the next games, we will still need to be able to train in the UK.

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about sporting development. As I have said, we have considered the matter with Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and they are satisfied with the current arrangements. We will continue to keep the matter under review after the Olympics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) highlighted the issue of shotguns and the different regime of section 1 licences. That point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). The issue is complex, and we are examining the overlap and the common test of fitness for purpose. A Home Office working group, which includes representatives of the police and shooting interest groups, is working to devise a single application form. That group will look into the feasibility of a single certificate, too, but we recognise the complexity of the arguments involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire has said, the devil is in the detail.

It was instructive to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on the need for a broader debate on firearms control, and I agree with him. It was equally interesting to hear about his experiences as a doctor.

A number of matters will require further examination and consideration, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee indicated. Some may require legislation, but we might be able to deal with some in other ways. On that point, doctors have an important role to play and we welcome the agreement between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police will notify a GP of the grant or renewal of a firearms or shotgun certificate. They are seeking to implement the arrangement within six months, and in essence it will involve a system of notification by way of a standard letter. That will mean that GPs are in a position to alert the police if they have concerns, and the police will then be able to request a medical report under the procedures that normally apply to licensing.

ACPO will now draw up a more detailed paper on the matter, and the BMA will produce guidance for doctors. The system is a welcome step forward, and there will be further discussions about the possibility of placing a marker on computerised medical records to create a more enduring record of which patients own a firearm. A number of privacy and other issues mean that that requires detailed consideration, but I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.

On the matter of age, it is important to remember that the police grant a certificate only if they are satisfied that a gun can be held safely and without risk to the public. That means that a young person is subject to the same checks regarding suitability, storage and so on as an adult. In such cases, it is usual that the young person’s parents or another responsible adult will supervise them and take responsibility for the weapon when it is not in use. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said earlier, the Government believe that it is important to focus on whether shooting activities are conducted safely and responsibly. We have received no evidence to date that there has been any misuse as a result of the existing provisions, but we will reflect on the concerns that have been raised both in the Home Affairs Committee’s report and in the debate today.

There is much for the Government to take away from today’s debate. We will genuinely reflect on what has been said, along with the other sources of evidence and opinions. The focus of this evening’s debate has largely been on the legal holding of weapons, but we recognise the important contribution of the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, which has done extraordinarily good work in setting out the intelligence picture on the illegal use of weapons. We are also looking to strengthen the approach to serious organised crime through the creation of the national crime agency, which will be an important step forward in bearing down on such crime. We will also deal with the criminal gangs that often sit behind the use of illegal weapons and the sad tragedies that affect many of our communities.

We will form a view on what more might be done not only to help prevent further tragedies, such as those in Cumbria and Northumbria, but to ensure that we have effective and proportionate firearms controls. Although we have stringent firearms controls—Assistant Chief Constable Whiting has said that they are “robust”—we keep them under review and are prepared to tighten them further if necessary. The Home Affairs Committee’s report, the input of ACPO and others and the points made in today’s debate are important contributions in that regard, and all options are open for discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of firearms control.

Guantanamo Civil Litigation Settlement

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That might involve reopening the settlement, which I would not be willing to do. We must be careful about the confidentiality because, certainly in principle, the settlement could be reopened. I entirely understand that there are a large number of aspects of this with which everyone is uncomfortable, and which some people will strongly dislike. However, we must keep our eye on the ball, and decide what is truly in the national interest. What is truly in the national interest is allowing the intelligence services to get on with their job, allowing us to put the reputation of this country beyond doubt, and learning lessons that may have to be learned—we do not know yet—from anything that Sir Peter Gibson puts forward.

As for the legal aid proposals, we said that legal aid would still be available, on a means-tested basis, to anyone who wished to challenge the state by way of judicial review. Other claims would have to involve exceptional public interest.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. I am sorry that we did not do more to speak out against Guantanamo Bay and everything that it stands for. The creation of the term “enemy combatants” allowed the nation, indeed the world, to ignore the Geneva conventions.

My I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to turn to the issue of compensation for British victims of terrorism overseas? As he will know, those who were caught up in the 7/7 bombings were adequately supported and compensated, but as soon as such an event takes place abroad we see that there is no support whatsoever, whether it be in Bali, Mumbai or Sharm el Sheikh. That is simply wrong, and it needs to change.

[Mr Clarke]

I know of my hon. Friend’s continuing interest in this subject. As part of our policy considerations in the light of the public spending review, we are having to examine the criminal injuries compensation system and the proposed terrorist injury compensation system. We are having to decide how we should judge the Government’s responsibilities for compensating those who have been injured by crime, either at home—we have always compensated those people—or abroad: I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning for that.

Public Disorder (NUS Rally)

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Well, anybody in this House is free to make whatever comment they wish about the conduct of this demonstration and those who sought to disrupt it, but the Government’s view is that there were 40,000 people most of whom were marching peacefully, and that the demonstration was disrupted by a minority intent on violence.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I must declare an interest: I have led a few demonstrations myself as president of the Loughborough student union—around this building, in fact, and against the poll tax, although I will keep that information to myself. In those days, we did not feel the need to throw fire extinguishers off roofs, to set fires or to try to put police officers in hospital. It is interesting that neither I nor my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), received a single request to be lobbied here in Parliament. In my day Twitter and Facebook did not exist, so students can mobilise themselves much more quickly nowadays. What are the police doing to understand intelligence from such sources and act more quickly?

[Nick Herbert]

It is my understanding that the police do monitor the various forms of social media, but such questions will form part of the intelligence review that the commissioner is undertaking as part of his wider review of what went wrong yesterday.

I would like to apologise to the House: I said in my statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had spoken to the Mayor yesterday, but my right hon. Friend tells me that that was not the case. I spoke to the deputy Mayor yesterday and again this morning.