Offensive Weapons Bill (Tenth sitting)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has made an important speech and I rise to support his proposed new clause 10. At present we seem to have a policy framework that encourages those selling corrosive substances to sign up for voluntary commitments, rather than one that compels them to follow very clear rules on receiving payment. To illustrate this, I looked at the report that the Home Office published in July, detailing voluntary measures to which retailers should commit. They included sensible measures such as agreeing to comply with the Poisons Act 1972, promoting staff awareness about what it means to sell corrosive products, and agreeing not to sell to under-18s products that contain potentially harmful levels of acid. Where appropriate, that would include applying Challenge 21 and Challenge 25 policies when asking for age identification.

Those are very sensible voluntary commitments, but they are far weaker than my right hon. Friend’s proposed new clause, whose measures should have been enshrined in law a long time ago. Preventing the sale of these substances by cash would make it less likely for young people to get drawn into purchasing such products. Presumably, ensuring that payments are conducted electronically would also help the emergency services in any retrospective investigation into individuals who are accused of an offence. The only thing I would wish to add to the proposed new clause is that it may be worth preventing such transactions from being conducted through contactless payments, given that corrosive products are often cheaper than £30 and today’s debit cards, if stolen, can be used for a whole range of purchases without chip and PIN verification.

I believe that the point at the heart of the proposed new clause is that all sales of corrosive substances should be traceable to the individual at the address to which the bank account or credit card is registered. I hope the Government will see fit to support this sensible and reasonable proposal.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham for tabling the new clause. This is another one where we have had to conduct a balancing exercise. I very much understand the intention, but on balance we have concluded that the new clause falls a little too heavily on businesses without necessarily having the positive impact that he intends. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn has hit on our first concern: namely, because we can simply tap a card nowadays, there is not necessarily the traceability that there might have been in years gone by. Cheques are rarely used anymore. Even when a person has used a credit or debit card and has entered a PIN code, that does not help the emergency services when a perpetrator has decanted the product into another bottle to conceal it. We have given the proposal some thought, but have concluded, on balance, that it is probably too much of a burden for businesses, given the small amounts of money that some of these corrosive substances cost.

If the substance has been put into another container, there is not necessarily the evidential trail to help the police anyway. Our focus in the law is on preventing sale to under-18s in the first place, and if they carry the substances in a public place then that is an offence in and of itself as well. I regret that I must resist the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause makes it clear that there is no offence as long as the website removes the video within 24 hours of its being informed about it, which is a practical, realistic measure. It reflects what YouTube says its current policy is, and the same ought to be done by everyone and have the force of law behind it. I very much hope that the Minister responds sympathetically to the new clause.

[Tulip Siddiq]

All Members across the Committee will probably agree that legislation is constantly playing catch-up with the social media giants. It is a fact of life that guides my amendment (a) to the new clause. I do not want to repeat what my right hon. Friend has said. Everyone will probably agree that his detailed forensic examination of the Bill is superior to mine and everyone else’s. I just want to explain why I think the offence he has discussed should come with the liability set out in proposed subsection (4)(a), which my amendment would add to the new clause.

Before I do so, I want to point out that for many the gut reaction to the creation of a new liability, such as that outlined in the amendment, would be concern over free speech. That is something I have heard over many years. There is no doubt that platforms such as YouTube offer a great opportunity for individuals to publish creative content, air their political views and research, and so on. However, as a result, whenever fines or legislation against such websites are suggested, it creates controversy. That happened last year when the German Bundestag legislated to introduce fines of about £45 million for social media companies that did not remove hate crimes from their sites in under 24 hours.

Just to clarify matters, my amendment does not create liabilities for a website’s failure to remove hate crimes, although there are good reasons to support that too. Instead, it is intended to create a sense of urgency among platforms and publishers about removing content in which offensive weapons, as defined by the Bill, are paraded and celebrated. By introducing summary convictions or fines we would be legislating in support of the reasonable assumption that a person who displays an offensive weapon in a threatening manner is acting illegally. It surely follows that those who provide the platform should moderate their content effectively, and should face sanctions for failing to do so.

I think intense concern is shared across the House at the failure of some social media companies—particularly Facebook and Twitter—to act on threatening content. Only last year, Mr Speaker addressed anger over Google’s failure to remove the content of proscribed groups such as National Action, following a Home Affairs Committee exchange in which it promised to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has expressed concern about associated issues to do with gangs using music videos to threaten their rivals.

The problem has been acknowledged at the highest level of the Metropolitan police. Commissioner Cressida Dick said that

“we have gangs who make drill videos…they taunt each other and say specifically what they are going to do to who.”

That is very worrying, and the police are working closely with YouTube. There has been a significant degree of success, with the Evening Standard reporting that half the violent music videos flagged by Scotland Yard have been removed. That is welcome, as is the fact that YouTube has also developed its own policies.

However, YouTube is far from being the only online platform on which an individual can parade offensive weapons, and legislation should make it clear that allowing the spreading of violent material to continue for more than 24 hours will come with a serious liability.

[The Chair]

I call Sarah Jones, although conventionally one should stand up to catch the Chair’s eye—it is the best way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

Like the other new clauses, new clause 29 has been covered in our consideration of other amendments and in other debates, so I shall not move it now.

New Clause 30

Aggravating factor

“(1) Where a court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under subsection 5(1), and either of the facts in subsection (2) are true, the court—

(a) must treat any fact mentioned in subsection (2) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of an offence), and

(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.

(2) The facts referred to in subsection (1) are that, at the time of committing the offence, the offender was—

(a) the driver of a moped or motor bicycle, or

(b) a passenger of a moped or motor bicycle.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “moped” and “motor bicycle” have the same meanings as in section 108 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.”—(Tulip Siddiq.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am also aware that everyone wants to leave, so I will try to be as quick as I possibly can be—[Interruption.] At least I have one agreement from Government Members so far.

Subsection 5(1) argues that a person commits an offence if they have a corrosive substance with them in a public place. I tabled new clause 30 to force a court to consider, for the purposes of sentencing the offence set out in subsection 5(1), that the use of a moped is an aggravating factor. This would mean that if the offender was in possession of corrosives while driving a moped, or while a passenger on a moped, they would face a longer sentence.

Aggravating offences, as set out by the Sentencing Council, already include

“Use of a weapon to frighten or injure victim”

and

“An especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim”.

Attacks using corrosive substances are clearly intended to frighten and, as we have discussed, they cause especial physical and psychological effects on a victim. However, I would like to see mopeds, as defined in subsection (3) of my new clause, explicitly listed as an aggravating factor for possession.

I do so for four key reasons: one, an individual who carries a corrosive substance on a moped poses an additional risk to the public; two, corrosive substance attacks committed from a moped uniquely heighten the physical and psychological effect on the victim; three, mopeds are deliberately chosen by offenders to escape detection and conviction; and, four, conviction rates for moped-related crimes are especially low, and explicitly listing mopeds as an aggravating factor will serve as a future deterrent.

In my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, moped crimes and offensive weapons have wreaked havoc in the lives of local residents, especially the attacks in recent months on two local councillors, who were both coming home from late-night council duty and were both targeted by people on mopeds.

The statistics are alarming, not only for my constituency but for London generally. In Brent, 512 crimes using offensive weapons took place between July 2016 and July 2018, and in Camden in the same time period 394 crimes using offensive weapons took place, which represented an increase of 16% between July 2017 and July 2018. In June 2017 alone, Camden suffered 1,363 moped crimes. In 2017-18, there were over 20,000 moped-related crimes in London.

The correspondence from my constituents at the height of these crimes has often been desperate and angry in equal measure. I will quickly give two examples from the many, many emails that I have received on this topic. Jessica from Belsize Park said:

“I have never written to my MP before but I am growing increasingly concerned about the spate of violent moped attacks taking place across London. I had a near-miss last week and almost didn’t report it to the police as I felt that there was nothing they could or would do.”

Gaurav from Hampstead Town said:

“I am frankly appalled at how inaction is emboldening gangs to strike with impunity. This has to stop. I feel scared about my family and children walking in the area.”

[Sarah Jones]

I apologise to the Committee for what will be a brief intervention; I just wanted to stress the point that my hon. Friend is making. Last week, I met a couple who had been walking along the street in Croydon with their young daughter, and two people on mopeds who were wearing masks came up to them and held a knife at the neck of the daughter, who is about seven years old. Fortunately, in the end nobody was hurt and the police are doing what they can, but my hon. Friend is making a really serious point. This is a real issue and it would be very useful if the Minister could consider accepting the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I am sorry to hear about what happened to her young constituent; it must have been quite frightening. That also leaves a huge impact afterward as people think about what happens as someone is speeding past. I know that now when I walk past any moped I quickly hide my phone; I think many of my constituents have started to do the same as well. I am hardly going to be able to fight anyone off—I am aware of my strengths there.

Returning to my point, I have had dozens of emails similar to the ones that my hon. Friend describes, and they all describe the sense of fear created by those committing offences under subsection 5(1) from the back of mopeds. Many of my constituents see the use of a moped in such a circumstance as unduly reckless, negligent and therefore threatening, and would naturally agree that perpetrators of those offences should face tougher sentencing in the courts.

I believe that the recent case of Derryck John illustrates the threat of carrying corrosive substances on the back of mopeds. Mr John was convicted in March after being found guilty of carrying out six acid attacks against moped riders in less than 90 minutes. He sprayed his victims with a poisonous liquid, leaving one man with 30% sight loss in one eye. He stole two mopeds and tried to take another four from their owners before being arrested. Mr John was able to cause such significant damage to his victims in such a short period of time precisely because he was using a moped.

Coming back to my constituency, it is worth saying that moped crimes have plummeted about 80% since their peak. That is because of the innovative responses from the Metropolitan Police: Operation Attrition, the increase in unmarked Q cars, the use of spray-tagging of mopeds, motorcycle patrols and tactical collusions have all proved effective. However, the figures for detection and conviction rates for moped crimes remain astonishingly low. In 2017-18, detection rates for offences resolved through a sanction stood at just 2.6%, which means that more than 97% of moped criminals escaped justice in that year. That is appalling and unjust.

My new clause may not dramatically reverse that picture—after all, criminals must be caught before they are brought to trial—but it will definitely act as a deterrent to those who would be so reckless as to possess offensive weapons, particularly corrosive substances, in a public place on a moped. There can be no excuse for it, and the process of sentencing should reflect the additional fear and risk posed by the use of a moped in such instances. That is what my new clause is intended to do, and I hope that Government Members will see fit to support it.

[Stephen Timms]

I rise briefly to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and to welcome the fact that she has raised this in the Committee.

There is certainly a close link between acid attacks on one hand, and the use of mopeds on the other. I will highlight one particular group of victims here, which is moped delivery drivers. I think the series of attacks that she referred to was aimed at a group of drivers, a number of whom I have met. In particular, I pay tribute to Mr Jabed Hussain, who was himself a delivery driver with UberEats and was the victim of one of these attacks. He has since joined the International Workers Union of Great Britain to bring together the very vulnerable people who work delivering meals and all sorts of things around London. There are large numbers of them now, but they are pretty exposed, and if people come after them with acid they are in a dangerous situation.

When I last spoke to him, Mr Hussain had not yet been able to get back to his work because of the trauma he had suffered as a result of the attack inflicted on him. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and I hope the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to what she has said.

--- Later in debate ---

The aggravating factors in those guidelines are non-exhaustive, and courts can and do consider other factors relevant to sentencing. I am cautious when it comes to the imposition of such statutory aggravating factors, not least because it could be too restrictive, in terms of only applying to mopeds and motorcycles. The papers recently reported an awful case in which someone walked up to a car and threw acid in. As a prosecutor, I would find it difficult to differentiate the criminality in that case from others. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to support the clause and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I appreciate the Minister’s response, and the sympathy she has expressed for victims. I, too, commend the work of the Metropolitan police, but I do not feel that the legislation is strong enough to tackle the kind of crime I have described. The conviction rates are too low not to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.