Sir Stephen Timms
MP for East Ham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to send me details of that particular case, I will happily look into it. On the subject of people with hearing impairments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and I will be meeting the British Sign Language Advisory Board this afternoon.”
“Better outcomes require early identification and support for girls and young women with special educational needs, including dyslexia. That is the aim of the SEND reforms and the development of national inclusion standards.”
“Autistic people and people with ADHD have been struggling to get the right support at the right time. Recommendations from Professor Karen Guldberg’s neurodivergence task and finish group directly informed the SEND reforms that were published earlier this year.”
“The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to make reasonable adjustments, so that disabled people are not put at a disadvantage by accessibility challenges.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon.”
“I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,185 lines we hold for Sir Stephen Timms, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 50 of 104.
“The basics for implementing this change in shops are in place. I accept that there would be some difficulties and that this is not completely straightforward. However, I impress upon the Minister that the scale of the harm of acid attacks carried out by people aged 18, 19 or 20 is too great for us simply to allow people to carry on getting hold of this stuff and doing harm, so I will press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“I am puzzled by the Minister’s suggestion that the Government might lose a challenge over this on age discrimination grounds. One would be able to, and would certainly have to, defend the decision on clear public interest grounds. If an age limit of 18 can be defended, I see no reason at all why an age limit of 21 could not be, given that we know that so many of those carrying out acid attacks are between the ages of 18 and 21. There is a clear public safety ground for seeking to reduce the availability of acid to people aged 18 to 21. On the question of inconvenience, I accept that there will be some difficulties for some of those who are required to implement such changes. However, given that Challenge 21 is in place, shopkeepers are already getting into the habit of challenging people up to the age of 21.”
“The Minister is absolutely right to make the point that the average age of perpetrators varies between years, but it is clearly the case—as shown by the Metropolitan police figures given in answer to my freedom of information request, which I think go back to 2002—that setting the restriction at the age of 18 is too low. The Minister makes the point that a change will cause inconvenience for some. However, the question is how seriously the Committee is willing to take this problem. Do we recognise the appalling harm being done by acid attacks? Some of them are carried out by under-18s, but the majority are carried out by people who are young but who are over 18. If we raise the age limit to 21, we would be able—I think—to reduce the scale of the problem among a significant cohort of those who carry out such attacks at the moment.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for her thoughtful response to the amendments, although I am of course disappointed by the conclusion that she reached. I accept that it might be difficult to raise the age limits—it would not be completely straightforward—but that does not mean that it should not be done. Indeed, the Minister’s evidence seemed to set out a stronger case than mine. If the most recent data suggest that the average age of the people carrying out these attacks is 23, the case for limiting the ban on sales to 18-year-olds is even weaker, and the case for raising the threshold to a higher level is stronger still.”
“I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert ‘a product which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion.’”
“I cannot see any good reason why the corrosive products referred to in clauses 1 to 4 should be defined so differently from the corrosive substances in clauses 5 to 11. If there is a good reason, I shall certainly be interested to hear it, but it seems to me to be a significant puzzle.”
“This group of two gently probing amendments reflects my puzzlement at what strikes me as a quite peculiar feature of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the sale and delivery of corrosive products and cover the age limit that we have debated already this afternoon. For this part of the Bill, corrosive products are defined in clause 1(9) in reference to the list in schedule 1. We will discuss later the specific things on that list, why they are there and so on. Clause 5 and the following clauses deal with the possession of a corrosive substance. For that part of the Bill, a corrosive substance is defined in a completely different way. It is defined as “a substance which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion”. I am genuinely mystified about why we have two completely different definitions for essentially the same thing.”
“I am grateful to the Minister, but I must say that I do not understand her explanation. I think that what she has done, very effectively, is to make a good case for the schedule 1 approach. I completely accept that retailers need to be clear about what it is they are not allowed to sell, but surely police officers equally need to be clear about what people are not allowed to carry around the streets.”
“So the Minister is saying it is a question of the severity of the effect of the substance. That is a little bit more helpful, but I am still puzzled. If a police officer takes a Lucozade bottle that has something dodgy in it, I am not sure they will be able to establish very readily on the spot whether it is a corrosive substance or not.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for that. That sounds like a welcome step. Will that kit test for things in schedule 1 or for general corrosion? [ Interruption. ] Okay.”
“I am grateful for that way of communicating that information. That does sound helpful. The Minister mentioned vinegar and, presumably, possessing vinegar in a public place will not be an offence. Surely we are talking about things which will do serious damage, which, it seems to me, takes us back to the attractions of the schedule 1 approach. I made it clear at the start that I am not planning to push this to a vote, but I think there is a danger here that police officers will be given a rather unclear duty and have an unclear obligation imposed on them by this part of the Bill. As we have debated it, the view I suggested at the start has been strengthened. The clarity schedule 1 brings would be helpful in clause 5, as well as in clauses 1 to 4, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .”
“When we saw the scientific evidence, or the summary of it, I hoped that we would have some information about that, but it is a very thin document; it is an annotated couple of sides and does not tell us very much more than the schedule itself. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a little more about the basis for including each of the entries in schedule 1.”
“The Minister referred to amendment 11 in her remarks on the previous group. I want to query one particular aspect of schedule 1 because there is a broader point here. She said something about schedule 1 and the DSTL submission that has been made available to the Committee—I am grateful to her for ensuring that we had that in time for this debate. What I am not clear about is what exactly the basis is for including something in schedule 1 or the annex to the summary of the scientific evidence. What is the basis for setting the concentration that is spelt out in the Bill? Is there a threshold for the degree of corrosiveness—or something—that must be passed in order for a substance and a concentration to be specified on the face of the Bill?”
“I am pleased that the new Secretary of State is planning to meet Michel Barnier much more frequently than his predecessor did, and I welcome this new sense of urgency. On the conditionality of the financial settlement, when the withdrawal agreement is ratified in October, or whenever it is, the UK’s payment will be obligatory. Will he confirm that the future relationship, at that stage, will be covered only by a declaration, which will not be obligatory on either party?”
“The list of corrosive substances in schedule 1 is based on some scientific advice that the Government have received, as I understand it. Could that advice be made available to us as well?”
“There is a lack of data because it is a relatively new crime; well, it is not a new crime, as we all know—it is an old crime—but the numbers are so much higher than they have ever been in the past. Suddenly we are addressing a relatively new crime, and we are at those early stages where more data needs to be accumulated to better understand the problem, the motivations and the environment in which perpetrators are committing those attacks—to understand the real motivations behind those acts. I commission a lot of research on the subject because it is a relatively new phenomenon here in the UK. I have commissioned law studies to understand what laws are in place in other countries, how we can learn from those laws and how they are being implemented.”
“Q I want to ask some questions about the corrosive substance elements of the Bill, so I guess my questions are mainly to Mr Shah, but I would be interested to know what others have to say about this as well. Mr Shah, at the start you told us that you had done a freedom of information exercise, compiling data about acid attacks around the UK. Do you think that enough data on this subject is being collected at the moment and published by the Home Office? Jaf Shah: No, but the Home Office last year commissioned the University of Leicester to look into the motivations behind the attacks. Some of the critical data and understanding of what types of corrosive fluids are being used in attacks could be produced through the forensic work conducted within hospitals and the investigation process when attacks are reported.”
“Q On the data for the UK, did you say half the acid attacks in the UK are in London? Did I understand you correctly? Jaf Shah: There were 470 reported attacks in London in 2017, out of 948 nationwide.”
“Should we have a list setting out the problem substances, or would a more general definition work better? Jaf Shah: I would be interested in having a list. The reason I would prefer that method is that once you start to collect data after an attack has been committed and you have the forensics, you can understand which substance is most likely to have been used. If you can compare it with an existing list, that helps in terms of accumulating hard data, and then we can actually target the particular fluids that were used. It makes sense to have a list and to report against that list.”
“Q So not quite 50%, but very close. I would be interested in your views about something that puzzles me about the Bill—no doubt at some point we will have the opportunity to ask the Minister about this. There are two main offences in the Bill relating to corrosive substances: selling them to people under 18—the Bill bans that—and having them in a public place. However, the definition of “corrosive substance” differs for those two offences. For the first, there is a reference to a schedule: you must not sell the products in schedule 1 to people under 18. For the second, there is a different definition, in clause 5(9), which states that “‘corrosive substance’ means a substance which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion”. From your point of view, which of those two approaches is preferable?”
“Q Is there anything that it strikes you is not on the list but really ought to be? Jaf Shah: If I remember correctly, there are about eight substances, and they certainly constitute the types of substances that have been used in attacks internationally.”
“Q The Bill makes it an offence to sell any of those substances to somebody under 18. Do you think 18 is the right place to set the age limit, or should we look at banning sales to people under 21, for example? Jaf Shah: I would certainly be open to extending the ban to people under 21. I put forward 18 initially, really to tie it in with existing controls for other weapons so that there was consistency, but I can certainly see the value of increasing the age to 21.”
“Q One more question. You referred to the fact that sulphuric acid was recently promoted from the lesser category under the explosive precursor regulations to the higher category, which means you have to have a licence to purchase it. I agree with you that that was definitely the right thing to do. Do you think there is a case for having a fresh look at that whole classification arrangement and the distinction in those regulations between substances that are reportable and those that are regulated? Jaf Shah: I certainly think so. Part of the issue we have is a lack of data. If we keep our options open, we may prevent attacks from occurring in the future. Limiting the range may be detrimental in the long term, I suspect.”
“Q The Bill makes it an offence to sell corrosive substances to people under 18. As I understand it, the evidence is that when checks are made of retailers’ compliance with not selling things that they are already prohibited from selling to under-18s, there is a high level of failure. Can you tell us a little about what trading standards’ experience is of the degree of compliance with bans on sales to under-18s, what you think that tells us about how effective the ban will be in this case, and what we can do to make it more effective? Trish Burls: In terms of age-restricted products in general, do you mean?”
“In Croydon we offer a lot of education to traders—we offer free-of-charge trader training sessions for them so as they aware of the law in that area—and we will check that they are complying by carrying out test purchasing, using young people. Overall, I feel that the age of 18 is challenged a lot more now. Certainly our rates of failure, in terms of test purchases carried through by a young person’s purchase of an age-restricted product, are lower than they used to be.”
“Yes. Trish Burls: We enforce a range of products already—alcohol, tobacco, fireworks, butane and knives, obviously—and trading standards advocates age check 25 or age check 21, a system whereby a retailer is encouraged and advised to check someone’s age if they look under 25 so as to give the retailers a big gap between 18 and 25, and to get them into the habit of asking for the appropriate identification at that point. Levels of compliance have got much better in recent years, in part because of the fact that age-restricted products are high on the agenda for trading standards to keep children safe. Most trading standards departments do regular checks on this through test purchasing—almost a double band of checks as well.”
“As I said before, it is an unusual retailer who will deliberately sell an age-restricted product into the hands of a young person, but I am afraid I do not know. Ben Richards: We do not have any concrete figures. The only thing we would say is that obviously consistency will be the issue. Some areas are very proactive with their business communities, reaching out with advice and guidance. Some are less so, because of resource constraints. That will be an issue with the delivery of the obligation.”
“Q Let me ask about another aspect of compliance. The sale of some things listed in the explosives precursor regulations requires a licence to buy them. Sulphuric acid has recently been added to that list. Some of these products are sold in hardware stores and, I think, in some cases pound shops, where drain cleaner is sold. What is your impression of the degree of compliance likely with this new obligation to have a licence before buying these things? Are shopkeepers going to check that? How does it appear? Trish Burls: I do not know, is the simple answer, I am afraid. I would guesstimate that when advice and education go first there will be a high degree of compliance among retailers, because awareness is raised.”
“Q One final question: to what extent do you think retailers are alert to the concerns about acid sales? Is this on their agenda? Do trading standards departments discuss it with retailers or is it quite new and not in operation? Trish Burls: I think exactly that. At the moment, this is still a new area for them. I would anticipate that there would probably be a low level of compliance if you were to go out now and carry out a series of test purchases on acid-related products, simply through lack of awareness and lack of training. Certainly, some work needs to be done before this becomes law to educate to prevent sales.”
“I want to ask you about the corrosive substance aspects of the Bill. I am a bit puzzled about why there are two different definitions of a corrosive substance in the Bill. One is the list in schedule 1 and the other is in clause 5, which defines it as something “capable of burning…skin by corrosion” From a policing point of view, which is the more useful definition? [ Interruption. ]”
“It is important to be able to seize that liquid and take it back for a degree of analysis, which is the second definition around whether it is capable of burning skin—in other words, is it offensive. Part of that police officer’s requirement would be to identify the malicious intent of holding that liquid in a public place.”
“In that instance, if the offence was the sale to somebody under the age of 18—so we are considering the retailer as having committed the offence—it would be necessary to know the content of that specific substance, whatever it might be: the drain cleaner, the bleach, the product. In terms of operational policing, I suppose the most likely place for most police officers in terms of interaction would be out on the street in a public place. Those offences are likely to come to light through local intelligence, through a stop and search driven by those reasonable grounds to believe that somebody is going to commit an offence and to be able to identify that liquid, which we know from previous offences is often decanted into a container that is completely different from the original one.”
“Q I was asking about the two different ways in which the Bill defines corrosive substances. There is the list in schedule 1, and then clause 5(9) states, “‘corrosive substance’ means a substance which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion”. From a policing point of view and arresting people carrying out these crimes, which is the better definition for you to work with? Assistant Chief Constable Kearton: It depends on the policing function and the offence being considered at the time. The first is very specific; it defines the corrosive content of a liquid that is being sold.”
“Q Is the list in schedule 1 the right list? Are there things that you are aware of that are problematic and perhaps ought to be on the list, or does the list seem to you to be complete? Assistant Chief Constable Kearton : I would not confess to being the best chemist in the room. I have learned a lot about the content of chemical substances, but that is the list that I have been advised on and has been put forward. They are the most harmful, but also the most prevalent substances that have been used in previous offences.”
“The question then is, why is it there and what is the intent in having that liquid there? I can see potential difficulties about identifying in an educational setting the difference between having something that is there for a legitimate purpose and having something that is going to be used, or is intended to be used as an offensive weapon. That is a challenge. If one is in a public place, I believe it is harder to say that it is being owned for or carried for a legitimate purpose, especially if it is concealed and within the context of other information that supports the hypothesis that it may be used for an offensive weapon.”
“Q A welcome aspect of the Bill is making it an offence to have a corrosive substance in a public place, just as, for a long time, it has been an offence to have a knife in a public place. The Bill also develops the offence that has been there for a while of having a knife in educational premises by extending it to further education. Do you think there ought to be a parallel offence around having acid in a school or educational premise? Would that be helpful to the police? Assistant Chief Constable Kearton : I believe there is a requirement to consider the context of that liquid. As was said earlier, the very stark differences between knives and corrosive substances are that corrosive substances will be in all our properties at home in domestic circumstances. They will be present in schools.”
“There will always be some difference in reported figures, but they indicate a trend and I am having further analytical work carried out to identify any indicators that will help us understand this offence better.”
“In 2015, the data return that was carried out on behalf of the National Police Chiefs Council by the Home Office was 408. In 2016, the number was 700 and the most recent number, which is based on the last six months of last year but extrapolated to an annual figure, came back at 800, so there is a slight increase. It is important to understand how much of that is an increase in offensive incidents and how much is better recording practice by the police service alongside more confidence among victims to come forward and, potentially, more awareness of and use of such offensive attacks. There is also the question whether that 800 figure is a true and accurate record, or whether some people are still going to A&E and not coming forward to report to the police service.”
“He receives his information from different sources and has been one of the very useful supportive partners trying to encourage those who are victims of this particular crime to come forward and report what is happening. As with many offensive assaults against victims, there is an understanding by the police that we do not always have a true record because, for various reasons, people do not want to come forward and report to us. An area of policing strategy has been to focus on information sharing between health professionals. For example, we would see a victim go to A&E rather than come to the police service, and it would be for us to try and gather that data and share that information so that we can have the most accurate information possible.”
“Q In a sense, you could equally have a knife in a school for a perfectly legitimate purpose. I wonder whether there is an analogy between the two. I would like to raise another issue. It struck me for a while that there is a bit of uncertainty about the number of acid attacks taking place because we have not focused very much on them. They have risen very suddenly over the last few years. The figure you gave us earlier sounded a little different from the figure that Mr Shah from the Acid Survivors Trust gave us. Can you tell us the state of play on producing reliable, accepted numbers on how many acid attacks there are? Assistant Chief Constable Kearton : Mr Jaf Shah and I have communicated quite a lot over numbers.”
“Q Are we going to see more systematic, reliable and accepted figures in this area in the future? Assistant Chief Constable Kearton : Yes. For the future, I have been able to gain some agreement from the Home Office that offences of corrosive substance attacks will form part of the annual data return to the Home Office. All 43 forces across England and Wales will be mandatorily required to report their instances to the Home Office on an annual basis.”
“I join the Home Secretary in those tributes. I asked the Immigration Minister in the House last week to offer students whose visas were cancelled for allegedly cheating in TOEIC—test of english for international communication—English tests a new secure test to see whether they can resume their studies. Her reply was: “It is, of course, an issue that we are considering very carefully.” —[ Official Report , 12 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 1121.] Will she indicate to the House when she expects to reach a decision?”
“12. To ask the right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, what progress the Church of England is making on building new churches in London.”
“Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Church of England is now building its first new church buildings in London since the 1950s to accommodate not decline, which is widely understood to be what is going on, but a very sharp increase in the number of people attending public worship?”
“In 2014-15, more than 40,000 overseas students lost their leave to remain in the UK because an American testing firm alleged that they had cheated in their English language test. Many of them were plunged into great hardship. It is now becoming clear that a significant proportion of those allegations were without foundation. Will the Minister now offer those students who, remarkably, have managed to stay here, a large group of whom were in the House yesterday, a new secure English test to establish fairly whether they can now resume their studies?”
“I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. She has already quoted the National Audit Office report. From that quotation, does it not sound to her as though the NAO’s view is that this project should be paused and fixed?”
“But a very large number of people do not have a month’s salary in the bank. There are a lot of good reasons why that is the case, but the most obvious is that people are often paid weekly. A very large number of people are paid weekly, but Ministers—I asked the former Secretary of State about this some years ago—have never had an answer to how those people are supposed to survive. I am grateful that the Secretary of State has told the House that she is listening and that she wants to work cross-party to fix these problems, and I very much welcome the fact that last October the delay was reduced from six weeks to five, but a gap of five weeks is asking too much of people who very often have virtually nothing in the bank when they make their claim.”
“Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) has told the House already, that four out of 10 claimants in both the survey’s waves that were looked at were experiencing difficulties keeping up with bills. That is a much higher proportion of people facing hardship than has been the case with the previous system. Why is universal credit causing much greater hardship than the previous system? Above all, it is for the very straightforward reason that people have to wait for five weeks before they are entitled to anything other than a loan once they have applied. A lot of people—I think we can all understand why—struggle to survive during those weeks. The theory was this: someone who has just left their job has a month’s salary in the bank that will see them through for a month; and after the usual waiting days, their money will start to come in.”
“Universal credit was a good idea, but the problems we are seeing in our constituencies are very significant. The Trussell Trust told us in its briefing for this debate that when universal credit is fully rolled out in an area, demand for food banks in that area goes up by 52% in the following year compared with 13% in areas where universal credit has not been fully rolled out. I noticed that the National Audit Office looked specifically at what the Trussell Trust said about demand for food banks where universal credit has been fully rolled out. The NAO states that its analysis “aligns with the Trussell Trust’s.” Indeed, the Department’s own analysis—the survey that the Secretary of State referred to, which was published last month—makes the point, as the hon.”
“The Secretary of State can perhaps discount those representations, but she should weigh carefully what the National Audit Office said, to which attention has already been drawn today. Its report said that the Government should “ensure the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes.” I very much hope that the Secretary of State and her fellow Ministers will weigh that cautionary note very carefully indeed.”