House of Commons
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Bill
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Misuse of parking badge—
‘Anyone found guilty of knowingly allowing another to use their disabled parking badge shall be liable on summary conviction to fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.
New clause 3—Use of stolen disabled parking badge—
‘Anyone found guilty of using a stolen disabled parking badge will receive a minimum custodial sentence of six months.’.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert ‘in writing’.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 18, at end insert
‘the written notification must be sent by registered post and signed for by the applicant or someone living at that address.’.
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
‘(c) it is a defence to the offence in this section if a new valid parking badge has been issued that covers the time the badge was used or if the person being prosecuted has not received notification of the cancellation of the badge in question.’.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 35, at end insert
‘in subsection (4C), leave out the words after “on summary conviction to’ to end of line and insert “a custodial sentence not exceeding one month”.’.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 35, at end insert
‘after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) An issuing authority has a duty to send out badges that are being renewed no less than three weeks prior to the date of expiration of the badge in question provided the applicant has completed the necessary paperwork by the authority’s deadline for such paperwork.”.’.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 35, at end insert
‘after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) An issuing authority has a duty to invite members of the badge scheme in writing to renew their membership two months before the badge is due to lapse.”.’.
Philip Davies
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) on his great achievement in getting this far with his private Member’s Bill. He has steered it through with his customary charm and skill. I very much hope that it will find its way on to the statute book and that it will make further progress today, but I believe that the Bill could be improved in some areas, so my amendments are proposed in a spirit of constructiveness more than anything else. I have not given up hope that he may be persuaded that some, if not all, of my amendments would greatly enhance not just the Bill’s wording but the spirit of what he is trying to achieve.
I should make it clear from the start that this subject is very close to my heart. Members may know that before I entered Parliament I spent many a year working for Asda. During that time, I was delighted to have the role of trying to improve the facilities and services for our disabled customers. The biggest issue that they used to complain about, by a considerable distance and without any real competition, was disabled parking—the abuse of disabled parking spaces and the fact that they found it difficult to get them and that there was a lack of them.
I spent a great deal of time considering that particular issue and was very proud to be a member of a campaign called baywatch. Before anybody gets the wrong idea, it had nothing to do with Pamela Anderson or people dashing around in red swimsuits and bikinis. The campaign was set up to improve disabled parking. Its members were the four major supermarket chains, as well as disability groups such as the Disabled Drivers Motor Club, the Disabled Drivers Association and Scope, which used to host our monthly meetings; Disability Now magazine was also an active participant.
Parking badges were without doubt one of the biggest problems, and the solutions are not as easy as people may think. I will not go through all the problems but I want to touch on why we need to tread carefully. People have blue badges for good reason—they have them because they need them to park close to where they need to go—but complications arise when, for example, somebody has been on holiday and broken their leg. They would not qualify for a blue badge, because they are reserved for people with more permanent conditions, but that person is incapacitated, albeit temporarily, and might need a parking space close to the store. The issue is not always as black and white as people may want it to be; shades of grey and nuances have to be taken into consideration.
I have spoken to organisations that represent people with disabilities who are particularly exercised by the problem of disabled parking, and my amendments are based on some of their thoughts. They would strengthen my hon. Friend’s Bill, and I hope he will be persuaded of the need to do that.
New clause 1 is fairly straightforward and self-explanatory:
“Anyone found guilty of knowingly using a fraudulent parking badge will receive a minimum custodial sentence of three months.”
The Bill, although excellent, is rather silent on the penalties for people who break the rules. These are serious offences and they should be treated as such.
One reason why we needed the baywatch group in the first place and why many people with disabilities are so exercised about this matter is the scale of the problem. It is not something that happens on just a few occasions; it happens day in, day out. I urge hon. Members to go around places where there are disabled parking bays to see how many of the cars display a valid badge. I think that they will be staggered by the number of times they come across one or more cars where a proper badge is not displayed. In my opinion, that is the case because the penalties for not displaying the correct badge are insufficient. The purpose of the new clause is that if the penalties were more severe, they would reduce the abuse of disabled parking bays.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I seek a little clarification? The new clause refers to
“a minimum custodial sentence of three months.”
Does that mean that three months would have to be served in prison or that the sentence passed by the court would be three months, which might mean that only a few days would be served in prison?
Philip Davies
It would be the sentence passed by the court. My hon. Friend makes the good point that people who are sent to prison these days serve a maximum of only half their sentence. People with short sentences, such as three months, may serve considerably less than half their sentence. However, to reassure him that I am not going soft on crime in my old age, I still hope that one day we will have a Government who bring back honesty in sentencing so that the sentence handed down by the court is the one that is served. I obviously think that a person who is sentenced to three months in prison should serve three months in prison. Unfortunately, that is not the case under the current lax regime, but we should not give up hope that it may happen one day.
I have suggested this specific offence because my understanding is that there is currently no such offence. There are many people who are more qualified than I am, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is a lawyer of considerable distinction, who will perhaps clarify whether that is correct. Currently, anybody who is found guilty of knowingly using a fraudulent parking badge would have to be pursued under the Fraud Act 2006. As far as I understand it, no other offence would have been committed. Under the 2006 Act, the maximum sentence is six months in prison. Hon. Members could argue that we have the relevant offence in the 2006 Act and that there is already a maximum sentence of six months in prison, and ask why we need the sentence of three months. What I am trying to get across is the need for a minimum sentence.
Most people with disabilities are under the impression that nothing ever happens to people who go around using fraudulent blue badges. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any figures on that. The feeling is that such people are rarely caught, that if they are caught, they are very rarely prosecuted, and that if they are prosecuted, nothing really happens to them. That is why the problem persists. A minimum custodial sentence of three months would not only send out a message about how seriously the House takes this problem, but would act as a useful deterrent—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but there is a lot of noisy wittering at the back of the Chamber. I am sure that hon. Members, whether Back Benchers or Ministers, will wish to listen to the speech of the hon. Gentleman and to show some courtesy. If they do not wish to do so, they are perfectly free to exit the Chamber. That might be a great relief, as it would allow the rest of us to focus on the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. When you talked about wittering, I thought for a moment that you were referring to my speech. The people concerned have voted with their feet and left the Chamber, rather than listen to my speech, so they should at least be commended for good taste.
We need to make it clear that this is a serious issue. The new clause would send out the message that we take this issue seriously and it would act as a useful deterrent. We should make the point that this is not only something that is wrong and immoral, but something that has a negative impact on somebody’s life. Such people are knowingly taking up a space that they do not need and preventing somebody who does need it from taking it up. They should suffer a more severe consequence than just a financial penalty.
Mr Chope
In expressing some reservations about this proposal, I say to my hon. Friend that setting a minimum sentence removes from the court any discretion. A rather dangerous precedent may be set by the European Union, which is thinking of passing a law that would mean that anybody who committed fraud against the European Union would be subject to a much higher minimum sentence than anybody who commits fraud against any other organisation. Is that not an example of a very bad precedent?
Philip Davies
I understand my hon. Friend’s point and he is far more expert in matters of law than I am or ever will be. I bow to his superior knowledge in that regard and, in the matters that we are discussing, as a former Transport Minister.
We would all be happy to leave more discretion to the courts if we felt that they were treating certain offences with the seriousness with which they are treated by the public and the people who are affected by them. People with disabilities and people like me who are concerned about the impact on people who need disabled spaces simply do not feel that anybody, including the courts, takes this matter seriously enough. This proposal is a last resort. If there was any evidence that this matter was being treated more seriously, I would not have brought it forward. I am making the point that the matter is not being treated seriously enough. It seems to me that this is the only way of doing so.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. There can be problems if discretion is taken away from the courts, but there are not many nuances at play in this issue. It is not as if there could be lots of mitigating factors. We are talking about somebody who is
“knowingly using a fraudulent parking badge”
Perhaps I am too strict on these matters, but I do not see that there could be much mitigation. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who was a distinguished barrister, could come up with some marvellous mitigation for one of his clients, but I cannot say that I would be greatly impressed by it. This is therefore the kind of offence where a minimum sentence would be useful.
Mr Chope
Without getting into too much detail, I would say that members of the legal profession benefit from the fact that the court has discretion when they put forward arguments on behalf of their clients and seek mitigation. If the court had no discretion, it might remove the role of the lawyer.
Philip Davies
My proposal would not end all discretion because, as I made clear, a court may send somebody to prison for up to six months. If my hon. Friend represented somebody as a barrister, and did so with great distinction, as he always used to in his previous life, I am sure that his client would be pleased to escape with just a three-month sentence. The point is that we must have lines in the sand to show that the offence is unacceptable.
Philip Davies
I see my hon. Friend cranking into action, so I give way to him.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am interested by my hon. Friend’s new clause, which refers to people “knowingly using” a permit but does not say for what purpose. Would there be a three-month sentence for knowingly using a fraudulent permit as a Christmas decoration, or something like that, or would it have to be knowingly used for the purpose for which it was issued?
Philip Davies
As ever, my hon. Friend comes up with an entertaining point, and no doubt a rather good one. He may well be criticising the wording of my new clause in his customary charming way, but I think it is safe to say that using a fraudulent badge as a Christmas decoration would not land somebody in prison for three months. The offence would be using it fraudulently for the purpose for which parking badges are designed.
New clause 2 is along similar lines and states:
“Anyone found guilty of knowingly allowing another to use their disabled parking badge shall be liable on summary conviction to fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
For the avoidance of doubt, I believe that means a fine of up to £5,000. One thing that particularly frustrates people with disabilities is when people who have a genuine blue badge hand it on to a family member, friend or whoever so that they can park in a convenient location where they would otherwise not be able to park. That undermines the rigour and fitness for purpose of the system, and it is a serious matter. It denies a space to someone who needs it and gives it to someone who does not. Again, I believe it deserves a more serious penalty.
I believe that the offence is currently covered by section 115 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown or the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The new clause would make the offence specific to the Bill, and it would attract a higher fine than it currently does. We should punish not just people who steal blue badges or own them fraudulently but those who abuse badges that are handed out genuinely. I hope my hon. Friend will see that those are serious matters that need more serious penalties.
New clause 3 states:
“Anyone found guilty of using a stolen disabled parking badge will receive a minimum custodial sentence of six months.”
I suspect that, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be concerned about the lack of discretion that the new clause would give the courts, and some people may well be concerned that it sets out an even longer sentence than new clause 1 does for the use of a fraudulent disabled parking badge. The reason why I believe the offence of using a stolen badge needs a more serious sentence is the double whammy effect that it has. If somebody uses a fraudulent blue badge that they have cooked up and designed to look like the real thing, they effectively take away a space from somebody who needs it. If somebody steals a blue badge, however, the double whammy effect is that not only are they using a space that they do not need and denying it to somebody else, but they have taken the blue badge away from the person who genuinely needs it. That person is therefore also unable to find a space. The reason for the length of the sentences suggested in the new clause is that a stolen blue badge is twice as serious as a fraudulent one—the offender not only benefits but deprives somebody else.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is not being a little bit harsh in his new clauses. Could he give us some guidance about what other offences attract such minimum sentences? After all, misusing a parking badge is only a parking offence.
Philip Davies
I will not get distracted by going off piste and talking about other offences that should have minimum sentences, but they are not an unusual idea. In fact, earlier this year we passed the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which included minimum sentences for threatening someone with a knife. The concept is not unusual, and the Government have been quite happy to use it.
My hon. Friend says that misusing a blue badge is only a parking offence, and he is clearly right, but I suggest to him that it causes a great deal of distress to many people. It not only causes inconvenience but can deprive people of the ability to go out and live their lives. I have spoken to many people who use blue badges, and sometimes they cannot go out because they know there will not be a parking space available to them, as they will all be clogged up by people who do not need them.
Planning regulations now set out a certain number of disabled parking spaces that should be available, so there should be an ample number, but we still find that people are abusing the system. I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, but I do not see these offences as being just road traffic offences like not wearing a seat belt, which largely has an impact only on the person who does it. I see them as much more serious, because they deprive people of their freedom to go about their daily lives. It seems to me that when someone is found guilty of knowingly and recklessly denying others their freedoms, it is a reasonable punishment that their freedoms are taken away as well.
Mr Chope
Is not the problem with the new clause that there is no requirement that a person found guilty of using a stolen disabled parking badge should have done so knowing that it was stolen? Introducing a minimum sentence higher than the standard sentence for handling stolen goods, for example, which requires knowledge or belief that the goods are stolen, is surely far too draconian.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am quite happy to be found guilty of being draconian, and I seem to spend my life in Parliament asking for more draconian sentences for a range of offences. I do not mind his describing me in that way, because there are far worse things to be described as when it comes to law and order. I would sooner take the tag of being draconian than the tag of being soft on dealing with crime. However, he makes a perfectly valid point. As ever, his quick and insightful mind is a benefit to the House.
Amendment 1 suggests that when someone is given notice of the cancellation of a parking badge, it should be given in writing. It is simply intended to clarify what is expected of local authorities. Notification can be given in all sorts of forms, but it is important that everybody knows where they are and that there is a clear record that notice was given. If notice is given over the phone, a person who denies they ever received that phone call may well be on strong ground. Notification given in writing, however, is perfectly clear, so we should ensure that that is what happens.
Philip Davies
I am not sure whether it is a compliment or an insult to say that I am no longer draconian, but I will take it as a compliment in the spirit in which I think it was intended.
Amendment 3 to clause 3 would insert in subsection (4C) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
“a custodial sentence not exceeding one month.”.
As I understand it, the existing penalty is a level 3 fine, which I believe is up to £1,000—I am sure the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown will happily correct me if I am wrong. It would not be the first time I have been wrong, and it will not be the last time. The amendment would increase that penalty to one month’s imprisonment, meaning that anything up to that could be used as a punishment, including, for example, a community order or prison for repeat offenders. That would also allow the use of increased fines, as suggested by Disabled Motoring UK—one of the organisations I consulted in advance of this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be elated with this amendment. I have moved away from the principle of a minimum sentence, and the provision would simply allow the courts to increase the penalty to up to one month’s imprisonment, if they saw fit. It would place no more onerous obligations on them than that, but it would reflect how seriously these offences should be taken. It may be that for persistent offenders, a short prison sentence is the most appropriate penalty, and I commend the amendment to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.
Amendments 8 and 9 also relate to clause 3. Amendment 8 would insert in subsection (6) of the 1970 Act:
“An issuing authority has a duty to send out badges that are being renewed no less than three weeks prior to the date of expiration of the badge in question provided the applicant has completed the necessary paperwork by the authority’s deadline for such paperwork.”
That was suggested to me by Disabled Motoring UK, and, if I may, I extend my thanks to that organisation for its help in considering the Bill and ways that it may be improved.
All local authorities should be required to send out badges in good time. Clause 3 is about the use of parking badges that are no longer valid. When a badge is being renewed—unless my earlier amendments regarding the defence that someone did not receive a letter or can still use their old badge in some circumstances are incorporated in the Bill—amendment 8 is a further defence mechanism. If we do not have such defences in the Bill, we must find some way to ensure that local authorities send out renewals in good time. We must ensure that people receive their badges on time and do not inadvertently fall foul of my hon. Friend’s Bill.
In terms of time scale, I am the first to concede that my choice of three weeks is somewhat arbitrary, and I accept criticism for that. It seems to me, however, that three weeks is a reasonable time for any delays in the post to be dealt with, and it should ensure that everybody receives their renewal before their previous badge has expired.
Mr Chope
Will my hon. Friend clarify what he means by “renewal”? My understanding is that many disabled parking badges are issued indefinitely for people who are permanently disabled rather than limited to a period. If they were so limited, we might not have so many problems, but what does he mean by “renewal”?
Philip Davies
I mean exactly what I say. My hon. Friend is right, but some badges have an expiry date and must therefore be renewed, and my proposal deals with that. Some renewals are automatic. I am in favour of expiry dates in some cases, because people’s disabilities change over time—people might not need a blue badge further down the line as the nature of their disability changes. However, people should expect to receive a renewal on time. If they do not, it makes a mockery of the system.
As I have said, amendment 8 would provide a further safeguard if my other proposals are not accepted, but I should make it clear that any one amendment is not dependent on the acceptance of the others. There is no reason why amendments 2, 3 and 8 should not be accepted—they are not contradictory, but in many respects complementary. However, if one or other is not accepted, we still need a safeguard in the Bill.
Amendment 9 is on a theme similar to amendment 8. It asks that an
“issuing authority has a duty to invite members of the badge scheme in writing to renew their membership two months before the badge is due to lapse.”
That, too, would be an additional safeguard. We need to ensure that the people who use badges are the people who need and are entitled to them, and we need to prevent people who do not need and are not entitled to them from using them. The problem we could end up with is that some people could fall foul of the law even if they genuinely need a blue badge and if they would have one in other circumstances.
Amendment 9 would ensure that issuing authorities have a duty to remind people that the expiry date is coming up and they need to renew, so that people are not caught out with an out-of-date badge. They would fall foul of clause 3, even though they are not the people whom the Bill chases. The amendment would ensure that we go after people only if we should be going after them, and that people do not inadvertently fall foul of the regulations.
My general theme is that the offences are serious, and hon. Members have a duty to tackle them. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for introducing the Bill. He has picked a subject that is incredibly important to people around the country. I met many such people in my years at Asda when we tried to tackle this thorny problem, and many of my constituents are incredibly frustrated by it. The theme of my proposals is to stiffen the penalties for people who fall foul of the rules, abuse the blue badge scheme, and knowingly take places away from people who need them, and to treat such offences with the seriousness with which many constituents treat them. People are appalled by those who abuse disabled parking spaces and who use blue badges when they are not entitled to them. I seek to punish them properly, but I also want to ensure that the Bill does not catch people for whom the blue badge scheme was designed and who inadvertently fall foul of it.
I commend my proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s support and to my hon. Friend incorporating them in the Bill.
Mr Chope
I had hoped that we would hear from the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), whether any of the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) would be acceptable. I have set out in interventions why I am nervous about the introduction of more minimum custodial sentences, because it undermines the discretion that we should allow the courts in deciding the appropriate penalty, subject to a maximum penalty.
Philip Davies
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but does he agree that, in many cases, courts undermine the principle of their having freedom and discretion by not giving the strong sentences that the public would wish people to be given?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is right in one sense. Instead of independent courts deciding sentences, the Government give sentencing guidelines, which inhibit courts’ ability to implement the sentences that they believe to be appropriate. I accept that that undermines the independence of the magistracy and the judiciary in deciding on the right sentence. The guidelines cross the line between the Executive and the judiciary, which leads to pressure on my hon. Friend to introduce measures such as new clause 1. He believes that introducing a legal minimum sentence is the only way to ensure that courts genuinely have the discretion to give a serious sentence if they believe it is merited, and are not undermined by the sentencing guidelines.
I am with my hon. Friend to that extent, but I am nervous, because as with so many things, introducing one constraint results in unforeseen consequences. In an intervention, I cited a current example. The Ministry of Justice is fighting the EU over the suggestion that a fraud against the EU is somehow much more serious than fraud against anybody else, even though for time immemorial the EU has not been able to get its accounts audited. That is the difficulty with proposals to introduce minimum custodial sentences, although I recognise that my hon. Friend’s proposal rightly takes account of the strength of public outrage at the abuse of the disabled parking badge system.
Philip Davies
I understand my hon. Friend’s parallel, but I am not asking for a more severe sentence for disabled badge fraud than for any other kind of fraud. The maximum sentence under the relevant part of the Fraud Act is six months. I am asking merely for a minimum of three months. I am not treating the offence more seriously, but saying that the powers to deal with such offences should be invoked.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is saying that if somebody is found guilty of knowingly using a fraudulent parking badge, the court should be limited to giving a sentence of anything between three and six months, but would have no discretion, for example, to issue a community sentence or a fine, and could not take account of a situation in which sending the offender to prison would be unthinkable. I am probably sounding rather soft compared with my hon. Friend, but that is an example of a court’s discretion. If the offence carries a maximum penalty of six months, why can we not leave it to the courts to decide what penalty should be imposed without requiring them to impose a minimum three-month sentence? That is my difficulty with new clause 1.
By contrast, in new clause 2 my hon. Friend is talking about a maximum fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, thereby ensuring that the sentencing authorities have discretion to decide the level of fine or whether indeed a fine would be appropriate.
The other points that my hon. Friend made are centred around the issue of renewal of disabled parking permits, and that fits in with his opening remarks. It is now some 20 years since I was the Minister responsible for this area of policy, and at that stage we still had the problem of people who were very disabled for a short period of time because of an accident, for example—they would make a recovery in due course, so they were not permanently disabled, but their mobility was just as lacking as that of someone who was permanently disabled. The fact that the disabled persons’ parking badges scheme has not accommodated the temporarily disabled has caused a lot of misunderstanding and resentment. I have had many constituency cases—I am sure that my hon. Friend has too—of people who thought that they were more disabled than someone living next door, but because their disability was not, or might not be, permanent, they were not entitled to a badge.
Philip Davies
I think I made it clear in my speech that we had the same issue when I was working for Asda. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, because of that anomaly, it would be acceptable for someone who has a blue badge to hand it over to someone with a temporary disability and that that should not be penalised?
Mr Chope
Far from it; I am not suggesting that at all. I believe in the rule of law and at the moment that is unlawful. The point that I was trying to make is that, although the Bill was discussed briefly in Committee, it was never debated on Second Reading because it went through on the nod. When I read the Bill, I thought that one of the best things about it was that it would give discretion to local authorities to award disabled persons’ parking badges for a limited period. So if, for example, someone had a medical certificate saying that their disability was such that they would lack normal mobility for six months, the local authority would be able to issue a disabled parking permit for that period instead of being able only to issue an indefinite one. It is my understanding that the Bill would give local authorities that additional discretion—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot take the opportunity now to initiate a Second Reading debate, the absence of which he spent some moments lamenting. He must now focus his remarks on the new clause, accompanying new clauses and amendments. I feel sure that after that brief diversion that is precisely what he is now minded to do.
Mr Chope
Absolutely, Mr Speaker. In commenting on my hon. Friend’s amendments relating to the notice period following the renewal of licence, I was speculating on the discretion that a local authority has to set a fixed period for a licence after which it would have to be renewed and notification would have to be given to the recipient. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that standard procedure at the moment is for local authorities to issue a licence for an indefinite period that is coterminous with the lifetime of the person to whom the licence has been issued. The Bill would give a new discretion to local authorities to set renewal periods, and it would be to the exercise of that discretion that the provisions in my hon. Friend’s amendments relating to the process of notification for renewals would be relevant. That is the background to the point that I was making.
You said that I lamented the lack of a Second Reading debate, Mr Speaker, although I did not use that word. The lack of such a debate means that speculation about the intent of the Bill in relation to local authority discretion is at large, and has perhaps been anticipated by several of my hon. Friend’s amendments.
If local authorities have discretion to renew licences and issue them for fixed periods of time, it is reasonable to say that there should be a specified period within which the local authority would send to the licence holder notification that it had to be renewed, giving the holder time in which to obtain the relevant documents to facilitate the renewal, should that be necessary.
There is much to commend some of my hon. Friend’s amendments, although I am sorry that I cannot go along with him on all of them—
Philip Davies
It would be incredibly helpful to me—if to no one else—if my hon. Friend could be more specific about which of my amendments find favour with him.
Mr Chope
I find amendment 9 quite appealing. It states:
“An issuing authority has a duty to invite members of the badge scheme in writing to renew their membership two months before the badge is due to lapse.”
That is a reasonable amendment, especially in the light of the draconian penalties for not having a licence in order. New clause 2 is also perfectly reasonable, as it states:
“Anyone found guilty of knowingly allowing another to use their disabled parking badge shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
However, new clause 3, for the reasons I have already put forward, goes too far. There is already an offence of handling stolen goods. If a disabled parking badge has been stolen, anyone using it would effectively be handling it and would be liable to the full force of the law, and the maximum penalty for handling stolen goods is several years in prison. Indeed, it is often said that without handlers there would be no thieves, and that is why the courts have always come down heavily on handlers.
Philip Davies
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but likewise without thieves there would be no handlers.
Mr Chope
I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend on that point, although courts and politicians have said over many years that we should not necessarily treat thieves with more severity than we do handlers. Anybody who handles a stolen disabled parking badge should be severely dealt with, but the problem with new clause 3 is that there is no requirement that the person found guilty of using a badge did so with mens rea—guilty intent.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend suggests that the person using the badge might not know that it was stolen, but by definition they would know that it was not theirs and that they were not entitled to use it. It is not as though they could be an innocent bystander in this scenario. They would know that they did not have the disability that qualified them for a blue badge. My hon. Friend might be splitting hairs on this point.
Mr Chope
That is indeed the trade in which lawyers work—they do split hairs. As legislators, we need to try to anticipate how those hairs might be split, or what opportunities there are for splitting them, and thereby ensure that the laws that we pass in this House are clear beyond peradventure. That is what I am trying to ensure happens in this case.
Philip Davies
I understand that, but the point remains. Why would it be any better if the person did not know the badge was stolen, when they would clearly know that it was not theirs? There does not seem to be much of a hair to split.
Mr Chope
That takes us back to the word “using” in my hon. Friend’s new clause 1, because it depends on whether, by a person using the badge, we mean that the person driving the vehicle does not know that the disabled person sitting next to him has a disabled permit or badge but is not entitled to it because he has stolen it, whether we mean that the person driving the car is using it, or whether the person sitting next to him is purporting to be disabled and is the person who is using it. There would therefore be scope for lawyers to be engaged in that, if the wording remains as it is.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It also occurs to me that a lot of people who have disabled badges are elderly and have memory lapses. Therefore, they may have forgotten who they are and may inadvertently be using a badge that had been stolen.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have the privilege of representing a constituency with, I think, the highest proportion of people aged over 85, I am familiar with one aspect of what he refers to: people sign postcards to which I respond by saying that I have sent their postcard to the Minister, but quite often I receive a letter back from the person denying that they have ever signed such a postcard. I then send a copy of the signed postcard to the constituent, who then writes back—people in the Christchurch constituency are ever so polite—full of apologies saying that, yes, they recognise that it is their signature and their handwriting and they must indeed have signed this postcard, but they could not recall having so done. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has tried to encourage me to expand on my concerns about his amendments, but I do not think that I need to do so any more. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), the promoter of the Bill, who will have the first opportunity to discuss, in the presence of the whole House, the virtues of the Bill, not having had that opportunity on Second Reading.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
I have listened carefully to the clearly thought out arguments of my hon. Friends. I admit to having some sympathy with the amendments, as the Bill is designed to stop the abuse of the blue badge scheme, but I would like to make some observations that I hope will be helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned section 115 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, but he did not mention the Fraud Act 2006 or the Theft Act 1968, which may also apply in some circumstances. The Bill is about enforcement, not sentencing, as that is properly dealt with elsewhere.
There was some concern about people not being notified. The proposed subsection 7AB to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 states clearly that cancellation takes effect only when notice is given. Therefore, if a person has not received a notice, the badge is not cancelled. On that note, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendments so that we may proceed with some haste.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has completed his own consideration. I think the Minister will wish to give us his view.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I have listened carefully to the contributions of the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby).
I understand why the amendments and new clauses have been tabled. They have been tabled, as the hon. Member for Shipley will appreciate, somewhat late in the day. Therefore, it has not been possible for us to give full consideration to the implications of what he has put forward. What I would say in general terms is that some of the measures he proposes do seem draconian, to use a word that was bandied around earlier today, and some of the measures that he wants to introduce may not be entirely necessary. For example, it is not necessary to have a separate offence of allowing another person to use a blue badge, as that conduct is already covered by section 115 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Sections of 44 and 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 also have a role to play. At this stage, I do not think there is a case for accepting any of his new clauses or amendments, but I will undertake to look at them carefully. If there is any merit to any of them, I will be prepared to look at them and so will the Lords.
Mr Chope
The Minister will have heard my exchange with Mr Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that the wording of the Bill is such that local authorities will now have discretion to give disabled parking badges for limited periods of time to people who are temporarily disabled?
Norman Baker
That matter is either reflected in the Bill or by the existing legislation, and it is one to which I, as a Minister, have given some consideration over time. I think we all have sympathy with those who have temporary impairments and might have a condition that may be similar to a permanent disability. However, the reality is that the administration costs of setting up such a system to deal with temporary impairments would be very high. With 2.5 million blue badge holders in this country, if that number were extended significantly, as would be the case if those with temporary impairments were able to have blue badges or something similar for a period of time, the consequences would be to put enormous pressure on existing parking space. Individuals with genuine but limited mobility problems could occupy spaces designed for those with much more serious conditions. The conclusion I have therefore reached is that this should be a matter for local discretion. There are opportunities for individual local authorities to take forward schemes in their own patches if they choose to do so, depending on the availability of road space. The likelihood is that some local authorities will do that.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Does he think that one way of reducing the large number of disabled parking badges would be to ensure that there has to be a renewal date for any disabled parking badge issued, so that they are not in effect issued for a lifetime?
Norman Baker
I agree with that, and that is indeed the position. We require blue badges to be renewed on a regular basis—I think it is every three years—to take account of the possibility of improvement to people’s mobility and disabilities. We hope that there are such improvements, and in some cases that is true. Even for those with permanent disabilities—loss of a limb, for example —we still need to ensure that the photograph on the badge is up to date, the address information is correct and that the badge has not faded, which has been a factor in the past, though it is less so now with the new badge design. It is sensible to have badges renewed on a regular basis and that already happens. There are no indefinite badges; that problem has already been taken care of.
As I said to the hon. Member for Shipley, we have not had a huge amount of time to examine the new clauses and amendments. I am not convinced that they have merit, but I will undertake to ask officials to look at them. If there is any merit, we will deal with that in another place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on my amendments, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who did not agree with them all but adopted his normal forensic approach and pointed out some flaws that I accept.
I am also grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) and the Minister. If I heard correctly, in his brief comments the Minister said that he would consider my amendments in more detail and, if there was any merit in them, would deal with them later. I will take that offer in the good faith in which I am sure it was intended. I will happily meet him to discuss some points in order to improve the Bill even further. That will be to the benefit of genuine blue badge holders. On the basis of his kind offer, for which I am genuinely grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Simon Kirby
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a small Bill but one that could make a big difference to the lives of disabled people. For that reason, I am most grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House for their support so far.
The blue badge scheme is administered by local authorities and enables more than 2.6 million severely disabled people to retain their independence by allowing them to park close to where they need to go. There is widespread abuse of the scheme, however, as the substantial financial value of a badge is an incentive for some people to commit fraud and misuse badges. In particular, non-disabled people will often seek to use someone else’s badge for their own purposes, especially to avoid parking charges. Badge forgery is another serious form of abuse faced by local authorities. It affects the quality of life of disabled people by depriving them of the spaces allocated for their use near to the places and services they need to access. Furthermore, the National Fraud Authority estimates that abuse of the scheme costs local authorities £46 million per annum in lost parking revenue.
The Bill includes some important provisions to improve the ability of local authorities to tackle fraud on-street and make more parking spaces available to disabled people. Currently, if a local authority enforcement officer inspects a badge that is fake, cancelled, due for return or being misused, he is obliged to return it to the offender. This clearly makes no sense. The Bill will give those officers the necessary power to retain the badge, which will prevent continued abuse. The Bill will also enable an employee or contractor of a local authority, wearing plain clothes, to inspect badges. Currently, inspections must be carried out in uniform, which in effect denies local authorities the flexibility of using their specialist fraud teams who typically operate in plain clothes.
Local authorities will also be given the power to cancel a badge that is no longer in the holder’s possession—for example, when it has been lost or stolen—and this will ensure that the legal status of such a badge is never in doubt, facilitating the appropriate enforcement action. The Bill will also remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to prescribe the design of a parking badge on the face of regulations. This will protect the confidential high-security features of the badge from disclosure and so help to prevent forgery. In addition, it will make it certain that the existing offence of misusing a blue badge includes the use of a badge that should have been returned. This makes sense. It will also remove the very limited right of appeal to the Secretary of State, as the local government ombudsman has powers to consider complaints against local authorities and already does so.
Last, but by no means least, I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to note that the Bill will enable disabled members of our armed forces resident on UK bases overseas to apply for a badge via the Ministry of Defence.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting the Bill this far. In particular, I congratulate him on the clause about looking after our disabled armed services members. I think that all our constituents will receive that news gratefully.
Simon Kirby
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is a vital part of the Bill. We must do all we can for our brave armed services personnel.
In conclusion, the Bill is designed to protect the blue badge lifeline for the disabled people who rely on it for everyday living, and to help tackle fraud against the public sector amounting to millions. Disabled people and local authorities want these measures, and, judging by the Bill’s passage through the House, it seems that hon. Members do, too. I commend the Bill to the House and wish it a speedy journey through the other place.
Mr Chope
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) for the progress he has made with the Bill and the deft way in which he has mastered the Standing Orders to ensure that his Bill leapfrogged over others Bills into the first slot today. He is already an old hand at this. His Bill is in first place today because it went through Second Reading without a Division—without even any debate—and was agreed to unanimously by the House. It also had a short Committee stage, confirming that everybody thinks that it will improve matters and deserves to get on to the statute book.
The better controls over the abuse of the blue badge scheme will be welcomed in my constituency. A large number of my constituents have blue badges, and they resent the fact that the system is abused and that sometimes this means they cannot park close to where they want to be, because their parking space has been occupied by someone who purports to have a valid blue badge but whose badge is not valid or does not apply to them. The changes in the Bill are very good, therefore. It is desirable that we give local authorities greater discretion. It will, I hope, result in local authorities considering what is best in their own circumstances.
I remain concerned about the fact that people who are temporarily severely disabled cannot access disabled parking concessions. I hope that the Minister’s comments implied that local authorities will now have the discretion to decide that they can.
Mr Chope
The Minister is nodding. That is very helpful. Dorset county council has always told me that it does not have the discretion to allow temporarily disabled people to access disabled parking permits. If we now have much tighter control over the abuse of those permits, greater flexibility for local authorities should flow from that. When given the appropriate medical evidence, they should be able to issue disabled parking permits to people with temporary disabilities. That is a really good benefit that could come from the Bill.
It is interesting that the Bill sets out why the form of the disabled badge should not be prescribed in detail—if it is set out in statute, the fraudsters will know exactly what is in it and can follow the same format. The Bill proposes that there should be some form of encryption, which will enable more effective enforcement to take place and make it much more difficult to forge the badges.
All in all, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. I hope that, having got himself ahead of the queue, he can get the Bill into the other place and that before too long it will find its way on to the statute book.
Philip Davies
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby). Thus far he has steered his Bill through with great skill, like an old hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said. Indeed, if he can introduce a private Member’s Bill that finds favour with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, he is doing particularly well—certainly a lot better than what many others can hope to achieve—and I congratulate him on that.
Joking aside, this is an important Bill. As I have made clear, I spent an awful lot of time at Asda trying to improve the facilities and services for our disabled customers. The Bill deals with what I would say is by far and away the biggest issue facing people with disabilities who need a place to park close to where they need to go. It is not only immensely frustrating for them, but I think we all feel a sense of revulsion when people needlessly and thoughtlessly use a bay or abuse the badge system to park in a place to which they are not entitled. It is something we should be much stronger about. In concentrating on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown has found an issue on which we can all agree that something needs to be done.
My hon. Friend’s Bill finds the right balance. It will be a big step forward in ensuring that badges are not abused and will be a useful tool in ensuring that there are no unaccounted badges out there that should not be out there. It gives local authorities the appropriate powers they need to clamp down on the problem. If there is a big problem in an area, it is useful to give the local authority the flexibility to take the action they feel is necessary in their local community to tackle it. My hon. Friend’s Bill is excellent on all those points.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the issue of temporary disabilities, if I may describe it that way. It was an issue we tried to deal with in our “bay watch” meetings about disabled parking; indeed, what to do when somebody has a temporary disability, which may have been caused by an accident, was a big issue at Asda. The Bill may not be the final word on that matter, but it strikes the balance given what is possible at the moment.
To conclude, I am extremely grateful that the Minister is going to look again at my amendments. They are modest amendments, and the Bill could be improved in another place by adopting just one or two of them, even if he did not accept my new clauses. Some of the other amendments would strengthen the Bill by making the duties on local authorities much clearer, which is a help to them as much as the people they deal with. The Bill is excellent; making that change would be the cherry on top and would make it even more excellent, so I hope the Minister will look favourably on it. In the meantime, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. I hope the Bill goes speedily through the House of Lords. Many of my constituents, along with many constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and many others round the country, will think that today we have achieved something incredibly worth while.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) on securing his place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills and on achieving such smooth and speedy progress for his Bill—certainly at least until today.
Clearly there is cross-party support for such legislation. We all recognise the vital role that the blue badge scheme plays in enabling disabled people to have better access to the places they want to go to and giving them greater independence. The need to reform the scheme to strengthen enforcement has long been recognised. The last Government published their independent strategic review as far back as 2007. The Select Committee on Transport published a report in 2008, and in 2009 the then Labour Government set out their timetable for implementing reforms. After the general election, it is good that the coalition Government have continued that work. The hon. Gentleman’s Bill, with its reference to improving enforcement of the scheme, is valuable, particularly in ensuring that the blue badge scheme’s public reputation is maintained.
I do not want to delay the House longer than is necessary; however, I want to place the Bill in its wider context and also seek clarification on one or two areas. First, the blue badge scheme is vital in promoting disabled people’s independence, and therefore continued Government support for it is welcome. Unfortunately, I am concerned that other Government transport policy is having the reverse effect. Under their comprehensive spending review, local transport budgets were cut by 28%, with support for bus services from the bus service operators grant reduced by 20%. As a result, one in five publicly supported bus services have been cut, with services removed, reduced or altered.
Those cuts have a disproportionate impact on passengers who cannot drive and for whom bus services are essential. They include the young, the old and, in particular, disabled people. Passenger Focus, the independent watchdog, produced a report in July on the impact on passengers of bus service reductions. One of those impacts was that “dependency on others increased”, which Passenger Focus found had led to
“a reduction in the quality of life.”
The report contained moving personal testimonies from older and disabled people illustrating how the loss of independence affected them. How will the Minister ensure consistency in Government policy on ensuring independence of travel for disabled people?
My second point about the wider context relates to my concern about how disabled people—of whom we know there are 10 million in the UK, a number that is set to rise as a result of our ageing population—will have a voice when it comes to decisions about transport, be it the blue badge scheme or other measures. The Government’s “bonfire of the quangos” recommended that the Department for Transport’s disabled persons transport advisory committee should close. However, it was not a very real bonfire, because at the same time the Government recognised that they needed a new group, so that they could still get advice on disabled people’s needs. It was a case of “one quango out, one quango in”. Two years on from that recommendation, we still do not know how the Department intends to ensure that disabled people have an effective voice to shape and influence Government policy. Perhaps the Minister can confirm when he expects to make further progress on that.
Finally, I want to return to the themes raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He sought reassurances that the Bill would not give rise to resourcing implications for local authorities, and also about the provisions for the right of appeal, which is effectively devolved from the Secretary of State. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)—it was not the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on that occasion—stated that he did not believe there were any resourcing implications. However, I question whether that is still the case, when we consider the Bill in conjunction with the forthcoming changes to the arrangements for determining eligibility for a blue badge, which arise from the implementation of the personal independence payment.
The Government anticipate that fewer people will qualify for the personal independence payment than are currently in receipt of disability living allowance. I note that about 36% of blue badges are issued to people as a result of their receiving the higher rate of the mobility component of DLA. It is therefore possible that a proportion of those who are currently eligible for a blue badge might not be eligible under the new scheme, despite having no change in their condition. Will the Minister assure me that he has considered how that might impact on the implementation of the enforcement measures in the Bill, and the consequent level of appeals that might arise from that?
This is an excellent Bill. It will help to improve the acceptability of the blue badge scheme and ensure that disabled people are able to get where they need to go, as was intended when the Bill was introduced. Subject to the Minister’s responses to the points that I have just raised, I give the Bill my wholehearted support.
Norman Baker
I am pleased that my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), has introduced the Bill, and I congratulate him on its progress to date. It will help to tackle the abuse that seriously threatens the value of the blue badge scheme for disabled people. The Government have long understood the need to reform the disabled parking scheme. Very few changes have been made to it since it was established in the 1970s. It is a crucial service for promoting improved mobility for disabled people; 75% of badge holders say that, without it, they would go out less often.
Since this Government came to power, my officials and I have been working with badge holders, disability groups and local authorities to deliver improvements. To ensure that badges are issued more fairly and consistently across the country, I introduced independent mobility assessments to help to determine eligibility. The provision in my hon. Friend’s Bill enabling members of the armed forces overseas to apply for a badge is also about fairness, of course, and it complements the Department’s reforms.
More recently, on 1 January this year, I introduced on behalf of the Government the blue badge improvement service. This is a major initiative aimed at tackling rising levels of fraud and abuse, while helping to ensure that disabled people receive improved customer service. It provides for online applications and provides local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales with a single national database of all blue badge holders and their key details, thereby preventing multiple and fraudulent applications.
Importantly, enforcement officers can also run quick validity checks via their hand-held devices, before taking the appropriate enforcement action. This new tool is a major step forward in tackling fraud. The powers in the Bill to allow inspections in plain clothes and the recovery of badges mean that, when an enforcement officer has checked the status of a badge on the central system, he or she will be able to take it off the street immediately if it is being misused.
Furthermore, since the improvement service went live, we have added a facility for members of the public to report lost and stolen badges. The Bill enhances that facility by enabling local authorities legally to cancel badges that are no longer in the holder’s possession. That will put the status of such badges beyond doubt. To help to counteract fraud, we have also introduced a new badge design that is harder to copy, forge or alter. The old-style cardboard badges have been replaced by new ones made from a hard plastic material which contains a number of overt and covert security features, as used in banknotes and driving licences.
The Bill will enhance that development by removing the requirement to prescribe the badge details in regulations. To disclose the high-security features of the badge would play directly into the hands of those who seek to make forgeries for their own gain. That will happen, however. People are already attempting to make copies of the new badge. I am pleased to say they are bad copies, but even so, we do not want to help the criminals by publishing badge security details.
Public consultation has demonstrated widespread support for the measures contained in my hon. Friend’s Bill, which are long overdue. I know that the Bill has cross-party support. I am sure that hon. Members will have received representations from disabled constituents, as I have, complaining about abuse of the blue badge scheme and the impact that it has on their lives.
I want to deal with the points that have been raised. I should clarify that badge holders will still have recourse to an appeal and review procedure. That is not being taken away. The difference will be that it will involve the local authority and then the ombudsman. The ombudsman service is free to users and has the expertise to deal with more than 10,000 complaints a year.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred to bus journeys, a subject that is some distance away from the Bill’s contents. I note, however, that the number of bus journeys undertaken over the past 12 months is on a par with the number undertaken in the previous year and in the year before that. There has not been the reduction in bus travel that she implied. We fully accept the importance of independence of travel. That is why my officials in the Department and I are taking forward a new accessibility strategy to enhance that need and right. We are consulting widely with disabled groups, which have been participating in the construction and formulation of that strategy. I can therefore assure the hon. Lady that they are fully involved in the Department’s processes.
In regard to the questions about disabled persons tax credit, the answer that I gave at the Dispatch Box recently was that a consultation has been initiated on what should or should not happen to DATAC and on any successor arrangements. We will make a statement in due course on what we conclude as a result of the responses to the consultation. I am sure that the hon. Lady would want us to give full weight to those responses and to analyse them properly, rather than rushing into a precipitate decision. I can assure her that the Bill will have no impact on local authority resources. I hope that that puts her mind at rest.
There is a consultation process under way on the personal independence payment, but the Government’s preferred option is one of minimum change. It is not in any way our intention to reduce the number of people who qualify for a badge. The consultation has been necessitated by the changes to the nature of benefits being brought in by the Department for Work and Pensions, but so far as the Department for Transport is concerned, we want the result of any consequential changes to stay as close as possible to the current arrangements. That is our preferred option, but obviously we will look at the responses to the consultation.
We believe that the Bill will help disabled people. It will help to fill the gaps and it will complement the Government’s own legislation. It will be an asset for those who rely on the scheme for independent living, and the Government fully support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (c) to new clause 1, subsection (3), leave out ‘a copy’ and insert ‘details of’.
Amendment (d) to new clause 1, subsection (4), at end insert
‘Such details shall be in a form prescribed by the local authority.’.
Amendment (a) to new clause 1, subsection (5), after ‘who’, insert ‘knowingly’.
Amendment (b) to new clause 1, subsection (5), at end add—
‘( ) It shall be a defence to any offence under this section if a copy of the licence had been displayed but had then been removed from display without the knowledge or consent of the scrap metal dealer.’.
New clause 5—Fraudulent display of licence—
‘Any scrap metal dealer who displays a licence purporting to be a site licence or a collector’s licence when the scrap metal dealer is not the holder of such a licence shall be guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.’.
Amendment 27, page 1, line 3, in clause 1, leave out ‘carry on business’ and insert ‘engage in activity’.
Amendment 28, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘carry on business’ and insert ‘engage in activity’.
Amendment 29, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘carries on business’ and insert ‘engages in activity’.
Amendment 34, page 1, line 8, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘3’.
Amendment 35, page 1, line 8, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘1’.
Amendment 31, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
‘( ) If a local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging in activity as a scrap metal dealer without a licence an injunction shall be applied for by the local authority against that person within 28 days.’.
Government amendment 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert ‘( ) name the authority,’.
Amendment 36, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
Government amendment 2, page 2, line 6, after ‘licensee,’ insert ‘( ) name the authority,’.
Government amendment 3, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘( ) A licence is to be in a form which—
(a) complies with subsections (4) and (6), and
(b) enables the licensee to comply with section [Display of licence] (display of licence).
Amendment 37, page 2, line 10, leave out from ‘licence’ to end of line 11.
Amendment 90, page 2, line 15, in clause 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) No person with an unspent criminal conviction shall be a suitable person to hold a scrap metal licence.’.
Amendment 38, page 2, line 19, leave out ‘or any site manager’.
Amendment 97, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘the applicant or’.
Amendment 39, page 2, line 21, leave out ‘or any site manager’.
Amendment 40, page 2, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 41, page 2, line 33, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 42, page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
Amendment 92, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
Government amendment 4, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
‘( ) the Natural Resources Body for Wales;’.
Amendment 43, page 3, line 14, leave out ‘or any site manager’.
Amendment 147, page 3, line 14, leave out
‘has been convicted of a relevant offence’
and insert—
‘has any unspent convictions for any offence’.
Amendment 44, page 3, line 15, leave out ‘one or both of’.
Amendment 45, page 3, line 16, leave out ‘conditions’ and insert ‘condition’.
Amendment 46, page 3, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
Government amendment 5, page 3, line 17, leave out
‘between specified hours of the day’
and insert—
‘except between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on any day’.
Amendment 49, page 3, line 20, leave out ‘72’ and insert ‘48’.
Amendment 50, page 3, line 20, leave out ‘72’ and insert ‘96’.
Amendment 94, page 3, line 24, in clause 4, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
Amendment 53, page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 93, page 3, line 26, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
Amendment 95, page 3, line 29, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
Amendment 57, page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 54, page 3, line 32, leave out ‘or any site manager’.
Amendment 55, page 3, line 33, leave out ‘one or both of’.
Amendment 56, page 3, line 34, leave out ‘conditions’ and insert ‘condition’.
Government amendment 6, page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to ‘comes’ and insert—
‘A revocation or variation under this section’.
Government amendment 7, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
‘(6A) But if the authority considers that the licence should not continue in force without conditions, it may by notice provide—
(a) that, until a revocation under this section comes into effect, the licence is subject to one or both of the conditions set out in section 3(8), or
(b) that a variation under this section comes into effect immediately.’.
Government amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 8, after ‘Agency,’, insert—
‘( ) the Natural Resources Body for Wales;’.
Government amendment 9, page 4, line 13, in clause 7, at end insert
‘issued by authorities in England.
( ) The Natural Resources Body for Wales must maintain a register of scrap metal licences issued by authorities in Wales.’.
Government amendment 10, page 4, line 14, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘registers’.
Government amendment 11, page 4, line 21, leave out ‘register is’ and insert ‘registers are’.
Government amendment 12, page 4, line 22, after ‘Agency’, insert
‘or the Natural Resources Body for Wales’.
Government amendment 13, page 4, line 22, leave out second ‘the’ and insert ‘its’.
Amendment 58, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, leave out from ‘licence’ to end of line and insert—
‘need not notify the authority of that fact.’.
Amendment 59, page 4, line 31, leave out ‘28 days’ and insert ‘three months’.
Amendment 60, page 4, line 31, leave out ‘28 days’ and insert ‘six months’.
Amendment 61, page 4, line 36, leave out ‘28 days’ and insert ‘three months’.
Government amendment 14, page 4, line 38, leave out ‘the Environment Agency’ and insert ‘the relevant environment body’.
Amendment 62, page 4, line 39, leave out ‘(2) or’.
Amendment 63, page 5, line 2, leave out ‘28 days’ and insert ‘three months’.
Government amendment 15, page 5, line 4, leave out ‘the Environment Agency’ and insert ‘the relevant environment body’.
Government amendment 16, page 5, line 5, leave out ‘Agency’ and insert ‘body’.
Amendment 64, page 5, line 7, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘1’.
Government amendment 17, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
‘( ) In this section “the relevant environment body” means—
(a) for an authority in England, the Environment Agency;
(b) for an authority in Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales.’.
Amendment 88, in clause 13, page 7, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 78, page 8, line 14, leave out
‘or an officer of a local authority’.
Amendment 79, page 8, line 15, leave out ‘one month’ and insert ‘14 days’.
Amendment 80, page 8, line 16, leave out ‘or an officer of a local authority’.
Amendment 81, page 8, line 19, leave out ‘or an officer of a local authority’.
Amendment 82, page 8, line 26, leave out ‘or an officer of a local authority’.
Amendment 83, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (12).
Amendment 84, page 8, line 40, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘1’.
Amendment 140, in clause 19, page 11, line 5, leave out
‘the council of a district’
and insert—
‘county council or unitary authority’.
Amendment 106, page 11, line 5, leave out ‘district’ and insert ‘county, unitary authority’.
Amendment 107, page 11, line 9, leave out from ‘(a’) to ‘dealer’ and insert—
‘collects, purchases or sells discarded metal suitable for reprocessing for reward’.
Amendment 141, page 11, line 10, leave out ‘regularly engages’ and insert—
‘engages on more than 300 days in a calendar year’.
Amendment 108, page 11, line 10, leave out ‘in the course of that business’.
Amendment 142, page 11, line 31, leave out subsection (10).
Amendment 143, page 11, line 34, leave out subsection (11).
Amendment 145, page 15, line 1, in schedule 1, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 146, page 15, line 3, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘1’.
Amendment 89, in schedule 2, page 17, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Mr Browne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were about to read out in full all the amendments in the group, which would have meant my not being called to action for quite a while, as there is a substantial number of them. I shall speak principally to new clause 1 and the other Government amendments relating to the heading “Licensing regime”.
The group relates to the licensing regime in the Bill, and in it the Government wish to create one new clause and to add 17 amendments to the Bill. Unfortunately, in our view, the amendments have been diluted by a significant number of amendments tabled by other hon. Members. I do not propose to address all the non-Government amendments separately, but we take the view that, as a whole, they do not add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) is seeking to achieve. We are therefore minded not to support them.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
From what the Minister says, there already appears to be a difference of emphasis. As a victim of scrap metal crime myself, like many others, I am strongly in favour of this Bill. These amendments—this applies to all private Members’ Bills—have a sensitive life. I urge the Minister to ensure that this Bill becomes law, even if he has to make some concessions on the amendments. He has to give more time, because out there, the churches and many members of the public want this Bill to become law.
Mr Browne
I strongly endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I visited a church in my Taunton constituency a few weeks ago and I was told about the theft of metal from the church roof and the damage it had done. The church was very supportive of the proposals brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, as are Members on both sides of the House. We are keen to see Parliament pass the Bill and for it to come into law. It is obviously not a Government Bill, and my hon. Friend may well be keen to permit a degree of flexibility, but the Government want to see achieved the objective that we both share—to pass this legislation into law.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister talks about the amendments that he thinks do not add to what the Government are trying to achieve, so it would be useful if he made clear exactly what the Government are trying to achieve with this Bill. Some people think that its main purpose is to try to reduce scrap metal theft, which is something we all want to do, but the scrap metal industry seems to think that it is to try to deal with the unintended consequences of changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, so will he clarify what exactly the purpose is?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House that this is not a Second Reading debate; we are considering a new clause, so the Minister should concentrate on what that new clause brings to the Bill.
Mr Browne
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say, the objective of the Bill is to prevent scrap metal theft and protect all our constituents, but let me turn to new clause 1 and the other amendments in the group.
In respect of the Government amendments, during the Bill’s Committee in September, members of the Committee contributed to a wide and interesting discussion as to whether the licence should be prominently displayed. That was prompted by an amendment from the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who wished to mandate this requirement and made a constructive contribution to our deliberations. The Government resisted the hon. Gentleman’s amendment on the basis that I agreed to consult appropriate organisations on the point before deciding whether local authorities should be burdened with a requirement that might have been considered unnecessary.
I duly undertook that consultation, as I said I would, and on 18 December I wrote to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association and the British Metals Recycling Association, asking three questions about the physical form of the licence. I am happy to provide any Member with the detailed response to the consultation at the end of the debate, but the overwhelming response from all the organisations was that the licence should be in a form that can be displayed.
New clause 1 reflects the consultation, creating a requirement that a scrap metal dealer, whether they be a site licensee or a collector, display their licence to operate. It requires that a site licensee displays a copy of the licence at each site identified in the licence
“in a prominent place in an area accessible to the public.”
Collectors must display a copy of the licence on their vehicle
“in a manner which enables it easily to be read by a person outside the vehicle.”
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
This is a very important new clause, and I am grateful that it has been brought forward. I know that the people of South Derbyshire, who are plagued by people going around in vans trying to get scrap, will be delighted that, if the new clause is accepted, the licence has to be displayed prominently on the vehicle, too.
Mr Browne
I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, this is not Government legislation, but the legislation of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. However, the Government, in supporting him, have sought to take a constructive and broadminded view. Where good ideas have been forthcoming from Members of any party, we have sought to give them proper consideration and accommodate them—with my hon. Friend’s permission—if we feel that it enhances the legislation. That is very much the approach we have taken in this instance.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The Minister will recall that I mentioned in Committee the support of neighbourhood watch organisations throughout the country, arguing in particular that their job of helping the police to enforce this Bill would be made much easier if licences were prominently displayed. I therefore join others, on behalf of all those neighbourhood watch organisations—and, particularly, St John’s neighbourhood watch in Worcester—in strongly welcoming the Minister’s announcement.
Mr Browne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I join him in celebrating the work of St John’s neighbourhood watch in Worcestershire as well as other neighbourhood watch schemes around the country that do so much to make our communities safer.
This new clause will ensure that the intention is complied with, in that a licence can be easily seen by anyone who wishes to see it, whether they be law enforcers, consumers or members of the general public. The Home Office has carefully considered whether there needs to be a sanction attached to failure to display a licence—a point that I know will be of interest to certain of my hon. Friends. We have taken the view that a sanction is needed and that a criminal offence is appropriate, albeit one that applies a modest financial penalty—namely a maximum £1,000 fine. We would expect law enforcement agencies to seek compliance in the first instance, rather than proceeding immediately to prosecution. Compliance with the requirement is relatively straightforward in that the licence with which a dealer is issued is to be displayed. This, coupled with the low penalty and the requirement to create a visual licence regime, is what has drawn us to this conclusion.
It is on this basis that I resist amendments (a) and (b). Amendment (a) seeks to place a mental element into the criminal offence so that the elements of the offence are made out only if a scrap metal dealer “knowingly” fails to comply. Proving the dealer’s mental state—the motivation—at the point when the decision was made to criminal standards of proof would be extremely difficult to prove in a court of law and it would make the securing of convictions very difficult. Amendment (b) creates a defence against the charge—namely, that if the licence was
“removed from display without the knowledge or consent”
of the dealer, that dealer will have a clear statutory defence to the charge against him. I also resist amendments (c) and (d) on the grounds that we are requiring a copy of the licence, not merely its “details”, to be displayed. I believe that requiring a licence or its copy would considerably strengthen the requirements.
Philip Davies
The Minister says he is not prepared to accept amendment (b), which I think is an excellent amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). What happens if someone comes in to steal a scrap metal dealer’s licence from the wall, a few moments, minutes or hours before the local authority comes in to inspect where the licence is? Surely we cannot be penalising scrap metal dealers whose licences are stolen without their permission.
Mr Browne
That is an ingenious intervention, but the obligation is on the party required to display the licence. If a defence could be made along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, it would create a major loophole. Ironically, given the view that he usually takes on these matters, that would make it easier for people to avoid prosecutions and the fine that I mentioned than would otherwise be the case. Our view is that if there is an obligation on a party to display a licence, then there is an obligation on that party to display a licence. That is clear cut; there is no need to muddy the waters.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
If the licence is removed from display without the knowledge or consent of the scrap metal dealer, why should the scrap metal dealer be guilty of an offence? Surely the Minister’s line here is inconsistent with the line he adopts, for example, in moving amendments to clause 10, which remove the offence of strict liability and provide a defence if the person did not know that an offence was being committed.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I hope the House will be reassured to learn that what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggested could not, in fact, occur. Local authorities are effectively the prosecuting authorities, and like any prosecuting authority they have discretion over whether they actually prosecute, although the offence concerned may be one of absolute liability. If the scrap metal dealer can produce a genuine explanation, a local authority is hardly likely to embark on a prosecution, given the time and expense involved. It is a matter of common sense.
Mr Browne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing on all the expertise that he gained in public life. As I have said, we would expect law enforcement agencies to seek compliance in the first instance rather than proceeding immediately to prosecution. Not only does that discretion exist, but we would encourage it. However, we do not want to create a large amount of uncertainty about the obligations on scrap metal dealers, which is why I responded to the earlier interventions in the way that I did.
I do not believe that new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, is necessary, on the grounds that clause 1 already makes carrying on a business as a scrap metal dealer without a licence a criminal offence. The Government are also committed to preventing the unnecessary proliferation of criminal offences, which is the principle that underpins the Ministry of Justice gateway process.
Amendments 1 and 2 require the issuing local authority to be named on both site and collector licences, so that any queries relating to a licence can be directed to the correct authority. Amendment 3 outlines for local authorities the form in which a licence should be issued, namely the information that must be displayed on it, and requires the licence to be in a form that enables the licensee to comply with the new duty to display it. A delegated power remains so that the Secretary of State can make regulations prescribing further requirements enabling the form and content of the licence to change over time, for example to keep pace with developments in technology and the industry.
The Bill currently applies a number of requirements to the Environment Agency, but from 1 April 2013 the agency’s environmental functions in respect of Wales will be assumed by the Natural Resources Body for Wales. Amendments 4 and 8 to 17 ensure that the new body is referred to throughout the Bill. We do not propose any difference between the functions of the two bodies, but it was brought to our attention that there would be insufficient clarity in Wales if the Bill were not amended in this way.
Amendments 5, 6 and 7 relate to the conditions that a local authority can use to vary a licence. Clause 3(8)(a) allows an authority to restrict a scrap metal dealer’s trading hours, while clause 3(8)(b) requires all scrap metal received to be kept in the same form for up to 72 hours. We believe that those provisions could prove too onerous, so amendment 5 specifies the hours during which the condition can apply. We believe that allowing trading between 9 am and 5 pm will give dealers reasonable hours in which to operate, while also aligning their operating hours with those of local authorities so that they can monitor dealers more closely. I know that some Government Members, at least, will welcome our liberalising approach to what some may regard as the excessively burdensome obligations placed on scrap metal dealers.
Clause 4 allows a local authority to revoke a licence if it is no longer satisfied that the licensee is a suitable person to conduct a business as a scrap metal dealer. In September, members of the Public Bill Committee expressed the fear that allowing a licensee to operate without restriction pending an appeal against the revocation of his licence could lead to further criminal or undesirable behaviour during the transition period. Since then my Department has reviewed the issue, and has concluded that it would be sensible to amend the Bill in the light of what was said in Committee. Amendment 7 does not remove a licensee’s right to appeal against a local authority’s decision to revoke his licence, but does provide that the authority can impose conditions on the licence pending an appeal or a decision to vary the licence by adding conditions. That means that when a licensee appeals, the authority may impose one or both of the conditions contained in clause 3(8).
The powers under the clause will apply when a licence has been revoked or has been varied by the authority with conditions added. In both circumstances, that will mostly be a result of the licensee’s conviction on a relevant offence, or of the emergence of another reason to question his suitability to hold a licence. As with the conditions more generally, the powers are designed not to prevent an individual from engaging in work as a scrap metal dealer, but to impose some restrictions so that, although dealers can still operate, local authorities and law enforcement organisations can monitor their behaviour closely should they wish to reduce the opportunities for further offending. Once an appeal has been heard, if it is decided that the dealer is suitable to operate, the conditions will be lifted and he should be able to trade unhindered.
Amendment 6 introduces a drafting improvement. It seeks to clarify the wording of clause 4(6) as a result of the change made by amendment 7, but does not alter the principles of the clause in any way.
I do not propose to deal with all the amendments in the group, including the Opposition amendments, because there are a great many of them, but I hope that I have explained to the House’s satisfaction the motivation behind the Government new clause and amendments, and have conveyed our general desire to take a broad and collegiate approach in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. We hope that the Bill will enjoy a speedy passage this morning.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Committee stage of the Bill was a very positive event. We had some very good discussions about a number of issues. The Government new clause and amendments reflect that, and I therefore broadly support them, especially new clause 1 and amendments 6 and 7.
I think that our debates on Second Reading and in Committee made clear the common purpose of the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister to end, as far as possible, the scourge of metal theft, and to tighten the law relating to, in particular, the points of collection and disposal of metal that could be coming from rogue sources. That has been welcomed throughout the Bill’s passage so far.
New clause 1 deals with an issue that was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). I am pleased that the Minister considered his points in detail, accepted them in principle, and accordingly tabled the new clause. It is intended to ensure that both the site licence and the collector’s licence are in a form that can be displayed in a prominent place. I believe that, following the consultations with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association and the industry itself that we asked the Minister to undertake in Committee, there is consensus that the prominent display of the licence would be a welcome development, leading to increased public confidence while also enabling enforcing authorities to ensure that traders have licences.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I also support this amendment. It will give great succour to my communities and my local authority. The forest above Garw valley and the Bwlch mountain is where much of the metal cabling that is stolen—off railways, for instance—is burnt. This measure could be very effective in stamping out what is currently the fairly easy transit of stolen metal.
Mr Hanson
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As he will know, last year metal theft from railways caused 117 hours of delay on train services. The coming Remembrance weekend reminds us of another major problem: the desecration of war memorials has particularly offended Members and the communities we represent.
Robert Neill
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government amendments and new clauses. That demonstrates the bipartisan approach taken to these issues. Importantly from my point of view, it also reflects the bipartisan approach adopted by the LGA. The support of local authorities is critical. They are the key enforcers, and they and their council tax payers are also often major victims of metal theft. Some nine out of 10 local authorities have been victims of metal theft, never mind the disgraceful types of theft to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred. As a result of these amendments, we will have an enforcement regime that has the support of the enforcers, and it is therefore to be welcomed.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is a former local government Minister and understands the cross-party nature of the attempt to tackle the scourge of metal theft. There are now about 1,000 incidents of metal theft each week. That puts considerable pressure on the resources of local authorities, churches, the police, the voluntary sector, the railway services and all of us who are victims of such crime.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend made a good point about war memorials. In such thefts, the value of the metal stolen is often very low, but the harm and hurt caused are very great. I know from my area that companies might have equipment stolen that is worth tens of thousands of pounds, yet the value of the scrap metal is very low.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On the issue of war memorials, this coming Sunday we will pay our respects to those who sacrificed their lives for our country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not passing this Bill today would cause tremendous disappointment to transport companies, churches and our constituents? I might add that we in the west midlands have perhaps suffered more than other parts of the country as a result of the rise in metal theft over the past few years.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend highlights that this is an issue of considerable concern. The issues before the House today have been raised over the past year because of the difficulties caused by the increase in metal theft from war memorials, businesses, schools, churches, voluntary organisations, the police, railway companies and others. There has been considerable cross-party support on this issue. Although we had some discussions in Committee, there has been general agreement, and new clause 1 is a reflection of that.
We have just under three hours before our discussions in the House today must end, and I hope that by then we will have dealt with and agreed to all matters concerning the Bill. If not, I hope the Minister will assure us that the Bill will be brought back in Government time.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn cannot be present today. He tabled a number of amendments, including amendment (d) to new clause 1, which would give the local authority flexibility to examine the form of a licence that is displayed. The Minister has given a view on that, and I know that if he were willing to accept the amendment my hon. Friend would be very grateful. It is in keeping with the localism agenda that we set the display of a licence as a national criterion while also giving local authorities some flexibility to determine the size or form of that licence, as amendment (d) proposes.
I also welcome amendments 4 and 8 to 17. As the Minister said, they simply change the wording of the application of the legislation to Wales to reflect the changing administrative situation as bodies such as the Environment Agency Wales and Natural Resources Wales are established.
Amendments 6 and 7 are particularly welcome. I raised the issues addressed in amendment 7 in Committee. There was a fear that the appeal procedure would allow people whose licence had been revoked to carry on operating and therefore, in effect, to flout the legislation with no further penalties. I ask the Minister to reflect on that point and, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I ask that amendment 7 be accepted. We advocated in Committee the approach that it sets out. Local authorities should be able to put strict conditions on a licence where an appeal is pending. That would add to public confidence and ensure no further offences are committed.
The hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) have tabled a number of amendments, but I do not want to comment on them. There was general consensus in the Bill Committee, and I shall talk instead about those new clauses and amendments that have been tabled following discussions in Committee. This Bill has received detailed consideration over many months in the other place, in this House and in Committee.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The amendments my right hon. Friend has just been discussing would benefit responsible scrap metal dealers, including those in my constituency, which employ large numbers of people. The amendments will drive out the criminals and the rogues.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend is right. Responsible scrap metal dealers want effective regulation, and the loopholes to be closed down. The Bill’s provisions on cashless payments and other matters are very important in that regard.
I welcome the Minister’s new clause and amendments. I welcome, too, the fact that we have reached consensus on almost every issue. I remind the Minister that the Bill as it currently stands is, effectively, the official Opposition’s Bill that the Government rejected in February in another place, and, to add just one discordant note, as a result of that there has been a delay.
There are 1,000 incidents of metal theft per week. Some 300 tonnes of metal—the equivalent of 300 cars—is stolen per week. Metal theft is causing 117 hours of delays in train services. Some 23 churches are attacked every week by thieves. This Bill will go some way towards helping to give additional powers to reduce those incidents. It is welcome, therefore, and I hope Members across the House will give it the fair wind that we agreed to give it in Committee and on Second Reading.
Mr Chope
I wish to discuss the amendments I have tabled, Government new clause 1 and the Minister’s comments. My amendments in this group are all designed to make the Bill stronger and more effective. I spent much of last Saturday discussing these issues with a prominent scrap metal dealer in my constituency, and I have also spoken on the phone to the Archdeacon of Bournemouth. I am conscious of the large number of serious thefts from churches and war memorials, not only in my constituency but throughout the dioceses of Winchester and Salisbury. I am concerned that the Bill concentrates only on the good, licensed scrap metal dealers and ignores the real villains—the people for whom law enforcement means nothing. It is fine to tighten up the law in relation to those who comply with it and believe in law enforcement, provided that at the same time we get really heavy with those who do not comply with it, and are intent on defying it and carrying on as they are.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to some of my amendments; he just said he thought they were unnecessary. My amendment 31 proposes the following:
“If a local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging in activity as a scrap metal dealer without a licence an injunction shall be applied for by the local authority against that person within 28 days.”
If a local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a person is dealing in scrap metal without a licence, why should it not be required to take action against that person within 28 days? The Bill, as drafted, has a convoluted system for depriving licensed scrap metal dealers of their licences, but it is very weak—the provisions are almost non-existent—on dealing with people who operate without licences. Where it comes to a local authority’s attention that somebody is operating without a licence we should surely require that authority to take effective action against that person within 28 days. I would be interested to know why the Government or the promoter of the Bill think that such a provision undermines the purpose of the Bill; it would reinforce the Bill so that it becomes more effective.
Mr Jeremy Browne
My hon. Friend may find it helpful if I set out the Government’s view on amendment 31, and this illustrates why I did not go through every amendment he has tabled. We feel that the amendment is legally deficient, as injunctions cannot be made by a local authority—they are court orders that can be issued only by the courts. In addition, we do not believe that such a measure is required, as the Bill already contains powers to close unlicensed scrap metal dealers and the yards in which they operate. I intervene to make a general point: we have not sought not to take account of his amendment because of a misplaced sense of malice; we have taken our approach because we judge the amendments to be either unnecessary or deficient, and we would rather the Bill were neither of those things.
Mr Chope
I accept that that is what the Government say. If they do not want an amendment, they always say that the wording is deficient. However, the main reason they do not want to address this amendment is that they say that the Bill already contains powers to close unlicensed premises. If one looks at what those powers are and how long it may take to get them implemented, one realises that they are not going to achieve very much very quickly. One is reminded of situations afflicting many of our constituents: unlicensed campsites; unlicensed Gypsy encampments; and people carrying on businesses without authority. It takes months—indeed, sometimes years—to get effective action taken against those things. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I think that the powers in the Bill to deal with those who are unlicensed are paltry.
Mr Winnick
The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, eloquent and putting forward a reasoned case. I always take pleasure in listening to him. Is it his wish to see progress made on the Bill today, despite the criticisms he has made? For all we know, his amendments may not be accepted. He started his remarks by referring to the problems that make the Bill necessary—he said that he has spoken to his constituents and to Church people—so is it his wish to see progress made to ensure that the Bill is not lost?
Mr Chope
Indeed it is. It is my desire to see not only progress, but some amendments accepted. As an indication of that desire, I have tabled an amendment, which we will come to later, proposing that the commencement date should be two months after Royal Assent. What we have heard so far from the Government is that it may be six months or more after Royal Assent before they have anything in place. That would mean that it may not be until this time next year that the provisions of the Bill are in force. The situation is sufficiently serious to warrant much quicker action than that. The regulations that local authorities are going to have to apply could be being drafted as we speak, but that does not seem to be happening. What is happening at the moment is that some of us are saying that the Bill is not perfect—obviously it is not perfect because the Government have introduced about 30 amendments—and an attempt is being made to vilify us by suggesting that we want to promote the cause of people who steal from our war memorials and so on.
The reality is quite the reverse; I am impatient, because even the legislation that we passed earlier this year on requiring names, addresses and identification to be provided and on prohibiting cash transactions at scrap metal dealers does not come into force until 3 December. When it was passed, that was done on the basis that it was going to be transforming. When I was at a scrap metal dealers last Saturday, some people came with an old car and said that they wanted cash for it. The dealer said that he was already operating under the provisions of Operation Tornado, but they said that they understood they could still get cash for scrap until December. That just shows the extent to which loopholes and an unwillingness to implement our legislation quickly can be exploited by the criminal fraternity.
Mr Chope
I am taken by surprise by that point—I do not know whether I did or not, as I have not looked at the official record. If I did, I was obviously wrong to do so, but there is a limit to the number of times I can have discussions with my Whips. I am sorry that I overlooked that opportunity, but I will check the record and speak in the knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is on my side in trying to get these issues dealt with sooner rather than later—[Interruption.] I do speak for myself, as the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), knows very well. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate him on getting back into the Whips Office, which he knows and understands so well and where he is so effective.
Amendment 92 would delete subsection (7) from clause 3 and is probably one of the least significant of my amendments. Nevertheless, I thought that it would sharpen up the Bill by leaving less discretion on the need to consult other local authorities, the Environment Agency or officers of police forces. Obviously, that can be done anyway, so do we need to put that sort of detail into the Bill when we are refusing to put in the sort of detail that I have talked about, such as the suggestion that people should not be able to be licensed scrap metal dealers if they have previous convictions?
Similarly, any reasonable person would interpret my amendments 94, 93 and 95 to clause 4 as being designed to tighten up the Bill, rather than relax it. Under clause 4, the local authority has a power to
“revoke a scrap metal licence if it is satisfied that the licensee does not carry on business at any of the sites identified”.
Likewise, it has a power to
“revoke a licence if it is satisfied that a site manager named in the licence does not act as site manager”
and if it is not
“satisfied that the licensee is a suitable person to carry on business as a scrap metal dealer.”
My amendments would mean that instead of being discretionary, it would be mandatory for the local authority to revoke the licence in those three circumstances. What is the matter with that? Surely it is a useful tightening up of the Bill.
Amendments 88 and 89 deal with the issue of residential sites. At the moment, the Bill excludes any residential premises from its ambit, which means that there is an enormous loophole. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is nodding in agreement. For example, someone might have some wire and want to burn the rubber off it so that they can sell the wire on while ensuring that there is no way of finding out where it has come from—I have had such cases in my constituency. If they are doing it in their back garden—for example, if they are, for want of a better expression, Gypsies, or Travellers, or people who probably often operate beneath the radar of the law—and unless we allow amendments 88 and 89, the local authority will not be able to take any action, as those people will say that their premises are residential.
Mr Hanson
The official Opposition raised this point in Committee. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the complexities was the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for which he will have voted, which stops residential accommodation falling under the auspices of this Bill. I pressed the Minister on that very point in Committee, and he wrote to its members after he had gone away for reflection. He has consulted the police, who have agreed that they can implement what the hon. Gentleman wants within the auspices of the Act, which he will have supported.
Mr Hanson
I am in danger of acting as I used to do as a Minister in responding to the hon. Gentleman, but after I raised those same points in Committee, the Minister assured me that the police can undertake the very action the hon. Gentleman mentions. I, too, was concerned that the residential loophole could have been exploited by unscrupulous dealers. The difficulty is that the Protection of Freedoms Act has reduced the number of circumstances that allow for the examination of residential properties, and he will have voted for that.
Mr Chope
I will not go over my voting record again, but all I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the constituency case I have in mind the police know well what is going on but say that they cannot do anything about it—or they do not have the will to do anything about it. I still do not understand why we have specifically to exclude all residential premises, because as soon as we have such a wide exclusion, it will be impossible for anyone to say that there should be an exemption to that exclusion. I read the exchange in Committee, but I have not had the benefit of seeing the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to this short debate, will explain why he thinks that this provision can be left as it is. More importantly, does the Minister accept that allowing residential premises to be exempt and allowing people to burn the coverings off scrap metal in their back yards will facilitate rather than restrict criminal activity?
Amendments 106, 107 and 108 deal with the issue of which local authorities will carry out the enforcing and regulating. It seems to me that the larger authorities—for example, the county councils rather than the district councils—are better equipped to do that. In my constituency, two of the small district councils, East Dorset and Christchurch, are effectively working together because neither has the resources to have a full-time person to deal with particular types of licensing or planning applications. Much of the activity regarding scrap metal and its environmental impact is monitored by county councils and it seems to me that it would be better for them to deal with it rather than district authorities which, by definition, have fewer resources.
Amendment 108 is designed to deal with a loophole that runs through the whole Bill, namely the definition of scrap metal trading. It says, in effect, that such trading means people who trade in the course of business, which is a very precise definition that means that people have to do it for a livelihood. Amendment 108 would remove the provision in clause 19 that a person who goes from door to door would be offending only if they were doing that in the course of their business.
It is interesting that the British Metals Recycling Association, which briefed us on the Bill, is under the misapprehension that the Bill extends the definition of a scrap metal dealer
“to all businesses and individuals that collect, purchase, process or sell discarded metals suitable for reprocessing for reward”.
The Bill as it stands, however, does not do that. It limits the definition to people engaged in business, which is why I commend the amendment to the Minister.
Philip Davies
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on getting his Bill to this stage. I want to follow on from the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which were crucial. I do not think that any Member of any party does not want to do something about the scourge of metal theft, which is an outrage and needs to be tackled in a far more robust manner than has so far been the case and, indeed, than is proposed by the Bill.
The purpose of my amendments, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, is to improve what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is trying to achieve. I do not doubt that the way in which the Bill is drafted is well intentioned, nor that it has some good parts, but my amendments, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, are designed to improve it. To be honest, that is the purpose of a Bill’s Report stage. The idea that some people have that we should simply nod through legislation as it appears, whether it is flawed or not, is novel but highly irresponsible. This House’s job is to scrutinise legislation and make sure that it is fit for purpose. We do ourselves a great disservice when we pass legislation without proper scrutiny; it leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. That is what my amendments seek to address. I want to improve the Bill, not bury it. For the record, if my hon. Friend and I had intended to bury the Bill we would have talked it out on Second Reading. I made my objections at that time and I am now seeking to do something about them on Report.
I will not dwell too much on other Members’ amendments, because my hon. Friend has, as ever, eloquently spoken to his, as has the Minister, albeit briefly. It is a shame that the Minister did not discuss my hon. Friend’s amendments in detail, or mine for that matter, which takes us back to my point about proper scrutiny of legislation. It is all very well for the Minister to take the approach, “Well, we’ve looked at the amendments and we don’t agree with them,” but that is not scrutiny or a debate; it is an attempt to impose the will of the Executive on everybody else. We need to do much better and have a proper debate in order to get what we all want, namely a fit-for-purpose Bill.
Amendments 34 and 35, which I tabled, deal with the maximum penalty for people who are in breach of clause 1. The maximum penalty has been set at a level 5 fine, which is currently £5,000. I have proposed a level 3 fine in amendment 34 and a level 1 fine in amendment 35 to find out whether we want there to be a fixed amount. The problem with the level 5 amount is that it may change to an unlimited fine if the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are implemented. I tabled the amendments so that all hon. Members would know what is being proposed. The fine might not just go up to £5,000, but be unlimited. I want the House to determine whether it finds that proportionate or over the top.
Amendments 36 and 37 relate to clause 2. Amendment 36 would leave out subsection (4)(c), which states that the site licence must
“name the site manager of each site”
as well as the licensee. That seems to be somewhat over the top, as it would bring site managers into the criminal proceedings set out in clause 10(4)(b). That should be removed.
Amendment 37 would leave out the provision that somebody
“may not hold more than one licence issued by any one authority.”
There may be business reasons for having more than one licence that covers more than one authority. For example, there might be separate businesses with separate managers that are owned by one person. Once again with this provision, the Bill, although well intentioned, is not particularly practical and perhaps needs to be thought about again.
Before I go on to amendments 38 to 43, which relate to the next clause, I want to touch on amendment 90, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It states that somebody with unspent convictions should not be able to hold a licence. That seems to be a perfectly sensible amendment that would beef up the legislation, rather than water it down. Thus far, we have not heard the case why somebody in that situation should have a licence. If people do not accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, they are basically saying that even though this whole area is subject to lots of criminal activity, we are still happy for somebody with an unspent conviction to hold a licence. That is complete nonsense. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South to accept the amendment. I am certain that anybody who is following these proceedings would urge him to do so as well. This is a clear loophole that could be closed with immediate effect. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for bringing the amendment forward.
I also want to touch on Government amendment 5, which would get us into the ludicrous situation of changing the business hours during which scrap metal may be traded to between 9 o’clock in the morning and 5 o’clock in the evening. Although the Minister’s comments were rather brief, he seemed to say that that was to fit the pattern of local authority working hours. It would be a ludicrous state of affairs if the whole of industry had to work to local authority working hours. Local authorities have to monitor many things. For argument’s sake, let us take the selling of alcohol to people who are under age. I am not sure that the Government would introduce legislation to say that alcohol may be served only between the hours of 9 and 5, so that local authorities can keep on top of all the legislation.
Mr Jeremy Browne
I have been resisting the urge to intervene on every amendment that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I do so in this case because the Government have sought to protect people from the state behaving with excessive authority. Under the current wording, a local council could stipulate that a scrap metal dealer can operate for only one hour a week, which would effectively put it out of business. We thought that if interim arrangements were in place, perhaps pending an appeal, it would not be reasonable for a scrap metal dealer who may eventually be found not to have behaved inappropriately to be put out of business by a local authority. We have tried to find an arrangement that will enable the dealer to continue to operate, and I would have thought my hon. Friend would approve of that. He should not assume that the Government have malign motives the whole time. Often we are trying to do things that balance various considerations but overall serve the public good.
Philip Davies
I never question the Government’s motives, but I often question their output. It was the Minister, not I, who raised the idea of businesses fitting in with local authority hours. That is a rather strange state of affairs, because it seems to me that local authorities ought to align themselves with business hours rather than businesses with local authority working hours. That may well be a debate for another day, but I hope he will at least reflect on it.
Amendment 38 would leave out the reference to the site manager in clause 3(2)(a). Bringing the site manager into the determination of whether a licence should be granted is not appropriate, because the responsibility should lie with the applicant for the licence. Also, the site manager can change from time to time. Amendment 39 is on exactly the same lines.
Amendment 40 relates to the provision that someone’s suitability to hold a licence can depend on
“any previous refusal of an application for a relevant environmental permit or registration (and the reasons for the refusal)”.
It is intended to probe why there should be consideration of a relevant environmental permit. Why not just judge each applicant afresh on their merits? If there are reasons to refuse an application, it should be refused, so that provision does not seem necessary. Amendment 41, like amendments 38 and 39, relates to site managers.
Amendment 42 relates to the provision giving the Secretary of State the power to change the licensing criteria by issuing new guidance that the local authority must follow. My point is that the Government should instead get the criteria right now. The whole point of our debates is to scrutinise the Bill and make it fit for purpose, but it seems that the Government’s approach is to pass any old Bill and then give themselves the power to vary it at a later date as they think appropriate. Legislation should not be made in that way. Amendment 43, again, relates to site managers.
Amendment 147 relates to the provision allowing a council to issue a licence on the condition that the scrap metal dealer does not receive scrap metal between specified hours of the day if they have a relevant conviction. My point is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in his amendment 90. I believe that the reference should be to unspent rather than relevant convictions, because the term “relevant” may well be open to debate.
Amendment 46 relates to the same provision, on which I wish to press the Minister a bit further. Where is the evidence that that condition will prevent the trading of stolen metal? We all want that to happen, but I am not entirely sure that clause 3(8)(a) will achieve it. It will place conditions on legitimate businesses, but where is the evidence that it will make any difference at all to metal theft? I asked what the purpose of the Bill was, because if it is to stop metal theft, as the Minister said, I am not entirely sure that such conditions will help.
Clause 3(8) states that scrap metal must be kept in its original form for up to 72 hours, which amendment 49 would change to 48 hours. Why is the figure in the Bill 72 hours and not a shorter period if the system is efficient? The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 cites 72 hours in respect of an available punishment in the form of an additional licence requirement, but I wondered why 72 hours is in the Bill. If someone can explain that point, we can soon deal with the amendment. Amendment 50 would change 72 hours to 96, so if people think the period in question should be longer, we have an alternative, just as we do if they think it should be shorter.
Mr Jeremy Browne
Members of the House who may believe that my hon. Friend has malign motives in trying to talk at greater length than is strictly necessary, or in tabling amendments that are not wholly necessary, may find evidence to support that assertion in precisely this type of measure. We could spend ages discussing whether 71 or 73 hours would be better than 72, but the Government have consulted the scrap metal sector and local governments, and the consensus from those with relevant interest in the area is that a time limit of 72 hours is appropriate. It does not seem a particularly good use of the House’s time to spend long periods discussing whether 72 hours is perfect. Of course that figure is, by its nature, somewhat arbitrary. It happens to be three days, but it is no less arbitrary than any other figure, and all relevant parties consider it an appropriate amount of time.
Philip Davies
I am grateful for that explanation, which is the purpose of this stage of the Bill. The Minister talked about spending ages on this issue, but his answer took longer than my question. He has spent more time on this point than I have—I should have thought he would congratulate me on rattling through my amendments with great haste. I cannot say that I am dwelling on my amendments, but if the Minister thinks I should spend more time on them, I am sure I could. However, I will resist that temptation.
Amendments 53 to 57 relate to the site manager named in the licence and, as I have said, were tabled for consistency with earlier amendments. Amendments 58 to 64 relate to clause 8 which states that when a scrap metal dealer has stopped dealing, they must notify the local authority within 28 days. Why is that the case? If someone has stopped trading, I presume that they will not renew their licence, so why must we place that extra burden on them? That seems quite unnecessary. If we are to have a notification period, why must it be 28 days? That seems a short space of time and it might not be that easy. Businesses do not always have neat cut-off points, and if sales were increasingly infrequent, notifying the local authority might not be at the forefront of someone’s mind. That might put them in breach of the clause and mean they fall into disrepute, so to speak. I am not clear why we need this measure, and my amendments change 28 days to either “three months” or “six months”, which would give businesses more time to meet that requirement. I am not persuaded, however, that such a provision needs to exist.
Amendments 62 and 63 relate to the time given to people to deal with issues. Under clause 8, the local authority has a duty to pass information it receives to the Environment Agency within 28 days, which the amendment would change to three months. Amendments 78 to 84 relate to clause 13 of the Bill which confirms that council officials have the powers to execute a magistrates’ warrant. I flag that up because I wonder whether it would be more appropriate for that to be done by the police. I am rather suspicious of giving council officers police powers that are not entirely necessary. When my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch discussed another proposal, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said that reasonableness is a matter of common sense. All hon. Members have at some point in their lives come across the pettifogging council official. I am not saying that such officials are in the majority or even that there is a sizeable number of them, but by the law of averages, there are bound to be some. Giving council officers police powers is a worrying development, and I hope the Government look again at the proposal. My other amendments in that sphere relate to the same issue.
Amendments 140 to 143 to clause 19 relate to the fact that responsibility for the registration of the scheme will lie with district councils. Amendment 140 would mean that county councils or unitary authorities would be responsible. If I remember rightly—I do not have my note to hand—the 1964 Act refers to county councils, but for some reason, strikingly, the Bill changes that to district councils. Given the scale of each district authority, I believe the matter would be better dealt with at county council or unitary authority level. I hope the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South will consider that. It might be a mistake in the drafting of the Bill.
Philip Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps that is a sign that the Minister, too, is concerned about this aspect of the Bill and does not want to reveal his hand at this stage.
Mr Jeremy Browne
The Bill is a private Member’s Bill, not a Government Bill. My understanding is that it is compliant with the degree of standardisation in government as to what is commonly meant by terms such as “local authorities”. Of course, licensing in other regards is done at district level, so I would not read into the Bill anything more than exists. It was thought that that would be an appropriate, effective and efficient level for the regulations to be undertaken to everyone’s satisfaction.
Philip Davies
It looks like lazy drafting to me. Certain things should be carried out by district councils and others by county councils. The point of legislation is to deem which is the most appropriate. I would venture, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has done, that the matter should be dealt with by county councils, but we will see what others think.
Amendment 141 would be significant. With regard to mobile collectors, it would replace the term “regularly engages” with
“engages on more than 300 days in a calendar year”.
This gets at whether mobile collecting is somebody’s full-time occupation. The Bill states that the mobile collector must be regularly engaged in door-to-door sales to be registered, but what constitutes “regularly” is surely open to dispute. My amendment would make sense of that. Does the measure regularise the “Steptoe and Son” people who might be out there? I do not know what the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South mean by “regularly”, so some clarity on that would help.
Amendments 145 and 146 relate to the offence of recklessly making a statement after being requested to provide further evidence. It is one thing to have an offence of knowingly making a false statement, but adding the word “recklessly” gets us into dangerous territory. I am not entirely sure what the definition of “reckless” is in this regard. Perhaps the Minister could help, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who is usually an expert in this field, could tell us what “recklessly” means. It would be best to leave the word out and leave it at “knowingly”.
That relates to my amendments in this group. I am not too happy with one or two others, and I intended to talk about those, but given that time is pressing and we have other matters to discuss, I will leave my comments there. I do so in the hope that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South will accept that my amendments have been tabled in an attempt to help the Bill and provide the scrutiny that it deserves, so that we end up with legislation that we are all happy with—that is the whole point of the Report stage of a Bill.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I have to confess, having listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) for the past hour or two, that I have quite a lot of affection for both of them. The contribution that they make to scrutinising private Members’ Bills should not be ignored. To that extent, they do the House a service. I call them friends in the political sense, and in the opposition years we worked closely together on the 1922 Committee. I do not therefore dismiss their arguments lightly. But given that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, in an interview with Materials Recycling World, said that he would not talk out the Bill, I do not want to do his job for him. I shall simply say that I support the new clause moved by the Minister, but I am not persuaded by the force of the arguments for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends.
Mr Jeremy Browne
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for the brevity of his contribution. I will not match it entirely, but I will be brief. To a degree, I too commend my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) on the rigour with which they scrutinise Government and non-Government legislation. I by no means wish to imply that that is an inappropriate role for them to play in the House, but this is a fairly uncontroversial Bill. It has been supported by all parties and there was a collegiate spirit in Committee, where we sought collectively to try to ensure that the Bill is as successful as possible. Some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends would not add to the Bill, and I shall give a couple of examples.
The question of whether it was appropriate to include the site manager in the relevant document was discussed at length. The Government have consulted on this issue with relevant authorities and it was felt appropriate to include the site manager, for reasons that Members will understand. The site manager is responsible for managing the site, and so ultimately what happens on the site is for him or her to oversee, so we regard him or her as an appropriate person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned the period of 300 days for people who collect door to door. In earlier stages of the Bill, we were criticised for being arbitrary about figures, but we have sought to make the legislation workable in practice. It would be very hard to determine precisely which days a person was collecting and which they were not. I think most people would still regard that person as being a full-time metal collector, so we have sought to amend the Bill to work in practice, with the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley talked about 28 days’ notice and whether that was an appropriate amount of time. His amendment suggested three months. We do regard 28 days as appropriate, but one can argue for another number. We want the register to be up to date, both with the local authority and the Environment Agency, which is why we want notification of those who have ceased to trade. Therefore, 28 days strikes us as an appropriate figure.
Rather than going on at greater length, not least because my cough is making my voice momentarily fail, I will just say that, as I said at the beginning, the Government new clause and amendments strengthen the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. The other amendments do not have that effect, so we urge the House to agree to the Government new clause and amendments and reject the others.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I was just about to suggest that the Minister might like to have a drink of water, to give him a break.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Records of dealings: disposal of metal
‘(1) This section applies if a scrap metal dealer disposes of any scrap metal in the course of the dealer’s business.
(2) For these purposes metal is disposed of—
(a) whether or not it is in the same form in which it was received;
(b) whether or not the disposal is to another person;
(c) whether or not the metal is despatched from a site.
(3) Where the disposal is in the course of business under a site licence, the dealer must record the following information—
(a) the description of the metal (including its type (or types if mixed), form and weight);
(b) the date and time of its disposal;
(c) if the disposal is to another person, the full name and address of that person;
(d) if the dealer receives payment for the metal (whether by way of sale or exchange), the price or other consideration received.
(4) Where the disposal is in the course of business under a collector’s licence, the dealer must record the following information—
(a) the date and time of the disposal;
(b) if the disposal is to another person, the full name and address of that person.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 2, in subsection (3), after ‘record’, insert ‘and verify’.
New clause 4—Sale of scrap metal—
‘(1) No person shall sell or attempt to sell scrap metal other than to a scrap metal dealer licensed under the provisions of this Act.
(2) No person aged under 21 shall sell or attempt to sell scrap metal.
(3) A person who sells or attempts to sell scrap metal in breach of subsection 1 or 2 above is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.
New clause 6—Metal marked with smart water—
‘(1) A scrap metal dealer must not purchase scrap metal from a person without first checking that the metal has not been marked with smart water.
(2) If a scrap metal dealer purchases scrap metal in breach of subsection (1) he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.’.
Amendment 66, page 5, line 39, in clause 10, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘1’.
Amendment 67, page 6, line 3, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘1’.
Amendment 98, page 6, line 10, in clause 11, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 71, page 6, line 25, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘1’.
Amendment 72, page 6, line 25, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘3’.
Government amendment 18, page 6, line 26, in clause 12, divide Clause 12 into two clauses, the first [Records of dealings: receipt of metal] to consist of subsections (1) to (5) and the second [Records: supplementary] to consist of subsections (6) to (11).
Government amendment 19, page 6, line 30, leave out ‘type and weight’ and insert
‘type (or types if mixed), form, condition, weight and any marks identifying previous owners or other distinguishing features’.
Amendment 87, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
‘(f) whether the metal has been tested for smart water and the result of that test’.
Government amendment 20, page 6, line 42, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
‘(4) If the dealer pays for the metal by cheque, the dealer must keep a copy of the cheque.
(5) If the dealer pays for the metal by electronic transfer—
(a) the dealer must keep the receipt identifying the transfer, or
(b) if no receipt identifying the transfer was obtained, the dealer must record particulars identifying the transfer.’.
Amendment 73, page 7, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
Government amendment 21, page 7, line 7, after ‘subsections (2) and (5)’, insert
‘and section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal](3) and (4)’.
Government amendment 22, page 7, line 13, after ‘subsections (2) to (5)’, insert
‘and section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal](3) and (4)’.
Amendment 74, page 7, line 13, leave out ‘3 years’ and insert ‘1 year’.
Government amendment 23, page 7, line 14, at end insert
‘or (as the case may be) disposed of.’.
Government amendment 24, page 7, line 15, after ‘under’, insert
‘section [Records of dealings: receipt of metal], section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal] or’.
Government amendment 25, page 7, line 18, after ‘at’, insert
‘or (as the case may be) despatched from’.
Amendment 76, page 7, line 27, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘1’.
Amendment 77, page 7, line 27, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘3’.
Government amendment 26, page 8, line 24, clause 13, leave out ‘section 12’ and insert
‘section [Records of dealings: receipt of metal] or [Records of dealings: disposal of metal]’.
Amendment 101, page 10, line 10, in clause 18, leave out from ‘(a)’ to ‘whether’ in line 11 and insert
‘collects, purchases or sells discarded metal suitable for reprocessing for reward’.
Amendment 132, page 10, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 133, page 10, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 30, page 10, line 19, leave out ‘carries on business’ and insert ‘engages in activity’.
Amendment 134, page 10, line 32, leave out ‘includes and insert ‘is’.
Amendment 102, page 10, line 33, leave out ‘old’ and insert ‘used’.
Amendment 135, page 10, line 33, after ‘old’, insert ‘used’.
Amendment 103, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
‘(c) any new product article or assembly which is made from or contains metal and is not being used for the purpose for which it was intended when originally purchased.’.
Amendment 136, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
‘(c) items made from or containing metal which are of sentimental or heritage value,
(d) war memorials that are made from or contain metal,
(e) property made from or containing metal belonging to any place of worship, and
(f) property made from or containing metal belonging to or used for the purposes of rail travel.’.
Amendment 104, page 10, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 138, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
‘(c) platinum, iridium, osmium, palladium and ruthenium, and’
Amendment 105, page 10, line 42, leave out subsection (8).
Mr Browne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the excellent timing with which you brought our debate on the previous group of amendments to a conclusion and for allowing me to introduce this second group of amendments.
This group relates to the trading in scrap metal. Within this grouping, the Government wish to create one new clause and make seven amendments to the Bill. Unfortunately, like the previous grouping, there are a significant number of other amendments which we fear may dilute the effectiveness of the Bill, although hon. Members are entirely within their rights to table them. It is therefore not our intention to accept those amendments. I do not propose to address each of them separately, though I have sought, and will continue to do so, to clarify points where that may help the House.
On the Government amendments, clause 12 currently requires that scrap metal dealers record all metal that is received in the course of their business, and includes a criminal offence of failure to fulfil the requirement of the clause. Following discussion with the police, they have suggested continuing the requirement in the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 to record both the metal being received in the course of their business and the metal being dispatched. We have considered that suggestion and believe that there are merits to justify its inclusion, allowing law enforcement officers and local authorities to trace metals through the scrap metal sector.
New clause 2 outlines that requirement, defining the meaning of disposed of metal and stipulating information that needs to be recorded by scrap metal dealers, both in respect of mobile collectors and those who hold a site licence. As I have said, although the amendment creates a new requirement in the Bill on the scrap metal dealer, recording metals that are dispatched is not a new burden on the industry—an important point—as that provision already exists in the 1964 Act, which currently applies. It should be noted that the proposed recording requirement for collectors appears slightly less onerous than that for site licence holders.
We considered carefully what information should be recorded to bring value to the records that are kept. Collectors should not process metals; they collect metals and then sell them to scrap metal dealers who operate a site to process them. Therefore, the metal that a collector receives and records must be the metal that they dispatch. It is for that reason that the regulations differ slightly for them and are slightly less onerous. We did not therefore consider it necessary to require collectors to double-record the metal; rather we are simply requiring them to record to whom the metal was sold and when.
I do not believe that the amendment to new clause 2 is necessary. All records that a scrap metal dealer is required to retain as part of this new scrap metal regime should be accurate. Amendment (a) to new clause 2 requires that information relating to disposed of metals be verified, which, aside from the person’s name and address, is an almost impossible task and one that makes the amendment unworkable.
Mr Browne
We feel that we have the appropriate level of verification and the means by which it can be effectively undertaken, so we do not feel it is necessary in this regard.
I shall turn to the other Government amendments. Amendment 18 separates clause 12 into two. The first proposed clause relates to the requirements when recording received metal, and the second deals with the requirements relating to record keeping more generally, including the criminal offence of not fulfilling the requirement. This separation, together with amendments 21 to 25, will ensure that the main thrust of the record-keeping requirements and the criminal offence will apply to both metal received and metal disposed of, with the same principles applying to both.
Since Committee, we have come to the view, following advice received, that we need to define more accurately the information in the descriptions of metals received. The current draft, requiring only that its type and weight be recorded, allows the scrap metal dealer to be as vague as they wish, potentially reducing the value of the records. Amendment 19 seeks to expand the wording, requiring that information on the metal’s type, form, condition and weight be included. Marks identifying the previous owner and other distinguishing features must also be recorded. That should considerably increase the value of the records, allowing for the metal to be identified, as opposed to the vagueness that the current Bill allows.
Amendment 20, on the recording requirement to keep evidence of non-cash payments, is a drafting improvement and does not amend the principle of the provision. Amendment 26 allows for officers of a local authority and police force to require the production of, and to inspect, records of received and disposed of metals. The power in the current Bill relates only to received metals.
Two further new clauses have been tabled—new clauses 4 and 6. New clause 4 relates to sellers of metal and would create a criminal offence covering two issues: first, individuals would be able to sell metal only to licensed scrap metal dealers; and, secondly, no one under 21 would be able to sell metal. The requirement to sell metal only to licensed businesses is a desirable outcome, but in the Government’s view it must be done through education and raising public awareness, as opposed to a criminal sanction. The displaying of a licence and the single national register will assist with that.
Mr Chope
The Minister has made an assertion, but can he give some reasons? Surely, if we legislate to prevent anyone from selling or attempting to sell scrap metal other than to a licensed scrap metal dealer, we will be promoting the cause of licensed scrap metal dealers and undermining the criminal fraternity.
Mr Browne
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but our feeling is that the level of licensing proposed in the Bill will have his desired effect.
I turn to the point about age. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 included the requirement not to purchase metal from anyone under the age of 16. This has been removed in the current Bill, and there is no age restriction. In part, that is because placing an age restriction would be discriminatory on the grounds of age and contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, which deals with direct discrimination. The law allows for direct discrimination on the grounds of age only where it can be demonstrated that less favourable treatment is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and proportionate. Since there is no evidence base suggesting that abuse is concentrated in the under-21 age group, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that an outright ban on under-21s selling scrap metal is proportionate. We do not believe, therefore, that such a ban would be lawful.
Finally, new clause 6 would create a new criminal offence, which would apply where a dealer purchased scrap metal without checking that it had not been marked with SmartWater. We cannot support the creation of this offence for a number of reasons. We do not believe it would be appropriate for the Bill to refer to one particular commercial product, rather than the full range of products. Although SmartWater is a known product, it is one of many known forensic property markers on the market. I am not aware of any independent evaluation of its effectiveness; nor have I seen any comparison with other products on the market. In addition, what would happen if we specified one product in legislation and a superior product entered the market, or if SmartWater ceased to exist? The approach taken in new clause 6 does not facilitate our objective to future-proof the legislation further.
A number of scrap metal dealers check for forensic property marker products when purchasing metal. That is a good practice, and certainly something we want to see encouraged. However, mandating it as a requirement, as the new clause seeks to do, would create a significant burden for the industry. It might also create an unachievable burden, given the vast quantities of metal that enter scrapyards on a daily basis, and I know that hon. Members would not wish the regulations imposed by the Government to be unduly burdensome on businesses going about their legitimate day-to-day trade. Therefore, for the various reasons I have outlined, the Government would resist new clause 6.
I do not propose to talk to the other non-Government amendments at this stage, so perhaps I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion and let others make their contributions.
Mr Hanson
I will not delay the House for very long because the official Opposition support new clause 2 and welcome the Government’s consideration of this matter.
As the Minister said, new clause 2 has come about because the police have said that they want the record of dealings to be tightened and the Government to introduce measures to improve proof of accuracy. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister have responded to those requests with new clause 2. As the Minister said, it will require dealers to record more information about metal disposed of by paying attention to the description of the metal and the date and time of disposal, as well as who disposed of it, to whom it was disposed and any consideration received. This is an important matter, because the new clause adopts a firmer approach to tightening the outlets for stolen metal, as does the rest of the Bill. In our earlier discussions we were clear across the House that our approach to the desecration of war memorials and damage done to railways, churches and voluntary organisations needs to be tightened considerably. The way to do that is to cut off, at source, openings for the disposal of stolen metal through metal outlets. New clause 2 is an additional measure in supporting that approach.
I wish to make two quick points about new clause 4. I can understand why the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has tabled it, but—I am in danger of sounding ministerial—I agree with the Minister’s approach. There is no evidence to my knowledge that individuals under the age of 21 are committing more offences than those over 21. I do not believe the Bill should contain a discriminatory clause that, if enacted, would prevent people under 21 from engaging in legitimate metal dealings. If people are committing offences, it does not matter whether they are 19 or 23. The important thing is the offence being committed. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue new clause 4. If he does so, he will not have the support of the official Opposition, which I know will trouble him greatly.
I also agree with the Minister that the use of SmartWater, as proposed by new clause 6, would be restrictive rather than expansive. SmartWater is a trade name. It is not necessarily the final product: other products may eventually come on the market. New clause 6 would be restrictive, rather than creating fuller powers under the Act—as I hope the Bill will become shortly—to be implemented in a reasonable way. With those few comments, I give the Minister a fair wind.
Philip Davies
I intend to speak to my amendments in the group and, in doing so, say how disappointed I am that the Minister chose entirely to ignore them. We might have to tease him into leaping to his feet at some point to clarify certain points. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to explain his amendments, as he will be able to do that far better than I ever could.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I entirely support the Bill and its intention, and hope very much that it will make progress today and subsequently become law. However, while my constituents, like many other commuters, have suffered all the train delays that we have talked about, it is also the case that the treasure of Forty Hall has been ransacked far too often. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the Bill in its current form covers theft from the roofs of such properties.
Philip Davies
We all want to ensure that the Bill covers such thefts, but I fear that it does not. If accepted, my amendments 135 and 16 would make it clear beyond any doubt that they were covered. If we are building up people’s hopes, it is in all our interests to make the position clear in the Bill. I am not suggesting the replacement of any definitions; I merely wish to ensure that everything is covered.
Although I think that the word “used” would be more appropriate than the word “old” in clause 18, amendment 135 adds the word “used” rather than deleting the word “old”. I have a feeling that those who drafted the Bill intended the clause to contain the word “used” rather than the word “old”, but the fact is people might well take advantage of the technicality, and that would disappoint me just as much as it would disappoint my hon. Friend.
Clause 18 lists the metals that are not to be treated as scrap metal. Amendment 138 inserts the further metals listed in the original Bill, minus one, namely rhodium. Reducing the number of metals covered by the Bill surely reduces its scope. The 1964 Act contained the same exclusions as the original Bill, so I am not entirely sure what has changed.
Although 135 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I signed it because, although I am sure all his amendments are good, I thought this one was particularly good. Clause 18 enables the Secretary of State to change the definition of scrap metal by order. It seems to me that the definition could change all the time as a result. People could be caught by the definition of a scrap metal dealer one day, no longer caught by it the next day, and caught by it again the day after that, which is not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs. Given that the whole Bill is about scrap metal and scrap metal dealers, a proper definition is surely not too much to ask. We do not want to have to keep revisiting the definition.
If the Government and my hon. Friend are willing to accept my earlier amendments specifying exactly what is meant by scrap metal, we can safely get rid of this part of the Bill, which is what my hon. Friend’s amendment would do. As things stand, there could be some controversy. It seems to me that the Bill in its current form would allow someone to continue to operate a business under the name “Stolen War Memorials R Us” outside Parliament, because it does not make clear what the definition of scrap metal includes. Time is pressing, but let me particularly commend the amendments relating to that definition. We want everyone outside this place to know exactly what the Bill covers, and to ensure that there are no loopholes. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.
Mr Chope
First, I want to repeat the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): there is no proper definition. The public will be amazed to learn that at this late stage we still do not have an exhaustive definition of what we mean by “scrap metal” and “scrap metal dealer.” There is therefore an enormous amount of misunderstanding.
It is clear from the letter we have received from the British Metals Recycling Association that its idea of the Bill’s definition of a scrap metal dealer is incorrect:
“We particularly welcome the provisions within the Bill to: extend the definition of a scrap metal dealer to all those businesses and individuals that collect, purchase, process or sell discarded metal suitable for reprocessing for reward”.
It supports them
“in order to close current loopholes relating to the limited scope of current legislation. We also believe, on the question of which metals should be covered by this legislation, that the definition of scrap should be as inclusive as possible”.
I have to tell the BMRA that if that is what it thinks the Bill says, it needs to have another look at the text, because it does not say anything of the sort. That shows the problem with so much of this Bill. The Government will the end, but they do not will the means. They want to sort out the metal theft problem, but there are enormous loopholes in how they propose to set about achieving that.
There is, for instance, a loophole relating to individuals and those who steal metal for gain but who are not part of a business. There is another loophole to do with the material involved and whether it is new or used. Much of the material that is sold as scrap is new, but the Bill specifies that it must be old. That is why I tabled an amendment proposing that we should replace the term “old” with “used”.
Further evidence of the fact that the Government are going through the motions of wanting to put something on the statute book to deal with this issue without having worked out whether it will achieve the objective was provided by what I can only describe as the Minister’s very lame response to the discussion of new clause 4. It states:
“No person shall sell or attempt to sell scrap metal”—
that points to the key issue: people steal scrap metal to sell it and to make a profit so that they have money to spend at the local pub or wherever—
“other than to a scrap metal dealer licensed under the provisions of this Act.”
If we want to boost the status and standing of licensed scrap metal dealers and force those who are not licensed dealers out of the business, what would be more logical than to say that people can only sell scrap metal to a licensed scrap metal dealer? The response we got from the Minister was, “Well, we believe in education and raising the public profile on this matter.” Why will the Government not legislate against the villains who are selling, or attempting to sell, scrap metal to people other than scrap metal dealers licensed under this legislation?
There is a secondary issue to do with the age of people. I proposed that nobody under 21 should sell, or attempt to sell, scrap metal. That is because people might use others who are under 21 as intermediaries knowing that the likely penalties they will suffer in the event of being caught will be small and they will be able to plead ignorance. If we want to tighten up this regime, we should put in place an age limit. After all, we have age limits for the purchase of lawful commodities such as cigarettes and alcohol. We have provisions dealing with the sale of illegal drugs, so why can we not deal with this by saying that anybody who sells or attempts to sell scrap metal to an unlicensed scrap metal dealer is committing an offence? If there were ever something that exposes the big vacuum between the Government’s avowed intent and what is actually going to happen in practice, this is it.
New clause 6 provides another example of where the Government could do something more. It proposes:
“A scrap metal dealer must not purchase scrap metal from a person without first checking that the metal has not been marked with smart water.”
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) raised this issue in Committee. She said that she was a trustee of the War Memorials Trust and bemoaned the fact that people steal war memorial plaques to sell them for the value of the metal, little realising their value in terms of sentiment and their part in our history and heritage. She referred to the work the trust was doing with SmartWater Technology Ltd, which I understand has agreed to put its product on every war memorial in the country. If we want a positive message to send out on the eve of Remembrance Sunday, surely it would be: is that not a fantastic example of co-operation between the private sector and the public interest? If we put SmartWater on all the memorials, that should, in principle, deter people from stealing them.
However, that approach will not work unless we have a way of detecting SmartWater on the product after it has been stolen. I discussed the issue with the Archdeacon of Bournemouth, who said that the priory church in my constituency has suffered on several occasions from having lead stolen from its roof, despite having both CCTV and SmartWater. His impression was that indicating that there was SmartWater on the metal was almost an invitation to potential thieves to think it was worth stealing and it did not, therefore, have the necessary deterrent effect. That is because people can take metal to their local scrap dealer and it will not be tested for SmartWater, and once the metal has gone into the system and been processed, the SmartWater mark will have been eliminated.
If the Government were really serious about this, they would be saying, “Why don’t we tighten up this area so that nobody can sell other than to a licensed scrap metal dealer and every licensed dealer must test the product to see whether it has SmartWater on it?” The Minister says that such an approach uses just one particular commercial product. If he prefers to say that dealers must test metal for any forensic property markers, which could include other products and thereby be future-proofed—again, I use what he was saying—so be it, but instead of a constructive alternative suggestion from the Minister, we heard a rubbishing of this one. It is put forward in all seriousness—it has support from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and, no doubt, others—as a sensible way of trying to tighten up the system.
It has been suggested that such a provision would be burdensome on licensed scrap metal dealers. I talked to one experienced and successful scrap metal dealer last week, and I do not think he would find it a burden. He would see it as a way of ensuring that the whole trade is cleaned up. He does not want to take a stolen product. One way of ensuring that he does not is to test it for the presence of SmartWater.
I find the Government’s approach negative in the extreme. More than that, it is distressing that they are not prepared to engage in a way that would tighten up the regime significantly for the benefit of the public. One is left wondering whether they are worried about too many people being locked up or charged if we start outlawing the sale of scrap metal other than to licensed dealers or about the fact that there might be quite a lot of metal stolen that would be identified by this SmartWater test. Perhaps it is a case of “not invented here” syndrome, because SmartWater was invented not by the Government but by some rather clever people in this country who understand the science. It could be used effectively to facilitate a tough clampdown on the theft of war memorials, in particular, as well as of other metals. The Government are not seizing every opportunity available to them to take action effectively in this respect.
Let me refer briefly to some of the other amendments, as I know that time is constrained.
Philip Davies
While my hon. Friend is trying to find his place in his notes, I wonder whether he would like to comment on my amendments, which specify property from war memorials and places of worship as part of the definition of scrap metal. Does he think that that would be helpful?
Mr Chope
I think that it would be extremely helpful. It comes back to the point we were making originally about the lack of any clear definition. If a church roof is renewed and the new lead is taken away and sold, that is new product, not old product. It is used product, however, which is why I have tabled the amendment to incorporate the word “used”, which is not in the Bill at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that he will accept amendment 102, which would clarify that matter for the benefit of all.
Amendment 98, the last of my amendments, concerns the power to amend the means of purchase by regulation. I do not see the need for that and the Minister has not made the case for it. Amendment 87 deals with the need for a test in relation to SmartWater, and amendment 101 deals with the definition and uses the exact words provided by the scrap metal dealers association, the British Metals Recycling Association, which thought they were already incorporated in the Bill. If the Minister responds to nothing else, perhaps he could explain to members of that association why what they told us in their briefing for Third Reading and Report is not in the text of the Bill.
These amendments contain a lot of constructive suggestions to strengthen the regime for controlling scrap metal theft and to ensure that those guilty of it are brought to justice. I regret that the Government are not prepared to be bigger-hearted, particularly on the eve of Remembrance Sunday.
Richard Ottaway
I am afraid that I cannot offer much comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) either. Although I support the Government’s new clause and their amendments, I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the amendments tabled by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).
Mr Jeremy Browne
I will engage briefly with the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope).
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke to amendment 66 on financial penalties. Of course, we can always believe that such penalties should be higher or lower, but we believe that those in the Bill are proportionate. He also tabled amendment 73, on proper records, and amendment 74, on the requirement to keep paperwork for three years. A desire to regulate the industry effectively goes to the heart of the Bill. Obviously, we need scrap metal dealers to keep proper, orderly records; otherwise it is not possible for local authorities or the police to check that they are buying and selling the metal that they claim to be buying and selling. We cannot have a Bill in which there is no requirement to keep proper records, because that would mean that we would have to be satisfied with improper, sloppy or inadequate records instead. We are seeking to be consistent and to make the Bill sufficiently onerous in order for it to be effective.
In amendment 66, my hon. Friend seems to be concerned that the fines are too onerous. It is a difficult situation, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch thinks that the Government are too worried about punishing transgressors, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley seems to have adopted a whole new approach, namely that the Government’s attitude is overly tough and that they fine at a level that is, in his view, inappropriately high. We think that we have struck the right balance.
On amendment 132, I am reliably informed that most metal salvage operators are scrap metal dealers. We do not want two overlapping schemes. The way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has framed the Bill should reduce the regulatory burden on motor salvage operators.
There has been considerable discussion of what constitutes scrap metal and a scrap metal dealer. We are satisfied with the definition in the Bill. It does not specify every single item that could be construed as being scrap metal, but we think that the definition encompasses them, to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). On the difference between old and used, as I understand it, if I have an old car that has reached the end of its life—this is the crucial point—it might be suitable to be turned into scrap metal. Under the definition provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, if I had bought a car yesterday and had driven it back from the showroom and it was then turned into scrap metal by someone on my behalf, it would also be regarded as scrap metal, but I think that most people would understand the distinction that it would not be old and, therefore, not scrap metal.
Philip Davies
Does the Minister think that the definition is suitable for everything that we want to be covered by the Bill? What harm would by done by accepting amendment 136? It would not take anything away from the existing definition, but add, for the sake of clarity, items of sentimental or heritage value, war memorials, places of worship and metal used for the purposes of rail travel, so that we were certain that they were all covered.
Mr Browne
The Government do not agree with the amendment, because we believe that the definition covers those items and because I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for legislative simplicity and for not implementing legislation that is too difficult for people to understand or comply with. People in this House or beyond may have strong beliefs about how inappropriate it would be to steal and trade other types of metal. It would be impossible to have an exhaustive list in the Bill of every single type of metal, what form it takes and in what circumstances it is displayed. We are confident that the definition includes exactly those items, which is, in part, why the Government are such enthusiastic supporters of my hon. Friend’s Bill.
Philip Davies
I am afraid that that is entirely unsatisfactory, because nobody is asking for a comprehensive definition of every type of metal. Amendment 136 would not take away anything from the definition in the Bill, but would simply add to it. The Minister said that he does not want the legislation to be complicated. The amendment would make it more simple, because it would make it abundantly clear that such matters are covered by the Bill. Whether the Minister thinks that my amendment is needed or not, I do not see how he thinks that it would make the Bill worse.
Mr Browne
I can think of literally nothing else that could add to the points that I have made. It would detain the House unnecessarily to give way, because there is nothing further to add on amendment 136.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley talked about amendment 138, which lists platinum, iridium and other elements that remind me of being at school. He proposes to take those metals out of the legislation, but the Government want them to be in the legislation, because theft of those materials, for example from catalytic converters, has grown.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch spoke about SmartWater. The Government do not want to discourage the kind of work by private companies that he described. Quite the contrary: we are enthusiastic about it and believe that it can provide an extra safeguard. However, I think that he will understand that the Government cannot endorse a particular product from a particular manufacturer, nor can we reasonably put a product in the Bill when other products in the field may claim to be as effective or more effective. That includes products that have not yet been invented, but that might become usable within the lifetime of the Bill. That we have not included SmartWater in the Bill does not mean that we do not think that it is one measure that can be used to mark metal and deter thieves. However, the Bill is not an advert for companies that have theft-reduction products, but is meant to be broad and all-encompassing and to stand the test of time. For those reasons, we do not think that it would be appropriate to name a particular commercial product.
Mr Chope
I take the Minister’s point about not naming a particular product, but why could we not have a provision that deals with such products generically and, to future-proof it, that provides for the Government to widen the definition as appropriate? Surely this is an essential safeguard. If we force scrap metal dealers to test whether such products have been used on the material that they have, we will be more likely to find out whether it has been stolen.
Mr Browne
I will return to what I think is a tension in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Shipley. They seem to be arguing, at the same time, that the proposals are unduly burdensome on scrap metal dealers and that they should be far more burdensome. We are trying to strike a balance that will work in practice between dealing, to a large degree, with the terrible problem of scrap metal theft and not unfairly penalising legitimate scrap metal dealers, who we believe will be perfectly able to keep records and comply with the Bill presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. That is the balance that we are seeking to strike, and we believe that he has got that balance broadly right. That is why, with a few minor Government amendments, we support his Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Expiry
‘(1) This Act shall expire one year from the date on which it receives Royal Assent.
(2) Section 146 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc.) and amendments made by that section to previous legislation shall expire on the same date.’.—(Philip Davies.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 114, in clause 15, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘1 year’.
Amendment 115, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘2 years’.
Amendment 116, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘3 years’.
Amendment 117, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘4 years’.
Amendment 118, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(c) publish the crime figures associated with scrap metal theft for the whole of the period of the review.’.
Amendment 119, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(d) publish the crime figures associated with metal theft generally for the whole of the period of the review.’.
Amendment 120, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(e) publish comparative figures for 1(c) and 1(d) for the preceding equivalent period to the review to show trends in metal crime.’.
Amendment 121, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(f) publish figures showing the number of convictions for each new offence created in the Bill.’.
Amendment 122, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(g) publish a study comparing the use of all legislation in existence prior to the introduction of this Act to this Act and the role that has played in tackling metal theft.’.
Amendment 123, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(h) publish an assessment of the effect that prohibiting scrap metal dealers from using cash has had on business.’.
Amendment 124, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(i) publish a study of the cost to all scrap metal businesses over the period of the review of the new legislation.’.
Amendment 126, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(k) publish a comparison of convictions under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 compared to the convictions for the same offences under this Act for a period of the same length as the term of the review.’.
Amendment 127, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(l) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal to Scotland in the whole of the period of the review.’.
Amendment 128, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(m) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal to Europe in the whole of the period of the review.’.
Amendment 129, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(n) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal through UK ports to other countries exlcuding Scotland and Europe in the whole of the period of the review.’.
Amendment 99, in clause 17, page 9, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 100, page 9, line 40, leave out ‘under section 11(2) or 18(8)’ and insert
‘or regulations under this Act’.
Amendment 131, page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 85, in clause 20, page 11, line 41, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line 42 and insert
‘shall come into force two months after Royal Assent’.
Amendment 86, page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
Philip Davies
I hope to strike more oil with this group of amendments than I have managed thus far. I am rather disappointed that the Minister’s approach so far has been, “This is my script. I won’t listen to the debate, I will just stick to my script come what may.” My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I will have another go at persuading him that the Bill could be improved.
Mr Jeremy Browne
May I gently say to my hon. Friend that he makes a slightly unfair criticism? The first part of our deliberation today was on new clause 1, which the Government introduced after listening to representations made in Committee by a Member who is in neither of the governing parties. We have sought to have a collegiate and broad-based approach throughout the process, and we continue to do so.
Philip Davies
I am even more disappointed now, because it appears that only my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I were excluded from the deliberations. The Minister might have been hoping to satisfy me with that intervention, but he has done the exact opposite.
The background to new clause 7 is my fear that we are being asked to agree, in a rushed way and without proper scrutiny, to a Bill that really should have been a Government Bill. It should have gone through the full rigour of scrutiny in the House, and that clearly has not been the case, which is most unsatisfactory. It seems to me perfectly legitimate when one-clause private Members’ Bills are introduced to tidy up technicalities, but we are being asked to rush through a wide-ranging Bill that will have wide-ranging consequences for the public, a particular industry, people linked to that industry and various organisations that are hoping that their property will be better protected. The House should therefore give the Bill proper scrutiny, and that has not been the case.
Our job is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure that the legislation that we pass is fit for purpose. Based on our deliberations so far, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that that is the case with this Bill, because of the rushed time scale. The new clause is designed to address that problem. It states that the Act—should the Bill become an Act—
“shall expire one year from the date on which it receives Royal Assent”,
and that section 146 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which dealt with the banning of cash payments in the industry, shall expire on the same date. That provision itself was a late entry to the 2012 Act, rushed through at the last minute as a knee-jerk reaction without proper scrutiny. It was the “looking as if we’re doing something” approach to politics.
The new clause would enable the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has worked incredibly hard to bring to the statute book to be brought into force, but give the Government time to come back to us with legislation that was better thought through and better scrutinised by both Houses. We would therefore end up with legislation that we could all be satisfied was fit for purpose, rather than the final word being this Bill, which is being rushed through and in which we may well make a mistake.
Mr Hanson
My worry with the hon. Gentleman’s approach is that, as he will know, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 includes measures on metal theft that have not yet come into force but which the Bill would repeal. He now indicates that those measures could be reviewed again in 12 months’ time after Royal Assent. The Government—and, I hope, the industry—want certainty that a clear regime is in place. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on that, as this legislation could lead to further uncertainty in the industry.
Philip Davies
That does not need to be the case. The Government could set out their intention to bring forward a Bill that deals with the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and we could at least give that proper scrutiny. We are heading towards a scenario in which legislation is rushed through without proper scrutiny. I would have thought that the shadow Minister would be in favour of making the Government return to the House and go through a proper legislative process, rather than simply rushing it through. Nothing of what I propose will prevent any of the provisions from being included in the Bill; I just want to ensure that they get proper consideration.
I thought that the ban on cash payments was ill-advised and extremely un-British. If somebody is breaking the law, the illegal part is the crime they are committing, not the method of payment they use. Somebody might go into a newsagent and steal newspapers, but it would be ridiculous to propose banning people from buying newspapers for cash. I do not see the logic; it is a totally un-British approach. There is nothing to stop the Government bringing this legislation back, but we must ensure that it receives proper consideration.
New clause 7 proposes that the Act shall expire within a year, which I think gives the Government plenty of opportunity to bring forward new legislation. If this matter is so important to the Government—they say that it is and I do not doubt that is true—a year is a perfectly long enough time for them to bring forward a proper Bill, including all the measures in this Bill, that can proceed through both Houses of Parliament.
Richard Ottaway
I am listening closely to my hon. Friend, and I confess that I agree that some sort of review would be appropriate. I disagree, however, with the assertion that the legislation is being rushed, as it seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time.
Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend. If the Bill concludes all stages today, including Report and Third Reading, I would be prepared to recommend to the Government—and would seek to persuade them to introduce it in another place—an amendment to clause 15 which would provide for the review that my hon. Friend wants three years after section 1 comes into force. In addition, although new clause 7 provides for a sunset clause after one year, I would seek to persuade the Government to introduce in another place a sunset or expiry clause for five years after section 1 comes into force. I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that that balance would provide for the review he wants but allow the Act time to operate so that an accurate, worthy assessment and review can be made.
Philip Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for listening to my case and responding so positively. As it happens, amendment 116 would bring forward the review from five years to three years, and I have also tabled amendments to explore whether we could bring it forward to two years or one. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful comments and suggestion, and although the expiry date he offers is not nearly as soon as I would wish, I accept the spirit in which it was offered and the principle behind it.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) prefaced his helpful suggestion by saying he would seek to persuade the Government to introduce the measure in another place. I hope the Minister will now say that he is persuaded, so that we do not have to speculate.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I, too, noted that form of words. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is promoting the Bill, I trust that what he says will happen will happen, and urge the Minister to accept his suggestion. I would be happy to pause in my remarks to allow him to leap to his feet, as he has been prone to do throughout my contributions, to confirm whether the Government will accept my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
Mr Jeremy Browne
I was wondering whether it would be better to react at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, and whether that might encourage brevity from my hon. Friend, or whether to react now. What does he believe would be most likely to bring proceedings to an appropriate conclusion?
Philip Davies
I can assure the Minister that his making a clear commitment now would help to speed things along.
Mr Browne
I suspected that that might be the case, which is why I have leapt to my feet again. Having had the opportunity to consider my hon. Friend’s amendments and having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) of his wish for the Government to make the concession when the other place deliberates on the Bill, I endorse that approach, as do the Government as a whole—to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), there is no conspiracy. The Government will seek to support the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South.
Philip Davies
Some may argue that this is a red letter day for me—it is the first time I have extracted a concession from a Government of any persuasion. I accept it in the spirit it was given, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for showing such a flexible attitude. A review is essential, as is an expiry date which, in effect, forces the Government to return to the legislation in future, having considered all the evidence from the review. That will ensure that we get legislation that is right in the long term. That is absolutely the right approach—I gently suggest that it is a model for future legislation, but I will not push my luck too far.
To tidy up the other amendments in my name in the group, I suggest that the Government should, as part of the review, publish the crime figures associated with scrap metal theft for the whole of the period of the review. Given that we are seeking to tackle the problem of metal theft, those figures will be an important part of any review. My amendments would ensure that they would be part of it, so—I am on a roll—I hope the Minister agrees to them.
I also ask the Government to publish a study comparing the use of all legislation prior to the introduction of the Bill, and an assessment of the effect that prohibiting scrap metal dealers from using cash has on business. The general tenor of the amendments is to ensure that crime and the scrap metal industry are properly considered by the review. I am sure that that is what all hon. Members would want and expect, and the amendments will ensure that it happens.
On that note, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for his flexible approach and his willingness to accept an earlier review than the Bill allows and an expiry date. That is a great credit not only to him, but to the Bill.
Mr Hanson
I suspect that in the future when an unknown university student in an unknown university does a model exercise on legislating on a particular problem, they will look at the Bill on scrap metal dealers as an example of how not to proceed with legislation. With due respect to the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister, new clause 7 would add a potential further delay to the legislation.
The problem of metal theft was identified on both sides of the House as an urgent issue, because the inflated price of metal was causing an increase in the amount of metal stolen from churches, war memorials and so on. The Opposition, trying to focus the Government’s mind on the matter, tabled amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill about a year ago. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, who kicked the matter into the long grass. The Government came to realise, through pressure from Members including the hon. Members for Croydon South, for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), that this was a problem and revisited the matter. They tabled amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that broadly reflected the Opposition’s earlier amendments. Most of the aspects that we had included were there. With Opposition support, the amendments on metal theft were included in the Bill, now an Act.
Sections 145 to 147 of the Act were scheduled for implementation in December. However, the Bill before us today would repeal those sections before they have even been brought into effect, because the Government have realised that the points that the Opposition made nearly 12 months ago—with, I accept, cross-party support from coalition Back Benchers—were valid.
The Government have supported the hon. Member for Croydon South in bringing forward the Bill, which had full support from the Opposition on Second Reading. The Minister and the hon. Gentleman have been very gracious in their approach to the Bill and they have accepted amendments that the Opposition tabled in Committee. Now we face the threat of the Bill being talked out because the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) have concerns about it. In the light of the new clause calling for a delay—[Interruption.] For a review, then. As a result, the Minister and the hon. Member for Croydon South have agreed a review date after three years and a sunset clause after five years.
Philip Davies
I have a great deal of time for the shadow Minister and we agree with each other on far too many occasions, but I do not know what he is talking about. The new clause would not introduce any delay into the Bill—far from it. It would introduce a review, but there was a review in the Bill anyway and it would merely be brought forward. It would also mean that in five years’ time, the Government would have to bring back more considered legislation. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman’s problem is.
Mr Hanson
My problem is that the way in which the Government have approached this issue has been piecemeal, unco-ordinated and involved U-turns on legislation before it has even come into effect. What we most want out of this is certainty for the people who provide scrap metal services and are trying to plan their businesses and invest in providing that valuable service to the community, as well as certainty in the deterrent effect of the legislation for those people who are carrying out despicable acts. All the way through, the Government’s approach has been piecemeal: there have been U-turns, uncertainty and not a great deal of focus, and I say that while respecting what the hon. Member for Croydon South has done in introducing the Bill, and respecting the Minister for accepting amendments in Committee.
Mr Chope
I must say that the speech the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered is one of the most disappointing I have heard in the House for a long time. What is emerging today is an example of Parliament at its best. Indeed, it has been exemplary. As a result of the force of argument on the shortcomings of the Bill—recognised by the fact that the Government have moved a number of new clauses and amendments—the amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley tabled have demonstrated that, although people might assert that the Bill is now perfect and the complete answer, there can be nagging doubts.
Mr Chope
I am not sure that I would go along with that, because 11 months ago the Government had a Bill going through Parliament and they wanted to amend it. They made what most think was the most cogent amendment, which will probably transform, as quickly as possible, the whole regime by outlawing cash payments. That is what the scrap metal dealer with whom I was having discussions told me last week. He thinks that what is already being done voluntarily under Operation Tornado, will, when it becomes compulsory at the beginning of next month, make a difference. There is some concern about whether all the additional measures will make a significant difference. There is also the problem, borne out by some scrap metal dealers themselves, that there are a lot of rogue elements, and we are not sure that we have dealt with them adequately through the existing legislation, or even through the Bill.
Surely it is desirable for us to debate these issues in the House. If it is clear that there is a reasonable way forward by saying, “Well, you may be right, I may be right, but let us have a review and a sunset clause after five years and have a chance to rethink the whole thing”, that surely must be a good way to take forward legislation. There has been much criticism about legislation coming through on a piecemeal basis, often too rapidly and insufficiently scrutinised. In times to come, just as people talk about the Rooker-Wise amendment, people will think about the Philip Davies new clause that revolutionised how the House considers legislation. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) wants some credit too. I am more than willing to give him enormous credit, because he had the vision to introduce the Bill in the first place, and he has used his knowledge and experience to recognise that such a Bill should be taken forward on a consensual basis, working with people rather than against them. Perhaps it will be called the Davies-Ottaway new clause. Either way, it is something we should be pleased about.
Before I close, I want to refer to my amendments 85 and 86, which would ensure that the Bill comes into effect two months after Royal Assent. At the moment, the Bill is so drafted that the measures will take effect only when the Government decide they should. I would have thought that if the Government were serious about getting on with this, they could accept these amendments or undertake to implement the Bill two months after Royal Assent, and put pressure on the people drafting the regulations and negotiating with the local authorities to ensure that this is given the impetus that people in the House and outside want. That would be preferable to waiting until this time next year before a lot of these measures are implemented.
Mr Jeremy Browne
I am delighted that we have managed to work the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) into a state of parliamentary euphoria not only about the procedures in this place but about the fact that, in his words, the Government are really making a difference here. I wholeheartedly endorse his endorsement of what the Government are doing. We are seeking to make a difference. I am slightly discomforted by his laissez-faire approach to the legislative process, but we want to be accommodating and collegiate, and I am pleased that that spirit has come across in our approach to the amendments.
I will pass over the more churlish contribution from the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) as being entirely out of character.
I shall speak briefly to new clause 7. It was envisaged that this legislation would expire after one year, but, although I enjoy having regular discussions about this subject, I do not know whether the Government would be entirely happy about having an annual scrap metal traders Bill to discuss in detail. The Government do not take the view, therefore, that the legislation expiring after one year is suitable, but, because this is a wide-ranging Bill, it would be wise to review its progress, should it come into force. We would obviously want that review to be comprehensive, and the proposal for a five-year expiry strikes the right balance. It will give the legislation time to bed in and, we hope, take effect. The legislation would then expire after five years and, if need be, be replaced by even more effective legislation, drawing on the experience that will have been accrued over those five years and after we have had a review. The Government are happy to endorse the generous approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) in putting forward the proposal for a five-year review. I know that the legislation will proceed on that basis, with the enthusiastic support of Members across the House.
Philip Davies
I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister for showing such flexibility, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that the shadow Minister was not at his best—let us phrase it like that—on this group of amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for thinking that the process could be named after me, but, if it is to bear my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, it would certainly be better as the Ottaway-Davies new clause—we should get the seniority right in these matters.
On the basis of the Minister’s offer that the Bill will be reviewed after three years and expire after five, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2
Form and effect of licence
Amendments made: 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
‘() name the authority,’.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 6, after ‘licensee,’, insert—
‘() name the authority,’.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘( ) A licence is to be in a form which—
(a) complies with subsections (4) and (6), and
(b) enables the licensee to comply with section [Display of licence] (display of licence).
( ) The Secretary of State may in regulations prescribe further requirements as to the form and content of licences.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Clause 3
Issue of licence
Amendments made: 4, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
‘() the Natural Resources Body for Wales;’.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 17, leave out ‘between specified hours of the day’ and insert
‘except between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on any day’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Clause 4
Revocation of licence and imposition of conditions
Amendments made: 6, page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to ‘comes’ and insert
‘A revocation or variation under this section’.
Amendment 7, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
‘(6A) But if the authority considers that the licence should not continue in force without conditions, it may by notice provide—
(a) that, until a revocation under this section comes into effect, the licence is subject to one or both of the conditions set out in section3(8), or
(b) that a variation under this section comes into effect immediately.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Clause 6
Supply of information by authority
Amendment made: 8, page 4, line 8, after ‘Agency,’, insert—
‘() the Natural Resources Body for Wales,’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Clause 7
Register of licences
Amendments made: 9, page 4, line 13, at end insert
‘issued by authorities in England.
‘( ) The Natural Resources Body for Wales must maintain a register of scrap metal licences issued by authorities in Wales.’.
Amendment 10, page 4, line 14, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘registers’.
Amendment 11, page 4, line 21, leave out ‘register is’ and insert ‘registers are’.
Amendment 12, page 4, line 22, after ‘Agency’, insert
‘or the Natural Resources Body for Wales’.
Amendment 13, page 4, line 22, leave out second ‘the’ and insert ‘its’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Clause 8
Notification requirements
Amendments made: 14, page 4, line 38, leave out ‘the Environment Agency’ and insert ‘the relevant environment body’.
Amendment 15, page 5, line 4, leave out ‘the Environment Agency’ and insert ‘the relevant environment body’.
Amendment 16, page 5, line 5, leave out ‘Agency’ and insert ‘body’.
Amendment 17, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
‘( ) In this section “the relevant environment body” means—
(a) for an authority in England, the Environment Agency;
(b) for an authority in Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Clause 12
Records of dealings
Amendments made: 18, page 6, line 26, divide Clause 12 into two clauses, the first [Records of dealings: receipt of metal] to consist of subsections (1) to (5) and the second [Records: supplementary] to consist of subsections (6) to (11).
Amendment 19, page 6, line 30, leave out ‘type and weight’ and insert
‘type (or types if mixed), form, condition, weight and any marks identifying previous owners or other distinguishing features’.
Amendment 20, page 6, line 42, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
‘(4) If the dealer pays for the metal by cheque, the dealer must keep a copy of the cheque.
(5) If the dealer pays for the metal by electronic transfer—
(a) the dealer must keep the receipt identifying the transfer, or
(b) if no receipt identifying the transfer was obtained, the dealer must record particulars identifying the transfer.’.
Amendment 21, page 7, line 7, after ‘subsections (2) and (5)’, insert
‘and section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal](3) and (4)’.
Amendment 22, page 7, line 13, after ‘subsections (2) to (5)’, insert
‘and section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal](3) and (4)’.
Amendment 23, page 7, line 14, at end insert
‘or (as the case may be) disposed of.’.
Amendment 24, page 7, line 15, after ‘under’, insert
‘section [Records of dealings: receipt of metal], section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal] or’.
Amendment 25, page 7, line 18, after ‘at’, insert
‘or (as the case may be) despatched from’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Clause 13
Right to enter and inspect
Amendment made: 26, page 8, line 24, leave out ‘section 12’ and insert
‘section [Records of dealings: receipt of metal] or [Records of dealings: disposal of metal]’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)
Third Reading
Richard Ottaway
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
I am grateful to the House for the progress we have made and I am optimistic that we will get a Third Reading in the time available. I have spent a lot of time on this Bill, and the more I have got into it, the more passionate I have become about it. Without it, the principal outlet for stolen metals will go unchecked. Without this Bill, the cash-in-hand, no-questions-asked culture at scrap metal yards, which allows criminals to shift stolen metals and avoid tax, will continue to thrive. The problem of metal theft has spiked in recent years, owing to a sharp rise in world commodity prices. Unscrupulous thieves are growing bolder and more prolific. Hardly a day goes by when we do not hear reports of metal thefts targeting transport systems, telecommunications, energy networks, monuments, memorials or churches. Every constituency has a story to tell. The epidemic is holding ordinary hard-working people to ransom.
When I addressed the House on Second Reading in July, I referred to several devastating examples of metal theft resulting in entire communities being cut off, cancer operations being cancelled, war memorials and burial plaques being defaced, and historic artefacts being lost to us for ever. Since then the incidents have piled up. Today there were media reports of vandals destroying a world war two memorial in Brentwood, just days before Britain honours its heroes on Remembrance Sunday.
The Bill proposes wholesale reform of the scrap metal industry, which is the principal outlet for stolen metal. Significantly, it has the backing of the Royal British Legion, for whose support I am very grateful, the War Memorials Trust and the Church of England, which sees the Bill as a major tool in the fight to prevent the desecration of war memorials. According to The Times this morning, the new Archbishop of Canterbury is a supporter of the Bill, which also has the support of leading organisations that have all suffered from the devastating impact of metal theft. They include Network Rail, BT, the Energy Networks Association, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, Arts Council England, the Tate galleries, the Henry Moore Foundation, the Local Government Association and the British Transport police. The British Metals Recycling Association—the industry’s only trade association—has also been heavily involved in drafting the Bill. I am extremely grateful to everyone in those organisations who has given me unfailing and unstinting support throughout the Bill’s progress.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and his Opposition colleagues. I pay tribute to the early work done by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who did a lot to pave the way for the passage of this Bill. I am also grateful to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who has been unfailing in his support and whose officials throughout have given me advice without hesitation whenever I wanted it.
For too long, the cash-in-hand culture in the scrap metal industry has allowed criminals to ply their trade under the cloak of anonymity. As a result of this largely unregulated £5.6 billion industry—up to £1.5 billion of which thrives tax-free because of a lack of honest record keeping—our transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure is under constant threat. This is no petty crime. We hear regular reports of metal thefts that cut off power to communities and hospitals, putting people’s lives in danger. Even more sickening are the attacks on churches, crematoria and war memorials. Many tributes will be paid to this nation’s heroes who laid down their lives for this country on Remembrance Sunday. This momentous anniversary falls two days after my Bill is debated in the House, when I will wear my poppy with pride and optimism. For that reason alone, I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
Mr Hanson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I pay tribute to him for his work on introducing the Bill and for the courtesy that he has shown to me, to other Opposition Members and to all Members of the House during its passage.
The Bill will be a welcome addition to the armoury that the police and local authorities can use to tackle rogue traders and the scourge of metal theft. As the hon. Gentleman said, metal theft is a great problem. It affects churches, war memorials, local authorities, train companies and many other organisations. More than 117 hours of delay in train services have been recorded owing to metal theft, and the railways have incurred costs of more than £60 million over the past two years alone. The incidence of metal theft in churches has risen by 48% in the past two years. The desecration of war memorials has been particularly appalling; it has offended many in our communities.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I do not think that we have paid sufficient tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). There are a heck of a lot of people who get deeply upset when their relatives’ names disappear from war memorials and, on their behalf, I should like to thank everyone in the House—and particularly my hon. Friend—for sorting this out and perhaps avoiding further anguish for the many little people in the country who have seen their relatives’ names disappear from a war memorial.
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman speaks with authority and with the support of the whole House.
As the hon. Member for Croydon South said, we are discussing these matters on 9 November, two days before Remembrance Sunday, and I hope that the Bill will ensure that next year’s Remembrance Sunday will not have thefts from war memorials as its backdrop. We remember the incident in Warrington, where metal from the memorial to the victims of terrorism was taken in a disgraceful and shameless way.
I hope that the Bill will give power to those who want metal theft to be reduced. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that this has been a good process. My only regret is that the measures in the Bill were put before the House earlier this year and rejected. I hope that the House will now support this Bill fully, so that it can go to the other place and receive Royal Assent speedily. We will then be able to look back on this process and acknowledge the Bill’s great contribution to reducing metal theft and to bringing comfort to those who have been upset and disappointed, and those who have lost out financially, as a result of these despicable acts.
Philip Davies
I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on getting his Bill this far. He has done so with a fair amount of determination and dedication to the cause, and he is to be commended for that.
On Second Reading, I set out some of my concerns about how the legislation would play out. I still have many of those concerns and I am not entirely sure that the Bill will deliver what we and the public want it to—namely, a reduction in metal theft. The biggest problem is the derisory sentences given out by the courts to those who ply this despicable trade. Unfortunately, the Bill will do nothing to alter that state of affairs. I hope that the Government will not imagine that, once the Bill is passed, metal theft will have been dealt with and that we will be able to walk away from the problem and forget all about it. I hope that they will think about the sentencing regime that needs to be put in place to ensure that the severity of the crimes is reflected in the sentences given out by the courts. Until that happens, there will still be people who think that it is worth their while to indulge in this crime, and that cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has said that there will be an earlier review and an expiry date, so I am happy to support the Bill’s Third Reading. I wish it well. He will understand that I shall follow its progress in another place very closely, and I look forward to it receiving Royal Assent. We all want the Bill to succeed, and I want it to do so as much as anyone else does. I congratulate him on getting it as far as this.
Mr Winnick
I spoke on Second Reading, and I want to congratulate again the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on bringing this measure forward. I would also like to take the opportunity, having congratulated one Conservative Member, to congratulate another one—the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) who, on a number of occasions, made it quite clear how important this legislation is for the Church, on whose behalf, of course, he speaks and answers questions here. As I have said on more than one occasion, he implored some of his colleagues not to stop this Bill becoming law.
I endorse, too, the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I am bound to do so, because I work on the assumption that from my Front-Bench team there can only be words of wisdom—[Interruption.] Well, on 99% of occasions when we are in opposition.
There can be no disagreement that scrap metal theft is, as everyone has said, an acute public nuisance. The hon. Member for Croydon South mentioned, as I did earlier, what we all going to do on Sunday to pay our respects to those who sacrificed their lives for our country. It is difficult to understand the sort of sickness—there is no other way to describe it—of those who are willing to wreck war memorials up and down this country purely and simply to make some profit. I spoke on Second Reading about the trouble and the nuisance it causes and about the danger to train passengers. Many of my constituents’ lives are being made a misery as a result of these thefts.
The sooner this measure gets its final parliamentary approval and gets on to the statute book, the better. It may well be, as the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, that there are weaknesses in the Bill and that they need to be looked at. I do not question that, but the important thing is to get this measure on the statute book. If further measures are subsequently necessary to strengthen it, I hope we will not be reluctant to take them. This is an essential measure, and I am very pleased to support it.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) for his kind comments. On behalf of the Church of England and all the churches, I want to congratulate—and thank—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on introducing the Bill. I thank, too, Home Office Ministers for the constructive way in which they have engaged with it, ensuring that it passes into law. Finally, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for the way in which they have approached the Bill today. I am quite sure that in Salisbury and Bradford cathedrals this Sunday, there will be prayers of thanksgiving for how they have approached this—[Laughter.] I am being serious.
For the Church of England and for churches as a whole, getting this measure on to the statute book is something of real importance. It is not without significance that, earlier today, the new Archbishop of Canterbury was announced. He and everyone in the Church of England, collectively with the heritage lobby, came to the conclusion that this was the only way to help to deal with this horrendous crime. Of course my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is right that other things need to be done—people do need to be arrested, prosecuted and firmly sentenced for such a despicable offence. I am absolutely certain, though, that this Bill will do much to stamp out this crime.
Again, on behalf of the Church of England, I would like to thank everyone who has made this possible. I have renewed confidence in the sagacity of the Leader of the House. A couple of weeks ago, he said he felt it unnecessary to make provision for extra Government time for this Bill because he was confident it would pass today. What words of wisdom they were.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I support the Bill on Third Reading and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on the excellent work he has done throughout many weeks and months. I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) that prayers will be said in Salisbury and Bradford cathedrals this weekend. As one who represents parts of the Hereford and Lichfield dioceses, let me say that I need all the prayers I can get and that any prayers are welcome. On behalf of my constituents who sit in churches within those dioceses, I thank my hon. Friend for all his work, and thank other Members who have contributed to the passage and, I hope, the passing of the Bill.
I trust that the Minister has noted the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), whose Desecration of War Memorials Bill encouraged the Government to designate metal theft from war memorials an aggravated offence. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will encourage the Government to ensure that the Sentencing Council takes the issue extremely seriously, and that, following the passing of my hon. Friend’s Bill, it will be guided by his work.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Let me also convey my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). Many of us, including our constituents, will be delighted by what he has done. The War Memorials Trust will be particularly delighted, recognising that the Bill is part of a wider campaign. The In Memoriam 2014 campaign is intended to ensure that, as we look forward to remembering the outbreak of the 1914 war, we ensure that we protect and preserve our war memorials by using methods such as SmartWater to identify and trace acts of desecration.
Mark Pritchard
My hon. Friend makes some valid points, as articulately as ever. I hope that the Minister will note what he says.
Let me end by again commending the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and by urging all Members to encourage their churches to use SmartWater, especially given that it is developed in and sold out of Shropshire.
Mr Chope
I am delighted to hear that SmartWater is sold out of Shropshire, but my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who was not present earlier, will probably be disappointed to learn that it is not mentioned specifically in the Bill because the Government did not accept an amendment that I had tabled to that effect.
It was a pleasure to hear what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). He and I have worked together in the House for a long time. Today we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury, and we see the prospect of the Churches, and particularly the Church of England, uniting to seek a constructive way forward. Willing the end is one thing, but willing the means is another. Willing the means is one of the tasks that confront the new Archbishop, and it is a task that the Government have had to perform in dealing with the Bill.
There is much in the Bill that will improve matters. Only time will tell whether I am right in feeling that it should have contained additional measures which would have made it more effective, but I do not think that we have heard the last of this issue. However, I shall not refer to the measures that were not included in the Bill, because in a Third Reading debate we can only comment on what it contains now. I think that, as far as it goes, it is great. Let us ensure that the Government bring it into effect very quickly, because there is still scope for the dragging of feet. I see no reason why it should not receive Royal Assent fairly soon, and be implemented within two months of that.
Nick de Bois
I have a simple message from the many friends and supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). Forty Hall, which has been ransacked repeatedly, is a great treasure not just for Greater London and Enfield, but for the country as a whole, and the Bill will make a magnificent difference to its future. My constituents have asked me to convey their thanks to my hon. Friend and to the House if the Bill is given a Third Reading, and I have honoured my pledge to do so.
Mr Jeremy Browne
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make this concluding speech. Let me begin by saying what a privilege it is for me to be in this position at this stage in the Bill’s passage. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with feeling and emotion about the devastating impact that metal theft has had on the communities that they represent.
Let me briefly describe the approach that the Government are keen to take. We want legitimate metal dealers to be able to operate in a way that is productive and profitable for them. We hope this legislation will make it easier for their businesses to be successful because they will not have to compete with other businesses that behave illegally or inappropriately. This is a major industry and there are people employed in it who work hard and do a valuable job, and we want them to be successful.
The Government and others have identified that there is a vulnerability in the system at the point at which metal is traded. Even if people are able to steal metal, it is far too easy for them then to be able to launder it, so to speak, through the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) seeks to address that problem in his Bill by adding greater resilience, and we strongly support him. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that this is only one part of the process, however. All the law enforcement agencies must play their part and do everything possible to prevent metal theft.
It is a distressing and disruptive crime in many ways, and we have heard about the disruption caused to train services. For the perpetrators, it can be a dangerous crime, too, and we heard about people being killed while stealing metal. For a lot of people, it is an emotionally distressing crime. Artwork has been stolen. Lead has been taken from church roofs. The stealing of metal from war memorials is monstrous, as people who have fought and died to give us the opportunity to have debates of this sort have their memory desecrated. People rightly feel very strongly about that, and I am pleased legislation has been introduced.
On behalf of the Government, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South and everyone else, including officials, who has been involved in the drafting and progress of this Bill. We believe it is extremely important, and its provisions will make a tangible and major difference to the lives of many of our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Bill
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall be brief as the Bill has been discussed very thoroughly at previous stages. I want to remind Members about the need for it, however. An Audit Commission report published only this week found that 98,000 social tenancies are deemed to be improper and illegal sub-lettings. Those properties could house people who are properly on waiting lists and who deserve social housing. The Audit Commission estimates this problem costs the public purse about three times more than housing benefit fraud. Given that there are 2 million people on housing waiting lists, it should be clear to all Members that it is important that we legislate.
I am delighted that there is a political consensus in favour of the Bill. It originated from a speech by the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who has been very helpful to me and has introduced me to the current shadow Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I pay tribute to him and his Opposition colleagues for the help they have given me. I am also delighted that the Bill has been supported by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others.
The Bill creates offences that will stop people perpetrating social housing fraud and that will allow those who deserve to occupy such housing to do so. It will therefore also dramatically shorten our housing waiting lists. I thank everyone who has supported the Bill, and I hope we can introduce its provisions into law as swiftly as possible.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
In view of the short time available, I intend to keep my remarks brief. Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on introducing this Bill, because it is an appropriate step to take, given the scale of the problem he outlined. When so many people in desperate need of housing are on the waiting list, it is clearly completely wrong for a number of rogue tenants to abuse the system to make money and deny people in genuine need an affordable home. If we can agree the Bill today and it ultimately reaches the statute book, it will enable additional powers to be brought to bear to deal with this real problem.
It is important also to take into account the fact that the vast majority—probably 99% or more—of social housing tenants are decent, law-abiding, good people who would never think of sub-letting. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not implying, in any way, shape of form, that they would. Those people can be given a bad name by the actions of a tiny minority, and it is important for us to acknowledge that only a small minority of individuals are indulging in this activity. It is worth saying that although the Bill is a useful tool, as we are having to wrestle with a massive housing crisis, it will go only part of the way in dealing with the housing need in this country, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
It is essential that we use the Bill as just one of the tools at our disposal. I know that the Government are looking, for example, at ways to free up empty homes and bring them back into use. Derby has several thousand empty homes, some of which have been empty for more than five years—200 or so have been empty for more than 10 years. So it is important that we encourage local authorities to take the appropriate steps to deal with that as part of an overall menu of options to address the housing crisis befalling us. As part of the overall picture in ensuring that people can get the homes they need, which is what the Bill is designed to do by assisting people on the waiting lists, the Government also need to look at how we can build more affordable homes to deal with the difficulties that people are encountering. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, too.
I do not want to say a great deal more, because I know that the Minister wishes to say a few words. I suspect that the hon. Member for Watford may have a few concluding remarks to make, and other Members may wish to add their thoughts in the few moments remaining. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill, and I congratulate colleagues who have supported him in his endeavours. I encourage the Government to give the Bill their full support, as I believe they are doing—we will hear from the Minister in a moment on that. I hope that, with a fair wind, the Bill will get on to the statute book and assist local authorities in dealing with a real problem, which I hope we can stamp out once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
The mission of this Government is to support the aspirations of hard-working people. The aspiration to have a home of one’s own is one that all people share, so affordable homes are one of the most precious assets we have. I therefore hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will not take as a sign of a lack of enthusiasm for this measure, which the Government are supporting, the fact that I will keep my comments very brief. I shall simply commend my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on introducing this Bill, commend the Opposition on supporting it and recommend that all hon. Members do the same.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Public Debt Management Bill
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The coalition Government are bringing order to the finances of the state. It is a great and historic enterprise that is as politically bold as it is innovative. The deficit the coalition inherited was the largest in our nation’s peacetime history, and despite the extraordinary events in the eurozone that have continued since the coalition Government came to power, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary and his colleagues at the Treasury are making steady progress towards meeting their targets in bringing that deficit to balance.
In defeating the deficit, we have only started on the first leg of a long journey. At the end, we will be met with a national debt approaching £1.4 trillion, on which the interest paid will amount to some £53 billion a year—larger than the defence budget, the budget for secondary education, the budget for transport or the budget for foreign aid. That extraordinary figure is more than just a toxic bequest to future generations. It will inhibit growth and our ability to try to get our country back on its feet again. For what? Not to defeat a foreign foe in battle or win a war of survival, but because of a structural deficit that we now understand was £73 billion on the eve of the financial crisis—a structural deficit hidden in the fog of credit, which was so terribly whipped away by the cold financial winds of the global economic meltdown.
My Bill is intended to ensure that we will never face that situation again by building on the Government’s commendable fiscal targets for the period after the next comprehensive spending review and putting in place a structure to deal with ongoing Government debt and the deficits it creates. There is no need to start from a fresh position, as there is a very good example in which measures taken by a Government have succeeded already. One need only look at Sweden, which had a national debt of 78% of GDP in 2000 but will next year see that debt reduced to 26% of GDP. That is a figure that we have not achieved in this country at any point since the second world war.
I have merely taken what the Swedes have done and transposed it to an appropriate form for a British Parliament, a British Government and the debt that we have inherited in Britain, which is approaching a figure very similar to the 78% that the Swedes had in 2000. The Bill is very simple and asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set an annual expenditure limit, which will be advised on and decided to be appropriate by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Once that limit is set, the Government will maintain a surplus of 1% within that expenditure limit over the course of the business cycle, which will be decided by the OBR. Parliament will vote on that expenditure limit. In so doing it will not only force the Government to keep to their spending plans and to maintain a surplus so that we can bear down on debt, but give back to Parliament our primary responsibility of ensuring that we keep the finances of the nation in check on behalf of our constituents and the subjects of the Crown.
The Bill contains a clause to ensure that in times of national emergency or war, the OBR can advise the Government on how that expenditure limit can be relaxed and on how it can be reeled back to ensure that within the business cycle the surplus can be maintained.
This is all intended merely to start a conversation about what happens after we have defeated the deficit—this great mission of the coalition Government—at the beginning of the next stage of the journey, when we will have to bear down on the national debt that has been the accumulated result of the faults of the previous Government and when we will try to bequeath to future generations a better inheritance than the one we had.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
In the 40 seconds or so that remain, let me thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) for introducing this Bill. The Opposition think that it is very badly worded and merely a rehash of our fiscal golden rules and of the Chancellor’s. We will hear the autumn/winter statement on 5 December, in which I doubt the Chancellor will be able to meet his own golden rules, and I know the Minister will not be able to respond—
Business without Debate
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013.
General Anti-tax Avoidance Principle Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (14 September), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Kettering General Hospital
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me the privilege of holding this debate, and I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) to his place. May I also take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of local residents throughout the borough of Kettering, all those who work at Kettering general hospital, whether they be nurses, doctors, consultants or ancillary staff, for all the work they do on behalf of local people. It is hugely appreciated. Many people at Kettering general hospital have worked there for a very long time—20, 30 or, in some instances, 40 years. The hospital is very much embedded at the heart of the local community.
I thank Lorene Read, the chief executive, and Steve Hone, the chairman of the trust, for all the work that they have put into the hospital and for the time they have given me over recent weeks to talk about the hospital’s future. I also thank Councillor Russell Roberts, the leader of Kettering borough council, for his close involvement in trying to sort out the hospital’s future.
It is my privilege to have been elected to serve as the Member of Parliament for Kettering, to stand up and speak out on behalf of local people about issues important to them. There is probably nothing more important to local people than the future of our much loved and badly needed local hospital in Kettering.
The nub of the points that I want to make is that local people simply will not put up with any prospect whatsoever of any downgrade to the accident and emergency facilities or the maternity wing at Kettering general hospital. Those are two highly valued, much prized departments and whoever plans the future of the hospital simply must not downgrade those two vital facilities, because they do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances.
Kettering is growing extremely rapidly. Over the past decade, the borough of Kettering was sixth out of 348 districts throughout the country in the rapidity of household growth, and 31st in population growth. Few other parts of the country are growing as fast as Kettering. We have always needed our hospital and we now need it more badly than ever.
On public sector transport, the connections between Kettering and the rest of Northamptonshire, let alone the rest of the country, especially to the other acute hospital sites in the south-east midlands, are not good. The road between Kettering and Northampton, the A43, is the most dangerous and most congested in Northamptonshire. The idea that facilities could simply be moved out of Kettering and down the road to Northampton does not work for the staff or patients at the hospital. I say to the Minister that because of the demographics, the increasing age of the population, the rate of population growth, the geography of Northamptonshire and the crucial need for, but lack of, available future capital investment, any rearrangement of acute service provision by the NHS in the south-east midlands must not involve any downgrading of the A and E and maternity departments at Kettering.
The Minister needs to be aware that Kettering general hospital is much loved and badly needed. It has been in existence for 115 years. Local people have been born there, have seen their relatives treated there and have died there. Everyone in Kettering has, at one point or another, been through that hospital. It is a hospital embedded in the local community like few others.
As of today, Kettering general hospital employs 3,100 staff. It has more than 600 in-patient and day-case beds, 17 operating theatres, seven intensive treatment unit beds and three high-dependency unit beds. The obstetric unit delivers about 3,800 babies a year and is where my two children were delivered some years ago. The midwifery department is growing at a rate of between 5% and 7% a year. It includes a neonatal intensive care unit for babies, which is a sort of special care baby unit-plus. There is also a new £30 million treatment centre with enhanced paediatric facilities, which is opening next year.
Kettering general hospital has a level 2 trauma unit in its 24/7 A and E department, which is consultant-led. It currently has five consultants and two locums. Consultants are on site until 11 o’clock in the evening and are on call until 8 o’clock in the morning. Some 3,200 orthopaedic patients—people with hip and knee problems—go through the hospital every year, as well as 2,137 trauma patients. The hospital has a leading endoscopy unit, which basically does bowel screening, and a state-of-the-art cardiac facility, which is now the primary angiogram centre for Northamptonshire and south Leicestershire.
It is true that Kettering general hospital cannot provide the required level of treatment for severe head injuries or severe burns. Such patients are transferred, often by helicopter, to University hospital Coventry down the road, which has a level 3 trauma facility. However, Kettering general hospital is where most trauma patients need to go. Its location, right next to the A14, which is one of the busiest arteries in the midlands, is ideal for the all-too-many road traffic accidents that occur.
Healthier Together is leading a review of acute hospital provision in the south-east midlands that involves the five hospitals in Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, Milton Keynes and Luton: Kettering general hospital, Northampton general hospital, Bedford hospital, Milton Keynes hospital and Luton and Dunstable university hospital. Kettering general hospital is the most northerly of those. It is 16 miles from Northampton, 24 miles from Bedford, 34 miles from Milton Keynes and 47 miles from Luton and Dunstable. If we lose our A and E or if it is downgraded, it will simply be too far for people to go to those other facilities.
Healthier Together set up six clinical working groups led by consultants, which produced seven highly theoretical draft models for the way in which acute hospital services could be reconfigured. There are now two preferred models. The problem is that, in one way or another, both the preferred models involve effectively downgrading two of the five hospitals. At the moment, the five hospitals all have A and E, trauma, emergency surgery, complex and elective surgery, acute medicine, ITU, in-patient paediatrics, obstetrics, out-patient diagnostics and in-patient re-ablement services. Under the draft proposals, two of them would not have all those services, and my campaign is to ensure that Kettering is not one of those two. It would be an absolute tragedy for local people were we to lose our ITU, our acute medicine facility, our level 2 trauma unit or our emergency surgery unit, or if the much needed recent investment and next year’s investment in improved paediatrics were moved away from Kettering. Up with it local people simply will not put.
One of my big worries about Healthier Together is that, although a lot of well meaning clinicians are leading the review—I know the Minister is a clinician of some repute himself—they need to realise that they are dealing with patients who do not move around as much as clinicians might. Although it might in theory be very nice to have shiny, brand-new hospitals in ideal locations, people do not live like that. Patients and staff need to have straightforward, easy access to hospital facilities.
There is meant to be public engagement in the Healthier Together review process, led by the so-called patient and public advisory group. I am sure that the individuals on that group are doing their best, but I am afraid they are hardly representative of the population of the south-east midlands. I have been on the comprehensive Healthier Together website today and read through all the material, including the minutes of the patient and public advisory group’s recent meetings. The most recent one whose minutes have been published was in March, so the minutes of a lot of meetings have not yet been published. Of the 17 individuals present at that March meeting, one was from Kettering and five were from Milton Keynes. Reading through the material provided by Healthier Together makes it clear that the process is led and dominated by Milton Keynes. I have nothing against people in Milton Keynes, and I am sure they need health services like everyone else, but there are five acute hospitals in the south-east midlands, not one, and the patients of all five deserve fair representation throughout the process. I invite the Minister to look at the Healthier Together review and see whether he is satisfied that patients and clinicians from across the region are being fully engaged in the process. My contention is that patients, doctors, nurses and ancillary staff from Kettering are not fully involved, which they should be.
One of the key points that has been missing from the review so far is recognition of the importance of access to health care facilities. Healthier Together states in its papers that it has set up a travel and transport working group, which has started to investigate the possible effects on journey times if health services are reconfigured. It states:
“An early task included commissioning independent experts to analyse journey times to hospital by private car and emergency ambulance. That analysis focused on travel at peak rush hours—from 7-9 am and from 4-7 pm.”
We do not need an independent expert to tell us that it is almost impossible to drive from Kettering to Northampton down the A43 during peak time without becoming part of an elongated car park, or that if a nurse had to move to Northampton she would find it very difficult to get there in the morning by public transport. There is no rail link between the two towns, and the bus service is intermittent. We do not need an independent expert to tell us that Kettering residents who want to visit an elderly relative in hospital would find it very difficult, without public transport, to go to Northampton, Bedford, Luton or Milton Keynes.
Evidence—if we need more—of the pressure placed on Kettering hospital by the growth in local population was provided a few weeks ago by Monitor’s intervention in order that the hospital improve its A and E targets. Kettering hospital is treating 10% more A and E patients year in, year out; it is treating more A and E patients this year than last year, but it does not treat 95% within four hours and is in significant breach of statutory targets. Monitor has intervened, quite rightly, and told the hospital to sort that out, which I am confident it will sort out. That situation is indicative of the growth in the local population and the pressure that that is putting on local A and E facilities.
I am grateful for the chance to put the concerns of local people about our hospital directly to the Minister on the Floor of the House, and let me tell him, as plainly as I can, that the situation is completely unacceptable to everyone in Kettering, whatever political party they support or even if they support no political party. We will not put up with our accident and emergency service or maternity wings being downgraded.
Local staff at the hospital are doing their best in difficult circumstances against a background of one of the fastest population increases in the country. Healthier Together needs to get its act together because Kettering hospital is going to have a bright future, whatever clinicians in Milton Keynes might say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on showing great concern for his local hospital, and on expressing so eloquently his support for local NHS services and staff in Kettering and throughout his region. I recognise his long-standing dedication to ensuring that the health needs of all his constituents are met and, throughout his time in the House, he has been a strong advocate for his constituency, not just in today’s debate. He has consistently raised issues on how to improve the quality of health care and outcomes for the people of Kettering, and I congratulate him on that.
It is worth providing a little background to today’s debate. As my hon. Friend eloquently outlined, Kettering hospital had just under 370,000 patient contacts in 2011-12, including more than 85,000 attendances at A and E. That is more than ever before which, as he pointed out, is due to rising population pressures in Kettering and increased population growth. Indeed, the fact that people are living longer presents new and different challenges to the way we deliver health care throughout the NHS.
Let me take this opportunity to recognise, as my hon. Friend did, the hard work and dedication shown by NHS staff in his constituency. There are more than 3,200 staff at the trust, in addition to those who work hard to look after patients in primary care. The dedication and commitment they show to improving the health and well-being of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and those of other hon. Members, makes us all proud of our NHS and the dedicated front-line staff who work tirelessly on a day-to-day basis, often going above and beyond the call of duty to deliver high-quality patient care.
I reassure my hon. Friend that A and E and maternity services at Kettering hospital are safe. The Prime Minister has put that clearly on the record, and I confirm it again today.
Dr Poulter
It is interesting to find a Member from Nottingham, who I hoped would be in her constituency on a Friday looking after her constituents, taking such an active interest in this debate. However, I am happy to give way once on this issue.
Lilian Greenwood
I am attending this debate because I was here earlier to deal with a private Member’s Bill on behalf of the shadow transport team. Whatever the Minister says, is it not a fact that in the official documents, the “best” option is downgrading Kettering general hospital’s accident and emergency, maternity, children’s and acute services, and cutting a significant number of beds? How can he say that those services are safe?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady is turning this into a political debate, which is exactly what the Labour candidate in the Corby by-election has done. That is completely wrong and what she says is not true—it is scaremongering. There are no official documents at the moment because there is no consultation of that nature at the moment. There is no NHS consultation. Perhaps she should focus more on Nottingham, which is where her constituency is. I am sure her constituents would rather she were on the train back to hold a constituency surgery, which is what I will be doing after this debate, rather than making silly, ill-founded and mistaken political points about matters that bear no resemblance to her constituents’ concerns. I hope she will draw a lesson from this. I know she has been put up to making that point, but this is not the time.
The hon. Lady’s point was ill-founded. There is no consultation active in Kettering at the moment. There were some leaked documents about a range of options, which incorrectly set a number of hares running. The Labour candidate in the Corby by-election has already retracted his position. My hon. Friend has held the debate today because of that scaremongering, and because he is such a strong advocate for the needs of his patients in Kettering and his hospital. He wants to reassure them that Kettering hospital has a viable future.
Dr Poulter
I will not give way again. This is an Adjournment debate, not a general debate on the Floor of the House. The hon. Lady did not contact me before the debate to say that she would make a point—no Labour Member did. This is not a time to raise those points. The debate is about reassuring my hon. Friend that Kettering hospital has a viable future, which it does. That is confirmed clearly by Healthier Together, which has also confirmed that no active consultation is taking place; that, at the moment, we have only potential options appraisals; that A and E and maternity are safe; and that Kettering hospital has a viable future. I hope that the hon. Lady will put as much dedication into standing up for her hospital services in Nottingham as she has to making cheap party political points in a debate about a different part of the country.
I should now like to address some of the points, questions and legitimate concerns that have been raised, mostly as a result of the outrageous scaremongering by the Labour party. The Healthier Together programme has been put together, but, as I have said, there is no formal consultation at the moment. I am sure the concerns my hon. Friend so eloquently raised will be fed into it, and that the debate, and the comments of the Prime Minister and Health Ministers, will be part of it.
We recognise, as my hon. Friend has outlined, the importance of proper public engagement throughout any consultation process—as and when it comes. He will be aware that there has already been significant public and stakeholder engagement on how services in the midlands might need to look in future. As he rightly said, there are new demographic challenges—more people are moving into that part of the country—and the process of engagement must continue. If a formal consultation is opened in future, it is important that it meets the clear clinical tests for service reconfiguration. However, I should repeat that no formal consultation has been opened and it would be incorrect to allow any further Labour party scaremongering on that point.
It is worth bearing in mind that part of the reason for the concerns about services in my hon. Friend’s part of the world is the massive private finance initiative debt signed off by the previous Government to Milton Keynes hospital, which has struggled ever since the PFI was signed. That has led to significant pressures on Milton Keynes and other hospitals in the region. As we know, some services are specialist centres. It might be worth reflecting, before any further cheap political points are made, that one reason why there was a discussion about a consultation on services was the big PFI legacy of debt, which is stopping the delivery of high-quality front-line care. That is a direct legacy of the previous Government signing off bad PFI deals in health care. It is worth reflecting on that before any more scaremongering takes place.
When reconfiguration of health care takes place, the previous Government—and this Government—have laid down some key tests of what makes a good reconfiguration. It has to be led locally by local commissioners and decision makers, and my hon. Friend made that point very clearly. Any significant proposed changes to services would be subject to four reconfiguration tests set out by the previous Secretary of State for Health. They are local support for the changes from GP commissioners and clinical leaderships; robust arrangements for public and patient engagement, including local authorities; greater clarity about the clinical evidence basis underpinning proposals; and the need to take into account the development and support of patient choice.
In my hon. Friend’s region there are considerable distances between the hospitals involved and, if at some point in the future a consultation opened up, those greater travelling distances between hospitals would be taken into account as it may impinge on patient choice. I hope that restating those configuration tests is helpful. If there is concern that those tests have not been met, an independent review can be carried out by the independent reconfiguration panel, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I hope that my hon. Friend finds that reassuring. I reiterate that at the moment there is no consultation formally on the table in Kettering, and its accident and emergency and maternity services are safe.
There are other significant challenges facing Kettering hospital and the local NHS, as my hon. Friend outlined. They are the same as those faced by the NHS everywhere— ensuring that we have services that are fit for purpose for the future to better look after the many older people—people are living longer—and the need to provide more dignity in elderly care. Part of that is having local bread-and-butter services. My hon. Friend rightly made the point that some health care services have to be regionalised, such as specialist trauma centres. The clinical evidence is that such centres save lives and, in my part of the world, we have one in Addenbrooke’s. Dedicated centres for stroke care also improve care for patients and the quality of outcomes for people with stroke, so that they can resume their daily activities much more quickly. Those day-to-day, bread-and-butter health care services that are so important, such as maternity and accident and emergency—and the cardiac services that Kettering is rightly proud of—are needed at a local level, and I am sure that any test of reconfiguration would confirm that they should remain accessible locally. We are very aware that many parts of the country are not urban. Many people face the challenges of rural life and the distances to travel between centres. Whenever services are redesigned in the future, it is important that those bread-and-butter services are available for local patients.
I reiterate the fact that there is no formal consultation proposal, and there is no place for scaremongering in these debates. I am sure that the future of Kettering hospital is a vibrant and successful one. I know that my hon. Friend has strongly advocated the dedication of local staff and I hope that he will take my reassurance back to them—so that they do not listen to the scaremongering—that Kettering hospital will still have a viable A and E and viable maternity services, and a very strong future.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cash Management Operations
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I am today announcing that the excess cash held in the Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility (APF) will be transferred to the Exchequer. This will bring the cash management arrangements for the facility in line with normal Government practice. It will also align the UK’s approach with that of other countries’ whose central banks are undertaking quantitative easing.
As of 8 November, the APF has purchased £375 billion of gilts. The APF has now been operating for longer, and over a larger scale than the original limit of £150 billion. As a result the APF has accumulated a significant cash surplus. At the end of March 2012, the APF held £23.8 billion in cash and this is expected to increase to around £35 billion by the end of March 2013 (based on the stock of gilts purchased of £375 billion).
The net coupon income earned by the APF during 2012-13 will be transferred to the Exchequer during 2012-13. For operational reasons, it is envisaged that excess cash that accumulated in the APF up to the end of 2011-12 will be drawn down during 2013-14. All cash transfers are expected to impact on the central Government net cash requirement. Net coupon flows in future financial years will be settled on a quarterly basis in arrears, starting from financial year 2013-14. As is usual, the Debt Management Office’s financing remit for 2012-13 will be revised at the time of the autumn statement.
These changes will end the current arrangement which requires the Government to borrow money to fund coupon payments to the Bank of England. Holding large amounts of cash in the APF is economically inefficient as it requires the Government to borrow money to fund these coupon payments.
At some stage it is likely that the cash flows from the APF to HM Treasury will need to be reversed, consistent with the terms of the indemnity, as monetary conditions normalise. The Government reaffirm their predecessor’s commitment that any future losses incurred by the APF will be met in full by the Government. For this reason, net coupon income transferred from the APF to HM Treasury should be used solely to benefit the public finances and to reduce debt.
This process has no implications for the Monetary Policy Committee’s ability to set monetary policy appropriately. The APF remains fully indemnified by HM Treasury and any gains or losses are due to the Exchequer.
Reserves (Call-Out Order) (Afghanistan)
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)
With the expiry of the call-out order made on 11 November 2011, a new order has been made under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into service to support operations in Afghanistan. The new order is effective until 10 November 2013. Reservists continue to make a valuable contribution to operations in that country and over 2,000 have been called out over the last year. Over 530 reservists are currently deployed in Afghanistan.
Reserves (Call-Out Order) (Global Security Objectives)
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)
With the expiry of the call-out order made on 8 November 2011, a new call-out order has been made under section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into permanent service to support our wider efforts to counter the threat from international terrorism and piracy, and to assist our maritime security objectives. The order takes effect from 8 November 2012 and ceases to have effect on 7 November 2013. Some 75 members of the reserve forces were called out under this order last year and their continued support is greatly appreciated and valued.
Ash Tree Dieback
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Further to my response to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) at DEFRA questions on 25 October, Official Report, column 1064, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome’s (Mr Heath) response to an urgent question on 29 October, Official Report, columns 23-31, I would like to update the House on the ash dieback situation in the UK.
Following a shortened consultation, I imposed an import ban and strict movement restrictions on ash on 29 October. Chalara fraxinea was first confirmed in imported stock in a nursery on 7 March. We initiated an exercise to trace young ash saplings from infected imported stock. This exercise continues. However, we found the disease in mature trees in East Anglia on 22 October. Further searches revealed more cases already present in the wider environment.
In response to this I initiated an unprecedented survey of the whole of the UK, in partnership with the devolved Administrations, to map the extent of the disease. This has involved over 500 staff and volunteers looking for signs of the disease in around 2,500 10-kilometre squares. Four wooded sites were inspected in each square giving us a preliminary indication of the disease’s extent and distribution. That work was completed on 7 November.
The results of the survey show that, as of yesterday, there are 129 confirmed sites with ash dieback caused by the fungus Chalara fraxinea. Some 15 of these are in nursery stock, 50 are in recently planted sites, and 64 are in the wider environment. To date no evidence of ash dieback has been found in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Country Land and Business Association and a number of other organisations have mobilised their members to provide additional information on suspected cases. Regular updates, including the map of confirmed disease in Great Britain, and information for the public can be found on the Forestry Commission’s website:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/chalara.
On 7 November I held a summit of more than 100 experts from the forestry industry and environmental groups to advise me on how we can best tackle this disease. This provided an opportunity to share the latest evidence and the current state of our scientific knowledge. The summit also identified ideas for tackling Chalara in the short term and for improving our approach to dealing with threats to tree health in the longer term.
The evidence from the survey and the experts gathered together on Wednesday indicates that the Chalara infection has been present in the natural environment in Great Britain for some years.
Also on the 7 November, we published an evidence summary compiled over the past week by a group of experts convened by DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd. The scientific advice from that group is that where the disease is present in the natural environment, this is likely to be due to spores blown in on the wind from continental Europe. Their advice is that it will not be possible to eradicate Chalara.
That does not necessarily mean the end of the British ash. If we can slow the spread of the disease, this will give us time to investigate resistance to Chalara in the UK tree population. In the longer term, we will also need to consider how best to restructure our woodlands to improve their resilience. I provided a copy of the evidence summary to all hon. Members on Wednesday and I will also place it in the Libraries of both Houses.
I am today announcing a series of short-term actions to begin to address the problem quickly.
1. Newly planted diseased trees and diseased trees in nurseries will be traced and destroyed, as once young trees are infected they succumb quickly.
2. Mature trees will not currently be removed, as they are valuable to wildlife, take longer to die and can help us learn more about genetic strains that might be resistant to the disease. Infection does not occur directly from tree to tree.
3. Better understanding of the disease will be built through research and surveys, which will look not only for diseased trees but for those that show signs of resistance to Chalara, to help identify genetic strains resistant to the disease.
4. The search for the disease will include trees in towns and cities as well as the countryside, building partnerships with a range of organisations beyond Government.
5. Foresters, land managers, environmental groups and the public will be informed about how to identify diseased trees and those likely to be resistant to the disease, and know what to do if they find a diseased tree.
For now, the main control measure is the ban on imports and movements. Infection in mature trees is not a threat at this time of year as they are not producing spores. The main risk to manage between now and the spring is the movement of infected ash leaf litter for which we have already provided advice to the public, local authorities and landowners.
By the end of November I will publish a more detailed control plan which delivers our objectives for tackling Chalara by considering the following:
Designating protected zones, to free up trade in ash from areas free of the disease through authorising businesses to issue “plant passports”.
Establishing a tree health early warning network to provide advice, screening and initial diagnostics.
Developing advice on protecting saplings and responding rapidly if the disease is found.
Developing advice on sustainable management of mature trees on sites affected by Chalara.
What additional equipment is needed to diagnose tree disease.
Improved biosecurity including import controls; and
More public engagement in helping diagnose and tackle disease through “citizen science” including an OPAL (Open Air Laboratories) citizen science project.
For the longer term, I am also considering our strategic approach to the threat of disease to our plants and trees in the light of experience of responding to Chalara. In early October, I asked Professor Ian Boyd to convene an expert taskforce on tree health and plant biosecurity. I am prepared to consider radical proposals to protect the woodland environment and I look forward to seeing his interim proposals at the end of November. I will update the House when I have received that report.
Social Science Research Committee
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has commissioned an independent review of the Social Science Research Committee (SSRC) in line with the Cabinet Office requirement that all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) should be reviewed every three years. The SSRC is an advisory NDPB which provides the FSA with independent expert advice on the use of social science evidence. The review will be carried out by Helen Lucas (Lucas Associates Ltd), an external independent consultant and will be complete by the end of December 2012. The review process will include consultation with the committee chair and members, key stakeholders and the FSA chief scientist. The report of the review together with the responses to the review recommendations from FSA and the SSRC will be published on the FSA’s website in July 2013.
The main objectives of the review are to assess:
whether there is a continuing need for the function provided by the committee;
whether the role, remit and the status of the committee is clearly defined and appropriate to provide this function and to ensure it has the most impact and value;
the methods of operation and effectiveness, including committee’s terms of reference and composition and the openness and transparency of its procedures (including with reference to the standards set out in the CoPSAC1 and the good practice guidelines2);
the relationships between the committee, the commissioning Department and other bodies with related responsibilities (in particular the other scientific advisory committees that advise the FSA);
the implementation of the recommendations from the FSA’s 2002 report3 on the review of scientific committees, the revised code of practice for SACs and the current governance structure; and
adherence to the principles laid out in the 2005 Royal Society Report4 on potential social science insights for risk assessment.
This review is part of the FSA’s rolling programme of independent reviews of the Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) that advise the FSA.
Notes:
1http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/c/11-1382-code-of-practice-scientific-advisory-committees.pdf
2http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/goodpracguide.pdf
3http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/CommitteesReview.pdf
4http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/Influencing_Policy/Themes_and_Projects/Themes/Governance/fsa_final.pdf
India (Aid)
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I would like to update the House on development co-operation with India. In announcing to the House the conclusions of the bilateral aid review on 1 March 2011, the then Secretary of State said that our programme to India was in transition and would not continue for ever. In June 2011, the International Development Select Committee recommended that the UK’s development relationship with India should change after 2015. I am announcing today an agreement with the Government of India which moves us towards this new type of relationship.
We have agreed that the UK’s programme of financial grant aid to India will end. From now, all new development co-operation programmes will be either technical assistance programmes focused on sharing skills and expertise, or investments in private sector projects focused on helping the poor. We will finish existing financial grant projects responsibly, so that they all complete as planned by 2015.
These changes reflect India’s rapid growth and development progress in the last decade. India’s growing ability to finance its own development programmes means that the time has now come to end the UK’s financial grant support, the growing two-way trade and investment between our two countries means that our development partnership should increasingly be about trade not aid.
As part of the new focus on sharing skills and expertise, we have agreed to develop a cross-Government technical assistance programme focused on priority issues, such as growth, trade, investment, education, skills and health. This new partnership will draw on skills and experience across the Government, and the Department for International Development will work very closely with other Departments including the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, UK Trade and Investment, the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We will also continue the programme we launched last year to invest in private sector projects bringing opportunities to poor people in the poorest parts of India.
The two Governments have agreed to enhance collaboration on global development issues for which specific areas of interest will be identified.
The Governments of India and the UK are proud of our development achievements over the last 50 years. This new partnership will be an important part of the India-UK wider relationship, which we deeply value.
Heavy Goods Vehicles
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I am today announcing the publication of a consultation document which aims to examine whether the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) over 7.5 tonnes on single carriageways, is set at the right level.
This follows a commitment published in “The Logistics Growth Review - Connecting People with Goods” document in November 2011.
The current speed limit on single carriageways for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes is 40 mph. The speed limit for smaller HGVs (those between 3.5 tonnes and 7.5 tonnes) is 50 mph.
Stakeholders have told us that the 40 mph speed limit causes unnecessary costs to vehicle operators, congestion, avoidable overtaking collisions and creates an uneven playing field for businesses.
The freight and logistics sector is an essential part of the economy, vital to businesses of all sizes and sectors. Raising HGV speed limits on single-carriageway roads could lead to quicker journeys and lower costs for the sector, aiding economic growth as well as reducing frustration for the many drivers who find themselves stuck behind slower-moving lorries on busy roads unable to overtake. However, there are other consequences of greater speed—both in terms of the environmental impacts and the potential effects on road safety.
We are inviting responses from the trade associations, haulage companies. Government enforcement bodies or police forces and organisations, road safety groups, local authorities and road users.
The consultation will run until 1 February.
House of Lords
Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill
Lord Laming
My Lords, the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill is a small Bill, but I hope the House will agree that its importance far outweighs its size. First, I congratulate Sir Paul Beresford MP, on introducing the Bill in the other place and for so skilfully piloting it to this House. I am most grateful to have this opportunity to take forward his hard work.
In short, the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill seeks to take a crucial step towards tackling an issue that is blighting prisons in England and Wales, Scotland and the Crown dependencies. I refer, of course, to mobile phones. I will not delay the House in repeating the detailed Explanatory Notes, which are easily available, but I hope it will help if I briefly touch on the operations of prisons and why mobile phones are now such a problem.
Prisoners have always needed, and will always need, to communicate with people in the outside world. They may do so for very good, honest and healthy reasons such as maintaining relationships with family and loved ones, and in preparation for their release. So they should, because such communication plays a vital role in their rehabilitation and in ensuring that they do not reoffend. It is to their credit that prisons facilitate that healthy communication. Prisoners can send and receive mail; they have access to landline telephones; they are entitled to visitors; and communication that is legally privileged is protected.
However prisons, quite rightly, impose controls on prisoner communications. For example, telephone calls can be made only to approved numbers and can be recorded and listened to; mail can be opened and read; and visits have to be supervised. These controls are needed because it is inevitable that some prisoners will seek to communicate with those outside prisons for nefarious purposes. These can include seeking to maintain involvement in, or even the running of, criminal enterprises in the community such as organised crime or extremist networks. It may also be to intimidate witnesses or to arrange the supply of drugs into prisons.
Clearly, prisoners communicating for nefarious purposes will seek to circumvent the controls imposed by prison staff. Where the activities are illegal, prisoners can be very inventive in their determination to secure a mobile phone. This is because mobile telephones offer an immediate form of communication to anywhere in the world, which prison staff cannot monitor. They can send text messages and modern day smartphones enable them to access the internet and social networking sites, and send and receive e-mails. Therefore, once a prisoner has an undetected mobile phone, the prison has effectively lost control of the nature, content, destination or frequency of the communication. That poses significant risks to the safety of our prisons and their ability to protect the public and the prisoners they are holding.
I feel sure that we are all concerned about how so many mobile phones get into prisons. Sadly, it is a common misconception that the high walls, razor wire, locks, bars, doors and keys must mean that a prison is impenetrable. While these factors are successful in preventing prisoners escaping, prisons are not the hermetically sealed institutions that their physical appearance may suggest. To give a sense of the scale of the operation, I am advised that in a single day a prison holding 1,000 prisoners might receive 50 new prisoners, 300 visitors, 3,000 items of post, more than 40 vehicles and that its prisoners can make 5,000 minutes of telephone calls. Each one of these movements and communications is an opportunity to engage in the smuggling of contraband, including mobile phones and, because they are so much smaller and easy to smuggle, an even larger number of SIM cards.
Given the scale of the operation, prison staff cannot fully search absolutely everything that enters or leaves a prison, nor can they listen to or read every communication, not least because this would divert them from their other important functions. Of course, prisons are doing their very best to prevent prisoners having access to mobile phones. It is important to emphasise that it is an offence under the Prison Act 1952 to possess and convey into use an unauthorised mobile phone in prison. Yet in 2011 there were 7,422 seizures of illicit phones and SIM cards in prisons in England and Wales, and 1,335 in Scotland. This is an indication of the scale of the problem and of the increasing number of prisoners who seek to get access to these items.
Therefore, the current activities are not a complete solution. In an age when mobile phones are becoming ever smaller and more versatile, which means they are easier to smuggle into prisons and more useful to the criminal, the number of phones which escape detection will inevitably increase. Further action is, therefore, needed, and that is what the Bill is about. It will authorise prisons to interfere with wireless telegraphy to render useless any mobile phones that cannot be found. The Bill will also authorise prisons to interfere with wireless telegraphy and to gather information about the use of mobile phones in prisons, such as details about where a particular phone is located in the prison, and the person who has attempted to use it, and where the message has been directed. However, it is important to note that this does not include the content of the communication but simply the direction of the communication.
In England trials of the technologies which prevent mobile phones working have been remarkably successful. The trials have proceeded with excellent, but—this is a key point—non-statutory co-operation between prisons, Ofcom and the mobile phone network operators. The Bill puts the current voluntary arrangement on to a clear and transparent legal footing and creates a framework for future co-operation with all the key stakeholders. The trials have shown that other wireless equipment within the prison is not disrupted. Officers can still use their radios and prisoners can still use the landline telephone service which is available to them. The equipment covered in the Bill has been configured so that it focuses only on mobile phones that are within the prison while ensuring that outside the prison members of the public can continue to enjoy their mobile phones, television, wi-fi and so on—technology that the vast majority of us rely on in our daily lives. The technology covered in the Bill is also safe for prisoners, prison staff and members of the public alike. The only difference is that mobile phones in prisons will be inoperable. Building on the success of the trials, the Bill reassuringly writes into the statute book explicit safeguards to ensure that prisons continue to operate the equipment in this way so that they can deal with the blight of mobile phones in a manner that is both effective and proportionate.
In summary, the presence of mobile phones in prisons today poses a serious and significant risk to the public, prisons, prisoners and their future rehabilitation. Fortunately, we now have at hand technology that can deal with this problem. However, it is right that the use of this technology should be conducted on a firm legal basis. The Bill achieves all of that. It is considered by the Prison Service and others to be a win-win situation because it protects the public and prisoners and ensures that mobile phones will not be used for nefarious reasons in our prisons. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord has proposed but what are the costs involved in introducing this arrangement in prison establishments in this country?
Lord Dholakia
I am asking whether the noble Lord has done any work in relation to the cost that will be involved in providing this facility in our prison establishments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Laming, replies, this is a most unusual matter. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, introduced his Bill in a courteous manner and had sat down. A question has now been posed. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, may, of course, answer that when he sums up at the end of the Second Reading. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will wish to remain until the end of the debate to listen to that.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am not going to ask the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for him. I speak briefly to support very warmly my noble friend Lord Laming and congratulate him on the comprehensive way in which he has covered all the issues. I have just two points to add.
First, I admit that I support the Bill most particularly because of the impact that the removal of mobile phones can have on a very pernicious aspect of prison life: that is, the impact of drug dealers and the misery they can create not just for prisoners but for their families. Anything that can be done to stop this must improve the way in which our prisons are conducted.
Secondly, my noble friend mentioned how these things get into prisons in the first place. In introducing this equipment which will prevent the use and enable the detection of the location of these instruments, it is important that more is done to prevent them getting in in the first place by improving the search equipment which is used when people come in. Serious consideration must be given to announcing to all visitors to the prison that they risk being searched in order to find any mobile phones. This may seem a draconian measure but unless everything is done to back up this equipment there will still be loopholes which will cause problems.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his excellent introduction to this small but important Bill. The Opposition warmly support the Bill, so I can keep my intervention to a minimum.
As technology advances so does criminal innovation, but so, too, should our ability to deal with crime. Mobile phones are of huge benefit to citizens throughout the world but we have been told this morning about the widespread use of mobile phones in prisons for a wide range of criminal purposes. Of course, prisoners must be able to communicate with friends and family but the Bill would not prevent them doing so legally, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Prison Service to prevent, detect and investigate the use of electronic communication devices, including mobile phones, within prisons and similar institutions. This must be right. In the past there were concerns that actions to interfere with wireless telegraphy in order to achieve this purpose would interfere with the mobile phones of ordinary citizens. This would not be acceptable but, as we have been told this morning and as the Bill makes clear, new technology—which I would not pretend to understand—means that the interference will have no effect on mobile phones outside the prison boundaries. I would be grateful if the Minister, or the noble Lord, Lord Laming, could confirm that this is the case and, likewise, that the Bill does not cover the content of telephone conversations either inside or outside the prison boundaries. I would also be grateful for an assurance that vital and important phone calls within prisons will not be blocked because the new technology is selective so that certain numbers can be allowed through.
My honourable friend in another place spoke of concerns expressed by the Prison Officers’ Association in relation to the cost of implementing the Bill but these concerns were not addressed by the Minister, Mr Jeremy Wright. I noticed this morning that the Explanatory Notes say that the provisions of the Bill are not expected to have an impact on public sector manpower. However, as the Government support the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could give an assurance that money is being made available so that prisons and other relevant institutions are able to buy the necessary kit and implement what should be an effective means of restricting the current use of mobile phones and, perhaps, the future use of wireless communications that are yet to be invented or produced. I wonder whether further legislation will be needed as new technology advances or if this Bill will suffice.
I am very happy to support the Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for introducing the Bill for your Lordships’ consideration and for his very important contribution. I notice that the Bill has been referred to as “short but important”. I can personally relate to that, but we will park that thought for a moment. I thank my honourable friend in another place, Sir Paul Beresford, for bringing forward this valuable Bill which has the wholehearted support of the Government. When we talk of the Prison Service we have to realise the challenges that are posed. Many prison officers put themselves in harm’s way in doing their jobs and, although this is not directly related to the Bill, I wish to relay that our thoughts are with the four prison officers who were injured in the incident in Birmingham prison only yesterday.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his welcome contribution. He brings, through his own personal experience, great expertise to this House, not least on this particular subject.
The Bill will be crucial in putting on a clear, legal footing the ability of the National Offender Management Service and the Scottish Prison Service to interfere, where necessary, with wireless telegraphy in order to tackle illicit communications by prisoners and so address the very real and substantial threat posed by the presence of mobile phones in prison. Following an amendment in the other place, the Bill’s measures will also be extended to the Crown dependencies by way of an Order in Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to the importance of searches prior to people entering prisons. The Government agree with that. Prevention is better than cure and I am sure that the Prison Service will take particular note of that very valid point. However, on the more substantive issue of illicit mobile phones which do reach prisons, these are used for a wide range of criminal purposes by prisoners, often for the very activities they were in prison for. As has been noted, phone technology has increased. The use of Twitter and Facebook, about which there have been recent instances of boasts by inmates, must be curbed. Mobile phones are used to commission serious violence, to harass victims and retain links with extremist networks. Organised crimes and gangs are also communicated with. They can facilitate drug supplies, violence and bullying from within the prison. The National Offender Management Service and the Scottish Prison Service are committed to addressing the risks which these phones pose to security and the safety of the public, and the Bill supports that work.
The Prison Act 1952, as amended, provides that it is already an offence in England and Wales to convey a mobile phone or a component part in or out of a prison or to transmit sounds or images from within a prison for simultaneous reception outside a prison. The Act also provides that it is an offence to possess a mobile telephone or component part in a prison in England and Wales. These offences carry a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment and/or unlimited fines. Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, which amended the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989, also makes it an offence to introduce, or be in possession of, a mobile phone or any component part in a Scottish prison. As in England and Wales, the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment and a significant fine.
The Bill will support the enforcement of these statutory provisions by creating clear legal powers for prisons to use technology to suppress the use, by prisoners, of wireless telegraphy such as mobile phones. It will also enable the National Offender Management Service and the Scottish Prison Service to collect data about the communications that the prisoner is attempting to make and, importantly, will not allow for the interception of the actual content of the communication.
The powers created by the Bill will contribute to maintaining order and control in prisons, which we all welcome, by ensuring that mobile phones used by prisoners can be detected and, most importantly, investigated. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that any traffic data collected are appropriately protected and that the regulator, Ofcom, is informed before the equipment is deployed. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to issue directions to minimise interference with mobile phones outside the prison perimeter.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I am hugely supportive of this—when I was a Minister I pushed very hard to achieve something. I hope that technology can stop interfering outside the prison walls. Three years ago it absolutely could not. It is definitely very new technology and we need to be very careful. When we ran a little trial it caused quite a lot of annoyance, so we need to be absolutely certain.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord makes a valid point which I will address shortly. Concerns about trials of equipment have been raised and I have expressed such concerns in my discussions with officials. Trials of equipment have proved the technology to be a valuable resource which does interfere with wireless telegraphy. During the trials, officials have worked closely with the mobile phone operators and Ofcom, under a memorandum of understanding. To address the question of the impact on legitimate mobiles outside prisons, trials have demonstrated that the equipment is capable of denying signals to illicit mobile phones just within the prison perimeter and without adversely affecting members of the public outside prisons. I know that this is of real concern to members of the public who live within the vicinity. I accept that this is not a simple or quick solution and the effective use of technology is highly technically challenging and expensive, due to the different fabric and layout of prisons. As we move forward with this I am sure that we shall, through pilot schemes, determine that we are able to conduct and operate such technology within the vicinity of prisons. We are not aware, so far, of any unsuccessful trials in this respect.
There are safeguards in the Bill to prevent any unintended interference with communications outside prisons. The important point here is that the use of illicit mobile phones has to be stopped. Their use within prisons must be addressed. It is a means used by criminals to increase crime within prisons. Money for training and technology is always a valid concern. I am assured through my own discussions that some technologies that will be deployed will be at minimal cost, and an appropriate cost-benefit analysis will be carried out at each prison.
The central issue behind the Bill is that we address the primary concern about illicit mobile phones. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition asked about further legislation. We do not envisage or expect that it will be required, because the Bill allows for interference with wireless telegraphy, subject to all appropriate safeguards, and addresses the purpose of preventing the use of, and detecting and investigating, mobile phones and other such devices. Technology moves on and the challenges increase but, importantly, the Bill addresses a vital need for the here and now. The Government are delighted to support it.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and the Government for their great support for the Bill—as I am to the noble Baroness for the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham who has been a source of great encouragement throughout, as the House will understand.
The Minister referred to the issue of costs, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Perhaps I may add one point, although I should say that the House will know that I am singularly unqualified to talk about technology. All those who know me understand that it is a great struggle for me to live in this modern world. However, what I have learnt through this process is that this technology is remarkably versatile. It can simply be placed in one wing of a prison, or even in front of one cell, or it can take in the whole building. Although the Minister dealt with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, let me reassure him that all the trials have indicated that it is possible to have this equipment facing into the prison, not outside it, and it therefore does not affect members of the public.
I hope that I have picked up correctly the feeling of the House when I say that I am grateful to it for its support.
Online Safety Bill [HL]
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, the internet has transformed our way of life. It is one of the big human success stories that have happened during my lifetime. Access to the internet has grown rapidly and continues to grow. However, the expansion of the internet also poses significant child protection concerns in terms of access to pornography and other adult material. Certainly, child safety challenges have moved on very significantly indeed since my time as chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, back in the 1990s, when the internet, as we know it today, barely existed.
In this context, I have tabled the Bill because I am concerned that the internet has made harmful material, previously inaccessible to children and young people, now readily accessible. As a recent report to the UK Council for Child Internet Safety Evidence Group said,
“the volume of harmful content is greater than before and the bar to access is much lower”.
I am also concerned about the consequential increased sexualisation of our young people, as demonstrated by a number of recent reports to government. In 2010, when Linda Papadopoulos investigated the sexualisation of young people, she reported:
“Pornography shapes young people’s sexual knowledge but does so by portraying sex in unrealistic ways … it is increasingly dominated by themes of aggression, power and control”.
When Tanya Byron produced an update on her 2008 review in 2010, she said:
“When talking to parents I have found that their top digital safety concern is easy access to pornography and inappropriate adult content”.
Some of these concerns have been very much in the news this year with the Rochdale and Oxford grooming cases and, more recently, the shocking revelations about Jimmy Savile. In evidence on the Rochdale case to the Home Affairs Select Committee in June, the Deputy Children’s Commissioner said that,
“the evidence we have been gathering is that pornography is definitely having an impact. Young people are accessing very extreme pornography; there is no question about that … Parents may think that they can control what is going on because they can have a blockage on a computer, but the reality is children can get anything they like on their mobile phones, and they are”.
We have also witnessed increasing public concern manifest variously through the Safety Net campaign petition with more than 100,000 signatures, the Daily Mail’s “Block Online Porn” campaign and the seminal Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection.
In approaching this subject area, we have to ask ourselves a question. Why is there a whole series of protections that pertain to children offline that are spirited away when we move to the online world? Children do not mysteriously change and become more mature when online than offline. I believe that children need, and more importantly deserve, the same protections offline as apply online. However, it is not just about the children. It is also about the parents who say again and again that they want to be given the tools to get on and parent. It is with this in mind that I propose the Online Safety Bill today.
The objective of the Bill is to improve online safety for children by empowering parents. The Bill has four key provisions, which build on the recommendations of the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection, so expertly chaired by Claire Perry MP, and of which I was a member. Clause 1 would require internet service providers—ISPs—and mobile phone operators—MPOs—to provide an internet service free from pornography. Clause 2 requires electronic device manufacturers to provide a means of filtering inappropriate adult internet content at the time of purchase, where the device connects to the internet. Clause 3 requires ISPs and MPOs to provide information about online safety. Finally, Clause 4 requires Ofcom to report on the impact of the legislation every three years.
Right at the heart of the Bill are provisions requiring that ISPs and MPOs provide the option of a pornography-free internet. Those wanting to access pornography will be able to do so, subject to an age verification procedure, demonstrating that they are aged 18 years or over. That an opt-in system is necessary is eloquently demonstrated by Ofcom surveys of parental views demonstrating,
“the perception that parental controls were a fairly complex area, and that choosing and installing them would therefore require a considerable investment of time and effort”.
It is right that the responsibility for bringing up children should be with parents. But they need help and it is surely society's role to help them. We do not allow children to buy R18 films or allow them into cinemas for 18 films and we should not make it easy for them to access pornography online, on purpose or by accident. The industry and Government have a responsibility here and my Bill will, I hope, help them to rise to that challenge.
Of course, I am aware that there are those who will respond to my proposal with a number of criticisms. First, some say that this is censorship. It is patently not censorship. Adults will still be able to access what they are able to access now. This is simply about helping parents to protect their children. The provision may loosely be equated to putting pornography on the top shelf of a corner shop.
Secondly, some say that what is proposed is not technologically possible. I disagree. In terms of filtering, take TalkTalk’s very successful HomeSafe package, AVG's award-winning family safety software, or Olly, which filters out more than 630 million pornographic websites. There is also, most importantly, age verification. The technology behind age verification is key to the Bill’s success. Prior to 2005, there was significant concern about the number of children gambling online. Online gambling companies were especially vocal about that and concerned. Crucially, however, they did nothing really robust to address the problem until they were compelled to introduce age verification via the Gambling Act 2005 to ensure that children could not access remote gambling. Since the law came into force in 2007, children's charities have not been made aware of any significant incidents of children gambling online.
Thirdly, aside from what is technically possible, there are those who would say that this legislation is unlikely to be 100% successful. I want to be very clear that I do not bring this Bill to your Lordships' House naïvely expecting that, if implemented, it would, at all times and in all places, prevent children from accessing pornography. Its purpose is to make the internet safer, and this it can deliver. We do not say that, because a child might find an 18 DVD and, unbeknown to their parents, watch it, that the rating system is useless. We do not say that, because some children might manage to watch something inappropriate after the watershed, the watershed is pointless. Then there are those who ask, “What about the ISPs’ code?”. Of course, in October 2011 the UK’s four largest ISPs—BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media and Sky—clearly feeling the pressure, announced a new, yet to be properly implemented, voluntary code of practice. That introduced the policy of active choice which will require new customers with these ISPs to decide whether to apply filtering technology.
The ISPs’ voluntary code is certainly a step in the right direction. However, it has a number of significant drawbacks. First, the code will not apply to existing customers and, as customers rarely change their ISP, it will not protect the majority of households. Secondly, the code does not cover all ISPs in the UK. While those four ISPs currently dominate the market, we cannot be sure that that will always be the case. Thirdly, it does not apply to publicly available wi-fi spots. Fourthly, it makes no reference at all to age verification. Fifthly, it is not statutory and, as those of us who are familiar with what happened in relation to online gambling will recall, that is problematic. In fact, the ISPs are significantly behind the MPOs, which introduced their own code of practice as long ago as 2004. That code committed MPOs to place commercial content, classified as 18, behind access controls and make it available only to those customers that it has satisfied itself, through a process of age verification, are 18 or over. However, the latest Ofcom data reported that only three in 10 parents of 12 to 15 year-olds, who use their phones to access the internet, said that the phone blocks websites aimed at those 18 or over, so it seems to me that there is still much room for improvement.
Moreover, as the MPO code is also non-statutory, it permits quite a divergence in practice which means that MPOs apply various forms of parental control rather than the uniform golden standard. The absence of a gold standard can be confusing for customers as they move from provider to provider.
It seems to me that neither the censorship technology definition of success or existing self-regulatory arguments effectively counter the case for my Bill. Before drawing my comments to a close, I would like to make a brief point about the definition of pornography. The term “pornographic images” in the Bill is used in the same way as in Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, where possession of extreme pornographic images was made an offence. Under the 2008 Act an image is pornographic if,
“it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”.
We have already defined pornography and we have debated the subject in previous debates so I hope that we will not need to take more time on that today. For the avoidance of doubt, it would mean that web pages that might contain nudity but are not meant for the purpose of arousal, such as medical websites or sex and relationship education websites, would not be blocked. I hope colleagues will agree that that is a wholly reasonable proposal.
Finally, I should say that I am encouraged that the Government have taken some steps this year in relation to the online safety challenge by holding their summer consultation on parental control mechanisms, and an opt-in arrangement was among the proposals recommended. However, the consultation, sadly, made no reference whatever to age verification, without which none of the proposals advanced would be of much use. I would suggest to the Minister that my Bill proposing a statutory opt-in arrangement with statutory age verification, as in the Gambling Act 2005, provides the kind of solution that we need and that would help the Government in their efforts to fulfil their coalition agreement commitment to combat the sexualisation of childhood. I very much hope that the Government and the House will support the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this Bill forward. As the father of a 10 year-old girl, I am getting to that point in my life when I am having to pay close attention to this area of the internet and to what I should do to best look after the interests of my daughter. However, in a country where 1 million mothers have a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey, I think that we ought to keep things in proportion. The internet is not the only way that children get access to these things, and I well remember in my youth not being put off by the fact that images had been generated for medical purposes, shall we say.
This is not the easiest area to be effective in, but we should do something to make it easy for parents to install, and make use of, internet-blocking or filtering software, which gives them at least some level of security and control over what happens to their children.
I do not, however, feel comfortable with the particular technical solution proposed in the Bill. If you give ISPs the responsibility for deciding what is pornographic and what is not, you are recreating the Lord Chamberlain’s Office. You are making it terribly difficult for these organisations, which are not set up for this purpose, to decide whether a particular website should be accessible. You are placing on them the burden of ruling and of having appeal procedures on this. I do not think that that is practical. You leave them with a liability that will be difficult for them to insure against and control. I cannot see that as being the right way forward.
I should much prefer to see the ideas incorporated in the noble Baroness’s Bill in terms of compulsion on ISPs and on equipment manufacturers used to make sure that at the point of purchase of a device the option of turning on a variety of parental controls is offered. Parents could be offered the opportunity to turn on a form of controls on the point of signing up with an ISP. The noble Baroness made a point about dealing with contracts with continuing ISPs. Perhaps there could be a point after Royal Assent for the Bill by which all existing contracts had to comply.
This is important, too, because these controls are about much more than pornographic websites. They are about supplying parents with the information that they need to deal with sexting, which is the abuse of text messages for sexual bullying, and other forms of harassment that take place over the internet for ills other than pornography. They will allow parents to know what is going on and deal with it. That is not effectively dealt with by just blocking systems. Fundamentally, in a free country, these things should be dealt with by parental choice and not by imposition through an ISP.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. It is necessary.
It is a short Bill. Clause 1 deals with opt-in and Clause 2 with filtering. I think it will be supported by parents in respect of the whole area of what, in many respects, is child ensnarement into sexually explicit services.
The article in Child Abuse Review of 2009 demonstrated clearly—and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has this morning talked about—the impact on children of some internet pornographic services. They not only affect the children being drawn into those services but they affect how they look at each other as young people—the respect that young boys have or do not have for girls in these services. That has come out in some of the cases that have been in the press recently.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked how you define these things and said that it goes back to the Lord Chamberlain deciding what is and is not acceptable. Normally, I agree very much with his views but I do not on this, because the definition of what is acceptable in any kind of statutory or non-statutory legislation will be there whether or not you have an opt-in.
What the noble Baroness proposes is not new. Some years ago, I was the chairman of the premium rate telephone industry regulator following the liberation of telephone services in the UK and we saw the emergence of adult services, which, in a growing industry, at one stage took up something like 70% of those services. The self-regulatory road was gone down and it involved opting out, but that did not work. In the end, the industry itself agreed with us as the regulator that it had to introduce an opt-in to take part in these services. The world did not fall apart, but it meant that children who would normally access the services, especially in school holidays—the call rate would go through the roof in school holidays—could not do so. One of the early measures that we took was to require that sex magazines should be put on the top shelf in newsagents, but that did not stop the proliferation of these services among young people either. They find a way and they pass the number around. In the end, the only way of dealing with these services was to say that if you wanted them from the service provider you had to opt in. Some people did, but it meant that children did not have access to them.
Really, the Bill is about child protection; it is not about censorship. I cannot find anyone who would support access to these services but they are not illegal. Therefore, if an adult chooses to use the service, that is okay and they can do that, but that does not mean that the services should be freely available to children. They are quite often in their bedrooms with no one else around. They may hear the parent coming up the stairs and bang a key, and the parent has no idea what they have been looking at.
The measure proposed in the Bill is welcome. It is a good step. It will not deal with all the problems but that is not a good enough reason not to try to deal with some of them. The Bill will not deal with texting, for example. Indeed, I gather that 02 does block adult services on its mobile phones but not on broadband. The iPad, which so many of us now have, has no provision for filtering out these services, even if people want to. Some companies have devised their own self-regulation. O2, Vodafone, Virgin and T-Mobile have all done it, but we do not have a level platform in the industry. The problem is not with the people who are trying to do the right thing in those companies but with those who do not, and they are the ones who are making children even more vulnerable at a very formative stage of their development.
I welcome the Bill and I look forward to the discussion in Committee. I am sure that there will be many interesting exchanges on the Bill. I hope that the Government will give the Bill time and that we see it on the statute book. It will not answer all the problems and there will be technical difficulties but, if the industry knows that it will have to sort those difficulties out, it will. I support the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, we have heard so much about child abuse recently. The Bill would protect children from abuse in another form. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote on bringing this much-needed Bill to Parliament and for her hard work on online danger to children.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to today's Second Reading debate on the Online Safety Bill. The Bill makes a number of informed provisions with respect to child safety online, which I very much support. I support the proposal in Clause 1 of an opt-in system. As my noble friend has already stated, under an opt-in system, internet service providers and mobile phone operators will be obliged to protect people from accessing pornography unless they deliberately opt in to access pornography, which would involve an age verification process to confirm that the person concerned was 18 or over.
I believe that the introduction of such a system would be a welcome step forward for children, young people and parents. As legislators, we have a duty to protect children and young people from the damaging effects that consumption of pornography can have on their minds while they are growing to maturity. An opt-in system is extremely effective at providing such protection without preventing adults from accessing online pornography should they wish to do so—although I must say that some adults get very upset when they unexpectedly find porn online.
Clause 3 states:
“Internet service providers and mobile telephone network operators must provide prominent, easily accessible and clear information about online safety to customers at the time the internet service is purchased and shall make such information available for the duration of the service”.
I believe that with Clause 1, which introduces an opt-in system in relation to pornography, Clause 2, which places an obligation on the manufacturers of internet-enabled devices to incorporate general filtering mechanisms, and Clause 3, which introduces an educational obligation, the Bill is extremely well balanced. The introduction of an age-verified opt-in system is, without doubt, the surest way of ensuring that children do not accidentally stumble on—or successfully deliberately seek out—pornography online. It is consequently very important that Clause 1 becomes law. Moreover, the provision of general filtering for internet-enabled devices would greatly assist in more general protection.
While Clause 1 is the single most effective thing we can do to protect children from accessing pornography online and Clause 2 is very helpful with respect to other material, they are not magic bullets. There are other things that must be done to ensure child safety online. Online safety is a complex area and in an environment where content is no longer passively received—as when watching TV or listening to the radio—there are more dangers than accessing age-inappropriate content. Social networking, internet chatrooms and YouTube websites, where content is self-created and commented upon by others, throw open the floodgates to all sorts of issues which parents need to address when bringing up their children. Bullying can now happen online, not just in the school playground. Privacy issues become more important as children need to understand what sort of information should not make it into a public forum. Clause 3 offers important support to parents, in addition to blocks and filters, by educating them about online safety and encouraging them to discuss these issues with their children.
One sexual threat posed to children and young people online is the infiltration of internet chatrooms by adults seeking out children to groom for sexual exploitation. Clause 1 would not have the effect of blocking internet chatrooms that are popular with children and so could not really help in this regard. Clause 3, however, does provide a means for addressing this issue, by encouraging and empowering parents with information about online security risks and how best to address them. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are complementary and together provide a powerful framework within which to promote the best possible child safety online.
As my noble friend said, the Government have still not announced their response to this summer’s online safety consultation, a consultation which was conspicuous for not mentioning age verification once. I very much hope that the Government will recognise that placing age verification right at the centre of the Bill is vital and that they will adopt this Bill as the best vehicle for securing online safety for children in the United Kingdom. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through both Houses of Parliament.
Please excuse my voice: I have a terrible cold.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for introducing the Bill, which is both principled and practical and has an elegant simplicity that is not characteristic of all proposed legislation. The revelations concerning Jimmy Savile have shocked the nation and it is right that we are shocked. We are much less tolerant, as a society, of inappropriate sexual contact between adults and children than seems to have been the case a generation or more ago. We are very protective of the bodies of the young with, it seems, an exception for the eyes.
Why is it that we are not more outraged by the way in which internet pornography, often of an extreme and degrading kind, can assault the eyes, the minds and the imaginations of children and young people who may not even have reached the age of puberty? Is it because we are unconvinced that the visual has power to shape our thinking and our responses? That cannot be the case; otherwise we would not do so much to encourage our children and young people to see great art, to appreciate sculpture, to have their imaginations enlivened, to be thrilled by what they see as the creative expression of human beings in relationship with each other and with the world in which they live. So our carelessness in relation to online access to pornography by children and young people ought to be a major scandal in itself.
There is, after all, a growing body of academic research which suggests that pornographic images can remain in the minds of young children and disturb their psychological and sexual development. We should hardly be surprised at this, since for generations we have classified films so that those with the most disturbing images would not be seen by those under 12, 15 or 18. Somehow we have allowed online pornography and violence to be treated differently, as if we are entirely helpless to control it. Of course, as many of us have read, the issue is more pressing in the United Kingdom because of the independent access so many children and young people have to the internet, whether in the privacy of their bedroom or on a mobile phone. It is not always recognised that our children are more likely to be online independently than is the average elsewhere in Europe, or that half of all teenagers in the UK now have a smart phone and can access the internet at any time.
The fact that less than a third of all parents use the present parental controls on those phones, where they exist, to block unsuitable content is probably not an indicator that parents do not care, but that they are uncertain what to do and are given too little advice by internet service providers and mobile phone operators. After all, it is the parents who most often seek advice from their children about access to the internet and how to operate tablets, iPhones and all the rest. In your Lordships’ House, the Communications Select Committee, on which I sit, has recently gone paperless. We have been provided with iPads and access all our material online. It would be fair to say that most of the teenagers in the UK might have adapted rather more quickly than noble Lords have to this modest evolution in our process. All this suggests that there is a need to ensure that any parental controls are sufficiently robust so that attempts to change settings inappropriately are quickly identified.
I support the opting-in procedure, and the age verification system already in use for online gambling, and will not repeat what other noble Lords have said so well. I am very surprised that the recent government consultation made no mention of this and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that matter. I am also glad to see the Bill making provision for additional filtering of content so that parents can make informed judgments about what their children should see at different stages of their development. Overprotected children can sometimes be ill equipped for the world at the age of 18, and it is not the intention of this Bill to shield young people from that which is educative; only from that which is deeply harmful.
However, I have a question about the definition of pornography itself. I understand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, pointed out, that the reference to “pornographic images” is being used in the same way as in Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, where the possession of extreme pornographic images was made an offence. Is relying on the definition of pornography in that Act fully sufficient for the purposes of this one? If I have understood it correctly, it is the possession of extreme and degrading images that is made illegal, but perhaps not everything that might properly be regarded as highly sexualised images, such as those that objectify women or scenes of graphic violence, which may not be pornographic but which are deeply disturbing. We cannot catch everything in a definition but I still wonder how robust this definition is.
My other concern relates to the grooming of young people online, on which I share some of the convictions of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I have been told that children and young people who have accessed pornography are more open to grooming in chat rooms, but I doubt whether the two are necessarily connected. Should something on the lines of this Bill become law, it would not remove all the dangers of the internet for children and young people, nor is it claimed that it would. The sexual grooming of young people can be very hard to identify and is not easily blocked, if at all. Even with the passage of this Bill, parents, teachers and carers would need to ensure their children were internet savvy, not just technically, but in interpreting the content they access and the contacts they make. Almost three years ago, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety produced the “Zip it, Block it, Flag it” strategy to help children and young people stay safe online. It would still need to be used.
Although teaching our children and young people to be vigilant online remains a priority, the provisions in this Bill would be very welcome indeed. It would achieve a healthier and safer internet culture, which is why I so warmly support it.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on introducing this Online Safety Bill. I believe that it is an extremely important piece of legislation that if made law—and I hope it is—would greatly enhance the provision of child safety online.
Some 30 years ago, I chaired an examination of video violence and its effect on children that had been set up my late noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. The conclusion of the inquiry was that it did affect children adversely. The report of course was immediately panned by various academics working with the video industry. However, some two or three years later, a number of other reports came out that confirmed our findings. I suspect that similar things will happen with examinations of online pornography.
As has already been said, access to the internet is more readily available. At first it could only be accessed from bulky computers. Now, iPads, mobile phones and various portable devices mean that access can happen almost anywhere. This brings great benefits, some of which I use in relation to health service provision in the developing world. However, it also brings significant risks as children gain increasing media independence, such that their parents have little or no opportunity to monitor or control. To plagiarise the wonderful subtitle of Reg Bailey’s review of the sexualisation of children last year—Letting Children be Children—I welcome this Bill as it seeks a way of letting parents be parents, by giving them the means to protect their children.
In the time available, I wish particularly to address the concern, which some may have, that this Bill represents a form of censorship. I hope noble Lords will agree with me that this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. The bottom line is that the opt-in system proposed by this Bill does not prevent any adult from accessing pornography. Any adult can opt in to access pornography, subject to age verification confirming that they are indeed an adult over the age of 18. That being the case, it seems to me that there are only two possible bases for objection.
The first is that the online world should not be subject to any order, regulation or proscription. For these people, for some reason, keeping the web in a Hobbesian state of nature is more important than putting in place provision to ensure that children do not accidentally stumble on pornography; possibly quite extreme pornography. For them the state of nature ethic is more important than caring for children. I do not know whether the same people would feel the same way if there were no procedures to prevent online credit card fraud or prevent misuse of personal data.
Of course, the offline world makes no claims to constituting a state of nature, let alone of making this into some ethical good. Responsible supervision of what is available to children and young people is something that we accept as necessary and appropriate in respect of books, magazines, DVDs and television. It seems to me that if one were so minded this could be construed as censorship, but I doubt that many in this House would deem it as such; rather, it would be recognised for what it is—responsible care for those who are not equipped to protect themselves and discern what is harmful. Clearly, supervision in this regard is for the good of the child and society as a whole. It would be irresponsible and foolhardy to allow the development of internet media in a way that made it impossible for responsible supervision to be provided. However, that is what is now happening.
The second argument is that we should encourage awareness of filtering but not intervene in any other way to help parents: the ball should be left in their court and the state should not intervene, as anything else would be hopelessly patronising and paternalistic and take away parents’ responsibility for their children. That is an interesting point of view, but we do not expect this argument to be accepted when it comes to the classification of DVDs and films at the cinema. We are committed to signposting to all consumers, including parents, what type of material the person is considering viewing.
Parents are a child's first line of defence and, of course, must engage with the challenge of how to protect their children offline and online. Although some parents will be switched on to the dangers as well as the opportunities of the online world, sadly, this is often not the case. Less than half of parents of five to 15 year-olds have online controls installed on computers at home. However, home computers are arguably secondary, given that, as I have already mentioned, the ubiquitous nature of internet access today means that a child or young person has only to step out of their front door with their smartphone to access potentially unfiltered online content. We know that the use of mobile internet is growing rapidly. There were 6 million more users between 2010 and 2011, with the most significant growth being among younger age groups. I am told that 62% of 12 to 15 year-olds own a smartphone and just over half of these smartphone users say that, of all regularly used media, they would miss using their mobile phone the most.
Crucially, take-up of filtering or restricting access to content on mobile phones is very low. Only 31% of parents said that they had limited their child's access to the internet in this way, according to a 2011 Ofcom study. Do we really think that it is appropriate to refuse to provide parents the assistance of an opt-in system and instead let them sort out their own filtering? How much better and simpler for them to do so in the context of an empowering opt-in system, where the choice is still 100% theirs, rather than in an environment, the unhelpfulness of which is a result of the belief that not making things simpler for parents is more important than protecting children online.
I believe that, rather than the provision of an opt-in system constituting a patronising arrangement for parents and other adults, it is actually about empowering them and extending choice; about giving them the option of an easily accessible pornography-free internet alongside the option of a pornography-filled internet.
The empowerment at work here makes perfect sense for those of us who have not forgotten our political theory. The likes of Hobbes argued that people in a state of nature would give up their state of nature freedoms, as they did not have much positive consequence, trading them in instead for more limited but, crucially, more meaningful civic rights. In other words, it was in sacrificing extreme expressions of freedom that people found meaningful freedom in the law and order and civility of a civil society subject to law and regulation.
We accept limits to our freedom at all times in our society. This is a good thing. I fear that those pointing toward the Bill as an example of censorship seem to have either misremembered that this is the case, or have a rather strict interpretation of freedom which is simply incompatible with the society in which we live. In much the same way that fences are put up at the edge of cliff-side coastal paths, so must we accept that it is nothing less than good sense to take steps which seek to stop children stumbling across inappropriate content online.
Figures may vary about the degree to which there is unwanted exposure to pornographic content—a study from 2012 suggests that such exposure is as high as 50%—but it seems to me that to consign inappropriate content to an online top shelf is necessary, sensible and a mere replication of offline best practice. Unfettered definitions of freedom result in a system wherein some freedoms remain in place which cause harm to others—the very opposite of what we strive to do in this House and in a civilised society.
Far from constituting something that is patronising, it seems to me that providing an opt-in system is entirely consistent with respect for freedom in civil society in that it actually empowers people, giving them meaningful options. It is no surprise that parents themselves seem very keen on the opt-in, as witnessed by the Safetynet campaign petition which secured more than 100,000 signatures earlier this year.
There are few perfect laws, but we must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. This Bill should be an Act of Parliament already. It is an eminently sensible set of measures which seek to bring online protection into line with protection provided offline and ensure that children are protected in a way which the developments of modern technology demand.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the whole House is enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for bringing forward this timely and important Bill today. The degree of support that it seems to be finding from all quarters of your Lordships’ House is encouraging. Indeed, it is encouraging to see the range of speakers that we have today. That fact alone should send a very clear message to the Government that they should no longer be dithering on these issues but moving to try to find some solutions. There is also a very clear message to the internet service providers that they, too, need to put their house in order and start to find the most appropriate technical solutions to these problems.
The only note of dissent so far has been from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He seemed to make the point that the Bill would place too much of an onus on internet service providers, that this was not what they were good at, and that responsibility should essentially rest with parents. I hope that I have not misrepresented his argument too greatly. That is the standard defence that is heard in these arguments in all aspects: that the internet service providers are the mere conduit or the mere pipeline by which this stuff gets into people’s homes and that somehow, because they are merely the provider of the pipe, they are not responsible for anything that flows through it. To argue that they therefore have no responsibility is rather like saying that water companies have no responsibility for purifying the water that they deliver, because their main purpose—the thing that they are good at—is providing pipes. Actually, they are not that good at that either, given the level of leaks. We do not accept that argument. We say that there is a responsibility on the providers of the pipeline to ensure that the water is pure and safe. That is essentially what the Bill is about.
Let us be clear. In this country, access to pornography is controlled offline. Therefore, there are limitations but they are not total limitations. However, it is made more difficult to access pornography in printed form, on DVD or whatever else. This legislation, should it be passed, will enable us to adjust to the fact that society increasingly exists online. It levels the playing field. It brings what is happening on the internet to the level of everything else, whether it is the top shelf of the newsagent or the age clarification which exists for cinema or DVD material.
We also know that Parliament has already legislated on the principle of age verification. The Gambling Act requires robust age verification. We have already tested this and Parliament has been through these arguments. As my noble friend Lady Dean said, the world did not end because age verification was required in that area—actually, she was applying it to another area, but the principle is that the world did not end. Age verification can be done and it now needs to be applied more generally. The solutions are available and workable. A number of sites notionally have an age restriction but the reality is that those restrictions are laughably weak. However, mechanisms are available that can make those age restrictions work. We should be encouraging that and this Bill is a step towards enabling that to happen.
The other change that has happened in recent years, which we have to accept, is that most children now spend much of their lives online. Most of their social transactions are mediated through internet-enabled mobile phones. The days when I recall one of my sons spending about three hours on the phone to arrange where he and his mates would meet no longer apply. Now, it is all done through the internet—through social media networks and so on. Ofcom’s survey in 2011 found that the average time spent online by five to 15 year-olds was 90 minutes per day. However, I suspect that that statistic is already out of date. It is probable that most five year-olds do not spend that amount of time online but that therefore means that the figure for slightly older age groups is much higher. The same survey found that many—in this instance, I think it was 41%—had been disturbed by something that they had found online and that a quarter had received unsolicited explicit material online.
That was a survey of a year ago. This is an area where things move rapidly and I suspect that we need to have in place legislation that is able to respond to these changes. Those figures will already be out of date. Even I was surprised to learn that 37% of three to four year-olds use the internet, but we have all heard stories of, and perhaps even seen, toddlers whose reaction to a picture in a printed book is to try to expand it with their fingers to make the image get larger. Again, I suspect we are simply not keeping up with the trends.
The reality, which again was found by the Ofcom survey, is that parents know less about the internet than their children do. I recall that when I was part of the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee that looked at personal internet security, we were told repeatedly of parents who could not quite manage the parental control software and so got their children to install it for them. That is hardly going to induce this sort of control and maybe they were not quite the responsible parents whom we are looking for, but that is the reality. The children are ahead of their parents in all this, so you have to make it easier for the parent who wants to be responsible. In my view, this is what this Bill is about: opt-in control through ISPs will limit unsolicited and inappropriate material getting into the home.
There is also a sort of golden age view, rather like the image of the family sitting around the dining table in their front room listening to the Home Service, which we were all brought up with in the 1950s. If it ever really was a golden age, the day of the concept of the computer being somewhere in the main room of the home, so that access to the internet is mediated through that process, has long passed. There are now so many internet-enabled devices in most homes that such access is not confined to one room where there may be adequate supervision.
Most children, as has already been said, will have internet-enabled mobile phones but most of the game machines that they use in their bedrooms are also now internet-enabled. There are Xboxes and Game Boys, and all these things are internet-enabled. Not all of them can receive images or material but that is the direction of travel. Children play games on them with people all over the world whom they do not know. That raises all sorts of interesting and wider child protection questions but it demonstrates why we have to be able to control the pipeline that delivers what comes into the home. It is not just about the main computer; it is about all the internet material that comes into the home, which is mediated through the channel of the internet service providers. However responsible parents may be, they can simply no longer actively monitor all the material that their children are accessing, even if such total monitoring would be wholly desirable.
There is of course a collective responsibility in all this. In that inquiry into personal internet security, we used the road safety analogy. We said that responsibility for safety on the roads was accepted and that there was: a personal responsibility as to how you were a road user, whether you were a driver or a pedestrian; a responsibility on the manufacturers of cars to make their cars more safe; a responsibility on local authorities to ensure that roads were well lit; and a responsibility to have roads that were well maintained. All that was with a view to delivering safety. We need to take that same approach to these sorts of issues.
Frankly, children need to be educated about internet safety at the same time as they receive road safety advice. We should be looking at them doing it at that young an age. Parents need to be enabled to be responsible through the measures contained in this Bill by being able to decide, in terms of the material that can come into the home, not to opt in to pornographic material. ISPs and equipment manufacturers need to make it easier for parents, and site owners need to have robust age verification.
This Bill is not a total solution to the problems of online safety but it is a step in the right direction, making it easier for everyone to play their part in securing online safety. I sincerely hope that the Government are going to be supportive and, if not, I hope that they are going to tell us how they will move forward on these issues.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I agree with colleagues and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for raising this very important issue to consider through this Bill how children access pornography or programmes that might put them at risk of being groomed by predators and paedophiles. I say at the outset that the age verification element is very important. It is helpful, as others have said, that the general attitude today finds the idea of exposing our children to adult material, and especially to grooming, absolutely abhorrent. At last.
The Bailey review of last year provides a helpful exposition of the problem and its complexities and the difficulties of finding a workable solution. He also emphasised the importance of working with parents, guardians and carers, which includes anyone with responsibility for a child, including children in care. We often talk just about parents but it is actually those with any responsibility for a child. I also welcome the Government’s recent consultation on online protection and am sorry that the timing of this Second Reading is too early to hear the results of that consultation.
This brief Bill tries to provide a mechanism to protect our children and I absolutely applaud the sentiment. However, I want to propose that there may be more than one way of doing this because I fear that there are some unintended consequences from following the route of automatic filters for all on every electronic device, which the householder has to apply to have reduced. I shall come to this in a minute.
First, though, I want to raise the technical term of the definition in Clause 5 on interpretation, which says:
““image” and “pornographic” have the same meaning as in section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008”.
Your Lordships will see in the Act that the definition of pornographic is held within Section 63, headed:
“Possession of extreme pornographic images”.
Section 63(1) says:
“It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image”.
Note here the word “extreme”, because it goes on to say:
“An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image”.
The third subsection then defines pornographic, as we have heard, such that:
“An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”.
The remainder of the section continues with definitions. The formal definition of extreme pornography takes 13 lines, and rightly so. I will not read that now but the point I am trying to make is that the definition of pornography in that Act—that is, legal pornography which is not extreme and illegal—is briefly referred to in passing to subsequently define extreme pornography, which is what that Act is trying to define for the courts.
Such a simplistic definition of pornography will cause immense problems in our courts. How do you define arousal and to what level of arousal—partial, full? Is that arousal the view of the average person on the Clapham omnibus, or should the definition cover the various fetishes that people may have? The famous film director Quentin Tarantino is a foot fetishist. There are a number of people who have assessed his use of bare feet in all his films. Clearly they arouse people with the said fetish.
Secondly, this limited definition of pornography would exclude much of the world’s classic works of art. Thirty years ago I was working with Jonathan Miller on the BBC production of “Troilus and Cressida”, which we had set in the Hundred Years War. We used some of the delightful pictures of Cranach the Elder, showing nudes of young women with the barest film of gossamer material across their bodies. Groundbreaking in Cranach’s day, this nudity still arouses passion in many who view them, as have thousands of artists over the subsequent seven centuries. Are these images pornographic? Unfortunately under some of the automatic filter systems at the moment, they are.
This brings me to my second concern. The current filters on the market, which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to, are pretty crude and inevitably filter out more than just pornography. I wish there were another word to describe them, but it is true. They are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Let me give you some brief examples.
Some years ago, my late father-in-law, an academic, suddenly stopped receiving e-mails. After a while he went to see the IT experts at his university. “Ah,” they said, “it is our new filter to stop you accessing naughty sites. The problem is that there is a key banned word in every e-mail that you are getting. It is your first name, Dick”. He had to have his own name unfiltered. These filters have not improved since. One of my colleagues here in Parliament was working for an MP, on the Sexual Offences Bill. She suddenly discovered that she was not receiving briefings from outside organisations by e-mail, because they contained either the word “sexual” in the subject line or attachments, or references to rape or other forms of sexual abuse. Thankfully she picked this up. A friend was working for one of the charities at the time and she was able to get her e-mails unblocked, but it could have had an impact on how Parliament scrutinised that particular piece of legislation.
How, you might ask, do these examples affect children who might be trying to access information on the net? Stonewall has expressed real concern about automatic filter systems for young people worried about their sexuality, who want to seek safe information and advice. Over half of the gay young people in a University of Cambridge survey for Stonewall reported homophobic bullying at their schools, with many citing worrying levels of depression and anxiety. Many students reported that their schools used such filters, which meant that they were unable to seek help from organisations such as Stonewall if they put the words “homosexual” or “gay” into the online search engine, because they were blocked.
Over the last five years, the Liberal Democrat youth movement has run a very effective campaign in further and higher education, and it is therefore available to 16 to 18 year-olds, called “Homophobia is Gay”. It, too, would be banned under these filters. It has been groundbreaking in getting young people to think, first, about the language they use and, secondly, to review their behaviour which might be bullying.
Many of our newspapers would also be banned. The Daily Mail, which I understand is very keen on this Bill—and I applaud the sentiments behind its campaign—would hit a problem with the crude image-filtering mechanism for photos, which assesses the percentage of bare flesh. It is not clever enough to work out whether a girl has a bikini top on and such an image would therefore be classified in exactly the same way as page three of the Sun. There is a fundamental problem with the technology at present, which needs to be addressed urgently. The Bill as written will not encourage this sophistication. It needs to. Perhaps this can be addressed at Committee stage.
Finally, there is the key issue of which is more effective; opt-in or opt-out. This Bill proposes an automatic filter that individuals would have to opt in to subscribe to pornography by asking their ISP to change the levels. Given the problems outlined above, I suspect that many parents would get incredibly frustrated with the crude nature of the filter and I am concerned that some of them might opt in. I prefer an opt-in system, which asks you as a parent—defined in the wider sense right at the start—when you have a new device, be it phone, TV, or computer, what levels you want to set. My cable TV company already does this and most telephone companies are following suit, given that most phones now act as mini-computers. We set the levels ourselves when our children were teenagers. Interestingly, on the communal computers and TV at home, even though the children are well over 18, we have never bothered to reset them. I suspect that most households are the same.
Much of the progress in this area is down to the work of the Internet Watch Foundation. This is not known to many lay people, because it works specifically with the ISPs, telcos and cable companies. It has been doing so quietly behind the scenes over the last decade, encouraging them to have peer regulation. I would hope that it would be a key part of the solution, blocking illegal sites daily as it does, using peer pressure among the companies to bring the providers into line and making sure that they give parents access to sensible filters. That is the important reason to have more sophisticated opt-in arrangements, rather than a pure opt-out system. Parents must be involved.
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre website emphasises to children and parents—especially parents—how important it is to talk to each other. Its top tips start with the advice to talk to your child about what they are up to online and to be a part of their online life. This is vital. Children who are being groomed, for example, feel themselves in a cycle of fear and shame where they think no one will believe them. Childline reports that children feel themselves to blame for what is happening to them. Any chance of parents having relaxed conversations with their children about what they are doing on line, as they, the parents, set the filter levels, often with the children doing the technology, is much more likely to encourage children to talk to their parents if they are worried.
I applaud this Bill. It has the best intentions, but I worry that there are three or four areas which will need to be explored more at Committee stage to provide reassurance that it will not be a crude tool that will defeat its admirable aims of protecting our children.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for initiating this Bill, which I welcome. I want to attempt to put her Bill in the overall context of how we as legislators have incrementally abdicated responsibility as our society has changed and continues to change for the worse. I am not able to speak with any authority on a technological basis, as many others have done today.
What has changed in society over the past 70 years or so since I was a youngster, or even over the past 30-plus years since I left the classroom as a village schoolmaster? The negative aspect of modern, anything-goes society, where it seems almost self-righteous to mention moral values, is alarming. I know that we cannot reverse the technological advances of the computer, or indeed of television, and nor should we want to, but surely we have been too tardy in addressing the issues of what is made available, especially to children.
I am fully conscious of the political correctness that lauds freedom of choice, freedom of the press, freedom of expression and every other freedom that you can think of. Rather than protecting our individual rights, such unqualified freedom is but a mandate for the unscrupulous to exploit our weaknesses, whether that be a tendency to greed, to violence, or to sexual excesses. There is little purpose in our pointing the finger at the BBC over the Savile issue if we treat moral standards as though they are solely the responsibility of others. Why do we seem to believe that there is some social obligation on us to accept that every modern comedian who uses the f-word has the right to do so? We forget that Morecambe and Wise, Tommy Cooper and “Dad’s Army” could make us laugh without resorting to lewd and base language. Be that as it may, it is time we took some control of our lives and the future of our children’s and grandchildren’s lives by supporting the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, throughout its various stages.
I have alluded in terms of general social behaviour to our modern society. Now, in that context, why should anyone accept that pornography would not and does not so negatively influence our children and grandchildren, those impressionable youths who learn by example? Children and teenagers do learn by example. I experienced that in my quite a few years in the classroom. We will, in general terms, condemn societies where women are treated as second-class citizens, yet we tolerate those who spew out pornography that is bound to create the impression that our women are no more than sexual chattels. Is it any wonder that over recent years there has been a noticeable recorded increase in domestic violence if we leave the peddlers of porn unchallenged?
Given the identified risks posed by online pornography, I strongly believe that the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, defines the best way ahead for promoting child safety. Of course, there may be areas of the Bill which we will strengthen in Committee. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and other noble Lords would like to see that happen, but if that is going to happen, I bluntly suggest that we have to target—I use the word advisably—porn providers, and there has to be some answerability, if necessary through the courts.
The Bill puts in place measures that will help protect children and young people from the damaging effects of accessing pornography online. I particularly welcome the fact that an opt-in system will be introduced by the Bill. This system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others have already outlined, will require internet service providers and mobile phone operators to provide filtering software which would allow only those who are aged 18 or over and feel a need to access pornographic material to do so. The fact that this system would ensure that children and young people could not accidentally encounter such material online is of particular importance.
Given that other noble Lords have dwelt on the opt-in provisions of Clause 1, and many have touched on Clauses 2 and 3, I shall conclude with a word about Clause 4. It states:
“OFCOM must prepare a report for the Secretary of State about the operation of this Act—
(a) every three years from the date of Royal Assent; and”—
very importantly—
“(b) at the direction of the Secretary of State”.
It is essential that this clause be enacted alongside the other measures in the Bill. At the moment, no organisation is charged with statutory responsibility for assessing how ISPs and MPOs perform when it comes to ensuring that they adequately help parents protect their children online. I am cynical enough to believe that they do not really care, so it is important that we should seek to remedy this situation through this legislation.
In addition to its responsibility with respect to programming that goes online, Ofcom has other relevant responsibilities, including the production of reports that look at areas which touch on online content and behaviour, such as the recently released media literacy statistics which include qualitative and quantitative research on parental views and uptake of internet control software. The House will be interested to know that Ofcom found that only 46% of parents have installed parental control mechanisms and, moreover, that uptake is much lower for hand-held devices. I do not believe that that is a conscious opt-out by parents. Most parents are like me—they do not know how the internet works, other than to send their e-mails and so on. They simply do not understand, and there needs to be properly designed help for them.
Given Ofcom’s current role, it certainly makes sense to give it the duty systematically to review how well the law is functioning in ensuring that parents are helped to protect their children while they are on the internet. Clause 4 is an excellent mechanism by which this could be achieved. I very much welcome the Bill and look forward to Committee.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for introducing this excellent short Bill and for her tireless campaigning on child safety and the media. Thanks are also due to others who have produced reports that highlighted this issue, including Reg Bailey and Claire Perry MP. I am also grateful to the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety and John Carr for their persistence in gathering evidence on the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has presented to us today. My noble friend Lady Dean said that this issue is about child protection, not censorship, and that is true. This is an issue of child welfare and of the importance of child welfare coming first, as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I share other noble Lords’ concerns about the definition of pornography and its impact, which needs to be reconsidered in Committee. I think that the right reverend Prelate would agree that some of the images available on electronic devices involve extreme violence, which is also unacceptable, especially to young people. We only have to look at some of the games available, even to young children, which involve cruelty, killings, beheadings and torture. I would have liked that to be clearer in the Bill.
That having been said, the Bill is important and timely. I reflect on the Private Member’s Bill that I introduced to your Lordships’ House in June 2009. Some of the points made then by me and by other noble Lords are still relevant. As we know, the use of the internet is growing at an amazing rate. New devices are coming on the market regularly, and children are remarkably good at using such devices. A book called Consumer Kids by Ed Mayo and Agnes Nairn makes us aware that,
“a visit to the bedroom of a British child of 11 … might yield a music system, TV, phone, text messaging, mobile phone, computer, instant messaging, voice over internet protocol, email, games console, DVD or VCR, MP 3 player”.
We live in two worlds: the real world where the identity of a consumer and their age can be checked, and the virtual world where that is difficult in relation to gambling, alcohol, drugs, knives, guns and pornography. Age verification remains a real problem.
Some good, responsible action has been taken. There have been agreed codes of conduct and practice by companies. Wi-fi providers have moved to bar access to adult content to minors on services they supply to the public, for example in high street shops.
However, let me give an anecdote which reflects some of the disturbing aspects of online safety and why we need to tackle confusion and bad practice. The Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety reports that, some time ago, McDonald’s—I speak here as a vegetarian, so I am not particularly supportive—told its wi-fi supplier that it did not want customers coming in to bring up pornographic images that people sitting on nearby tables may be able to see. How many other high street brands take a similar responsible view? The coalition reports less happy stories. Here is a shocker to demonstrate the point further. One reported test case involves someone who lives near a pub and a Starbucks. Both establishments provide free wi-fi access to their customers. In the pub, where children are not admitted, the wi-fi is provided by O2. In Starbucks, where children are allowed and encouraged to come in, the wi-fi is provided by BT Openzone. O2’s wi-fi services do not allow any access to pornographic websites. In Starbucks anyone can have full access to anything the internet has to offer including the most obscene pornographic websites.
Surely it is disgraceful that BT and Starbucks continue this practice, even though the matter was raised with them more than a year ago. Three of BT’s competitors have in the mean time put blocks on access to this material. It does not speak well of the UK’s capacity for self regulation when such huge, prominent companies are unprepared to be very firm and to set an example with regard to access to pornography. Until recently I was not aware that Starbucks is so lax about this or that apparently it pays no tax in this country. I, for one, will never set foot in Starbucks again unless these issues are sorted out and put right promptly. It clearly needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I wonder if there is anything the Government can do—perhaps a letter reminding high street companies of their duties to protect our children.
Age verification, as has been said before, can be a problem at home, and we know why. Parents may do their best, or not, to ensure that children do not have access to unsuitable material online. Parents can be fooled and may not be as adept at using online services as their children. Not surprisingly, research shows that children with rules about personal supervision in the home are less likely to access the internet in their bedroom or via mobile telephone than those who do not have rules. The organisation CARE points out that a recent government consultation on parental controls suggests that only the proposed opt-in choice provides a comprehensive solution for online pornography. The result of that consultation, as has been mentioned before, has not, so far as I know, yet been published. I understand that BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media and Sky issued a code of practice in October 2011 so new customers have to choose whether they are going to use the free parental controls provided. Existing customers will be made aware of the parental controls once a year but will not be obliged to make any choices about them. Ofcom estimates that only 31% of parents have limited their child’s access to the internet on their mobile phone. This Bill would tighten up these situations and sets out statutory duties on internet providers to protect children from pornography.
It is possible to tackle this problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, suggested some of the ways and we need to consider others. It means that an external agency will need to be involved in examining the implementation of policy and in monitoring it, possibly Ofcom or the BBFC or the Independent Mobile Classification Body, which has a clear statement on the classification of material and an appeals mechanism.
The recent Ofcom report, Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes, which I referred to earlier, is useful and thorough. It emphasises that children, even those as young as three or four, are confident users of the media. Children of 12 and over are “prolific social networkers”—eight to 11 year-olds have an average of 92 friends, while 12 to 15 year-olds have an amazing 286 friends. I do not know how they keep up. The point of this is the extraordinary number of people they can share things with, and we know what implications that has for child protection.
Multitasking is also popular—for example, texting or browsing the internet while watching TV. This may all sound very daunting for us. I remember once trying to watch a European football cup match, sound turned down, while listening to a dramatisation of Ulysses. That was only two things and I was totally confused. This Bill is important in supporting child protection. I look forward to its progress.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I support the Bill and I declare an interest as I speak on behalf of the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety. I have worked closely with many of its members. The charities include Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, Action for Children, Beat Bullying, the Children’s Society and Kidscape. They all strongly support the Bill. They want to make it clear and to emphasise that opt-in is needed mostly to protect the most vulnerable children, especially those in care.
However, many parents have informed the charities that when they are working on the internet with their children they have only to google a quite innocent word to go straight to a porn site. This can also happen when their children are doing homework on their own or doing research for a project. Even while playing a kids’ online game inappropriate material may pop up on the screen. This is why the NSPCC and Barnardo’s both particularly support this Online Safety Bill in order to ensure that children have the greatest possible protection from the harm they can inadvertently encounter online. The charities believe that the Bill contains a quite simple proposition, which is that all internet access providers should restrict the availability of adult content on the internet to persons who have been verified as being 18 or above.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned earlier, the average child spends 90 minutes a day online. While 91% of five to 15 year-olds have access to the internet at home, new findings show that 37% of three to four year-olds also use the internet at home. The number of calls to ChildLine from children who were upset after having seen adult images online has increased by 34% in the past year. This is one reason why the charities support Clause 1 of the Online Safety Bill which introduces an opt-in content filtering system where internet service providers should provide broadband connections into homes with filters already in place as the default setting to block access to adult content. This should include all age inappropriate material such as self-harm and suicide sites as well as pornography and violent online gaming.
They consider that such a measure would best support parents in offering the greatest possible protection for their children. However, educating parents and children about staying safe online is vital. For this reason, the charities recognise and emphasise that technical tools have to form part of a broader package of measures to address online safety issues. This should take place at every available opportunity, be it at the point of sale of a new piece of hardware, the point of installation of new software, or the renewal of a subscription package. For this reason, the education of retail and customer service staff involved in the sale of online services and devices for accessing the internet is also necessary.
The ideal scenario is for all parents and carers actively to monitor their children’s safety online. However, in practice, a number of barriers prevent them from doing so. The current system of parent-activated controls is not working. Only a minority of parents choose to operate them, and this number is falling. Perhaps it is because it is too complicated. An opt-in system could ensure that the responsibility for protecting children online is shared between parents and ISPs, because both have a role to play and neither one can protect children acting alone.
The best protection for children is their own knowledge and awareness, developed in the context of a supportive and engaged family environment. However, that is not always the case. There is a pressing need in the industry for more education and awareness-raising of online risk for young people, with the industry bearing a major responsibility for funding and running such campaigns.
Of course, if a parent decides to opt-in and allow adult content, and their children use the same computers as they do, children could end up seeing inappropriate material. This is why, by educating and making parents aware of the need to act responsibly, we can all ensure that kids are not getting access to stuff they were never meant to have. At the moment, if parents do nothing, the porn arrives whether they want it or not. It is just too easy. Children will always be inquisitive and try and find ways around the system, but we must not make it too easy for them to do so.
There is also great support for age verification, as outlined in Clause 1 of the Bill, because it is believed that providers of age-sensitive services and products such as social networking sites should utilise robust age-verification systems to protect children and young people from illegal activity. What is needed is a framework for classifying content as adult or universal, as well as a widely used method of age verification so that users can prove that they are old enough to access adult content. Mobile phone companies have already developed such a framework as well as an age verification process, and so we know that this is achievable.
There are a number of different ways in which people could be age verified. First, the account holder could have a password allowing access to adult content. Secondly, a system could be established involving each user having their own age-verified login. The online gambling companies have been doing something like this since 2007. A third way might be to establish portable online IDs which would be age-verified. Systems to do this already exist and could be extended. The charities accept that verifying the age of children under the age of 18 is more difficult, but this should not be used as a reason to delay the widespread rollout of age verification for content which is clearly aimed at adults.
I urge the Government to support the principle of establishing age verification as the basis for allowing access to adult content on the internet, in any and all environments, and to establish a task force to work out the mechanics and the options. Such a policy would not mean that every internet user in the UK would have to have an age-verified account. A person needs to be age verified only if they want to access adult content. The technical arrangements that would facilitate such a policy could be placed either on the ISPs’ or wi-fi providers’ network, or on the routers. Such an approach would remove the need for action to be taken by device manufacturers. The policy can work, because huge databases are available online in fast real-time with a high level of accuracy which allow access providers to confirm that someone is 18 or over. The mobile phone companies and all the online gambling companies use them already.
The focus of the Bill has been overwhelmingly around pornography. But the children’s charities are not saying ban porn from the internet altogether. What they want is for us to try to ensure that kids are not getting access to stuff they were never meant to have. Interestingly, a company is doing just that. It recently brought out a new app that blocks any pornography sites which can be accessed via an iPad. It found that there were more than 640 million pages on the web containing porn. But we also need to be concerned with other sites which can be harmful to children and young people and which parents are equally concerned about.
The charities strongly believe that sites which discuss sexual health, safe sex, sexuality and similar issues are not, and should never be classed as, adult sites or as “porn sites” and so should not be blocked or obstructed in any way within any filtering programme’s default settings. The same applies to sites which allow children to report abuse or to get information about their rights and so on. The children’s charities agree that the internet can be a positive tool for children and young people, who can use the internet to claim or assert their rights in ways which have never been possible previously. The internet can also be an important source of support and help to some young people and children, perhaps often in situations where no other sources are readily available to them.
The Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety recognises that technology is here to stay. But we as a society must ensure safe and equal access to the internet and associated digital technologies for all children and young people everywhere. We are all aware that this Bill cannot be seen as a silver bullet to solve this complex problem, but is part of a bigger package of measures that are desperately needed to protect our children and their pathway into adulthood. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and thank the noble Baroness for bringing it to the House.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Howe on bringing forward the Bill and, at the same time, salute her for the persistence with which she has pursued not just this issue but many others to do with the well-being of children in this country. We owe her a huge debt of gratitude for that.
I want to make one point which links this Bill to many other aspects of the development of our children, one of which was discussed in a debate in this House only yesterday, concerning the early years. One of the scourges of the 20th and 21st centuries is the inability of children to communicate either with each other or with anyone else. Part of this is due to the lifestyle in which they are brought up, much of which seems to consist of dumping them either in front of a television set or arming them with a computer game or some other electronic means of alleged entertainment which does not involve any adult intervention. This is not helped by parents who simply do not understand the damage that is being done to their children’s development by this encouragement and what it will do in terms of preventing them being ready for education when that time comes.
Therefore my appeal to the Government in supporting the Bill—as I hope they will—is that it should be seen not just in isolation but in relation to the long-term development and welfare of children. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about introducing the word “welfare” in addition to “protection and safety”. If it is possible to prevent this sort of material reaching children, that must be accompanied by the education of parents so that they understand not only the damage that is being done but how to carry out these proposals on prevention. If that happens, I believe that this will be a very important addition to the armoury of those seeking the long-term well-being of the children of this nation.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I welcome the fact that I have the opportunity to speak today in this Second Reading debate on the Online Safety Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Howe. I am very supportive of the Bill and I commend the noble Baroness for bringing the Bill before the House.
The statistics in this area, to my mind, are a matter of real concern. In 2008, a YouGov survey found that 27% of boys under the age of 18 access pornography each week, with 5% accessing pornography every day. According to Livingstone et al, in a 2005 London School of Economics publication, almost one in eight children have visited a pornographic website showing violent images. These statistics show that a significant proportion of children and young people in the UK today have been exposed to pornographic material at a young age.
We need to ask ourselves what the impact of consuming pornography is on children and young people who are growing to maturity. It seems to me that currently in the UK we are, as Jackie Kemp recently noted in the Scotsman,
“in the midst of a massive, not very well-organised social experiment”,
where we are effectively allowing children and young people easily to access pornography without thought of what the possible consequences might be of letting this happen.
Studies conducted in recent years have illustrated that accessing pornographic material can have a damaging impact on the well-being of children and young people. Michael Flood, in an article published in 2009 in the Child Abuse Review, found that for children and young people exposure to pornography can,
“lead to emotional disturbance, sexual knowledge and liberalised attitudes, shifts in sexual behaviour, and sexist and objectifying understandings. Particularly for boys and young men, the use of pornography may exacerbate violence-supportive social norms and encourage their participation in sexual abuse”.
The Witherspoon Institute, a US charity, published a report in 2010 entitled The Social Costs of Pornography. The report notes that pornography has now “infected modern childhood” and that this is having deeply detrimental effects. The report outlines that consumption of pornography gives children a “very bad model” of how to engage in healthy relationships and that in the US more and more teenagers are having to seek treatment for pornography addictions. I have been informed that this is also the case in the UK.
In 2010, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, in a Home Office report considering the sexualisation of children, stated:
“The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualized images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”.
The evidence is clear. It seems apparent to me that exposure to pornographic material can have serious consequences for children and young people. Consequently, I believe that we must take action to protect children and young people online, which is why I am here today speaking in support of this Bill.
I believe that the Online Safety Bill before us puts forward measures which could make a real difference to children and young people right across the UK. I believe that it would put in place a sensible and achievable regulatory framework which would protect children and young people from accessing pornography. I strongly reject the argument that this represents any form of private sector censorship.
I am especially supportive of the “opt-in” system which is outlined in the Bill. This system, as has already been outlined by a number of the previous speakers, would require internet service providers and mobile phone operators to provide a filtering service to ensure that pornographic material cannot be accessed on the internet unless the user has opted-in to view it. This system would ensure that children and young people could not stumble across such material online by accident and would protect them from the consequences of consuming such images.
In closing, I should like to reflect on comments made by the Portman Clinic psychotherapist John Woods in an article in Psychologies magazine in 2010. Dr Woods, like many experts working with children and young people affected by the consequences of exposure to pornography, believes that we need to regulate access to pornographic material online. He outlined the following:
“We still have this ideal of free speech and expression. We think there’s nothing wrong with sex, and we shouldn’t go back to moral hypocrisy. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Regulation is the only answer. And it can’t be difficult”.
As Dr Woods says, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. This Bill will redress the balance and provide the effective regulation that we need to protect our children and young people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am pleased and honoured to be speaking on behalf of my party at the end of this important debate, held after a week or so during which the safety of our children, both online and off, has been in the headlines and in all our thoughts. I should begin by declaring an interest as a proud and newly recruited champion of the Internet Watch Foundation, an example of successful UK self-regulation on criminal child sexual abuse content. Happily, that is not our concern here today.
I also need to put on the record that my husband, John Carr, who has already been referred to in this debate, is, among other things, an adviser to the United Nations on exactly these issues. He sits on the UK Government’s principal advisory body, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety. On behalf of the UK Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, was speaking, he is pro bono secretary. He spoke at the seminar held by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and gave evidence to Claire Perry MP’s excellent all-party inquiry concerning online protections. It is not often that one has a declaration of interests concerning one’s partner that is larger than one’s own but in this case I felt that it was important to put those things on the record.
Noble Lords have a right to assume that my contribution today should be technically competent but the views I express are on behalf of the Labour Party. We need to see this Bill in the context of a fast-moving world. The first time I spoke in your Lordships’ House about the internet and child safety was over 10 years ago and my speech concerned the then unfamiliar crime of grooming children on the internet, the dangers that that posed and the problems associated with chatrooms. That was long before the days of Facebook. As technology moves on, as well as providing everyone with new and wonderful opportunities in the online world, including our young people, it poses new challenges, particularly regarding their safety. There are many ways that technology is present in our lives.
Like the right reverend Prelate, I am not a techno wizard but, for example, I watched the American presidential election results by taking the BBC coverage on my iPod to bed and having my BlackBerry at hand for those essential texts with a daughter in Cambodia, a son in Brussels and a husband in Azerbaijan at the Internet Governance Forum this week, to keep them in the picture. I was the political information hub for my family for the night. I shared tweets with friends in America who were on the spot and I saw the newly elected President’s tweet announcing his victory.
This was all possible because of one wi-fi connection in my home. As my noble friend Lord Harris said, in a home with children of different ages there will be many devices. There could be a digital TV that is internet-enabled, several laptops, iPads, iTouches, a desktop computer, games consoles, BlackBerrys, smart phones and other mobile devices. I recently saw an article which suggested that in many family homes today it is not at all unusual to find 18 or more appliances connected to the internet.
So while we hope and want every parent to pay attention to what their child or young person is doing online, the reality is that this may not happen for any number of reasons many of which have already been mentioned. Indeed, online safety is not a one-off event. It is not something that a parent does and then forgets about. Whatever the technical solutions, we still need parents to engage on an ongoing basis. But what about the families where no amount of outreach to parents and no amount of media literacy work is ever going to have any impact? What if the parents in question do not even read or understand the English language?
What the noble Baroness’s Bill proposes is to make that process easier, better, surer, because it automatically removes from the equation material that, by common consent, should not be there in the first place for younger users. It demands that a technical solution be found to help with this problem, as well as the important issues mentioned in Clause 3. As many noble Lords have said, this is a huge and growing problem. A company that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has already referred to called MetaCert recently produced a free application that blocks only pornography sites that can be accessed via an iPad. The fact that startled me was that they found over 640 million pages to block containing porn, some of which would be hard core.
The Wolak Mitchell and Finekhor research shows that that 42% of 10 to 17 year-olds were exposed to online pornography and 37% of 16 to 17 year-old boys are visiting adult sites. Some of them will become addicted to pornography. I know some will say, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, that this is the natural curiosity of a pubescent young man. In the past, we would all have recognised this as being a top-shelf matter. Indeed, noble Lords smiled as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned his own curiosity.
It is a very different matter today. It is a very different thing if the top shelf and publications that would not be on the top shelf—that would have to be accessed in brown paper envelopes from places in Soho that would not be easily available— are in your son’s and your daughter’s bedrooms on a screen available to them at any time. They are on the iPad that they may take and share with their friends. If one puts that together with the fact that Ofcom recently reported that a third of 3 and 4 year-olds now have access to internet-enabled devices, what price the media literacy of that age group? We all have a responsibility here. That is why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, all the children’s organisations strongly support this Bill. I understand that CEOP and many experts support the thrust of this Bill.
I do not intend to explore the different technical ways of achieving the Bill’s objective as outlined in Clause 1, but ask the Minister two questions. Are the Government in favour of the principle of establishing age verification as the basis for allowing access to adult content on the internet in any and all environments? Should such a policy be seen as migrating to the virtual world the practices almost universally accepted and understood in the real world, for example, in relation to sex shops and cinemas?
This Bill contains a simple proposition: all internet access providers should restrict the availability of adult content on the internet to persons who have been verified as being 18 or above. It is now the case, with only one exception, that all the mobile phone companies have been blocking adult content on a voluntary basis since 2004 for all their pay-as-you-go phones because, as noble Lords will be aware, they are the ones most commonly used by children and young people.
If all the UK’s major wi-fi providers intend not to allow any adult content on any of the services they provide to the public—for example, in railway stations, hotels or, as my noble friend Lady Massey explained, in Starbucks coffee houses and other places, many of which will not even allow an age verification option—the adult bar will be fixed. Therefore, it will soon be impossible for anyone out and about to access adult content online on a mobile, either at all or without going through an age verification process. The only place where this will not apply will be the home. The only place where pornography and other adult content will be easily accessible to children and young people will be in their home. I cannot see that that is right. Does the Minister agree with our analysis on this matter?
I invite the Government to join us in welcoming this Bill and the principle it contains. I call on the Minister to declare his support for the principle behind the Bill—that adult content on the internet should be restricted to adults and a way must be found to make that happen. I am surprised by some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I respectfully suggest that she may be out of date in the technology that is available and the anecdotes that she told the House. As other noble Lords have said, this is such a problem that I would be surprised if she were saying on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches that they think the status quo is adequate, because I do not think that anybody else in the House would agree with them on that matter.
Baroness Brinton
I intervene to clarify things. I did not say that my party thinks the status quo is satisfactory and I made that very clear during my speech. I hope that the noble Baroness will see that when she looks at Hansard tomorrow. I also make clear that some of the anecdotes that I have raised are contemporary, particularly the ones about Stonewall and schools.
Baroness Thornton
I obviously accept that the noble Baroness is not speaking on behalf of her party and I find that a great relief.
Baroness Brinton
I am sorry to intervene again but that is not what I said. I said that the point of my speech was to make it clear that there are problems with the Bill, not that we think that the status quo needs to remain the same.
Baroness Thornton
That underlines my relief. I am very relieved to hear that that is indeed the case. We all know that there are legitimate questions about how it will be implemented or how it might work, but today I am seeking a commitment about the desirability of the principle, which seems to me crystal clear and correct.
Like others, I am aware that this Government have been concerned about this issue and have not been inactive. I know that the Prime Minister himself has often expressed very firm views about this matter. However, we know that solving this is not straightforward. There are possibly, on my count, at least five or six government departments involved in the policy development. Obviously, the Department for Education is involved as it has responsibility for children and education, possibly the Department of Health, which has an interest in safeguarding nought to five year-olds under the new arrangements in the Health Act; the Home Office, the Justice Department, the DCMS—hence the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, is replying to the debate on behalf of that department—and BIS because of the business interests concerned. If I have left anyone out I apologise, but that, indeed, is why government has to act and why I am going to conclude with the following suggestions and requests.
Like my noble friend Lady Massey, I want specifically to say that I am aware that in Summer 2011 the “big four” ISPs—that is BT, Sky, Virgin and TalkTalk—gave the Prime Minister a specific undertaking to implement active choice before October 2012: that is, before the end of last month. I think that they reiterated their pledge at a special summit which the Prime Minister called in Downing Street. I would like to know whether they have done what they have promised. In particular, I would like to know what each company is doing in relation to active choice for new and existing customers. The House needs to know what each company is doing to assist in relation to wi-fi routers in the homes where their customers live. In other words, will there be any way that their solutions will help to ensure that the controls parents might set on the PC or main device also automatically work in relation to all other devices using the same connection, or do the poor parents have to go through the same routine on every single device in their home? These are important matters germane to the progress of this Bill. If the Minister does not have this information to hand, I would be very happy for him to write to me and copy his answer to all noble Lords who have spoken today. My noble friend Lord Harris is absolutely correct, the Government appear to be dithering on this matter and they need to stop doing so.
We on these Benches call on the Government to get on with making online protection of children happen. If not in this Bill, can I have a cast iron assurance from the Government that they will establish a working party or a task force, as called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, to report back within six months on the practicalities and technicalities of how adult content on the internet can be restricted to adults and how that might be implemented?
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and look forward to working with them on the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I begin by also thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for introducing this Bill. No one could question what it is seeking to achieve, and the debate has been very worth while. I declare an interest. As a father of three, I understand the concerns of parents when their children disappear upstairs and sit in front of a computer for hours. I wonder what they are doing and with whom they are communicating. I ask myself: “Should I be doing more? Should I go up to their rooms every half hour to check on them?”, because keeping your child safe, online or offline, is one of the most important responsibilities that we have as parents. I echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that these are not straightforward issues.
Ofcom’s recent report into children’s media use found that 82% of all children aged five to 15 access the internet in the home. That figure rises to 95% for children aged 12 to 15. Children are digital natives, growing up in a world where they cannot imagine life before the internet. The internet is hugely beneficial, giving children opportunities to learn, enhancing their social and cultural development and providing them with the life skills that they need in the digital age. Some children are expected to do their homework online. However, as we have heard today, we must also be alive to the risks that children face online.
As has already been mentioned, in 2008 the Government commissioned Professor Tanya Byron to conduct a review into child safety online. Her report set an important basis for work on child internet safety and led to the establishment of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, UKCCIS, bringing government, industry and children’s charities to work together to advance online safety. In 2011, Reg Bailey’s report, Letting Children be Children, endorsed and amplified the work of UKCCIS. Both these reports highlighted the multiple factors at play when considering child safety online: the individual child’s level of development, experience and understanding, the role of parents and guardians and, finally, the role of industry and government. Both reports found that the best way to keep children safe online is to engage parents in their children’s online activity. It is parents who are best placed to assess the risks to their child and parents who can help their children to learn and become resilient online, as they do in the offline world. However, industry and government also have a role to play, giving parents the tools and support that they need to put them in control—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Lucas—and ensuring that vulnerable children are protected. In her report, Professor Byron talked about how:
“At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim”.
Importantly, both reports argued against a default position where internet content is automatically filtered, as called for by the Bill. I note the impassioned defence of this approach by some of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. What at first appears to be an effective solution may in fact be detrimental to the objective that we are all seeking to achieve, which is to keep children safe online. I shall explain why. First, filters give parents a false sense of security. Many of the harms encountered by children online would not be stopped by blocking pornography. Cyberbullying, pro-suicide material and sexual grooming are serious risks that parents need to be aware of and need to be engaged in tackling. Secondly, filters, while useful for some, may over-block—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—resulting in children not being able to access helpful material about their own education, welfare, well-being and personal development. Thirdly, filters can be got around by those determined to do so. Peter Davies, the chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, CEOP, recently said that bringing in automatic filters is no substitute for,
“sitting down and having proper conversations with our kids”.
Although the noble Baroness’s Bill is admirably simple, what may appear to be a simple solution is actually rather more complicated because what constitutes pornography is not black and white.
Baroness Thornton
The Minister is assuming that this is only about pornography. It is important that we establish that this is not just about pornography; it is about adult content, which is a wider concept than pornography. Will the Minister acknowledge that, when he uses the word “pornography”, he really needs to use the words “adult content”?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My understanding from the Bill is that the definition focuses on pornography, but I note that today’s debate has focused on wider issues. I hope that that answers the question.
As I was saying, what constitutes pornography is not black and white. To coin a phrase, it is fifty shades of grey. I note the definition that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, gave, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich questioned the robustness of the definition of pornography.
There would not be sufficient detail in the existing legislation to enable filtering products to be designed as required by the Bill. ICT industries would need much greater detail in order to comply, and that would need some regulatory footing. With the very broad definition in the Bill, it would be incumbent on government to develop very specific guidelines about what should be blocked. No system would be foolproof and I fear that enforcement would be, at worst, impossible and, at best, exorbitantly costly. Seventy-two hours of YouTube content are uploaded every minute. Who would police this user-generated content?
As I said at the outset, I entirely agree with the outcome that the noble Baroness is seeking: keeping children safe online. Where we disagree is the means by which to achieve that end. I firmly believe that we will achieve better results by working together with industry and children’s organisations than by regulating. By focusing on a wider range of harms than pornography, we can ensure that children are better protected.
The Government are not shirking their responsibility here. Two government Ministers chair the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, and another sits on the executive board with industry, charities and parents’ groups. Together, we believe that we are making a real difference more quickly and more effectively than could be done by regulation—a point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. For example, in the space of a year, the four main fixed-line internet service providers, notwithstanding Starbucks, which was mentioned—BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin Media, representing 96% of the market—have delivered on their commitment to prompt users to activate parental controls on start-up. This has happened without the need for legislation and is already delivering the kinds of controls that parents want to protect their children.
I should like to pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, concerning the code of practice—in fact, there were more than a couple of points. She stated that the code does not address existing customers and covers only the four main ISPs. She raised the question of wi-fi and public access, the age verification issue, which I wish to focus on later, and the fact that the code of practice is not statutory. The ISPs have been proactively writing to existing customers, making them aware of free parental controls. UKCCIS Ministers have said that they want all ISPs signed up to the code of practice and they will be working to do this very soon. We expect all public wi-fi providers to announce measures to block adult content by default very soon. Self-regulation measures are making a difference.
I should also like to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, concerning the Ofcom survey. She said that the perception was that parental controls were difficult to use. UKCISS has been working to increase the availability of all types of parental controls at all points of access to the internet, with ease of use a prominent feature. Parents can then choose the solution that best suits their level of knowledge and circumstances.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
If I were a non-car owner and a non-driver, would the noble Viscount think that I was the best person to prepare my children or grandchildren to take a motor vehicle on to the M1?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It depends on why the person referred to is a non-driver. I do not think I can answer that question.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
I apologise. I am making a comparison. It appears that the Minister is retreating and placing all responsibility on parents. Many parents do not understand the complexities of the technology involved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I think that I can answer the noble Lord’s questions later in my speech when I come on to the responsibilities of the industry and others.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised an important point. The Minister is saying that so much of the responsibility for this must rest with parents, but all the data that we have tell us that parents are ill equipped to provide this leadership. They are behind their children in terms of understanding these technologies. Parents are simply not in a position to give that guidance, much as we all might like that to be the case.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I fully understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but we take the line that ultimately parents are at the forefront of making the decisions as to what is right or wrong for their children.
Baroness Thornton
I am sorry but the Minister needs to address the issue—and I hope he will do so—of parents who do not know how to take action, who cannot do so or do not speak English, and the issue of children in care. Millions of children are accessing the internet in many different ways, often not with their parents present. The Government have to take this on board. How serious does this have to get before they realise that parents need some assistance?
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, all people in cars, including children, have to be strapped in with a seat belt. The Government have made it illegal not to do so. We are asking the Government to provide a safety belt to protect children on the internet.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I understand the points that have been made. I have also made it clear that I understand the importance of keeping children safe online. However, I think we differ in terms of the way in which we go forward. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to continue because I have some issues to point out concerning the controls.
Industry partners in UKCCIS are committed to putting in place filters which will see adult content blocked on more than 96% of public wi-fi. All UK mobile operators block adult content. Leading laptop and PC manufacturers, including Toshiba, Samsung, Lenovo, Dell, and Tesco, and also high street retailers Argos, John Lewis and Dixons Group are delivering solutions, which prompt the set up of parental controls on start-up or at point of sale, with Argos offering free filtering software. Industry-led solutions, designed with customers in mind, will, I believe, achieve a better outcome for parents and children than legislation could. However, we are not complacent. There is more that can be done and is being done.
I now want to focus on education, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others. In education, 96% of primary schools and 73% of secondary schools teach e-safety, either as separate lessons or embedded in others. It is part of the statutory ICT curriculum and it also forms part of tutor sessions and personal social and health education—PSHE—lessons. Ofcom’s research shows that 87% of parents agree that their children have been taught to use the internet safely. In upskilling children and parents in partnership with Childnet and the Safer Internet Centre, all ISPs have developed video tutorials, demonstrating how to install and set up parental controls, available on the Safer Internet Centre website from December 2012. Many initiatives are in place. For example, TalkTalk has developed an internet safety badge for the Girl Guides; BT operates internet safety workshops for parents; Sky has built a social networking and cyber-bullying module for school children where they can create their own Sky News reports; and Facebook works with CEOP, the Samaritans, the UK Safer Internet Centre and the Internet Watch Foundation to deliver training and provide support for users, teachers and parents. I was also interested to hear from my noble friend Lady Benjamin her considered views on the importance of education of children and parents in managing online sites, which is the approach that we are taking.
I should also like to focus on the issue of vulnerable children, to which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded in one, if not two, of her questions to me. There is always more to be done. Several noble Lords have raised the issue of vulnerable children and this is an area of concern. Regardless of the options available to them, there are some chaotic homes where parents may be absent, uncaring or simply incapable of taking steps to protect their children online. In those circumstances, children may also be at risk of other forms of neglect or abuse and we must ensure that such children are first protected from these more serious threats through the existing safeguarding mechanisms that schools, health workers and social services so crucially provide.
The specific online risk to children in vulnerable circumstances is an area that UKCCIS is exploring, which the board will need to consider how to take forward. I do not think a blanket regulatory approach to protect a minority of children is the way forward. Ofcom’s research shows that almost 80% of parents of children aged five to 15 have rules in place about their children’s internet usage and almost half—that is 46%—have parental controls installed in the home. Clearly, we need targeted solutions for vulnerable children.
I now turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. In terms of an overarching comment, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the Bill was not 100% perfect, but it was a step in the right direction. I have noted that. The work that UKCCIS has been doing goes much further than the Bill. It takes a holistic approach to protecting children, working to implement parental controls at device level as well as at ISP level. It is working to educate children and parents and working with service providers, manufacturers and high street retailers such as Tesco, Argos and John Lewis.
I should like to address some of the issues from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who has done so much work on the subject of online violence, focusing on pornography and the importance of protecting the young. I was alarmed to hear her comments about BT and Starbucks, which we will certainly be following up to find out what can be done to resolve that.
The UKCCIS work on increasing the awareness and availability of parental controls has been focused on preventing access to all types of harmful content, not just pornography. It includes violence, drug misuse, cyber bullying, extremism and the promotion of criminal skills, suicide and eating disorders.
I realise that many questions have come out of this interesting debate. If I have not been able to answer any, particularly on age verification, I will certainly make it a point to reply to noble Lords.
Baroness Thornton
The Minister mentioned age verification, and he prayed in aid the totally inadequate self-regulatory proposals that have been proven not to work. They are not working and we have an increasing problem. Will the Minister confirm that both the Byron report and the Bailey report recommended the use of age verification to block adult content on the internet?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can give the briefest of answers in the time available on age verification. It is an important issue. However, I would make a distinction between age verification in terms of the gambling sites, which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned. My understanding is that with gambling sites there is a clear distinction at the age of 18. Material for the over-18s is pin-protected. Taking our view that parents would in effect be in control, parents would want to set a range of controls appropriate for their children, which may be different for a five year-old and a 15 year-old.
I started by thanking the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues today and I close by doing the same.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am sorry because I realise the Minister is trying to close his remarks. But I am trying to understand the answer that he has just given my noble friend. Is he in essence saying that the Government are disregarding the recommendations from those two reports because the age verification used for gambling sites kicks in only at 18? The point is that they are saying that age verification is an important mechanism. We have the evidence from the gambling sites that age verification is possible and can work. Why is it not possible to put the two things together and introduce age verification structures that may kick in at younger ages?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note the noble Lord’s comment but the issue of age verification is more complicated than at first it appears. We need more time to discuss this. The best thing for me to do is to get back to the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have raised this particular issue with some answers.
Technology changes rapidly and legislation does not. Industry is better placed than legislators to design the simple and effective tools that parents want, keeping pace with technology and the way that their children access the internet. But there is a role for government in setting an expectation, bringing the right people together and always pushing for more and better—
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
I am sorry to intervene again, but it is necessary. Everything that the Minister appears to be telling us is unsatisfactory. If it is not possible for legislators to set standards, how will a mishmash of providers across the entire community come up with anything that is consistent and reliable? Will he at least tell us that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can reassure the noble Lord that it is in their interests to bring themselves up to scratch in order to be able to produce online safety for children. I know that this will not be a satisfactory answer for him, but our view is that it is the responsibility of parents, ultimately, to take this forward.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, why does the Minister say that it is in the interests of online suppliers to do this? It costs them money, they are in a highly competitive market and I suspect that a large number of them make money on the basis that they know perfectly well what some of their users want to access online and they simply want to increase the number of users. Why is it in their interests to introduce this without some form of regulation in the background?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We are getting into quite a detailed discussion. My best response is that I look forward to discussing these issues in more depth in Committee.
In conclusion, the Government will continue to ensure that everyone is playing their part in keeping our children safe online.
Baroness Thornton
I am sorry, but before the noble Viscount sits down, I asked very specifically at least twice during my remarks whether the Government support the Bill in principle. The Minister has not answered that question. It is very important. It does not necessarily mean that the Minister wants the Bill, as it stands, to go forward, but the principle behind the Bill, that of protecting children from adult content online, seems obvious and I would really like to hear from the Government that that is the case. I do not wish to be rude to the Minister, but I wonder whether his speech was drafted in California or Whitehall.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not have to say whether I agree with the Bill or not. I am simply summing up and giving my considered views on the issues that have been raised today.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I have to admit that I am slightly bewildered. I very warmly thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and all noble Lords who have joined in the questioning to try to make clearer exactly what the Government’s position is. I was enormously pleased to receive a huge number of letters in support of this approach, including from colleagues who, sadly, could not be with us today. I am thinking particularly of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, but there were many others. The contributions from all around the House, from not only those who support the Bill but also those who had some queries about it, represented an amazing range of views and perspectives, all focusing on the vital need to keep children safe online. That is the Minister’s stated aim and the idea of an agreed line of 18—that certain areas should not be available to children under the age of 18—is a very important beginning.
We are seeking the best way of going forward, which includes, of course, an emphasis on parental education. It is important to remember that Clause 1 deals with pornography, Clause 2 with all adult content—that is important—and Clause 3 with education. The education side is vital too. I still find it rather peculiar—the Minister may be able to answer this at some stage, maybe, as he rightly says, in Committee—that the Government consulted on opting in if they are against that form of process.
I will return to details from the contributions that have been made. My noble friend Lord Swinfen made an excellent speech on why the opt-in system does not constitute censorship, while the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, highlighted the centrality of better education, a theme that very much came out in speeches by other noble Lords. The personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, of an opt-in system in a different way illustrated what a useful method this could be. I thank her and other noble Lords, including my colleagues on this Bench, for their contributions. I still hope that the Government will be able to explain their position, perhaps before Committee stage. It is such an important point.
Going back for a moment to the point about pornography, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich asked a very important question. The definition of a pornographic image was set out in the Act that I referred to. I gave the quote in order to follow through and define what “violent and degrading pornography” actually is. There is a better definition further on that can be referred to.
I am enormously grateful to the Children’s Society, which the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, mentioned in her excellent speech, and which has been a great help. It is so involved in this issue and knows more about it than any noble Lord or even the Government. Its experience is very much to the fore. I also pay tribute to CARE, which has been an enormous help in providing me and colleagues with all sorts of valuable information to move this whole issue on.
I hope we may come to a better understanding. I thank again all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, whatever their views, and end by asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Airports (Amendment) Bill [HL]
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, I raised this issue last March, in the previous Session, and we then discussed the issues surrounding regional access to hub airports. Since then, we have had the introduction of the Civil Aviation Bill, and there were further discussions when that Bill was before the House. Indeed, this week, the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, proposed an amendment to that Bill which sought to do something similar to what I am trying to do with my Bill.
The purpose is basically to ensure that the Government have power to intervene if necessary in the event that there was a failure to connect the regions of the United Kingdom to our principal hub airport at Heathrow. I do not believe in over-involvement of government in regulation or intervention if it is at all possible to steer away from it, but the reality is that there is an economic imperative for regions to have connectivity to the centre. It is a basic principle of regionalism which has operated in this country for many decades. It is a principle that is widely recognised in the European Union—we often talk of a Europe of the regions—and European regional development policy and UK regional development policy have all directed funds specifically to regions. That is to ensure meaningful economic activity in those areas.
People may say, “At present, most regions of the United Kingdom are fairly well connected”. That may or may not be true. For people in the south-west or other areas—we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, this week, that some air services from the north-east of Scotland had been cut back—it is constantly in our minds. The airline sector is one of the most volatile sectors before us today. Changes are taking place almost as we speak. In my region of Northern Ireland, we currently have good connections not only to Heathrow but the wider world. Generally speaking, we are currently content.
However, the connections are only as good as the airlines that provide them. It is perfectly obvious that there can be substantial swings from profits to loss, and then there can be takeovers. One of the providers of air services to Heathrow from Belfast is Aer Lingus. A few months ago, Etihad Airways bought 3% of it. It is now trying to buy the Irish Government’s 25% stake in that airline, and Mr O’Leary, of Ryanair fame, is trying to buy the airline as well. Does that send the message that there is a meaningful commitment to maintaining regional links to the hub airport at Heathrow, or do the airlines see greater profit in having access to the landing slots at Heathrow, which are where the money is? Frequently, the money is not in regional air traffic. The amount of regional air traffic, the number of passengers involved, is diminishing in the United Kingdom—largely because there is a move to rail. Rail is becoming ever more competitive and, in some areas, even Birmingham, the railways have effectively eliminated the airlines from the race.
Of course, in Northern Ireland, those options are not open to us. You cannot drive or take a train; the only meaningful connection is air. My principal objective is to protect our access to Heathrow.
The Government have frequently pointed out to me that this is not a matter for the UK alone; I fully understand that. They have pointed out that there is a significant European dimension; and I fully understand that. By coincidence, the European Union currently has a substantial document before the European Parliament. It is a regulation by the European Parliament and the Council on common rules for the allocation of slots at European Union airports and related matters. It is pure coincidence that this Bill and the activity in Europe are taking place at the same time.
However, that provides an opportunity. I have been to Brussels on a number of occasions this year and through a colleague in the European Parliament—Jim Nicholson MEP, formerly of the other place—a number of amendments were put down in the European Parliament’s transport committee. Those amendments were voted on earlier this week and the committee accepted a number of them. Those amendments will now go before the European Parliament next month. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of what those amendments included. One states:
“In addition it is important that access to hub airports from regional airports should be maintained where such routes are essential to the economy of that region”.
That is precisely the point that I want to make with this Bill. As the European Parliament’s transport committee has accepted the point, a legislative report will, in response, go before the European Parliament in December. If that report is accepted it will form the co-decision position of the European Parliament—as both the Commission and the Parliament will have to agree. It will then go to negotiation at the Council of Ministers. However, if the European Parliament as a whole accepts this amendment then the core point that I have been trying to make will be adopted.
On Tuesday a second amendment was also accepted which referred to the co-ordinator of airports, who we may be familiar with. This amendment added:
“This procedure shall be without prejudice to regional airports connectivity to hub airports. If such connectivity is undermined Member States shall be permitted to intervene”.
It is precisely because the UK Government have no power to intervene, as they would be in contradiction of European Union regulations, that we have been pursuing this matter in the European Parliament.
A second report—an own opinion report—came before the European Parliament earlier this year. The difference between a legislative report and an own opinion report is that the latter is a bit like a take-note debate in Parliament—it has no legislative edge to it, whereas the legislative report that will be going to the Parliament next month does. Nevertheless, it gives some flavour of the opinion that is there. The report was prepared by Philip Bradbourn MEP, who represents the Birmingham area. It was drawn up in April this year and, I believe, was passed by the European Parliament in May. The report,
“considers it essential for regional airports to have access to hubs”.
Again, that is exactly the point that I have been trying to make.
The Minister has correctly pointed out to me on a number of occasions that the only way to overcome the conflict between European law and what I am trying to do in this Bill is to bring the two sets of legislation together. By coincidence, the European Parliament and the European Commission are doing precisely that at the moment. I have been there a number of times and talked to members of the committee and to the cabinet of the relevant commissioner. They all understand the regional issues because many of them represent remote regions of the European Union and know what it is like to be isolated.
I also understand that there is a risk of conflict because if you intervene in the marketplace you can distort competition. At the end of the day, however, there are certain essential facts. One fact is that the state cannot be isolated or left powerless when an emergency arises. I hope that that will never happen but it is of fundamental importance for the state to ensure that its regions have adequate connectivity to the hub. It is a relatively simple point. I understand, of course, that the Minister cannot say that he supports this proposal, because the law has not changed. The question, however, is whether the Government will be prepared to support and argue for appropriate changes in Brussels when the proposals come to negotiation at the Council of Ministers, and whether they will accept that they currently do not have the powers but would like changes to take place. I would be interested to know if the Minister is able to say that to us.
The Irish Government will be holding the presidency of the European Council from January of next year and I expect that that is the point at which the negotiations will take place. I have made it my business to be in touch with them. I have spoken to a number of their MEPs and, I have to say, I have met with universal acceptance of the ideas that we are putting forward. They know what it is like to be in a remote region as they have remote regions in their own state. All that I am asking the Government to do at this stage is to indicate that they would support proposals for change in Brussels, provided that these would not lead to over-upsetting the normal commercial processes. It cannot be that you cannot upset them. Quite rightly, states and Governments throughout Europe reserve powers to interfere in the normal marketplace.
Regional policy is itself a distortion of the market. If you say that each region can be left to swing by its own tail and we will not intervene, businesses and industries might move from one region to another—and they do. But this country has maintained a regional policy since the Second World War. It has put a lot of resources into this policy, as has the European Union. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will at least indicate that, in the forthcoming negotiations in Brussels, they will undertake to encourage the European Union to make the changes that would allow them to have powers to intervene should the necessity arise. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I declare my interests again. First, I live in a more remote area than the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Secondly, I was formerly Minister of Aviation.
I regret and welcome this Bill. I regret it, because I think that it is wrong for this House to debate exactly the same Bill as it debated in March, a mere seven months ago, when it did not receive the support of either Front Bench. It would have been preferable if the noble Lord, Lord Empey, had put down a Starred Question or a Question for Short Debate rather than a Bill. I welcome it, because it gives us another opportunity to discuss what we discussed in March and the House will be pleased to know that I am not going to repeat what I said then.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that the raison d’être for this Bill is for the Government to have power to intervene. They have power to intervene now. They have the Public Service Obligations. My noble friend Lord Attlee spelt it out clearly in March this year. It is clear that the Government can operate, but they have to operate within the European law. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, then changed the emphasis and said that it was not really a regional hub that he wanted, but that he wanted to go to Heathrow. He wants to keep that link. If my noble friend Lord Attlee and the Government say that Northern Ireland can have a link to Heathrow, is my noble friend Lord Attlee going to reinstate the Inverness-Heathrow link, and the other 11 domestic links that have been lost to Heathrow over the last 22 years? That would be a huge interference in the market place. You cannot isolate Heathrow. You cannot isolate one airport. You have got to talk about a region. There is Heathrow. There is Gatwick. There is Stansted. There is Luton. All those airports have international flights.
That very conveniently takes me on to the hub. In Clause 1(2) the noble Lord, Lord Empey, wants to get access to hub airports. He and I are both lucky. He flies out of Belfast, and I fly out of Inverness. We can both fly to Amsterdam, and we can get just as good connections in Amsterdam, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said in March, as we can from the London airports. Indeed, in some instances it is cheaper to go to Amsterdam, so we cannot argue that we do not have access to hub airports.
Going further into the Bill, in subsection (3) the noble Lord wants to ensure “adequate services”. That is purely subjective, not the precise wording that one should be using in legislation. In the summer months, we have three services to Inverness from Gatwick; in the winter months, we have two. I do not call that an adequate service. If my noble friend Lord Attlee has to make the decision about what is an adequate service, is it three services—one in the morning, one at lunchtime and one in the evening—or one in the morning and one in the evening, as now? If I take the morning flight, I cannot come to your Lordships’ House. If I take the evening flight, I do not get home until after midnight. I do not think that is an adequate service, but if you were to ask Flybe to retain the lunchtime flight, it would put that company in jeopardy because there are not enough people taking that flight.
The real issue behind this Bill is the number of passengers who are flying. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, touched on this. Since 2007, there has been a 20% decline in UK domestic travel, not just to London airports. Does my noble friend have any comments on that when international passengers are down by 2% over the same period? Has there been an impact assessment on the effects of airport passenger duty? It has risen 160% from £5 per passenger per flight to £13 per passenger per flight. What impact has that had on tourism and on the regions? Is that a contributory factor to the decline in domestic air travel? Does my noble friend anticipate that domestic air travel will continue to decline? Does he think that airports and providers regulated by the CAA are making the right sort of return and that the CAA is therefore regulating them properly? London Gatwick, which is price-regulated, saw a 17% rise in profits in 2001-12. Is that acceptable to my noble friend? BAA saw a 15% rise in quarterly profits in the first quarter of 2012. NATS, which is a monopoly and CAA price-regulated, saw pre-tax profits rise by 119% in 2011-12. Those are costs that the airlines have to meet, and if the airlines had to meet lower costs, the price of tickets would go down, which might encourage more people to fly.
Does my noble friend Lord Attlee agree with the statement by the new owners of Gatwick that they have structured their increased charges to discriminate against smaller aircraft? Airport charges per passenger have risen from £9.72 in 2007 to £20.13 in 2012. That is a fairly crude estimate because it is a highly complicated mechanism, but there is an over 100% increase in passenger charges. Is it right that it should be on the passenger, or would my noble friend agree that it should be on the weight and size of the aircraft, which therefore does not discriminate against smaller aircraft?
These are the sort of issues that would resolve the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised. If we are going to keep open the domestic links to London—it does not have to be to London but if that is what the noble Lord wants—we need to get more people flying and to do that we need to be able to reduce the cost. Can my noble friend therefore comment on the questions I have raised?
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I was among those who declared their full support for this Bill when my noble friend Lord Empey brought it before us towards the end of the last Session. The Bill continues to deserve the fullest support.
My noble friend has shown tenacity and great skill in seeking to secure acceptance of the proposals embodied in his Bill. He has made the case for them in effective and convincing terms, both here and in the institutions of the European Union. It is, as he has explained again today, the EU which holds the principal key to progress. Without the revision of existing EU law it will be impossible for our Government, well disposed though they are to my noble friend’s proposals, to acquire the power they would need to give effect to them and so protect fully vital air services between Heathrow, our one major national hub, and all the regions if at any point the Government’s intervention should be required to prevent regional air services losing crucial landing slots at Heathrow.
Our discussions on this Bill have brought out its particular importance to Northern Ireland where satisfactory alternatives to air services simply do not exist in today’s fast-moving world. Ulster’s economic future depends on very substantial private sector growth and the concomitant reduction in the size of the very large public sector. If enterprising businessmen and women are to bring about that growth and the new jobs that will accompany it, they must be able to travel swiftly between the Province and our national hub at Heathrow as need arises. Those of us to whom the affairs of Ulster are especially important are bound to feel that point acutely. However, as my noble friend has emphasised, this is not a Bill for one particular region: it is a Bill for all regions and all parts of our country because it would confer on the Government, and through them the Civil Aviation Authority, the power to safeguard their slots at Heathrow if threats to them should arise.
Nothing is more important in our economic life today than preventing the emergence of impediments to the progress of the Government’s growth strategy. One such impediment would be the diminution or disruption of air services between the regions and Heathrow. This Bill would provide the means to deal with any such threat to our overall economic well-being and ensure that the regions retain adequate connections to Heathrow.
Incidentally, “connection” is clear, long established and well known, so why has the new, unnecessary and unattractive “connectivity” been inflicted on us in recent years? Can we not abandon it? I am sure the grandfather of my noble friend the Minister who loved short, sharp words would have disliked it profoundly. More seriously, as my noble friend has made clear, there is increasing recognition within the European Union that its existing law which constrains our Government so severely ought to be reconsidered. As he has said, this Bill coincides most fortunately with the review of EU slot regulations. It is extremely encouraging that the European Parliament has recently adopted a report on the future of regional airports and services, to which my noble friend Lord Empey alluded, produced by the Conservative MEP, Phil Bradbourn, with whom I worked some 20 years ago in a truly august body, the Conservative Political Centre where new policy ideas are brought forward for the benefit of the Tory party. He has backed an admirable policy idea in his report. It strikes exactly the right note in stating that it is,
“essential for regional airports to have access to hubs”.
Within the past few days, the issue has again come into prominence, as my noble friend Lord Empey has pointed out, with the adoption of two amendments to a Commission document moved by Jim Nicholson, a dedicated and long-standing Conservative and Unionist MEP from Northern Ireland. It is worth repeating the second, which declares that,
“it is important that access to hub airports from regional airports should be maintained where such routes are essential to the economy of that region”.
These welcome developments indicate that serious interest in change is growing within the European Union. In replying to this debate, my noble friend will no doubt tell the House what the Government are doing to encourage and foster the re-examination of existing European law by the Commission as the European Parliament continues to consider the issues. Every effort should be made to secure the revision of European law in order to create the circumstances in which the provisions of this important Bill, on which my noble friend Lord Empey has worked so hard, could be put successfully into effect. The Airports (Amendment) Bill should be given all possible support.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I apologise for not putting my name down. I did not think that I could be here. I find this a very interesting Bill, not least because it focuses on the issues of hub and spoke. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggested, there is more than one hub in the UK. He listed Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and Heathrow, but I suggest that Birmingham is an equally important hub of the future. It certainly seems to have intentions to become one. Once the sale of Stansted by BAA is complete, we will have five different airports in five different ownerships.
It seems to me that the objective of this—if there is an objective from the Government—is for the Government to do nothing about it and let the market decide, which is a good idea. Certainly, we have seen press comments that several of these airports are looking to be a so-called hub in their own right. I believe that there is a problem of suggesting that the only hub in this country is Heathrow. I think that the Government might get into trouble if they start designating slots in Heathrow but not in some other airports.
That moves me on to the designation of slots. I wonder whether that is right to do unless there is market failure. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, recently gave me a Written Answer in connection with transport to the Isle of Scilly, which is the other end of the spectrum from Northern Ireland. It has rather less population but is a similar distance from the mainland and I would suggest that it has an even worse transport system. For me, surely a market failure means no or too few services, high prices, probably a monopoly supplier and not servicing the population as they would expect—although perhaps they expect too much. If there is a market failure, there needs to be an argument for saying that the subsidy is necessary to keep a service going, which certainly in Scotland is called a lifeline service.
I am aware that there are quite a few offshore islands and regions in the European Union where lifeline services are provided, which I think are all subsidised. Certainly, some of them are subsidised in Scotland. Mostly they are ferries but a few air services are subsidised. They are allowed under EU law on the basis that the subsidising authority goes out to tender in the usual way.
However, I question whether Northern Ireland is an offshore island in the same definition as some of the Scottish islands or the Isles of Scilly. If there was a subsidised service to Northern Ireland to a hub, which hub would it go to? If I was running an airport in one of the five airports around the south-east and the subsidised service went to another one, I would probably reach for the Competition Commission and ask whether it was fair. It is a case that would have to be made. There are quite serious problems about allocating slots at a particular airport for these services without it being a subsidised service and going through the whole process of justification for it, and whether there is any other way. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister says when he responds.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on his persistence with regard to this issue, the skill with which he has mobilised degrees of support for it and the work that he has done in Europe. He is absolutely right that one of the crucial constraining forces regarding the development of aviation is clearly the European powers. We all recognise that aviation has to have a European dimension as well as the issue of world-wide connections.
The debate has focused to an extent on slots. Let us be clear about slots. Whatever happens to slots in terms of their role in the market and developments in aviation—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, emphasised how rapidly aviation develops and other noble Lords also made that point—we are dealing with a rapidly changing environment. That is why we should be greatly concerned that critical decisions about aviation are being postponed until the report of Sir Howard Davies after the next general election. We have already built in a three-year delay to the report. Certainly, after the report has been considered and then debated and then action is taken, in crucial areas of aviation policy we will have had a built-in delay of several years. That is bound to cost us dear.
It is a fact that slots do not increase airport capacity. We can re-jig the usage of slots. I was going to say re-jig the ownership of slots. The interesting thing about slots is the concept of ownership. It is clear that one aspect of ownership revolves around national governments, who can intervene on the issue of the public service obligation—an interventional power already existing with the Secretary of State. It is also the case that airports own the runways and the landing stages that accommodate passengers getting onto and off aircraft. Therefore, that airlines own the slots is an interesting concept. They certainly go in for a limited amount of trading and it is their actions, through mergers and so on, that give rise to very great anxieties when it is thought that the slots that they obtain through mergers may be allocated to other traffic.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly identified a concern with regard to Northern Ireland but, as we heard earlier this week during proceedings on the Bill, other parts of the United Kingdom are also concerned. The concern is that services will be reduced and not increased by competition—it is difficult to see what other forms of transport are going to increase competition in Northern Ireland—as the slots controlled by the airlines may be used for more financially remunerative packages. A slot that is transferred from the region to international traffic may significantly improve the financial advantage to the airline. That is why these issues are so significant.
The Minister has had a demanding week so I will not pile too much on him on a Friday afternoon but this debate has raised acute issues with regard to aviation serving the regions. However, it is difficult to talk about Northern Ireland and its aviation needs without adding that other regions have comparable anxieties about slots. Other regions also have very real concerns about economic development. I emphasise the fact that the regions were considerably distressed by the loss of the regional development agencies which gave them some hope of attracting employers and developing employment. We all realise that in a recession the regions of the United Kingdom need help.
Northern Ireland is a very specific case as regards aviation although I accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that in terms of distance and the availability of alternative forms of transport the north of Scotland also comes within this frame. What, therefore, do the Government need to do? They must address this issue urgently, not least because the amount of activity that is going on in Europe at present requires the Government to take a stance on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, identified, if the European Parliament and the Commission reach a position on this issue, what happens at the Council of Ministers becomes critical. The United Kingdom is an important member of the Council of Ministers so we would expect the Minister responding today to give an indication of commitment as regards the policy to be adopted.
We all recognise that aspects of the free market with regard to air travel have produced considerable benefits. We all recognise the expansion of air travel that has occurred, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. However, we are also aware of market failure and the necessity for the Government on occasion to act intelligently and perceptively for the good of the people. That is exactly the case which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has identified in his Bill. I hope the Minister will appreciate that in this critical area we are getting past the stage of easily postponing decisions. Time marches on and the threat to the regions from the loss of effective links with Heathrow is mounting. Therefore, the Government need to be clear about how they are going to address this issue. If they do not accept the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I guess that he is not totally optimistic of full endorsement from the government Front Bench at this stage—they ought at least to give some clear answers to the very real issues that have been raised in this debate. The Minister will have winced at those issues at times because he recognises that even on his own Benches there are conflicting views on what needs to be done. Therefore, let us have some clarity in his response.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, first, I offer sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on securing a Second Reading for his Airports (Amendment) Bill, even though I am experiencing a little sense of déjà vu.
The Bill’s aims are commendable in seeking to introduce powers that would allow the Secretary of State for Transport to ring-fence take-off and landing slots at congested London airports to ensure the future protection of regional air services—in particular, to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I fully understand the noble Lord’s point about the special case of Northern Ireland, where there are not alternative means of businesses easily getting to a hub airport. In the case of Scotland we will, in future, look forward to better rail connectivity, which will make a huge difference.
We recognise that airports in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the English regions make a vital contribution to local economies and that regional connectivity is very important. I also acknowledge the noble Lord’s concern, expressed so well at Second Reading, that the provision of commercial air services is subject to market forces. Ultimately, airlines operate in a competitive, commercial environment and it is for them to determine the routes that they operate. I will say a little more on that later.
It remains possible, therefore, that airlines currently operating services from Northern Ireland and Scotland to Heathrow could, in future, decide to reduce or withdraw them and use the relevant Heathrow slots for alternative services. It has been suggested that some form of intervention is necessary to protect these essential services from commercial market pressures. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was careful to use the words “in the event of” problems. He did not say that we necessarily have problems now but he is, as I understand it, worried about the future and future-proofing our processes.
At the moment, Northern Ireland and Scotland remain well connected to London by air. In 2011, there were more than 18,000 flights between the two Belfast airports and the five main London airports, around a third of these being between Belfast and Heathrow. I fully understand the importance of hub connectivity. These routes are well used, with nearly 2 million passenger journeys in 2011 between Belfast and London, of which more than 700,000 were between Belfast and Heathrow. Scotland is also well connected with more than 65,000 flights in 2011 between Scottish airports and the five main London airports, carrying over 6 million passengers. Of these, 26,000, which is 39%, were to or from Heathrow, carrying 2.7 million passengers. Many noble Lords will recall our debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, to the Civil Aviation Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, contributed.
In the light of these high traffic levels, we do not believe that connectivity between London and airports in Northern Ireland and Scotland is under threat. The existing air services to Northern Ireland and Scotland act as important hub feeder services, which are necessary to support long-haul services from Heathrow. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, correctly states, world slot guidelines are determined by the International Air Transport Association and are reflected in the European regulations which govern the allocation, transfer and exchange of slots at Heathrow and other slot-co-ordinated airports in the UK. In the UK these are managed by Airport Coordination Ltd. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, touched on the issue of ownership of slots. As I understand it, the allocation of slots is based largely on historical and continuing usage.
My noble friend Lord Caithness touched on PSOs. If air services to Northern Ireland and Scotland were to become economically unviable, EU law already provides some scope to protect regional air services by allowing member states to establish a public service obligation—a PSO—to protect their services to airports serving a peripheral or development region or on low traffic routes considered vital for a region’s economic and social development. It would be open to the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport to establish a PSO on an air route should they feel that a business and legal case could be made that satisfied the EU regulation. If approved, this would permit ring-fencing of slots at a relevant London airport. There is no other mechanism for the Government to intervene in the allocation of slots at UK airports.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, touched on the Isles of Scilly and Scotland. The same principle of public service obligations, and the restrictions on them, applies to maritime services as for air services.
Noble Lords will therefore appreciate that under European law the potential for ring-fencing slots at Heathrow to protect regional services is to be dealt with by reference to the PSO rules alone, and creating a parallel, more wide-ranging set of rules would be incompatible with EU law. The principal effect of the Bill is therefore contrary to EU regulation because it would override the strict criteria and process by which European Governments could intervene in route operations.
As indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum submitted to Parliament on the European Commission’s Better Airports package, in the context of the proposed recast of the EU slot regulations, the UK Government have highlighted the issue of regional connectivity with the European Commission and the ongoing provision of air services between congested London airports and Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, it has proved challenging to devise a mechanism to protect well trafficked, commercially viable air routes without distorting the aviation market and competition across Europe.
I am aware that the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee has been considering amendments to the recast EU slot regulation that are aimed at protecting the access of regional air services to congested EU hub airports. However, we would be concerned about any amendments that were too general in nature and which had the potential to seriously impair and distort the slot allocation system, and the secondary trading of slots, to the detriment of consumers. In particular, in the UK, the secondary trading of slots helps to ensure that they are generally put to the use which is most effective from the consumer perspective—in other words, the problem of interfering with normal commercial processes, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We will give careful consideration to the conclusions reached and the amendments proposed by the Transport and Tourism Committee following the publication of its formal report on the slot-regulation process. I repeat my praise for the effective efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, not just in this House but in the way that he conducts his operations in Brussels. He certainly shows the way ahead.
I am pleased to say that there has been some progress on this issue. Noble Lords will recall that the sale of BMI to International Airlines Group earlier this year prompted concerns about the future of the air services operated by BMI from London to Northern Ireland, and about competition issues on routes to Scotland, where BMI operated in competition with BA. Competition issues arising from the sale were subject to investigation by the European Commission competition authority, which has jurisdiction to consider whether airline acquisitions and mergers may lead to a substantial impediment to effective competition in a substantial part of the EU. That authority concluded its investigations and granted regulatory approval on 30 March for International Airlines Group’s purchase of BMI from Lufthansa. The authority’s approval was conditional upon IAG releasing 14 daily slot pairs at London Heathrow, of which at least seven pairs must be used by other airlines for services to Edinburgh and/or Aberdeen. The European Commission is in the process of considering the bids that it has received for these slots. IAG completed the acquisition of BMI in April 2012, since which time BA has begun the process of integrating BMI schedules into its own.
In terms of BMI’s regional air services to Northern Ireland and Scotland, BA has continued to operate BMI’s existing services to Belfast, and the slots released for use on services to Aberdeen and Edinburgh will serve to maintain competition with BA on those routes. This provides reassurance that the air services to Northern Ireland and Scotland are both commercially viable and commercially attractive to airlines, and it reinforces our view that connectivity between Northern Ireland and Scotland and London airports is not under threat.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about wider aviation policy issues—I would have done exactly the same thing. More generally, perhaps I may remind the House that a key part of the Government’s approach to aviation is to seek to create the right conditions for UK airports to flourish, including those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have committed to producing a sustainable framework for UK aviation which supports economic growth and addresses aviation’s environmental impacts. We consulted over the summer on a new aviation policy framework which will set out our overall aviation strategy. The consultation closed at the end of October and around 500 responses were received. We intend to publish our policy framework next March.
We believe that maintaining the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub is fundamental to our long-term international competitiveness. However, we are also mindful of the need to take full account of the social, environmental and other impacts of any expansions in airport capacity. We have therefore decided to establish an independent airports commission to gather evidence and provide analysis of the options. We are delighted that Sir Howard Davies has agreed to chair the commission. He brings a wealth of business and financial expertise that will be of great value to the commission’s work. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked me about the timing. The commission needs to be able to take time to give appropriate consideration to all the options for maintaining UK connectivity; a rushed decision which cuts corners and does not consider all the relevant factors will not achieve the desired end state. The airports commission will provide an interim report to the Government no later than the end of 2013 and will then publish a final report by the summer of 2015 for consideration by the Government and opposition parties. Details of the commission’s membership and its terms of reference were announced on 2 November.
My noble friend Lord Caithness slightly chided the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for running this debate yet again. I am at the disposal of your Lordships and I am happy to debate whatever noble Lords would like. My noble friend talked about the possibility of access from regional airports to continental hubs. That is a very important point and I shall come to it in a minute.
My noble friend also touched on the definition of an “adequate service”. He talked about the dangers of interfering in what are properly commercial matters for airlines. I agree with my noble friend. He also pointed out that there has been a decline in domestic air travel since 2007. As a result of the economic downturn there has indeed been a reduction in air traffic and services across the board. Ultimately, it is a matter for airlines to determine the services that they operate and from which airport, based on their own assessment of air routes viability.
My noble friend asked about airport charges. He will know that the CAA does not have legal powers to ensure that an airport’s charging structure supports wider goals such as regional policy. The CAA currently sets price caps at regulated airports and sets the maximum price per passenger that an airport operator can charge. Moreover, the structure of an airport’s charges within the regulated cap is a matter for the airport operator and its stakeholders.
My noble friend suggested the possibility of excess profits. The danger for an airport such as Gatwick is in airlines flying from a regional airport direct to a continental hub, as my noble friend pointed out earlier. However, since Gatwick was taken over, I have been very impressed with the way that that airport has operated, and I suspect that many other noble Lords share the same experience.
My noble friend touched on APD and the impact assessment, and it is probably better if I write to him about that. He also asked whether charges for commercial aircraft should be based on the numbers of passengers carried or the aircraft weight. The CAA currently sets price caps at regulated airports and sets a maximum price per passenger that airport operators can charge. As I said before, the charges within that are a matter for the airport.
My noble friend asked whether there were any other mechanisms to protect access. Any mechanisms to protect regional air services at congested hub airports would have to comply with the overarching European legislation. Also, we do not believe that traffic distribution rules are of assistance, because in practice they may be used to restrict only certain forms of traffic. They cannot be used to compel airlines to operate particular services.
If I have missed any other important points or have anything significant to add, I will of course write in the usual way. While I understand the laudable motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in proposing his Bill, I must conclude that, on the basis that the Bill would ultimately be incompatible with current EU law, the Government will not be able to support the Bill into legislation.
Lord Empey
I am grateful to the noble Earl and to other noble Lords who contributed to the debate. His final remark is of no surprise to me, but of course my principal point is that I am trying to remove those obstacles. I welcome the fact that he said that he would look carefully at the activities in the European Parliament. I cannot expect him to do more at this stage.
The noble Earl pointed out the wishes and interests of consumers. Consumers are important. I have here a document from the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, which urges support for my colleague Mr Nicholson's amendments in the European Parliament. Indeed, it circulated a list supporting those amendments, which were subsequently accepted. The Consumer Council has been a stalwart in support of our proposals throughout this entire process. Indeed, the Minister in Northern Ireland, the regional development committee in Stormont, the CBI, IOD and other organisations have all given their support.
As the Minister said, it is not because there is any immediate threat. I do not detect an immediate threat. But that is not always the point of legislation. The point is to anticipate something that may or may not happen. Because of the coincidence with the activities in the European Parliament, the logical time to make changes seemed to be now, when the issues are running in parallel. If we let this opportunity pass and in a year or two something happens in the airline sector that we have not anticipated—and in view of the volatile nature of that sector who can tell what is around the corner—we would be left completely flat-footed in this country, with no power to intervene.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a point about the PSO obligation existing in law. That is correct. It is Regulation 95/93, which allows a Government to consider an application for a PSO. If there is inadequate connectivity or connections between regions, a PSO could be funded. That is not the point. The Bradbourn report calls for Regulation 95/93 to be amended because, under that regulation, an airport cannot be specified, only a region.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the reality is that there is one major hub airport in the United Kingdom, whether we like it or not. Other airports are aspiring to be hubs and to improve their international connections, and that is entirely understandable, but in reality, looking at it from a business point of view, trying to sell the advantages of a region around the world, business people are simply not going to go round in circles when they get to a country. As things stand in this country, Heathrow is the only significant hub airport, but it is full. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, the whole driver of the current argument about air capacity in the south-east is that Heathrow is full. Many of our European partners do not suffer from that problem. They have an easy solution; they can add a slot or two, use up some spare capacity and overcome the regional disconnect in that way. We are not so lucky in this country. So, while things may change in the future, it is currently a one-horse town as far as connectivity is concerned.
I hope that this will progress. I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for his unswerving and stalwart support, particularly of Northern Ireland’s interests in this House. I very much appreciate it, but this is not a regional, Northern Ireland Bill, it is a national Bill aimed at all regions. I ask the Minister, we talked about flights to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness and Aberdeen; what would happen if they became international flights attracting grossly inflated APD levies? I wonder whether some of those advocating independence have thought that through. International flights, of course, attract a huge increase in duty; those who are advocating independence need to think very carefully about what they are suggesting, because that is the implication on air services if one travels on an international flight. A lot of these questions have not been thought through by those who seek independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, tried in vain to winkle out of the Minister some response on the broader aviation issues. I am sure he will keep trying; whether he succeeds or not is entirely another matter. Stonewall Jackson would have been proud of the noble Earl’s performance today. I thank noble Lords for remaining at this late stage on a Friday. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.