Immigration Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

I am asking the hon. Lady for her view.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Hemming, sit down. This is not a personal discussion between you and Pamela Nash of the points you might want to make later. May we have a bit of order? Pamela Nash, you have the Floor. If you give way to John Hemming, could you indicate accordingly, so that I can call him?

[Pamela Nash]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not let anyone intervene again.

I strongly believe in an NHS free at the point of need. Arrangements are in place for people to pay, when that is required, but we have had no clarity about how the provisions will be policed or expanded. I agree that we need an immigration policy that protects our constituents from increasing global financial pressures, but we do not want them coming up against unintended consequences as a result of measures in the Bill, on which there has been a lack of consultation. I worry about the risk to public and private health. Moreover, this debate has thrown up areas of contention in the referendum debate and problems with having different arrangements in Scotland and England. If the Bill removes long-held reciprocal agreements with countries that we are friends with and to which our constituents wish to travel, I would be very concerned. Finally, I am concerned that the Bill will cost constituents more than it benefits them.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The difficulty with answering that question is that, technically, everyone who is a foreign or Commonwealth member of the armed forces could potentially, depending on their circumstances, be eligible. The problem is that the provision will make a difference only if five years before the point at which someone makes an application for naturalisation they were not in the UK because of their service. It would be impossible to go through everyone’s record of service and do that calculation, because we do not know how many will apply for naturalisation or how many would have been delayed in seeking naturalisation because of where they were five years before making the application.

We think that the number who will not have to suffer a delay is in the order of 100 to 200, and that is based on the fact that most foreign and Commonwealth personnel do not have this problem. Veterans Aid talked of “many cases”, but that is tens and hundreds, rather than thousands. It also said that the Bill would help “quite a few” of their clients, and our estimate of 100 to 200 is based on our knowledge of the process and on talking to those service charities that talk to people who have fallen foul of the existing provision. It is our combined intelligence that enables us to say that it is around 100 or 200. That is the kind of number that we are thinking about. Those who are concerned about the numbers need not worry that the Bill will extend to thousands of people. A relatively small number of people will be affected, but it is important to make the change for the benefit of those people who have served their country. In the last decade, many of those people have served not only in the armed forces generally, but in an active operational theatre, so it is important that the House makes sure that they are not disadvantaged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch also wanted some clarification of the MOD’s general position on the number of foreign and Commonwealth service personnel. This is largely an issue for the Army, rather than the other two branches. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North also referred to the numbers. In a written statement on 11 July—relatively recently—made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the MOD said that it would now be enforcing the five-year UK residence requirement when recruiting Commonwealth personnel. The residency rules already exist for Commonwealth recruits to the regular armed forces, but since 1998 they have been waived. My right hon. Friend informed the House that from 11 July those residency rules will be more strictly enforced, which means that applicants to the armed forces will have to demonstrate that they have lived in the UK for five years lawfully—with leave to remain. That requirement will not affect Gurkhas, because they are recruited only in Nepal under separate arrangements agreed with their Government. If my hon. Friend wants more detail, he can look at the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Without wishing to be too slopey-shouldered about it, if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has detailed questions about the attitude of the Ministry of Defence and recruitment processes and so on, to which I think he alluded, I suggest he speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I do not think that the Home Office wants to start trespassing on those requirements, although it is worth putting it on the record that as a result of the work we have done on the covenant, officials and Ministers in my Department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have worked very closely to ensure that the system does not disadvantage anyone. I know that that has been welcomed by members of service charities, who have seen an improvement in how we deal with service personnel, their families and former personnel when they go through immigration and naturalisation stages.

This is probably a good time, as I move towards the end of my remarks, to say that the Home Office takes its responsibilities under the armed forces covenant very seriously. In addition to this proposed legislative measure, we have made good progress against a number of our other commitments. We introduced a new process earlier this year, where service leavers could obtain settlement on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I would just say to the Minister that of course the covenant provides important context, but only where it is relevant to the Bill. I hope he is not now going to go into a rather lengthy set of comments about other items in the covenant. I hope he will stick to the Bill, because time is ticking on.

[Mr Harper]

I am conscious of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not have a lengthy list. It is a short list and the reason for raising it is that it is relevant to the Bill. For example, we have made provision whereby service leavers can obtain settlement on the day of discharge. Of course, settlement for some is the precursor to seeking naturalisation. That is important, because there is not then a gap. Several hon. Members referred to making sure that there is no gap, so that personnel have settled status and no problem in seeking support from the Government or elsewhere.

I will not, Madam Deputy Speaker, test your patience by reading out the list, but I would like to draw to the attention of the House the new set of armed forces rules that will come into force in December. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I laid out the details in a written ministerial statement on 4 July, to which I draw the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the subject. The new rules will address a number of areas that have been problematic in the past, and I hope that that is helpful.

I will not refer to every paper in my sheaf, but I want to refer to a couple of important questions that came up in the debate. We take the criminality or good character provisions seriously, but we have made a change, which was referred to by at least one Member. Any offences that are offences in service law but not in normal criminal law will no longer be treated in a way that is not subject to judgment. There were a number of cases where it was felt that service personnel who had had a conviction under military law that would not have had the same level of seriousness in civilian criminal law had suffered, and that we had had no ability to judge their case in the round, based on their service. We do, of course, expect the highest standards from our armed forces and apply the same standards as those for civilians. Non-criminal convictions or disciplinary offences are considered when good character is considered, but there is no automatic factor in ruling out somebody. A number of hon. Members referred to that issue, so I thought it was right to deal with it.

A couple of Members referred to what was encapsulated by the definition of “the armed forces”. The definition is the same as that used in the Armed Forces Act and, for the avoidance of doubt, applies to those who serve in our reserve forces, to which several Members have referred.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge gave a wide-ranging speech, in which she referred to some of the service charities and the points they have made about the service they received from what was the UK Border Agency. It is worth putting it on the record that the splitting of the UK Border Agency and the creation of UK Visas and Immigration, which is the relevant part of the Home Office that deals with naturalisation applications, means that we are focused on delivering better customer service. Some of the changes we announced in the written statement mean that we will be better able to look at applications from the armed forces, which will be made on a special, separate application form, to ensure that we can deliver a settlement on the day of discharge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am rather surprised to see the hon. Gentleman standing. He has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate and he did not seek to speak before the Minister gave his response—in detail and at length—to the questions that were raised. As a member of the Panel of Chairs, the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the courtesies of the House, so I am sure he will agree with me that we should now give the concluding remarks to the Member who moved the Second Reading motion on this private Member’s Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) would not want to show any discourtesy to the House, would he?

[Mr Chope]

If you are inviting me to comment on what you just said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am not inviting you, Mr Chope. My question was rhetorical in its nature. I am nudging you gently, as a member of the Panel, to agree with me that the courtesies of the House should stand.

[Mr Chope]

I did speak to you in your position in the Chair to indicate that I would seek to catch your eye in order to make a short contribution after the Minister had spoken. If you had said to me at that stage that you would not call me at this point, I would have sought to make my contribution earlier. I was here at the very beginning of the debate, and I have made a lot of interventions. I have been here for almost all of the Minister’s response. It is a matter for your discretion whether you call me to make a short contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave that with you. I put it on record that I would not wish any discourtesy to the House, even if I were not a member of the Panel of Chairs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Indeed, and I am sure that you would not wish any discourtesy to me as the occupant of the Chair by assuming that your notification that you intended to follow an unusual procedure would result in my consenting to that, because it does not. We all know the rules, don’t we Mr Chope? This is the last day, however, and if you will make only a very few comments—I shall be timing you, Mr Chope, and shall not hesitate to intervene—you may have a few minutes to make your contribution before I call Mr Lord. But this will be the one and only time that you will be able to do this.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It was a private conversation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Surprisingly enough, there are no private conversations in the Chamber; Members are supposed to have them outside. That is not a point of order for me, in the sense that I saw no indication—and have heard no indication—of the Government’s attitude to the amendments, unless the Justice Secretary wants to correct me, although he is not obliged to.

[Chris Grayling]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful to the House to say—as I was intending to in my winding-up speech, but this will stop everybody making the point all the way through the debate—that we will accept the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

[Sir Alan Beith]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I claim a reward for getting my amendment accepted before I have actually moved it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sir Alan, you were just fractionally ahead of me. I seem to recollect that Mr Speaker said that the amendments would be formally moved at the end of the debate. Perhaps this is an indication that we should have the Government opening and closing a debate before we actually have that debate, so that we know where we stand. Mr Bryant, thank you very much for your point of order—

[Chris Bryant]

That’s all right—it was a good one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For a change, but perhaps we could return to Bill Cash.

[Mr Cash]

I really have no more to add, because this has been a highly satisfactory, if slightly informal, way of proceeding. I am extremely glad that the Justice Secretary has said that the Government will accept amendment (b), because it demonstrates that, even in the inquisitorial system that we have, accountability and good sense can run together.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I do not think the Prime Minister would have used the words he did unless he was being very careful, and he certainly would have retracted them after he became Prime Minister had he received more information indicating a problem.

We shall leave that to one side, however, as it is not the subject of the order. I am sure the Prime Minister and everyone else is fully behind the proscription of these two organisations. I was disappointed with the Minister’s response to my intervention. He is an accomplished performer at the Dispatch Box and before the Home Affairs Committee—we will be calling him again for our inquiry into international terrorism and crime—but he did not give us any answers today or take us any further on from what he told us on 4 July 2012. That was the last time such an order was put through the House.

The hon. Member for Newark—I was about to call him the Minister for Newark; of course, he ought to have been security Minister at some stage, given his knowledge of the subject, but there is still time, with two years to go—the shadow Minister and I are not suggesting it in this case, but when we proscribe, we ought to put in place a time limit for reviewing the order, not because we would want to de-proscribe as soon as we proscribe, but because it would be right to keep reviewing these organisations, just in case they turn out to be shell organisations. I have mentioned the Tamil Tigers on the two most recent occasions that we have discussed this, although the Minister was not here last time—the Immigration Minister stood in for him. The Tamil Tigers have ceased to exist—everyone in the organisation has ceased to exist—yet they are still proscribed in the United Kingdom.

The Minister invites us to make an application for de-proscription for which there is no timetable. That means, I am afraid, that the matter ends up not in this House, which is responsible for proscription, but in the courts, where organisations are able to spend a lot of money. I think of the People’s Mujahedeen. Like me, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were in the House when that happened, on the Government Benches. A Minister came before the House and said, “We are de-proscribing the People’s Mujahedeen, because they’ve gone to court and won their judicial review.” I do not want these two organisations to do the same thing, which was why I said that the Minister’s answers were unsatisfactory.

The Minister told us one year ago, on 4 July 2012, that there would be a response “in due course”. I have discovered that that is one of the Minister’s favourite sayings—I am going to look in Hansard at how many times he says it; but he was a distinguished lawyer before he came to the House, and “in due course” is something that lawyers tend to say in their arguments. On 22 November 2012, however, the Immigration Minister, who is not a lawyer, used the word “shortly” in the House. “Shortly” clearly means “not next week”, because the response came in March this year.

Indeed, the word “response” also needs to be looked at, because although the Minister said that there had been a response—you were not in the Chair at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not draw you into this debate—the Government’s response was to say that the report by the independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson, QC, had been “noted”. That is a very odd response from the Government. We are used to them saying, “A Select Committee”—or an independent reviewer—“has made a recommendation, and this is what we think about the subject.” This poor chap went through the preparation of that entire report and then waited a whole year to be told that it had been “noted”. Now we hear from the Minister, in his response to me, that he is going to respond—[Interruption.] I am afraid I have forgotten what he said—it was not “in due course” or “shortly”—and I do not have access to Hansard, so when he winds up, perhaps he can remind me what he said he would do.

When we proscribe, we need to be careful that we do not get organisations that can then de-proscribe. There is no point having someone as distinguished as David Anderson, QC, producing reports—poring over all the detail and providing expertise to the Government—and then the Government not responding. All I say to the Minister is this. He has told us that officials are looking into the matter. Well, hooray for officials—distinguished officials, I am sure. He has told us that they are “actively” considering the matter. What does that mean? Since I last raised the matter in the House on 4 July 2012, have officials “inactively” considered it? We have had activity and officials; what we now have are Ministers—good Ministers, such as the security Minister. He is on top of the brief—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been going round this point for nearly five minutes now. Will he please clearly make his point? Then perhaps we can hear what the Minister has to say for himself.

[Keith Vaz]

I will certainly draw my remarks to a close. I am trying to get the message across, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, you’ve done that.

[Keith Vaz]

I am delighted that I have got the message across to you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I hope I have got the message across to the Minister, too. We look forward to hearing his response.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been well informed and well focused on the tasks at hand and the specifics of the order before the House.

Let me comment at the outset on the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the appalling murder in Woolwich of Drummer Lee Rigby. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in saying that all our thoughts and prayers are with the family in their preparation for Drummer Rigby’s funeral in just a few days’ time. Can I also echo—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Will the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) move away from the Front Bench? Only the Minister is supposed to be standing there, no other Member.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I inform Members that eight Members in the Chamber have indicated that they want to speak. May I ask each speaker to take no more than 10 minutes, which includes interventions, because that will share out the time between those still wishing to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who gave us some very interesting information about forced marriage that I was not fully aware of, so I thank him for that. I realise that we are a bit short of time, but I am grateful for a few short minutes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I would not like the hon. Lady to feel that she has to curtail her comments. She has approximately 10 minutes in which to make her speech, as did everyone else.

Home Affairs

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that intervention, I remind the House that the Chairman of Ways and Means has indicated that if each speaker contributed 12 or 13 minutes to the debate, that would allow all Members to get in without imposing a time limit. We are getting close to needing a time limit, so perhaps those who have already spoken could exercise some self-restraint in not intervening, which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks.

[Mr Llwyd]

I accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have probably saved me from having to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

As I do not have time to deal with that particular query, let me say that the dangerous dogs Bill is welcome, but that we must scrutinise it very carefully. Other measures in the Queen’s Speech are clearly welcome, too, but as always, the devil is in the detail.

I looked at The Independent earlier today, and saw that its front-page banner headline was “Coalition adrift as key policies go missing from Queen’s Speech”. That might be the reason for its being a bit thin, but there are measures that we can all build on, improve and take forward. I hope, however, that the toxic debate about immigration will not dominate wider debate of the Queen’s Speech. I conclude on that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for admonishing me in time.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am changing the time limit to seven minutes for Back-Bench contributions with immediate effect.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I share with other speakers the view that there is much to be welcomed in the Bill, including the provisions on the diversity of judicial appointments, extending the jurisdiction of youth courts and drug-driving.

I note that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is not in his place, but I too would like to pay tribute to the work he has done. He is quite right in what he says about other instances of the same sort of events that affected his constituent. Some 10 or so years ago, when I was practising as a solicitor, I had the privilege to represent the Nellist family of Acklam in Middlesbrough. As they returned home from an evening out—they had not been out socialising for a long time—they got off the bus opposite their home and their young son Anthony was waiting for them to come back. He was peeping out of the curtains looking to see them come home. He saw his mum and dad walk across the road, only for Susan to be struck by a speeding vehicle coming down Trimdon avenue, knocking her some clear 70 yards down the road, killing her outright.

The self-same issues about impairment and the links between impairment and the charges levelled against the youth concerned raised their head in this case. I was involved not in the criminal side but in the civil case. When we served our proceedings on the defendant, he showed absolutely no remorse whatever. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Bizarrely in those days, he served his driving ban while serving his term of imprisonment. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who put right that wrong in subsequent years, making sure that any driving ban was served at the end of the custodial sentence. That made the sentence more relevant.

Is it ever right for someone in such circumstances ever to get behind the wheel of a car again? Perhaps we can take a look at that as we take the Bill through Committee. Given the tragedy suffered by that family and the fact that not everyone enjoys the privilege of driving a motor car, it is not acceptable for someone in those circumstances to serve a ban for such a short period.

I support the fight against organised crime, but we on the Labour side are concerned that the Home Secretary is undermining that fight by cutting the budget to tackle it. However, I am happy to recognise the valuable work of the north-east regional organised crime unit, which was established by the chief constables of Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria in March 2010. It consists of a specialised team of detectives who target the organised crime groups that pose the greatest threat to the communities in those three areas. No doubt the House will want to congratulate officers in the unit who, last Wednesday, used a warrant to search premises in Topcliffe, north Yorkshire, and recovered approximately 30 kg of heroin and an estimated 40 kg of amphetamine. The street value of the drugs is estimated to be between £6 million and £7 million. Two men have been charged; the investigation continues, and there is more to come.

There is a welcome consensus on the issue of avoiding reoffending. The starting point of the consultation was a good one: the Government acknowledged that nearly half of all adult offenders reoffend within a year of leaving custody, and also acknowledged the need for reform of the criminal justice system. Cleveland’s newly elected police and crime commissioner, Barry Coppinger—in common with many others—has made

“diverting people from reoffending with a focus on rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending”

a key priority. So far, so good. It seems there is a common purpose, but the question must be whether the proposals in the Bill are adequate to assist the attaining of that vital objective.

The powers that the Bill seeks to introduce are already available to sentencers. They can already impose punishment in combination with other elements. Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, described the proposals as

“offensive to the judiciary, who strive to ensure that each person dealt with by them is sentenced to the appropriate sentence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 529.]

Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, called them “totally unnecessary and counter-productive”.

In the brief time remaining to me, let me say something about clause 23. My constituent David Jukes has written to me pointing out that 2,000 people are employed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in the enforcement of criminal fines. I hope that we shall have a chance to ensure that the existing service is given every opportunity to be maintained and to succeed, and also to ensure that rigorous standards and targets are set for recovery of fines and fixed-penalty notices.

Finally and very briefly, I want to comment on the law of self-defence as it applies to householders. I recently went around the houses in Middlesbrough, and none of those on whose doors I knocked told me of their overbearing desire to knock seven bells out of a burglar. People were more concerned about, for instance, employment and being hit by the under-occupancy tax. We must think carefully about whether clause 30 takes us any further.

The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) referred to the guidance notes that are issued to officers. I rather think that that tells the tale: the notes are available to officers to prevent householders from being taken to court unnecessarily, under the law as it stands—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am changing the time limit again. There are three remaining speakers. We need to get to the winding-up speeches by 9.40. I will set the limit at six minutes, but if there are interventions, I will reduce it again.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. There will not, to begin with, be a time limit in this debate, but if Members make very long speeches it will be necessary for those who come towards the end of the debate to have their time cut, so may I ask you all to bear in mind how long you are speaking this afternoon? May I also remind you, when referring to another Member, to refer to them as an hon. Friend or an hon. Member or name their constituency, because it makes it easy to record? For the record, the Members just referred to were the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson).

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

rose—

[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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Jeremy Browne]

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