Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As this is Home Office questions, I will stick to the Home Office’s responsibilities, which include keeping our streets safe, which we are doing more effectively than ever before. Crime is down 10%, and it is down in the Metropolitan police area. I am sure the action the Mayor has taken today will make London’s streets even safer in future.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, Boris Johnson, aided by Home Office cuts, is to close 50% of London’s police stations, to lose 4,000 police constables and PCSOs, and to reduce police numbers in 17 of the 32 London boroughs. Will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s interview on “The Andrew Marr Show”, bad though it was, was the lesser of several evils the Mayor is inflicting on London?

[Damian Green]

I would have hoped that the shadow police Minister would have welcomed the fact that Metropolitan police crime figures are down by 3% in the past year, showing that the effective co-operation between the Home Office at national level and the Mayor’s office at London level is making London’s streets safer than ever before.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme No. 2)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a), from “Second day”, leave out from beginning to paragraph 5 and insert—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that new information has just been disclosed to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), but may I ask for the purposes of clarification whether he is moving the amendment or whether he is just speaking about the motion? I think he had fully intended not just to move his amendment but to press it to a vote, since when the Minister of State has offered new information. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to speak in support of his amendment, so be it. He can speak about the motion, but he needs to make that clear.

[Mr Hanson]

I am supporting the amendment as well as speaking about the motion, Mr Speaker. I wish to get some assurances from the Minister before the conclusion of the debate. We will then reflect on the Minister’s response and decide whether to press the amendment to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is moving the amendment and will decide on whether to push it to a vote depending on any assurances he does or does not receive.

[Mr Hanson]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I want to seek a few assurances from the Minister before I resume my seat.

I am particularly keen for the Minister to consider what assurances he can give the House that there will be a guaranteed debate on the Leveson amendments and new clauses and that there will be an opportunity for the House to vote on them.

I also seek clarification—perhaps the Leader of the House could assist on this point—about whether the second day of consideration will be confirmed for Monday 18 March—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister of State could listen to what I am saying, because these are important matters that affect whether we will support the motion. I have asked the Minister, as the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, whether he can confirm that the second day of our consideration will be next Monday, as announced last Thursday by the Leader of the House. We seek assurances that there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on Leveson or press regulation-related clauses tabled by the Government or by the Opposition. I want to hear from the Minister—the Leader of the House can help him—whether the debate will happen on 18 March.

The Minister said that he intends to table a supplementary programme motion and he has a duty to tell the House when he intends to do that. Between you and me, Mr Speaker—dare I say it—our amendment would deliver what the Government want on Monday. If it were pressed to a vote, it might do what the Government seek to do, but I am willing, as I am that sort of a guy, to give the Minister the chance to reflect. If he can assure me that the supplementary programme motion will be tabled within living experience, rather than at some future date of which we are as yet unsure, that would reassure me and my right hon. Friends that the Government’s intentions should be supported by the official Opposition.

[Mr Bone]

Let me clarify. Has the right hon. Gentleman moved the amendment and might he seek the leave of the House to withdraw it later?

[Mr Hanson]

That is indeed the situation. I hope I have made that clear, but if I have not, so be it.

I seek three things from the Minister: a guarantee that there will be a debate; a guarantee that there will be a vote; a guarantee that there will be a second day of debate; some indication of when that will be; whether it will be on a day other than that which was previously announced; and when the supplementary motion will be tabled. I reserve the right to withdraw my amendment, but I wanted to move it so that we could get some clarity from the Minister on the key issues about which the Opposition remain concerned and want assurances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I am fearful of running out of time before I have answered the substantive points, rather than the issue of whether a conclusion means something has finished or not, which is a point that we could debate at length, but not very productively. On the substantive points, to which I have substantive answers to give, the right hon. Member for Delyn asked whether there would be a debate. The answer is yes. On the question of whether there will be a vote if the House wishes to vote, the answer is yes. This will be an amendment to legislation. There is provision to vote on all aspects of legislation, subject to the usual caveats and the Speaker’s discretion. Given that everything is subject to those caveats, the answer to the question of whether there will be a debate is yes; and yes, there will be an opportunity to vote.

On the question of when that will take place, at the moment the second day of our deliberations on the Bill is scheduled for Monday. I am not the Leader of the House—a far more distinguished Member has that role—but there is a business statement tomorrow. If the Government wished to suggest to the House that the business should be altered, that would be the appropriate time to do so, not now.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has made the position clear to the House. The official Opposition have taken from that that there will be a debate, there will be a vote, and there will be an announcement about both the supplementary programming motion and the day of the debate in business questions. On that basis, I am content, if the House will allow me, to withdraw the amendment, allowing the Government to continue the discussions that have commenced. That is our position, to reassure the Minister on those points.

[Mr Browne]

On that extremely consensual and sensible point, the Opposition spokesman has come to my view after some initial wobbles, and everyone agrees that I have come up with a very sensible way to proceed. On that basis, I hope that the House endorses by popular acclaim the Government’s proposal, so there is no need to proceed to a vote.

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

I hope that I have addressed all the Government proposals to the satisfaction of the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

New clause 3 and the other amendments before the House concern important issues that are fundamentally to do with protecting our society from terrorist activity. We must get these matters right. We must consider the concerns of another place and those who are involved in these issues on a day-to-day basis. I continue to have key concerns about the new clause.

The Government have tabled new clause 3 on Report following the removal of the original clause 2 in another place earlier this year. The Home Secretary has said:

“I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 635.]

I welcome that no decision has been taken and that consideration is being given to whether it is best for terrorism functions to remain with the Metropolitan police as the co-ordinating body, whether they should be transferred to the National Crime Agency or whether there is a third model that the Government could consider.

I am concerned that new clause 3 will give the Government an order-making power to implement a major change. As we have heard from hon. Gentlemen from different parties in Northern Ireland, this change would have great import and ramifications in Northern Ireland, with respect not just to terrorism and policing but to confidence in communities. I cannot support the Government’s proposal of an order-making power that would receive limited debate in this place.

I accept that these are serious issues. I remind the Minister of the concerns that were raised in another place, not just by Labour Members such as my noble friend, Baroness Smith of Basildon, but by Cross-Bench Members, about the original clause 2, which was removed from the Bill and is effectively being reintroduced with new clause 3. I fear that if the Minister proceeds to insert new clause 3 into the Bill, there will be further discussion in another place about the merits of that proposal and the concerns that were expressed when the Bill was last considered will be revisited.

Lord Blair of Boughton, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner and now sits as a Cross Bencher in another place, said that

“a number of noble Lords expressed the sentiment that national security is the first duty of government. I agree with that point of view. I put my name to this amendment because I believe that Clause 2 directly affects national security and so, in my view, is more important than any other clause in this section of the Bill.”

He went on to say that

“in my lifetime no change more significant than this in the policing arrangements to protect our nation has ever been contemplated. A change in the NCA's responsibility may be right, but it may not be…Such a decision deserves primary legislation, to allow the suggestion to be scrutinised, debated and amended by both Houses of Parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 114-115.]

The Minister’s proposal in new clause 3 will deny the opportunity for primary legislation to be used to deal with this issue.

I have an open mind about where we should end up on this issue. This debate is not about making the final decision about where terrorism functions should lie. We can have a debate about that. However, it is important not only that the review that the Minister has talked about takes place, but that both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to reflect on it in a measured and considered way.

The Minister said that we are going to have a busy programme. I remind him that we are likely to have a light legislative programme this year and that swathes of time are available because of changes such as what happened to reform of the House of Lords. The Minister knows that at any time he can negotiate and secure time in this House for speedy legislation on matters of great import. He also knows, without giving any secrets away, that there is bound to be a criminal justice Bill of some form in the forthcoming Gracious Speech, to which new clauses could be added. It is therefore disingenuous of him to say that it is not practical or possible to have primary legislation to effect these changes.

New clause 3 would provide for a limited debate in this House on massive changes and significant issues that relate to the safety of citizens across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. As the Minister has indicated, and as I will come on to when I speak to new schedule 1, he has not yet secured agreement for the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland. Given that the National Crime Agency will tackle big issues such as fuel smuggling and people trafficking, which are often linked to the funding of terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, it is not good enough for the Minister to propose an order-making power, super-affirmative though the procedure may be, to deliberate and agree on these proposals.

If the Minister does not accept what Lord Blair says, perhaps he will accept the view of the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Condon, who said:

“This is a hugely important matter that deserves primary legislation rather than an affirmative order… History tells us that more than 80% of terrorist incidents in this country happen in London.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 116.]

Two former Metropolitan Police Commissioners say that this matter should be considered through primary legislation, but the Minister still wants to bring forward a super-affirmative order.

I hope that I am not doing him a disservice if I quote the views of the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner from an article in The Times:

“Bernard Hogan-Howe said he believed that the link between local policing and counter-terrorism police had been essential to the success of the anti-terror strategy in Britain.”

The article goes on:

“‘What is the problem we are trying to remedy here?’ he asked. ‘And if there is to be a change, there will be a cost—at a time of austerity that will have to be considered.’”

I do not believe that that matter can be considered in the time available under the super-affirmative procedure.

We need to support the concerns that were expressed in another place. Unless something miraculous happens, I will not recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support new clause 3, because I do not think that it is the appropriate way forward. The other place will consider the matter and we will deliberate on the views expressed there in due course.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

As I have said, the Government have an open mind on this matter. We want to achieve the best possible protection for the public. However, the three people whom the right hon. Gentleman has cited as making the case for the Met police to continue to have the lead role on counter-terrorism are the commissioner of the Met police and two ex-commissioners of the Met police. One would expect those people to argue for the central role of the Met police. They are perhaps not such good authorities on the case for one form of parliamentary procedure and scrutiny over another. The Government will make their judgments and recommendations about where counter-terrorism should sit and people will want to contribute to that debate, but those three people have quite partial backgrounds. We will ensure that the House has the adequate opportunity to scrutinise whatever the Government propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps between now and the super-affirmative order coming forward he will guarantee that he will make the order amendable. It currently would not be amendable; for another place and this House it would be a question of take it or leave it. Primary legislation would allow either House to examine the proposals and amend, refine or challenge them, but a super-affirmative order would not.

I say gently to the Minister that although three Metropolitan Police Commissioners may have an interest in the Metropolitan police, they have been responsible for co-ordinating counter-terrorism activities. If they raise concerns, he has a duty to allow them to be listened to. The concerns are not about the ultimate position but about whether it can be reached via primary legislation so that either House can make tweaks. The Minister is simply saying that the Government will review the matter and decide on it, and then table a take-it-or-leave-it order for both Houses to decide on. That is not an appropriate way forward.

[Paul Goggins]

My right hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of highlighting the Government’s inconsistency on the issue. Does he recall that earlier in this Parliament the Government insisted that provisions for enhanced terrorism prevention and investigation measures or the extension of pre-charge detention beyond 14 days could be made only through fresh primary legislation? Now they want to give the Home Secretary the power to transfer the lead responsibility for counter-terrorism to the National Crime Agency through secondary legislation. It is completely inconsistent.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who knows what he is talking about. He had to take executive decisions on important matters, particularly to do with Northern Ireland and terrorism, at a time when Northern Ireland was not as stable as it is now, even though there are challenges today.

I say gently to the Minister that he should listen to some of the experience that is out there. This is not about the end product, because we can debate that and the review will raise a number of issues about it. It is about how we get consent to that end product, which could be through amendments to legislation. I defy him to say that there is no time for legislation to be brought forward in the next 12 months, either as a new clause to another Bill or as a stand-alone Bill, to make the changes in question. I do not believe that is the case, and I think he is being disingenuous—dare I say that? Perhaps I should say that he is reflecting on the matter in a way that I would not wish him to reflect.

The situation with regard to Northern Ireland is a bit of a shambles. I fully understand why political parties in Northern Ireland have taken the view that they have, and why it is important that the Government do not legislate for Northern Ireland. However, I ask the Minister who is responsible for negotiating with the Northern Ireland Assembly to get some traction on the matter. I have tabled questions to the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office, and both have said that they are meeting David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, on a regular basis. However, who is taking on the challenge of ensuring that the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the four or five political parties represented there and the people who have concerns about the proposal, as well as those from all sides who do not, are heard? What is the process, and how is it being taken forward?

The Bill has been trailed for perhaps 18 months, and it was produced in another place and has been debated in the Commons. The issue has arisen not this week but over many months. The National Crime Agency will not have input into key issues in Northern Ireland, including drug trafficking, fuel laundering, smuggling and a range of serious organised crime. Its relationship with the Police Service of Northern Ireland is still to be defined in a practical way. How has it come to that point?

[Sammy Wilson]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but does he accept that although the Government are to be faulted on many things, a lot of the issues that people wanted addressed in negotiations with the Northern Ireland Minister were addressed? However, two parties are still suspicious of any policing arrangements that are UK-wide rather than based purely in Northern Ireland. They will never be convinced, and that is one reason why the Minister’s job is so difficult.

[Mr Hanson]

I understand that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did two years in Northern Ireland, and I accept and understand the difficulties of that position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) also served in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will speak on his party’s views shortly. I always regret that Sinn Fein Members do not give their view to Members of Parliament in this House, but that is a separate issue.

I understand where the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is coming from, but the issue is still open to negotiation, because even if we accept new schedule 1 today, the NCA will not operate in Northern Ireland and there will be only an affirmative order to put that arrangement in place at some point in future. There will therefore still have been no resolution of the difference of opinion. The Minister has a duty to tell the House how he intends to bridge that gap strategically.

[Naomi Long]

When the right hon. Gentleman said that he did two years in Northern Ireland, it sounded more like a sentence than a pleasure. I am sure that was not intentional. Does he agree that the problem is much more significant than simply leaving Northern Ireland at an operational disadvantage, which will clearly happen? There is currently a duty on the PSNI to co-operate with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, but that will go once the Bill comes in. Even the basic duty to co-operate will be removed from the NCA if there is not an agreement otherwise.

[Mr Hanson]

I reassure the hon. Lady that I loved every minute of my time in Northern Ireland and was sorry to be airlifted out on the day when, fortunately and for good purposes, devolved government was restored and my time there finished.

The hon. Lady will be aware that clause 14 will abolish SOCA, which currently operates with the PSNI to tackle issues such as we have discussed. After Royal Assent, there will be nothing in place. I do not want the Minister simply to say, “Well, we’ll have an affirmative order”. He needs to explain to the House what will happen after Royal Assent, when the NCA is not operating in Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that when the Bill first emerged in draft, some of us pointed out in questions to both Northern Ireland Office and Home Office Ministers that there would be serious implications and sensitivities in Northern Ireland, which would need to be sorted out? However, the Bill was handled in such a way that it was left to privileged negotiations and discussions between Department of Justice officials in Belfast and the Home Office here. The parties in Northern Ireland were only latterly involved. That is why we now have the crazy situation that time has been added on at the end of the discussions on the Bill. There should have been proper discussion and consultation time at the beginning.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is the point that I am making. Where is the Northern Ireland Office in this? Are discussions taking place with the political parties in Northern Ireland to resolve the situation? A number of parties and their representatives have different views, such as the hon. Member for East Antrim, representatives of Sinn Fein and my hon. Friend himself.What discussions are taking place with those parties to resolve that situation? The situation is still in play, and when Royal Assent is achieved, the Serious Organised Crime Agency will not operate in Northern Ireland. That is of regret to the Minister and to me. More importantly, the Justice Minister, David Ford, said that blocking the new crime agency is a “mistake” that could have serious implications for the police. He stated:

“There is a real danger if it does not go ahead there will be very significant costs to the police both in terms of time and finances and that we will have an inferior response to the serious organised crime that we face”.

The police are understood to share the Justice Minister’s concerns, and the Minister needs to reflect on them. I will not oppose the new schedule, but I hope that he listens to what has been said and comes back to the House at an early opportunity to say how he will bring forward negotiations to conclude the matter.

New clause 2, which is in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, seeks a review, 12 months after Royal Assent, of the functions and operation of the National Crime Agency, particularly in relation to its governance structures. We had a full debate on that in Committee and I will not repeat those points today because of the limited time available. The Minister knows, however, that we think there is an alternative model to governance in which the NCA does not just report directly to the Home Secretary. Will the Minister consider whether in 12 months’ time, following Royal Assent, we could review how his model has operated? If it operates well and has been good and effective, fine; but if not, can we review it? A formal review is the purpose of new clause 2, including the

“operational and governance arrangements between the UK Government, the Department of Justice…and the Scottish Government with particular reference to asset recovery”.

I will not touch on asset recovery now as we will discuss it in a later debate, but there is a big hole in the Bill on that issue and how it fits into a UK structure. A review 12 months after Royal Assent, as demanded by new clause 2, would simply require the matter to be considered in detail.

Amendment 3, which is in my name, concerns giving political oversight to decisions made by the director general of the NCA in response to international requests for assistance, and for consideration of an international response to emergency situations. Under clause 7, the director general can decide to examine the provision of assistance to a country or territory outside the British Isles. Subsection (3) states:

“The Director General may provide assistance to…a government in a country or territory outside the British Islands…if the government, or the body, requests assistance”.

My amendment would simply mean that that should be with the support and agreement of the Home Secretary, and I tabled it for two reasons.

First, there may be countries that request or are looking for support from the National Crime Agency but about which the Government of the day might have concerns. Let us suppose, for example, that the Syrian Government or the Zimbabwean Government asked for help and support from the NCA, . Those are politically difficult issues that Ministers would want to have oversight of because Ministers are ultimately accountable to the House for the operation of the NCA. A system that allows the director of the NCA to agree that help and support can be given on request or by decision, but that ultimately the Minister, Home Secretary or a delegated Minister has oversight of and understands and agrees, would be helpful. When I was a Minister I agreed on many occasions to police forces sending people overseas to help with a range of activities. It is important that Ministers have such oversight, even if they do not ultimately have a veto.

I also tabled amendment 3 because I am concerned that officers may be in danger in certain countries and, again, Ministers are ultimately accountable to this House. In future, the National Crime Agency director may well have NCA officers in Afghanistan, Mali, Nigeria or Iraq—who knows? It could be any country in which the NCA is providing assistance or has been requested to do so on matters of serious organised crime. When officers go into areas of danger, political oversight is important as a Minister will ultimately be accountable in the Chamber if things go wrong.

I welcome amendment 4. I proposed it in Committee and it has been brought back by the Minister in a slightly amended form: the word “will” has been replaced with the word “must”—such is the Government’s wish to grab hold of the Bill and not let anybody amend it word by word, even though the principle is the same. However, I welcome the fact that I did not entirely waste my time in Committee, and that the measure was accepted by the Government.

I understand where my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is coming from with his amendments as we had a full debate in Committee. I will not, however, be able to support the amendments to remove clauses 12 and 13, but if he wishes to make his case I am sure the House will listen. I think we need clauses 12 and 13 to ensure that the police and the National Crime Agency police do not have the rights that the removal of those clauses would give them.

Since the Committee stage, I have heard concerns from police officers about the automatic transfer of officers from forces to the National Crime Agency without consultation. I would welcome the Minister considering those concerns in due course and reflecting on them as part of our deliberations.

I am not convinced that new clause 3 is the best way forward, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it. That is not because we do not want the matter resolved; we are not rejecting the review or the idea of examining those issues, but rather the immediate solution given by the Minister for an affirmative order. If the Minister does not withdraw the new clause—I suspect he will not—he may face a vote in the House.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am in the rather strange position of wanting to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I will not steal his thunder and will be as brief as possible. In particular, I agree with amendments 95 and 102. As we know, clause 12 would prohibit unions from instigating a strike affecting any officers working for the National Crime Agency who have operational powers. That would include the director general of the NCA, and it would give power to the Home Secretary to take civil action against any person or persons who might call, or incite, such a strike.

The Government seem to regard the serious-minded people who will be working in this field as little less than children who might run off on a whim and call a strike for no reason at all. The quality of those people does not indicate that that is the kind of thing they would do, but I do not think they should be deprived of rights that most workers are accorded. It is only right and proper for the Government to take a respectful approach to those workers and allow them the negotiating rights and further rights that most people have. Clause 12(4) goes as far as allowing the Home Secretary to seek an injunction restraining a threatened strike by National Crime Agency officers holding operational powers. I believe that such provisions are retrograde and hope that hon. Members will support amendment 95 that would delete clause 12 in its entirety.

I am equally opposed to the provisions in clause 13, which would allow the Home Secretary to pass regulations determining the pay, allowances and other terms and conditions of National Crime Agency officers designated with operational powers, including the director general of the NCA. Amendment 102 would delete the clause in its entirety.

Clause 24(2) would allow for the contracting out of all functions of fines officers. The clause also makes provision for the costs of collecting compensation, fines and other financial penalties to be recovered from other offenders. I share the concern of groups such as the Public and Commercial Services Union that the Bill would allow a crucial element of enforcing sentences to be privatised. That would mean private companies being in charge of carrying out quasi-judicial functions, such as making deductions from benefit orders and making attachment of earnings orders. That is a privatisation too far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says. We have mentioned some of the discussions that have taken place involving different parties and the Minister and his officials. Some of them have also involved the director of the NCA, and I understand that he came away with a new appreciation about how the Policing Board accountability arrangements worked. He said no police agency at any level could be expected to be involved in accountability in such a way, only to find that senior Police Service of Northern Ireland officers said, “Well, we are, and it works.” A fuller conversation would have been better, therefore, and the relevant Westminster Ministers should have been involved in those discussions earlier, rather than leaving it to everybody else.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his arguments about this particular matter also relate to the next set of amendments on asset recovery? It is important that we have an opportunity to test the Government on what they are doing to close the loophole in that regard, and I am conscious that we have limited time to do that. I hope he will either reflect on those concerns now or ensure that we can debate them, as the asset recovery issue is particularly important because there is no asset recovery in Northern Ireland, and I know he is concerned about that.

[Mark Durkan]

I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Our concern is not to make sure that the NCA has no remit or writ in relation to Northern Ireland. Our concern is to ensure not only that Northern Ireland does not lose out under the new dispensation by injury to the Patten architecture, but that we do not lose out on any equipment we might need to combat serious crime and to be part of combating it on a wider territorial basis. The asset recovery issues he raises point to important issues. It is imperative that we have full and proper discussions on all such matters.

On the criminal intelligence function, I hope we can put great store by what the Minister said in reply to my intervention about some of the functions not being precluded by the measures. He said the criminal intelligence function will still be discharged by the NCA in Northern Ireland, and that it will not be involved in running its own informers and so forth. The House should not have to be reminded that it is only a few months since we all sat here shocked at the revelations in the de Silva report about what happens when people are running agents and informers and some police know about it and others do not. We end up with scandalous situations, which are central to people’s concerns about confidence in policing in Northern Ireland. We have to make sure people know that we can never go back to that situation again, by default, by design or by any other means.

There is no point in us saying “Yes, we’ve sorted out full accountable policing and none of the old things can happen,” only for people to find all sorts of other things going on, and we then say, “Yes, but that was nothing to do with the accountable devolved policing. That was to do with these other policing arrangements we helped to legislate for.” We are then like Clouseau in one of the “Pink Panther” movies where he sees a man with a dog and asks, “Does your dog bite?” The man says, “No.” Clouseau pets the dog and the dog nearly takes his arm off. Clouseau then says, “I thought you told me your dog doesn’t bite,” and the man says, “That’s not my dog.” We cannot say, “We’ve sorted out policing, and we have full accountability and a full and open complaints process, but meanwhile anything goes in relation to how this Parliament here at Westminster legislates for other aspects of policing.” We have to get this right for now and for the future.

The hon. Member for East Antrim raised an issue that was close to being a red herring: what is or might be provided for in relation to Northern Ireland in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. As I read it, that Bill basically says that a same-sex marriage conducted in England or Wales will have the status only of a civil partnership in Northern Ireland or in Scotland. In one respect, Ministers could argue that they are respecting the legal position in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and are saying, “We won’t do anything that does injury to that, interferes with that or introduces any other new language or different standing.” I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about a comparison with that Bill’s provisions, as they stand. The comparison is that there was a danger that the way in which this Bill was providing for Northern Ireland was going to damage carefully developed and agreed procedures in place in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, if only because it allows me to clarify that it is our intention to abide by the Sewel convention. We are not in the business of facing down, as he puts it, elected representatives in Northern Ireland, as we want to proceed with their approval and consent.

It is worth making it clear to the House that the NCA will still have a role in Northern Ireland, as there is a danger that a casual observer of our deliberations might think otherwise. I can confirm that some types of cross-border crime will fall within the remit of the NCA in Northern Ireland, even in its constrained form. For example, the NCA in Northern Ireland will be able to tackle immigration or customs offences. The NCA and CEOP will continue to be able to co-operate with partners in Northern Ireland and we are seeking to mitigate the operational impact of the situation we find ourselves in.

The NCA and CEOP will continue to operate in Northern Ireland, but it is worth saying that that operation will be curtailed as a result of the absence of legislative consent. In a way, that illustrates the wider point. There will be an NCA function in Northern Ireland and obviously we hope and believe that it will benefit the people of Northern Ireland. It will not be as comprehensive as we would have wished, but there is provision for it to be made more comprehensive in the future, as and when the political will and consensus in Northern Ireland provide for that.

Let me deal briefly with the non-Government amendments. New clause 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn, seeks to provide for a review of the NCA within 12 months of Royal Assent. I think I said earlier that the NCA would come into effect in October 2013, but for the avoidance of doubt let me clarify the Government’s position. We wish the NCA to come into effect by the end of 2013. Our target date is October, but that will obviously depend on matters that are not necessarily directly within our control, including potential issues to do with Parliament.

The new clause asks for a review during the 12 months after Royal Assent. Obviously, we want to keep a close eye on the effectiveness and accountability of the NCA when it is up and running and that is a core job of Government and Parliament, but the Government do not believe that an additional formal review mechanism is necessary. There are plenty of other means by which Ministers and Parliament can examine the progress made by the NCA and by which Parliament can examine the actions and decisions of Ministers.

Amendment 3 would make the director general’s power to provide assistance to any overseas Government or body subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of State. It is worth noting that there is no equivalent requirement for the Secretary of State to seek consent in statute for SOCA, HMRC or the security and intelligence services. We see no reason why we should create unnecessary statutory barriers to continuing the good work that already happens. Day-to-day assistance between the NCA and its overseas partners will be so routine that it would be completely impractical to require the Secretary of State to give consent in every instance.

On amendments 95 and 102, I must say that it was refreshing to hear the principal argument being made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made the case for trade unionism. Those points were not given more than a passing and cursory airing in Committee and were not raised by the Labour Front Bench, so we are not minded to agree to the amendments given that, as I understand it, there is consensus among the political parties that the Government are right and the Labour party enthusiastically supports the Government’s position on the trade unions.

[Mr Hanson]

Would the Minister clarify for me, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said, who he believes will be covered by the provisions of clause 12 in addition to those, such as Keith Bristow, who are accredited police officers?

[Mr Browne]

It is interesting; we now do have interest from the Opposition Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

Well, if they have come to see the wisdom of the position adopted by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and accept the inadequacies of their previous position, they will support him when he presses the amendment to a Division.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Let me finish the point. [Interruption.] I will give way; I have already done so, and I will do so again, but there is a serious point to be made. NCA officers with operational powers should, as they are paid to do from our taxes, protect the public 24 hours a day from the threat of serious and organised crime. We want that arrangement to be secured through negotiation, as I have outlined, but the bottom line is that we want the public to be protected by the NCA around the clock, because the threat from serious and organised crime exists around the clock. If Opposition Members do not want NCA officers with operational powers to be available around the clock, they should say so explicitly.

[Mr Hanson]

It may come as a surprise to the Minister, but part of the purpose of Report is to discuss matters of implementation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised concerns that were circulated late on Friday. I just want clarification from the Minister as to what he means by “some officers”. Will he confirm whether customs officers and immigration officers will be included in the provision under clause 12, as opposed to just police officers, whom we understand to be those who have constable roles, as the Opposition understood in Committee?

[Mr Browne]

Let me say two things. Nothing in the Government’s position has changed since Committee. There is an idea that this is something that has been circulated at the last moment and which Labour has suddenly discovered, but the Bill is the Bill. If there are agonies in the Labour party about where—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait a second; I am trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point. If the Labour party cannot decide where it stands on the matter, that is for it to resolve internally.

I have been given a note that confirms what I have said. For the avoidance of doubt, I said that the measure applies to people with operational powers, and the Bill has always provided that those NCA officers designated with operational powers— police, customs or immigration powers—will be prevented from striking. That is what the measure said from the outset. I feel bad, because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is being told by Labour Whips that they are all on his side and so on. He should have served on the Committee, because Labour Members did not object to the measure there. They have to resolve that between themselves, but our view—the bottom-line view, which is the same as when the matter first came up; nothing changed in Committee or elsewhere—is that the provisions on the NCA should be there to protect the public around the clock from a threat that they face around the clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I will clarify the fact that the intention of this part of the Bill is very straightforward. There is a serious threat to the public of the United Kingdom 24 hours a day from serious and organised crime, and we want the new National Crime Agency to meet and counter that threat from the people who perpetrate it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So we want a consensus to be arrived at about the best way that these affairs can be structured, but we do not want people to be threatened by serious and organised crime and for operational officers at the National Crime Agency to be unavailable to counter that threat.

Labour Members appear to have changed their position and we will have a Division in the House of Commons on that. I hope that enough Members of the two parties in the coalition will share my view and the view of the Government that it is not appropriate for the public to be left exposed to the threat from serious and organised crime in the way that is envisaged by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, which appears, in this ever shifting situation, now to be endorsed by the right hon. Member for Delyn as well.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Having been told that Labour Whips wanted us to proceed quickly, I give way for the fifth time to the Opposition.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister. He should know that one of our concerns is that police officers should not have the right to strike, and we have supported that. I wanted clarification from him, which perhaps we should have sought in Committee when we discussed the detail of the matter, but he appears to be getting notes from his officials about that. Information has come to light with regard to customs officers and immigration officers, and we wanted clarification on that. I cannot support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington calling for the removal of the whole clause, but clarification is certainly needed on the matter.

[Mr Browne]

I received a note because I said to Parliament that the provision applied to NCA employees with operational powers, and Labour MPs who have hitherto been entirely happy to endorse the Government’s position suddenly changed their mind. That gave me cause for concern that I may inadvertently have made a mistake when I said that the provision applied to NCA officers with any operational powers, so I sought clarification from officials that I had been right all along and that Labour had been happy to endorse that position, and they reassured me that I had been right and Labour had been happy to endorse that position.

I commend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on the power that he wields within the Labour party. Labour had been entirely happy to endorse the Government’s position, which is that we believe that people who are potentially victims of serious and organised crime should not have the National Crime Agency unavailable to protect them from that serious and organised crime. Labour now takes a different position so, as I say, when there is a Division on the matter, we will have to see which vision of public protection commands the support of the House. With respect to all the other new clauses and amendments in this group, I hope the House will see fit to support those of the Government and reject those tabled by other Members.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I do not propose to detain the House long on the new schedule and amendments. In essence, they deal with the consequences of the failure to agree a legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland for the proceeds of crime provisions in the Bill, just as similar amendments in the previous group dealt with the consequences of not securing an LCM for the NCA provisions. As I have already explained the context of the amendments and it has been given an extensive airing, I do not propose to cover the same ground again.

The amendments made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in Committee to remedy the effects of the Perry judgment will operate UK-wide, but as with the NCA provisions, which we have just discussed, in the absence of an LCM it is necessary that we amend those provisions so that they do not extend to Northern Ireland. In new schedule 2, a similar approach is adopted in respect of the proceeds of crime provisions to that taken in new schedule 1 in respect of the NCA. It provides that “relevant civil recovery provisions” and “relevant investigation provisions” do not extend to Northern Ireland.

The primary outcome of the new schedule and the associated amendments to clause 33 and schedule 17 is that the High Court of England and Wales will be able to make a civil recovery order against property located outside the UK where there is, or has been, a connection between the case in question and the relevant part of the UK, and the Court of Session will have similar powers in Scotland, but the High Court of Northern Ireland will not be able to make such an order. If the unlawful conduct occurred in Northern Ireland but the property was located outside Northern Ireland, the High Court of Northern Ireland would have no power to make an order over that property.

Like new schedule 1, however, which we considered in the last group of amendments, new schedule 2 contains a number of order-making powers that will enable the Secretary of State to extend certain civil recovery and investigation provisions to Northern Ireland at a later date. In respect of matters falling within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State must secure the Assembly’s consent before doing so. As I have indicated, we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice to secure all-party agreement to the full application of the Bill’s proceeds of crime provisions to Northern Ireland, but for now we must ensure that the Bill respects the Sewel convention.

[Mr Hanson]

I say again to the Minister that this is a really difficult issue for Northern Ireland. It is a big hole in the Bill. He has just said that because we do not have agreement with the Northern Ireland Assembly, from Royal Assent Northern Ireland will not have asset recovery powers, because of judgments that have been made in relation to the UK as a whole. Because Northern Ireland’s jurisdiction has not agreed to the provisions in the Bill, we will face difficulties.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a great pity that the Minister would not give way on this point earlier.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that crime barons in Northern Ireland who are reaping hundreds of millions of pounds a year will now be able to invest those proceeds across the border in the Irish Republic with impunity and without any danger of those assets being seized? I know that that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it will create a serious hole in the pursuit of such criminals and will cause great difficulty in recovering assets from them.

[Mr Hanson]

It does indeed; it creates a tremendous hole in asset recovery provisions. In effect it means—the Minister has accepted this—that a criminal in Taunton could buy a property in the Republic of Ireland and have those assets confiscated by the High Court, but a criminal in Belfast, for example, with a property in the Republic of Ireland, could not. There is also a perverse incentive for people to move to Northern Ireland to pursue their criminal activities. At the moment, unless an order is introduced urgently, the provision will not allow assets abroad to be confiscated from those in the north of Ireland.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sure the shadow Minister will agree that the situation gives gangsters and criminals in Northern Ireland who are involved in serious and organised crime a free rein in part of the United Kingdom, and that must be addressed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a test and that people want to see the rule of law operating against people such as Mr Murphy and Mr Hughes in South Armagh, just as it does against serious and organised criminals in Manchester, Birmingham and other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Hanson]

This is an extremely serious issue, and I want the Minister to say not just that there is a problem—he has done that—but what the solution is in relation to getting parties around the table to discuss the Executive agreeing to provisions on asset recovery. This is not a hypothetical issue. On 6 March a British newspaper stated:

“Briton hunted as police crack IRA and Mafia fraud scheme…A British man…is being sought by detectives investigating the £390m fraud which was based around a development on the…coast of…Southern Italy.”

Italian authorities arrested people in dawn raids and a warrant has been issued for the arrest of an individual from Belfast whom I shall not name. If that individual is convicted of fraud in Italy, his Italian assets cannot be confiscated because he is resident in Belfast. If he was resident in our constituencies of Delyn, Darlington, Walthamstow, Taunton or Middlesbrough, however, he could be taken to court and his assets taken from him.

There is a massive incentive for criminals to relocate to Northern Ireland, and for those operating criminal activities across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to continue doing so. I know there are issues in some political parties about the provisions and the legislative consent motion, but I appeal to the Northern Ireland Executive to consider the matter again because it is undermining action against criminal activity in Northern Ireland.

In the few minutes remaining I would welcome the Minister outlining a clear road map and stating how he intends to resolve this problem. It is not simply about bringing an order forward in the future, but about how we can reach an agreement where such an order can be effected to close this appalling loophole.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

In a way, points or lines of difference are being drawn between the two Front Benches that do not exist. The right hon. Gentleman described the situation correctly because the status of a criminal from Taunton—that was his example—would be different from that of a criminal from Belfast when it came to the seizure of assets. The Government of the United Kingdom do not want that to be the case and wish the arrangements to apply universally across the United Kingdom. That is partly because measures to rectify the offence of illegally acquired assets and to address that wrong should apply regardless of where in the United Kingdom it took place, but also because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, this situation creates an extremely worrying incentive for people wishing to perpetrate organised crime and acquire financial assets to base themselves in Northern Ireland. That is an extremely worrying development, I would have thought, for any Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, but it is also a concern for the United Kingdom Government as a whole, because we do not want such perverse and malign incentives to result from decisions made by politicians.

Police

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Having heard the Minister’s speech, I am surprised that he has not just joined the Conservative party. Whatever has happened to him over the past three years, he appears to have been infected by the Conservative gene and gone completely native.

Let me start on a positive note, however. I want to pay tribute to the policemen and women across the country who do a dangerous and difficult job every day of the week on our behalf. Sadly, in the last year, as in every year, we have seen the deaths of police officers on the streets of Great Britain. They have given us great service, and we should pay them the tribute that they deserve. We should also recognise those police officers who are walking the streets on our behalf trying to keep us safe. Yes, they will help to reduce crime.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Paul McKeever, the late chairman of the Police Federation, who died in January. I was privileged to attend his memorial service in Southwark cathedral on Saturday, along with police officers from across the country and the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). His integrity and the esteem in which he was held were clearly recognised across the board.

I do not think that we are going to be able to bridge the difference between the Minister and me during this debate.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of those police officers who have lost their lives—we also remember what happened in Manchester—does he agree that if the murderers of Yvonne Fletcher could be brought to justice, however long after the event, it would be most useful for her friends and family? She was shot down while carrying out her duties outside the Libyan embassy. She should not be forgotten, and the murderers should be brought to justice.

[Mr Hanson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that all those who murder police officers are brought to justice. If there is evidence to enable that to happen, it should be presented.

As I was saying, there is a clear difference between the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition on the proposals before us. The settlement continues on the path that Labour has opposed since 2010, and I shall give the Minister a little hint by saying that we shall do so again today. The proposals will result in a loss of about £2 billion from policing budgets in England and Wales over three years. The Conservatives—and, by association, the Liberal Democrats—are cutting police funding by 20% over that three-year period and 15,000 police officers are being lost by 2015; 7,000 have already been lost in the first two years of this Government. That is a higher number than the experts predicted, and a higher number than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said would be safe. This is damaging morale in the police service.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman has consistently opposed the Government’s proposals. Will he make it clear what he would suggest instead? What does he think is the right amount of money, and where would he get it from?

[Mr Hanson]

I will come to that in a moment. In 2010, in the debate on the policing grant, I was the policing Minister, and I stood at the Dispatch Box where the Minister has just been standing to propose a 12% reduction in police funding over three years. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time, but the former Liberal Democrat Member for Chesterfield criticised that budget proposal and reminded us that the Liberal Democrats, including the then Member for Cambridge, were going to go into the election promising 3,000 more police officers on the beat. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene on me again to tell me how 123 such officers have been lost in Cambridge? Is that related to the 3,000 extra officers or not?

[Dr Huppert]

I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I hope that he will answer mine. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that further recruitment of police constables has been announced, and that there will be an increase in the number of police constables performing local policing in Cambridgeshire. I am sure that he welcomes that. He will also know from our manifesto that part of the money to pay for extra police was going to come from savings from the ID card scheme. However, we had not realised quite how much of that money had already been wasted by the Labour Government before the election.

[Mr Hanson]

I presume that the Liberal Democrats had also not quite realised how much money was going to be spent on tuition fees or on a range of other things. Let me put it this way: that represents one Liberal Democrat broken promise among many others.

According to House of Commons Library figures, 30,000 fewer crimes were solved this year, including 7,000 crimes of violence against the person. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) cannot have heard what I said. He is heckling from the Front Bench, and asking how much a Labour Government would spend. The Labour Government committed to a 12% reduction in police funding. The current Government, whom the Liberal Democrat Minister supports, are proposing a third year of a 20% reduction in spending on policing. The Minister and the Whip—the hon. Member for Cheadle—stood for election in their constituencies, as did other Liberal Democrats, on a pledge to put 3,000 more police officers on the beat. Will the Minister now intervene to tell me at what point during the election campaign in Taunton Deane he told people that he would preside over a cut in numbers of 345 in his own constituency’s police force?

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

What I should have said is, “Vote for me in Taunton Deane and crime will fall by 11% in two years”, but I was too modest to do so. I said in my speech today that the budget for policing was falling by 1.9% for 2013-14, compared with 2012-13, and that the central grant would be £8.7 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has asked a straightforward question: what would the central grant figure be if Labour were in government today?

[Mr Hanson]

We gave a clear indication—[Interruption.] The Minister can say what he likes, but when we were in government, we gave a clear figure of a 12% reduction. We are now two years away from a general election, and we will have to look at these matters again at that stage. I made it clear when I was sitting where the Minister is now sitting that there would be a 12% reduction. Having pledged to introduce 3,000 more police officers, he is now proposing a budget cut of 20% on behalf of the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government. That is the clear difference between us, and I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will recognise that.

If we were talking only about police numbers, perhaps we could have an honest debate, but this Government also are making it harder to get CCTV, reducing the use of DNA evidence to catch criminals and cutting crime prevention budgets. They also spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money on the elections for police and crime commissioners, which attracted a 13% turnout. They are weakening counter-terror powers, with the result that people such as Ibrahim Magag can drive away in a taxi while under a terrorism prevention and investigation measure—[Interruption.] The Minister accuses me of being right wing. If it is right wing to want to ensure that my constituents are safe on the streets, I plead guilty. If it is right wing to want those who commit offences to be put into jail or on community sentences to prevent reoffending, I plead guilty.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s defence of a number of measures that the Government have said are not necessary, because, as the Minister has already pointed out, crime has actually fallen. We have swept aside some of the illiberal knee-jerk reactions brought in by the previous Government and crime has still fallen. If such measures are so necessary, why has crime fallen?

[Mr Hanson]

One police force where crime has not fallen happens to be that of Devon and Cornwall where, as I recall, the hon. Gentleman is a Member of Parliament. I may be wrong, but I think he is a Member of Parliament in Devon and Cornwall, and that is one area where crime has not fallen. When he stood on his election manifesto for 3,000 extra police officers at the last election, did he think that three years later he would go back to Devon and Cornwall police with a higher crime rate and 415 fewer officers? I do not think so.

Let me continue. The Government are scrapping antisocial behaviour orders and putting at risk crime-fighting tools such as the European arrest warrant. Yesterday in Committee we had a debate about the European arrest warrant and the Minister—who stood on a manifesto saying that he wished to keep that warrant—could not tell me which aspects of it he intended to opt back in to because he was fettered by nine Conservative Members. He has sold his soul to Government positions.

The Minister knows that the Labour party would have cut 12% from police budgets—I am honest about that. We would have cut £1 billion over the three-year period, including the year of this grant, because that is what we said we would do. During a debate before the general election, I recall the Minister debating police numbers with me. On 27 October 2009 he said:

“People like to see a visible police presence in their communities…I am genuinely astonished that the Conservatives want to make drastic cuts to budgets”.

In the same debate, the Minister spoke about his Conservative council in Somerset:

“The Conservative cut in funding for the police was kept secret before the county council elections in June.”

He promised 3,000 police officers but he is now promoting a 20% cut to the budget. His proposal cannot get much more secret than that.

In response to a debate that set the tone for this three-year budget, the then hon. Member for Chesterfield, who lost his seat at the general election to my hon. Friend the current Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), said:

“Such cuts, should they snowball and continue in the next year or two, will be a tragedy.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 340.]

That was the then hon. Member for Chesterfield speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I expect that the Minister will not listen to me and I accept that. We have had honest debates and I have seen more of him in the past three weeks than I have seen of my wife because we have spent lots of time in Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I do not wish to interrupt this pre-Valentine’s day discussion between my right hon. Friend and the Minister, but did the Committee consider the budgets of the various organisations being set up by the Government? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the sums do not add up? Where has all the money gone, bearing in mind the responsibilities that will be transferred to the new organisations? Did he manage to elicit any more information than I received from the Minister today?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and the Committee explored in some detail the differences between the budgets for the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency and the new National Crime Agency. We shed light on the fact that there is a major gap in the funding, but we could not get answers on where that funding has disappeared. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who so ably leads the Home Affairs Committee, will explore that in some detail over the next few weeks.

The Minister and I will not have a meeting of minds on this matter, but perhaps he will listen to a few voices from out in the community. For example, an individual who shall remain nameless for the moment said:

“I just want the public to understand how tight things really are because I think there’s a feeling out there that it’s OK.”

That was the Conservative police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer in Cheshire, complaining about the fact that he has to bring forward a budget axing 38 police officers and 25 back-office staff.

In a statement this week, Nick Alston, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Essex, said that the force’s financial position is

“even more challenging than I suspected when taking office just over two months ago.”

The police and crime commissioner for Cornwall, Tony Hogg, again a Conservative party member, said that the Government’s offer of freezing council tax in exchange for a 1% increase in grant would leave the force facing a “fiscal cliff” in two year’s time and an annual shortfall of £1.8 million. He added:

“There would be a critical reduction in pro-active crime reduction, there would be a critical reduction in partnership, community and early intervention…and a critical reduction in police visibility and hence reassurance to the public.”

I look forward to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), among others, voting for the budget today. The local police and crime commissioner thinks it will cause great difficulties in Cornwall.

In Gloucestershire, the police and crime commissioner—not Labour—said that

“we won’t be able to absorb the cuts the Government expects us to make next year and in subsequent years which could affect frontline services and our ability to reduce crime. If we use our reserves, which has also been suggested…we would have no money to replace…equipment or improve our infrastructure.”

The police and crime commissioner in Cumbria—again, not a Labour member—said:

“It is without question a challenging position with the financial forecasts indicating that £10.2 million of savings will have to be delivered between 2013/14 and 2016/17…in addition to the £12.1 million of savings already achieved.”

Those are police and crime commissioners, not Labour members, and they are all expressing concerns and having to raise money.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not the case that we cannot take this debate in isolation from the next debate on the local government settlement and that a great deal of good work and progress was made by the various crime and disorder reduction partnerships, with local government, housing associations and police forces working in partnership? Is the real danger that all that will be unpicked?

[Mr Hanson]

That is absolutely right. The Minister asked how we would reduce crime, and I remind him that crime fell in every year of the Labour Government, as it did in the last two years of the Major Government, and as it has fallen now. Let me put on the record that I welcome that fall in crime and think it is a good thing. I do not want people in our constituencies to face criminal actions—a victim is 100% a victim. The key issue for the Minister to reflect on is that there are crimes that are starting to rise, including acquisitive crime, street crime, burglary, robbery and car theft. Areas of violent crime are starting to rise, and the Minister must recognise that policing is not just about discovering crime but about community reassurance, being visible and accessible, and carrying out many tasks such as football ground management that involve not solving crime but providing a presence and a community resource.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

My right hon. Friend will know that we believe one great success of the Labour Government in reducing crime was through the Safer Neighbourhood partnerships and the neighbourhood teams that under Labour were at the strength of one sergeant, two PCs and three police community support officers. Is he aware that the London Mayor is now proposing that such teams will include one PC, one PCSO and no dedicated sergeant? Surely that is a way to reduce community confidence and possibly allow for a rise in crime.

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed, and statistics show that 31,163 officers are serving in the Met, which is fewer than the total number that Boris Johnson inherited from Ken Livingstone only some years ago.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

In quoting police and crime commissioners from the Government parties, my right hon. Friend exposes the problems imposed by the Government on police forces the length and breadth of the country, but in the high-crime areas, the cuts are even deeper. Will he say something about how disproportionately the cuts are falling? For example, in the west midlands, which is a high-crime area, the cuts are deeper than they are across the nation as a whole.

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. West Midlands police has lost 1,607 police officers over the past two years, which has a real impact. Bob Jones, the police and crime commissioner, is trying to address those issues, which are serious.

[Graham Jones]

When I speak to my chief inspector and the police in my area, they say that resources are being cut and that although crime is diminishing—it is reducing in some areas, but not all—that is only a short-term trend. The trend will be upward, because when the Labour Government introduced neighbourhood policing, we had crime mapping, and there is a latency. Crime maps enabled us to identify serious criminals and low-level criminals, but today crime maps are being eroded, because PCSOs and sergeants are being moved into other jobs. As my right hon. Friend has said, they are being forced to do back-office jobs and cover for other positions. We have a diminishing neighbourhood policing team and crime maps are diminishing, which is why there is a latency. Crime is falling, but soon it will start rising if we do not keep up neighbourhood policing.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. His police force in Lancashire lost 413 officers over that period. [Interruption.] The Minister keeps chuntering from a sedentary position, saying, “What’s the impact of that?” I have told him that I welcome the fall in crime, but the key question that he needs to answer is whether that fall is sustainable and whether it was the result of previous investment. I simply say to him that the trends for acquisitive crime, violent crime, detection rates, recording of crime and maintaining a visible presence are going in a different direction, and he knows it. I genuinely hope that crime continues to fall, but we will have to make that assessment. Our concern is that it will be more difficult with £1 billion taken out of the budget over three years than it would be otherwise.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Given everything the right hon. Gentleman says, I just want to check that he is now committing to taking £1 billion out of other areas of Government spending—say, schools or hospitals—to fund this area. Surely he is not just making a completely empty speech to get a few cheers from his Back Benchers, but has the figures to back up his argument. We are spending £8.7 billion in 2013-14. If he were in government, what would he be spending? Just a number.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman must be—as well as many other things—not listening to what I am saying. This is the third year of a three-year budget proposal. We proposed 12% cuts; he is proposing 20% cuts. Next year and the year after, we will have a further debate—when a Labour Government are returned in two years’ time, we will have a further debate—but at the moment we are talking about a figure for the third year. I have given him a figure—a 12% reduction versus the 20% reduction. He needs to listen and to recognise that.

[Dr Huppert]

Rather than returning to that aspect of the discussion, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long he thinks the delay might be before we see crime going up—his premise is that there might be a delay—and for how many years crime will have to continue going down before he accepts that it is still going down, despite what has happened since 2010?

[Mr Hanson]

Historically, crime levels have fallen over many years. That has been continuous since 1995, throughout my time in the House of Commons. The key question for the hon. Gentleman is how we develop that in future. Policing is, in part, about catching criminals and solving crime, but it is also about community reassurance and many other areas—dealing with floods, policing football matches, crowd control and policing demonstrations. None of those is about policing crime. Part of the reason crime is falling is that the Labour Government did good work in bringing together probation, prisons and policing to look at reducing the number of serious offenders. The number of first-time offenders going into the system fell under Labour, as did the number of offences per person. There is a range of issues; I just worry about potential difficulties arising downstream.

Again, however, the hon. Gentleman does not need to listen to me. Earlier the Minister mentioned the new head of the College of Policing, so let me give him a quotation from the head of the College of Policing, from a BBC News story on 25 January, under the headline “Outgoing Hampshire Chief Constable Alex Marshall warns on cuts”:

“Hampshire’s outgoing chief constable has warned further cuts to budgets could seriously impact police services. Alex Marshall oversaw a reduction of more than 800 posts”

in his force,

“but said more major cuts would be ‘very difficult’.”

The Minister’s Government have just appointed that person to the College of Policing, so it is not just me and Conservative and Labour police and crime commissioners who are raising those concerns: it is professional police officers as well.

[Mr Winnick]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the West Midlands chief constable was pressed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on whether there would be an adverse effect on the police force and police services in the west midlands, he had to agree? The cut over four years or so is somewhere in the region of 26%, and a number of senior and experienced officers have been forced to resign under regulation A19. We are facing an acute problem in the west midlands arising from the cuts. That should be recognised by the Government.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me what Chief Constable Chris Sims has said. I have mentioned the former chief constable of Hampshire; let me turn to the chief constable of Kent, who has said:

“The cuts, if they are 20%, will take us back to 2001…that’s…a significant drawback into police numbers. Clearly there is a potential impact that crime will rise.”

Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said that 2012-13 was

“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.

The chief constable of Lancashire has said:

“Let me be…clear. With the scale of the cuts…we are experiencing…we cannot leave the front line untouched.”

The chief constable of Dyfed Powys, Ian Arundale, said last year that we are approaching a cliff edge on policing. These are serious people. [Interruption.] The Minister again shouts, “Where’s the money coming from?” I have explained to him, very clearly, the difference between 12% and 20% cuts in policing. This Minister is supporting a 20% cut in policing, having gone into the election arguing for 3,000 more police officers. This Minister is taking 15,000 police officers off the streets of Britain, when he promised at the election to put 3,000 more police officers on to the streets of Britain. I will let the British people judge on that in due course and we will argue about those issues in due course. [Interruption.]

If the Minister wants to have a discussion about Eastleigh, I can tell him that John O’Farrell, the Labour candidate, will certainly be able to campaign strongly, given the 295 police officers lost because of the votes of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members today. I look forward to the Labour campaign in Eastleigh focusing on crime and punishment. I also look forward to reminding the people of Eastleigh that the Liberal Democrats proposed 3,000 more police officers, along with no rise in tuition fees and various other issues that they have broken their promises on. [Interruption.] The Minister appears to have been injected with something over the last couple of hours, because he is really quite frisky. He seemed to be hyper throughout his contribution; now that he has sat down, he still seems to be hyper. I do not know who will win the by-election in Eastleigh; the people of Eastleigh will choose their next Member of Parliament. The key question they need to ask is: who is going to stand up against the coalition Government? I suspect that neither a Liberal Democrat nor a Conservative MP will do that. Let the people of Eastleigh make that judgment.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I think the hon. Gentleman has had his fair share. I always like to give way to Members, but if he will allow me, I will try to finish and allow other Members to have their say.

There is much we can talk about, but one thing is clear. This settlement will damage policing yet further. It will damage the ability of police officers across the country to serve their communities. It is the wrong settlement—it is the third year of a very damaging settlement. I want to stand up for policing and for our communities and to fight and reduce crime. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this tawdry settlement from the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Most of the ACPO business area work has been integrated into the College of Policing. I pay tribute to ACPO’s work in ensuring a smooth transition towards the establishment of the college, which is very important. ACPO is a private limited company; it is not owned or controlled by the Home Office. It is therefore for ACPO itself to determine its future as a company. Home Office grant-in-aid funding to ACPO headquarters ceased at the end of 2012 when the College of Policing was established.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Undercover policing is extremely important. Does the Minister think that it would be improved, and public confidence in it maintained, by investigating the allegations that have been made about the identities of dead children in London being used as passports for police undercover names? Does he agree that improving standards in undercover training is one of the key elements of the College of Policing?

[Damian Green]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I absolutely agree. The College of Policing is there precisely so that we can improve professionalism in all areas of policing, and clearly that applies to undercover policing, which is, as he and the House will know, a particularly sensitive area at the moment. On his previous point, if he can be patient for just a few minutes my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is about to say something about that.

Knife Crime

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) for bringing the debate to Westminster Hall. He spoke with passion and concern and reflected heartfelt constituency pressure to raise the issue and consider solutions to the problem of knife crime. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). They have shown by their remarks that not only in Essex, where the tragic incident that we have heard about happened, but in inner London, Northern Ireland—which I know well from previous ministerial involvement—and throughout the United Kingdom, the concerns that the hon. Member for Clacton has raised need to be addressed by the Government. There is a need to look for possible solutions, to reduce knife crime and the resulting deaths.

I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Clacton about the death of Jay Whiston and by the fact that because of that tragedy, irrespective of any pending court case, Jay’s family and friends, and people in Clacton, have said that it is not just for the Government and the police to deal with the issue; it is for us to make a stand and make comments and contributions, and act to save lives in future. Families have responded in that way before. I hope that there will not be further families in that position; but Jay’s family are taking the issue seriously, and it is a tribute to them as much as to the hon. Gentleman that they have brought it to his attention and that he has responded.

I cannot claim to be an expert in the subject, but I spent my last three years in government, before the 2010 general election, in the Home Office and, before that, the Ministry of Justice. Knife crime was on our agenda; it was something that we had to consider and deal with. I hope that we responded in a way that helps to militate against the likelihood of future deaths, despite Jay’s tragic death a few weeks ago. I say that because the solutions that we considered then are still worthy of consideration. I want to hear how the Government can develop those ideas, to help to put a stop to incidents and reduce the likelihood of injury and death.

One of the most tragic things that I had to face in government was the fact that with every knife death I received a report on my desk, containing the details and circumstances. Even when we had invested time and energy in taking steps to reduce, as I hoped, the number of further knife deaths, some of the most painful things that I, departmental officials and the police who were seconded to the Department had to do were meeting victims’ families, listening to their concerns and trying to set out some policy development to help them. I am not talking about what we did out of any sense of pride, but I hope that it will be understood that, as part of the development of a response to a growing trend, the previous Government considered several initiatives to bring the issue to the public’s attention and take effective action.

As a Minister, together with Jacqui Smith, I considered the supply of mobile search wands to police forces. In inner city areas, for example, or elsewhere on Saturday nights—in towns such as Clacton—police could bring forward mobile search arches, so that people who turned up for social events had to walk through an arch for the detection of knives or, indeed, guns. On average, I authorised 150,000 stop-and-searches in a year, which resulted in 3,500 knives being confiscated. That did not stop the problem, so I brought legislation through the House to double the maximum sentence for possession of a knife from two to four years. We increased the age at which knives may be purchased in shops for legitimate uses from 16 to 18 and ran a strong campaign with retailers, so that their staff knew that people who went into B and Q, Tesco, Sainsbury’s or other stores could not sell any knife over the counter to someone under the age of 18. Trading standards strongly enforced that as part of our work.

Among other solutions for the longer term, we considered how to give new powers of stop-and-search to head teachers in schools, because people often took knives into schools. That was a powerful deterrent. Equally important was helping to support and advise parents, so that they could understand what activities their young people were taking part in. That is why an important initiative for the future was the 5,300 safer school partnerships, with dedicated police officers allocated to schools to advise parents and carry out enforcements.

The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned advertising campaigns, and the previous Government allocated £3 million to an advertising campaign on television and in bus shelters and on boards, in areas with the highest rate of knife crime, to show people that knives are not about an individual carrying a sexy object around, but are about death, destruction and a potential 30-year prison sentence for someone who commits murder.

We need to revisit those ideas. I hope that the Minister will consider what the previous Government did. The present Government have taken forward some relevant issues. Education, enforcement and changes to sentences are important. They can send deterrent messages and give people the power to tackle knife crime effectively. I give credit to the Government for recent moves to ensure that such activity continues. Their gun and knife crime initiative last year was extremely valid, and they have undertaken a range of activities, similar in some ways to what we did in the last years of the previous Government, which raised the issue effectively.

Despite my best efforts and those of the Government, the evaluation of our work on all the relevant issues, such as enforcement and sentencing, showed that knife crime had not really changed. That is why I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. Not only are there things that we and the Government can do about enforcement, education, sentencing, catching and deterring people and providing wider understanding, but there is the issue that he mentioned of the underlying causes and culture. I think that there is a culture—partly to do with the modern technology of games and other activity—in which human life is cheap and can be thrown away, and we need to look at that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham makes good points about adult role models, employment and social conditions. He also makes a good point about technology moving on, so that the Xbox can be used to communicate in a way that police and others cannot track. That takes us to other debates that we will have elsewhere about the potential to monitor that type of social media, and the balance between a legitimate interest of the state and the rights and freedoms of individuals to live without state interference.

There is one area where I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Clacton. He said that this is a localism issue. I think that it is—I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the new police and crime commissioners will deal with it locally and what the relationship between the Home Office and PCCs will be—but central Government can set down some key messages and policy directions, as has been done in the past, through the tackling knives action programme that the previous Government introduced and the current Government’s youth and gangs programme, which provide additional resources targeted at specific areas.

[Mr Carswell]

I am genuinely interested in the various initiatives that the right hon. Gentleman implemented as a Home Office Minister. I have learned something new. Is not the real significance, by his own admission—I do not wish to be confrontational or partisan—that, despite all that, the problem was not solved? Perhaps that centralist mentality and the idea that it can be solved centrally is the problem. Perhaps it is precisely because we are searching for public policy innovation in the Home Office that we are not getting anywhere. The place to find the innovation is out there locally.

[Mr Hanson]

There is a balance between the two. Some of the ideas introduced under my jurisdiction as a Minister and some of those that the current Government are taking forward were locally approved solutions. A money pot was available centrally for people to bid against under the auspices of our knife action programme. That is why we had imaginative solutions: in some areas the focus was on head teachers; in others, it was on knife wands; in others, on stop and search; and in others, education.

In a key area, the focus was on those people who had been sentenced for knife offences. One of the most innovative projects that I visited was at Liverpool prison and in Leeds, where people who had been involved in knife crime and been sentenced were going through an intensive programme of knife-related activities to show some of the consequences and how they could be deterred from committing such offences again. Most prisoners who have not committed murder will go out again in a relatively short time. I am interested in looking not just at prevention but, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, at the work with those who have been sentenced for offences that are knife-related but not murder.

[Dr McCrea]

In acknowledging some of the answers, we must not forget parental responsibility. Parents are responsible for their children in their homes. From speaking to the families of victims of knife crime, does the right hon. Gentleman know that there is a belief that quite often Parliament or Governments and their initiatives have been a reaction to events rather than being proactive? Is that a misconception, or do we need to change how we tackle the issue?

[Mr Hanson]

I think we do have to react to events. Governments often respond because things happen and that is perfectly legitimate. I want to press the Minister on one issue in particular. Given the evaluation of the work of the previous Government, taken with police and local authority advice and with budgets provided centrally, such as the TKAP activity, and given that it has been said that there was not necessarily a discernible change in behaviour, I would like the Minister to talk not just about the good initiatives that he is taking now to tackle knife, gun and gang crime, but about the equally important, longer-term behavioural issues and societal changes mentioned by hon. Members.

The Government are funding additional support to police forces in three areas—London, Manchester and the west midlands—where more than half the country’s knife crime occurs. There are prevention grants, further funds and a whole range of ongoing activities. That funding runs out in March 2013. Given the range of activities pursued by the previous Government and this Government’s initiative on guns, knife and gang crime, will there still be in 2013, as there will have been for nearly six years, a pot of money centrally allocated by the Home Office for distribution to local authorities and police forces such as in Essex or Clacton? Will that still be there post-2013? At the moment, the five years’ work that I have outlined and that the Minister will outline ends in March 2013. What is the post-2013 financial responsibility?

What relationship does the Minister see between PCCs and central Government? Where does the responsibility now lie? Will the solution be entirely local, or will guidance and suggestions still come from a central Government Minister? Will he particularly look at the worrying statistics that came out earlier this year? I took through the Commons legislation that increased from two years to four years the penalty for carrying a knife. This year, 51 of 1,100 juveniles caught with an offensive weapon were locked up in jail. We spent a lot of time taking that legislation through the Commons to increase the penalty. We spent a lot of time publicising it and enforcing it. Yet we have a situation where 51 out of 1,100 juveniles caught are given a custodial sentence. Is that where we should be? I am not saying that it is or it is not; I am simply asking the Minister to focus on those issues.

Although incidents that involve the possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon have dropped in this period, from 5,194 to 4,270, a smaller proportion of offenders is now going to jail. I simply ask whether or not we should take this route. I ask the Home Office what research is being done on the qualitative impact on prison population issues.

Will the Minister look again at the initiatives taken over the past five or so years to see which have worked in the longer term? The previous Government picked 16 or 17 geographical areas to look at serious knife crime. As I have mentioned, three areas—London, the west midlands and Greater Manchester—are where most knife crime occurs. If we want to reduce knife crime, we need to focus on areas such as Clacton where this terrible incident has occurred. However, to make a qualitative impact we need to look at the driving forces in Manchester, the west midlands and London that are leading to half the incidents of knife crime being in those three areas.

I suggest to the Minister that the Mayor of London; Bob Jones, the new police and crime commissioner for the west midlands; and Tony Lloyd, our former colleague, the new police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, are three people he should have in his office speedily to look at what can be done in those areas, over and above what has been done to date.

I throw those ideas in, not because I am an expert or have sage advice on such matters. However, experience has shown me that this is a difficult issue with many aspects that need to be addressed to resolve it. The hon. Member for Clacton has done a service to the House and his constituents by bringing this debate about those, such as Jay Whiston, who have lost their lives through knife crime. I hope that those who watch, listen and read about the debate recognise that there is a drive from all parties in the House to ensure that no other family and community need to face that ever again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I will come on to that. As I have said, I have spoken about several areas that are not the direct responsibility of the Government, and I want to reach those that are more in my area of ministerial responsibility.

[Mr Hanson]

The figure that the Minister cites is welcome but, perhaps after the debate, I would welcome a breakdown of juvenile, domestic violence and adult crimes. The debate has focused on juvenile crime, but not on domestic violence and adult crime, which are equally important. Will the Minister reflect on that outside the Chamber?

[Mr Browne]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the disaggregation of statistics. We are talking about a crime that causes people huge concern. Even those who have never been or known victims fear the seemingly random and devastating nature of the crime. I take that very seriously, and we will certainly look at the disaggregated statistics to see where we can make further improvements.

In the time remaining, I want to talk about police and crime commissioners, legal changes and wider Government policy, but I will start by addressing gangs and youth violence, because much knife crime happens in that context. Young people who are involved in gangs are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour generally and to carry a weapon. We cannot look at knife crime, gangs and gun crime in isolation, which was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester.

As part of our programme on ending gang and youth violence, we have provided funding and support to the 29 areas that have been identified as having the most significant gang and youth violence problems. I acknowledge that other areas have problems, but we are targeting Government attention on those where the problem is greatest. The Home Office has reprioritised £10 million of funding for this financial year to support those areas.

The new programme builds on work that is already under way, including the communities against guns, gangs and knives programme. As the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned, that programme has directed an additional £3.75 million over two years to three police forces—in London, Greater Manchester and the west midlands—in which there is disproportionately more gang crime and associated violent crime, including with knives.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to meeting the police and crime commissioners. I am pleased to inform him that all of them from England and Wales will meet throughout Monday at the Home Office with the Home Secretary and other Ministers, including me. We will certainly take the opportunity to talk to them about some of the good ideas and best practice that we have tried to develop as a Government or that has been developed in other parts of the country. That will equip them to implement good ideas from elsewhere, while also formulating their own.

As well as preventing young people from getting involved in violence and gang activity, action must be taken against those who break the law. As the law stands, carrying a knife in a public place is already an offence with a maximum penalty of four years. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that change was introduced a few years ago. As part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the Government have strengthened the law on the possession of knives by creating the new offence of carrying a knife or offensive weapon in a public place or school when the weapon is used to threaten or endanger others. There is clearly a distinction between someone carrying a weapon who claims that it is for legitimate purposes, and someone brandishing one in a way that is intended to threaten or intimidate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I cannot off the top of my head give the right hon. Gentleman the number, but I am pleased to assure him that I have worked closely with Jan Berry, who comes from Kent and still lives there, and has continued to take an interest in police affairs after standing down from the Police Federation. The right hon. Gentleman is right that many of her ideas are extremely good, and I shall write to him with the details.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the Home Office is not best placed to lecture on bureaucracy, given that it presided over a shambles of an election that cost an extra £25 million just because it took place in November? Will he remind the House of the basis on which November was chosen for the election date?

[Damian Green]

The election date was chosen by Parliament. There have been many elections in November. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the American public went to vote earlier this month—they do not seem to object to a November election. He would do well to take the advice of the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who said on Friday after the elections were over:

“We shouldn’t carp, we should now move on and we should accept the elections of the new commissioners as they come through and…make sure that it works because they are there, they’re in place, the public have spoken”.

I think that the Chair of the Select Committee is wiser than the shadow Minister.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[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 Hanson]

New clause 1 was designed, following Opposition pressure in Committee, to ensure that licences are displayed, in order to tackle precisely the problems described in recent interventions and by the Minister.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Hanson]

I want to test the hon. Gentleman’s logic. Why in February did he vote, along with other Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, against measures that would have brought the Bill into effect more quickly?

[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 Chope]

I missed the last bit of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Was he saying that the police can act, notwithstanding the fact that we are saying specifically that the Bill will not extend to residential premises?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Hanson]

My only point, which I may not have made clear to the hon. Gentleman, is that we could have been where we are today 11 months ago, if the Government had done what they were asked to do then.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his new post; I am sure that he will enjoy it.

One month away from what are flagship elections for the Government, let us reflect on where we are. More than 7 million people who do not have access to the internet will find it difficult to get information from the Government because of cost savings. Election organisation has been shambolic; parliamentary orders have been laid late, including orders on the Welsh language, driving down turnout and increasing costs. The Electoral Reform Society predicts the lowest turnout ever and the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), having stirred up apathy, has now jumped ship. What turnout does the Minister expect on 15 November and will he finally publish the cost to the taxpayer of this shambles?

[Damian Green]

I have answered the question about the cost to the taxpayer once, and the shadow Minister’s right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) made the point that we had answered it several times before.

On the first point about how difficult it is for those who do not have the internet to have access, I should say that one phone call will get them access. Anyone who phones the helpline can have all the information that is available on the internet—for the first time, information from every candidate—sent to them in hard copy. It is extremely easy for everyone to get hold of information about the election, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) will campaign alongside his hon. Friends, many of whom seem to take the elections a lot more seriously than he does.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I hope that it will not do his reputation too much damage when I say that over the past two years he and I have found common cause on a number of law and order issues, much to my surprise and, indeed, his. I am sorry that today there is a slight difference of opinion between us on the content of the Bill, because I believe that the measures it sets out will be a valuable addition to the police’s armoury. I say in passing that, if that was a short speech, I look forward to hearing one of his longer ones at some point, because it was certainly a good effort on his part.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on bringing forward the Bill and thank him for doing so. He has been unfailingly courteous in helping to inform Opposition Front Benchers and other Members of the House about the Bill’s objectives. We have had a good dialogue on the Bill before Second Reading and I believe we should support it. He made a very strong case in his speech, and I believe that the Bill will be a good addition to the police’s armoury in tackling metal theft.

Metal theft, as we have heard today in contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and other Members, is a huge and growing problem that has increased over the past three to four years largely because of issues to do with the price of metal. There have been many high-profile cases, and in every constituency, as the hon. Member for Croydon South said, churches, school halls, war memorials and cemeteries have been hit by thieves, who take metal for profit, for cash and for their own gratification, and who in doing so cause immense disruption and distress and have damaged the fabric of our society.

I was particularly struck by the experience of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whose own father’s grave was desecrated, and only this week we saw the conviction of two individuals who took part in the theft of the memorial to Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball, who were killed in Warrington some years ago.

So there is a real issue, and in cash terms the Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that metal theft costs the UK economy about £770 million a year. The British Metals Recycling Association, which supports the Bill as a group of people who deal with the matter daily, says that 15,000 tonnes of metal is stolen each year, and it is clear that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 still allows hundreds of businesses to operate outside the licensing and inspection regimes. I pay tribute to the association, with which I have had meetings on the issue, and it fully supports the measures before the House.

The Energy Networks Association reports that the cost of metal theft to energy generation industries rose from £11.7 million in 2010 to some £60 million in 2011. Metal theft in churches rose by 48% between 2010 and 2011, and the cost of repairs to railways has risen to £60 million over the past four years.

The British Transport police estimate that between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011 there was a 70% increase in the theft of cable, which is undoubtedly the No. 1 crime on the railways, accounting for almost 40% of railway property theft—not to mention the delay, danger and inconvenience it causes.

The British Transport police also confirm that the prevalence of metal theft is tied closely to the price of metals on international markets, and sadly, or positively, depending on which way we look at it, that is expected to rise until at least 2015.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) is on the Opposition Front Bench today, because as a Home Office Minister with me in the previous Government, when the trend began to emerge, he took action and undertook surveys and reports in the north-east, in particular, on the recognition of that emerging trend. He was instrumental in founding what has turned into Operation Tornado, which is now being rolled out nationally, and it is an issue that we certainly need to deal with throughout the United Kingdom.

In my constituency, metal theft is a real issue. Indeed, in March, Judge Niclas Parry, sitting in Mold Crown court in north Wales, said that metal theft had reached “epidemic proportions.” It is not something that judges take lightly, and in a sense I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley that, on that aspect, we need a tool in the box for catching criminals and for ensuring that they are convicted and sentenced effectively, but the Bill provides for another aspect—tackling the issue at source, because sadly the police cannot be at every statue, plaque, cemetery, railway junction and railway line. They certainly have to catch criminals, but they also need to help us consider how we tackle the issue in a different way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) tried to do that in a Bill before the House last year, but at that stage the Government did not support his proposals. I do not wish to introduce to our discussions this morning a note of discord, but the Government were slow to recognise and act on the large and increasing problem of metal theft. It is only because Back Benchers, the Opposition and others put pressure on the Government that tough and urgent action was taken, but sadly what we had was a piecemeal approach.

The reforms proposed were new clauses inserted at a very late stage into what is now the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. They tackled the problem in part but left a number of loopholes, which the Bill from the hon. Member for Croydon South will close. So poorly thought out was the 2012 Act that some measures that were brought before us only a few weeks ago are now subject to repeal in this Bill, supported by the Home Office, which took the 2012 Act, when it was a Bill, through the House only weeks ago.

Clause 16(f) of the Bill before us repeals

“sections 145 to 147 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act”,

which received Royal Assent on 17 May 2012. I do not know whether there is a Guinness record for the shortest time that a piece of legislation, which, indeed, will not even come into effect until October, has remained on the statue book, but if there is, sections 145 to 147 of the 2012 Act would certainly qualify—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) smiles a knowing smile—[Interruption.] He says that he was thinking of some of our legislation, but I challenge him to find something that lasted from 17 May 2012 until its repeal in a Bill—supported by the very same Department and produced by the hon. Member for Croydon South—today.

But let us leave that aside, because we do not want a note of discord, and a sinner repented is better than a sinner not.

I am very pleased to see that the Bill mirrors much of what the Opposition, including the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), called for last year. We called for tougher powers to close down rogue traders; for anyone selling scrap to have proof of identity and a record from the point of sale; for the licensing of scrap metal dealers, rather than the current method of registration; and for a move to ban cash transactions, especially for large-scale, high-value scrap metal deals. The plan was supported by the British Transport police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Neighbourhood Watch, the Association of Train Operating Companies and the Local Government Association.

The proposals that we talked about in January were a balanced and comprehensive package to deal with issues that Members on both sides of the House recognised, and they would have made it more difficult for organised criminals and opportunistic thieves to profit from metal theft. The measures formed the basis of much that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn did in his Metal Theft (Prevention) Bill, which was prevented from receiving further scrutiny although it contained much of what is in the Bill before us.

During the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill on 6 February, my hon. Friend the noble Lord Rosser included one of the provisions in the Bill before us, on powers of entry into scrap yards, in an amendment to that Bill, but the Government defeated his proposed change, albeit by only six votes.

Again, earlier this year, we tabled an amendment to delete the itinerant metal sales exemption on cash payments, a measure that the Government now support in the hon. Gentleman’s Bill before us, so I should certainly welcome today the Government telling the House again the basis on which they exempted itinerant metal sales from the Protection of Freedoms Bill in February. Our amendment would have closed that loophole, and it is thankfully being closed today, but I still do not get the logic behind the Government’s view in the first place.

Speaking in another place on 20 March, the noble Lord Henley on behalf of the Government said:

“We are only talking about a very small number of people”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2012; Vol. 736, c. 888.]

Yet the Minister here today, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, said in a holding answer from 26 March to a written parliamentary question:

“There is no accurate information available on the total number of itinerant collectors operating in the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 34W.]

I am glad that the Bill closes off that exemption for itinerant dealers.

We need to consider verification of suppliers’ identity, which we have called for and is now addressed in clause 10. The Bill gives the police greater powers of entry and the right to make closing orders. We welcome the increased fines and the extension of the rights of entry under clause 13. There is still a discrepancy as regards the right of entry to unlicensed sites, although the Government attempted to deal with that previously. We need to consider that in Committee. I welcome the banning of cash transactions, as I did when it was considered during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill earlier this year. We need to consider this seriously.

We need to have verification of suppliers’ identity, which we have called for previously. I therefore welcome the proposals in clause 10, which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe regulations on documents, data or information sufficient to order and verify the supplier’s identity. There is a fair amount of discretion for the dealer. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on this. We will explore in Committee what regulations will be brought forward, particularly with regard to verification. I would particularly welcome some detail on that, as it leaves open a wide range of potential options. The Bill refers to

“a reliable and independent source.”

I would be interested to know whether that includes passports, driving licences or utility bills. Perhaps it could have been solved by an identity card, but I will not go down that route, as I do not want to introduce any discord. I put the Minister on notice that in Committee we will want some clarity on what is a reliable document for these purposes.

We support the more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to licensing. The Bill allows for scrap metal licences to be issued by local authorities and, in turn, the Environment Agency must maintain a register of licences. I welcome those measures, and I am pleased that the Local Government Association supports them. This is an extremely important part of the Bill and one that we cannot afford to get wrong. In Committee we will need to explore how we ensure that licences and databases are fully maintained and accessible. Saying that we want those things and will put them in place is very different from delivering them on the ground. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on how he intends to maintain the database and keep an eye on it.

Schedule 1 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to set a fee for registration. That was raised by the hon. Member for Shipley. I welcome the power for the Secretary of State to set a fee and the fact that there is discretion for local authorities to be flexible about what the fee is dependent on their work load and the number of potential sites in their areas. I would welcome an indication from the Minister, now or in Committee, as to what he envisages the level or range of fees to be. Although the British Metal Recycling Association supports the introduction of a fee, the key point is what level it is set at and how that impacts on businesses. An early indication would take some of the pain out of the equation for those who oppose the Bill.

There are still a number of outstanding issues that the Bill does not address, including the use of Environment Agency funding and the agency’s inability to use its resources to target those who do not pay their fees. The Environment Agency’s role in the context of current legislation needs to be examined in detail by the Committee.

The BMRA has called for second-hand domestic appliance traders and used gold traders to be brought within the scope of the Bill. I put the Minister and the hon. Member for Croydon South on notice that we need to look at those issues. We need not come to a conclusion on them as yet, but I would welcome some detailed thought and consideration as to whether we need to amend the Bill in Committee to include those types of traders. There may or may not be a case for that, but we need a considered examination of the issues.

There is also the general issue of enforcement and the overlapping of the scrap metal dealer and environmental regimes. If there is not sufficient clarity on this approach, there could continue to be enforcement issues.

I have received representations about the exportation of stolen metals, which we can consider as the Bill progresses. If we tighten up the system in this country, there is still no barrier to people exporting stolen metal and recycling it elsewhere in the European Union or further afield. Calor Gas, for example, is losing 100,000 canisters a year, with a large number being exported to Africa. The law of unintended consequences means that tighter policing, regulation and enforcement regarding restrictions on stolen metal recycling in the United Kingdom might lead to increased exports and the involvement of more organised crime rather than just petty criminals.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Felixstowe is in my constituency, so I recognise that it is a big challenge to make sure that we are monitoring goods going out as well as goods coming in. Given that it was suggested earlier that about 30% of crime is organised activity, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill represents a great opportunity to tackle the other issues as well?

[Mr Hanson]

I support the Bill because it does provide an opportunity to tackle those issues. I am merely saying that I want clarity from the Minister, who has the resources of the Home Office behind him, in considering whether activities may be displaced towards exportation. The involvement of organised crime means that stolen metal being recycled at local institutions could be replaced with its being exported to places such as Africa. Calor Gas has expressed to me the concern that canisters from its business are being stolen and exported for recycling rather than that happening in the United Kingdom. We need to think about how we address that. Can the new National Crime Agency get involved? How do we work with the Environment Agency? Do we need to look at any amendments to strengthen the Bill?

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Scrap will tend to start off in smaller scrap yards and be moved along a chain, so by the end of the process, when it is ready for export, it is in a huge conglomeration and nobody is looking at the detail as it is done purely by weight. We need to make checks as we go along to ensure that the plaques and other goods are not in there, but the end of the road of export is a difficult place to do that, so we have to make sure that it is done much earlier in the chain.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that she has taken a great interest in metal theft in her constituency.

This is a very valuable Bill. Policing is very strong in this respect, and the Bill will help, but there are still potential displacements and unintended consequences that we need to monitor downstream. In relation to the comment by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), when scrap arrives at Felixstowe it may well be too late to deal with the problem. I want to put the great minds of the Home Office on notice that we would like some consideration of those issues when the Bill arrives in Committee.

We will not oppose the Bill. I want to give it a fair wind and enable it to pass into Committee, where we will scrutinise it very closely. We want swift progress because the level of metal theft is causing irreparable damage to people’s lives and unacceptable disruption to our communities. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon South for producing a Bill that is worthy of support. He has handled himself in an exemplary way in his discussions about the Bill. We will give it a fair wind today, but I give notice that there are certain issues to which we will return in Committee. I hope that in a spirit of cross-party co-operation we can, in September or October, examine those issues for the benefit of our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As always, it is a great pleasure and honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)—it is a Croydon day today, is it not? He made some moving points, and the whole House will have been moved by what he said about his personal experience of the effect of metal theft.

Whether we have been affected personally, as my hon. Friend has, or just read about the problem in the papers, we all know that metal theft affects everybody. Some people may have been stuck on a train that has been delayed because the tracks have been taken up and destroyed. Even though a particular church might not have suffered any metal loss, it will still suffer from having to pay increased premiums as a result of thefts from other churches.

There is no doubt that there is a problem, but I rise to express concerns about the Bill. I will not repeat everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, because he did a thorough job of going through the problems that could arise with the Bill, and because those problems might well be dealt with in Committee.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on his success in coming second in the private Member’s Bill ballot, which has given him a place at the top of the agenda this morning. Although the Bill is a private Member’s Bill, it has much the look of a Government Bill—it has 20 clauses and two fairly lengthy schedules. That is perhaps not a surprise, because, as we know from the House of Commons note, the Bill is a handout Bill. The note helpfully describes a handout Bill as a Bill offered by the Government to a Back-Bench MP to take forward as a private Member’s Bill, and states:

“These are usually Bills for which the Government has not been able to find time in its”—

legislative—

“programme or, for some other reason, it does not want to present itself.”

I do not know why the Bill is not a Government Bill, but perhaps we will find out when we hear from the Minister. I can think of at least one Bill—namely, the House of Lords Reform Bill—that could be jettisoned so that the Government can find time for the House to consider a Government scrap metal dealers Bill. People outside would be much happier for the House to discuss a problem such as that caused by the theft of metal.

[Mr Hanson]

Just so the hon. Gentleman is clear, the Government made proposals in a previous Act in the previous Session but rejected the measures in the Bill. The Government therefore made a political decision in the previous Session not to proceed with the provisions. They are supporting them in this Session because of pressure from Back-Bench Members such as the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell).

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister takes that view when we hear from him.

Metal theft is doubtless a serious problem, but it is also an increasingly high-profile problem. The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that metal theft costs the UK economy approximately £770 million a year. The British Transport police, who have the lead policing responsibility for metal theft, experienced 2,000 incidents in 2010-11, up some 33% compared with the previous year.

The reason for the increase in metal theft is largely tied to the international scrap metal price. A useful diagram in House of Commons Library research paper 12/39 demonstrates that. The graph shows that there is almost an exact correlation between the level of metal theft and the price of metals on the international market. The increase in the price of metal on the international market has led in recent years to an increase in the problem of metal theft.

I am sure all hon. Members would like to see an end to the problem, just as we would like to see an end to all other forms of crime that cause so much damage to our society, and I am absolutely sure that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and its six sponsors, are entirely well meaning. I have great respect for their views.

I mentioned that scrap metal theft is a particular problem for churches. The Ecclesiastical Insurance Office, which deals with church insurance, wrote to me on 6 July seeking my support for the Bill:

“Metal theft is an on-going epidemic in this country. Since 2007, the problem of mindless criminals stealing metals from churches, schools, heritage properties, railway lines and even hospitals has continued to rise as the demand for such metals on world markets has increased. 2011 was the worst year on record for the number of metal thefts from churches with some churches in this country now being targeted for more than 10 times in the space of only five years.”

As a church warden of my parish church, I ought to declare an interest. We are as concerned as anyone about the increasing cost of insurance. Many examples have been mentioned—war memorial plaques stolen, chaos on the railways, churches desecrated—but the scrap metal industry is already extremely well regulated. Society has long accepted the need for regulating the industry. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which the Bill would replace, repealed the Old Metal Dealers Act 1861 and several other Acts. So the regulation dates back well over 150 years.

It is already an offence to steal metal under the Theft Act and to handle stolen goods, so we need to examine why these offences continue, given that apparent deterrents are already on the statute book. The existing regulation is not driving out the rogues from the industry, so what will make the new regulations any more successful? The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 received Royal Assent just 74 days ago, but has not come into force yet, so we do not know what effect the increased penalties will have.

One fundamental change to the regulatory regime will be the introduction of a scheme of registration and identification similar to the one requiring solicitors to ascertain the identity of their clients for the purposes of money laundering legislation. I had some experience of conducting such tests when I practised as a solicitor, and I know only too well the rules and regulations dealing with money laundering and the detailed information about clients that has to be kept.

I note that the Bill does not state what sort of identification will be sought from those seeking to sell scrap metal, but leaves it open for future debate. No doubt that is one of many matters that we can consider in more detail on Report. However, being able to establish someone’s identity is not quite as straightforward as some people might think. Very often people will come without any form of identification, which will no doubt cause inconvenience at the very least, when they are told, “I’m sorry, I can’t pay for your scrap because you’ve not got any identification,” and they will be sent away. They might scrub about in their pockets and pull out a credit card, but that will not have their address on it and so will not be satisfactory, so they will go away disgruntled and have to find further proof of who they are before they can return. It remains to be seen, but I suspect that the evidence will have to be photographic—a passport, a driving licence with a photograph on it or some other photo ID—so that the person conducting the check can verify that the person whose identity documents have been produced is indeed the person before them. The matter is therefore not quite as straightforward as people might otherwise think.

As has been said, a lot of action has already been taken to try to sort the problem out. We have heard that in November 2011 the Government announced the establishment of a dedicated £5 million national taskforce, led by the British Transport police and comprising officers from across England and Wales whose job it would be to target metal thieves and scrap metal dealers trading illegally in stolen metal. The taskforce’s first steps apparently included a programme of action to target scrap metal dealers suspected of trading illegally in stolen metal. At that time, the Government said they would consider longer-term options to tackle the problem of stolen metal being traded too easily in the scrap metal industry. As we have seen, the Government then changed the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, increasing the fine available under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 to

“level 5 on the standard scale”—

that is, a fine not exceeding £5,000—and introducing a new criminal offence that prohibits cash payments.

All that has not really had a chance to work; nevertheless, we are now faced with the possibility of new legislation, and we have to consider whether it will be successful. Clause 20(1) states that the Bill applies only to England and Wales. One does not have to be Einstein to work out that the Bill risks creating a possible loophole that those involved in underhand, illegal and criminal activities of this nature will quickly spot. It is that people would simply go to Scotland or Northern Ireland to dispose of their ill-gotten gains. Before anyone intervenes on me, I should say that I accept that Scotland is looking at the problem and that it might well come up with a similar set of rules and regulations to those that we have here in England. I do not know whether Northern Ireland is going down a similar road. Nevertheless, if this Bill is to be successful, discussions will need to take place between the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom on what they are doing to tackle the problem.

If the Bill is successful, it will repeal the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, but there is no doubt that it will also increase the level of regulation. That is what it is all about. Its raison d’être is to create more rules and regulations to restrict the opportunities for those involved in criminal behaviour to get away with it. That brings me to the Government’s one in, one out policy, which I strongly support. What regulations will be scrapped to make way for the creation of these new ones?

The Government’s report, “One-in, One-out: Third Statement of New Regulation”, that was issued in February this year shows that, unfortunately, the Home Office does not appear to be doing too well in the league table. According to annex A of the report, its contribution to the overall total was a negative one. It had three “ins” and only one “out”, and the zero net cost is listed as 5. In terms of the annual regulatory cost to business, the Home Office’s “ins” cost £50.8 million, with an “out” cost of only £0.83 million, leaving a net balance of £49.97 million. I submit that the Bill will only leave the Home Office further marooned at the foot of the one in, one out league table.

That leads me to the benefits of increasing regulation in the scrap metal industry, and to ask how successful that will be. In this regard, I am obliged to Philip Booth’s blog posted on the Institute of Economic Affairs website on 5 January. He writes about the fact that the regulation designed to tackle money laundering is being recycled for the scrap metal industry, and relates the views of the British Transport police on the matter. His blog states:

“The British Transport police go on to say: ‘My serious belief is that if you put those measures in place, Johnny in the white van isn’t going to want to turn up, produce his passport or his driving licence and proof of where he lives so we can then very quickly check where [his metal] comes from.’ Precisely…This will be the case whether Johnny in the white van is a builder or a criminal—the two will be treated exactly the same. The naivety of the proposals is stunning. Already, about ten per cent of economic activity in developed countries takes place in the shadow economy and serious work suggests that regulation and taxation are a major cause of this. Whilst Johnny Plumber in the white van may just decide to dump his scrap in landfill rather than have it recycled, Johnny Criminal will turn to the black market which will thrive. Indeed, Johnny Plumber may decide to become a criminal himself and use the black market. So, as ever, well-meaning measures lead to more stress on the natural environment, more business costs, more criminality and the people who it is designed to hit will just carry on as normal in a thriving criminal world.”

There is therefore a real danger that the Bill will not be as successful in tackling the problem as its promoters hope.

A number of changes to the regulatory regime have already been passed, but have not yet come into force. Also, Operation Tornado has certainly been relatively successful. We know that from the debate in this Chamber on 18 June, when the Minister said that

“Operation Tornado, a voluntary scheme supported by the British Metals Recycling Association”

had been so successful that it had reduced metal-related crime

“by half in the first three months of 2012 across the three north-eastern police force areas of Northumbria, Cleveland and Durham.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 718.]

In anybody’s book, that is pretty impressive. If such a level of success could be rolled out across the country, that could be just as beneficial to society as the measures in this Bill.

Let me repeat my support for some of the remarks on sentencing made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. There is a problem if the risk of being detected is low. If people think they can get away with crime, they will be more likely to be tempted down the criminal path. Secondly, we must have stronger sentences that actually act as a deterrent to criminals. We need honesty in sentencing, too. I remember the days when it was Conservative party policy to have honesty in sentencing, and I look forward to that once again being the case, so that when someone is sentenced to six months in prison, they spend six months in prison, and when they are sentenced to five years, they spend five years in prison.

I trust that the concerns that my hon. Friend and I have raised will be looked at when this Bill goes into Committee, and I assure the House that its measures will be examined very closely on Report.