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.

Olympics (Security)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

If I may just correct the hon. Lady on one fact: there have not been three security Ministers over the past two years and two months.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Pauline Neville-Jones, Angela Browning and the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).

[Mrs May]

No, Baroness Neville-Jones was the first security Minister, and my hon. Friend is the second. Perhaps the shadow Home Office team could pay a little more attention to what happens with Ministers—I know that there are more of them shadowing us than there are Ministers.

The Home Office and others examined the contract and worked with LOCOG and G4S throughout the period in question to ensure that the arrangements they had in place were correct. Only yesterday did it become clear that G4S felt it was not able to provide the full number of personnel that it was contracted to provide. I hope the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will agree that, in those circumstances, it was entirely right for the Government to act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Yes, I would be happy to have such a meeting. I meet chief constables regularly and visit forces a lot, and I am sure that I will visit Nottinghamshire again in due course. Police forces up and down the country are showing that they are broadly coping well with the reductions in funding. They are making savings and continuing to reduce crime while protecting the front line. That was what HMIC’s report said last week.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

In the county of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), 162 police officers will be lost by 2015, yet if reports in the weekend press are to be believed, the Home Secretary is asking the Treasury for more money to invest not in officers to tackle rural or other crime but in the election of police and crime commissioners. Is that true, and does it not show once again that the Government’s priorities are wrong on this matter?

[Nick Herbert]

I am absolutely astonished by the right hon. Gentleman’s question, since only last week he and I were in a Committee of this House debating how much money should be spent on promoting police and crime commissioner elections, and he called for an increase in resources and for us to spend more money on those elections. It is frankly astonishing that he should ask me the question that he just has.

Proceeds of Crime

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly hear my hon. Friend’s point, and we will monitor that carefully in relation to the directive. As I have indicated to the House, there is currently no proposal in the directive dealing with mutual recognition.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says, but I wish to clarify it. In another place’s proceedings on the matter only recently, on 22 May, Lord Henley, the Minister, said:

“The directive offers us a valuable opportunity to raise the standard of asset recovery legislation in the EU, enhance our co-operation with member states, and increase our powers to recover criminal assets held overseas.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 778.]

Why did the Minister in the Lords say that only two weeks ago, whereas the Under-Secretary is saying today that we are not going to opt in?

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will see that my noble Friend underlined clearly that the Government had not concluded their consideration of the directive at that point and had not formulated their decision on whether to opt in. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by law enforcement partners about civil recovery powers, and we have determined that the best course of action to protect our laws and our current civil recovery operation is not to opt in. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to challenge that view. He seems to have determined that it would be appropriate to opt in.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take a different course, I am happy to give way to him.

[Mr Hanson]

I was simply looking at what was said only three weeks ago in another place and what the Minister is saying now. Given what he has said today, is he willing to publish in the Library at least some sort of précis of the responses that he has had from the agencies concerned, so that we can examine them in the light of the directive?

[James Brokenshire]

I am certainly happy to consider that, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are sometimes operational sensitivities attached to doing so. We have heard clear representations from operational law enforcement partners, which have been an important factor for the reasons that I have outlined. We none the less recognise that the UK would benefit from the directive raising standards across the EU regardless of whether we opted in, because of the developed legislation that we have in place in this country.

Not opting in at this stage is not a sign that we do not care about asset recovery. It is a sign that the UK takes it very seriously and is committed to getting legislation right for the UK and all member states. Our ultimate aim is to achieve better mutual recognition of both criminal and civil confiscation. The directive will not achieve that, and we will press for a further instrument or instruments in due course that would have that effect. We will analyse the directive carefully, but in the context of the current version, and for the reasons that I have explained, our clear judgment is that the UK should not opt in at this point.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The nature of the debate has changed slightly since the initial discussions in another place some weeks ago. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the draft directive on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime in the European Union, and I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of his view. He mentioned that the debate should have taken place before the recent recess and was pulled at the last minute. That might be for the reasons of operational advice that he gave, but I smell a bit of anti-Europeanism on the Conservative Back Benches—there is a slight whiff of concern about the EU encroaching on the House’s legislation. Perhaps that is one reason why the Minister has looked at the matter in more detail, but I accept at face value his indication that he has taken advice.

The directive seeks to harmonise national responses by laying down minimum rules for member states with respect to the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets. As the Minister knows, dissipating and converting the proceeds of crime into a variety of assets is one way in which criminal gangs and terrorist organisations operate. The process of uncovering such assets can be complex and difficult, and international co-operation is an indispensable tool in the recovery process.

Like the Minister, I welcome the promotion of cross-border responses. In order to be effective in tackling organised and other crime, we need to co-operate and strengthen our existing relationships with other states within the EU. The Commission believes that EU and international law remain underdeveloped and underutilised. Crime does not respect borders, and we must have a proactive cross-border approach.

I found myself agreeing with Lord Henley, the Minister in another place, who said on 22 May that the directive offers a valuable opportunity to raise the standard of asset recovery in the EU. The Minister has tonight indicated that we already have a strong UK provision on such matters. In fact, for the most part, the UK exceeds the requirements of the draft provisions, owing in no small part to the measures he mentioned, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which was passed by the previous Government, and the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010, which I supported as a Minister and saw through the House as a shadow Minister only a couple of years ago.

The Minister has noted that there are a range of figures, but around £560 million-worth of UK criminal assets are overseas. We need to look at how we recover those, because sums of that magnitude indicate that the Government can do more. Effective international co-operation is key.

I believe the directive will be an important tool in tackling serious organised crime, but I am willing to take at face value what the Minister has said. I would like further information on any concerns that have been expressed to him. He can share those either with the House or with me on—dare I say—a Privy Council basis, because I would like a flavour of them. Ultimately, I want an improvement in the asset recovery regime across Europe and international co-operation with our European partners to deal with this problem.

As the motion asks the House to take note of the document, it is important that we examine it. The European Scrutiny Committee highlighted a number of issues, including a range of matters on which there needed to be further work—I accept that these are for discussion—including the extent of criminal offences and the implications of article 8 on safeguards for the legal aid budget. There is a concern whether article 9 includes value-based confiscation, and a concern about articles 3 and 4 on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, and on extending confiscation when the court

“‘finds it substantially more probable’ than not that these assets are derived from other similar crimes.”

There is concern about article 7.2, under which, in urgent cases, assets may be frozen prior to obtaining a court order, which is at odds with UK legislation. Article 7 requires member states to be able to freeze property that is in danger of being dissipated, hidden or transferred, as ordered by a court.

A range of issues were raised, including on article 11 and others, by members of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am listening with care to the argument the right right hon. Gentleman puts to the House, but I am unclear on one thing: does he think we should opt in to the directive, yes or no?

[Mr Hanson]

I have said to the Minister that we believe that the directive is a positive development, as the Minister in the other place also said, only two weeks ago, and we should look at it in a positive way. I will take at face value the concerns that the Minister has raised this evening about operability and the advice that he has received from the agencies, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should not opt in because of a wave of anti-European sentiment, that is a very different matter indeed. I will certainly be a positive European. We should have co-operation. I want to see co-operation between states. I also want the European Union to take powers to take the assets of criminals abroad who are operating and making profits in this country. That would not be a bad thing. I would very much welcome further discussions with the Minister about the points that he has raised, but in principle I have no objection to a Europe-wide document helping to support this approach and enshrine improvements on what we currently have in British law.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Was that a yes?

[Mr Hanson]

For the anti-Europeans on the Government Benches, let me say that it is certainly a yes. I certainly wish to see co-operation on a Europe-wide basis to freeze terrorist and criminal assets and to repatriate them to this country. The hon. Gentleman can certainly take it as a yes. This evening I have listened to what the Minister has said, which indicates that he has had advice—which I have not seen—that says that there are difficulties with this measure. What I am saying to the Minister—and to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place—is that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and I would wish to have sight of that advice and to have further briefing on it, so that we can scrutinise the operation of the process by the Minister and how he intends to take forward discussions on the document as a whole. However, I sense that Government Members have objections to the very principle of such co-operation, rather than to the practice that the Minister has set out.

I would like to have some idea from the Minister—either now or after contributions from right hon. and hon. Members—of how he will take this matter forward. He has indicated that he has concerns about certain issues, but he has not yet shared with the House the details of what they are. What is his timetable for discussion with his European Union colleagues on these matters? Does he have a timetable to try to resolve the issues? Does he intend to return to the House at some point to sign up to the document, or has it been kicked into the long grass because he knows that, ultimately, Members such as, I suspect—with due respect—the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and others would vote against the measure, no matter what was brought forward, as a matter of principle? If that is the case, the Minister should be honest with the House, because we will certainly return to this matter in due course, when we have seen the advice that he has received, as far as he can share it with us. I sense that this is not just about the operation and practice of the measure; rather, I sense that there are certain elements on the Government Back Benches with a fundamental objection to the principle of such co-operation.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Many Members on the Government Benches agree that we should co-operate. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that we can co-operate without giving up control in some of these policy areas and without subjecting ourselves to the authority of the European Court of Justice, which is what this directive is about?

[Mr Hanson]

Case proved, m’lud: the hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others, does have concerns about this issue in principle. What I take from the Minister this evening is that the advice that he has received from operational organisations points to concerns about the ability of the measure to deliver what it should deliver, which is an increase in the assets taken from criminals and terrorists, and their repatriation to the United Kingdom. If that is the reason he is lukewarm this evening about progressing the measure, I will look at that in detail. If the reason is the pain and suffering that hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others may bring upon him—because of their fundamental objections to further European co-operation on such matters—that is something that we will also revisit in due course. If the Minister can provide us with a timetable for further discussion and examination of the issues, and if he is saying that he will rule out for ever signing up to this—[Interruption.] If he would like to say that on the record, that would be helpful.

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not rule anything in, and we do not rule anything out. It will depend on how the negotiations proceed. The EU itself will be leading the timetable, and the presidency will take that forward. I understand his desire for a timetable, but that is not within my gift.

[Mr Hanson]

We have heard an interesting development in the consideration of the order this evening. There has been a clear position change from that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, only two weeks ago.

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hanson]

I am afraid there has. The Minister has explained this evening the basis on which he has made his comments on the order. I will seek to obtain further information on that, as that would represent valuable progress. I suspect, however, that underneath all this there is a slight concern about the reaction of some Conservative Members, who will undoubtedly raise the concerns that I have mentioned, during the rest of the debate.

Emergency Services (Interoperability)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend is well ahead of me. I will talk at some length about the Olympics, which is one of the biggest challenges our country faces in terms of a possible security threat. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for gold command, led by the police service.

On the broader issue of who responds on our behalf in an emergency, taking the simple example of a serious accident on the motorway, attendance of the police and the ambulance service, responding to dangers to life, and of the fire and rescue service—to free people trapped in vehicles—will be necessary, but it is just as crucial that the Highways Agency is there to assess the situation, to help to minimise the effect on traffic and get the motorway moving again as quickly as possible. That example shows why joint working is paramount.

If we accept that the services responding on our behalf to an emergency need to work more closely together, where does responsibility for joint working currently lie? The three main blue-light services are the responsibility of different Departments. The police service is the responsibility of the Home Office; the ambulance service is administered by the Department of Health; and the fire and rescue service is administered by local authorities, under the control of the Department for Communities and Local Government. In theory, that may be no bad thing, but in practice there is grave danger that each service is considered in isolation. Since becoming an MP, I have learnt about silo thinking, and with each emergency service attached to a Department, there is a danger of such thinking.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

There are even more silos, because the health service and local government in Wales are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and the position is similar in Scotland. The Home Office has a responsibility nationally for such matters. Rather than three silos, there are in fact five or seven.

[Mark Pawsey]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which adds to the argument in favour of some overarching control or administration to ensure close working between the various agencies involved, so that we do not drift to silo thinking.

I welcome the fact that the Crime and Security Minister is here to respond for the Government, because the police take the lead at incidents—my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) drew attention to the police taking command—and he is best placed to speak about interoperability between the emergency services. I hope that he accepts that there must be greater focus on the need for joint working between the services and between Departments. The Government must understand and appreciate the need for greater collaboration.

Interoperability between the emergency services means that each of the three Departments that I mentioned must work together, and the Cabinet Office, which is charged with ensuring effective development, co-ordination and implementation of Government objectives across the board, must play its part in ensuring that interoperability becomes a key facet of our emergency services. For there to be a unified service response, there needs to be a unified Government response to the pressures faced by the services.

The problem was highlighted in a 2011 report by the Royal United Services Institute, “Anatomy of a Terrorist Attack”:

“Political understanding of the complexities of major incident response is critical to the future of the emergency services.”

The report also contrasted the civil situation with the military situation. In the military, all three emergency services report to one body, the Ministry of Defence, but the civil emergency services do not have an equivalent. In the absence of a Minister with specific responsibility for the broader emergency services, there is no one to argue for ring-fenced or increased budgets, making the recommendations of the report on 7 July difficult to implement.

We can see a difficult picture emerging, although given the structure of the civil service and how government is organised, there is some sense of inevitability about that. It is important, however, to understand how vital interoperability between the services is. Communications between the services—their ability to talk to and understand each other—is also a key point in joint working. Lady Justice Hallett reported:

“It is also well known, particularly as a result of the report of the 7th July Review Committee, that there were considerable failings in radio and mobile communications...The unprecedented volume of radio and mobile telephone communications caused congestion on the airwaves because of a lack of capacity. The emergency services and London Underground were further inhibited in their communications by restrictions on the coverage of their radio systems.”

My awareness of the issue arose from a visit to Airwave, a company with a substantial presence in my constituency of Rugby. The company designed, built and operates the largest public safety radio communications network in the world. It delivers voice and data communications to all the organisations involved in the public services, including the blue-light services as well as local authorities, utilities and transport providers. It has its own Tetra—terrestrial trunked radio—network in the UK, which was purpose-built to meet the needs of the emergency services, and covers 99% of the country’s landmass. Since 2008—after the 7/7 bombings, clearly—the network has included the entire London underground system. Importantly for us, given what we are discussing today, Airwave’s network is interoperable, which means that the emergency services and public safety organisations can communicate effectively with one another.

The success and importance of interoperability within the emergency services was noted in the coroner’s report on 7/7, which drew attention to the need for inter-agency liaison and communications:

“The 7th July 2005 Review Committee concluded that communications within and between the emergency services ‘did not stand up on 7 July’. It further observed that individual emergency service personnel could not communicate effectively, in some cases with each other and, in other cases, with their control rooms…There have been substantial improvements brought about by the introduction of the CONNECT and AIRWAVE radio systems.”

Where are we now? How can interoperability help? Each day, the emergency services need to ensure that they are working with each other efficiently. Furthermore, working together takes on even more importance during major events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on raising this important subject. He made some very sound points about the need for national co-ordination, efficiencies and interoperability between emergency services. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Co-ordination is vital.

I am reminded, as you will be, too, Mr Havard, that only this weekend there were very difficult circumstances of flooding throughout mid and west Wales. Looking at the reports from places not too far from my constituency or yours, we see that major rescues were undertaken involving Royal Air Force Sea King helicopters from the military, inshore lifeboats, fire service rescue boats, Dyfed-Powys police, the Environment Agency, Ceredigion local council and voluntary agencies, all working together to respond to an emergency that flared up in a very short time.

A lot of planning is done for events such as flooding, major aircraft disasters, fires, building collapse, and indeed terrorist incidents. That planning is vital. Interoperability of the emergency services and the need to co-ordinate their efforts is an important part of the planning process, but, as the hon. Member for Rugby highlighted, it can be improved. Whatever any Government do, now and in the future, there are always efficiencies, improvements and information exchanges that can help those services to be provided in a much stronger and more efficient way and to prevent failures. I echo the tribute paid to those who put their lives on the line on any occasion. It is valued by all Members.

The flooding happened this weekend, but as has been mentioned, a simple, regular, unfortunate incident, such as a road crash, involves operability between services. Major events such as the recent jubilee weekend, the forthcoming Olympics and the events of 7/7 also demand responses from a range of agencies across the board. The riots of last summer involved police forces coming into London and needing to work with other police forces. I can recall as a Minister being in Cobra for 7/7, for fuel and prison strikes, and to look at the question of riots and services in Northern Ireland. There is a need for planning, but it is also vital that operability and information flow requirements are met.

The landscape that the hon. Gentleman outlined is indeed complicated. There are not only the three UK Government Departments that he mentioned, but, as I said in my intervention, the devolved Administrations, which deal with health and the fire service in Wales and Scotland and with much of everything in Northern Ireland. We have a range of bodies—the national health service, the coastguard, the police, the British Transport police, the Army and voluntary agencies outside Government, such as the air ambulance service, St John Ambulance and the Red Cross—that very often deal with emergency response.

The hon. Gentleman made some valid points, and I agree with him on the need for the dissemination of common language and an examination of efficiencies in equipment, and to ensure common equipment that is compatible with all services. I will return to Airwave in a moment, but I want to talk about common practices. I was struck by the example of arguments about whistles and what they mean. Common practice is important, and common information should be provided. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) that there should be a drive toward shared facilities by Government and local authorities. The ambulance service in one town in my constituency is considering removing its station and sharing a facility with the police and fire service, to provide a better service—the same level of service but provided more efficiently. We can look forward to that.

In the few minutes available, I want to focus on the dichotomy highlighted by the debate between the need for greater central planning and control, with efficiencies driven from the centre through the Cabinet Office, Government co-operation and work with devolved Administrations, and the present Government agenda. I do not say that to be critical, because this is not the time to be critical; but it is fair to say that the Government agenda is driving many services into a more local context. That is true of a range of issues highlighted by the hon. Member for Rugby. Cobra will have an overarching view from the Cabinet Office, as Ministers and officials look at major international and national events, and there will be co-operation between the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and others at national level, but I want to put things into context and get a feeling from the Minister about how things fit together.

For example, on 15 November, England and Wales will get 43 police and crime commissioners, who will be able to set their budgets, issues and agendas locally. The National Policing Improvement Agency will soon be disbanded, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It recently issued guidance on issues pertinent to this debate. There is also the potential for the abolition of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has a co-ordinating, overarching responsibility for many policing issues. The Government have not yet made it clear to me what will replace it for the co-ordination of operational policing services and the provision of operational guidance on the issues we are debating today. In the context of search and rescue and coastal agencies, the Government recently split and put out to tender private contracts covering two different parts of the country. As I understand it, the Government have so far failed to provide the assurances needed about how that will work operationally. Major changes are being made to the coastguard service at local level—again, devolving downs and removing services.

For me, there is the smidgin of a question about how things will fit in together at the local level, when the Government’s agenda, rightly or wrongly—I have my own views—is driving things down locally. How can the co-ordination that the hon. Member for Rugby so eloquently advocated be required when police and crime commissioners decide their budgets, the National Policing Improvement Agency has disappeared and ACPO is no longer in place? How can it be achieved when contracts are let to the private sector for coastguard services and local government is under pressure in relation to fire services, reportedly resulting in, at the last count, more than 2,200 firefighters being cut, 50 stations being closed and 1,000 non-operational staff being lost? A separate issue is the loss of 16,000 police officers, which I shall always mention, in every debate about emergency services.

The localism agenda needs to be examined in the light of how we co-ordinate services nationally. What are the Government’s thoughts when the demands of operational activity are becoming ever more national and regional—including the Olympics, the jubilee, the terrorist threat and major operational challenges such as the flooding at the weekend? Set against those are the Government’s drive to localism—local decisions and local budget control. How will the Minister and his Department deal with mandating services and co-ordinating the efficiencies to which the hon. Members for Rugby and for Hexham rightly drew attention, when the localism agenda says, “Do what you want in the regions and nationally we will stand back a little bit more than perhaps we have in the past”?

Airwave is an important topic in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rugby, and I have also taken an interest in it, both as a Minister in the Department and, recently, shadowing that Department. The Minister will know that the current contract for Airwave comes to an end in 2016. In a written statement on 26 March the Home Secretary said that the

“management of the contract for the Airwave radio system and its replacement (including associated staff)”—[Official Report, 26 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 95WS.]

will be further considered by the Home Office shortly. She said that the matter will be transferred into the Home Office later this year. I have tabled questions to the Minister, and the answer I have had is:

“The programme is at an early stage and is in consultation with all stakeholders, including the police, to define their requirements.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 305W.]

I should be interested to know the Minister’s current thinking on Airwave, because in Government terms 2016 is not that far away. What is the Minister’s vision of Airwave’s replacement, post-2016? How does he envisage the replacement being commissioned? What does he think about the requirements for the system, taking on board the points that the hon. Member for Rugby made about operability, and the devolved Administrations and Government Departments? Does the Minister plan to have management of the system located in the Home Office permanently? What representations has he had from outside groups about the post-2016 contract? What discussion is engaged in with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the national health service, Scotland and Wales and other colleagues in his Department about the system requirements? It is important that there is efficiency in the system and value for money for the taxpayer, but it is also important to have something that works and meets the needs of the whole community.

I am anxious to give the Minister time to reply to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Rugby, but I want to mention the three driving forces that should come into play in his consideration. The first is effectiveness. The speed and type of response that the emergency services give save lives and prevent injury and are incredibly important. We need to ensure that whatever we do, and however we organise the system—I have some worries about the localism agenda supplanting the national and regional ones—there is a speedy and effective response to all incidents, and that it is planned in advance, measured on delivery, and evaluated afterwards for continuous improvement. There is a need for efficiency and cost to be considered by Ministers in relation to such matters as the potential helicopter contract now coming to light, and in terms of contracts generally. We need to consider how we drive efficiency and cost improvements in national contracts. Again I ask how, with 43 police and crime commissioners, the changes in the NHS and the localism agenda, the Minister believes we can drive the value for money agenda forward and make savings. Even more than in the past, the Minister will not be in control of how budgets are spent, unless he mandates forces and organisations to sign up to contracts, in which case he will have to set their criteria, and co-ordinate and oversee them.

[Guy Opperman]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an impressive speech, but I am a little curious about a couple of points. Clearly, there would always have been reductions and changes, even under the Opposition’s budgetary proposals. What would you have done differently to avoid the impacts that you describe as the Minister’s problem?

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I could outline what I would have done, but the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to say what he thinks.

[Mr Hanson]

I could argue about funding for ever, but this is not the time for such a discussion. The hon. Member for Rugby talked about the need for national standards, national training, national examination and national co-ordination, but the Government’s agenda is to drive things locally, with the new police and crime commissioners, a national health service that is freer from the Government, and a general lack of target setting. There is a dichotomy. Although I would happily debate at any time the difference between the 12% cuts that I proposed as Minister and the 20% cuts in police that the Government are introducing, my question is how, when the challenges are regional and national, the Minister intends to meet the challenges of greater co-ordination during a period of localism, when the levers he has available are becoming ever more distant from his Department. There is a real challenge there that he must address. How will he drive forward that agenda? How will he make those efficiencies and savings, and who ultimately retains accountability in that changing landscape?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Havard. I echo the clear and common message that has emerged from this debate, which is to thank the emergency services for their contribution, day in, day out, to keeping us safe. I thank them for their significant professionalism and bravery, examples of which have been cited during the debate. I am sure that the House would underline that clear message of gratitude for the work of our blue-light emergency services.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate and on chairing the all-party parliamentary group on the emergency services, following that work through and facilitating a good and constructive discussion on the issues that are relevant to interoperability, to which I will seek to respond in my comments. I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity to update the House on some of the work that we have been doing to support the emergency services and to promote a better joined-up working approach.

It is clear that police, fire and ambulance teams work together on a daily basis with successful outcomes. Although the response to major incidents from our emergency services is among the best in the world, we are not complacent. The emergency services face significant challenges in responding to major incidents, particularly in the initial stages of a complex and fast-moving situation when the picture can be confusing and there may be unseen dangers. The three services must be able to come together as quickly as possible to share information about what is going on, to manage the risks and rescue any casualties. When the emergency services work together in that way, they save lives.

We continue to learn from events, such as the 7/7 London bombings and the shootings in Cumbria, and from regular national exercises designed to test the joint response. The severe impact and complexity of major incidents and other civil emergencies mean that we must strive for continuous improvement in the combined performance of the emergency services in joint operations.

The Home Secretary has asked the emergency services to set up a new programme of work designed to further improve our joint response to emergencies. The overall aim is to ensure that the blue-light services are trained and exercised to work together as effectively as possible in response to a major incident, including fast-moving terrorist scenarios, so that as many lives as possible can be saved.

The programme will be led by the emergency services through a joint forum, which will enable them systematically to plan, test and learn together. We fully support the delivery of the programme and have provided dedicated resources to look at how future improvements can be made.

I am conscious that a number of contributions highlighted the need for effective co-ordination and joined-up working at national level. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) that the Government are working collectively on this important issue. There have been a number of cross-departmental ministerial meetings to agree how to promote interoperability. The most recent was last month when the Home Secretary and her colleagues met senior representatives from the emergency services to discuss the plan for the new joint emergency services interoperability programme, which I will talk about in more detail shortly.

It is also worth highlighting that the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working closely together on a daily basis. The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister for the fire and rescue service, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will oversee that work through a cross-departmental ministerial board. We understand that we cannot work in silos and that a unified Government response is required.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) rightly highlights the need for engagement with the devolved Administrations, as policing, health and fire and rescue are devolved matters. We continue to work with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations, as do our emergency service partners, on the breadth of the programme, to promote a consistent approach to the development of responses and response capabilities and to facilitate the sharing of best practice.

At local level, the local resilience forums have an important role to play. Emergency services are required by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to come together with other organisations defined as Category 1 or Category 2 responders to identify and assess the risks in the area and develop and validate plans to respond to them.

Let me talk a bit more about how we will address the need for overarching co-ordination. At national level, the Government have set out in both the draft strategic policing requirement and the draft fire and rescue national framework, the requirement for connectivity between the emergency services. The strategic policing requirement will, for the first time, set out the national threats and the appropriate national policing capabilities that are required to counter them. The election of police and crime commissioners allows Government to get out of the way of local policing, rightly putting accountability in the hands of local people. The strategic policing requirement demonstrates our commitment to get a better grip on the national threats that we face and to ensure a unified approach. Under the strategic policing requirement, police forces will consider consistency between forces and connectivity with other emergency services so that we can improve interoperability between the police, other blue-light emergency responders and other partners in responding to significant emergencies.

The new police professional body will take on the policy functions of the Association of Chief Police Officers and set standards for police professionals. It will ensure that police officers and police staff have a common skill-set and common tactics, where appropriate.

We have talked about the need for interoperability. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said that it was important to recognise joint working between individual agencies: the fire service, the ambulance service, the police and other agencies. Equally, there is a need for individual agencies to operate effectively themselves, and communication is certainly one element of that. I shall highlight some of the work that has been done around communication.

At this stage of the programme, our highest priority is the interoperability of police, fire and ambulance responders operating in a time-critical environment, where speed and accuracy of information are fundamental to the saving of life. However, we accept that the requirement for interoperability extends to a wider group of emergency responders and other agencies, who will be involved in and consulted on the development and implementation of the programme. I join right hon. and hon. Members in praising the work of local resilience forums, including their efforts to bring local responders together and to plan for risks that local communities might need to deal with, and I agree that such forums are a strong example of interoperability in action.

Future work, led by the joint emergency services interoperability programme, will ensure that responders have effective communications, guidance, training and exercises to support their response to a major incident. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, the programme will also consider opportunities for equipment and procurement sharing.

There are three key priority areas for the programme. The first is communications. Rapid sharing of information and intelligence is at the core of an effective response. It is needed to establish the type of incident, and to mobilise and co-ordinate the appropriate response. Ongoing communication within and between the emergency services will support on-scene commanders, who need to work together to make decisions and take urgent action.

The sharing of information within and between the emergency services is supported by Airwave radio communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby clearly highlighted the importance of strengthened joint communication. The programme will seek to ensure a common approach to the use of mobile communications during major incidents. Effective communications will also be enabled by the national resilience extranet, which is an information-sharing tool. In addition, the Government are working to pilot the direct electronic incident transfer, which will allow the electronic exchange of incident logs between front-line responders.

The right hon. Member for Delyn highlighted the future of Airwave and it might assist him if I gave a further response on that subject. The Airwave contract across the police and other emergency services expires between 2016 and 2020; I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated that that was the case. As a consequence, the emergency services mobile communications programme has been commissioned by the Home Office to examine potential replacement solutions for the emergency services post-Airwave. Future service provision will be based on a review of the anticipated operational needs of the emergency services, and the technical capabilities and commercial opportunities available. Various technologies are being considered, but at the moment the programme is at an early stage of technology evaluation, with the first version of the strategic outline business case due in October.

For the future, interdependent relationships with the emergency services mobile communications programme will ensure that interoperability is a central feature of the future replacement for the Airwave service, when the current commercial contract expires. We will certainly provide further details to the House, as and when they are available.

[Mr Hanson]

I seek clarification from the Minister on just one point. Will it be mandated that police commissioners have to allocate budgets to purchase the system replacing Airwave? Is that the plan?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is entirely right that we encourage the police to see more diversity in their ranks. There are many ways in which we do want to see more women and people from black and minority ethnic communities joining the police force and being able to press through the ranks, but my hon. Friend makes the important point that in looking at these issues we do not want bureaucratic processes to take over. Either I or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will meet him to discuss this.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Even if I accepted what the Home Secretary said about the changes in administrative burdens, the reality is that 16,000 police officers are being lost. Last week at the Police Federation conference, they told me that 20% cuts would lead to administrative workloads increasing, not decreasing. Only today, the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys warned of “an austerity crime wave” as a result of the Government’s approach to policing. Will the Home Secretary now recognise that despite any package of policies she takes forward on administration, there will be fewer police on the beat and more administrative work to do?

[Mrs May]

No, the whole point of the approach the Government are taking is that we are cutting the bureaucracy for police to enable them to spend more time on the beat. The challenge is this: I was willing to go to the Police Federation conference and be absolutely honest with the police about what we are doing. I trust that the message that the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow policing Minister gave to the police was that Labour Front Benchers support the same level of cuts in funding as the Government are putting through, and the impact that that would have. I wonder if the shadow policing Minister told the police about his view that £600 million should be taken out of police overtime.