Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Christopher Chope(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first opportunity I have had in my time in this place to introduce a balloted Bill as a private Member’s Bill. I was lucky enough to come 17th in the ballot and I took a punt on whether it was likely to find time to debate the issue if I put my Bill forward for this day. I am delighted that the stars have been so aligned that I have the opportunity to speak at greater length on the subject than I was able to do last year, when a similar Bill called the Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill 2013-14 had its Second Reading debate on 17 January. Unfortunately, on that occasion the debate started at 2.25 pm and lasted for only five minutes, although even during that short debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), the present Secretary of State for Defence, who was then the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, was able to say that he could not support the Bill.
In the hope that I will be able to persuade the Government of the merits of my Bill, I have expanded its scope slightly for this Session. I also have some heavyweight supporters—my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans)—a formidable collection. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the Chamber today.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any of those right hon. and hon. Members have ever visited north Wales, where we have a £3 billion-plus economy based on offshore wind, which would be destroyed by his Bill?
Mr Chope
I am not sure that it would be destroyed by the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had a debate about that in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, and I heard then the case for north Wales. The point I put to him is that if that great development in north Wales is so good, why can it not be sustained without taxpayers’ subsidy?
Mr Hanson
The issue is not just the taxpayers’ subsidy. Clause 1(1) states:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected within fifteen miles of the coast of England and Wales”.
Clause 1(3) states:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed . . . if it would form part of a group of wind turbines which totals more than one hundred”.
In my constituency area we depend on a large amount of investment, which would be destroyed by both aspects of clause 1.
Mr Chope
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me, in summing up this debate, thank everybody who has participated. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has given me cause to wonder whether on the next occasion I bring forward this Bill it should apply just to England. That might remove one of the big objections.
Mr Chope
He is shaking his head, but I thought one of his big objections was that the Bill did not take account of the special situation in north Wales.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his generous comments and for his support. As has been pointed out, he and I were two of the five people who voted on Third Reading against the Bill that became the Climate Change Act 2008. I am sure we have no regrets about having taken that decision. Indeed, a lot of our colleagues who were in the House at the time come to us every now and again to say, “I wish I had been with you in the Lobby.” The more that time passes, and the greater the subsidies and the implications for the British taxpayer and energy user, the more that people realise that that Act was a very extreme measure. It is probably totally inconsistent with our long-term economic interests. The Minister is looking at me straight in the eye, and I hope that, in due course, when we have a real Conservative Government, we will take another look at whether or not it did set an example to the rest of the world and cause them to reduce their global CO2 emissions in the way we thought it would. I think that wearing the hair shirt we have potentially done more damage to our own manufacturing industry and our own economy, and benefited those in other countries who are less principled. I continue to be concerned about that Act.
On jobs, my right hon. Friend the Minister rightly says that because of the industrial policy, Siemens has come here with its technology. It has not transferred the technology; it has come here and is making money from offshore wind turbines. Let us not forget, however, that the projected impact in just the Christchurch bay area is the loss of some 2,000-plus jobs from the tourism industry as a direct result of putting up wind turbines, which we are subsidising. So let us keep those jobs in the equation before we say that any jobs generated as a result of turbine manufacture must be a good thing. Let us keep some perspective on that. It has been said that the Bill would effectively close down the industry, but it would not do so, as the industry should be able to develop wind turbines of more than 100 metres in height in deep water beyond the 20-mile limit. That may be available in the future, so the Bill is not quite as restrictive as some claim.
I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made that just dealing with offshore wind turbines does not address the whole issue. Perhaps next time I will come back with a Bill that covers both onshore and offshore wind turbines.
We heard in the last debate on the control of horses that trying to get the Government to change their mind is an iterative process. Sometimes one cannot do it in one Session, and obviously I have failed so to do this time. But when the Minister comes back after the next general election, hopefully as a Secretary of State in a purely Conservative Government, I hope that he will be more sympathetic to the revised Bill that I hope to bring forward in that first Session.
In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
Drug Driving (Assessment of Drug Misuse) Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Christopher Chope
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I would defer to the Minister if he wished to intervene at this stage, Mr Deputy Speaker—I thought he was going to do so—because my speech was going to be about seeking answers to the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), as we do need answers to those questions before we can take this Bill any further. I was a road safety Minister and I have always been very much against the scourge of drug-driving. Indeed, I have introduced—in successive years, I believe—private Members’ Bills seeking to outlaw drug-driving.
Mr Chope
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but my frustration about this is that when I introduced a private Member’s Bill to deal with drug-driving, I was told on successive occasions that we could not do anything about it because we did not have the right equipment to enable us to identify the drugs that were in the people who would be stopped by the police. A rearguard action was fought by the Home Office because, I suspect, it was concerned about the costs of all the prosecutions that would result from changing the law to put on to the statute book what is now contained in section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as introduced by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
That Act set out a new provision, which had been promoted the previous year by the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and others, who were very concerned about the scourge of deaths on our roads caused by drug-driving. What had caused me to introduce my private Member’s Bills in the first place was a horrific accident on the A31 in which a lorry driver crossed the central reservation and killed a young student. He had gone to sleep, after being high on amphetamines.
I was very disappointed to see from the explanatory notes to the Bill that we have not yet got the new offence in section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 into force. I looked then at the consultation document on the regulations, and as the right hon. Member for Delyn said, that consultation period expired about a month ago, so we have not had a Government response. When we get that response, we will know which drugs will be the subject of the new regime of drug-driving. I understand that they will include cannabis—certainly that was one of the drugs on which the Government consulted. The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but that is included as an option in the consultation document.
If cannabis is not included it will be a disaster, because cannabis was one of the main issues that was raised in my earlier private Member’s Bills, and we know—these are figures from Brake, the road safety charity—that in the United Kingdom 18% of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, and the main substance found is cannabis. Yet the Bill before us would make no provision at all in relation to cannabis, because it is confined to class A drugs. As the right hon. Gentleman makes clear, the Bill does not introduce the offence that everyone has been crying out to have introduced for years. I want to put more pressure on the Government to tell us exactly when they expect that provision to be on the statute book. Section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 needs to be on the statute book sooner rather than later.
The consultation on the regulations has finished, but the Government have not come forward with a quick response. When we get that response, draft regulations will be drawn up, and the Government’s own documentation suggests that when they have been drawn up, it will be necessary to get type approval of the testing equipment. At the moment, despite years and years on this—I know, because when I introduced my private Member’s Bill I got evidence from companies in this country that produce that drug assessment equipment and are marketing it in northern Europe and Australasia, where it is being used, and other countries—a game is being played whereby the Home Office is blocking progress, on the basis that it does not have the right equipment, but it is delaying the implementation of the type approval.
I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to intervene; I have no evidence at all as to when exactly the new offence will be on the statute book. Unless and until it gets on the statute book and is implemented, rather than just being a law, it will not make any difference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, we know that some 8,800 people will potentially be prosecuted as a result of that law as soon as it comes into effect. However, there is no timetable for bringing it into effect, because of the prolonged consultation process.
We are being asked today to approve another high-profile Bill that can be used as an example of how serious the Government are about dealing with the issue. However, it would be wrong for the House to give people who are watching this debate the impression that we have sorted out the problem. Unless and until the Government implement section 5A of the 1988 Act, we will not have an effective law against drug-driving, which is killing hundreds of people on our roads each year.
If section 5A is implemented, it will deter a lot of people from getting behind the wheel when they have taken drugs, but the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale would come into action only when the police made arrests at the roadside. Even then, as it deals only with class A drugs, it would not apply to cannabis users. Their numbers and the impact of cannabis on their ability to drive make them arguably the biggest menace on the roads.
Even leaving that aside, a police force would be able to use its discretion about whether to require a driver to present himself for an assessment, which could take place over two days. The explanatory notes state that the estimated cost of each of those assessments runs to about £200.
Mr Chope
In that case, my point is even stronger. We would not be able to get much out of a £100 assessment of somebody who had been stopped at the roadside for suspected driving while impaired by drugs. If the police used their discretion to refer the matter to such an assessment, what would happen afterwards? That would be the stage at which something needed to happen. If the assessment said, “This is somebody who has a drug problem, and they need to go and see a therapist and go for more expensive treatment to wean them off”, that would create a fresh lot of costs. The financial memorandum suggests that they are not regarded as costs directly associated with the measures in the Bill.
Mr Chope
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. We have not yet heard from the Minister, but if the Bill goes to Committee, he will be able to table amendments. My point is that for a long time, there has been too much gesture politics on the subject. Those of us who are genuinely concerned about road safety would like to see section 5A of the 1988 Act, which is already part of the statute law of the country, brought into effect. That means deciding which drugs will be included in that Act and authorising the equipment that will enable analysis to be carried out.
Mr Chope
The right hon. Gentleman is nodding sagely, but there is something to be said for putting pressure on the Government—more pressure than he has so far—to respond to these points. My understanding is that there has always been a strong conflict between the desires of the Department for Transport, which I had the privilege of serving in as a Minister, and the Home Office, which is resisting taking such measures. If I am wrong about that, and the Minister can give me a target date for full implementation of section 5A, I will happily give way to him—if he is listening.
The fact that he does not wish to intervene to try to ensure reasonable cross-party consensus shows that the Government are again playing games with the House. They talk the talk; they say, “We want to outlaw drug-driving” and they announced, with a fanfare, in the Queen’s Speech before last that they would legislate on the issue. The Prime Minister congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central and met some of his constituents who had experienced tragedy as a result of death by drug-driving. Today, the Minister has the opportunity to tell us exactly when section 5A will come into effect—legislation that was forecast and supported in 2010 in the North report—but he is choosing not to; I do not know why. Perhaps it is because, as a Home Office Minister who has been a Transport Minister, he has, in a sense, a split personality on the issue. His previous responsibility was to try to push such measures through, but now that he is wearing his new hat as a Home Office Minister, the idea is to give people the impression that something is being done on the issue when we know that not very much is being done.
The Bill is a complete side-show compared with the main issue. If the legislation is brought into effect and people are prosecuted under it, it will not address the largest proportion of offenders: those caught with cannabis in their system. The measures in the Bill should have been included in one of the criminal justice Bills that the Home Office brings forward with such regularity.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), whom I have the privilege of sitting behind, opened this Second Reading debate—I congratulate him on choosing this Bill—he was not able to say why the Bill was not brought forward at the same time as other legislation.
Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Christopher Chope(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend is right. Responsible scrap metal dealers want effective regulation, and the loopholes to be closed down. The Bill’s provisions on cashless payments and other matters are very important in that regard.
I welcome the Minister’s new clause and amendments. I welcome, too, the fact that we have reached consensus on almost every issue. I remind the Minister that the Bill as it currently stands is, effectively, the official Opposition’s Bill that the Government rejected in February in another place, and, to add just one discordant note, as a result of that there has been a delay.
There are 1,000 incidents of metal theft per week. Some 300 tonnes of metal—the equivalent of 300 cars—is stolen per week. Metal theft is causing 117 hours of delays in train services. Some 23 churches are attacked every week by thieves. This Bill will go some way towards helping to give additional powers to reduce those incidents. It is welcome, therefore, and I hope Members across the House will give it the fair wind that we agreed to give it in Committee and on Second Reading.
Mr Chope
I wish to discuss the amendments I have tabled, Government new clause 1 and the Minister’s comments. My amendments in this group are all designed to make the Bill stronger and more effective. I spent much of last Saturday discussing these issues with a prominent scrap metal dealer in my constituency, and I have also spoken on the phone to the Archdeacon of Bournemouth. I am conscious of the large number of serious thefts from churches and war memorials, not only in my constituency but throughout the dioceses of Winchester and Salisbury. I am concerned that the Bill concentrates only on the good, licensed scrap metal dealers and ignores the real villains—the people for whom law enforcement means nothing. It is fine to tighten up the law in relation to those who comply with it and believe in law enforcement, provided that at the same time we get really heavy with those who do not comply with it, and are intent on defying it and carrying on as they are.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to some of my amendments; he just said he thought they were unnecessary. My amendment 31 proposes the following:
“If a local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging in activity as a scrap metal dealer without a licence an injunction shall be applied for by the local authority against that person within 28 days.”
If a local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a person is dealing in scrap metal without a licence, why should it not be required to take action against that person within 28 days? The Bill, as drafted, has a convoluted system for depriving licensed scrap metal dealers of their licences, but it is very weak—the provisions are almost non-existent—on dealing with people who operate without licences. Where it comes to a local authority’s attention that somebody is operating without a licence we should surely require that authority to take effective action against that person within 28 days. I would be interested to know why the Government or the promoter of the Bill think that such a provision undermines the purpose of the Bill; it would reinforce the Bill so that it becomes more effective.
Mr Chope
Indeed it is. It is my desire to see not only progress, but some amendments accepted. As an indication of that desire, I have tabled an amendment, which we will come to later, proposing that the commencement date should be two months after Royal Assent. What we have heard so far from the Government is that it may be six months or more after Royal Assent before they have anything in place. That would mean that it may not be until this time next year that the provisions of the Bill are in force. The situation is sufficiently serious to warrant much quicker action than that. The regulations that local authorities are going to have to apply could be being drafted as we speak, but that does not seem to be happening. What is happening at the moment is that some of us are saying that the Bill is not perfect—obviously it is not perfect because the Government have introduced about 30 amendments—and an attempt is being made to vilify us by suggesting that we want to promote the cause of people who steal from our war memorials and so on.
The reality is quite the reverse; I am impatient, because even the legislation that we passed earlier this year on requiring names, addresses and identification to be provided and on prohibiting cash transactions at scrap metal dealers does not come into force until 3 December. When it was passed, that was done on the basis that it was going to be transforming. When I was at a scrap metal dealers last Saturday, some people came with an old car and said that they wanted cash for it. The dealer said that he was already operating under the provisions of Operation Tornado, but they said that they understood they could still get cash for scrap until December. That just shows the extent to which loopholes and an unwillingness to implement our legislation quickly can be exploited by the criminal fraternity.
Mr Chope
I am taken by surprise by that point—I do not know whether I did or not, as I have not looked at the official record. If I did, I was obviously wrong to do so, but there is a limit to the number of times I can have discussions with my Whips. I am sorry that I overlooked that opportunity, but I will check the record and speak in the knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is on my side in trying to get these issues dealt with sooner rather than later—[Interruption.] I do speak for myself, as the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), knows very well. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate him on getting back into the Whips Office, which he knows and understands so well and where he is so effective.
Amendment 92 would delete subsection (7) from clause 3 and is probably one of the least significant of my amendments. Nevertheless, I thought that it would sharpen up the Bill by leaving less discretion on the need to consult other local authorities, the Environment Agency or officers of police forces. Obviously, that can be done anyway, so do we need to put that sort of detail into the Bill when we are refusing to put in the sort of detail that I have talked about, such as the suggestion that people should not be able to be licensed scrap metal dealers if they have previous convictions?
Similarly, any reasonable person would interpret my amendments 94, 93 and 95 to clause 4 as being designed to tighten up the Bill, rather than relax it. Under clause 4, the local authority has a power to
“revoke a scrap metal licence if it is satisfied that the licensee does not carry on business at any of the sites identified”.
Likewise, it has a power to
“revoke a licence if it is satisfied that a site manager named in the licence does not act as site manager”
and if it is not
“satisfied that the licensee is a suitable person to carry on business as a scrap metal dealer.”
My amendments would mean that instead of being discretionary, it would be mandatory for the local authority to revoke the licence in those three circumstances. What is the matter with that? Surely it is a useful tightening up of the Bill.
Amendments 88 and 89 deal with the issue of residential sites. At the moment, the Bill excludes any residential premises from its ambit, which means that there is an enormous loophole. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is nodding in agreement. For example, someone might have some wire and want to burn the rubber off it so that they can sell the wire on while ensuring that there is no way of finding out where it has come from—I have had such cases in my constituency. If they are doing it in their back garden—for example, if they are, for want of a better expression, Gypsies, or Travellers, or people who probably often operate beneath the radar of the law—and unless we allow amendments 88 and 89, the local authority will not be able to take any action, as those people will say that their premises are residential.
Mr Hanson
The official Opposition raised this point in Committee. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the complexities was the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for which he will have voted, which stops residential accommodation falling under the auspices of this Bill. I pressed the Minister on that very point in Committee, and he wrote to its members after he had gone away for reflection. He has consulted the police, who have agreed that they can implement what the hon. Gentleman wants within the auspices of the Act, which he will have supported.
Mr Hanson
I am in danger of acting as I used to do as a Minister in responding to the hon. Gentleman, but after I raised those same points in Committee, the Minister assured me that the police can undertake the very action the hon. Gentleman mentions. I, too, was concerned that the residential loophole could have been exploited by unscrupulous dealers. The difficulty is that the Protection of Freedoms Act has reduced the number of circumstances that allow for the examination of residential properties, and he will have voted for that.
Mr Chope
I will not go over my voting record again, but all I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the constituency case I have in mind the police know well what is going on but say that they cannot do anything about it—or they do not have the will to do anything about it. I still do not understand why we have specifically to exclude all residential premises, because as soon as we have such a wide exclusion, it will be impossible for anyone to say that there should be an exemption to that exclusion. I read the exchange in Committee, but I have not had the benefit of seeing the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to this short debate, will explain why he thinks that this provision can be left as it is. More importantly, does the Minister accept that allowing residential premises to be exempt and allowing people to burn the coverings off scrap metal in their back yards will facilitate rather than restrict criminal activity?
Amendments 106, 107 and 108 deal with the issue of which local authorities will carry out the enforcing and regulating. It seems to me that the larger authorities—for example, the county councils rather than the district councils—are better equipped to do that. In my constituency, two of the small district councils, East Dorset and Christchurch, are effectively working together because neither has the resources to have a full-time person to deal with particular types of licensing or planning applications. Much of the activity regarding scrap metal and its environmental impact is monitored by county councils and it seems to me that it would be better for them to deal with it rather than district authorities which, by definition, have fewer resources.
Amendment 108 is designed to deal with a loophole that runs through the whole Bill, namely the definition of scrap metal trading. It says, in effect, that such trading means people who trade in the course of business, which is a very precise definition that means that people have to do it for a livelihood. Amendment 108 would remove the provision in clause 19 that a person who goes from door to door would be offending only if they were doing that in the course of their business.
It is interesting that the British Metals Recycling Association, which briefed us on the Bill, is under the misapprehension that the Bill extends the definition of a scrap metal dealer
“to all businesses and individuals that collect, purchase, process or sell discarded metals suitable for reprocessing for reward”.
The Bill as it stands, however, does not do that. It limits the definition to people engaged in business, which is why I commend the amendment to the Minister.
Mr Chope
I must say that the speech the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered is one of the most disappointing I have heard in the House for a long time. What is emerging today is an example of Parliament at its best. Indeed, it has been exemplary. As a result of the force of argument on the shortcomings of the Bill—recognised by the fact that the Government have moved a number of new clauses and amendments—the amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley tabled have demonstrated that, although people might assert that the Bill is now perfect and the complete answer, there can be nagging doubts.
Mr Chope
I am not sure that I would go along with that, because 11 months ago the Government had a Bill going through Parliament and they wanted to amend it. They made what most think was the most cogent amendment, which will probably transform, as quickly as possible, the whole regime by outlawing cash payments. That is what the scrap metal dealer with whom I was having discussions told me last week. He thinks that what is already being done voluntarily under Operation Tornado, will, when it becomes compulsory at the beginning of next month, make a difference. There is some concern about whether all the additional measures will make a significant difference. There is also the problem, borne out by some scrap metal dealers themselves, that there are a lot of rogue elements, and we are not sure that we have dealt with them adequately through the existing legislation, or even through the Bill.
Surely it is desirable for us to debate these issues in the House. If it is clear that there is a reasonable way forward by saying, “Well, you may be right, I may be right, but let us have a review and a sunset clause after five years and have a chance to rethink the whole thing”, that surely must be a good way to take forward legislation. There has been much criticism about legislation coming through on a piecemeal basis, often too rapidly and insufficiently scrutinised. In times to come, just as people talk about the Rooker-Wise amendment, people will think about the Philip Davies new clause that revolutionised how the House considers legislation. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) wants some credit too. I am more than willing to give him enormous credit, because he had the vision to introduce the Bill in the first place, and he has used his knowledge and experience to recognise that such a Bill should be taken forward on a consensual basis, working with people rather than against them. Perhaps it will be called the Davies-Ottaway new clause. Either way, it is something we should be pleased about.
Before I close, I want to refer to my amendments 85 and 86, which would ensure that the Bill comes into effect two months after Royal Assent. At the moment, the Bill is so drafted that the measures will take effect only when the Government decide they should. I would have thought that if the Government were serious about getting on with this, they could accept these amendments or undertake to implement the Bill two months after Royal Assent, and put pressure on the people drafting the regulations and negotiating with the local authorities to ensure that this is given the impetus that people in the House and outside want. That would be preferable to waiting until this time next year before a lot of these measures are implemented.