Lord Rosser
Main Page: Lord Rosser (Labour - Life peer)London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of Amendments 1 and 2 is to seek to explore the role of the Olympic Delivery Authority enforcement officers, and to explore a little bit further the provision in the Bill for any articles seized to be dealt with by the Olympic Delivery Authority enforcement officers rather than the police. No doubt this move has been prompted in part by the reduction in police numbers, which has led to police forces being severely stretched, as well as by the explanation that the Government have given for this move.
What exactly is it envisaged that the enforcement officers, many or most of whom will apparently be local authority trading standards officers, will be required to do inside and outside an Olympic venue if, for example, they are faced with ambush advertising of, say, a body of people displaying on their T-shirts a logo or an advertisement for a rival to one of the major sponsors? Is it the role of the enforcement officers to deal with those people either inside or outside the venue by seizing the offending T-shirts, or will the enforcement officers direct stewards to carry out this function, or will there in reality have to be some police involvement? What training, and how much, will be given to the enforcement officers, since surely activity on this scale in a high-profile situation, which could easily get out of hand, with seizure in the circumstances being involved, will not be something that the officers would encounter in the normal course of their duties?
How many enforcement officers is it envisaged that there will need to be to cover the Olympic and Paralympic Games, first, in London and, secondly, in the centres outside London? For what period of time will they be needed? Will they be needed just during the Games themselves, or will they be needed for a period prior to the Games as well?
If the intention is to draft in trading standards officers to the Olympic venues and their immediate vicinity from local authorities inside and outside London, what will happen to trading standards work in those local authorities during the period when their staff have been seconded to Olympic Games and Paralympic Games activity? Will that work still be undertaken, or will it be a good time for the makers and sellers of dodgy and dangerous goods and services, and others involved in illegal trading, to operate in those localities? If the work will still be undertaken, who will pay for it at a time when local authority budgets are constrained? Who will do the work? Will they be appropriately qualified staff and, if so, where will they come from?
Will the Minister also say something about the anticipated costs of the ODA enforcement officer force, including any additional costs of providing cover for trading standards seconded from the local authorities both within London and outside London? Who will pay those costs?
I return to the issue of exactly what role the enforcement officers will play in the seizure of goods. Clearly, the Government and the Olympic Delivery Authority attach considerable importance to protecting the interests of the sponsors of the Games and to protecting the use of the Olympic logo and brand. Indeed, doing this was presumably a condition of the acceptance of our bid for the Games.
If this is to be done effectively, it requires decisive and immediate action by enforcement officers since the Games will take place only for a relatively short period of time and happen in the gaze of the world’s media, where any incidents that lead to difficulties are likely to receive considerable publicity. There will probably not be the same amount of time for the pretty thorough and extensive investigations that trading standards officers normally make before taking action. Therefore, I want to ask again for a fairly full response to my question as to what exactly the ODA enforcement officers will be expected to do, including in connection with dealing with seized goods in the light of the change in the arrangements affecting the police that the Government are making.
On that latter point and on the role of the enforcement officers, what exactly is it that they will now be doing which originally it had been thought would require a police officer to undertake? Is it purely paperwork and administration, or does this change increase the risk or likelihood of enforcement officers being involved in confrontations with people carrying out illegal activities that have to be stopped, and stopped quickly?
In evidence to the Committee considering this Bill in the other place, the representative of the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers said that:
“Enforcement will be difficult logistically and numbers are an issue, as is funding”.—[Official Report, Commons, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill Committee, 17/5/11; col. 23.]
The chair of the London Trading Standards Association was asked if he had any concern about not having a police presence when it needed to take action. He replied, “Yes”, and went on to say that those concerns already existed in its day-to-day role. I suggest that if they currently exist in that role, they are even more likely to arise for enforcement officers at the Olympics where, for the reasons I have mentioned, there will certainly be pressure for speedy and quick action. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some answers to the points that I have raised.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment and allowing us to debate further the issues in these provisions. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 provides for Ministers to make regulations about advertising and trading in the vicinity of the 2012 Games. Under the Act, those regulations are enforceable by the police and by ODA-designated enforcement officers. Both are empowered to seize articles for specified purposes connected with a contravention of the regulations, such as to stop goods being sold in a regulated area or to enable goods to be used as evidence in a criminal case. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
Under the Act, any article seized by the ODA must be delivered to a constable, with the effect that all seized articles are dealt with by the police. This imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on the police when they will have many other calls on their time. Indeed, it was at the request of the police that Clause 1 was included in the Bill. In its current form, Clause 1 would change this for England and Wales. It would provide for articles seized in England and Wales to be held by the ODA, rather than the police. In dealing with seized articles, the ODA would be required to comply with detailed rules inserted into the 2006 Act by the Bill. This change would mean that during the 2012 Games police time is not spent filing and dealing with seized property. Other police powers of enforcement are not affected.
However, at the request of the Scottish Government the position there will be slightly different because of the different legal systems and because the pressure on police time will not be as great as in England, where most Games events will occur. In Scotland, the police and ODA will agree among themselves who will deal with seized articles but where it is agreed that the ODA will deal with articles, it will be required to comply with similar handling rules as apply in England and Wales.
The effect of Amendments 1 and 2 would be to maintain the position under the Act whereby police are required to deal with all seized articles. As I have said, this would impose an administrative burden on them at a time when there will be many competing—and, arguably, higher priority—demands on their resources. In particular, in England and Wales, where most Games events will take place, police will be busy ensuring the safety and security of competitors and the hundreds of thousands of spectators. Given that context, I hope noble Lords will agree that it is preferable that the ODA, rather than the police, is tasked with undertaking a second-order administrative role.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has expressed concerns about the extent of that role and it is not to say that police support would not be provided to ODA officers. The police will retain their general enforcement powers under the Act and police assistance will be provided to ODA officers, as is currently the case with trading standards officers, if there is an actual or threatened breach of the peace or where there is a risk to the safety of officers or the public. The ODA has met with the police regularly and is currently consulting the police about ODA’s enforcement capability.
I am happy, too, to provide assurances that the ODA will take care of seized articles properly. It is a public authority and is subject to the direction of the Secretary of State. Moreover, the ODA is under a statutory obligation to submit its implementation strategy to the Secretary of State for approval. In addition, as I have said, it will have to comply with detailed rules inserted into the 2006 Act by the Bill. Those rules are based on existing legislation applying to local authority trading standards officers when they seize goods. Because it is intended that the ODA will designate local authority officers to act for it at Games time, the effect is that experienced officers will manage infringing items in a similar manner as they do at present. Those officers whose job it is to enforce existing street trading legislation are used to dealing with illegal traders and, where necessary, seizing counterfeit and other goods. If they apprehend that their or the public’s safety is threatened, they will be able to call on the police to assist.
The noble Lord asked about specific training of ODA officers. That has already begun and will continue up until Games time. Officers have, for example, taken part in mock enforcement trials at London 2012 test events. He also asked how many enforcement officers it is anticipated will be needed and for how many weeks. The ODA is currently negotiating with local authorities on securing officers, so estimated numbers are still subject to those discussions. However, they are looking to have up to 250 officers covering 28 venues and events for a maximum of five weeks—not consecutive weeks. That will take account of shift patterns.
I should make it clear that, for the Games regulations, the ODA will reimburse local authorities for any personnel they provide or services they perform. As such, local authorities will, where necessary, be able to back-fill posts by extending overtime and managing annual leave patterns. The ODA’s costs for dealing with seized goods are estimated to be in the region of £22,000, with a concomitant saving to police budgets on account of them no longer having to deal with articles. The transfer of responsibilities for handling of seized articles from the police to ODA amounts to an estimate of £55,000 saving to the public purse. The overall enforcement budget is £760,000, which includes a package of enforcement provisions including storage, which the local authority would provide as part of the funding agreement. The £55,000 would have been to pay for police assistance to handle seized goods, plus an additional saving that was not estimated for the police to charge for storing. Consequently, this clause will produce a direct and substantial saving.
In essence, the detailed handling rules set out in the Bill require the ODA to return seized articles when retention is no longer justified. Fundamentally, the rules seek to protect owners’ rights while ensuring that the regulations can be enforced in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
I note that Amendments 1 and 2 would have another, possibly unintended, effect. They would remove from the Bill clarifying provisions that make it clear that animals may be seized as infringing articles. These provisions are important because, as we have seen in previous events, animals have been used to display advertisements. For example, at the Ryder Cup in 2010 a betting company trained birds of prey to swoop past golfers carrying messages of support on banners featuring their logo. In removing these provisions, the amendments could potentially create a loophole that could undermine the advertising and trading provisions in the Act.
The main purpose of Clause 1 is to ease the pressure on police resources at what will be a very busy time. The police will, of course, remain responsible for ensuring that breaches of the peace do not occur and that safety and security is maintained. What Clause 1 does is remove from them an administrative task that can properly be undertaken by the ODA. In the light of the explanation and assurances that I have given today, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response, and for responding to the questions that I raised. I am not quite sure what I was meant to glean from the response in relation to the position of local authorities whose trading standards officers are seconded for Olympic activity. I think that the reply was that the cost of the officers would be reimbursed, so I take it from that that if a local authority deems it necessary to get other staff in to carry out work—if it is able to do so, because it may not be possible—the cost of doing that will be paid for out of other funds than its own. I rather took it that that was the response I was being given.
Lord Rosser
That is very helpful indeed. Once again, I thank the Minister for her response and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rosser
“( ) After section 31(6) of that Act insert—
“(6A) Where subsection (1) applies in the case of organised criminal activity, a custodial sentence may be pursued.””
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this amendment provides for the option of a custodial sentence where organised criminal activity is involved in ticket touting. The Bill already provides for the maximum penalty to be increased from £5,000 to £20,000. I am aware that when an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police service gave evidence last May to the Committee considering this Bill in the other place he said:
“The reason why I think I am here today is to support the proposed increase in the fine for ticket touting from £5,000 to £20,000”.
Despite the curious terminology, I assume that he agreed with the increase rather than being told that he was required to support it. On being asked whether the figure should be raised further to £50,000 he said:
“I think it is inappropriate and disproportionate … On the briefing that I have had, moving it to £50,000 brings with it other challenges, because it potentially moves the matter out of the magistrates court and up to the Crown court. There might be challenges around that, and I am satisfied that for the purposes for which I think it is required, the £20,000 fine is sufficient to act as a deterrent”.—[Official Report, Commons, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill Committee, 17/5/11; cols. 44-53.]
That answer raises the issue of what are the purposes to which the assistant commissioner referred, for which the maximum £20,000 fine is required and whether those purposes cover all relevant purposes that might arise in connection with ticket touting during and around the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Interestingly, the Minister in the other place said, during the Committee stage debate on the £20,000 fine, that the assistant commissioner to whom he had spoken after the evidence session,
“was keen that we should stick to £20,000, given that a higher fine would lead to extra complications”.
The Minister went on to say:
“I do not have a doctrinaire position one way or another; this was driven by the operational requirements of the Metropolitan police. That is why we have gone for £20,000”.
So we have an assistant commissioner who “thinks” that he is appearing before the Committee in the other place to support the proposed increase, and does not want it increased to £50,000 because it potentially moves the matter up to the Crown Court, while the Minister says that the Government have gone for £20,000 because it was,
“driven by the operational requirements of the Metropolitan police”.—[Official Report, Commons, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill Committee, 19/5/11; col. 67.]
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify for us why the proposed increase in the fine is to a figure of £20,000, because at the moment there appear to have been different reasons given, depending on who is speaking.
The main point of the amendment is to find out whether we are talking about a maximum penalty that is a financial one or whether some of those involved in ticket touting could well face other charges which could result in a custodial sentence. On the face of it, that might appear appropriate, based on statements made by the police and by the Government. In his evidence to the committee in the other place, the assistant commissioner said that,
“There is a significant link between ticket touting, serious organised crime, ticket fraud and counterfeit tickets”.
I am not sure for how many offences involving, to use the assistant commissioner’s words, “serious organised crime” the maximum penalty that can be imposed is a fine. He went on to say that, as there would be a massive demand for tickets,
“there is a lot of money to be made by those who want to do so. Serious and organised crime are already talking about it”.
The assistant commissioner also drew a distinction between the,
“opportunists looking to make a quick buck who will manage to get two or three tickets for themselves”,
and that:
“Our bigger worry and what we will certainly see with the Olympics is the organised criminal networks working this”.
Yet when it comes to punishment, the only distinction between the two appears to be the size of the fine. That is despite the fact that the assistant commissioner told the Committee in the other place:
“Certainly, the people who are making large amounts of money off the back of events up and down the country … are involved in serious and organised criminality. Some organised criminal networks dabble in a number of things. It is not just touting; they are also involved in counterfeiting wherever they can”.
He went on to say:
“There is lots of money to be made by these organised criminal networks. They recognise the demand for tickets … As a result, ticket touts will look to make many, many thousands of pounds on each ticket if they possibly can. There will be a network behind them”.
Finally, there are these words from the assistant commissioner:
“I see the major threat from serious and organised criminality, because such people see that they are easily into seven figures and it is money that they will then use for other illegal acts”.
It may be that the assistant commissioner thought he was appearing before the Committee in the other place to support the increase in the maximum fine from £5,000 to £20,000, but some might feel that he was rather more effective in supporting an increase in the level of punishment to something rather more substantial than a fine. Note some of the words that the assistant commissioner said of those involved:
“There will be a network behind them … such people see that they are easily into seven figures and it is money that they will then use for other illegal acts”.
There may be a very simple explanation for this, but I am not sure that it has emerged so far. It may be that the fines up to a maximum of £20,000 are largely intended to be used on the opportunists and small-time criminals who are engaged in trying to sell a small number of tickets, acting on their own and not as part of an organised racket. Of course, they can still potentially make a lot of money, as I understand the face value of top tickets for the opening ceremony is just over £2,000. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister could indicate that and say what kind of maximum penalties would apply to the powerful organisers behind the scenes of criminal networks involved in ticket touting.
Lord Rosser
There are also the people who do not appear on the streets or in the pubs selling tickets themselves but who organise and control things, and constitute what the assistant commissioner described as the “network behind” the touts and the people who,
“see that they are easily into seven figures and it is money that they will then use for other illegal acts”.—[Official Report, Commons, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill Committee, 19/5/11; cols. 44-49.]
If these kinds of people are apprehended—the ticket-touting equivalent of the drugs barons—is it the intention that they would face a maximum fine of only £20,000 or will they be charged with something more serious, where a custodial sentence is an option? People like that, who see that they are easily into seven figures, will not be deterred by a £20,000 fine. The need with them, if they are apprehended in connection with ticket touting before and during the Games, is to make sure that they are no longer in a position to carry on with their activities as well as seeking to use the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act against them.
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that point and assure us that other charges carrying a heavier penalty than a fine will be used against those who are the powerful and controlling forces behind the serious organised criminal networks that the assistant commissioner told the Committee in the other place would be involved in ticket touting in the run-up and during the Olympic Games. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I sought to intervene in the noble Lord’s speech because I thought that it might be convenient at that point to clarify a particular issue. I am not clear whether he envisages, as a result of imposing a custodial sentence, that it would be dealt with in the Crown Court rather than the magistrates’ court and whether that runs into all the objections to going to Crown Court to which he referred earlier. Having said that, I am not unsympathetic to what he proposes. Given the issue of organised criminal gangs, it may well be that £20,000 is not an appropriate sum and that we would go to a higher level. But if we are not going to do that, particularly in the case of an organised gang, a custodial sentence would not seem inappropriate.
However, when I look at the original Act, I am somewhat concerned about that because this penalty relates to offences under Section 31(1), which reads:
“A person commits an offence if he sells an Olympic ticket … in a public place or in the course of a business, and … otherwise than in accordance with a written authorisation issued by the London Organising Committee”.
It is not clear to me what the position would be with someone not in a criminal gang who finds at the last moment that they cannot use their tickets, which they have purchased, and stands outside the stadium offering them for sale. I am not clear whether they would be subject to all the rigours of a fine not exceeding level 5 —although one would hope that the courts would deal appropriately with such a case—or whether they might, under the amendment, be subject to a custodial sentence. We need to be clear on exactly what the position is under Section 31(1) before we decide to increase the penalties which would be imposed.
Lord Higgins
Again, I am grateful to my noble friend. Would it be all that difficult to have a system in which the box office can take tickets that are surplus? The danger, otherwise, is that we get empty seats, which we do not want to see. I do not ask my noble friend to respond now, but what I have proposed would seem to overcome this problem. Otherwise, we will potentially be imposing pretty substantial penalties on people who are engaging in a perfectly normal exercise of trying to ensure that tickets of which they cannot take advantage are used—and we want them to be used.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I will of course withdraw my amendment, but I am a little disappointed with the Minister’s response. I was hoping that her response would be along the lines of saying that those who were clearly the brains behind the networks would almost certainly be charged with some other offence that would enable a custodial sentence to be imposed, if they were—to quote the assistant commissioner—people who,
“see that they are easily into seven figures and it is money that they will then use for other illegal acts”—[Official Report, Commons, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill Committee, 17/5/11; col. 49.].
I certainly do not advocate a custodial sentence for the individual in the pub or on the street who sells a very small number of tickets and is not part of an organised network. However, when an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police turns up at the Committee in the other place and talks in terms of “organised criminal networks”, “easily into seven figures” and money that will be used “for other illegal acts”, I stand by my view and seriously question whether a £20,000 fine is sufficient.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
If the noble Lord will allow me, those activities would certainly come under other forms of crime, which could attract a larger penalty than the fine. The sorts of cases that he has mentioned would not be subject purely to the £20,000 fine.
Lord Rosser
In that case, I somewhat misunderstood the Minister’s reply, from which it appeared to me that there was some doubt as to whether someone involved in those networks would end up with a higher penalty. I think that she said that you can charge people only with the offence that they have committed. That rather suggested that she felt that it might not be possible to charge them with any offence other than the one in the Bill, under which a £20,000 fine is the limit.
However, if the Minister is saying that where someone is apprehended who has been involved in running a network—and is the kind of individual who is seeing the ability to get “easily into seven figures” with money that could then be used “for other illegal acts”—she would normally expect that such individuals would probably be charged with some other offence carrying a custodial sentence, that would certainly meet the point that I am making and the concern that I am expressing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Police resources
(1) Section 6 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) shall include a request from the Authority that the Commissioner or relevant chief constable provides an estimate of the number of police officers required to be deployed in order that the Olympic Delivery Authority may effectively exercise its duties under subsection (1).””
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 9 is to raise some questions about the police numbers required at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The amendment would provide for the Commissioner or relevant chief constable to give an estimate of the number of police officers required to be deployed.
In evidence to the Committee in the other place, the assistant commissioner from the Metropolitan Police said that,
“we are talking about a policing operation of about 9,000 police officers on peak days. If we put that into context, at Notting Hill carnival—which is the biggest policing operation we normally do—on the Sunday we deploy 5,000 police officers, and on the Monday we deploy 6,000 officers … there is a recognition that the Met cannot deliver that alone. So during 2012, we will be calling on something called mutual aid, with colleagues from across the country”—[Official Report, Commons, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill Committee, 17/5/11; col. 47.].
The security operation for the Games will be the largest peacetime security operation held in the UK, with more than, as I understand it, 20 per cent of the police shifts that are likely to take place during the course of the Games being carried out by officers from outside London. On top of that, officers will be moved from their London boroughs to assist with the policing of the Games.
All of that will be happening at a time when the number of police officers is being cut. By March 2012, the Metropolitan Police will have nearly 1,000 fewer officers than it had two years previously. Across the country as a whole, up to two-thirds of budget reductions will have taken place in the run-up to the Games, with possibly as many as 10,000 fewer police officers available. On top of that, there is already evidence that violent crime is on the increase and there is a possibility that this trend will continue into and beyond the Games.
The Police Federation has raised concerns that forces outside London will struggle to find the finances and manpower to send officers to the capital and to other Olympic venues, which could lead to further pressure on an already stretched Metropolitan Police. It rather appears, from evidence given to the Committee in the other place, that additional resources will in part be provided by cancelling annual leave, training and rest days. If that is going to happen on an extended basis over a period of time, there is a danger that we will end up with a police force that is stretched not only because of numbers but through fatigue.
On top of that, the Government are proposing, in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, to make changes to the present control order regime to deal with threats of terrorism and take out the present provisions that the current Home Secretary has already used to ensure that people deemed to constitute a serious threat are relocated outside the capital. If the Government’s proposals go through, people who have been moved away from London because they represent a serious terrorist threat may be able to come back to London. That would also mean that, in the future, those deemed to constitute a serious terrorist threat who are already in London could remain in the capital. Frankly, with the Olympics just around the corner, that does not seem a very helpful idea.
To rectify that situation, additional resources for more intensive surveillance will be required at a time when the police and security forces will be stretched to the limit with the Olympics. I simply want—
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I had nearly concluded what I wanted to say in moving this amendment. I want to end with some questions for the Minister. Will police forces both outside London and in the separate London boroughs, albeit part of the Metropolitan Police, have to send whatever number of officers is required for the different Olympic venues irrespective of the impact on crime in their own areas? Is it the intention to use the territorial Reserve Forces at the Olympic and Paralympic Games for any duties that would otherwise be undertaken by police officers? Can the Minister provide assurances that sufficient police officers will be available to police the Games and that it will not be to the detriment of required policing levels in the forces from which the police offers have come?
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I chair its finance and resources committee. I also chair the Met’s Olympics sub-committee. I want to shed some more light on police numbers because I think there is a slight confusion. I will explain the background. At the moment, police numbers are calculated by the number of officers who are fully trained. The system for calculating police officers was changed about two years ago. Previously, police officers were considered to be warranted officers on the day they started their training, but the system was changed so that they are not now considered warranted officers until the day they finish their training. In order to compare like with like for police numbers two years ago and now, it is necessary to take the number of warranted officers plus the number of officers in training who will be trained by the end of this financial year. If you add those two figures together, the number of officers will not be down by 1,000 but will be up by 45. I thought it necessary to clarify that. The other issue that I would like to shed light on, wearing my hat as chair of the Olympic sub-committee, is that borough commanders have all signed up individually to the fact that their officers willl be doing additional shifts or that there will be additional rest days. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and the answers that she has given to the questions that I raised. I understand from what the Minister said that the issue of police coming from other forces will be determined by agreement with those other forces and that it will be on the basis of full reimbursement of costs. That is what I understood was the thrust of the answer I was given.
I also noticed that the Minister said that the basis of the reimbursement of costs would enable back-filling. I am not sure whether that will be done by reductions in annual leave, cancelling rest days or cancelling training, as appears to be the case as far as the Metropolitan Police is concerned. Certainly, one hopes that if that those are the ways in which the additional capacity will be made available, they do not happen to an excessive extent. As I mentioned in my contribution, we do not want police forces that are already stretched with regard to numbers also stretched through fatigue. However, in the light of the response that the Minister has given me, which I will wish to read again carefully in Hansard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.