Treaty on the Functioning of the EU
David Nuttall Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I take the view that this House should be sovereign in all these matters, but on those measures that it is proposed we opt back into and be subject to EU control, does the Home Secretary agree with the evidence given last year to the Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee in the other place that the practical effect of the European Court of Justice gaining full jurisdiction in this area is that the European Court of Justice may interpret these measures expansively and beyond the scope originally intended?
Mrs May
The fact that measures will be subject to the European Court of Justice is one of the main issues that has led to our very careful consideration of which we propose to seek to rejoin. It is important that the Government’s position is to look practically at those matters that we believe to be in the national interest with regard to ensuring that we can continue to fight cross-border crime and keep people safe. It is on that basis that we propose to seek to rejoin some measures.
Abu Qatada
David Nuttall Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend a figure for the costs at this stage, although certain legal aid costs have been published. I undertook to inform the Home Affairs Committee of the position as best I can, because I was asked such a question at its sitting last week.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement; her evident exasperation will be widely reflected in my constituency. Even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling, what grounds are there to believe that the Supreme Court will overturn that decision, given that the Court of Appeal’s judgment stated that the contention that SIAC had erred in law was “particularly difficult to sustain”?
Mrs May
We will continue to argue on a point of law that we believe is arguable before the courts, notwithstanding the view taken by the Court of Appeal, but I cannot prejudge the decision that the Supreme Court will take. It is right that the Government continue to ask for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court so that, if the appeal is accepted, the case can be tested in the very highest court in the land.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]
David Nuttall Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for her brief but to-the-point contribution on the new clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Many people throughout the country will have sympathy with it, and even if it is not added to the Bill today, they will be listening and watching for future developments.
Amendments 89 and 90 deal with an entirely different matter. As Members are aware, the Bill is wide ranging. Clause 42 was inserted during the Bill’s passage through the other place. Its effect is to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. We could debate that for many days, and I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments, which were well made in the other place, but it is perhaps worth noting that, notwithstanding the Government’s indication that they did not support the amendment in the other place, it was agreed to on a Division by 150 votes to only 54. I think it is fair to say that there was overwhelming support for the removal of the word.
The very minor amendments that I am proposing would bring the wording of the offences set out in sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act in line with section 5. Those amendments are in line with the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in its report issued in October 2011:
“We also support the amendment of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all reference to offences based on insulting words or behaviour. This would enhance human rights and remove a possible incompatibility with the right to freedom of expression.”
I stress that the report states, “remove all reference” to offences based on the use of insulting words or behaviour, not just the reference in section 5 of the Public Order Act. I entirely accept that most of the publicity and the campaign on the offence of using insulting words or behaviour centred on the need to reform section 5, but if, as the other place has voted, and as the Government have accepted, it is deemed sensible and appropriate to amend section 5, it must follow that the phrase, “insulting words or behaviour”, should be removed from other provisions in the 1986 Act that make an identical reference.
Section 4 of the 1986 Act deals with the fear or provocation of violence and states that someone
“is guilty of an offence if he…uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or…distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.”
Section 4A, which deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress, states:
“A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he…uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or…displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”
If my amendments are accepted, the offences would remain completely unchanged, apart from the fact that the word “insulting” would be removed. If those offences are allowed to remain on the statute book unamended there is a serious danger that people who would have been charged under section 5 will simply be charged under section 4 or section 4A, and all the campaigners who have been celebrating the insertion of clause 42 and the removal of “insulting words or behaviour” from section 5 will be disappointed.
A leading campaigner for the removal of the word “insulting” from section 5 is Mr Peter Tatchell. I suspect that I may disagree with him on other issues, but I hope he will not mind my praying in aid of my argument words of his that appeared on The Huffington Post website in January 2012:
“Section 4A of the Public Order Act is sufficient to cover any exceptional circumstances requiring prosecution, although its criminalisation of mere insults should also be repealed”.
It is obvious that Mr Tatchell has looked at this whole field and recognised that there is a need wider than just amending section 5—that it is necessary to amend other provisions in the Public Order Act.
Our country rightly values and defends the right of individuals to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is wholly wrong to retain any reference to the term “insulting” in any criminal offences on our statute book. The people of this country are fed up with political correctness. If the House supports these minor amendments, it would be one small step towards restoring the public’s faith in this House and in our country as a place where the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression are cherished.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I speak on behalf of the Opposition on this collection of amendments. The Bill has been called a Christmas tree because of the number of different issues that have been tacked on to it. This selection of amendments feels a little like a series of tinsels and baubles and some fairy lights, but when those are all put together, they create the Crime and Courts Bill.
Before turning to our amendment 2, I shall make a few brief comments on new clause 18 and amendment 120 tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). All of us have sympathy for the concerns that he raises, and we will have seen cases in our own constituencies where people’s lives and families have been devastated by drink-driving. It is disappointing that these amendments were not tabled in Committee. The hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about various issues, and it would have been good to get some guidance from the Government about the implications of the discussion that he had with them. There are issues that merit further examination, but I am not sure whether Report stage is the right time for that. No doubt we will hear from the Minister about the implications of implementation.
Some issues will need to be taken into account in respect of the powers of magistrates. We all understand and have sympathy with the idea of flexibility in sentencing, but there may be concerns about what that might mean for the sentences handed out. I am not clear what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seeks to achieve with amendment 120. He might inadvertently remove the offence of careless driving and I am sure he would not wish to do that. Somebody who gets behind the wheel and is already over the limit through medication would drive carelessly in any case—
Police Integrity
David Nuttall Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
It will be for the IPCC, in discussion with the Department, to decide on the sort of people it wishes to employ in increasing its investigative capacity. In a sense, there is a slight Catch-22 situation because the very people in this country who are used to investigation, and have the skills and experience in that regard, are police officers.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she clarify how being struck off will affect an individual police officer’s eligibility to claim their pension? There has been concern over officers retiring early when facing disciplinary procedures in order to claim their pension.
Mrs May
My statement today does not cover anything related to pensions, but the importance of a police officer being struck off once found guilty of misconduct is that any other police force to which that officer applies will see that they have been struck off and are therefore not suitable for employment. Perhaps my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will recall PC Simon Harwood. Issues were raised about his behaviour during his employment by one force, but he then left that force and was re-employed by another. The register of struck-off officers will exist to stop that sort of issue happening.
Abu Qatada
David Nuttall Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that until the European Court of Human Rights interfered and stopped Abu Qatada’s deportation last January, British courts and British judges had always agreed with the Government that he should be deported?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right: Abu Qatada had taken his appeal through all levels of the courts here in the UK, and at every level it had been found that he could be deported. It was the appeal to the European Court that prevented his deportation, and although today’s decision is one of a British court, it has been taken against the background of a very high barrier to deportation that has now been set by the European Court.
Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
David Nuttall Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies
That may well be the case. Of course, there is no compulsion on anybody to make cash transactions. If a business does not want to trade in cash, it is perfectly at liberty not to do so.
The Government may well have changed their tune slightly on the subject. Their views on reform were recorded in their written evidence to the Transport Committee in November last year, in which they said that
“Against that”—
that is, calls for action on the issue of scrap metal theft through regulation—
“it would be necessary to consider carefully the additional burden which new regulation might put on legitimate businesses, and the extent to which the disposal of stolen metal might still continue on an illegal basis. Given the Government’s general aim to reduce and simplify regulation, there would need to be a strong case made to justify any new regulation.”
The Government were wise to sound a note of caution, as regulation is not always the way forward, yet more regulation is proposed. I am not entirely sure that it is entirely justified. More importantly, I am not entirely convinced that it will stop metal theft. We may end up with a lose-lose situation: the regulation will punish not just the bad scrap metal dealers, but all of them.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case. He may have seen the British Metals Recycling Association’s briefing on the Bill. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, it seems to be in favour of funding the Bill and its provisions through “a small licence fee”. Does he share my concern that, often, what starts off as a small licence fee soon becomes a very large licence fee?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. We have seen many examples where a local authority is given a small amount of power, and, before we know it, it is expanding and empire-building at every possible opportunity, and increasing costs on a salami-slice basis. Before we know it, an industry that thought it worth paying a small cost to deal with a problem finds that there is still a big problem, but its costs have gone up hugely and show no sign of abating.
Philip Davies
I am grateful for that clarification. Let us just hope that we always have sensible people in the Home Office. Clearly, we can have confidence at the moment: I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), is on the Front Bench. I do not want to alarm him unduly about his career prospects, but Ministers come and go, and although we may have confidence in this Minister, I am not sure that I share the faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South that every future Home Office Minister, whatever their party, will show the same wisdom as this Minister in setting the regulations.
As I was saying, the Bill would affect legitimate businesses. It is worth showing the other side of the industry, because there are good operators in it, as some newspaper stories show; unlike my hon. Friend, I am a big fan of the media, so I am sure that these stories are true. Let me set out one case involving a scrap metal dealer. I am sure that this happens time and again; I am picking out just one example, as the House would not want me to go through every single newspaper report of this kind. I use this story as an illustration. A scrap metal dealer called the police when he was asked to purchase a war memorial from offenders. When Lana Jane Clitheroe and Paul David Kelly pleaded guilty to stealing from a war memorial in St Mary’s church on Lewisham High street, the district judge, Julia Newton from Bromley magistrates court, said in her sentencing remarks:
“A scrap metal dealer was approached by the Defendants; he very quickly realised what the item was and refused to accept it.”
He alerted the police to the problem, so that they were able to catch the offenders.
Many legitimate scrap metal dealers are part of the solution to the problem. They do not want to be involved in any illegal activity and to take things that have been stolen, and they play a crucial role in alerting the authorities to the problem. I feel nervous about saying to the scrap metal dealer who was involved in that case, “I will treat you as if you are potentially involved in criminal activity, and put on you a huge new burden and cost.” What has that person done wrong? What has he done to deserve that? He is part of the solution, not the problem.
Another scrap metal dealer
“donated £21,000 to replace metal plaques stolen from a war memorial in south London.
Fourteen bronze plaques bearing the names of 243 World War I servicemen were stolen from Carshalton war memorial in Sutton in September 2011.”
The scrap metal dealer
“said he was as ‘outraged as everyone else’ that it had been ‘plundered’.”
These are good people—people whom we should be trying to help, and whose side we should be on. The Bill would impose on those people huge burdens and extra costs. What have they done to deserve those extra burdens and costs? Nothing, as far as I can see. We are castigating a whole industry because of some people who are operating illegitimately in that industry. My solution is to go after the criminals. Let us pursue criminals, not a whole industry, which includes some very good people who are not criminals at all.
On bringing offenders to justice, we can use the Theft Act 1968 to charge unscrupulous scrap metal dealers with handling stolen goods. There is already a law with which to tackle the problem of people who handle stolen goods. In addition to using all the existing scrap metal legislation, we should use the Theft Act to prosecute those who accept stolen scrap metal and pass it on. It states:
“(1) A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
(2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.”
That is already on the statute book. If a scrap metal dealer is found guilty of handling stolen goods—the definition in the Theft Act makes it perfectly clear that someone handling stolen metal is guilty of handling stolen goods—it is already in statute that they can be sent to prison for a term not exceeding 14 years.
If we actually gave proper sentences, and sentencing guidance was strengthened, so that the provisions in the Theft Act were invoked and a few 10-year-plus sentences were handed down by the courts to these people, we would find a vast drop in the number of scrap metal dealers handling stolen goods, without imposing any kind of extra licensing regime, bureaucracy, or cost, and without giving local authorities more police-like powers to interfere in every nook and cranny of people’s businesses. Let us just start handing down some proper sentences to these people; we will find that some people go legitimate very quickly indeed.
If someone walks off the street into a scrap metal dealer with a chunk of railway line in their hand, or a £500,000 statue or a huge great war memorial in a van, and the scrap metal dealer accepts it and pays them a few pounds for it without any questions asked, the scrap metal dealer should be prosecuted under the Theft Act. If the police and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot get a conviction for that, it says more about our criminal justice system than about anything else.
Mr Nuttall
Has my hon. Friend heard anything in the debate so far or read anything in the Bill that would give him any confidence that the new regime, once it came into force, would be any more capable of being enforced and securing convictions than the present one?
Philip Davies
No. That is part of the problem. My hon. Friend makes a good point. When politicians are faced with a problem, their solution always seems to incorporate two ingredients. The first is that they must be seen to be doing something. It is the bane of all politicians. The second ingredient is that what they propose must not offend anybody. As long as a politician has a solution that looks as though they are doing something and it does not offend anybody, whether it does any good or not, they will go down that road every time. Rather than looking as though we are doing something and being tough, I would like us to spend a little more time looking at whether the proposed course of action will work and whether it is absolutely necessary. I am not entirely sure that the Bill passes that test.
On offender profiles, according to the Transport Committee in its 14th report of January this year, which was on cable theft from railways,
“Perpetrators can be broadly split into two groups; small-scale, local offenders and organised crime groups. We heard from the BTP”—
the British Transport Police—
“that local criminals were responsible for the majority of thefts from the railway, these being ‘opportunist but nonetheless professional criminals’…and that up to 80% of those arrested for metal theft have previous convictions for similar crimes.”
Here we hit the problem: 80% of the people caught for metal theft have previous convictions for metal theft. The police have done their bit. Under the current regulatory regime, the police have got these people, and what happens? The perpetrators get a derisory sentence from the courts and they are back out on the streets stealing metal again in five minutes flat. So it is not the regulation, but the sentencing of these offenders that is the problem.
Metal theft has recently been included in the serious organised crime strategy. The British Transport Police welcomed this but noted that a maximum of only 30% of cable thefts involved organised criminal gangs. Chief Inspector Carl Burkey, of Airedale and North Bradford police, which is my local police division, said in March this year:
“We have been pleased to take part with partners and reinforce the message locally that officers are working hard to frustrate the sale of stolen metal in Airedale and North Bradford.
Metal theft is a crime which can be life threatening to thieves and seriously disrupt commuters when it affects rail services, and it is important that scrap dealers remain vigilant when offered stolen metal. We will…work closely with all partners and would urge anyone who has information about metal theft to contact ourselves or Crimestoppers.”
One of the main solutions to the problem is for members of the community to be the eyes and ears on the ground—that is what my police chief inspector said—and to report any suspicious activity that they see. When that happens, the police are quite successful in catching the perpetrators.
We come back to sentencing. Metal theft and handling should be seen as an aggravating part of the sentence, taking into account the disruption or the severe sentimental loss that such crimes cause, particularly in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I referred earlier to District Judge Julia Newton from Bromley magistrates court when she sentenced a pair who had stolen a war memorial in Lewisham. She also said:
“The war memorial is described by Father Scott Anderson, the Vicar of St Mary’s Church. He believes the memorial plaque had been in the church since approximately 1920-1925. The plaque displayed the names of some of those who had fallen in the First World War. It is described as being a large and heavy plaque, approximately 1.25 metres high and 1.75 metres tall. The impact of the loss of the plaque is described by Father Anderson. The stolen plaque is expressed to be invaluable to both the Church and the families whose relatives’ names appear on it. He cannot even estimate the value. He describes the feeling amongst the members of the Church and Local Community as being both ‘in shock and saddened.’
Those named on the memorial are remembered by family, relatives and fellow countrymen. The desecration of the memorial will be seen by many as an affront. The historic value of the plaque is incalculable.
The seriousness of this offence is determined not only by the culpability of the Defendants, but also the harm caused. This offence was committed without a thought for the impact that their actions would have on individuals or the wider community. In assessing the harm caused, it is not simply the monetary loss in replacing the memorial which is to be taken into consideration, but the public feeling of many as described by Father Anderson.”
The judge took all that into account and said that the risk of re-offending was assessed as high. She said that she took the view that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. Bearing all these factors in mind, the sentence of the court would have been 180 days in custody, but because the offenders had pleaded guilty, it would be reduced by one third. The sentence would be 120 days imprisonment. That seems to rank high in terms of the sentences handed down by the court for this type of crime. I therefore praise the judge for bearing all those circumstances in mind as aggravating factors when she came to sentence the offenders. I encourage judges to do more of that, so that sentences are more of a deterrent.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend’s expertise in these matters is well known. Perhaps he will be able to confirm that although a sentence of 120 days imprisonment was handed down, it is highly unlikely that the criminals would have served anywhere near 120 days in prison.
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)
David Nuttall Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As it is now more than seven years since the UK won the right to host the Olympic games, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the fact that we are having to bring in the Army with the opening ceremony just 15 days away must mean that someone in either LOCOG or G4S is utterly incompetent?
Mrs May
As I have explained in answer to a number of questions, plans have been put forward and changed over those years, and contingency arrangements were put in place. It was entirely right and proper for the Government to act in this appropriate and contingent manner when it became clear that the security provider contracted to LOCOG could not reassure us that it could provide the full number of personnel.
Immigration Queues (UK Airports)
David Nuttall Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Green
Absolutely. We all want better airport capacity in the south-east of England, and I am sure that Luton airport will play an important role in that. One of the jobs of the UK Border Force is to make sure that people get through all airports as fast as possible. I know that e-gates were introduced at Luton airport relatively early, so that we can get the benefits of the technology. We will continue to treat Luton airport very seriously.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that having secure borders is always more important than having short queues?
Abu Qatada
David Nuttall Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs May
We have made it clear that we are abiding by the rule of law. We have abided by the decisions made by the European Court. We now believe that we have the assurances that we need in order to be able to challenge the Court’s decision in relation to article 6, which was the ground on which it prevented the deportation of Abu Qatada. We believe that the right way of dealing with the issue of his deportation was to gain those assurances from the Jordanian Government. Obviously we will await the European Court’s decision on whether to accept the application for a referral.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Given that Abu Qatada would almost certainly have appealed against any decision by the British courts and taken that appeal all the way back to the European Court of Human Rights, does his present appeal not give Government lawyers an opportunity to seek the Court’s determination that the assurances obtained from the Jordanian Government mean that he should now be deported immediately?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has made a valid point about the legal avenues that would be available to Abu Qatada in any case in the UK courts. The first decision that the European Court will make is a decision on whether to accept the referral—the appeal, effectively—from Abu Qatada, and it is that decision that we will expect in the coming weeks. If the Court chooses to accept the referral, it will—as I made clear to the House on Tuesday—examine the whole case that was put before it initially. The UK Government will, of course, present their arguments, as they have done previously.
Abu Qatada
David Nuttall Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
My hon. Friend tempts me down a route of prediction. What I will say to him is that, as everybody in this House knows, it has taken considerable time to get to where we are at the moment. There are further processes to go through, but I believe that what the Government have done is to take absolutely the right course, which is to get together the assurances that we need to be able to resume deportation. I have every confidence in our eventual success in being able to achieve that deportation.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree with me, and, I suspect, with many millions of the British public, that British courts should have the final say on who stays in our country, not a foreign court in Strasbourg?
Mrs May
I am well aware of the strength of feeling on that, in this House and outside it. As I have said, and as has been made clear in this Chamber on a number of occasions, one of the issues raised by the Prime Minister in his speech earlier this year on the European Court—one of the issues that is being looked at—is the question of subsidiarity and when it is right that decisions, having been through national courts, should be considered final, without reference to the European Court.