Historical Child Abuse Allegations

Debate between Jim Shannon and Norman Baker

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I fully accept that, and as I shall say later, if evidence is produced or there is a request from Fiona Woolf’s panel for this to be turned into a statutory inquiry, the Home Office will consider that at that point.

I accept that, because the Hart inquiry’s powers of compulsion do not extend to the UK Government, concern has been expressed as to whether it will be able to deal effectively with the allegations of misconduct and cover-up regarding the horrific events that occurred at Kincora. My hon. Friend referred to allegations of blackmail and cover-up. I make it perfectly plain from the Dispatch Box that I expect those matters to be dealt with by Sir Anthony Hart’s inquiry, and it would be incomplete if it did not do so. I will also encourage him to make it very clear if he feels that his efforts to uncover the truth are in any way being thwarted. Thirdly, I make it plain that there was no intention on the Government’s part to engage in any cover-up. Our only interest is to get to the truth of this matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Surely the allegations of involvement by MI5 make this not a provincial Northern Ireland issue but a national one requiring a national inquiry. That is what we are saying: MI5’s alleged involvement gives this issue a national perspective, so there should be a national inquiry.

[Norman Baker]

As I have said, if Sir Anthony Hart feels he is being thwarted or he requires further information for his inquiry, he should say so, publicly, if he wishes. Similarly, if Fiona Woolf believes that her inquiry should be converted into a statutory inquiry, she can say so. We do not have a closed mind on these matters.

I would like to set out how the concern that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East referred to is being addressed. As the Northern Ireland Secretary said in her statement yesterday, all Government Departments and agencies that receive a request for information or documents from the Hart inquiry will co-operate to the utmost of their ability in determining what material that they hold might be relevant to it regarding matters for which they have responsibility, in accordance with the terms of reference of the inquiry. The Northern Ireland Office has already started this process by disclosing to the inquiry a list of files held by it which relate to the Kincora boys’ home. In parallel, the Ministry of Defence has begun work to establish whether it holds any documents that are relevant to the inquiry, and other UK Departments and agencies will do likewise.

It will be important for the Northern Ireland inquiry to determine whether either the Security Service or the MOD has documents that are relevant to it. The Northern Ireland Secretary has been clear that a detailed plan of action for achieving this is being worked on as a matter of urgency.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Norman Baker

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The drinks industry responded to the alcohol strategy. It would be astonishing if it had not done so. Obviously, its comments were taken into account, but so were the comments of others who were concerned, for example, about alcohol harms. As I mentioned a moment ago, we tried to strike the correct balance, ensuring that we do not encourage alcohol harm, while removing unnecessary bureaucracy where its removal has no adverse impact.

With regard to the notices, it is also worth pointing out that the local police and environmental health authority will also have a say. If they have concerns, they can say so before such a notice is given, and once an authorisation has been agreed, the notice may be revoked by a similar light-touch process.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

How will the law be tightened for holders of licences who sell alcohol to those who are under age, particularly for those who are persistent offenders?

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Norman Baker

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so keen to agree that I got carried away.

The amendments deal with the new antisocial behaviour powers in parts 1 to 6 of the Bill, and I will deal briefly with each one in turn. Members will, I am sure, have watched with interest the proceedings in the House of Lords on the test for issuing an injunction in part 1 of the Bill. Because of the clear vote in the Lords, where there seems to be a majority, and in the light of that debate, the Government has accepted that the test for an injunction should be amended. Lords amendments 1 and 5 will provide for a two-tier test, and the nuisance or annoyance test will continue to be used to deal with housing-related antisocial behaviour. In all other circumstances, the test of harassment, alarm or distress will apply.

The Government believes that the fears raised in the Lords and by campaign groups were unfounded, and our view is shared by the Law Society and housing providers who have been using the nuisance or annoyance test responsibly and proportionately for more than a decade. The suggestion was made that we somehow wanted to curtail the activities of carol singers. It is slightly difficult to believe that any Government would want to do that, and that we would mis-write legislation to enable that to occur. We are then expected to believe that a local council or police officer would want to use the legislation to ban carol singers. We are then expected to believe that any court in the land would deem it proportionate, just and convenient to ban carol singers. Of course, by the time a court had so decided, several weeks on, the carol singers would have left the place where they were singing and it would not be possible to capture them. I think that that example shows some of the exaggeration and scaremongering that have occurred on this proposal. The Lords have spoken, however, and we have listened carefully. It is a democratic Parliament and we have therefore accepted, largely, the substance of Lord Dear’s amendments.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I do not take exception to the Minister’s comments, but those of religious persuasion who are concerned about the proposed changes support the view that the Lords have put forward. Will the Minister confirm that the position of those of religious persuasion and religious beliefs will not be in any way changed?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, I am happy to deal with the issue of religious beliefs. Lords amendments 2 and 19 respond to concerns by the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to the provision in clauses 1 and 21 that requires a court to avoid, so far as practicable, imposing prohibitions or requirements in an injunction or a criminal behaviour order that would conflict with a respondent’s religious beliefs. The amendments remove this wording, as the right to hold a religious belief is absolute. It was simply the manifestation of a person’s religious beliefs that we intended the provision to capture, but a court would be obliged to consider this in any case to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Act. That being the case, the neatest solution is simply to remove the provision. That is what has happened, and I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Psychoactive Substances

Debate between Jim Shannon and Norman Baker

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the draft Regulation and draft Directive on the regulation of new psychoactive substances (European Union Documents No. 13857/13 and Addenda 1 and 2 and 13865/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter Eight of the Nineteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xviii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

I am pleased that this debate has been called to discuss whether the EU Commission’s proposals for regulating new psychoactive substances, commonly called legal highs, comply with the principle of subsidiarity. I am aware that the other place held its own debate on this issue earlier this evening, following evidence that I provided to one of its European Sub-Committees on 16 October. I also note the European Scrutiny Committee’s report on these proposals, and its questions for the Government. I will be writing to the Committee with detailed answers to those questions shortly.

I am aware of a dangerous perception held by some that since many new psychoactive substances are legal, they must be safe to consume. This is absolutely not the case, and while research on these substances is limited, the number of people who have ingested them and come to harm demonstrates that doing so is a risky, potentially life-threatening activity. There is also no guarantee that what is being sold is legal—evidence has shown that around 19% of products sold as legal highs on the internet actually contain controlled drugs.

The proposals involve a draft regulation and a draft directive, which together seek to enhance the EU’s ability to respond to the threat posed by these substances. We believe the regulation would require all member states to adopt the same level of control for a substance that is causing concern at the EU level, within a tiered framework of low, moderate and severe risk. While a framework for EU-level risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances currently exists, member states can adopt stronger or weaker controls if they believe this to be appropriate. The directive would expand the definition of what the EU considers an illicit drug to include new psychoactive substances classed as severe risk under the new regulation.

In recent years, the growing role of these substances in the recreational drug market has presented policymakers and legislators across the world with significant challenges. They are generally synthetic drugs, designed to mimic the effects of drugs listed under the UN conventions and intended to fall outside the law. They are unlikely to have ever been tested on humans, and thus their short and long-term effects are largely unknown. However, the hospitalisations and deaths that have occurred due to the ingestion of some of these substances makes this a problem that Governments across the world cannot ignore, and we certainly do not do so.

The UK has played a leading role in tackling this threat. Our temporary drug control orders allow substances causing concern to be banned in a matter of weeks. Our forensic early warning system provides the latest intelligence on what substances are available in the UK, and our use of generic definitions under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 allows us to ban entire families of substances. These and other measures have enabled us to ban the majority of such substances seen in the EU and since 2010 we have banned in excess of 200.

The UK has also provided international leadership in this field. We have sponsored an international early warning system and a platform for sharing data on this threat via the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, as well as sponsoring two resolutions at the UN on the identification and reporting of new drugs.

Any EU-level action is required to comply with the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions should be taken as close to EU citizens as possible. Article 5 of the treaty of the European Union states that, in areas where it does not have exclusive competence, the EU should only act if two conditions are met: first, where the objectives cannot be achieved by member states, and secondly, where EU-level action can add value by meeting the objectives more effectively. This Government does not believe, and I do not believe, that the EU proposals meet these conditions. In our view, the measures do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

To explain why, it is necessary to consider the legal base for the draft regulation. The Commission cites an internal market legal base, on the premise that there is a substantial licit—legal—trade in new psychoactive substances which requires a harmonised regulatory approach. The Government does not accept this premise, as our experience has overwhelmingly been that these substances are sold for recreational purposes and are closely tied to the illegal drugs trade, with only a small handful having legitimate use in industry. We believe, therefore, that the regulation should cite a justice and home affairs legal base, reflecting the illicit nature of the trade.

I know that the issue of Europe can excite Members across the House, but I stress that the position I am setting out is influenced not by whether one is crudely pro-EU or anti-EU, but by an objective assessment of EU law as it stands.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What concerns Members across the House, apart from the question of Europe, are the deaths of young people, which have risen from 29 to 52 in England and Wales over the past year. What the Minister is taking about is exactly what we want to see: stronger action from Europe to support what the Government are doing.

[Norman Baker]

We certainly want stronger action from Europe on, for example, co-operation between member states on information, but my view is that this serious problem is best dealt with at member state level, rather than by waiting for the EU. The system we have in place at the moment allows us to take action more quickly than the proposals the EU is putting forward would allow us to do, so the hon. Gentleman’s point is met by the present system in the UK—I am not saying that it is perfect, because we want to improve it—rather than the EU system, which is defective in comparison.

National Policy Statements

Debate between Jim Shannon and Norman Baker

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I will happily take that issue away. It is important that we unlock private investment, that we help our ports and, at this particular time, as the Chancellor said today, bring forward investment where possible, so I will look at the problems that exist in the area and see whether they can be overcome. It may be that they cannot, but it is perfectly proper to raise the issue in the Chamber.

Ports are diverse. They cater for liquid-bulks, dry-bulks and break-bulks, ro-ro, including trade vehicles, and of course containers, and they play host to many kinds of warehousing, distribution and process activities. Their markets can be lively and volatile, and they need to be nimble in the short term to react to changing market conditions and patterns of demand, yet they must also plan for the long term. Port infrastructure is long-lived, lasting 20, perhaps 30, years and more, so it is important that such decisions are taken carefully, with full regard to all their significant consequences.

In the short term, the ports industry is well placed to respond to economic recovery. The first phase of Hutchison’s Felixstowe South project is already open, and that will help to secure the nation’s ability to accommodate the largest container vessels; we have seen the announcement by Dubai Ports World that it plans to complete the first phase of the London Gateway container terminal by the end of 2013; ABP Southampton, to which the right hon. Gentleman perhaps alluded, is pressing ahead with its own expansion plans; and other ports, including Bristol, Teesport and Mersey, already have consent for development.

We cannot afford to be complacent, however. Investors in ports need to be able to plan development for every type of traffic, and to do so in a planning context that is stable and well understood. Equally, ports’ neighbours need to know how their essential interests will be protected through the planning system.

The national policy statement brings together established policy for ports and established policy for mitigating their adverse impact. The fundamental policy that we set out in the ports national policy statement is market-led, building on the success of the industry since it was freed from the constraints of state ownership and the national dock labour scheme. Port operators are best placed to decide the type of facilities they need, so this is a non-location directive national policy statement, and I make no apology for that.

At the same time, development must be in sympathy with the environment, including the marine environment —to pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made. The national policy statement sets out in some detail how that translates into requirements for planning applications and their accompanying environmental statements. Unless there is provision for sufficient capacity, disruption at major ports has the potential to translate very quickly into serious disruption to people’s everyday lives.

The national policy statement expresses confidence that the ports industry, with each owner/operator taking its own commercial view, will deliver the resilience that the country needs against disruption, and the national policy statement is very clear that the planning system should give weight to delivering that important resilience.

Finally, in completing the national policy statement, we have been fully conscious of the fact that ports are nodes in a network, and that connecting infrastructure is essential to their success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister said that authority over, and responsibility for, ports is devolved to Northern Ireland, the area that I represent, so from a ports point of view, what is the relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland? In other words, do we have continuity of strategy and parity so that the relationship between the mainland and Northern Ireland is real and we all benefit?

[Norman Baker]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are, indeed, well established and close links between the Department for Transport and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We certainly draw attention to and discuss with the devolved Administrations any issue that appears to have importance outside the English coastline, as it were, so I hope that that reassurance satisfies him.

Several consultees, as well as the Transport Committee, argued that the national policy statement on ports should be designated alongside the launch of our consultation on the proposal for a national networks national policy statement. I have some sympathy with those arguments, but so much of transport policy is interconnected that one could make a case for linking many other documents in this way, and the practicalities do not always work out. In the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s recommendations, we explained why we are confident that both national policy statements will work as free-standing but mutually consistent statements.

Our reforms to the major infrastructure planning process will ensure that there is a concise framework for development that can be readily understood by all those involved in the planning system. Ministers will be responsible for decisions to consent or to refuse major infrastructure development, thus closing the circle of democratic accountability. I look forward to listening to contributions and responding to issues raised during the debate. I commend the national policy statement on ports to the House.

Car Insurance Premiums

Debate between Jim Shannon and Norman Baker

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Norman Baker]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Obviously, he has looked into the matter in his area much more than we will have done at the Department for Transport. All I can do is repeat the comments that I have made. First, if he believes that there is collusion in the industry, he needs to draw that to the attention of the Competition Commission. Secondly, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead—the relevant Minister for this area—will, I am sure, be interested in his comments and look at the issue of postcode charging. We would like to ensure that the motorist gets a fair deal and is not subject to improper procedures. We want, therefore, to ensure that motor insurance costs are kept reasonable, as far as it is possible for us to influence them.

We recognise that the high cost of motor insurance can cause a number of policy problems and we are working with the industry to help address them. People are dependent on their cars to travel to work, leisure facilities and so on, so this is an important issue for a great number of people. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is speaking with the insurance industry on a number of issues, particularly tackling uninsured driving, automatic access for insurers to check the driver’s record held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and addressing the problems of high premium costs faced by young drivers, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

One area of concern for us is that people may be tempted to drive uninsured. The insurance industry estimates that uninsured driving costs each motorist approximately £30 on their premiums each year.

The Government introduced the continuous insurance enforcement scheme to deal with uninsured drivers. A new offence has been introduced of keeping a vehicle without insurance unless it is kept off the road and a statutory off-road notice declaration has been made to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The new scheme regularly compares the DVLA vehicles database with the motor insurance database, which holds all motor insurance policies.

From that comparison, we are able to detect a greater number of uninsured vehicles, rather than relying solely on the police spotting uninsured vehicles in use on the road. We anticipate that the scheme could reduce uninsured driving by 15% to 20%, by taking out the softer evaders and leaving the police to target on the road hard-core offenders who continue to drive uninsured. Obviously, getting uninsured drivers off the road would be of benefit not only to road safety generally, but to those who legitimately and properly pay their insurance and who quite rightly feel aggrieved about having to pay extra in their premiums to deal with the uninsured. I think that that agenda is shared throughout the country—except by uninsured drivers. I hope that it is shared, so that we can get some fairness into the premiums.

The scheme is planned to commence in late June. Under it, keepers of vehicles that appear to be uninsured will be sent reminder letters by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. If keepers take no action, they will receive a fixed penalty notice and a fine of £100, followed by enforcement action which, in extreme circumstances, might be wheel-clamping, impounding of the vehicle and, ultimately, prosecution. The DVLA will be responsible for enforcement action on behalf of the Secretary of State.

We are also concerned that significant rises in the cost of insurance might increase fraud, with some drivers prepared to make false statements about their driving record to obtain cheaper insurance, such as on how many penalty points they have, whether they have been disqualified and so on. The insurance industry estimates that 40,000 claims are declined already each year at the underwriting stage, on the grounds of non-disclosure or misrepresentation, and that 200,000 claims are adjusted.

Others might be tempted to declare younger drivers as named secondary drivers on their parents’ insurance when, in fact, they are the main driver of a vehicle. We are working with the insurance industry with a view to allowing it access to the driver details held by the DVLA. That will to help to tackle fraud and prevent situations in which drivers might give inaccurate information, consequently invalidating their insurance. The timetable for delivery is yet to be finalised with the insurance industry, but we expect a project of such a size to take between 18 and 24 months to complete all stages of the work, from specification and design to development, and through to a fully operational system.

[Jim Shannon]

Up until now, in response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), the Minister has indicated that everything is about catching those who are not paying insurance and so on. The Government response has indicated nothing about incentives for those who drive well. Not only in Northern Ireland, but all over the United Kingdom, people who drive well and who have passed advanced driving courses should qualify for a reduction in their insurance risk. Is that something that the coalition Government are considering? If so, what discussions have they had with the insurance companies?

[Norman Baker]

Personally, I believe it is right for drivers who drive well to be rewarded, and that occurs in a sense with no claims bonus systems, which are well established in car insurance. Generally, submitting no claims drives down the costs year on year for a driver relative to other drivers.

Whether insurance companies ought to identify further opportunities to reward good drivers is a commercial matter for them. For example, I know about some schemes that benefit older drivers with clean licences, or others for people driving an historic vehicle. Premiums can reflect guarantees to drive less than a certain number of miles each year, or that drivers of an historic vehicle probably want to take care of that vehicle, so they would be less of a risk to the insurance industry than they might otherwise be.

I come back to my central point, which I made at the beginning: the market is competitive, including a large number of insurance companies. If I were running an insurance company, I would want to look for the niche market and the opportunity to identify a set of safe drivers who are less likely to make a claim. We could then offer that group a good premium, pulling one big market in and collecting together all the low-risk drivers, and so benefiting from paying out less. Insurance companies in a commercial market have such opportunities, and can identify them better than I can. Any business worth its salt would reward good drivers, because they are better business for the insurance company than are bad drivers, for whom they are paying out.

One particular concern of the Government is the impact of high insurance costs on young drivers. I accept that the higher premiums faced by younger drivers reflect the cost to insurers of covering the risk for two main reasons. First, insurance companies’ figures suggest that as many as a fifth of newly qualified drivers make a claim within six months of passing their test. Many are relatively minor bumps and scrapes, but the overall cost to an insurer of even modest damage is likely to be higher than a young driver will have paid in his or her annual premium. We recognise that the cost of damage claims affects all insured drivers, although groups that are over-represented in claims, such as young or newly qualified drivers, are likely to cost insurers more.

Secondly, insurers have to make special provision for young people. A minority of accidents can unfortunately lead to catastrophic claims, in particular when one or more claimants might require long-term or even life-long medical care. The problem with young drivers is not simply that claims are more likely, but that such costs are liable to be much higher if the claimant is young. In addition, only a limited number of big insurers can afford provision against such claims, which in this area limits the market in which young people can buy insurance. The usual recommended option of shopping around for the best price, therefore, is less effective for young drivers than for older drivers. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green has researched that aspect, we would be interested in hearing about his specific examples of how young drivers in his constituency are affected in insurance terms.

One effect is that young drivers, including learner drivers, often find that rises in insurance costs are increasingly prohibitive. Many young people depend on a motor vehicle to obtain better access to education and employment, and they often learn to drive for such reasons. We do not want to deprive people of that opportunity.

Some insurers have argued for the Government to impose additional regulation on newly qualified drivers so that they would not be allowed to drive in high-risk circumstances, which might improve road safety. Other specific restrictions have been proposed, including those in other countries where driving is permitted below the minimum age here. We are, however, reluctant to impose more regulations on young people, because doing so would bear down on those who want to be safe and responsible. It might reduce access to employment and education, while enforcing regulations might involve significant costs. There is also a risk of perverse consequences; for example, limiting the carriage of young passengers might prevent a sober driver providing transport for companions who have been consuming alcohol.

The Department has been working on alternative approaches, such as measures to improve driver training and testing, and is considering whether further measures should be developed. Training should focus not only on the test, but on the challenge of independent driving, including, for example, an understanding of the risks of particular driving conditions, and of distraction and impairment. A range of measures have been taken already, including a voluntary foundation course in safe road use to help pre-drivers and learners, which is aimed primarily at 14 to 16-years-olds. We also intend to work with the insurance industry on whether new or existing insurance products can be developed, with discounts if young drivers choose enhanced training before and/or after the test, or are happy to accept in return restrictions such as not driving at night.

In addition, my Department is in regular contact with vehicle manufacturers and suppliers on developments in new vehicle technology, including driver information systems and parental controls. Such technology might demonstrate how young drivers are driving and could provide important information on behaviour and their insurance and casualty risks. The insurance industry is already making use of technologies and new products when young drivers are willing to accept restrictions or training. The Government are keen to work with the industry on such matters.

The number of personal injury claims has increased at a time when the number of casualties has reduced, which we believe has had a consequent effect on costs incurred by insurers. There have been concerns around high legal costs in civil litigation, in particular under no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. The Government are committed to addressing such concerns and welcomed Lord Justice Jackson’s final report on those matters, which made a broad range of significant recommendations for reducing costs in the civil justice system.

The Ministry of Justice published “Proposals for Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson’s Recommendations” on 15 November 2010. The Department announced on 29 March 2011 that it will abolish the general recoverability of the CFA success fee from the losing side; abolish the general recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums; and introduce the package of associated measures set out by Lord Justice Jackson. Through the Legal Services Board, we are also considering the issue of referral fees.

Finally, we should recognise that the most effective way of controlling costs is to reduce the number of road accidents and casualties. The Government are strongly committed to improving road safety and we are setting out our plans in a strategic framework published today.

Sustainable Transport

Debate between Jim Shannon and Norman Baker

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to the reduction in carbon emissions. That is good news. In better weather conditions it would be more attractive to walk or to use a bicycle. The Minister outlined a number of incentives to draw people away from cars and encourage them to use alternative transport, but at a time when fuel prices are coming to their highest level and transport charges are rising and are set to rise again, is there not a balance to be struck between the carrot and the stick approach? Can he tell us how he proposes to get people out of cars and on to alternative transport?

[Norman Baker]

I should make it plain that the local transport White Paper relates to England only, but it is reasonable to draw attention to that matter. One of the ways that we encourage use of public transport is making it more attractive by making it safer and more convenient. We are doing a lot of work, for example, on through-ticketing and on smart ticketing, as all the evidence suggests that if people have confidence that they can leave their front door and arrive at their destination without worrying about the last two miles, they are more likely to use public transport for the majority of the journey. A great deal of work is being done on that. Making public transport attractive is a key to achieving modal shift.