Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way so early in her speech. As she knows, I support the creation of the National Crime Agency and the Select Committee has recently taken evidence from Keith Bristow on his first year in office. Given the failings of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—or, to put it another way, the failure of SOCA to meet the expectations and ambitions of Parliament and Ministers—does she feel the NCA is on the right track and enough has been seized, given the figures given to the Committee and the figures she has given today and the fact that she puts the amount of serious and organised crime at £24 billion?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support he has shown for the National Crime Agency. I think that the agency is on the right track. There is always more that can be done, but the NCA is obviously building up its operations and capabilities. One crucial difference between the NCA and SOCA is the way in which the NCA operates with police forces around the country. There is also a clear intelligence hub at the heart of the NCA, which means that operations are being focused on the most harmful threats. In every case, a decision is taken on whether it should be a collective operation, an individual force operation or an NCA operation, and on what assets should be brought to bear in those operations.

I shall talk about those aspects of the Bill that will strengthen our ability to get hold of criminals’ assets, as that forms an important part of the work that is being done. Criminals want to make a profit out of their activities, and the more we can do to disrupt them and to access that money, the better. Of course, there is always more that can be done. Parts 1 to 4 of the Bill deal with ensuring that we are able to give the NCA and other agencies the powers that they need to bring offenders to justice, to deprive them of the proceeds of crime and to prevent them from engaging in further criminality. Under this Government, asset recovery has been stronger than ever before. We have recovered around £746 million of criminal assets. We have returned some £93 million to victims, and denied the use of £2.5 billion-worth of assets that have been frozen by the courts. However, we can and must do even better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Wherever racketeering and exploitation take place, action should be taken to tackle those serious crimes. It is a problem that we highlighted from the beginning, when the legislation for the National Crime Agency was drawn up, but Northern Ireland is not covered by the work of the National Crime Agency. That continues to be a challenge and to cause problems.

If we can increase the resources taken from the proceeds of crime, that will help victims and also help to improve and support the criminal justice system. I welcome the Home Secretary’s comment today that she believes the Bill will raise additional resources and will save money, and that she will consider extending the relevant measure to those who owe less than the £10 million provided for in the Bill. That is the same policy that she claimed this morning would cost £19 million, and her own document claimed would not save any money at all because it assumed that no one would change their behaviour. So she said one thing at noon and something completely different at 5.30 in the afternoon, and undermined her claims from this morning.

Many other aspects of the Bill have been added as a result of strong campaigns and amendments put forward or supported by Labour in the Lords and by many Members across this House. We welcome, for example, the three new clauses and new schedules added in the Lords for stronger action against the appalling and barbaric crime of female genital mutilation that takes place against young girls. We have called for stronger prevention orders and are glad that they are included, as well as the measures on anonymity for victims and stronger responsibility. I pay tribute to some of the campaign groups which have worked so hard, as well as hon. Members who have pursued the issues. We will look further at the detail in Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

There is all-party support for the actions taken by the Government. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that despite the legislation and the political willingness to get something done on FGM, there have been only two prosecutions in relation to FGM? This needs to change. The prosecution authorities need to understand the seriousness of the issue.

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. It is a matter not just of the legal framework, but of making sure that the law is enforced. We must ensure that the law is strong enough and that prosecution authorities, the police and authorities at every level, including schools and other organisations, are properly aware of the seriousness of the crime and of the risks to young girls in this country, and are prepared and ready to take action to tackle this awful crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Any number of reports in the past six months have found that major companies have not helped Governments either to assess the risks to their own networks, which creates a national risk, or to assess the threat from organised crime, which leads to serious risks not just to such companies, but to individuals. A number of companies should accept their responsibilities in that area.

The Bill is very important because of the sheer expansion in the potential for cybercrime. Sections 1 to 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 clearly set out ways to deal with unauthorised access, but the provisions of that Act are now simply too limited. What was relevant in 1990 is no longer relevant, and the pace of change in equipment and software capability requires a significant updating of the response. Economically, part 2 is a singularly important part of the Bill. It accepts that the current law is hopelessly inadequate, and puts in place a new offence in relation to unauthorised acts

“causing, or creating risk of, serious damage”.

The Home Secretary set out that that applies not only to the area of economics, but in other areas, such as security and the environment.

Simply in the area of economics, such crimes are so serious that they could wreck—that is not too strong a word—the whole economy. It is therefore hugely important that the Bill covers unauthorised acts in relation to computers that result in serious damage. The definition of “serious damage” has rightly been left somewhat opaque, because some of the information inside banking systems would be difficult to assess, but the Bill rightly recognises how far the world has moved since the 1990 Act.

It is clearly right for the Home Secretary to include protections in the Bill. The need to establish a significant link to the UK is now clear—for example, one of the accused, the target computer system or the damage must be in the UK or, if the attack is from abroad, the accused must have been a UK national at the time of the attack and there must be a similar offence in the relevant country. That provides relative protection while putting in place the right measures to enable law enforcement agencies to tackle this crime. There has been some detailing of the need to upgrade sentencing, and the Bill also recognises that the 1990 Act fails to deal with the seriousness of such crimes. It therefore rightly imposes life imprisonment for serious injury or death, while a sentence of 14 years applies for serious economic damage.

The potential to commit cybercrime, and the manner in which is it committed, is constantly evolving, and it is right for the new offence to recognise that and the seriousness of its effects. It is also true that whatever we do in the UK—our attempts to extend protection extra-territoriality in the Bill are important—it simply will not be enough. Much of cybercrime is international, and although like many in the House I am hugely concerned about the onward march of certain areas of the EU into our lives, no sensible person would set their face against international co-operation.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about the need to focus on cybercrime. Will he endorse the work done by Europol in that area, which is essential to try to deal with countries and individuals—some of these crimes are committed by countries—that seek to engage in cyber-wars?

[Stephen Hammond]

I accept the validity of the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and in a moment he will see how much I support what he has just said. We have largely recognised the validity of the EU directive, although there are still two aspects to introduce. That will help the powers of this country by ensuring that we can attack UK nationals who are intending to attack the UK from other EU countries, by extending the legal basis to prosecute an EU national for offences under sections 1 to 3A of the 1990 Act, when the offence is committed outside the UK. The fact that the Bill contains that international dimension will help our ability to co-operate with Europol. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee pointed out, there is widespread acceptance of the internationality of such crimes, and that will only increase. It is, therefore, of ever-increasing importance to the whole world to note which states are not prepared to signify their willingness to co-operate, and it will be a test of resolve for a number of countries across the world as to whether they are prepared to accept that co-operation and the basic premise of the EU directive.

Part 6 of the Bill addresses a number of miscellaneous aspects, and the point about foreign fighters continues the theme of the Bill’s internationality and what it does to counter serious crime and terrorism internationally. No one in the United Kingdom can possibly have missed the reference to foreign fighters and UK individuals, and in many cases that seems to have concentrated exclusively on Syria because of the scale and length of that conflict. However, the case for us to counter foreign fighters and their threat to UK security must not be exclusively based on the conflict in that country, and like many I accept the premise that we must tackle the issue at its source. The Home Secretary’s actions on that are to be commended, as is the continuing commitment to the Prevent strategy. The need to continue thinking about how we use reformed foreign fighters—if there is that possibility—to deter others, and the pressure to dissuade people from travelling, remains as imperative as ever.

There is, however, a gap in our legislative position and protection, and this Bill is serious, strong and a big step forward because it implements powers that will allow us to fill that gap. The measures will ensure that law enforcement partners can prosecute individuals with links to the UK and those who seek to harm the UK, from wherever they are prepared to commit that act of terrorism. Such measures also affect those who have been trained abroad for terrorist purposes more generally, and we can now prosecute those crimes as if they had taken place in the UK. While everybody accepts that evidentially it is sometimes difficult to do that, the fact that the prosecution will be in the public interest and require the express consent of the Attorney-General puts in place the appropriate balance and gives law enforcement agencies that are tackling terrorism a huge new opportunity to use that extension of the law. That is right because making it a criminal act to prepare and train people for terrorism abroad will be widely welcomed, and we should commend such a measure.

One part of the Bill will make a huge difference to almost all of us across our constituencies. I represent one of the safest London constituencies in one of the safest London boroughs, and I cannot claim that gang crime is prevalent or widespread. Nevertheless, youth gangs have already made several attempts to set up organisations in my constituency, and drug dealing gangs come from other parts of London and have used an estate in my constituency to carry out their crimes. Measures in the Bill on gang-related crime will improve the quality of life for our constituents.

The increased flexibility of “what is a gang?” will help address some of the limitations of definition and locality currently in law by recognising that individuals do not necessarily need a gang emblem, name, colour or anything else to operate, but can work as a collection of individuals who join together to commit a crime. Gangs can move across boroughs and localities across the country, and strengthening the law in that area will be widely welcomed not only by the police but by us as Members of Parliament when we see our constituents enjoy a better quality of life. In many cases the Bill will reduce the threat of criminality on the street corner, and it will inevitably attack those people—often young men—who may be tempted to be inveigled into a life of criminality that blights lives for so many thereafter.

I am fortunate to have been called early in the debate and to make a brief contribution. The Bill is significant because it accepts that there is an evolving threat, particularly in online and cybercrime, and it contains measures to address that.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) who has brought a great deal of expertise on cybercrime to the House. As we approach the last 12 weeks before Parliament must be dissolved, some might have thought that the temperature would rise. However, we have a crime Bill that will pass through the House of Commons not unchallenged by the Opposition, but with their support and that of all the other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a recognition of the fact that we are dealing with very serious issues on which there is common ground. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and support the Government’s agenda, with the caveats expressed by the shadow Home Secretary in such a constructive way. I am not quite saying that peace has broken out, but it is good to see Parliament working together on an issue of such importance.

This would be a Christmas tree Bill, but we have passed Christmas and are now in the new year—I am not sure what the parliamentary term is for so many different parts of the Home Office’s agenda put into one Bill.

[Mr Llwyd]

The “next Christmas” Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The “next Christmas” Bill—perhaps that is right although, sadly, the right hon. Gentleman will not be with us in the House next Christmas. Having won his great concession from the Home Secretary and been praised for his campaigning work, he is departing and we will be the poorer for it.

I have counted at least 10 major areas—not just 10 things that the Government propose to change—that the Home Secretary has included in the Bill as areas that need to be changed, and I welcome them all. My only problem is that I do not think we have enough time in the 12 weeks before the election campaign to give the Bill proper scrutiny and table any amendments.

I start with an area on which there is strong agreement—female genital mutilation. I welcome what the Home Secretary has done. She has made FGM one of the features of her term as Home Secretary. Her Bill amends the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and makes a number of changes that the Home Affairs Committee welcomes—the Committee recommended many of them, and many were suggested by the Opposition, so this is an example of Parliament at its best.

I support all the changes proposed, and I think the House will support them, but one important part of the Committee’s report—the focus on the medical profession—is missing. When we conducted our inquiry and published our report, we looked carefully at how things are done in France. It is not fashionable in the House to talk about the great things that are done in other countries, but France has it right. France has brought multiple prosecutions against those involved in female genital mutilation. We have managed only two, and there have been no convictions since the Act came into force.

I hope this is considered by the Home Secretary and those in Committee. The Home Affairs Committee highlighted the need to focus on the medical profession, as the shadow Home Secretary said. That is missing from the Bill. The medical profession—health workers and those in the medical profession—is very much the front line. The Committee thought that we should go down the road of making the failure to report a criminal offence. That is not in the Bill, and we need to look carefully at the lack of mandatory sanction on those who would discover FGM first—health workers and doctors.

The Committee was not overly impressed with the evidence we received from the medical profession. We thought that hiding behind confidentiality as a means of not wanting to tell anybody that a young girl had suffered from FGM was not enough. We believe that the profession understands the seriousness of FGM, but that it was hampered by its professional standing. We should go some way to addressing that. I hope we do so when looking at training and mandatory reporting.

At the end of the day, we need more prosecutions. The only prosecutions so far were brought under the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, and not under the previous one. They occurred three days before she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee to answer questions on FGM. I am sure that that was just a coincidence, but the fact is that it is important that we ensure more prosecutions. I am not commenting on that particular case, but prosecutions are not enough; we need convictions. That is the best way to send a strong message to the community and those involved in FGM.

I welcome all that the Home Secretary suggests in the organised crime part of the Bill. She mentioned human trafficking in her speech, but not immigration—I know she cannot mention everything on Second Reading. When the Committee went to Calais and talked to some of those vulnerable migrants who had made their way from Eritrea, through north Africa and across the Mediterranean and into Calais, we were struck by the numbers who had paid to go there. Two individuals from Pakistan had each paid €7,000 to get to Calais from Pakistan and were prepared to pay the extra €5,000 to get from Calais to live in London, which was their ambition. There is big money in immigration and illegal migration. Those who profit manage to get away with the fact that it happens beyond our borders. We should look carefully at the stories of the ships in the Mediterranean—I mentioned the story of the Ezadeen in Home Office Questions. People admit to paying huge amounts of money to get on ships, and the crew either disappears or hides among passengers. A lot of money is made out of migration, just as a lot of money is made out of drugs, and we should look carefully at that aspect of organised crime.

I welcome everything that is being done on child protection. I commend the work done so assiduously by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) since her election to the House. She has been a champion for the victims of crime—the children who cannot speak for themselves. It is not necessarily to do with legislation, but with the architecture and the way in which the Home Secretary has addressed child protection. She was right to announce the big inquiry and right to come before the House and say that she was sorry that its two chairs had decided to stand down. She did so in a dignified way. She put the victims at the centre of the inquiry, but it now has no chair.

A copy of the Home Secretary’s latest letter to the panel members has not been passed to the Home Affairs Committee. Given that we are doing the confirmation hearing, that must be a mistake and I look forward to receiving it. Two of the child protection options in the letter involve the panel being disbanded in some way. We have an odd situation. The panel meets weekly—or at least it was doing so until December—and does its work without a chair. It is now told that the Home Secretary might have changed her mind and is being asked its views on whether it should be disbanded. The Home Secretary took an important stand last July and made an important and eloquent statement last December, but I am afraid that we are degenerating. I would not say it is a shambles, but let us say it is a cause for concern. The Committee has 11 weeks to sit before 30 March. We need to know the name of the Home Secretary’s preferred candidate. We have no candidate and cannot do a confirmation hearing. We need that name so that we can start our work.

We also look forward—this is not in the Bill—to hearing the name of the new chief of the UK Border Agency, because we would like to interview him or her before they take up their position.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals on preparation and training abroad for terrorism. Some of the measures should have been included in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, but let us not be churlish. They are in the Bill and are to be welcomed.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is right on cybercrime. As the Home Affairs Committee report said, the police officers involved in this complicated area need more training. I am not saying it is a generational problem—although I have problems with my new iPhone—for police officers to deal with sophisticated cybercrime perpetrated by people and organised gangs in places such as Romania, the Ukraine and Russia, but it was not the bread-and-butter stuff of ordinary policing. It has become that, which is why it is important to train police officers, and why the Committee has recommended on previous occasions that specific time should be given to do so.

The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who is not in his place, raised, and has done so in his campaigns, the need for more disclosure on the seizure of assets. The Home Secretary is on absolutely the right track on proceeds of crime, and gave us figures far in excess of those given by Keith Bristow. We welcome that, but we cannot deal with cybercrime on our own. We need Europol, which is why I was disappointed when I visited Europol and met Rob Wilson, the head of Europol—[Hon. Members: “Rob Wainwright”]. Sorry, I meant Rob Wainwright. I often meet Rob Wilson in the House. They look almost the same. [Laughter.] I am trying to dig myself out of a hole.

In my meeting with Rob Wainwright—Rob Wilson was probably in Reading at the time—I was disappointed to learn that the Government are not prepared to put up the money for a cybercrime facility for Europol. That was a year ago, and perhaps the Home Secretary has decided that she will support that facility. I do not know, but she may have changed her mind. At that point, we were one of the few countries that were not prepared to support what Europol was doing on cybercrime. I hope we have changed our mind and are supporting that not just with words, but with resources.

The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary mentioned the proceeds of crime. I am not sure that the Bill deals with the issue—it was raised by the Metropolitan police commissioner with the Select Committee and, no doubt, with the Home Secretary—of those convicted of very serious offences who complete their sentence, leave prison, are given their passports and are then allowed to leave the country without their fines being realised, and so hang on to their proceeds. We obviously cannot keep people in prison beyond the term of their sentence—it would be unlawful even for Parliament to do that—so the judges are unable to intervene. I am not sure whether the legislation allows someone to be detained in some way following release from prison, but it was a concern expressed by the commissioner. He was right to be concerned, because people come out of prison, get their passports and leave the country with the proceeds of crime still somewhere within their empire. If that point is missing from the Bill, I hope that will be rectified through an amendment.

There are many good things in the Bill. I am glad that the Opposition will support the Bill and that the Home Secretary has included several of the recommendations made by the Select Committee. I hope that it will be improved further as it makes its passage through the House.

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for being called to speak so early in the proceedings on the Bill. I confess that I have often been a sceptic about criminal legislation. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary implied, it is easy to pass new laws and forget about the need to enforce them. More importantly, we need to use what is already on the statute book. I do not know how many new offences we have created in the years I have been in this House, but many of them have never even been used. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) mentioned FGM and the fact that only two prosecutions have been brought. So much legislation lies unused, which leads us to question its origins.

I am not sure that I should use the phrase “Christmas tree” about the Bill—perhaps it is an Easter bunny, bearing in mind the season we are heading for. Nevertheless, it seems to be a Bill on which the Government have said, “In these different areas, there are lacunae in the law that need to be dealt with.” The Government should be congratulated on having the wisdom to address those areas. I do not intend to speak about all the different aspects of the Bill, but I shall address two.

The first relates to the work led by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—I am glad to see she is now in her place. I entirely endorse the comments made about her work by the right hon. Member for Leicester East. Specifically, she led a parliamentary inquiry into the effectiveness of legislation in tackling child sexual exploitation and trafficking. I was privileged to be asked to participate in that inquiry and I learned a great deal from doing so. The hon. Lady chaired it admirably and it was supported by Barnardo’s. We have already debated some of the recommendations and the Government went so far as to include one of them—on grooming—in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. Today’s Bill, while it addresses many aspects of child and vulnerable people abuse, provides an opportunity to legislate for another recommendation, which was to place child abduction warning notices on a statutory footing. I do not intend criticism of the existing notices—it was clear from the evidence that the inquiry received that they serve a valuable purpose—but the police and others made it clear that making them statutory would provide a greater opportunity to intervene earlier and protect vulnerable children. I hope that the hon. Lady will address that issue later and that the Government will look seriously at an amendment on that issue, should one be tabled.

As for my second issue, I make no apologies to the House for returning to the issue that I raised in Home Office questions this morning. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has now left the Chamber, but I entirely understand that she has other issues to address. I am grateful to her for agreeing to meet me and a small group to discuss the increasing problem of illegal immigration. My concern is not the Calais group to which the right hon. Member for Leicester East referred and which we all see in the media, but the increasing problem of food supplies and larger groups. Arising from that are a few points that relate to organised crime and clause 44 of the Bill.

In May last year I wrote to the Minister for Immigration, and I received a reply in July, specifically about this issue. I am afraid that the reply was what one might expect from an official civil service reply—I am probably guilty of signing many such myself in the past—and it told me how wonderful the Border Force is at stopping illegal immigrants and that it was doing all that it could. The problem is that since then the situation has got far worse. A business in my constituency is one of largest producers of fresh produce, such as salad crops, in this country and in Spain and other parts of Europe. Up to February this year, it had had three incidents in the previous two years of people coming in on its lorries, but since then it has seen a massive increase, culminating in three separate incidents in one week in the run-up to Christmas.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East referred to the situation in Calais, and he has obviously studied it much more than I have. We often hear of individuals or small groups trying to get on board lorries or hiding under them, taking all manner of risks for which I cannot possibly imagine the motive, although it is clearly there. The incidents to which I am referring are those in which people have entered secure lorries that are carrying food. The problem is not individuals, but groups of anything up to 12. One such group of 12 before Christmas included three young children. The group were lying on top of pallets of lettuce in a secure lorry kept at 4^o as part of the cool chain. It is clear that those people are in the lorries for many hours—they do not board them at Calais or just outside. They are clearly entering the lorries in Spain or a long way down in France, well before the vehicles reach Calais.

It is also clear that organised crime is involved, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. A dozen or 15 people do not get into a lorry on the off chance or on the whim of one individual. It is clearly organised and large sums of money are almost certainly changing hands. The groups break into the lorries, in some cases through the roof or—in more sophisticated operations—by access to keys that unlock the secure doors at the back. Sometimes the people have plenty of insulation or clothing, and it is clearly rehearsed and organised.

[Keith Vaz]

The right hon. Gentleman is right and I share his concern about this issue. As he says, security at Calais is very strong and the people are boarding even before the lorries arrive in France. Is there a case for the EU to perform spot checks on the lorries before they get to the border?

[Sir James Paice]

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me on to the issue of Europe. I am not one of those who thinks that Europe has no locus in this issue. It is right that we work with our European colleagues, either as individual member states or through the EU as a whole to address these issues. Whether spot checks or, as the Home Secretary said in her answer to me earlier today, sophisticated imaging equipment that can see through lorries are the right way forward, I do not know. I am not technical enough to know the right answer, but I do know that this is a serious issue that has now gone beyond the problems of this one, albeit very important, business based in my constituency.

We are now seeing lorry loads of fresh produce from Spain, ready packed and prepared to go on the shelf, going straight to supermarket distribution centres. The lorries are unlocked and people are found inside. The whole load is then immediately condemned as unfit for human consumption, so there is massive cost and massive food waste. Retailers are beginning to be concerned about supply. Relying on lorry-loads of lettuce, celery, spring onions and so on that have to be condemned on arrival causes havoc in their supply chain. The business in my constituency, which is not unique, had 263 lorries a week bringing produce from Spain. This is not just the odd lorry load: this is a very serious and major issue, and large numbers of people are involved. As I said, there were three cases in one week. Lorries arrive in pack houses in this country or go straight to retail depots. There are now serious concerns about supplies of fresh produce.

The senior supply chain manager of the company said: “In my opinion, the people we have all seen on TV around Calais are smokescreens.” I am not saying that that is correct. “The real organised crime goes on out of sight away from the port of Calais. It would not surprise me if some of those people were actually encouraged to be there in Calais, or even paid to create chaos while real organised crime takes place elsewhere.” I cannot judge the veracity of those comments, but they reflect people’s concerns. I wanted to raise this issue today so that we do not concentrate our thoughts just on what happens in the immediate environs of Calais. In my opening remarks I said that this matter is relevant to clause 44. I hope that in the Minister’s concluding remarks—I am not sure who is winding up, but judging by the smile on the face of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) it will be her; not many people smile when they have to wind up, but there is a first time for everything—she will address the specific issue of our food supplies being affected by organised crime using our food supply chain as a means of access to bring in large numbers of people to our country.

Clause 44 refers to people being part of an organised crime group. There is evidence that in some cases drivers may be complicit. I am not saying that every driver is complicit—I am sure that the vast majority are not. Nevertheless, an important message to get across is that a driver who is complicit is not just guilty on their own. If they are construed to have been a part of an organised crime operation, the offence they commit is even more serious and the penalty should accordingly be far tougher. That is the issue I wanted to leave with the Minister. I will take it to the Home Secretary in greater detail and take with me representatives of not just the suppliers but the retailers who face this problem. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise it this evening and look forward to my hon. Friend’s response.