Crime: Metal Thieves

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to establish a nationwide task force to target metal thieves.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the growing problem of metal theft and are taking urgent steps to address it. Five million pounds has been provided to establish a dedicated national task force to significantly increase enforcement activity to deal with both scrap metal dealers who trade in stolen metal and those who steal metal.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, that is fine as far as it goes but does the Minister agree with what his Home Office colleague James Brokenshire said in the other place on Monday? Mr Brokenshire estimated that the cost of metal theft may be now as much as £777 million a year and said,

“we have now reached the stage where the only conclusion is that new legislation is needed to tackle metal theft”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/11; col. 508.]

As a vital first step, will the Minister accept my amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which would make cash transactions for scrap metal sales illegal, bearing in mind that probably as much as £1 billion out of the £5 billion in this industry is accounted for in cash and is the cause of most of the problems?

[Lord Henley]

First, my Lords, I always agree with everything that my honourable friends say and I agree with absolutely everything that my honourable friend Mr James Brokenshire said on Monday about metal theft. We think that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is dead. It is past its sell-by date and we need to look at other measures to properly regulate the scrap metal yards, because that is where the problem is—in dealing with the stolen metal. We will certainly look very carefully at the noble Lord’s amendment, which I have not yet seen, when it comes before us shortly in the legal aid Bill. If we can give it a fair wind or tinker with it, we certainly will because I agree with him that addressing the question of cash in this industry certainly needs looking at.

Railways: Theft

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 3rd October 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 to prohibit cash transactions, as a means of reducing metal theft.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the significance of metal theft to the United Kingdom. The Home Office is in discussion with other government departments to identify whether any legislative changes are needed to tackle metal theft, including the possibility of moving to a cashless model.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his promotion. I express my regret at the departure from the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and wish her a full recovery.

I am pleased that the Government appear to be taking the problem of metal theft seriously. Is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that ACPO reckons that the cost to the United Kingdom economy last year of this crime was something in the order of £770 million and that the problem is getting worse with the rise in the price of scrap metal? I doubt whether there are many Members of your Lordships’ House whose trains have not been delayed as the result of the theft of signalling cable, which is adding thousands of hours of delay to train schedules. Does the Minister agree that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is now out of date and that it needs to be replaced by new legislation that increases maximum penalties, eliminates the payment of cash as a means of settling transactions and moves to a system of licensing in place of the registration that exists at present?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in expressing regret at the departure of my noble friend. We will all miss her very much on these Benches and I only hope that I can perform even half as well as she did, although I hope that I can get majorities larger than the equality that she got on the last Division that she took through this House. We will certainly miss her on this Front Bench.

The noble Lord is right to point to the problems of metal theft. There is not just the direct cost but the cost to the transport industry, to the power transmission industry and to others. We will look at all possible changes that we can make. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the 1964 Act and possible changes to bring in a cashless model. Whether that would necessarily improve matters needs looking at, but it would certainly improve the traceability of metals and might make it harder for criminals to dispose of them for cash. That is why we want to look at it.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 243, 271, 272, 304, 305 and 306. Since all the amendments are to do with the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police Authority, they have been deliberately grouped together rather than with specific clauses. They aim, as I said at Second Reading, to,

“strengthen the Bill by increasing co-operation between the authority and other police forces, particularly in counterterrorism and in the run-up to the Olympics”.—[Official Report, 27/4/11; col. 173.]

I shall first outline the context in which the amendments have been tabled and apologise to the House for being unable to be here when they were debated in Committee. Again, as I said at Second Reading, I am an unashamed proponent of two-tier policing in this country, with a national police service complemented by a number of local and specialist forces. Bearing in mind that the last royal commission on policing was in 1962 and much has happened since then which suggests the need for reform of the policing as extant at that time, I was very disappointed to find that although called the police reform Bill, there is very little in it about reform, except about the governance of policing, which is not the same thing.

However, these amendments are about long-needed reform; they are an attempt to complete business that was begun as long ago as October 2001, when the then Government issued a consultation document entitled Modernising the British Transport Police, which included detailed proposals to bring it in line with Home Office police forces in terms of accountability, status and powers. It proposed, first, placing the jurisdiction of British Transport Police constables over the railways on a statutory basis; that was partly addressed in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which gave them the powers and privileges of a Home Office constable, not only over all railway property, but throughout Great Britain in relation to railway matters. It secondly proposed giving British Transport Police constables jurisdiction outside the railways in certain circumstances. This, again, was partly addressed in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, emergency legislation that followed 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.

However, although welcoming these changes, the Transport Police and its authority regarded them as only partial introduction of what had been proposed. Therefore, they tried to use the opportunity presented by the August 2008 consultation that preceded the Policing and Crime Act 2009 to address the identified anomalies once and for all. They submitted a formal request for a number of legislative changes that addressed the issues of police powers and jurisdiction to which, reprehensibly, they received no formal feedback from the Home Office. Instead, there was no consultation and they were surprised to find that Schedule 7 of the Act stated that:

“Where a member of the British Transport Police Force is for the time being under the direction and control of the chief officer of another police force by virtue of a police force collaboration agreement … the member shall have all the powers and privileges of a member of that other force”.

Furthermore, no attempt was made to address an added complication to co-operation that they had raised, namely that the powers of jurisdiction of police officers from Home Office forces were not extended to match those of a British Transport Police officer, which include the ability to police in England, Wales and across the border in Scotland.

Charitably, the British Transport Police assumed that these continued inequities were not intended, but resulted from a lack of knowledge about the anomalies that resulted from gaps in existing legislation. Therefore, they continued to look for opportunities to obtain parity of police-officer powers regardless of employing force, the next opportunity coming in September 2010 with the coalition Government’s consultation before the Bill, entitled Policing in the 21st Century; Reconnecting Police and the People.

The Bill envisages annual police plans, covering areas of the country yet to be determined, drawn up by elected police and crime commissioners. Assuming that, in logic, this must include all police forces, the Transport Police, in its response to the consultation, pointed out that, as the specialist national force for the railways, cross-border working was part of its day-to-day business. It welcomed the fact that, in drawing up their plans, PCCs would have to look beyond their own force borders,

“under a strong duty to collaborate, in the interests of value for money and to tackle cross border, national and international crimes”.

The British Transport Police also said that it was keen to ensure that the different governance structures between it and its authority and their Home Office colleagues and their authorities did not create difficulties in the excellent communications and partnership working that currently existed between them. There must be, for example, adequate provision for communications between the authorities and committees of the Transport Police, the Civil and Nuclear Constabulary, the MoD Police and police and crime commissioners, if they subsume the role currently filled by the Association of Police Authorities.

I mention this not to criticise the Bill so much as to suggest that these amendments to do with the British Transport Police ought to be government amendments. Identified anomalies that inhibit national and local policing have existed for far too long and have been drawn to the attention of both the Home Office and the Department for Transport over a number of years. Amendments 242, 271 and 272 are designed to rectify the status anomaly; Amendment 243 is designed to provide the opportunity for the Transport Police to protect the travelling public by taking preventive action against possible sex offenders.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will speak to Amendments 271, 272 and 304 to 306, covering licensing and firearms. All are designed to save money and better protect the public.

I appeal to the Minister to accept the opportunity created by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to complete this unfinished business. I know that both she and the Transport Police and its authority have been in contact with the Department for Transport and I look forward to hearing what may have been agreed between them. I accept that she will be unable to promise more than that the issues I have raised will now be tackled positively and not allowed to drag on as they have over the past 10 years. In that anticipation, I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I speak in favour of the seven amendments. I start by expressing my appreciation to the Minister for the constructive approach she has adopted in conversations with both the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and me about the role, powers and jurisdictions of the BTP. I know that she has written to the Transport Minister about these amendments and I hope that when she answers the debate she will be able to say that the Government at least accept the spirit of them, if not accept them tonight.

I know from what the Minister said in Committee that she is particularly concerned about licensing issues and the difficulties that the BTP and the travelling public face with anti-social behaviour on the railway fuelled by excessive drinking. I shall come to the amendments which deal with that issue in a moment.

I would like to add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about jurisdiction. This is covered in Amendment 242. The British Transport Police Authority has sent me a copy of a letter which was sent on 7 July from the chief constable of the force, Andrew Trotter, to the Minister of State for Transport, Theresa Villiers. In a paragraph headed “Jurisdiction”, he says:

“The current legislative anomalies mean that there are a number of caveats applied to the powers of BTP officers, these are provided not through our own Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, but the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (section 100(2) and (3)) which pre-dated it. The amendment laid before the House of Lords seeks to remove the ambiguity the current legislation creates through these caveats. If the amendment is approved, in the eyes of the public and the rail industry, it will have no obvious impact on day-to-day policing of the railways and I can assure you it will have no impact on costs or other resource implications. It will however put BTP officers on the same footing as their Home Office colleagues when not physically on rail property or carrying out duties related to the railways, i.e. they will be warranted officers not civilians”.

Amendments 271 and 272 deal with the Firearms Act. I read in the latest issue of Railnews, which is the monthly newspaper for rail industry staff, that the Government have approved the creation of an armed response unit for the BTP. That paper states:

“Transport secretary Philip Hammond said the Home Office go-ahead was not in response to any specific threat but would reduce the burden on other police forces which provide armed support to the BTP”.

That is all well and good and it is what the BTP chief constable asked for, but it appears that BTP officers, once selected and through the selection process, will have to apply individually for firearms certificates. This seems ludicrous and flies in the face of the Home Secretary’s determination to reduce bureaucracy in the police service—a point made by the chief constable in his letter to Theresa Villiers. The cost in direct financial terms and in opportunity costs to the BTP and Home Office forces to process more than 100 applications is completely avoidable simply by giving the BTP the same powers as those expressly quoted in the Act for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It also creates a delay in trained officers being fully operational. Our amendments avoid that and I hope the Minister will feel able to accept them too.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Amendments 133 to 138 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

I have to advise the House that if Amendment 139 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 140 for reason of pre-emption.

Amendment 139

Moved by

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradshaw]

I will speak to Amendments 231A, 231B, 234ZA and 234ZB standing in my name. They relate to the British Transport Police. That body is unique and not, as far as I know, subject to the idea of elected commissioners. However, it polices our railways and goes back in its origins to the days when transport policemen were the signalmen on the railway who looked after the conduct of trains.

We have moved on a bit and the transport police now are more or less corralled within the boundaries of the railway, so that they cannot exercise their powers outside the railway unless explicit guidance or agreement has been reached with the county force or its successors. These amendments would extend the jurisdiction of the transport police to make them responsible for policing transport interchanges. Nearly every railway station has a car park, a bicycle place and somewhere where people catch the bus. People need to be assured of their safety throughout their journey. Some research I had done about 18 months ago showed that according to the estimates made by the Department for Transport, 11.5 per cent more journeys would be made on public transport if passengers felt more secure. I am not pretending for one instant that letting the transport police embrace the precincts of a station would put that all right, but I know that the moment when people get off a train and transfer to another means of public transport, even walking down the street, is when they feel most vulnerable and is probably when they are most likely to be attacked.

I am not asking for more money to be given to the British Transport Police, which is, in fact, a matter for the Department for Transport, rather than the Home Office, but it is important that some real force is put behind the guidance. Actually, there is no guidance. Informal arrangements exist in some places, and they work, but they are informal. To take an example I know well, at Reading station, which has extensive bus stops, car parks, some of them rather nasty, and cycle racks, the police cannot even deal with disorder in the park that was built as part of the station but is outside the limits. We want to use the manpower at the Government’s disposal in the best possible way to promote the interests of passengers, and the British Transport Police force is, to a large extent, paid for by the train operating companies .

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and have put my name to the same amendments in this group. I commend the speech made at the beginning of this debate by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who summed up ideally the importance of the British Transport Police and the necessity of removing the anomalies in existing legislation. We made some progress on improvements over the past 10 years. For example, at one point, it was illegal for a British Transport Police officer to pursue a pickpocket out of the station on to the neighbouring street. It was like one of those Wild West films where the police’s jurisdiction finishes at the state line and the next state’s police have to take over. It is an absurd situation. The problem that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to still exists to a considerable degree. I believe that it is important that when people undertake a journey by train to an airport station, the British Transport Police should be not only on the platform but in the airport as well because they are providing the same sort of security to the traveller and, as far as the passenger is concerned, it is a seamless journey.

There are some anomalies that we have the opportunity to address with these amendments. I shall concentrate on one aspect of them relating to alcohol. The BTP is at present excluded by Section 1 of the Police Act 1996 from having a view on licensing applications, even though there are now large numbers of retail outlets selling alcohol on stations, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, points out. It would be very much in the interests not just of the travelling public but of the public generally that, if the British Transport Police was aware of problems relating to particular premises associated with the railway, it had the opportunity to object to those licences. I understand that at present it is not able to do that.

A number of these anomalies can be put right, particularly if the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has tabled and which I am supporting were to be accepted by the Government. I very much hope that the Minister will look at them, and if it is not possible to accept the amendments today will be able to come back to us at a later stage to say that some of these difficulties will be ironed out at later stages of the Bill. I think these are worthwhile amendments, and I hope the Committee will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, heard what he feared I was saying rather than what I actually said.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I heard it, too.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Well, both your Lordships are strong protagonists of the British Transport Police. My point was about the potential confusion. I am sure that all of us in this Committee know instantly whether a police officer whom we see is from the Metropolitan Police, the British Transport Police or the Ministry of Defence Police. We recognise the hat badges and the different detail around the cap, but most people do not. I was simply demonstrating that this was an area of considerable confusion.

There was equally severe concern and criticism of the way that the Metropolitan Police had used Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in terms of stop and search and there was also enormous confusion about whether it was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act or stop and search under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or whatever else. The point is that people do not understand these processes. Before we go down the road of saying that the remit of British Transport Police officers should automatically be extended, we need to think through how that will be managed and dealt with.

Prostitution

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble and learned Baroness has just told me something of which I was not aware. I do not know whether the department is aware of it, but I will certainly take the point away because it is extremely salient.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, does the Minister agree, without commenting on any case currently before the courts, that a woman working in the sex industry who claims to have been assaulted by men should expect protection from the police and from society, rather than face prosecution for brothel keeping?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

She is certainly entitled to protection from the police in cases of violence. We still have the legal situation, but she is certainly entitled to protection against violence.

Drugs: Classification

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I suggest that there is a real difference between alcohol and tobacco, which taken in moderation are not harmful to society, and the drugs on the classified list. I am afraid that there is no consensus between the conclusions reached by Professor Nutt and the evidence that he took.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness care to reconsider that last answer and separate alcohol from tobacco? There is no safe use of tobacco; all government advice that has ever been offered on the subject is that, when tobacco is used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, it is a killer. Therefore, it is treated differently from alcohol.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I accept the trend of that comment from the noble Lord. It is indeed the case that tobacco is harmful, as he has just said. I think the House would agree that alcohol taken in moderation is not so harmful.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Of course, to higher and greater things. It is notorious in our system that Ministers remain in post for less than two years, and that one Minister does not feel bound by the statements of another. If anyone doubts that, I can give them half a dozen chapters and verses now. Therefore, the soft soap, even from the mouth of as distinguished a Minister as the noble Baroness, is not enough where one is dealing with issues of citizens’ basic rights. For this side of the House, and no less for Members opposite, the destruction of the national identity register is a crucial matter. If ever there was a situation where somebody beyond the Minister is needed to give reassurance that what has to be done has been properly done, this is it.

Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause requires the independent person appointed to review the arrangements to make an annual report of his or her findings not just to the Secretary of State but also contemporaneously to Parliament. That ensures that the absence of specifics in the proposed new clause is adequate, because any independent reviewer, because they know that they have to report to Parliament as well as to the Secretary of State, will be on their mettle.

I finish by saying that this deals in the Bill with a number of anxieties expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights when it reported in October. For example, it stated that,

“the Government should report to Parliament on the progress towards the destruction of this information and the decommissioning of the NIR”.

It says that “the Government” should report. However, as I have attempted to justify, it should go a step further. The committee made other recommendations, particularly with regard to Clause 10, which entitles the Secretary of State to require verification information from not only a long list of government bodies, but from others; and, in subsection (10), gives discretion to the Secretary of State to disapply subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (8) requires that information in relation to passports should be destroyed no later than 28 days after the passport is issued. Subsection (9) contains another provision related to that. The clause gives discretion to the Secretary of State to disapply those subsections where he or she thinks it is “desirable” for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime and so on. That is fair enough, provided there is an independent reviewer who can look at that and make sure that no slackness has entered the system, and that any use of the discretions in the clause has been sensible and justifiable.

Finally, the Joint Committee expressed concern about the proportionality of some of the rights given to the Secretary of State by the Bill. For those reasons, I commend Amendment 19, and the inclusion of an independent review in the Bill. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will forgive me. The Committee is considering Amendment 12, and Amendment 19 is grouped with it. I assume that what the noble Lord is doing is speaking to his amendment, not moving it.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Indeed he is. I apologise.

Linda Carty

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the United States authorities about reprieving Linda Carty.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, we are committed to using all appropriate influence to prevent the execution of any British national, and that is certainly our starting point in this case. In the case of Linda Carty, we are supporting her efforts to get clemency in Texas. We are in close consultation with Miss Carty’s lawyers and with the NGO Reprieve, and we are planning our representations carefully with them. This is a sensitive case, and I hope that the House will understand that it would not be sensible for me to go into further detail while these discussions are taking place. I will add one further thing. Since Linda Carty potentially faces the death penalty, I am sure that the House will wish to know that the Government reaffirm the position taken by our predecessors on the death penalty.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply, and particularly for the last sentence, which I am sure will be welcomed across the House. The opposition to the use of the death penalty in all countries and in all circumstances was something that the previous Government were much attached to, and it is very welcome that the new Government are taking that on board.

Linda Carty, a Briton from the island of St Kitts, has been on death row in Texas for nine years. Her trial has been described as a travesty; the provision of her defence counsel was a joke; and the founder of Reprieve described this as,

“a most desperate, outrageous miscarriage of justice”.

Will all possible efforts be made, including the possibility of the Prime Minister speaking to the Governor of Texas? Can I also have an assurance that Ministers will agree to meet members of Miss Carty’s family if they request such a meeting?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, this is a very difficult case and I do not want to comment from the government Benches on its conduct so far. It is very clear that Miss Carty is now in a very difficult situation. We are focusing our efforts not at the federal level but at the state level, because that is the right place. I do not exclude our doing anything necessary to help this lady in any way that is proper and effective.