Local Authorities: Regulatory Services

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I start by recording my interest as the chair, for the past two months, of the National Trading Standards Board. I also reiterate the thanks given to my noble friend Lady Crawley for securing this debate, which I think will raise a number of very important issues.

The timing is extremely fitting. There is an increasing recognition of the harm that can be done to individuals by scammers and rogue traders or by those who flout environmental health regulations. I welcome, for example, the announcement this morning of the Sentencing Council’s consultation, suggesting that sentences for financial crimes should take into account the harm and impact on victims rather than just the sums involved. The sum of £2,000 scammed by a dodgy roofer from a pensioner could denude her life savings and shatter her confidence. At present, the sentence might only be a community order or, at most, six months. These guidelines would change the maximum to two years, and I believe that that reflects what society would expect.

The public expect those who, vulture-like, prey on their fellow citizens—particularly the most vulnerable—to be pursued vigorously and dealt with accordingly. That is why the picture painted by my noble friend Lady Crawley about the impact that recent budgetary decisions have had on local trading standards and local environmental health is so serious. Of course, the bleak economic environment referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, creates the climate in which it is more likely that scammers and fraudsters will emerge, and that is precisely why this is a time when it is particularly difficult, but especially important, that action is taken.

I am sure that the Government are serious about ensuring that the consumer is protected, but we have to acknowledge that the pressure on local budgets is not helping. There is a danger that the Government—I assume unintentionally—are about to make it all worse. There are proposals in the consumer rights Bill impacting on the powers of trading standards officers to enter and inspect. My noble friend Lady Crawley has already referred to those in brief. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the problem is that these changes are designed to solve. The Government seem to envisage that in future two days’ notice should be given to traders before a visit—I repeat: two days’ notice. “Please Mr Rogue Trader, we want to come and visit the day after tomorrow, and please could you leave all your records of whom you’ve scammed in good order for us and leave all your counterfeit goods out for us to seize”. Come on. What precisely is intended to be the point of that? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about the thinking that suggests that that is a sensible way forward. No doubt there will be exemptions but I come back to my question: what is the problem that the Government are trying to solve?

In any event, there is an advantage in unannounced visits. Certainly, some years ago when I was director of the Association of Community Health Councils, or when, as a new councillor 35 years ago, I visited care homes and children’s establishments without warning, the importance of such a facility was demonstrated to me. I remember the muttered asides and the nervous looks that told you far more than anything you would learn on an announced visit. That is why unannounced visits are important and why I wonder what the logic is in changing these things. The Government’s proposals will throw up anomalies. Some establishments will now end up being visited twice, instead of once, by the same officers. The Food Standards Authority requires, under statute, that some food-related visits are unannounced. The other, related, visits would be the subject of 48 hours’ notice. Why is that and whom does it protect?

How will a private dwelling be defined, as powers of entry will not be available for private dwellings? What if the dwelling is also the business office or contains the stores of business goods? Are they now protected, encouraging the bad guys to keep their records and their dodgy goods in their homes? It would also be helpful to have clarity about this.

What about the proposals to restrict trading standards services’ access to communications data under the Communications Data Bill? This will severely compromise the ability to protect communities and legitimate businesses and, indeed, to combat serious criminality. Communications data is used to support a broad range of investigations, often related to serious and organised crime and sometimes where consumers have been defrauded out of huge sums of money, or huge as far as they are concerned. This includes doorstep crime, unsafe and clocked vehicles and the sale of counterfeit goods, often over the internet. These rogue businesses often only display a single mobile phone number in a small ad or flyer, or hide their identity behind misleading internet accounts. Access to communications data is often the only effective way of pursuing an investigation into this type of crime.

I will cite only one example, although I have plenty more if people wish to hear them. Cambridgeshire County Council has one case proceeding through the courts with 17 defendants, three of whom have already received prison sentences. The total amount of money involved is £700,000, defrauded from over 100 victims. Picture again the pensioner who has potentially lost their life savings. The communications data on the landline phone numbers used on invoices by these individuals and the billing details on mobile phones made a substantial contribution to the evidence in that case. I presume that the Minister would not want such people to go unapprehended. How can taking those powers away from local trading standards departments possibly be justified? The public wants these people dealt with and surely so do the Government. Can the Minister explain the rationale? If the argument is that the powers have been misused, perhaps he could give us the evidence to show that that is the case.

I would like to hear why the Government think this is necessary because Sir Paul Kennedy, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, charged by Parliament with reviewing the use of these powers, concluded in his evidence to the Protection of Freedoms Bill Public Bill Committee in 2011:

“I am aware that some sections of the media continue to be very critical of local authorities and there are allegations that they often use the powers which are conferred upon them under RIPA inappropriately. However, I can categorically state that no evidence”—

I repeat, no evidence—

“has emerged from our inspections that have taken place between 2005 and 2010, which indicates that communications data is being used to investigate offences of a trivial nature, such as dog fouling or littering. On the contrary it is evident that good use is being made of communications data to investigate the types of offences which cause harm to the public, such as investigating rogue traders, loan sharks and fly tipping offences … Often the telephone number or communications address is the only information/ intelligence the local authority has to progress the investigation and identify the alleged offender”.

Sir Paul Kennedy thinks the Government are wrong. I hope the Minister can tell us why they believe that restricting access to that data is right. Above all, how do the Government expect the public to be protected if the number of those engaged in trading standards work is reduced by one-fifth and those that are left can inspect only by appointment and cannot access basic communications data about who the bad guys are?