Domestic Violence

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[David Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Folk need to sign that pledge. Violence against women, men and children is totally wrong.

Today, people in my constituency are suffering at the hands of brutal, self-centred, manipulative individuals who are intent on destroying the lives of their partners and children. It is time that their actions were halted. I have spoken with women, men and children from Lurgan, Banbridge, Portadown and more rural areas who have been subjected to domestic violence, and I recognise the need for the abuse to stop. While this is a debate for the whole UK, I beg your indulgence, Dr McCrea, as I shall speak primarily about my constituency and Northern Ireland.

Research on domestic violence in Northern Ireland shows that one in four women have experienced or currently experience domestic violence, and that it accounts for approximately one fifth of all recorded violent crime in the Province. Over the past few years, an average of five people have been killed each year as a direct result of domestic violence. The Police Service of Northern Ireland attends an average of 60 domestic violence-related incidents a day, but it recognises that a large amount of such crime goes unreported. Every week, on average, police attend over 400 domestic incidents and deal with more than 100 domestic assaults. If there are 400 incidents in each of the 52 weeks of the year, that equates to over 20,000 call outs relating to domestic violence. It is well known that over 30% of all domestic violence starts during pregnancy. Since 1999, Women’s Aid across Northern Ireland gave refuge to 14,714 women, and 14,356 children and young people.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I join others in welcoming the hon. Gentleman’s securing of the debate. On Friday, I was at a fundraising event in Shotton for the Domestic Abuse Safety Unit, which has been operating for 25 years. Does he agree that such organisations give people hope and enable them to take the courageous first step towards escaping from abusive people?

[David Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the courage involved in taking that action. We should encourage such organisations, but Women’s Aid and others face massive funding problems.

During the past 16 years in the Province, Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland managed 282,869 calls to the 24-hour domestic and sexual violence helpline. According to an estimate in the Government strategy “Tackling Violence at Home”, the cost of domestic violence in Northern Ireland, including the potential loss of economic output, could amount to somewhere in the region of £180 million each year. Women’s Aid is at the forefront of providing care and support to the victims of domestic violence. I commend it on its most recent initiative, “SOS: Save Refuges, Save Lives”. It is the victims who need to be protected and supported, so I call on the House to ensure that victims and those at risk are kept at the centre of all that we do.

UNICEF research from 2006 shows that figures on incidences per capita indicate that up to 32,000 children and young people live with domestic violence in Northern Ireland. Domestic violence has an extremely worrying effect on children. In fact, I would go as far as saying that children are the hidden victims of domestic violence. In 90% of violent incidents, children are in the same or the next room. They witness the attack and often feel compelled to intervene. Within Northern Ireland, more than 100,000 children were affected last year. Some 1,077 women and 854 children were accommodated in refuges, while 2,938 women and 3,617 children were supported to remain in their home in the community. An astounding 32,349 calls were made to the domestic violence helpline, which represented a 17% increase on the previous year. The issue therefore affects many people, male and female, as well as many thousands of children and the entire family.

Passport Applications

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The vast majority of applications are straightforward: renewal or replacement applications for which the forms have been properly completed and all the required documents are available. Those applications are processed more easily than first-time applications because the individual has all the information that they need to provide. It is the case that first-time applications take longer than three weeks, and we have always been clear, as the Passport Office has always been clear, that first-time applications take longer because, of course, an interview is needed. That is part of the security that was introduced for passports, and I think we were absolutely right to introduce it. I shall see if I can get a precise figure for the right hon. Lady.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked a straightforward question—will the extra costs that people are incurring be refunded?

[Mrs May]

I was clear last week and again this week that we are making particular arrangements for people who find themselves outside the three-week timetable and have to travel within the next seven days, to ensure that they can be upgraded and receive their passport in time, and that those individuals will receive a refund.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Mark Tami Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

rose—

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to make some progress, because I have not yet reached the main substance of my speech, but I will briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman and then my hon. Friend.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong, and he knows he is wrong because he asked exactly that question of David Anderson, the independent terrorism reviewer, in the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The reply from David Anderson was clear. He said that control orders had not been undermined by the courts and had in fact been upheld by them—that the principle had been upheld and individual control orders had been upheld. Of course it is right for control orders to be scrutinised in the courts, as it is right for TPIMs to be scrutinised. However, the independent reviewer was absolutely clear: it was not the courts undermining control orders, nor was it the courts that decided to replace them with the weaker TPIMs; it was the Government.

[Mark Tami]

My right hon. Friend touched on relocation, which was one of the most effective parts of control orders, but it is now being replaced by a costly system that cannot work as effectively.

[Yvette Cooper]

The concern for us is that the weakening of the terror powers has led to additional costs. We simply do not know what additional costs there might be now as a result of ending control orders for up to six people this month.

The Prime Minister told the House earlier this month that TPIMs “are working”, but the verdict on TPIMs, two years on, is very different. According to the independent reviewer, there have been no successful prosecutions, despite all the Home Secretary’s promises. The removal of relocation powers has badly backfired. No one relocated as part of their control order ever absconded, yet the Home Secretary removed relocation powers and lost two out of 10 suspects in 12 months. Ibrahim Magag ran off in a black cab; Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed ran off in a burqa. They have not been seen since, and the Home Secretary and Prime Minister have no idea where they are. The Prime Minister calls this a successful policy, yet 20% of the terror suspects on TPIMs have disappeared within a year.

We want to concentrate on the six men expected to be released from TPIMs this month. The House warned the Home Secretary of the risks that she was taking by restricting TPIMs to two years regardless of the security assessment unless fresh terrorist activity had occurred. Here is what Mr Justice Collins said about her legislation:

“if a TPIM has achieved its purpose and the Home Secretary has no reason to believe that any terrorist related activity has occurred, there will be no power to impose a fresh TPIM whether or not…the Secretary of State has reason to believe the subject will involve himself in terrorist related activity.”

In other words, if the TPIM works to prevent terrorist activity, there is no possibility of the Home Secretary extending it, even if she has good reason to believe that that terror suspect remains a serious risk and will return to terrorist activity straight away.

If that is the case, Parliament needs to know the extent of the risk that these men pose now, and the Home Secretary needs to give us this simple piece of information: does she believe that these six men are still likely to pursue terror-related activity: yes or no? The courts said they were likely to do that 12 months ago. Does she believe they are now? Are these men still a risk: yes or no? She cannot claim that she does not comment on individual cases, because she has already done so. Public statements have been made about these men and the risks they pose.

Let us take the person known as CD—one of the men whose TPIM expires this month. The Security Service said he was trying to procure firearms for a terrorist attack in the UK. Just over a year ago, the judge agreed he was too dangerous to remove the TPIM controls. The judge said at that point that

“the evidence that CD has been involved in terrorist activity is overall stronger now than it was”.

He also said that the

“control order and now TPIM are having something of their intended effect, but that is very different from saying that the TPIM should be ended…there remains a network, his views and determination are unchanged, he has training”.

What has changed since then? Have CD’s views and determination changed? Has his network changed? Or is there still a significant risk that he will try to get firearms or other weapons again to pursue a UK attack? The Security Service and the judge told us a year ago that this man was a serious risk; now the Home Secretary is removing all his restrictions. We have a right to know whether she still thinks he is a risk or whether that risk has gone. I will give way to the Home Secretary if she will tell us now whether CD is still a risk. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary has chosen not to intervene to answer the specific question about whether CD remains a risk.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme No. 2)

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The debate is quite important, because we all know the importance of getting the post-Leveson scene right. Mention has been made of the cost, the time involved, and the great care that Lord Justice Leveson took over the inquiry. We, as a minority party, were never part of the all-party talks, although the official Opposition have kept us in the loop, to their credit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, we should be kept in the loop, which would be perfectly fine.

On the programme motion, of course, we are not part of the foul waters of the usual channels.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Foul waters indeed.

[Mr Llwyd]

The foulest in Europe, apparently—and that is why we are not part of them, probably.

On a serious point, even with the amended timetable we are still pretty well limited in terms of discussing Leveson, and we know that there are many opinions within the House on the Front, Back and middle Benches, on what we should do next. One thing is certain: the people out there demand that we get this right and, if we do this in this piecemeal, last-minute, eleventh-hour way, it will be an ignominious start to any proceedings on getting Leveson right.

I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I agree with many things that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said. We do need to have sufficient time to debate this issue. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that we could dispense with programming if we want to be in the Chamber until 5 am or 6 am on every Bill. That is patently nonsense, because in the 1992 Parliament that happened occasionally when the Maastricht treaty was debated, but not all the time. There are some Bills that require greater debate and scrutiny, but the flexibility to provide that is missing from all of this. That is extremely unfortunate because, with the best will in the world—with the benign Government we have now and any Government who may follow—the Executive are riding roughshod over us. This is not what Parliament is meant to be.

Police

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

We have had an interesting debate, and I will run through some of the speeches.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) made a very fair speech in which he talked about the need for more effective procurement and noted Labour’s investment in policing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, spoke as thoughtfully as ever about a number of matters. He raised the key issue of funding for the new National Crime Agency and dealt with the important subject of police visibility. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said that he wanted less CCTV and more transparency, and hoped that police and crime commissioners would not hinder that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said that he had the greatest respect and admiration for the police force, as we all should. He also noted the downward trend in crime and hoped that it will continue, as we all do, although there is no room for complacency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly paid tribute to PCs Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone. She also made a passionate defence of Labour’s record on crime when we were in office. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) welcomed the long-term downward trend in crime. He clearly speaks with some authority on these matters given how much time he has spent out and about with his local force in Scunthorpe.

We are all constituency MPs, and we all hear those whom we represent say that local people want to see local police on their local streets. No wonder, then, that at the last general election the Prime Minister promised to protect front-line police officers. Less than two years ago, he told this House:

“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line police officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]

The Home Secretary said in October 2010:

“Well what I’m saying is that we know that it is possible for the police to make significant reductions in their budgets without affecting frontline policing.”

We have heard Ministers say countless times that front-line services will be protected despite budget cuts of 20% per cent, but they cannot cut budgets by 20% and expect those cuts to be found in administration. The Government have the fantasy that police stations are packed full of pen-pushers instead of police officers. If they cut costs, they have to cut staff, and those staff are the police officers the public rely on to keep them safe.

In preparing for this speech, I was bemused to find that in response to a freedom of information request last March asking for the definition of front-line policing, the Department said that it could not define it because

“There is no formally agreed definition”.

Never mind that the Government cannot deliver on the policy: apparently they do not even know what it means.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who do not work on the front line do a vital job and that those on the front line would not be able to operate without them, yet this Government talk about them as though they can be discarded without any regard whatsoever?

[Gloria De Piero]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.

The line now taken by the Government seems to be that it does not matter how many police officers there are. As some Members have noted, that is a far cry from the general election campaign, when Liberal Democrats were promising to recruit 3,000 extra police officers. We might be getting a little immune to the Liberal Democrats breaking election promises, but this one, like so many others, was not worth the ink on the “Focus” leaflet it was printed on. I will be interested to see the “Focus” leaflet in Eastleigh, where I am sure they will be explaining why there will be 295 fewer police officers on the streets in Hampshire.

We have heard from a lot of Members today, but it is also worth reflecting on the views of those we have been sent here to represent. Last month, ComRes conducted polling for ITV news that shows why there can be no room for the complacency that I fear we are seeing on the Government Benches. In the poll, 38% thought that crime had got worse in their area in the past three months and just 6% thought that it had got better. On antisocial behaviour, 22% thought it had got worse in the past three months, while just 8% thought that it had got better. We should all be concerned when more than one in five believe antisocial behaviour has got worse and more than one in three believe that crime has got worse in their neighbourhood. If the public express their concerns and believe that crime and antisocial behaviour are rising, we have a duty to reflect those concerns.

Last week, I spoke to a senior police officer who told me that the thing the public tell all of us that they value most—the bobby on the beat in our communities—is becoming harder and harder to provide. He said:

“The policing pledge forced us to up our game. Things like the requirement to spend at least 80% of time on the beat”—

I still have not been given an answer to why that pledge was scrapped—

“and responding to non urgent messages to the neighbourhood team within 24 hours—when we did that our satisfaction rates went through the roof. That customer focus has now gone.”

He went on to say:

“Our first job is to keep people safe so the police service has fallen back to its core service. Neighbourhood policing has fallen back. The 999 stuff is still okay. The neighbourhood stuff, the fact that the community know us and who the local bobby is—that’s gone. You deal with demand, withdraw to your statutory responsibilities, but issues like antisocial behaviour where you need to build trust and confidence, you need people to know you so you can nip things in the bud—that’s gone. At the moment we are just ending up with bigger and bigger control rooms. We’re not doing the bobby on the beat stuff and that is storing up problems for the future.”

Like many in this House, I hear horrific tales from my constituents. Last week I received a letter from a constituent who told me:

“we have suffered…with antisocial behaviour around the property we live which is causing great unease and discomfort. We understand that staffing levels are low and they have to prioritise the workload”—

but that by the time the police arrived

“all of the offenders had left the area so no action was taken”.

My constituent went on:

“we now feel totally alone in dealing with this situation and think this is totally unacceptable”.

Police solved 30,000 fewer crimes last year as the number of officers was slashed. Detection rates fell for the first time in more than a decade. Fewer crimes are being solved, fewer criminals are being caught and fewer victims are getting justice. The police are needed to provide a reassuring, visible presence in our neighbourhoods. Have any Members been approached by a constituent and heard the words, “Thank you for cutting the number of police officers on our streets”?

Child Sexual Exploitation

Mark Tami Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

There were allegations, too, of abusers outside the care system. The report goes on to state:

“There were numerous claims and suggestions that senior public figures including the police and political figures might have been involved in the abuse of young people”.

I feel strongly about this matter because children from my constituency of Cynon Valley, in south Wales, were taken to that care home in north Wales, a long way from their families and friends. I put a notice in my local paper, and six young men answered the advert. This was before the Waterhouse inquiry was set up. I took detailed statements from the four of them who said that they were ready to talk to me. I took a long time to interview them individually, and I found the allegations that they made, and the descriptions of their experiences, totally emotionally draining. If I felt that, it is impossible to imagine what they must have felt.

All those young men have been damaged in some way. Their experience affected their future relationships with people. Some of them got into trouble with the law. Of the many young men who gave evidence to Jillings, to the police or to the Waterhouse inquiry, a shocking number have committed suicide, have self-harmed or have been killed in mysterious circumstances. That is one of the many reasons why we need an overarching inquiry. It could be a royal commission, as has been suggested, but whatever happens, we need an overarching inquiry; we do not want any more piecemeal inquiries.

One good thing that came out of Waterhouse was that the Welsh Assembly quickly appointed a Children’s Commissioner for Wales. In the past week, 36 people have contacted the commissioner’s office, of whom 22 have spoken of the abuse that they suffered at Bryn Estyn in Wrexham and at the network of homes connected to it. The other 14 have spoken of historical abuse in other settings.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend tells a powerful story. Does she agree that one of the major problems was that nobody believed the young people, and that they eventually felt that there was no point in trying to fight against the terrible things that were being done to them, because the whole system was geared against them?

[Ann Clwyd]

My hon. Friend’s constituency covers some of the Wrexham area, as does that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). They both know full well the anguish felt by the many young people who would have liked to give evidence but who were just not listened to and will not be listened to. I hope that things will change. I have mentioned those people who have contacted the Children’s Commissioner, and it is known that a number of others, perhaps dozens, have contacted politicians and solicitors to report abuse and to ask for help.

In an interview with The Guardian, Mr Towler—the commissioner—expressed concern that the intense speculation over rumours of a politician’s involvement meant that there was a danger of the victims being forgotten. He said that what happened in north Wales in the 1970s and ’80s was a consequence of children and young people not being listened to. The Children’s Commissioner said the victims’ memories were

“as clear as if it happened yesterday…we say it’s historical abuse, but actually it’s alive. This is not an archaeological dig, we’re talking to people for whom this is terribly alive. People are incredibly emotional—we have had tears, anger, relief. They’re saying, I’ve waited 30 years for this opportunity. I’ve also had conversations with people going through that emotion”.

It is not a dead issue in the minds of these young people; it is very much alive. There remains the fundamental concern that justice for many of these victims has still not been achieved.

I pay tribute again to Alison Taylor, who was one of the first whistleblowers in Gwynedd, and to Councillor Malcolm King, who was the chair of social services of Clwyd county council. They were both outstandingly brave, and Alison Taylor was sacked because nobody believed her. Only 12 copies of the Jillings report were published. I have urged for several days that it should be published. It is in the hands of the Wales Office, where it was kept at the time. Copies do exist, and I now believe it essential for it to be published. I also pay tribute to the newspapers, particularly to The Independent and The Guardian, to the BBC, ITV and many other broadcasting organisations and the press, who have helped to bring these iniquities to light.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is a former local government Minister and understands the cross-party nature of the attempt to tackle the scourge of metal theft. There are now about 1,000 incidents of metal theft each week. That puts considerable pressure on the resources of local authorities, churches, the police, the voluntary sector, the railway services and all of us who are victims of such crime.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend made a good point about war memorials. In such thefts, the value of the metal stolen is often very low, but the harm and hurt caused are very great. I know from my area that companies might have equipment stolen that is worth tens of thousands of pounds, yet the value of the scrap metal is very low.

[Mr Hanson]

New clause 1 was designed, following Opposition pressure in Committee, to ensure that licences are displayed, in order to tackle precisely the problems described in recent interventions and by the Minister.

Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)

Mark Tami Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the fundamental flaws in the Waterhouse inquiry lay in its terms of reference? That is why we need a far more widespread inquiry.

[Mrs May]

The review of the Waterhouse inquiry will examine, among other issues, the way in which that inquiry was constituted. However, I believe that at the time when the terms of reference were set, the entire House was comfortable with them.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I hope that the creation of the legislation and the offences will, in itself, send out a message, but of course that has to be backed up by training. I also hope that we can ensure that the public generally recognise the importance and significance of stalking as an offence, and the distress and problems that it causes to an individual who is being stalked. I remember holding a discussion on the subject with a number of people, and a victim of stalking made the point to me that when she first came forward to say that she was a victim, someone she knew said to her, “Oh, aren’t you lucky?” Nothing could be further from the truth, and we need to change that attitude.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

That is an important point. We have seen how long it has taken the police to treat domestic violence as seriously as it should be treated. The Home Secretary’s comments show that victims are sometimes told that it is nice to receive that sort of attention. There is also the issue of the police not treating stalking seriously; it is only in very serious cases, where death may result, that we address stalking as the important issue that it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in what is a very interesting debate.

Some 10 months ago I set up an all-party committee covering both Houses, including Members from all parties and none, by which I mean it included Cross Benchers from the other place as well. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) played a very active part in the committee’s deliberations and is to be commended on the hard work that he put in.

We looked at the whole issue of a stand-alone offence of stalking, something that I have long believed to be a necessary tool in the criminal justice armoury. We were helped immensely by Laura Richards of Protection Against Stalking and by Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers, to whom we as a committee are very grateful. The researcher Delyth Jewell also did a sterling piece of work in clerking the committee.

We took evidence from July last year, and we are indebted to those who came and gave of their time to provide evidence to us. I think in particular of the victims and the victims’ families. It took a great deal of bravery to relate some of their accounts. Many were harrowing, almost beyond belief and ended, as the Home Secretary said of her constituent, in death. They were awful situations, so we are indebted to those individuals, because they came before the committee and their evidence has convinced us all that this is an urgent matter that needs to be put right.

We took evidence from lawyers, who said that there was a lacuna in the current law. I was a Member in 1997 when the Protection from Harassment Act became law, and we thought it a fairly decent piece of legislation. Indeed, by and large it has been and has dealt with a great range of offences, but on the particular offence of stalking in large parts it has not fit the bill. The lawyers told us that they, too, thought we needed to consider a separate offence of stalking.

I agree with the Home Secretary that some police officers are very good at pursuing stalking through the provisions in the 1997 Act, but I am afraid—I say this as the brother and the son of police officers; I do not have any great beef with the police generally—that the vast majority cannot handle the problem, hence the fact that 72% to 75% of those surveyed reported that they were very dissatisfied with the police action taken. That is partly to do with complications in the provisions and partly to do with the new form of the offence, which often involves e-transmissions of some kind, and so on. It is also due to a lack of specific training, which is extremely urgent in this context.

We took evidence from psychologists who advised us that in many instances it is possible to address such offending behaviour. It is vital, in the case of individuals who would be subject to new section 4A and sent away for a period of incarceration, but also in the case of those subject to new section 2A, who would not be, that criminal psychologists get involved fairly soon in order to divert them from their behaviour, because, by its very nature and essence, stalking is an obsessive, often repeat, offence that goes on and on. We heard examples of individuals in prison who were planning the next stalking venture from their prison cell.

I am advised by Laura Richards, in particular, that about 20 to 25 practitioners in the UK are able to diagnose and, in large part, deal with stalking behaviour and divert offenders away from it. That is important, because otherwise all we will do is take them off the streets for a while and then they will be back. Whether they have committed a 2A or a 4A offence, it is vital that we make available the necessary specialist clinical services to deal with them. I am no psychologist and I am not medically qualified, but I know that they often have behavioural, as opposed to psychological, problems. People are trained to help them address that, and their expertise must be used to ensure that we have a proper, tough regime to deal with these awful offenders.

[Mark Tami]

The right hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. The danger is that, whatever the penalties may be, these people come out of prison and carry on committing the same offence, because they are obsessive to the point that whatever action is taken against them, they will keep on doing it and ruining people’s lives.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. By its nature, that is the kind of offence that it is, and that is how it ruins people’s lives. I have spoken to many victims who say that it is almost like having a black cloud behind them day and night, and they have to turn around every now and then to make sure that the person is not there. It is an awful situation to be in. I believe that the Bill deals with the problem in large part, if not completely; there are one or two things that I would like to discuss. I am in sympathy with some, but not all of the points raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

We suggested in our report that the offence should be one that is capable of being tried either way, but to be fair to the Home Secretary, she has clearly expanded on how the Government are now looking at this. Although I would argue that stalking is never a minor offence, there are more serious initial offences. It will be partly to do with whether the person has been before the courts before for a similar offence involving a different victim or the same one. My fears are allayed, to a certain extent, by what the Home Secretary said, although we did recommend, as I said, that the offence should be triable either way, as the 4A offence would be.

Following lobbying by NAPO and Protection Against Stalking, Lord Henley announced in the other place an amendment to the wording of the amendment to include psychological harm. I welcome that amendment to the amendment—it is almost like an extension to the extension—because that is crucial. When I had the privilege of meeting the Prime Minister to discuss this, two young women were there who had given us evidence, both of whom would not necessarily fall into the physical harm category but into the psychological damage category. One young woman has received therapy for the past 10 years because of stalking. I am pleased that that element is now included. In effect, it completes the circle.

Metal Theft

Mark Tami Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones]

I would like to make some progress, if possible.

The British Transport police state that there are eight attacks on the transport system each day, and that is of grave concern. Ecclesiastical Insurance reported that in 2011 there were 2,500 lead thefts from church roofs. Perhaps most shockingly, the War Memorials Trust estimates that one memorial is vandalised every week in the UK, and for only a very small amount of metal. Today’s debate is a reminder of the urgent need to tackle this scourge and of the importance of doing so; with the Olympics around the corner, it reminds us of the threat to essential services. Paul Crowther of the British Transport police described metal theft as

“the second biggest threat to our infrastructure after terrorism”.

Nigel Martin, the head of supply at Wessex Water, has said:

“Any one of these cable thefts can turn into a civil emergency.”

The Government’s response so far has been unclear. My comprehensive Bill was rejected, despite its forensic drafting by the Public Bill Office—I wish to thank the people there. The announcement of a ban on cash trade and the introduction of unlimited fines for those trading in stolen metal are welcome steps. However, the Government’s announcement misses key elements that underpin the success of a cashless payments system. First, a robust licensing system is required to overhaul the inadequate and flawed Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Secondly, and as importantly, we need a UK wide taskforce to gather best practice and to bring together the key partners: the United Kingdom Border Agency; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; the Environment Agency; local government, the National Crime Agency; banking; local police forces; and, importantly, industry. Those bodies need to come together in a positive way to tackle this scourge.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned church roofs. Is he aware that insurance companies now have a £5,000 limit and will pay out only on that, but in most cases that does not get anywhere near covering the cost of the stolen lead?

[Graham Jones]

I am aware of that, and it appears that that figure is falling as a result of the escalation in lead thefts from church roofs. That is of some concern, especially as insurance is very hard to come by for some of the churches that have suffered.

The measures in this motion were agreed by the affected industries and, importantly, by members of the all-party group on combating metal theft. However, the Government’s two announcements somewhat sit in isolation, and that is where the concern lies. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is an unsuitable legislative vehicle, so we need to move beyond it. It appears to be have been commandeered at the 11th hour and, unfortunately, no other measures have been allowed to be added to it. The Bill passed through this House only last November and notably absent were any measures to tackle metal theft. That raises further questions about this House’s ability to scrutinise last-minute amendments from the Lords.

In November, the Chancellor announced a £5 million pilot which has been started in the north-east—Operation Tornado. However, it will not report back until July, when the Olympics begin and Parliament starts its summer recess. I am concerned about that, as the approach being taken all seems a little disjointed, and I appeal to the Minister to bring coherence to the Government’s strategy.

Metal theft is a very particular type of crime. That is because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, its effects are disproportionate to the impact it has on other people; stealing £20-worth of metal can cause £100,000-worth of damage. Such a theft can remove a war memorial or result in the loss of life, and it cannot be calculated in financial terms in some cases. A theft in the Dartford tunnel area caused £29 million-worth of damage and a recent metal theft in Glasgow caused a further £14 million-worth of damage, including the part closure of a hospital.

Metal theft is also a very particular type of crime because the effectiveness of policing it is limited; the nation’s metal estate is so vast that there is not a police solution. The Government must look more intelligently and co-operatively if we are to “design out” the problem. We are talking about a failure of regulation and of joined-up working, not of policing.