Asbestos Removal

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to have secured such an important debate about the role of the Health and Safety Executive in asbestos removal. Since the debate was tabled, I have been contacted by numerous people who have informed me of unsafe asbestos-removal practices that are happening in various locations and businesses across the country. I thank each and every whistleblower for getting in touch. I regret that I cannot elaborate in great detail on many of their stories this morning because of time constraints. Instead, I intend to focus my remarks on a very specific area—the HSE’s role in the removal of asbestos from high street stores.

I shall focus on three key areas. The first is the deficiencies in the HSE when it comes to adequately assessing the scale of the asbestos problem on our high streets. Next, I shall consider the HSE’s ability to enforce regulation and how the HSE is involved in the process of asbestos removal, and suggest improvements to procedures that would provide better protection for the public. Finally, I shall examine the moral and ethical position of our high street retailers and question whether they are doing all they can to protect people or whether the financial imperative—the need to drive profits—obscures their duty of care.

I shall begin by looking at the existing legislation and regulations in this area. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 place a duty to manage asbestos on duty holders in respect of non-domestic premises. The duty holder will usually be the person or organisation with responsibility for the maintenance or repair of the premises. The duty holder is required, among other things, to take reasonable steps to find out whether there are materials containing asbestos in non-domestic premises and, if so, the amount, where it is and what condition it is in; to make and keep up to date a record of the location and condition of the asbestos-containing materials or materials that are presumed to contain asbestos; to assess the risk of anyone being exposed to fibres from the materials identified; to prepare a plan that sets out in detail how the risks from those materials will be managed; to take the necessary steps to put the plan into action; periodically to review and monitor the plan and the arrangements to act on it, so that the plan remains relevant and up to date; and to provide information on the location and condition of the materials to anyone who is liable to work on or disturb them.

Further, the duty to manage asbestos is a legal requirement under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. That applies to the owners and occupiers of commercial premises such as shops, offices and industrial units, who have responsibility for maintenance and repair activities. In addition to those responsibilities, retailers, as duty holders, have a duty to assess the presence and condition of any asbestos-containing materials. If asbestos is present or is presumed to be present, it must be managed appropriately.

In the context of today’s debate, it is clear that the duty holder is the high street retailer that occupies a unit or building. The Health and Safety Executive has produced a step-by-step guide for duty holders in buildings built before 2000, who have more than 25 employees. In many instances, the advice is to employ a qualified asbestos removal contractor who is licensed and monitored by the HSE to remove the asbestos in a controlled and appropriate manner. However, I will detail how that process is not always as safe as some at the HSE might envisage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important matter to the Chamber for consideration. He has outlined the role of the HSE, but 4,000 deaths a year are still caused by asbestos poisoning. The last asbestos training pledge initiative took place from September 2011 to November 2011. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is time for the Government to initiate another such campaign to educate people across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain—not only on the mainland, but in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well?

[Steve Rotheram]

That is a timely intervention. I absolutely agree that it would be appropriate to revisit that strategy at this juncture, and that is part of what I will ask the Minister to provide us today. I will also ask the Minister about updating education to ensure that people are fully aware of the dangers of exposure to asbestos.

Throughout my speech, I will refer to numerical risk ratings. For the benefit of those who are not from the construction sector, I want to clarify that the risk rating ranges from 1 to 20, with 20 representing the highest risk. Disturbed asbestos that is rated 18-plus usually refers to asbestos likely to come into direct contact with the public—for example, on the shop floor of a store through the ventilation system or in an area of a store that is easily accessible to staff and maintenance workers.

Millions of our constituents, and shoppers from across all five continents, flock to Britain’s high streets on a daily and weekly basis. Our retail industry is truly one of the great British success stories. With that success has come the need for high street retailers constantly to rebrand themselves as companies and to update and upgrade their facilities to improve the retail experience. The refurbishment of their properties usually has to be done as efficiently and as effectively as possible to ensure that it does not have a detrimental impact on profit margins.

Although asbestos was for many decades believed to be a perfectly reliable and safe material to use in construction, people are no longer in any doubt about its dangers and health risks. When the 2006 regulations were introduced, the HSE was given clear instructions on how to deal with asbestos removal in commercial units. However, retailers consistently try to minimise disruption to their stores and trading hours, with the result that asbestos—often in ceiling voids, where dust could be moved by air conditioning and ventilation units—has the potential to come into contact with staff in shops. In some cases, dangerous fibres may find their way on to the shop floor and the space used by the public.

That is not speculation or an unlikely hypothesis. In 2011 it was widely reported that high street giant Marks & Spencer was prosecuted and fined £1 million for failing to protect customers, staff and workers from potential exposure to asbestos. The court case detailed works carried out during the refurbishment of the Reading and Bournemouth stores in 2006 and 2007 in which asbestos regulations were not followed. Billy Wallace, a health and safety practitioner from Greenwich in south London, was a key witness in the case, and I have a copy of his statement to the HSE from 21 December 2006 regarding his experiences at the Reading store. I will read a passage from it, which makes scary reading:

“I was asked to work at the refurbishment of Reading Marks and Spencer...when I arrived at the job, I became concerned by my observations of many contractors working on and within ceiling voids because I suspected the ceiling tiles were asbestos insulation boards...In order for these operators to carry out their works they were rubbing and pushing against asbestos tiles, both damaged and broken asbestos fillets...I could not find any history of tool box talks, especially related to asbestos which could have been particularly pertinent to these works in areas known to contain asbestos...The impression I got was that there were severe pressure and constraints on all contractors to get the job done at any risk...In my opinion the shop floor would have been contaminated with asbestos on many occasions, thereby placing the public at risk...I strongly suspect that members of the public on many occasions would have left the M&S store having purchased contaminated goods (foods, clothing, furniture etc)...This is because the merchandise was still in the shop and vicinity of the works being carried out which on many occasions would have generated asbestos fibres”.

When I read that statement, I immediately began to wonder how widespread the practice was on our high streets. How many shops visited by our constituents contain asbestos that may have been disturbed during refurbishment or maintenance work? Could the food chains in such shops really have been contaminated, as alleged in Billy Wallace’s statement? Could clothes that people purchase contain highly dangerous asbestos fibres? In his summing up on the Reading case, Judge Clark alluded to the tension that he believed existed in Marks & Spencer between health and safety and profit:

“The response from Marks and Spencer was in effect to turn a blind eye to what was happening…it was already costing the company too much money”.

After investigation, I obtained copies of more than 30 fully intrusive asbestos surveys at Marks & Spencer stores across the UK. I will give hon. Members a flavour of the type of comments recorded. One states:

“third floor fallow area, main staircase, debris, risk rated 19 (out of 20), action: restrict access to fallow areas and bring in licensed asbestos removal contractor”.

That survey was dated 21 May 2003, and as far as I am aware, the asbestos is still there; there is no record of its ever having been removed. The argument is that as long as it is left alone and undisturbed, it poses no risk. Although the HSE currently endorses that position, it is a theoretical consideration rather than an example of best practice. That prompts a fundamental question: how can the HSE be presented with such surveys and never follow up on whether companies have removed the asbestos?

The examples I have highlighted are from high street retailers, but the same may be true of hospitals, schools—I know that the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) is very concerned about that—public buildings and other commercial and domestic units, in which duty holders have undertaken fully intrusive services, identified asbestos and notified the HSE, only for the process to stall. I believe that where fully intrusive surveys have disturbed asbestos products in buildings with a rating of 18 and above, those products should not be contained indefinitely in restricted areas.

I am led to believe that there are fewer than 150 HSE inspectors engaged in monitoring the removal of asbestos throughout the whole country. In reality, an inspector spends only one day a fortnight on site inspecting the licensed removal of asbestos. When the surveys were first brought to my attention by Billy Wallace, it was made clear to me that the HSE believes that any asbestos that has been disturbed and rated 18-plus must be removed, no questions asked. When pushed, however, the HSE seems content with disturbed asbestos rated 18-plus simply to be placed in restricted areas.

Marks & Spencer now has an industry-leading health and safety team that specifically looks at disturbed asbestos and its removal. The team, however, does not as a matter of course remove disturbed asbestos when it is initially identified due to the prohibitive costs. We must equip the HSE with the flexibility to undertake unannounced field visits outside normal working hours, when most asbestos removal is undertaken. As the HSE budget continues to be cut, there is increased likelihood that inspections will not take place at all in high street stores.

We could also consider introducing an annual inspection of every commercial store in Britain to analyse in detail the property’s safety and to ensure the removal of any disturbed asbestos that has been identified. That would eliminate incidents in which asbestos is left in restricted areas for decades. For some employees, customers and contractors who may have been exposed to asbestos, however, it would come as too little, too late. It is already a matter of public record that Marks & Spencer has been forced to pay out large sums of money to former employees who have contracted asbestos-related diseases following lengthy stints of service in its stores. Marks & Spencer is by no means alone in the practices that it employed, and it has agreed out-of-court settlements with a number of former employees.

Just a few months ago, the investigative journalist David Conn reported that Janice Allen, an M&S employee in the Marble Arch store in the 1970s, settled out of court with M&S for a six-figure sum after contracting mesothelioma. The dangers that M&S staff encountered were exposed due to the diligence of health and safety professionals such as William Wallace, but the truth is that nobody knows how widespread the dangers could be. We simply do not know how much disturbed asbestos identified through surveys carried out by licensed asbestos contractors is still lying in commercial units on high streets across the country; perhaps worst of all, neither does the HSE.

I am confident of five things. First, to the best of my knowledge, and barring the conviction in Reading, M&S has not broken the law as it stands. Secondly, and far more alarmingly, from the surveys that I have seen both Marks & Spencer and the HSE know that dangerous 18-plus risk rated asbestos is still on sites across the country. Thirdly, putting a restriction on disturbed asbestos and leaving it for decades is simply not good enough. Fourthly, profit should not take precedence over people in the application of enforceable safety practices. And finally, the HSE is weak.

The treatment meted out to William Wallace has been of great concern. Instead of Mr Wallace’s expertise being utilised to help improve asbestos removal practices, he has been ostracised. This is a man who, through his dogged determination to uphold the law, defend the rights of workers and see that justice is done in the courts, has undoubtedly saved lives that would otherwise have been put at risk through asbestos exposure. That has come at a tremendous personal cost. Mr Wallace believes he has been blacklisted, and he has been unable to find permanent employment for the best part of a decade. Let us be clear: he is not just a whistleblower but a trained health and safety professional who deserves the thanks and praise of Parliament.

I know my debate is specific to the high street and that the Minister may not have all the specific answers to some of the issues I have raised. I am, however, looking at pragmatic steps that he may be able to take to ensure that the risk of asbestos exposure is reduced. Will he seek assurances that all recommendations laid out in the judgment of Judge Christopher Harvey Clark, QC, particularly on toolbox talks for staff, have been implemented by the retailer in question? Does the Minister agree that such practices should be carried out by other retailers where asbestos has been identified in their stores? Is he satisfied that retailers are adequately informing and educating staff currently working in some older high street branches of the potential dangers to their health of asbestos exposure?

Does the Minister agree that the public will find it difficult to accept that Marks & Spencer can still have high-risk, previously disturbed asbestos in its stores that it has not removed despite a recorded risk rating of 18-plus? Does he believe that the inspection and enforcement of asbestos removal regulations by the HSE is being implemented as he would expect? Is he willing to accept that the HSE knows about disturbed asbestos and does not seem to be fundamentally willing to enforce removal action? Does he share my concerns about the potential exposure to asbestos, over many decades, in some of our high street stores? If he is unable to answer any of those questions fully because of time constraints or because he has only just heard some of the claims, I would appreciate it if he committed to writing to me further about the issues.

Administration and Insolvency

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to lead this debate on administration and insolvency. It is worth mentioning that the empty green Benches are a reflection not of the relevance or importance of the issue but of the incredibly busy lives that most parliamentarians lead.

The purpose of the debate is to try to persuade the Minister that there should be a

“mandatory requirement for licensed insolvency practitioners to give greater consideration to the social consequences of companies in administration”

rather than the current situation where perfectly viable businesses are simply sold to the highest bidder to be disassembled, with their assets flogged off and their work forces devastated.

The Minister will be aware that I met the Secretary of State to discuss this very issue. I fully appreciate that administrators are under a legal duty to ensure that they get a maximum return for creditors, but there is little, if any, cognisance of the detrimental effect that that can have on the very survival of a company if other factors are not explored, often with a resultant effect on a local community or a negative impact on UK plc. In other words, administrators almost invariably accept the highest bid, which is not always the best bid.

Before I begin my speech in earnest, I should like to place on record my thanks to both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their co-operation in September when I contacted them in a desperate attempt to save as many jobs as possible when Trigon Snacks in my constituency went into administration.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before the debate, I received his permission to intervene. Does he think that in the first year of trading, before a business gets into difficulties, the Government or the Minister could give them some indication of what to do when it comes to banks, regulations, skills and rates? Those four things are so critical in the first year of any business to ensure that it gets a second and a third year and that it stops insolvency.

[Steve Rotheram]

I am certain that those four factors are important, but start-up credit is a major impediment to the long-term success of smaller, micro-businesses. One in six small and medium-sized enterprises goes bust in the UK. In 2011-12, something like 120 SMEs per day were going into administration or liquidation. Anything that Parliament can do to assist those businesses to grow and to take on additional staff can only benefit the country as a whole.

I also want to put on record my thanks to Unite the union, which, despite the Prime Minister’s constant jibing, works tirelessly to support its members and which was as determined as I was to see production remain in Liverpool. I know the Minister and her Department are aware of this case, and it is this recent episode on which I wish to focus much of my contribution tonight as it clearly illustrates the issue at hand.

Trigon Snacks was a nut production factory with an annual turnover of approximately £30 million. The company produced peanuts for pub favourite brands such as Big D and Planters, and the business had profitable contracts with a number of large supermarket chains.

Following the company’s success at winning an increased order book with Sainsbury’s, Trigon doubled its production, introducing new shift patterns for the work force. That resulted in negotiations between management and the union to reward staff with a pay rise, which they had forgone for many years to secure the viability of the company. Indeed, some of the loyal work force had given more than 30 years of service to Trigon. Everything in the garden looked rosy.

To meet the new targets, Trigon stepped up production but soon encountered cash-flow problems, due to the purchase of extra plant, material, raw stock and associated manufacturing costs. To meet that short-term liquidity problem, Trigon approached the Royal Bank of Scotland for a loan totalling approximately £1.2 million. Given the developments this week with RBS, this might be another case that requires further scrutiny from the Secretary of State as it is clear that, for whatever reason, the company, despite being profitable, was not awarded the loan. When that loan could not be guaranteed, the business was destined to fail. RBS’s decision came in August and just a month later the business was put into administration. It is also worth noting that at the time of entering administration the company’s stock value alone was £2.7 million.

Disgracefully, 64 members of staff were handed immediate redundancy notices without prior warning, consultation with their trade union officers or even the courtesy of the administrator writing to me as the local MP. That still rankles with those who lost their jobs. Those employees had given decades of service and yet they were called to the works cafeteria for a routine meeting, had their names read out and were then told not only that they were losing their jobs but that they had to go promptly to clear their desks and lockers before being escorted from the premises by security guards who had been hired specifically to oversee that draconian act.

Having met Unite officials and staff at the factory immediately after the redundancies were announced, I became aware that numerous cases of unfair dismissal were set to be lodged alongside claims for protective awards by the union. Many of those shown the door have found it extremely difficult to find alternative employment despite being skilled factory workers with a wealth of experience.

I should make it clear that I am not suggesting the administrators did anything illegal, but I believe it was certainly unethical and I told them so. It remains likely that Unite will seek 30 days’ pay for its members through protective awards, a cost that is likely to be borne by the Exchequer. However, once Trigon was in administration only two outcomes were likely. First, the administrator could look to keep the business operational by selling it as a going concern. Although that would not absolutely guarantee the future of the business, it was hoped that those who bought the going concern would maintain production at the site, look to restructure the business, re-launch the brand and invest in improvements. There was another option: it would result in the administrator accepting a bid from a company that would close the factory, sell the stock, plant and machinery, transfer production to another site and make the whole work force redundant. In other words, the fear was that an asset stripper would decimate the business for a quick profit.

In the case of Trigon, despite my best efforts and those of Unite it looked likely that the doomsday scenario would be the most probable outcome and that the administrators, Duff and Phelps, would complete a sale that would maximise a better return for creditors but that would inevitably result in the loss of production at the Liverpool factory.

That is where I think that the balance is all wrong. I know that the closure of any factory is a tragedy for that particular business and work force, but when it makes no economic sense it is even harder for those facing redundancy to accept. When the result also lands the Treasury with a hefty bill for workers’ redundancy payments and increased benefit bills—not to mention the devastation to the local jobs market, the loss of business rates and the blight of a large empty factory—questions need to be asked. I believe that the need to ensure that administrators take greater control of the social impact of the bids they accept is now even greater.

The cold reality is that none of those factors could, in law, be taken into consideration by the administrators, and I believe that that is fundamentally wrong and needs to change. Some people may argue that administrators indirectly take all those factors into consideration as they look to keep businesses alive as going concerns, but they do not have a mandatory requirement to consider the social consequences. The law only directs them to make the biggest return for creditors, no matter what the consequences might be for communities.

At the end of the day, the potential to asset-strip the Walton factory collapsed, as only one bid remained, which set out to retain production locally, and this is where I do give some credit to the administrators for working with myself and the Unite union throughout the evening to secure a deal as a going concern.

We were lucky. The Trigon factory was saved. It still exists today, in the guise of a new company called Natco, but minus the 60-odd staff originally sacked. I have not given up hope of restoring the work force to its full complement, and getting those workers who were wrongly dismissed back on site. I know that many of them are facing a bleak Christmas for the first time in 30 or 40 years, through absolutely no fault of their own, with, yes, the fiscal costs borne by the state, but the human cost is much more difficult to measure. All that is because the initial shortfall loan could not be agreed with the banks.

I am aware that when it comes to the process of administration, nothing about what I have described is extraordinary, or dissimilar to the experiences of many others in this place. This is where I believe that reform should be considered, even though I appreciate that it is a complex area of law. The primary legislation governing insolvency is the Insolvency Act 1986. As the Minister is no doubt aware, the last Labour Government radically reformed legislation in this area to modify insolvency laws through the Enterprise Act 2002.

The raison d’être of our reforms was as PricewaterhouseCoopers explains:

“The Government’s intention was to create a shift in insolvency culture, with a greater emphasis placed on company rescue and rehabilitation, fairness for all creditors and making it tougher for offending directors”.

Those reforms achieved a great deal. Indeed, as PWC went on to say, the

“insolvency landscape transformed; administrations have now largely replaced administrative receiverships as the primary insolvency procedure, and many businesses have been preserved via this route. Furthermore, other solutions have evolved to facilitate the turnaround, restructuring and rescue of businesses”.

So progress can be made—it has already been made—to change the culture within this field and I am sure that this kind of independent analysis is welcomed across the House. But now I think it is time to go further.

In the list of responsibilities laid down on licensed insolvency practitioners we need a further mandatory requirement that consideration should be given to the social consequences of every bid they receive and, critically, that they should have the ability to award a sale of the asset that offers the most protection for staff, local communities and the taxpayer.

My contention is that greater consideration is needed of the impact on the public purse and our manufacturing capabilities. It seems nonsensical to me that greater consideration is not given to the impact that insolvency has on the Exchequer—and, equally importantly, the area in which the closure is proposed. I am not suggesting that those two factors should be exclusive, or that they should be given pre-eminence in deliberations, but there must be some reflection of the wider social impacts of each bid. I am acutely aware that this will not always ensure that asset-strippers are not awarded businesses. I am also aware that it will not always ensure that British workers stay in work and that their jobs will not just be exported overseas once the sale is completed.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Jim Shannon

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I want to focus my remarks on new clause 4. Part 8 of the Bill deals with firearms, and I broadly welcome the Government’s proposals on sentencing, but I urge them to go further on checks and fees. Following the Dunblane shootings in 1996, in which 16 children and one teacher lost their lives, the Labour Government were right to ban handguns and introduce tough new licensing laws, but it is also right that we, as parliamentarians, periodically review such laws. I therefore commend the Minister for the introduction of these proposals.

Despite the UK having one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the world, it is no secret that there are pockets of the country in which the criminal use of firearms remains a problem. It is often most notable in large cities, where gangs can plague communities. However, it would be wrong to assume that the sale or transfer of prohibited firearms is the only consideration that Parliament should look to reform.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right to pursue legislative change against law-abiding citizens who do not transgress? Would it not be better to focus attention on the lawbreakers instead?

[Steve Rotheram]

I suppose it would depend on the aim of the legislative change. The community that I represent needs a strong message to be sent from this House that the current level of gun crime is unacceptable and that we will give the police every power possible to tackle the blight on our neighbourhoods.

In recent years, we have also seen a rise in the use of firearms, breaching police and public safety, by individuals with track records of domestic violence and mental illness, leading one coroner to call for “root and branch changes” to gun licensing laws. For instance, in the last 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents, and 53% of female gun deaths in the last five years have involved the use of a legally held weapon, so the improved guidance that the Minister has provided for the police on this issue is to be welcomed.

Such statistics reinforce Labour’s call to ensure that applicants do not have a history of domestic violence or violent conduct as a statutory requirement and not just as a discretionary guideline. While the last Labour Government went a long way to reducing crime and encouraging safer, stronger communities, and introducing tough sentences for gun crimes, too many people still believe the use of guns to be an occupational consequence of their criminal activity. Perhaps the most high-profile incident of gun crime was the appalling murder of 11-year-old schoolboy Rhys Jones in Liverpool in 2007. Sean Mercer was sentenced to life in prison, but what made the incident even more sickening and unpalatable was that Mercer was just 18 years of age. That is why the Government are right to be tough on those who possess prohibited firearms and who sell or transfer them to criminal gangs, which blight neighbourhoods in so many of our major cities.

In my own city, we have tried many innovative approaches to tackling gun crime. Across Merseyside, the police and the local media deserve enormous credit for the campaigns they have undertaken on firearm detection and recovery. This is not just some right-wing tough-on-crime agenda; this is an issue that primarily affects the lives of ordinary people up and down the country, something that Parliament must ensure is reflected in the strength of the laws that govern gun control licensing and in the length of imprisonment. That is why I support clause 100, which seeks to separate the existing offence in the Firearms Act 1968 into two parts, and, in doing so, make it an offence to possess prohibited firearms for sale and transfer, and introduce a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

It is also right for the clause to increase the maximum penalty for the existing offences of manufacture, sale or transfer, or the purchase or acquisition for sale or transfer, of unauthorised firearms from 10 years to life imprisonment. Speaking with Merseyside police and the governors of local prisons, it is becoming increasingly clear that the tactic deployed by gangs is to use the same firearm for different shootings, but then to redistribute the gun to different members of the gang as and when it is “needed”, so to speak. By making the transfer of a firearm a crime punishable by a life sentence, I am positive that this will act as a stronger deterrent, and that those who ignore this change and are later prosecuted will receive severe custodial sentences.

I support clause 101, which seeks to amend sections 50 and 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to increase the maximum penalty for the unlawful importation of firearms, prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, from 10 years to life imprisonment. This is particularly important for an area such as Liverpool, with our revitalised docks now shipping record tonnage of trade. Inevitably, there will be those who wish to import illegal firearms into the port. The clause sends a strong message to people involved in the smuggling of weapons into Merseyside that if they are caught, this activity will carry a life sentence.

I support clause 102 in its efforts to allow British Transport police officers to carry firearms without requiring an individual certificate, giving them the same powers as officers of other police forces. Many incidences of gun attacks have taken place on public transport in Britain over the years. It is therefore right that we remove this anomaly and give the transport police the powers they require to combat this specific threat.

I am keen for the laws on firearms to be as tough as possible. New clause 4, tabled by the Labour party, will help the Government to achieve this common aim. New clause 4(4) notes the rising cost to police forces of administering the current firearms licensing regime. According to the Minister, more than 170,000 firearms licences and approximately 620,000 shotgun licences have been issued. The current fee for a firearm or a shotgun licence is only £50 for five years, yet the cost to the administrating force is, according to the Gun Control Network, about £200. Considering that the firearms licence averages out at just £10 a year, it is cheaper to own a gun than it is to own a fishing licence. That is absurd. I cannot see why the taxpayer is being asked to subsidise a large number of gun licences that are being issued to and used by a minority of individuals who wish to use guns for recreational sport. I am not aware of any other licensing system that subsidises to that degree.

Internet Trolling

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Jim Shannon

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Lady is right. I hope to tease out some of the complexities of the legislation during my contribution, but it is not as easy as us just saying that trolls should be brought to book—I shall try to outline why.

Trolling has become a sick hobby for some and an increasing problem for dedicated police trying to monitor and respond to reported cases. Trolls are individuals intent on upsetting and offending people, often in their hour of grief and mourning, for a kind of pleasure that I must admit is totally alien to me and, I would think, to every person in this Chamber.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the House’s attention. Every Member will have examples of constituents who have been subjected to trolling, whether in the workplace, in schools or on the internet. Young people who write about the good things that have happened to them can find that they are attacked on the websites. The example of Tom Daley comes to mind, because of what happened to him at the Olympics, when a cheerful thing turned into nastiness. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some system in place, whether banning trolls from using the websites, legislation or whatever, to protect young people and those using the internet in an innocent fashion?

[Steve Rotheram]

I agree that the first thing to do is to try to identify those people causing the offence, which is very difficult because they hide behind the anonymity of a computer. The second part, of course, is to try to get the issue out among the general public, so that we can secure a culture change in society. One of the starting points is to highlight some of the celebrity trolling and the great offence it has caused, although it happens to ordinary people too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

Those are two of the most depressing and disgusting instances of trolling. It is not just about having a bit of fun; it can lead to serious consequences. I will return to the case of at least one of those people who, unfortunately, took their own life.

Part of the problem is that a degree of professionalism is associated with some trolls that might be too sophisticated for our laws to combat in their current guise. The relevant legislation on this matter predates the birth of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, which were not launched until 2004 and 2006 respectively. In fact, since becoming actively involved in this issue, I have increasingly come to understand that the law surrounding trolling is a minefield. If only Thomas Jefferson had been right when he said:

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

A whole plethora of associated legislation could potentially be used against trolls, but there is nothing specific to outlaw the practice itself. The Suicide Act 1961 can still be used against those who encourage others to take their own lives, and it was specifically amended, with websites in mind and to simplify the law, by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. We also have the Telecommunications Act 1984; section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986; the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which created precedent by extending the time limit to investigate cases for summary offence; and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, under section 3(2) of which claimants may pursue a civil case for damages. Those are all relevant pieces of legislation, but none specifically identifies trolling as an offence, and every single one was passed before Facebook or Twitter existed. Even section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 predates social media, but it suggests that someone can be found to have broken the law if a message is sent that is

“grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

It goes on to say that the section

“targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

The Crown Prosecution Service clarified this on its website by stating:

“If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place.”

The CPS also confirms:

“A person guilty of an offence under the same section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.”

The crime is dealt with under the fixed penalty scheme. However, there is a degree of subjectivity when we talk about causing offence. Trolls often write that they do not know what might cause offence to a particular individual and so cannot be accused of so doing.

We can already see the pitfalls. There is ambiguity over whether a six-month sentence is long enough in order to send a message to trolls that such behaviour is not to be tolerated and, by extension, to seek fundamentally to change behaviour. There are also questions about whether, given the complexities surrounding false identities, there is enough time for the police fully to investigate complaints and for the CPS to deem whether a successful prosecution is likely. The Guardian recently reported that nearly 8% of Facebook profiles were fake, which equates to approximately 83 million accounts worldwide. This has become not just a national but an international problem.

The other relevant piece of legislation is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1 of which deals with the sending to another of

“any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient”.

The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings.

I believe that the greatest strength of both that Act and the Communications Act 2003 is that for an offence to be deemed to have been committed, the intended recipient of the message never has to receive it. That is pivotal in prosecuting RIP trolls, because more often than not the intended recipient of their bile is deceased. It is therefore right and proper that it is the sending that is an offence, and that proof is not needed that a person has received the communication in question. There still has to be intent to cause offence or distress.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore feel that there is a greater role for the police to play? If the legislation is in place and there is an opportunity to prosecute, should the police do more?

[Steve Rotheram]

It is always difficult to say whether the police should do more, and part of the problem is the complexities of the gaps in legislation which I have just identified. That has to be the starting place for the House to consider seriously whether a Bill should be introduced to close the loopholes that people have been able to wriggle out of.

There have recently been two prosecutions for racially motivated tweets. One was sent to the former footballer Stan Collymore and the other was sent in the wake of the collapse on the pitch of Fabrice Muamba. Both were vile comments, but the sanctions imposed by judges were met with condemnation from certain sections of the public and disdain from others for being too lenient.

We must work harder to raise the issue of trolling so that people know unequivocally that they should not say something online that they would not say face to face. The case of Natasha MacBryde, which was mentioned earlier, is perhaps the most high-profile case of trolling, because an 18-week prison sentence was handed out to Sean Duffy, who admitted that he was hooked on the sick craze. That is far and away the severest sentence that a court has handed out to date.

Many months before the release of the Hillsborough independent panel report, I spoke to Facebook about a page that had been set up on its site called “96 Wasn’t Enough”. It informed me that the content of the page and/or postings on the site did not constitute a breach of its community standards, and that there was no need to remove the page because there was not an implied or explicit threat. I add that I do not condone trolling by anyone. Alan Davies received some horrendous abuse over his ill-judged comments about Hillsborough, and I was quick to condemn hate messages aimed towards him and his family. I think it is better to educate than to abuse.

Trolling is not about normal social discourse, or even about disagreeing vehemently with someone who has a contrary opinion. The test should be quite simple: would someone be happy to put their name to what they have said under a false identity? We are not talking about cases of whistleblowing, in which it would be understandable to anonymise a person’s details. If the answer to that question is that someone would not be happy to be identified, we have to ask why. Why would somebody need to hide their identity under such circumstances?

Having listened carefully to what Facebook had to say when I met it, I have developed a better understanding of what it determines to be acceptable. Although I may disagree with the grey areas within the boundaries that social media sites impose, I understand that they are as much about the sharing of information as they are about people getting a better understanding of local, national, regional and international cultures, events in history and universally famous tragedies. However, I have severe reservations about the ability of social media sites to understand fully the gross offence caused by certain types of message, especially to families and friends of deceased victims. Surely common sense must prevail. All too often, the benefit of the doubt falls in favour of the rights of the troll over those of their innocent target.

Trolling is not about disagreeing with another person’s perspective. It is not about telling somebody straight what they think about them, or that they think that the other person is wrong. Trolling is not even about arguing with somebody online about sensitive issues. It is about setting out, intentionally and deliberately, to cause gross offence to another, or to say something menacing.

I reiterate that I hope that tonight’s debate is just the beginning. I am keen to hear others’ views and to learn new things about trolling. Will the Minister therefore answer the following questions? Do the Government fully appreciate the escalating problem of trolling? What monitoring of activity are they undertaking? Are the Government satisfied with the prosecution rate of trolls, or does the Minister believe, like me, that the number of trolling cases far outweighs that of convictions? Has the Minister met the police and/or the CPS recently to discuss the obstacles to prosecuting trolls? What time frame have the Government scheduled to look at ways in which to address the problem? Could an amendment to legislation be made in this Parliament, if the Minister believes that to be appropriate? What discussions has he had with social media sites about the need to strengthen the community standards that govern best practice on them? Does he agree that they could and should do far more to aid the police with prosecuting trolls?

I believe that the law of the land needs to be constantly updated to reflect social and technological advancements. However, I also appreciate that, in the case of trolling, concerted effort by Parliament to change online culture may well prove to be just as important as an amendment to existing legislation.

Construction Industry

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is certainly true of the refurb and maintenance sector. At the end of my speech, I hope to come up with some suggestions, which the Minister might like to take away to contemplate, given this issue with VAT.

I can almost predict what the Minister will say in reply to my comment about economic stagnation. I will try to pre-empt him by simply pointing out that although last winter’s adverse weather conditions will have had an adverse effect on construction, the weather was bad the year before, and we saw nothing like the fall in output that we did this year. The fall has more to do with a lack of confidence than with too much snow or the wrong kind of snow.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I represent an area where construction is very important and job opportunities for apprentices are critical. The construction industry has suffered a significant downturn over the past few years, and the background information certainly indicates that; indeed, another company in Northern Ireland folded just this week. We are always hard on the banks, but they were keen to lend money, albeit often without suitable guarantees. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Government should have more contact with the banks to encourage them to show more flexibility now so that companies that are having difficulties can get through them?

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the banks. Again, I would like to tease the issue out further in my contribution. We cannot underplay the fact that one reason for the failure of construction is the lack of lending by banks.

Urgent Government action is needed to save the industry from the brink. The Minister must surely understand the relationship between public sector spending and private sector growth. Despite the at times relentless desire of the coalition Government to drive a wedge between the public and private sectors, the two are heavily interlinked and co-reliant in the construction industry. If we cut one, the other will bleed, and the construction sector is now haemorrhaging and in need of a transfusion.

To take the example of Building Schools for the Future, the cancellation of 719 school improvement projects was devastating for not only head teachers, staff in classrooms and parents and children left with substandard facilities, but the construction companies that had won the contracts, and that has serious ramifications for the sector. As Steve Bratt, the group chief executive officer at the Electrical Contractors Association, said:

“Although any party in power would have had to take major steps to reduce the deficit, the cuts to public sector construction projects such as BSF are a case of short-term gain but long-term pain.”

The cancellation of the schools building programme is creating uncertainty in the construction industry. Furthermore, ambiguity over potential construction jobs in hospitals and prisons, in building and civil engineering alike, continues to cause great concern and leads to low confidence in the Government’s ability to secure the UK construction industry.

Football Clubs (Governance)

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

It is a difficult issue. I am a supporter of one of the supposedly big four—Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool—and that is how we and some other clubs attract the big footballers. Implementing that idea would be like turkeys voting for Christmas, but I understand the rationale behind the obscenity of somebody earning such huge sums when the people paying his wages are on a fraction of what he earns a year.

I have described the “Why?”, so the next question is “How?”. What can we as politicians do to assist? The social value report that I mentioned concluded with several recommendations on how national Government can do their bit. Time constraints prevent me from listing them, but they are excellent ideas worthy of serious exploration, and I urge interested colleagues to take a look at the document.

Having made a fundamental commitment to encouraging reform, the coalition Government have not yet revealed how they intend to proceed, but the previous Labour Government published a raft of proposals before the 2010 election. They include making Government support—especially financial support—conditional on co-operation, creating the right framework for better regulation from the top down and grassroots up, and working with governing bodies to enshrine supporters’ rights to buy their clubs and/or be represented in the ownership and governance of the club.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One thing that people have mentioned to me is their concern about admission fees. A well-heeled Chelsea supporter can attend matches on a regular basis; an Arsenal supporter does not have to be as rich, because Arsenal’s system allows admission; a Bradford supporter can probably go to every match. A Leicester City supporter like me unfortunately cannot attend due to distance. In the governance Act that the hon. Gentleman proposes, will supporters’ clubs have input into admission fees?

[Steve Rotheram]

The dichotomy is that in some of the foreign models where football supporters are represented on boards, match ticket prices are much lower than in the premier league. Anyone who goes to Europe—as we will do this year, although on a much lesser basis than in previous seasons—will find out when they buy tickets that European games are always much cheaper than their equivalents in the premier league. One does not always go with the other. Football supporter representation at least gives that concern a voice.

It is more easily said than done. In the current political and economic climate, many difficulties and setbacks lie ahead. Any lack of will or any outright resistance by the parties involved—the Government, the governing authorities and the premiership clubs—will make the task more challenging. In its 2009 report, the all-party parliamentary group on football recommended a straightforward, one-size-fits-all solution: an elected supporters’ representative drawn from the relevant supporters’ trust should sit on the board of all 92 football league and premier league clubs. The group also suggested that a requirement to involve supporters should be a prerequisite for future takeovers—that is interesting to a few of us here—and that the football regulatory authority can evaluate that as part of the reformed “fit and proper person” test.