Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard part one
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

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

Before I call Amendment 1, I should alert the Committee that the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely.

Clause 1: Police covenant report

Amendment 1

Moved by

Queen’s Speech

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak briefly about a DCMS issue that I hope will lead to legislation in the current Session but was not in the Queen’s Speech: the outcome arising from the Government’s decision to establish a fan-based review of football, chaired by Tracey Crouch MP. Noble Lords will remember that this was prompted by the furious reaction of supporters to the monstrous plan by the six wealthiest clubs—the majority of them foreign-owned—to break away from the FA Premier League to form the European Super League.

That episode demonstrated the inability of the English game to reform itself. It has been given plenty of opportunities to do so over the past 30 years, with numerous reviews of the governance of the Football Association, and inquiries into racism, hooliganism and so much more, but little has happened. The power balance within the game is flawed, and there is chronic financial disparity and deep-seated unsustainability, with clubs driven out of business and much-loved community assets destroyed, as greedy owners have been allowed to profit from the sale of stadiums, with supporters ignored or treated with contempt.

The European Super League was the latest attempt to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a small number of owners regardless of the disastrous effect on the remaining clubs, but there have been others, such as Project Big Picture and the proposed expansion of the UEFA Champions League. In the face of all this, the organisation which is supposed to be the governing body of English football, the FA, has appeared weak and divided, its credibility shot to pieces. Vested interests have prevented football speaking with a united voice.

I mentioned the succession of reviews that have attempted to solve these issues. I declare an interest as I served as vice-chairman of the Football Task Force 22 years ago. We attempted to tackle the issues which alienated supporters, such as hyperinflating ticket prices and exorbitant prices for merchandise, as clubs declared themselves businesses and made fortunes for their shareholder chairmen by floating on the stock market. The Football Task Force published two reports which were broadly accepted, on racism and disabled access, but the third and final commercial report, which addressed issues ranging from replica shirts and ticket pricing to the involvement of PLCs in the game, and aimed to deliver a fair deal for supporters, was strongly opposed by the Football Association, the Premier League and the Football League. In that final report, the majority of us made it clear that if football could not reform itself, the Government should legislate and introduce statutory regulation.

Therefore, I welcome the inclusion, in the terms of reference of Tracey Crouch’s review, an assessment of the need for an independent football regulator charged with implementing regulation and compliance, backed by legislation. I am sure that one of the documents that she will study will be Manifesto for Change, published six months ago by a distinguished group that includes the former chairman of the FA, David Bernstein, former Sports Minister Helen Grant MP, who is promoting a Private Member’s Bill in the Commons to establish a regulator, Andy Burnham, the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, and Gary Neville. I conclude with a flavour of what they say:

“Clubs take excessive financial risks to achieve promotion, particularly incurring huge salary commitments. Relegation leaves clubs with parachute payments that temporarily meet unsustainable wages. Competing clubs consequently have to match such wages, creating an inflationary spiral … Stadiums have been sold off for commercial exploitation, fit and proper person tests are carried out in a weak and inconsistent fashion, fans, the lifeblood of the game, feel let down and neglected.”


This has not changed.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 19. I point out to the House that Amendment 98 should also be considered in this group. It was left out inadvertently.

Amendment 19

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 20 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 21. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 21

Moved by

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Clause 62 agreed.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 114. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Clause 63: Prohibition of cross-examination in person in family proceedings

Amendment 114

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 115 to 120 agreed.

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

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 121. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 121

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I view this amendment, which is in two parts, with some concern. To a very large extent, I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.

When I was President of the Family Division—and throughout the 35 years I was a family judge—I heard a great many cases which had some element of domestic abuse. I do not like presumptions, if they can be avoided. I remember that, when the amended Section 1(2A) was introduced while I was a Member of this House, I was very dubious about it, because I do not like presumptions. The important point of the Children Act is Section 1, which says that

“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

Any family judge or magistrate has to look at all the circumstances and decide whether it is appropriate, in those circumstances, for both parents to have a relationship with the child after their separation. In normal circumstances, one takes it for granted that both parents will have a relationship, but there will be cases in which there should not be one.

I am not quite so concerned about the first part of Amendment 130, because it says that subsection (2A) shall not apply in situations which have affected the child. Even so, it should be a matter where the welfare of the child is paramount and the judge exercises his or her discretion, having come to a conclusion based on all the facts.

I am particularly opposed to the second part of Amendment 130: the restrictions on Section 9. This is, first, because it does not require domestic abuse to have affected the child. Other points have been made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with which I entirely agree, but I can see circumstances where a child was for one reason or another—possibly at boarding school or away on holiday—not present when there was domestic abuse between the parents, and the child had no knowledge of it. In those circumstances, it would not be inappropriate for the child to have unsupervised contact with a parent who had done absolutely nothing wrong to the child but who may have been involved in a single or unusual circumstance which could be classified as domestic abuse of the other parent.

This draconian proposal that Section 9 be restricted is inappropriate, although I entirely understand and share the concerns about the parents—mothers as well as fathers—who have been given unsupervised contact where there are issues of domestic abuse which are true, where the children are then killed. That is extremely sad; there should be adequate training of all judges and/or magistrates trying family cases. It may be more important to get the Ministry of Justice to discuss with the Judicial College and the President of the Family Division whether the training of judges and magistrates in issues of domestic abuse, to which I shall refer on the next group, should be improved. I will later refer to a useful case in the Court of Appeal which has been discussing this.

I am completely opposed to the second part of Amendment 130. I am sympathetic to what lies behind it, but I believe there should be a broader consideration of whether, where the welfare of the children must be paramount, there should be any presumptions of any sort—but certainly not in the way this has been drafted.

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

In place of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I once again congratulate the Government on bringing forward this important Bill and on the constructive and helpful manner in which my noble friends the Ministers have all engaged with so many noble Lords to try to ensure that this legislation achieves its aim of protecting victims of domestic abuse.

I am speaking to Amendments 130 and 130A because I share the concerns expressed by other noble Lords that they may unintentionally undermine the aims of the Bill. I recognise the rationale and thinking behind them and the desire to protect children, who can be innocent victims in these awful cases, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and so many others that contact with both parents is normally in the long-term interests of children. That is why I supported amendments at an earlier stage to ensure that parental alienation is taken seriously, rather than being left to statutory guidance or, as these amendments might suggest, removed from the guidance as well.

The current legal position reflects huge amounts of evidence that children benefit from contact with both parents and that significant psychological damage can be caused by loss of such contact. I therefore have serious concerns that removing the presumption of contact could cause more harm to more children than this amendment is designed to prevent. Of course, there will be dreadful cases in which an abusive parent will perpetrate harm on the children, but that is extremely rare. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have explained, the family courts already have the power, under the Children Act 1989, to decide against contact in individual cases where it is judged to be appropriate for that case. The Act presumes only that contact with both parents will be in the child’s interests unless the contrary is shown. Should the contrary indeed be shown, rather than merely alleged, and should abuse be proven, then those are clearly the exceptional cases in which a court would hardly be likely to grant access.

Do we not have a principle of ensuring that someone is proven guilty before being deprived of such important rights? Amendment 130 would require that, even where there are allegations of domestic abuse, whether it is against the child or a parent, the deprivation of access to children would still hold. That clearly invites the risk of unfounded allegations being made by one parent who wishes to prevent their ex-partner seeing the children, potentially as a way in which to punish the other parent or for other reasons. That could lead to the other parent being accused, for example, of emotional or psychological abuse, for which there may be no visible signs and which, indeed, may subsequently be disproved. However, the amendment would mean that the courts would deny access to the person who is accused before any judicial opportunity to find that parent innocent.

I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who mentioned parental alienation, which we discussed in an earlier group, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others: these cases can be hugely complex. We have to trust the courts to apply the expertise necessary in such cases, which are the vast majority. The presumption of contact seems to have so much weight of evidence behind it that it would be extremely unwise and damaging to many children if the amendment, and Amendment 130A, were accepted.

We do not want the Bill to damage children in a misguided attempt to help them. It does not seem to fit with natural justice to impose automatic sanctions without the normal judicial oversight or a conviction to substantiate claims. I recognise the intention of these amendments and I share the desire to prevent any children being severely harmed or even unwittingly put into the hands of an abuser who may kill them. However, I hope that Amendments 130 and 130A will not form part of the Bill because the alternative, whereby children are denied access to their parent, and the other parent is denied access to their children, on the basis of unsubstantiated and potentially false claims, could lead to substantial harm and, indeed, the suicide of a parent or children, who often suffer terribly if they are unable to have contact with a parent.

Crown Dependencies

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

As the noble Baroness says, Gibraltar is not a Crown dependency—the subject of this Question. None the less, the Government of Gibraltar have put forward some specific ideas for ensuring that trade will continue between the UK and Gibraltar, and we look on this matter as a priority. We also continue to uphold sovereignty over British Gibraltarian territorial waters by challenging and protesting all incursions, and we are continually monitoring the situation. We will continue to do so, and the long-term aim is to return to the trilateral forum for dialogue between the UK, Spain and Gibraltar.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

As regards the Channel Islands, I declare an interest as chairman of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission. The Minister enjoys a very high reputation in the islands and is known to be a friend of them. I know how much trouble the disagreement caused by Defra over the Guernsey fisheries agreement caused him and the MoJ last year. Putting that to one side and looking ahead to the post-EU world, does he accept that Channel Islands Governments will have the constitutional right to legislate on such matters as fisheries in future, and to take greater control over their international agreements?

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Of course, we do our best to maintain the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the Crown dependencies. I spoke to all the Chief Ministers on the day of the referendum and attended the APPG meeting. We are anxious to ensure that the relationship is secured for the future. Of course, the noble Lord is aware of the fisheries dispute with Guernsey. That is the subject of litigation, so I cannot comment further on it. As I said earlier in answers to questions, we are anxious that there should be an appropriate degree of autonomy, and that each of the Crown dependencies should be able to secure matters that are in their interests. Of course, how matters finally turn out following the conclusion of our negotiations is difficult to predict with exactitude.

FIFA

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The Swiss authority’s investigation is particularly focused on the 2018 World Cup bid on the basis that the jurisdiction is based on FIFA being a Swiss private company. If there is any information that we have in this country, we stand ready to assist on that, too.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

Will the Minister heed those who are calling for the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to be reopened? Will the Government make it clear that they wish to see that happen?

[Lord Faulks]

It depends on what is found in relation to those bids for 2018 and 2022. The Government are most concerned, as is the FA, to find out whether there was any transgression in that case. Of course we cannot rule out the possibility of those bids being reopened.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I was very glad indeed to append my name to this important amendment. My noble friend Lord Sharkey has explained its aims and objectives in full and with his customary clarity.

As he made clear, a number of sexual offences have been removed from the statute book in recent years, reflecting in many cases a strong belief that they should never have been crimes in the first place. As my noble friend explained, Parliament has now made it possible for those convicted of such offences who are still alive to apply to have their convictions disregarded. My noble friend’s amendment would enable such applications to be extended so that they could be put forward on behalf of those who are dead.

My noble friend has called for this extension before. Concern has been expressed that it might lead to a flood of applications. That seems extremely unlikely in view of what has happened now that living people have the right to have their convictions disregarded. No large number of applications has been lodged. There is therefore no reason to suppose that the right would be widely invoked by the families and friends of those who had their reputations blackened in their lifetimes but would not have been hauled before the courts at all if lawmakers in the past had not from time to time made unfortunate decisions. Parliament has recognised that that should be put right as regards the living. It should now extend that principle to cover all who suffered grave hardship, as the amendment provides. Justice demands it.

Our country’s lawmakers never blundered more seriously in the sphere of sexual offences than when they passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. As a historian of the late 19th century and co-author of a book on the very year in question, I never cease to deplore what happened in a thinly attended House of Commons in the small hours of 6 August 1885, with the Summer Recess looming. It was to prove to be a fateful date in the history of English criminal jurisprudence. Suddenly, without warning or anything resembling adequate discussion, homosexual men were made subject for the first time to harsh penalties for purely private sexual activity that was deemed to be grossly indecent.

It is well known that the legislation as introduced into Parliament had nothing whatever to do with homosexuality. Without most people noticing, an amendment was brought forward by a wayward radical Back-Bencher, Henry Labouchère, which made indecencies between adult males, in private as well as in public, a punishable offence. Labouchère proposed a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment. To his eternal shame, the incumbent Tory Attorney-General, in accepting the amendment, doubled the penalty to two years, with or without hard labour, at the judge’s discretion. Thus was created the infamous “blackmailer’s charter”, as it was immediately dubbed, and thus was created a road of great suffering and hardship—a road that was, in Oscar Wilde’s famous words,

“long, and red with monstrous martyrdoms”.

It is not least because so many lives of great men such as Alan Turing, and others unremembered for public achievement, were wrecked as a result of that legislation that we should consider this amendment with favour. It would register and symbolise Parliament’s recognition that a grave mistake was made on 6 August 1885, when a malign change was hurriedly agreed and then passed into law without further consideration in either House of Parliament on 1 January 1886.

There are, of course, other reasons why the amendment should command support, but Parliament’s black day in August 1885 is for me one of the most compelling. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, because I am very happy to be a co-sponsor of his Private Member’s Bill to secure the pardon for Alan Turing, which fortunately needed to make no further progress in Parliament because the Government granted that pardon. I do not want to say any more, other than that I agreed with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and, indeed, Lord Lexden, said. This is a case that deserves widespread support. I hope that colleagues on my own Front Bench will support it and that the Government will respond.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

38: Clause 147, page 133, leave out lines 34 to 39

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, Amendment 38 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. The Minister will recall that in the debate on Report on the exemption of itinerant collectors, exactly one week ago almost to the minute, he said:

“It might be that we will have to come back to this at Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 20/3/12; col. 878.]

This amendment gives the Government the further opportunity to think again about the exemption.

I need not repeat how pleased I am that the Government accepted the principle of cashless transactions and agreed with me that the LASPO Bill offered the means to implement it. Having got that right, however, why are they running the risk of undermining their own policy by creating this huge potential loophole?

The Minister will be aware that the exemption caused a mixture of bafflement and dismay—not just in the House, where the only noble Lord to speak in its favour on Report last Tuesday was the Minister, but throughout the scrap metal industry. Operators are almost unanimously of the view that the Government’s proposal to mandate cashless payment for the purchase of scrap metal must apply to all dealers, with no exemptions. They pointed out to me—and I suspect to many other noble Lords—that this view is strongly endorsed by sectors that are especially hard hit by metal theft: transport, the energy industry, local government, the Church of England, the War Memorials Trust and law enforcement agencies.

I shall not go over the same ground that noble Lords covered in last Tuesday’s debate but will confine myself to one or two observations. First, the exemption is unfair and discriminatory. It grants special privileges to those members of the industry who are most responsible for the problems of metal theft. The itinerant collectors do not all sell on what they have collected to reputable scrap metal dealers; some of the material is shipped abroad in containers. Others will launder the scrap metal they take to registered dealers, and there will be no way of knowing where it came from or whether it was stolen.

Ian Hetherington, the director-general of the British Metals Recycling Association, wrote in the latest issue of the trade magazine, Materials Recycling Week, that,

“the bill sends out a message that itinerant operators can operate outside the law. It provides a loophole for other unscrupulous operators and serves to undermine a legitimate industry that has spent hundreds of millions of pounds complying with environmental legislation”.

I shall ask the Minister three questions. First, is he able to give us any news tonight on the Government’s plans for replacing the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and will we see a Bill to do that in the next Session? Secondly, how will the five-year review of the offence of buying scrap metal for cash, as contained in Clause 148, work? Thirdly, can he give an assurance that applications for itinerant trader status will be monitored and, if there is an upsurge in them in order to get around the cashless provisions, that the Government will do something about it? If we do not get satisfactory answers, the Government are in danger of losing much of the good will that their welcome policy on cashless transactions has created by granting an exemption that pleases almost nobody and perpetuates the no-questions-asked philosophy. I ask the Minister to think again. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I did deal with that—I said that the exemption goes back to that Act and there is proper regulation of those itinerant traders. It is one that we can look at in future, but we do not think that it is right to increase the burden on them, particularly as there is not the opportunity that my noble friend implied for a mad rush of traders to become itinerant traders, because there is a process by which they are regulated by local authorities and the police. I do not believe that there is the problem that he sees, but it is one that we can look at in future.

I felt that I had answered the question and made it clear that, if the amendment went through and those people were removed, it would create problems in dealing with them—as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I am not going to apologise for bringing the subject back at Third Reading, because we have learnt a great deal this evening from the Minister in his very interesting speech.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for their quite excellent contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has taken the trouble to look at the issue in some detail and has come forward with a series of questions, some of which he has had answers to —although, with one or two of them, he may feel that the answer was a little bit opaque. My noble friend was a bit feistier than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but he too made some powerful points. Again, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in reply.

One benefit of having this debate this evening is that the officials in the Home Office will be aware that there is great interest in this House about the legislation as a whole and particularly about whether the exemption is going to work. If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is right and there is a large increase in the number of applicants for exemptions, it will be evident that the loophole has become unacceptable and will do great damage to the much wider and laudable aim that the Government have of eliminating cash from the sale of scrap metal. I hope that we at least see that the Home Office reviews this carefully, and I assure the Minister that we will come back to this on future occasions to ask questions on how it has gone.

I am a little unclear about the five-year review to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred, which is in Clause 148. It might be more satisfactory if the review took place more quickly than that. However, I express my appreciation to the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he responded to the debate. I am not satisfied on all the points that he has made, but it is not my intention at this time of night to have a vote—although I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who would like to have a vote. The message from the debate to the Minister is that we want to watch how this legislation develops and, if it goes wrong, I hope that remedies will be offered to us very quickly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

156D: Before Clause 134, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964
In section 5 (other offences relating to scrap metal) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) If any scrap metal dealer accepts or makes payment in cash, that dealer shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) When deciding the level of fine to be charged under subsections (1) to (3), a court may take into account—
(a) the value of the scrap metal in question;(b) the provenance of the scrap metal in question;(c) the compliance of the scrap metal dealer with the provisions of sections (1) to (3) of this Act generally; and(d) any other factors which the court deems to be relevant.””

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, this has been quite a long journey. I first asked an Oral Question on 3 October last year, arguing the case for cashless transactions and the necessity of amending the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. On 10 November, in a Remembrance Day debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, a number of noble Lords, including me, spoke about the despicable theft of war memorials for their scrap metal value.

The Bill we are debating tonight received a Second Reading in your Lordships’ House on 21 November, and I gave notice of my intention then to table the amendment which appears today on the Marshalled List. I drew attention to ACPO’s estimate that the national cost of metal theft was £770 million. I also referred to the 16,000 hours of delays suffered by rail passengers over the past three years caused by the theft of signalling cable, and to other examples of metal theft such as lead from church roofs, manhole covers, telephone wire and works of art.

Since then the scale of the problem has continued to grow, and every week brings fresh accounts of new theft. Last week, for example, my own local newspaper, the Worcester News, reported that 350 metres of BT underground copper cable had been stolen, which cut off telephone and broadband service in one of the major districts of the city. Numerous heritage railways have written to me to say that scores of metal items such as rails, lamps and even a fork-lift truck have been stolen for their scrap value.

I have another press report dated 1 March saying that seven churches are being targeted and robbed every night for the lead on their roofs; and in a new twist Network Rail reports that, in recent signalling cable thefts on the Cotswold line between Oxford and Worcester, the theft of a 650-volt distribution cable had been concealed by the insertion of a short length of domestic cable in its place—an incredibly dangerous manoeuvre. On it goes.

To his credit, the Minister has indicated that he is determined to do something about it, as did his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I am particularly grateful to her, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, for putting their names to Amendment 156D, and for their stamina in staying here at this late hour tonight.

The Home Secretary announced in a Written Statement on 26 January that government amendments to the Bill would be tabled to,

“create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metal; and significantly increase the fines for all offences under the existing Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964”.—[Official Report, 26/1/12; cols. WS 80-81.]

The Minister may be aware that I immediately issued a statement warmly welcoming that announcement. It took a long time for the government amendments to appear, but last week they finally did, and we are debating them now as Amendments 157F, 157G and 157J.

What the Government are proposing is fine except for one baffling respect. For reasons that have not been properly explained so far, they are proposing an exemption for itinerant sellers. As I understand it, that will mean that the sale of metal to an itinerant collector will not have to be recorded, whether it is a householder getting rid of some unwanted domestic appliance or a metal thief using the itinerant as a way of getting into the chain. By proposing that exemption, the Government are opening up a serious loophole that could undermine much of the benefit that their move towards cashless transactions will create.

My understanding is that it is not difficult to register under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 as an itinerant collector, which is defined in that Act as,

“a person regularly engaged in collecting waste materials, and old, broken, worn out or defaced articles, by means of visits from house to house”.

While there may not be too many of those registered at the moment, surely there is a risk that there will be many more once word went round that this was a way to avoid the cashless requirement of being a scrap-metal dealer.

The Minister will be aware that the itinerant seller exemption has caused alarm among many in the industry. For example, SITA, to which both the Minister and I have paid visits in recent months to discuss this legislation, said this in its latest briefing:

“There is no reason why a cashless system cannot be implemented by bona fide itinerant collectors, along with the rest of the scrap metal industry … Moreover, the requirement for a cashless transaction between the itinerant collector and a scrap metal merchant will in any event necessitate the former to maintain a bank account with provision for electronic or cheque payment. It is therefore illogical to exempt the initial transaction between the seller and the itinerant collector, but to (rightly) mandate a cashless transaction for the on-sale of the material to a scrap metal dealer. Traceability over the entire chain, from seller to intermediary to dealer, will be broken along with proof of provenance of the metal presented for sale”.

That is a pretty convincing argument and is why I have tabled my own Amendment 157H to the government amendment to delete the exemption. I shall listen very carefully to the Minister's response to these points before deciding whether to press that amendment. In particular, I hope that I will hear him say that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act will be replaced by an entirely fresh piece of legislation to be introduced in the new Session. That could deal with all the issues relating not just to itinerant sellers but to the registration and licensing of the trade generally. Meanwhile, it would be churlish of me not to welcome the Government’s acceptance of the argument that I first put forward almost six months ago that an essential first step in tackling the epidemic of metal theft is to move to cashless transactions and to increase the penalties for persons committing this appalling, anti-social and dangerous crime. I beg to move.

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

It might be useful if I intervene at this stage. In doing so, I want to make it quite clear that I hope other noble Lords will intervene after me despite the fact that this is Report. This is purely because I have amendments in this group and it might speed up the process by which we debate these matters.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for all that he has done. We have listened to him and, as he knows, we have responded as much as we can in due course. I also want to make it quite clear that we in the Government recognise what a serious problem it is. I cannot list in detail the individual Peers, Members of the Commons and others who have been to see me. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was the first to come and see me to highlight the problem relating to the churches. Obviously, this problem goes beyond the churches and beyond art theft; we all know about that Barbara Hepworth that was stolen recently. This affects communities and businesses throughout the country. We have seen damage to our infrastructure, to the railways, to communications and so on again and again and that damage is very great indeed. The noble Lord quite rightly cited an estimate of some £700 million. That is probably the effect on business and the community as a whole. What is depressing is how little money it actually brings in to the thieves themselves. The Barbara Hepworth that I mentioned, insured for £500,000 or £1 million or whatever, will have gone to some scrap-metal yard and been ground down and sold off for literally a matter of a few pounds. The real problem arises in the scrap-metal yards in that whoever was the first person to receive that—the first fence as it were—must have known that property was as hot as you can get because you do not often get Barbara Hepworths being brought in; they are not something you happen to find on the side of the road. So that is the problem and that is why the Government believe they should take urgent action.

That action can be taken in a number of different ways. The first and most important one is enforcement. The Government have made it quite clear that we want to address enforcement. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced late last year that there was an extra £5 million of funding for a new dedicated metal theft task force. The British Transport Police has taken the lead and is doing a great deal of work on this. In certain parts of the country we have seen great improvements in enforcement. I recently visited the north-east and saw what it was doing in terms of Operation Tornado, improving enforcement and increasing the number of arrests and cash seizures from the scrap-metal industry. That is happening throughout the country. Enforcement is one strand of what we must do and there are other things that we can do in terms of design and hardening objects so that they are less easily stealable or more traceable. However, we have concluded that legislation of one form or another is the only sustainable long-term solution to the growing menace of metal theft. That is why we have put down these amendments. They are similar to the amendments the noble Lord has put down but I have to say, as I always would, I think the government amendments are superior to his and I hope he will accept them in due course.

I want to keep my remarks brief, but will explain that the new amendments create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metals. We believe that at the moment it is just too easy for someone having stolen something to convert that something into cash, no questions asked. They also significantly increase the fines that are available for the majority of the offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which regulates the scrap-metal-dealing industry. That is important. It only goes some way because, as I have said on a number of occasions, we believe that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act is not now fit for purpose but that it is worth at least upgrading the offences under that Act. But one should always remember that under the old Theft Act 1968 there is an offence of seven years for theft and more importantly, as I said earlier, under handling we have some 14 years available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this fascinating debate. It is sad that it has taken place so late at night. Many other noble Lords would have liked to hear it, because it has been of a high quality.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I have seen some of the letters that she wrote when she was a Minister. I can confirm that, had she been there still, we would have had legislation along the lines of what we are discussing this evening. Her commitment to the subject is four square. I also pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, not only for what he said and his knowledge of the subject, but for his knowledge of “Steptoe and Son”. He may be showing his age, as are all of us who remember the programme, but “Steptoe and Son” has played a part in this debate and it is right that he mentioned it.

I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about delaying this aspect. I am with the Minister on that. The important thing is that we get on with the cashless system and that we do it quickly. I hope that it will be followed rapidly by legislation of a more substantive nature that will sort out the problem of the 1964 Act. The cash as part of this scrap-metal industry is enormous. The latest estimates are that, out of a £5 billion turnover, cash accounts for about £1 billion. Large quantities of this escape the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and it is very much an undercover operation. It is in all our interests as citizens that this issue is dealt with.

I should like to pay tribute to ACPO and the British Transport Police for the initiatives that they have taken in attempting to address the problems. They have conducted a lot of raids on scrapyards and have come across a very large amount of stolen goods. The Minister referred to Operation Tornado in the north-east, which was very successful. I should like to pay tribute to him for his part in encouraging that and for putting himself around the country in order to find out what has been going on. I was a little disappointed by his defence of the itinerant collector’s exemption. I think that he said that we might be able to return to this at Third Reading. I will read what he said on that with some care, but I was encouraged by his commitment to bring forward further measures in due course.

Of course the Government’s amendment is superior to mine. If I had the number of lawyers working for me that the Government have available to them, I should have been able to produce an amendment at least as good as theirs. However, I should like to pay tribute to the Public Bill Office. It was not the Government who found the opportunity to put this amendment into this legislation; it was the Public Bill Office advising me that I was allowed to do it and the Government taking up the principle. That should go on the record.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is mastering the subject and is on top of it. I know that he will do what he can with his colleagues to make sure that we have the substantive legislation as soon as possible. I hope that he will have heard the voices around the Chamber tonight who want this to come quickly. Bearing in mind that the Government amendment is superior to mine, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 156D withdrawn.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 15th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

189: After Clause 131, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964
In section 5 (other offences relating to scrap metal) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) If any scrap metal dealer accepts or makes payment in cash, that dealer shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) When deciding the level of fine to be charged under subsections (1) to (3), a court may take into account—
(a) the value of the scrap metal in question;(b) the provenance of the scrap metal in question;(c) the compliance of the scrap metal dealer with the provisions of sections 1 to 3 of this Act generally; and(d) any other factors which the court deems to be relevant.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I move Amendment 189 not with the purpose of having a lengthy debate on scrap metal theft and the move towards a cashless transaction regime tonight, but in order to give the Minister the opportunity to explain to the Committee what the Government intend to do with this issue at Report. If it is the Government's intention on Report to move their own amendment on becoming cashless, I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment later. I thank the other noble Lords who have signed this amendment: the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, whose perseverance and endurance I pay tribute to by seeing him in his place here this evening.

This is a very important issue. It is part of a package of measures which I hope that the Government are going to take on board in relation to the epidemic of scrap metal theft. It may be that tonight the Minister could also say something about what the Government intend to do about powers of entry and closure of premises where there is suspicion that they contain stolen metal. If, in addition to that, he can also confirm that the Government are intending to bring forward substantive legislation in the new Session to update the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, my cup genuinely will runneth over. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing this amendment to highlight this important issue? Like him, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for his perseverance in staying here at this late hour for this matter. The right reverend Prelate was one of the earliest who came to see me to highlight this issue, particularly as it related to churches. However, as so many have said before, it is not just the churches, but it is the power companies, the transport companies and so many others. I do not want to go through the wide range of people who have been affected by it.

The noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 26 January that the Government would be bringing forward amendments in the Bill to strengthen the law in this area. I repeated this as a Written Ministerial Statement in this House. In that Written Statement, my right honourable friend indicated that the government amendments would create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metal and significantly increase the fines for offences under the existing Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 which regulates that industry. This forms part of a coherent package of measures that we are taking to tackle metal theft. We aim to deter both thieves and metal dealers through more focused enforcement and tougher penalties. We will cut out the reward for metal thieves by banning cash payments for scrap metal and reducing the incentives for dealers to trade in stolen metals by developing a more rigorous licensing regime. These amendments are but a first step, albeit an important one. I underline that to the noble Lord.

Obviously, I welcome the support of the noble Lord and while I am sure that he is going to withdraw his amendment, he asked a crucial question about powers of entry and what we should do there. There are problems. As the noble Lord knows, Section 6(1) of the 1964 Act—an Act that he and I have both described on various occasions as being past its sell-by date—already provides police with a power of entry to premises registered as a scrap metal dealers under that Act. Section 6(2) further provides a power of entry to any officer of the local authority duly authorised in writing to enter a place for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is being used as a scrap metal store and, as such, officers of the local authority have a power of entry to premises not registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act.

It is intended that the national metal theft task force will visit every single registered and unregistered scrap metal yard in the course of its routine business. One element of that visit will be to ensure registration under the 1964 Act. As such, we expect that the number of scrap metal dealers that are not registered under the Act, and consequently where the police do not have the power of entry, will be greatly reduced. In addition, we are actively looking into the option of widening police powers as part of our amendments. If that is something that we can deal with later on Report, we will do so.

I hope that, with those assurances about what we are definitely going to do and what we hope to do if we see a way to do it, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I want to make clear to him, though, that we have a coherent package, we want to get ahead of this and we want to look at further amendments to the 1964 Act in due course. I hope that we can get, as I put it, a coherent package that we can bring before the House.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has dealt with me so courteously since I first tabled this amendment immediately after Second Reading, which seems to be a very long time ago now. He has done exactly what he said on that occasion and has given the undertaking that on Report the Government will table an amendment on cashless payments. He has also given us some hope on entry to premises.

I hope that the Government will find time for this in the next Session, will not be deflected from unnecessary legislation that clogs up this House and will deal with something really important: the problem of scrap metal theft. On the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 189 withdrawn.