Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Lord]

I am reminded by people with much more experience in the House than I have that it is unwise to accept unnecessary amendments to private Members’ Bills. The bar is already high enough for getting such a Bill on to the statute book. That said, it is an issue that we should look at. The key point is that the Bill would remedy the deficit that we have identified, and any armed services personnel from foreign or Commonwealth countries would not suffer such discrimination.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

As I understand it, the Government said in the Queen’s Speech that they would introduce an immigration Bill, which could include nationality issues. Surely this proposal would be much better suited to that Bill, as we could then have a full range of amendments, including the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) referred.

[Jonathan Lord]

The key point is that the Bill would remedy a simple problem. I know, from having talked to the Minister, that the planned nationality Bill will have specific needs in mind, and he would not necessarily wish to take on board this aspect of immigration issues in case it perhaps encouraged more mischievous amendments and additions.

[Jonathan Lord]

I am pleased to say that most of the major Army charities, which do such wonderful work supporting our service personnel, our ex-service personnel and their families, are very supportive of the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I attend Remembrance day services and rattle tins for the Royal British Legion—the local branches in Woking and other areas of Surrey are hugely supportive of the Bill.

Veterans Aid, an important charity in this area, has said of the Bill:

“We warmly welcome any initiative that removes obstacles to those who have served this country with honour from settling here legally and have campaigned on this issue. Veterans Aid, more than any other military charity, has championed the cause of Foreign & Commonwealth servicemen and women disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by bureaucracy that is demonstrably at odds with the spirit of the Military Covenant. This was an injustice and we applaud the Government and Jonathan Lord for listening. We still have many cases in being but this will definitely help us move things forward for quite a few of our clients.”

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry to return to my earlier intervention, but if this change is supported by the Government, why do they not bring this measure forward in their immigration Bill? Then we would be able to test whether this very narrow Bill is too narrow and should be extended to a wider range of people. For example, a constituent of mine married a Russian citizen and they have been working in Russia in the UK interest for 18 years. Because they have been working outside the country, that lady cannot get British citizenship without coming back to the UK.

[Jonathan Lord]

I think I answered that point clearly before. I am very happy with the narrow definition of the Bill. Its aims are clear to everyone, and it would do what it says on the tin. It is welcomed by military and veterans charities, and I believe it is welcomed across the House.

[Jonathan Lord]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is absolutely the case. It is my understanding that the Government and all other parties will support the Bill, given the cross-party support for the armed forces covenant, and agree that the issue is best addressed through a private Member’s Bill. I do not know exactly what Bills on immigration and nationality the Government intend to introduce. That is a matter for the Government and as Back Benchers we will have to wait and see, but I am extremely happy and honoured to try to pilot the Bill through the House and, with cross-party support, hopefully on to the statute book.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend says that an immigration Bill is a matter for the Government, but it seems, by the way he is introducing his Bill, that his Bill is a matter for the Government too.

[Jonathan Lord]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point—the Bill has the complete support of the Government. It is also in keeping with measures the previous Government were starting to talk about, and with the will of the House as expressed by Committees and sub-committees. There is a wish to ensure that the armed services covenant is not just fine words. Where there are anomalies, with service personnel or ex-service personnel being disadvantaged, they must be put right as soon as possible. If the Bill progresses, we will be able to do that before the introduction of any Government legislation on nationality and immigration. That is surely to be welcomed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Lord]

I am not aware that any charities, military or otherwise, are against the Bill. I am sure that if any charities that are unaware of the Bill were to listen to the debate—which I hope will have cross-party support—they would also be convinced of its merit, alongside our wonderful military charities.

The Bill will give the Secretary of State the discretion to waive the requirement that an applicant for naturalisation should have been in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the five-year residence period as laid out under the 1981 Act. This will apply only to those who are, or have been, members of the armed forces. This will ensure that all foreign and Commonwealth citizens who are serving, or have served, in the forces are able to apply for naturalisation on equal terms, regardless of whether they were posted in the UK or abroad.

[Mr Chope]

Will the Bill have retrospective effect?

[Jonathan Lord]

The Bill will apply to cases from now on. By definition, those applying for citizenship under the naturalisation rule have to have been in the UK five years before, so it is definitely for all cases going forward. I hope the Minister will help me by ensuring that we know about any potential retrospective action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend explain the ambit of the term “armed forces”? Will it, for example, cover the support staff, engineers and technicians who support our armed forces? Let us take as an example the base at Akrotiri. How many of the people working on that base will be covered by the Bill?

[Jonathan Lord]

It is my understanding that all those serving in the armed forces will come under the aegis of the Bill, but they will have to be members of the armed forces; it will not cover a local cook or a local cleaner supporting a barracks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Lord]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is the key point to which this House needs to address itself. What my hon. Friend describes would be a travesty, and I am sure that it has happened to service personnel posted abroad. I read out the example of the overseas service of soldiers from 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards, who will shortly be based in my constituency. As I said, they have seen service overseas in Bosnia, Afghanistan and in many other conflict zones. It is quite invidious that when it comes to their path to citizenship, they should be penalised for their service in such dangerous territories at such difficult times.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend describes a situation in which it seems as if almost everybody in the Welsh Guards is a foreigner. Surely we are talking about very small numbers of people. At a time when our armed forces are being reduced in number and it is becoming more difficult for people to get into the armed forces, should not the policy of the Government be to ensure, as far as possible, that British people rather than foreign people join our armed forces?

[Jonathan Lord]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There are more than 9,000 foreign and Commonwealth personnel in our armed forces. A little later in my speech, I shall go into more detail about some of the nationalities that the Bill is most likely to affect. I think it important for young British men and women to see the merits of serving their country, and I would certainly encourage them to sign up, but I would also say that some of our bravest and best soldiers in the past have been from the Commonwealth or even occasionally from non-Commonwealth foreign countries.

I recently attended a morning of prayer at the Muslim burial grounds in my constituency. This event was for soldiers from India who had served in the first world war, when the Germans had put around the rumour that if those people were killed in battle, they would not receive a proper burial. In my constituency it was clear even that long ago that there were brave men and women of what later came to be called Commonwealth origin fighting just as hard on European battlefields for Queen and country, democracy and the rule of law and against aggression as we have seen in more recent years. Clearly, this history and tradition of service in our armed forces of foreign and Commonwealth personnel goes back a long way, and I do not think that our Army should discriminate unduly against these incredible young men and women from overseas who want to carry on that tradition. As I shall explain later, it is mainly just a few nationalities that have had this wonderful tradition of serving in our armed forces so gallantly in the past. I see no reason why they should not continue to do so equally gallantly in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

You, Mr Speaker, must have immediately spotted this: I am sorry, but I misspoke as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I only arrived in the House in 1983. We have been here so long, and sometimes old men forget. We are not responsible for this Act, therefore, so that question will have to go to the Minister, and I am very happy to pass it on to him.

[Mr Chope]

Is not the implication of this that somebody who has not set foot in this country for five years will be able to become a naturalised citizen? Is that the purpose of this Bill?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Bill’s promoter is unavoidably absent from the Chamber for a few moments, but he will have to answer that question. My understanding, however, is that the answer is yes. We are creating a special dispensation today because we say, “Surely if someone has served their country for five years, they should not be disadvantaged in getting British citizenship just because they have been serving in Afghanistan or elsewhere.” That may be a controversial statement but what greater qualification is there to become a citizen of a country than to have served that country?

All armies in history have done that. The quickest and best way to become a citizen of the Roman empire was to join a Roman legion, and there was very good thinking behind that. I do not think we should be in a different position, but, again, this is for the Minister to answer. I am still not clear, however, not only about exactly how many people will be involved, but whether, if this Bill becomes law and the 1981 Act is still in place, someone who has joined the armed forces, behaved well and served for five years but has never set foot in this country will pretty well have an automatic right to become a British citizen. They will have to go through the normal processes, of course, but is that the thinking? I am not sure whether I have had an answer to that yet. I know some people watching this debate may not agree with that, but I just ask the question—I am not sure I have an answer myself. Are we now moving to a situation where someone who joins the British forces, serves overseas all that time and never sets foot in this country can become British citizen? Will the Minister please make a particular note of that question and answer it.

I ask that because the 1981 Act requires that

“on the date of the application he is serving outside the United Kingdom in Crown service”.

No minimum period of service is specified, nor is there any requirement to be present in the UK at any particular time. However, those who are not overseas or not still in service at the time of applying for naturalisation cannot benefit from the provision. These are all technical but important points.

The provisions made in the 1981 Act are, however, used sparingly, as we know. Home Office guidance sets out that criteria such as rank and quality of service should be considered when assessing applications. Quality of service is of key importance in the assessment, with applications that do not satisfy on that ground being unlikely to be accepted, regardless of whether they satisfy statutory requirements.

The amendments made by the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 give the Secretary of State discretion to waive all residential requirements where

“a particular case…is an armed forces case”,

where the applicant was a member of the armed forces on the date of the application. That does not, however, cater for individuals who have left the armed forces. I have said enough to reveal that these are complex legal areas that need to be tidied up.

Before I sit down, I wish to make a more general point about the armed forces, a subject in which I take a great interest as chairman of the Conservative party’s Back-Bench defence and foreign affairs committee. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I use this opportunity to say that I am worried about the number of personnel in our armed forces and what is happening to our armed forces. I am now ranging a bit wide of the narrow point we are discussing. It has been a turbulent time in the Ministry of Defence, with a report due on the Defence Reform Bill at the end of October. A budget cut of 1.9% for 2015 will add to the large-scale cuts that have already been taking place, including recent reductions in the number of senior military officers. Many critics have voiced fears that such reductions could leave the UK with a smaller than adequate armed service.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I know I was being cheeky, Mr Speaker, but I could not resist the opportunity to try to expound on what is happening to our armed forces. I will not say any more about total defence spending, but, on personnel, I will make the following point. As of 2012, there were 750 non-UK citizens serving in the Royal Navy, which is relatively few of the 33,190 trained personnel; 7,640 non-UK citizens were serving in the Army, out of a total of 94,000 trained personnel; and only 120 non-UK citizens were serving in the Royal Air Force, which is a very small proportion of the 38,000. Intake of black and minority ethnic personnel at the higher levels of the UK regular forces is incredibly low, with only 20 officers joining in 2011 out of a total of 1,070. In the context of the wider armed forces debate, this is an opportunity for the Minister to talk about recruitment and his policy on attracting—or not attracting—people from Commonwealth countries to join the armed forces.

I also hope that the Minister will say a bit about that context and how the Bill will affect the immigration debate in total. I suspect that that is what lay behind the interventions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Granting of UK citizenship in the year ending June 2013 was at a five-year high, with 204,541 applications having been accepted, with the figure having risen steadily to an average of an extra 7,000 successful applications a year. I know that the Minister cannot give too wide a discourse on the whole immigration debate, but it is important that we reassure people watching this debate that we are very conscious of not only the need to remove discrimination against the armed forces, but the wider immigration debate in this country. There has to be a balance.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the concern, which I certainly have, that one of the perverse consequence of this legislation might be to encourage the armed forces to do more overseas and foreign recruiting, rather than concentrating on trying to recruit at home? We know that it is difficult to recruit reservists at the moment—the Government are hard up against the issue of how they will meet the target on reservists—but it seems that this could be an agenda whereby we will fill our armed forces with people from overseas instead of from our own country.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As is often the case, my hon. Friend makes an intervention that just needs to be answered; we do need to reassure people. We value tremendously the men and women who are not UK citizens but who serve in our armed forces, with the Gurkhas being the most famous case, but he is making a fair point. I hope that the Minister will reassure my hon. Friend, me and those watching this debate that nothing in the Bill encompasses an attitude of, “It is difficult to recruit here in the UK and therefore the proportion of non-UK citizens serving in our armed forces is going to have to rise.” I suspect that my constituents would not necessarily welcome such a position. That is not to make any criticism of those serving or to disagree in any way, shape or form about the huge sacrifices made in the past century—mention has been made of the first world war—but I know that the Minister will understand the point being made in that intervention and will want to reply to it.

Let us leave aside those wider worries about the level of recruitment in the armed forces and the wider debate about concerns about the level of immigration into this country. The year ending June 2013 did see a 14% rise in the number of non-British persons granted citizenship compared with the same period for the previous year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The rules operate differently for the spouse. When serving, the service person is not subject to any immigration restrictions, so they could get naturalisation more quickly. Once they have been naturalised, that opens up some opportunities for their family member.

New section 4C of the 1981 Act, introduced in January 2010, enables a child born to a member of the armed forces serving overseas on an operational posting who would have been born in the UK but for that posting to register as a British citizen on application. Children may also register as British citizens if a parent is naturalised or settles in the UK.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North referred to a specific case. Obviously, I would not go into a specific case in the House, and I do not have all the details to hand either. As a general rule, there is provision in the immigration system, outside the immigration rules, for people to make an application for leave to remain on compassionate grounds. The Secretary of State and I have the ability to allow that. Clearly, we would not set out the details, but look at the application in the round, but we can grant that if the case is sufficiently compelling.

On the hon. Lady’s general point about testing the Secretary of State’s discretion, all the Secretary of State’s decisions in such matters are of course subject to judicial review. Although we do not use the powers frequently—that would drive a coach and horses through the rules—even during my time as Minister for Immigration we have allowed people to visit the United Kingdom on compassionate grounds when they would not normally have met the rules.

It is helpful to be able to operate with such discretion, which is of course the purpose of the Bill. The requirement for an applicant to have been in the United Kingdom at the start of the five-year period is unwaivable, and the Secretary of State cannot waive it however compelling the case. That is the benefit of putting the Bill on the statute book.

It is worth saying that there is already a provision, of which Members may not be aware, to waive that requirement in Crown service cases, but it applies only to those who are still in service and overseas when they apply. The Bill will enable the requirement to be waived for members and former members of the armed forces who have been discharged and have then applied for naturalisation or who have returned to the UK.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend might be going on to say this, but there is already a provision on the statute book, in section 39 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, that is identical to the provisions of the Bill. Why not use the legislation that is already on the statute book, rather than re-legislating?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend appears to be working seamlessly in tandem with me, because if I turn over the page of my brief, I can see that I was about to refer to the 2009 Act. His general point is good. I am not someone who wants to legislate when provisions already exist in primary legislation. In general, more legislation does not necessarily make the world better. He has a formidable reputation for ensuring that all provisions brought before the House are properly scrutinised and challenged to make sure that they are necessary.

The reason we were not able to make the provision is that there was a provision in the 2009 Act to which my hon. Friend refers. However, it was all bound up with the earned citizenship measures that the previous Government wanted to introduce, and it is not possible, I am advised by lawyers, to implement the armed forces provisions independently of the earned citizenship measures because they contain references to the provisions that are not being implemented. That is why it was necessary to implement the provisions separately.

We announced in July 2010 that we would not be proceeding with the earned citizenship provisions in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, because we felt that the previous Government’s provisions under those regimes were considerably more complicated and bureaucratic than the current arrangements and would have imposed unwelcome administrative and bureaucratic costs on both central and local government and voluntary sector partners. Both parties represented in the coalition Government voiced concerns about those measures during their parliamentary passage.

So although there are measures on the statute book, they are bound up with measures that we do not wish to commence, and they cannot be commenced separately. I think I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch the reassurance that he seeks, which is that this provision is necessary. There is not a current provision on the statute book that could be commenced by itself which would enable us to achieve the aim. Although I know that he is normally and rightly sceptical of legislating, I can assure him, given that he and others have welcomed the purpose of the Bill, that it is necessary to do so in the Bill. There is no existing provision on the statute book that we could use. I hope he will find that reassuring.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire referred to the British overseas territories. I will not repeat the list that she read out, but she may be interested in one fact. She mentioned the Cayman Islands. It may interest the House to know that as of 6 September the Cayman Islands has a new governor, Helen Kilpatrick. The only reason why I mention that is that until she was governor of the Cayman Islands, she was the director general of finance and corporate services at the Home Office and is now resplendent, having been appointed by Her Majesty the Queen from 6 September, as governor of the Cayman Islands. It is not relevant to the Bill, but as I am a Minister in the Home Office and worked closely with Helen Kilpatrick, and as my hon. Friend mentioned the Cayman Islands, I thought there was sufficient reason to mention it in the House. But I digress only briefly.

My hon. Friend spoke about the British overseas territories and whether somebody living in an overseas territory could naturalise under the provisions of the Bill. I mentioned in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough in my list of conditions that normally the person is supposed to want to settle and live in the United Kingdom, so if someone was settling in an overseas territory, they would not normally be able to naturalise under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act because they would not meet the requirement of intending to make their principal home in the United Kingdom. They could qualify if they were intending to continue in Crown service. For example, if they still worked for the Crown and were based overseas in an overseas territory, that would apply.

The appropriate route for somebody in that circumstance—a former member of the armed forces settled in an overseas territory—would be for them to apply for British overseas territory citizenship. They would then need to meet the requirements on the knowledge and good character test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I heard my hon. Friend ask that question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I think that he disabused us of our expectation that he was supposed to have followed all the detail when he reminded us that he was not in the House in 1981 when the Act was passed. Whether the original oversight was, to use his phrase, cock-up or conspiracy, I know not. I was only 11 when the Bill went through the House. I fear that I did not follow parliamentary proceedings very closely when I was 11—perhaps that is a terrible admission—and so I did not follow its passage very closely either. I suspect that he is right and it was more cock-up than conspiracy.

When I was setting out the details on family circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked whether, to use his phrase, the clock was ticking. Family members of armed forces personnel are not exempt from immigration control, but, provided they have appropriate leave under the immigration rules, the time they spend with their armed forces sponsor, either in the UK or when they are on accompanied service, is time they can count towards naturalisation. They need to meet the residency requirements, but, as for service personnel, the Secretary of State has the discretion to waive and overlook those requirements if the absence from the UK was as a result of accompanying a person on service overseas. I hope that that is helpful and answers my hon. Friend. He is nodding, which suggests that that is the case.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about medical discharge. For settlement applications, the requirement for four years’ service can be waived if an illness or injury is attributable to service and is sustained in an operational theatre. If not, a number of factors will be considered, including the severity of the injury, length of service, the prognosis for recovery, and the applicant’s ability to support himself or herself. We may give limited leave where the applicant does not qualify for settlement but needs a period of recovery before they leave the United Kingdom. A member of the armed forces who is granted settlement following medical discharge will be able to apply for citizenship after 12 months. I do not know whether the specific case that the hon. Lady mentioned relates to one of her constituents. If so, and she wants to write to me to raise particular issues, I will obviously be happy to look into them and respond accordingly.

I shall return to the remarks I intended to make—I have not made a great deal of progress because I have dealt with a number of questions. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said in introducing the Bill. The Government agree that it is wrong that a member of our armed forces should have to wait longer to gain citizenship just because they happened to be posted overseas at the relevant time. The service charities have told us that, and it was recognised as a priority commitment under the armed forces covenant. Once implemented, the Bill will enable us to overlook the requirement to be in the UK on day one of the qualifying period for naturalisation in the same way that we overlook the requirement to have resided in the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough or my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I forget which, because they were sitting next to each other and both raised a number of points—asked whether the Bill will be retrospective. The Bill will not be retrospective in the sense that it will go back and alter anyone’s existing naturalisation status. However, there is a retrospective element in the sense that the Bill will look back at what happened to applications five years ago and where people were. When the Bill is enacted, not being in the UK at the beginning of the five-year period will cease to be a disadvantage. To that extent, the Bill will be retrospective, but it will not alter the position of someone who has gone through the process of making an application.

When the Bill becomes law—I hope it will—someone who made a failed application or who held off making an application and had to wait for a longer period because they did not meet the requirement will be in a position to make an application under the new rules. If the other conditions are met, the Secretary of State will be in a position to overlook the requirement to have been in the UK at the beginning of the process. The Bill will therefore benefit people who are not currently serving but who have served previously, and that will be welcome.

[Mr Chope]

I raised the issue of retrospection. As a result of the retrospective nature of the Bill, how many people will be eligible who would not otherwise have been eligible?

[Mr Harper]

It is difficult to be precise, because we do not know how many foreign and Commonwealth members of the armed forces would necessarily want to become British citizens. We estimate—that word has been used previously—that 100 to 200 members of the armed forces each year could benefit from the Bill. That estimate is based on the number of people who seek naturalisation and the number of those who could benefit. That is the order of magnitude. It is not a huge number, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, that relatively small number of people have served our country. In the past decade, many of them have probably served our country in an operational theatre on not just one occasion, but on several occasions.

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Jonathan Lord]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

It is helpful. Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it is worth saying that the disadvantage suffered by members of the armed forces under the existing legal position did not mean that they could not seek naturalisation. The disadvantage was that they had to wait longer than someone who was not serving overseas.

To the extent that the disadvantage they suffered was a delay in seeking naturalisation, my hon. Friend is right that the people who suffered from that disadvantage in the past will almost certainly have been in a position to seek naturalisation since.

[Mr Chope]

My concern was about eligibility: I did not ask how many people would take advantage of the Bill. I wanted to know how many people would legally be eligible. That brings us back to the big national debate about how many people are eligible to come here from Bulgaria and Romania to work, compared with the number of people who will come. How many will be eligible as a result of the retrospection?

[Mr Harper]

The difficulty with answering that question is that, technically, everyone who is a foreign or Commonwealth member of the armed forces could potentially, depending on their circumstances, be eligible. The problem is that the provision will make a difference only if five years before the point at which someone makes an application for naturalisation they were not in the UK because of their service. It would be impossible to go through everyone’s record of service and do that calculation, because we do not know how many will apply for naturalisation or how many would have been delayed in seeking naturalisation because of where they were five years before making the application.

We think that the number who will not have to suffer a delay is in the order of 100 to 200, and that is based on the fact that most foreign and Commonwealth personnel do not have this problem. Veterans Aid talked of “many cases”, but that is tens and hundreds, rather than thousands. It also said that the Bill would help “quite a few” of their clients, and our estimate of 100 to 200 is based on our knowledge of the process and on talking to those service charities that talk to people who have fallen foul of the existing provision. It is our combined intelligence that enables us to say that it is around 100 or 200. That is the kind of number that we are thinking about. Those who are concerned about the numbers need not worry that the Bill will extend to thousands of people. A relatively small number of people will be affected, but it is important to make the change for the benefit of those people who have served their country. In the last decade, many of those people have served not only in the armed forces generally, but in an active operational theatre, so it is important that the House makes sure that they are not disadvantaged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch also wanted some clarification of the MOD’s general position on the number of foreign and Commonwealth service personnel. This is largely an issue for the Army, rather than the other two branches. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North also referred to the numbers. In a written statement on 11 July—relatively recently—made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the MOD said that it would now be enforcing the five-year UK residence requirement when recruiting Commonwealth personnel. The residency rules already exist for Commonwealth recruits to the regular armed forces, but since 1998 they have been waived. My right hon. Friend informed the House that from 11 July those residency rules will be more strictly enforced, which means that applicants to the armed forces will have to demonstrate that they have lived in the UK for five years lawfully—with leave to remain. That requirement will not affect Gurkhas, because they are recruited only in Nepal under separate arrangements agreed with their Government. If my hon. Friend wants more detail, he can look at the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Without wishing to be too slopey-shouldered about it, if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has detailed questions about the attitude of the Ministry of Defence and recruitment processes and so on, to which I think he alluded, I suggest he speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I do not think that the Home Office wants to start trespassing on those requirements, although it is worth putting it on the record that as a result of the work we have done on the covenant, officials and Ministers in my Department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have worked very closely to ensure that the system does not disadvantage anyone. I know that that has been welcomed by members of service charities, who have seen an improvement in how we deal with service personnel, their families and former personnel when they go through immigration and naturalisation stages.

This is probably a good time, as I move towards the end of my remarks, to say that the Home Office takes its responsibilities under the armed forces covenant very seriously. In addition to this proposed legislative measure, we have made good progress against a number of our other commitments. We introduced a new process earlier this year, where service leavers could obtain settlement on—

[Mr Harper]

I am conscious of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not have a lengthy list. It is a short list and the reason for raising it is that it is relevant to the Bill. For example, we have made provision whereby service leavers can obtain settlement on the day of discharge. Of course, settlement for some is the precursor to seeking naturalisation. That is important, because there is not then a gap. Several hon. Members referred to making sure that there is no gap, so that personnel have settled status and no problem in seeking support from the Government or elsewhere.

I will not, Madam Deputy Speaker, test your patience by reading out the list, but I would like to draw to the attention of the House the new set of armed forces rules that will come into force in December. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I laid out the details in a written ministerial statement on 4 July, to which I draw the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the subject. The new rules will address a number of areas that have been problematic in the past, and I hope that that is helpful.

I will not refer to every paper in my sheaf, but I want to refer to a couple of important questions that came up in the debate. We take the criminality or good character provisions seriously, but we have made a change, which was referred to by at least one Member. Any offences that are offences in service law but not in normal criminal law will no longer be treated in a way that is not subject to judgment. There were a number of cases where it was felt that service personnel who had had a conviction under military law that would not have had the same level of seriousness in civilian criminal law had suffered, and that we had had no ability to judge their case in the round, based on their service. We do, of course, expect the highest standards from our armed forces and apply the same standards as those for civilians. Non-criminal convictions or disciplinary offences are considered when good character is considered, but there is no automatic factor in ruling out somebody. A number of hon. Members referred to that issue, so I thought it was right to deal with it.

A couple of Members referred to what was encapsulated by the definition of “the armed forces”. The definition is the same as that used in the Armed Forces Act and, for the avoidance of doubt, applies to those who serve in our reserve forces, to which several Members have referred.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge gave a wide-ranging speech, in which she referred to some of the service charities and the points they have made about the service they received from what was the UK Border Agency. It is worth putting it on the record that the splitting of the UK Border Agency and the creation of UK Visas and Immigration, which is the relevant part of the Home Office that deals with naturalisation applications, means that we are focused on delivering better customer service. Some of the changes we announced in the written statement mean that we will be better able to look at applications from the armed forces, which will be made on a special, separate application form, to ensure that we can deliver a settlement on the day of discharge.

[Mr Chope]

I think the Minister is nearing the end of his remarks, but before he does, can he address my question about why this issue cannot be dealt with in the forthcoming immigration Bill? Doing so would enable us to consider, for example, the case that I raised of a constituent who has been out in Russia for a long time, because she has been married to a British citizen living out there, looking after their children. She has been unable to apply for naturalisation because she has not been living in the UK.

[Mr Harper]

Without tempting Madam Deputy Speaker to chastise me, what I would say is that if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will look at the details. At the end of my remarks, I will set out briefly why the immigration Bill would not be the right place to deal with this issue, but I will not do so at any length.

Let me finish what I was saying in response to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge raised. I hope that former members of the armed forces and the service charities they deal with will notice—indeed, I hope they have noticed—an improved level of customer service from UK Visas and Immigration. That is certainly something that the Home Office wants to achieve, and I hope we will be able to deliver that.

Before I close my remarks, let me briefly address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised earlier—to be fair, I said that I would do so. His question was: why would it not have been appropriate to deal with this issue in the immigration Bill? The short answer is that that Bill addresses three topics: first, access to public services; secondly, putting into primary legislation the rules on article 8 that the House put in the immigration rules last year; and thirdly, dealing with appeals and removals. That Bill does not make changes to the nationality provisions of our legislation, because I did not want its scope to be that wide. I wanted to focus on the Government’s priorities for reforming the immigration system; I did not want us to get bogged down in the many nationality questions that I know we might otherwise have considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking has introduced a focused Bill, dealing with a genuine problem. It is not a problem that affects thousands of people; rather, it affects potentially hundreds of people, but they are people who have done great service to our country. The approach he has adopted, in introducing a very focused Bill that has support from both sides of the House—the official Opposition and the Government—is the right way to proceed. I very much hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and a fair wind in reaching the statute book.

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am rather surprised to see the hon. Gentleman standing. He has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate and he did not seek to speak before the Minister gave his response—in detail and at length—to the questions that were raised. As a member of the Panel of Chairs, the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the courtesies of the House, so I am sure he will agree with me that we should now give the concluding remarks to the Member who moved the Second Reading motion on this private Member’s Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) would not want to show any discourtesy to the House, would he?

[Mr Chope]

If you are inviting me to comment on what you just said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am not inviting you, Mr Chope. My question was rhetorical in its nature. I am nudging you gently, as a member of the Panel, to agree with me that the courtesies of the House should stand.

[Mr Chope]

I did speak to you in your position in the Chair to indicate that I would seek to catch your eye in order to make a short contribution after the Minister had spoken. If you had said to me at that stage that you would not call me at this point, I would have sought to make my contribution earlier. I was here at the very beginning of the debate, and I have made a lot of interventions. I have been here for almost all of the Minister’s response. It is a matter for your discretion whether you call me to make a short contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave that with you. I put it on record that I would not wish any discourtesy to the House, even if I were not a member of the Panel of Chairs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Indeed, and I am sure that you would not wish any discourtesy to me as the occupant of the Chair by assuming that your notification that you intended to follow an unusual procedure would result in my consenting to that, because it does not. We all know the rules, don’t we Mr Chope? This is the last day, however, and if you will make only a very few comments—I shall be timing you, Mr Chope, and shall not hesitate to intervene—you may have a few minutes to make your contribution before I call Mr Lord. But this will be the one and only time that you will be able to do this.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I feel a heavy weight on my shoulders, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence.

I have expressed concern on a number of occasions about the integrity and comprehensibility of our statute book. The Minister said that the reason that we could not use the existing wording in section 39 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 was that it was “all bound up with the earned citizenship measures”. The Government have said that they will not proceed with the implementation of the earned citizenship provisions, so they will have to legislate separately. If the Government do not wish to proceed with the earned citizenship provisions in the 2009 Act, surely those provisions should be repealed, rather than left in limbo. If they are left in limbo, it will be open to a subsequent Government to commence them.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) will be able to deal with this matter during the later stages of his Bill. The Bill seems to be amending section 39 of the 2009 Act, rather than repealing it, thereby compounding the felony of making the statute book even more difficult to comprehend. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to this point now, but at some stage during the Bill’s progress, we need to work out why we are keeping on the statute book provisions that the Government say they oppose. Why will the Government not repeal them? Why are they seeking to amend a section of the 2009 Act that they do not wish to implement? Would it not be better to legislate de novo?

Those are the short points that I wanted to make, and I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are short of time but let us have a brief snippet from Christchurch.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why does my hon. Friend not make it a criminal offence to be an illegal immigrant?

[Mr Harper]

It is, of course, the case that people in the United Kingdom without leave are breaking our laws, but our primary objective for those here without leave is to remove them from the country. It would be self-defeating to prosecute all of them and lock them up in prison, as we would thus be keeping them here for longer and making sure the taxpayer paid a higher cost.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady refers in general to the question of foreign national prisoners and their removal from the UK. Of course, that covers those who are EU citizens and those who are from outside the EU. With regard to EU citizens, the prisoner transfer framework decision gives us the opportunity to work with other member states on a bilateral basis to ensure that we can repatriate UK citizens to serve their sentences here and remove their nationals from the UK to serve their sentences abroad. That is what we intend to do.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The Home Secretary asserts that rejoining the 35 measures will be in our national interest. Where is the evidence for that? Is there a cost-benefit analysis? How does that fit in with the balance of competences review? Will we be asked next week to endorse that approach, rather than just receiving the information?

[Mrs May]

I have published today in the Command Paper the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the measures we are looking to rejoin—it refers to the others as well—and explains what each is about. The debate will be about the Government’s position of opting out and then seeking to rejoin the 35 measures. That will enable us to enter into proper negotiations with the European Commission and other member states. I believe that it is right that we seek to rejoin measures that enable us to co-operate on a cross-border basis in dealing with cross-border crime and keeping people safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that recorded crime in Bedfordshire is down 12% in the year to September 2012. I hope he will welcome that. As he says, this Government have continued the damping mechanism, which was put in place by the previous Government in 2006. We are conducting a review of it. One reason why the review needs to be thorough is precisely so that we can involve the newly elected police and crime commissioners—including the one in Bedfordshire —so that they can make a full contribution to the debate to ensure we have better mechanisms in future.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary share my concern at the very small number of foreigners convicted in the summer 2011 riots who have been deported? What is going to be done about it?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that we are actively pursuing deportation in 150 of those cases and have successfully removed 15 people already. The Government will continue to do so and I am confident that the vast majority of foreign national offenders involved in those riots will be removed from the country once their sentences are complete.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

That is an ingenious intervention, but the obligation is on the party required to display the licence. If a defence could be made along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, it would create a major loophole. Ironically, given the view that he usually takes on these matters, that would make it easier for people to avoid prosecutions and the fine that I mentioned than would otherwise be the case. Our view is that if there is an obligation on a party to display a licence, then there is an obligation on that party to display a licence. That is clear cut; there is no need to muddy the waters.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

If the licence is removed from display without the knowledge or consent of the scrap metal dealer, why should the scrap metal dealer be guilty of an offence? Surely the Minister’s line here is inconsistent with the line he adopts, for example, in moving amendments to clause 10, which remove the offence of strict liability and provide a defence if the person did not know that an offence was being committed.

[Mr Browne]

As I said a moment ago, the scrap metal dealer is responsible for displaying the licence. It is as straightforward and uncomplicated as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend is right. Responsible scrap metal dealers want effective regulation, and the loopholes to be closed down. The Bill’s provisions on cashless payments and other matters are very important in that regard.

I welcome the Minister’s new clause and amendments. I welcome, too, the fact that we have reached consensus on almost every issue. I remind the Minister that the Bill as it currently stands is, effectively, the official Opposition’s Bill that the Government rejected in February in another place, and, to add just one discordant note, as a result of that there has been a delay.

There are 1,000 incidents of metal theft per week. Some 300 tonnes of metal—the equivalent of 300 cars—is stolen per week. Metal theft is causing 117 hours of delays in train services. Some 23 churches are attacked every week by thieves. This Bill will go some way towards helping to give additional powers to reduce those incidents. It is welcome, therefore, and I hope Members across the House will give it the fair wind that we agreed to give it in Committee and on Second Reading.

[Mr Chope]

I wish to discuss the amendments I have tabled, Government new clause 1 and the Minister’s comments. My amendments in this group are all designed to make the Bill stronger and more effective. I spent much of last Saturday discussing these issues with a prominent scrap metal dealer in my constituency, and I have also spoken on the phone to the Archdeacon of Bournemouth. I am conscious of the large number of serious thefts from churches and war memorials, not only in my constituency but throughout the dioceses of Winchester and Salisbury. I am concerned that the Bill concentrates only on the good, licensed scrap metal dealers and ignores the real villains—the people for whom law enforcement means nothing. It is fine to tighten up the law in relation to those who comply with it and believe in law enforcement, provided that at the same time we get really heavy with those who do not comply with it, and are intent on defying it and carrying on as they are.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to some of my amendments; he just said he thought they were unnecessary. My amendment 31 proposes the following:

“If a local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging in activity as a scrap metal dealer without a licence an injunction shall be applied for by the local authority against that person within 28 days.”

If a local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a person is dealing in scrap metal without a licence, why should it not be required to take action against that person within 28 days? The Bill, as drafted, has a convoluted system for depriving licensed scrap metal dealers of their licences, but it is very weak—the provisions are almost non-existent—on dealing with people who operate without licences. Where it comes to a local authority’s attention that somebody is operating without a licence we should surely require that authority to take effective action against that person within 28 days. I would be interested to know why the Government or the promoter of the Bill think that such a provision undermines the purpose of the Bill; it would reinforce the Bill so that it becomes more effective.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

My hon. Friend may find it helpful if I set out the Government’s view on amendment 31, and this illustrates why I did not go through every amendment he has tabled. We feel that the amendment is legally deficient, as injunctions cannot be made by a local authority—they are court orders that can be issued only by the courts. In addition, we do not believe that such a measure is required, as the Bill already contains powers to close unlicensed scrap metal dealers and the yards in which they operate. I intervene to make a general point: we have not sought not to take account of his amendment because of a misplaced sense of malice; we have taken our approach because we judge the amendments to be either unnecessary or deficient, and we would rather the Bill were neither of those things.

[Mr Chope]

I accept that that is what the Government say. If they do not want an amendment, they always say that the wording is deficient. However, the main reason they do not want to address this amendment is that they say that the Bill already contains powers to close unlicensed premises. If one looks at what those powers are and how long it may take to get them implemented, one realises that they are not going to achieve very much very quickly. One is reminded of situations afflicting many of our constituents: unlicensed campsites; unlicensed Gypsy encampments; and people carrying on businesses without authority. It takes months—indeed, sometimes years—to get effective action taken against those things. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I think that the powers in the Bill to deal with those who are unlicensed are paltry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, eloquent and putting forward a reasoned case. I always take pleasure in listening to him. Is it his wish to see progress made on the Bill today, despite the criticisms he has made? For all we know, his amendments may not be accepted. He started his remarks by referring to the problems that make the Bill necessary—he said that he has spoken to his constituents and to Church people—so is it his wish to see progress made to ensure that the Bill is not lost?

[Mr Chope]

Indeed it is. It is my desire to see not only progress, but some amendments accepted. As an indication of that desire, I have tabled an amendment, which we will come to later, proposing that the commencement date should be two months after Royal Assent. What we have heard so far from the Government is that it may be six months or more after Royal Assent before they have anything in place. That would mean that it may not be until this time next year that the provisions of the Bill are in force. The situation is sufficiently serious to warrant much quicker action than that. The regulations that local authorities are going to have to apply could be being drafted as we speak, but that does not seem to be happening. What is happening at the moment is that some of us are saying that the Bill is not perfect—obviously it is not perfect because the Government have introduced about 30 amendments—and an attempt is being made to vilify us by suggesting that we want to promote the cause of people who steal from our war memorials and so on.

The reality is quite the reverse; I am impatient, because even the legislation that we passed earlier this year on requiring names, addresses and identification to be provided and on prohibiting cash transactions at scrap metal dealers does not come into force until 3 December. When it was passed, that was done on the basis that it was going to be transforming. When I was at a scrap metal dealers last Saturday, some people came with an old car and said that they wanted cash for it. The dealer said that he was already operating under the provisions of Operation Tornado, but they said that they understood they could still get cash for scrap until December. That just shows the extent to which loopholes and an unwillingness to implement our legislation quickly can be exploited by the criminal fraternity.

[Mr Hanson]

I want to test the hon. Gentleman’s logic. Why in February did he vote, along with other Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, against measures that would have brought the Bill into effect more quickly?

[Mr Chope]

I am taken by surprise by that point—I do not know whether I did or not, as I have not looked at the official record. If I did, I was obviously wrong to do so, but there is a limit to the number of times I can have discussions with my Whips. I am sorry that I overlooked that opportunity, but I will check the record and speak in the knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is on my side in trying to get these issues dealt with sooner rather than later—[Interruption.] I do speak for myself, as the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), knows very well. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate him on getting back into the Whips Office, which he knows and understands so well and where he is so effective.

Amendment 92 would delete subsection (7) from clause 3 and is probably one of the least significant of my amendments. Nevertheless, I thought that it would sharpen up the Bill by leaving less discretion on the need to consult other local authorities, the Environment Agency or officers of police forces. Obviously, that can be done anyway, so do we need to put that sort of detail into the Bill when we are refusing to put in the sort of detail that I have talked about, such as the suggestion that people should not be able to be licensed scrap metal dealers if they have previous convictions?

Similarly, any reasonable person would interpret my amendments 94, 93 and 95 to clause 4 as being designed to tighten up the Bill, rather than relax it. Under clause 4, the local authority has a power to

“revoke a scrap metal licence if it is satisfied that the licensee does not carry on business at any of the sites identified”.

Likewise, it has a power to

“revoke a licence if it is satisfied that a site manager named in the licence does not act as site manager”

and if it is not

“satisfied that the licensee is a suitable person to carry on business as a scrap metal dealer.”

My amendments would mean that instead of being discretionary, it would be mandatory for the local authority to revoke the licence in those three circumstances. What is the matter with that? Surely it is a useful tightening up of the Bill.

Amendments 88 and 89 deal with the issue of residential sites. At the moment, the Bill excludes any residential premises from its ambit, which means that there is an enormous loophole. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is nodding in agreement. For example, someone might have some wire and want to burn the rubber off it so that they can sell the wire on while ensuring that there is no way of finding out where it has come from—I have had such cases in my constituency. If they are doing it in their back garden—for example, if they are, for want of a better expression, Gypsies, or Travellers, or people who probably often operate beneath the radar of the law—and unless we allow amendments 88 and 89, the local authority will not be able to take any action, as those people will say that their premises are residential.

[Mr Hanson]

The official Opposition raised this point in Committee. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the complexities was the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for which he will have voted, which stops residential accommodation falling under the auspices of this Bill. I pressed the Minister on that very point in Committee, and he wrote to its members after he had gone away for reflection. He has consulted the police, who have agreed that they can implement what the hon. Gentleman wants within the auspices of the Act, which he will have supported.

[Mr Chope]

I missed the last bit of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Was he saying that the police can act, notwithstanding the fact that we are saying specifically that the Bill will not extend to residential premises?

[Mr Hanson]

I am in danger of acting as I used to do as a Minister in responding to the hon. Gentleman, but after I raised those same points in Committee, the Minister assured me that the police can undertake the very action the hon. Gentleman mentions. I, too, was concerned that the residential loophole could have been exploited by unscrupulous dealers. The difficulty is that the Protection of Freedoms Act has reduced the number of circumstances that allow for the examination of residential properties, and he will have voted for that.

[Mr Chope]

I will not go over my voting record again, but all I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the constituency case I have in mind the police know well what is going on but say that they cannot do anything about it—or they do not have the will to do anything about it. I still do not understand why we have specifically to exclude all residential premises, because as soon as we have such a wide exclusion, it will be impossible for anyone to say that there should be an exemption to that exclusion. I read the exchange in Committee, but I have not had the benefit of seeing the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to this short debate, will explain why he thinks that this provision can be left as it is. More importantly, does the Minister accept that allowing residential premises to be exempt and allowing people to burn the coverings off scrap metal in their back yards will facilitate rather than restrict criminal activity?

Amendments 106, 107 and 108 deal with the issue of which local authorities will carry out the enforcing and regulating. It seems to me that the larger authorities—for example, the county councils rather than the district councils—are better equipped to do that. In my constituency, two of the small district councils, East Dorset and Christchurch, are effectively working together because neither has the resources to have a full-time person to deal with particular types of licensing or planning applications. Much of the activity regarding scrap metal and its environmental impact is monitored by county councils and it seems to me that it would be better for them to deal with it rather than district authorities which, by definition, have fewer resources.

Amendment 108 is designed to deal with a loophole that runs through the whole Bill, namely the definition of scrap metal trading. It says, in effect, that such trading means people who trade in the course of business, which is a very precise definition that means that people have to do it for a livelihood. Amendment 108 would remove the provision in clause 19 that a person who goes from door to door would be offending only if they were doing that in the course of their business.

It is interesting that the British Metals Recycling Association, which briefed us on the Bill, is under the misapprehension that the Bill extends the definition of a scrap metal dealer

“to all businesses and individuals that collect, purchase, process or sell discarded metals suitable for reprocessing for reward”.

The Bill as it stands, however, does not do that. It limits the definition to people engaged in business, which is why I commend the amendment to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that explanation, which is the purpose of this stage of the Bill. The Minister talked about spending ages on this issue, but his answer took longer than my question. He has spent more time on this point than I have—I should have thought he would congratulate me on rattling through my amendments with great haste. I cannot say that I am dwelling on my amendments, but if the Minister thinks I should spend more time on them, I am sure I could. However, I will resist that temptation.

Amendments 53 to 57 relate to the site manager named in the licence and, as I have said, were tabled for consistency with earlier amendments. Amendments 58 to 64 relate to clause 8 which states that when a scrap metal dealer has stopped dealing, they must notify the local authority within 28 days. Why is that the case? If someone has stopped trading, I presume that they will not renew their licence, so why must we place that extra burden on them? That seems quite unnecessary. If we are to have a notification period, why must it be 28 days? That seems a short space of time and it might not be that easy. Businesses do not always have neat cut-off points, and if sales were increasingly infrequent, notifying the local authority might not be at the forefront of someone’s mind. That might put them in breach of the clause and mean they fall into disrepute, so to speak. I am not clear why we need this measure, and my amendments change 28 days to either “three months” or “six months”, which would give businesses more time to meet that requirement. I am not persuaded, however, that such a provision needs to exist.

Amendments 62 and 63 relate to the time given to people to deal with issues. Under clause 8, the local authority has a duty to pass information it receives to the Environment Agency within 28 days, which the amendment would change to three months. Amendments 78 to 84 relate to clause 13 of the Bill which confirms that council officials have the powers to execute a magistrates’ warrant. I flag that up because I wonder whether it would be more appropriate for that to be done by the police. I am rather suspicious of giving council officers police powers that are not entirely necessary. When my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch discussed another proposal, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said that reasonableness is a matter of common sense. All hon. Members have at some point in their lives come across the pettifogging council official. I am not saying that such officials are in the majority or even that there is a sizeable number of them, but by the law of averages, there are bound to be some. Giving council officers police powers is a worrying development, and I hope the Government look again at the proposal. My other amendments in that sphere relate to the same issue.

Amendments 140 to 143 to clause 19 relate to the fact that responsibility for the registration of the scheme will lie with district councils. Amendment 140 would mean that county councils or unitary authorities would be responsible. If I remember rightly—I do not have my note to hand—the 1964 Act refers to county councils, but for some reason, strikingly, the Bill changes that to district councils. Given the scale of each district authority, I believe the matter would be better dealt with at county council or unitary authority level. I hope the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South will consider that. It might be a mistake in the drafting of the Bill.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of regret that the Minister has not yet intervened on this point, which I have also made?

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps that is a sign that the Minister, too, is concerned about this aspect of the Bill and does not want to reveal his hand at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the excellent timing with which you brought our debate on the previous group of amendments to a conclusion and for allowing me to introduce this second group of amendments.

This group relates to the trading in scrap metal. Within this grouping, the Government wish to create one new clause and make seven amendments to the Bill. Unfortunately, like the previous grouping, there are a significant number of other amendments which we fear may dilute the effectiveness of the Bill, although hon. Members are entirely within their rights to table them. It is therefore not our intention to accept those amendments. I do not propose to address each of them separately, though I have sought, and will continue to do so, to clarify points where that may help the House.

On the Government amendments, clause 12 currently requires that scrap metal dealers record all metal that is received in the course of their business, and includes a criminal offence of failure to fulfil the requirement of the clause. Following discussion with the police, they have suggested continuing the requirement in the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 to record both the metal being received in the course of their business and the metal being dispatched. We have considered that suggestion and believe that there are merits to justify its inclusion, allowing law enforcement officers and local authorities to trace metals through the scrap metal sector.

New clause 2 outlines that requirement, defining the meaning of disposed of metal and stipulating information that needs to be recorded by scrap metal dealers, both in respect of mobile collectors and those who hold a site licence. As I have said, although the amendment creates a new requirement in the Bill on the scrap metal dealer, recording metals that are dispatched is not a new burden on the industry—an important point—as that provision already exists in the 1964 Act, which currently applies. It should be noted that the proposed recording requirement for collectors appears slightly less onerous than that for site licence holders.

We considered carefully what information should be recorded to bring value to the records that are kept. Collectors should not process metals; they collect metals and then sell them to scrap metal dealers who operate a site to process them. Therefore, the metal that a collector receives and records must be the metal that they dispatch. It is for that reason that the regulations differ slightly for them and are slightly less onerous. We did not therefore consider it necessary to require collectors to double-record the metal; rather we are simply requiring them to record to whom the metal was sold and when.

I do not believe that the amendment to new clause 2 is necessary. All records that a scrap metal dealer is required to retain as part of this new scrap metal regime should be accurate. Amendment (a) to new clause 2 requires that information relating to disposed of metals be verified, which, aside from the person’s name and address, is an almost impossible task and one that makes the amendment unworkable.

[Mr Chope]

Clause 10 covers the verification of suppliers’ identity. If verification is so difficult, why are we legislating for it in clause 10?

[Mr Browne]

We feel that we have the appropriate level of verification and the means by which it can be effectively undertaken, so we do not feel it is necessary in this regard.

I shall turn to the other Government amendments. Amendment 18 separates clause 12 into two. The first proposed clause relates to the requirements when recording received metal, and the second deals with the requirements relating to record keeping more generally, including the criminal offence of not fulfilling the requirement. This separation, together with amendments 21 to 25, will ensure that the main thrust of the record-keeping requirements and the criminal offence will apply to both metal received and metal disposed of, with the same principles applying to both.

Since Committee, we have come to the view, following advice received, that we need to define more accurately the information in the descriptions of metals received. The current draft, requiring only that its type and weight be recorded, allows the scrap metal dealer to be as vague as they wish, potentially reducing the value of the records. Amendment 19 seeks to expand the wording, requiring that information on the metal’s type, form, condition and weight be included. Marks identifying the previous owner and other distinguishing features must also be recorded. That should considerably increase the value of the records, allowing for the metal to be identified, as opposed to the vagueness that the current Bill allows.

Amendment 20, on the recording requirement to keep evidence of non-cash payments, is a drafting improvement and does not amend the principle of the provision. Amendment 26 allows for officers of a local authority and police force to require the production of, and to inspect, records of received and disposed of metals. The power in the current Bill relates only to received metals.

Two further new clauses have been tabled—new clauses 4 and 6. New clause 4 relates to sellers of metal and would create a criminal offence covering two issues: first, individuals would be able to sell metal only to licensed scrap metal dealers; and, secondly, no one under 21 would be able to sell metal. The requirement to sell metal only to licensed businesses is a desirable outcome, but in the Government’s view it must be done through education and raising public awareness, as opposed to a criminal sanction. The displaying of a licence and the single national register will assist with that.

[Mr Chope]

The Minister has made an assertion, but can he give some reasons? Surely, if we legislate to prevent anyone from selling or attempting to sell scrap metal other than to a licensed scrap metal dealer, we will be promoting the cause of licensed scrap metal dealers and undermining the criminal fraternity.

[Mr Browne]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but our feeling is that the level of licensing proposed in the Bill will have his desired effect.

I turn to the point about age. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 included the requirement not to purchase metal from anyone under the age of 16. This has been removed in the current Bill, and there is no age restriction. In part, that is because placing an age restriction would be discriminatory on the grounds of age and contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, which deals with direct discrimination. The law allows for direct discrimination on the grounds of age only where it can be demonstrated that less favourable treatment is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and proportionate. Since there is no evidence base suggesting that abuse is concentrated in the under-21 age group, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that an outright ban on under-21s selling scrap metal is proportionate. We do not believe, therefore, that such a ban would be lawful.

Finally, new clause 6 would create a new criminal offence, which would apply where a dealer purchased scrap metal without checking that it had not been marked with SmartWater. We cannot support the creation of this offence for a number of reasons. We do not believe it would be appropriate for the Bill to refer to one particular commercial product, rather than the full range of products. Although SmartWater is a known product, it is one of many known forensic property markers on the market. I am not aware of any independent evaluation of its effectiveness; nor have I seen any comparison with other products on the market. In addition, what would happen if we specified one product in legislation and a superior product entered the market, or if SmartWater ceased to exist? The approach taken in new clause 6 does not facilitate our objective to future-proof the legislation further.

A number of scrap metal dealers check for forensic property marker products when purchasing metal. That is a good practice, and certainly something we want to see encouraged. However, mandating it as a requirement, as the new clause seeks to do, would create a significant burden for the industry. It might also create an unachievable burden, given the vast quantities of metal that enter scrapyards on a daily basis, and I know that hon. Members would not wish the regulations imposed by the Government to be unduly burdensome on businesses going about their legitimate day-to-day trade. Therefore, for the various reasons I have outlined, the Government would resist new clause 6.

I do not propose to talk to the other non-Government amendments at this stage, so perhaps I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion and let others make their contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

First, I want to repeat the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): there is no proper definition. The public will be amazed to learn that at this late stage we still do not have an exhaustive definition of what we mean by “scrap metal” and “scrap metal dealer.” There is therefore an enormous amount of misunderstanding.

It is clear from the letter we have received from the British Metals Recycling Association that its idea of the Bill’s definition of a scrap metal dealer is incorrect:

“We particularly welcome the provisions within the Bill to: extend the definition of a scrap metal dealer to all those businesses and individuals that collect, purchase, process or sell discarded metal suitable for reprocessing for reward”.

It supports them

“in order to close current loopholes relating to the limited scope of current legislation. We also believe, on the question of which metals should be covered by this legislation, that the definition of scrap should be as inclusive as possible”.

I have to tell the BMRA that if that is what it thinks the Bill says, it needs to have another look at the text, because it does not say anything of the sort. That shows the problem with so much of this Bill. The Government will the end, but they do not will the means. They want to sort out the metal theft problem, but there are enormous loopholes in how they propose to set about achieving that.

There is, for instance, a loophole relating to individuals and those who steal metal for gain but who are not part of a business. There is another loophole to do with the material involved and whether it is new or used. Much of the material that is sold as scrap is new, but the Bill specifies that it must be old. That is why I tabled an amendment proposing that we should replace the term “old” with “used”.

Further evidence of the fact that the Government are going through the motions of wanting to put something on the statute book to deal with this issue without having worked out whether it will achieve the objective was provided by what I can only describe as the Minister’s very lame response to the discussion of new clause 4. It states:

“No person shall sell or attempt to sell scrap metal”—

that points to the key issue: people steal scrap metal to sell it and to make a profit so that they have money to spend at the local pub or wherever—

“other than to a scrap metal dealer licensed under the provisions of this Act.”

If we want to boost the status and standing of licensed scrap metal dealers and force those who are not licensed dealers out of the business, what would be more logical than to say that people can only sell scrap metal to a licensed scrap metal dealer? The response we got from the Minister was, “Well, we believe in education and raising the public profile on this matter.” Why will the Government not legislate against the villains who are selling, or attempting to sell, scrap metal to people other than scrap metal dealers licensed under this legislation?

There is a secondary issue to do with the age of people. I proposed that nobody under 21 should sell, or attempt to sell, scrap metal. That is because people might use others who are under 21 as intermediaries knowing that the likely penalties they will suffer in the event of being caught will be small and they will be able to plead ignorance. If we want to tighten up this regime, we should put in place an age limit. After all, we have age limits for the purchase of lawful commodities such as cigarettes and alcohol. We have provisions dealing with the sale of illegal drugs, so why can we not deal with this by saying that anybody who sells or attempts to sell scrap metal to an unlicensed scrap metal dealer is committing an offence? If there were ever something that exposes the big vacuum between the Government’s avowed intent and what is actually going to happen in practice, this is it.

New clause 6 provides another example of where the Government could do something more. It proposes:

“A scrap metal dealer must not purchase scrap metal from a person without first checking that the metal has not been marked with smart water.”

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) raised this issue in Committee. She said that she was a trustee of the War Memorials Trust and bemoaned the fact that people steal war memorial plaques to sell them for the value of the metal, little realising their value in terms of sentiment and their part in our history and heritage. She referred to the work the trust was doing with SmartWater Technology Ltd, which I understand has agreed to put its product on every war memorial in the country. If we want a positive message to send out on the eve of Remembrance Sunday, surely it would be: is that not a fantastic example of co-operation between the private sector and the public interest? If we put SmartWater on all the memorials, that should, in principle, deter people from stealing them.

However, that approach will not work unless we have a way of detecting SmartWater on the product after it has been stolen. I discussed the issue with the Archdeacon of Bournemouth, who said that the priory church in my constituency has suffered on several occasions from having lead stolen from its roof, despite having both CCTV and SmartWater. His impression was that indicating that there was SmartWater on the metal was almost an invitation to potential thieves to think it was worth stealing and it did not, therefore, have the necessary deterrent effect. That is because people can take metal to their local scrap dealer and it will not be tested for SmartWater, and once the metal has gone into the system and been processed, the SmartWater mark will have been eliminated.

If the Government were really serious about this, they would be saying, “Why don’t we tighten up this area so that nobody can sell other than to a licensed scrap metal dealer and every licensed dealer must test the product to see whether it has SmartWater on it?” The Minister says that such an approach uses just one particular commercial product. If he prefers to say that dealers must test metal for any forensic property markers, which could include other products and thereby be future-proofed—again, I use what he was saying—so be it, but instead of a constructive alternative suggestion from the Minister, we heard a rubbishing of this one. It is put forward in all seriousness—it has support from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and, no doubt, others—as a sensible way of trying to tighten up the system.

It has been suggested that such a provision would be burdensome on licensed scrap metal dealers. I talked to one experienced and successful scrap metal dealer last week, and I do not think he would find it a burden. He would see it as a way of ensuring that the whole trade is cleaned up. He does not want to take a stolen product. One way of ensuring that he does not is to test it for the presence of SmartWater.

I find the Government’s approach negative in the extreme. More than that, it is distressing that they are not prepared to engage in a way that would tighten up the regime significantly for the benefit of the public. One is left wondering whether they are worried about too many people being locked up or charged if we start outlawing the sale of scrap metal other than to licensed dealers or about the fact that there might be quite a lot of metal stolen that would be identified by this SmartWater test. Perhaps it is a case of “not invented here” syndrome, because SmartWater was invented not by the Government but by some rather clever people in this country who understand the science. It could be used effectively to facilitate a tough clampdown on the theft of war memorials, in particular, as well as of other metals. The Government are not seizing every opportunity available to them to take action effectively in this respect.

Let me refer briefly to some of the other amendments, as I know that time is constrained.

[Philip Davies]

While my hon. Friend is trying to find his place in his notes, I wonder whether he would like to comment on my amendments, which specify property from war memorials and places of worship as part of the definition of scrap metal. Does he think that that would be helpful?

[Mr Chope]

I think that it would be extremely helpful. It comes back to the point we were making originally about the lack of any clear definition. If a church roof is renewed and the new lead is taken away and sold, that is new product, not old product. It is used product, however, which is why I have tabled the amendment to incorporate the word “used”, which is not in the Bill at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that he will accept amendment 102, which would clarify that matter for the benefit of all.

Amendment 98, the last of my amendments, concerns the power to amend the means of purchase by regulation. I do not see the need for that and the Minister has not made the case for it. Amendment 87 deals with the need for a test in relation to SmartWater, and amendment 101 deals with the definition and uses the exact words provided by the scrap metal dealers association, the British Metals Recycling Association, which thought they were already incorporated in the Bill. If the Minister responds to nothing else, perhaps he could explain to members of that association why what they told us in their briefing for Third Reading and Report is not in the text of the Bill.

These amendments contain a lot of constructive suggestions to strengthen the regime for controlling scrap metal theft and to ensure that those guilty of it are brought to justice. I regret that the Government are not prepared to be bigger-hearted, particularly on the eve of Remembrance Sunday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

The definition in the Bill covers the items with which my hon. Friend is concerned, so there is no need to list them in addition.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Browne]

I can think of literally nothing else that could add to the points that I have made. It would detain the House unnecessarily to give way, because there is nothing further to add on amendment 136.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley talked about amendment 138, which lists platinum, iridium and other elements that remind me of being at school. He proposes to take those metals out of the legislation, but the Government want them to be in the legislation, because theft of those materials, for example from catalytic converters, has grown.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch spoke about SmartWater. The Government do not want to discourage the kind of work by private companies that he described. Quite the contrary: we are enthusiastic about it and believe that it can provide an extra safeguard. However, I think that he will understand that the Government cannot endorse a particular product from a particular manufacturer, nor can we reasonably put a product in the Bill when other products in the field may claim to be as effective or more effective. That includes products that have not yet been invented, but that might become usable within the lifetime of the Bill. That we have not included SmartWater in the Bill does not mean that we do not think that it is one measure that can be used to mark metal and deter thieves. However, the Bill is not an advert for companies that have theft-reduction products, but is meant to be broad and all-encompassing and to stand the test of time. For those reasons, we do not think that it would be appropriate to name a particular commercial product.

[Mr Chope]

I take the Minister’s point about not naming a particular product, but why could we not have a provision that deals with such products generically and, to future-proof it, that provides for the Government to widen the definition as appropriate? Surely this is an essential safeguard. If we force scrap metal dealers to test whether such products have been used on the material that they have, we will be more likely to find out whether it has been stolen.

[Mr Browne]

I will return to what I think is a tension in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Shipley. They seem to be arguing, at the same time, that the proposals are unduly burdensome on scrap metal dealers and that they should be far more burdensome. We are trying to strike a balance that will work in practice between dealing, to a large degree, with the terrible problem of scrap metal theft and not unfairly penalising legitimate scrap metal dealers, who we believe will be perfectly able to keep records and comply with the Bill presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. That is the balance that we are seeking to strike, and we believe that he has got that balance broadly right. That is why, with a few minor Government amendments, we support his Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Expiry

‘(1) This Act shall expire one year from the date on which it receives Royal Assent.

(2) Section 146 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc.) and amendments made by that section to previous legislation shall expire on the same date.’.—(Philip Davies.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for listening to my case and responding so positively. As it happens, amendment 116 would bring forward the review from five years to three years, and I have also tabled amendments to explore whether we could bring it forward to two years or one. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful comments and suggestion, and although the expiry date he offers is not nearly as soon as I would wish, I accept the spirit in which it was offered and the principle behind it.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) prefaced his helpful suggestion by saying he would seek to persuade the Government to introduce the measure in another place. I hope the Minister will now say that he is persuaded, so that we do not have to speculate.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I, too, noted that form of words. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is promoting the Bill, I trust that what he says will happen will happen, and urge the Minister to accept his suggestion. I would be happy to pause in my remarks to allow him to leap to his feet, as he has been prone to do throughout my contributions, to confirm whether the Government will accept my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---

To return to the unnamed student in the unnamed university, when they look at how the issue of regulating scrap metal dealers and updating the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 was tackled, they will see a Government who failed to step up to the plate. The Government have not done their job efficiently—they have U-turned and created uncertainty. The hon. Member for Croydon South has done a good job in introducing the Bill and there is some agreement with the hon. Member for Shipley that we need to accept some issues for review. I therefore hope the Bill will get a fair reading and be considered in the other place. However, let nobody get away from the fact that the Government have not been effective and have not done a good job. I hope that that student will review that and learn lessons on how to handle legislation on important matters.

[Mr Chope]

I must say that the speech the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered is one of the most disappointing I have heard in the House for a long time. What is emerging today is an example of Parliament at its best. Indeed, it has been exemplary. As a result of the force of argument on the shortcomings of the Bill—recognised by the fact that the Government have moved a number of new clauses and amendments—the amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley tabled have demonstrated that, although people might assert that the Bill is now perfect and the complete answer, there can be nagging doubts.

[Mr Hanson]

My only point, which I may not have made clear to the hon. Gentleman, is that we could have been where we are today 11 months ago, if the Government had done what they were asked to do then.

[Mr Chope]

I am not sure that I would go along with that, because 11 months ago the Government had a Bill going through Parliament and they wanted to amend it. They made what most think was the most cogent amendment, which will probably transform, as quickly as possible, the whole regime by outlawing cash payments. That is what the scrap metal dealer with whom I was having discussions told me last week. He thinks that what is already being done voluntarily under Operation Tornado, will, when it becomes compulsory at the beginning of next month, make a difference. There is some concern about whether all the additional measures will make a significant difference. There is also the problem, borne out by some scrap metal dealers themselves, that there are a lot of rogue elements, and we are not sure that we have dealt with them adequately through the existing legislation, or even through the Bill.

Surely it is desirable for us to debate these issues in the House. If it is clear that there is a reasonable way forward by saying, “Well, you may be right, I may be right, but let us have a review and a sunset clause after five years and have a chance to rethink the whole thing”, that surely must be a good way to take forward legislation. There has been much criticism about legislation coming through on a piecemeal basis, often too rapidly and insufficiently scrutinised. In times to come, just as people talk about the Rooker-Wise amendment, people will think about the Philip Davies new clause that revolutionised how the House considers legislation. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) wants some credit too. I am more than willing to give him enormous credit, because he had the vision to introduce the Bill in the first place, and he has used his knowledge and experience to recognise that such a Bill should be taken forward on a consensual basis, working with people rather than against them. Perhaps it will be called the Davies-Ottaway new clause. Either way, it is something we should be pleased about.

Before I close, I want to refer to my amendments 85 and 86, which would ensure that the Bill comes into effect two months after Royal Assent. At the moment, the Bill is so drafted that the measures will take effect only when the Government decide they should. I would have thought that if the Government were serious about getting on with this, they could accept these amendments or undertake to implement the Bill two months after Royal Assent, and put pressure on the people drafting the regulations and negotiating with the local authorities to ensure that this is given the impetus that people in the House and outside want. That would be preferable to waiting until this time next year before a lot of these measures are implemented.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I am delighted that we have managed to work the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) into a state of parliamentary euphoria not only about the procedures in this place but about the fact that, in his words, the Government are really making a difference here. I wholeheartedly endorse his endorsement of what the Government are doing. We are seeking to make a difference. I am slightly discomforted by his laissez-faire approach to the legislative process, but we want to be accommodating and collegiate, and I am pleased that that spirit has come across in our approach to the amendments.

I will pass over the more churlish contribution from the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) as being entirely out of character.

I shall speak briefly to new clause 7. It was envisaged that this legislation would expire after one year, but, although I enjoy having regular discussions about this subject, I do not know whether the Government would be entirely happy about having an annual scrap metal traders Bill to discuss in detail. The Government do not take the view, therefore, that the legislation expiring after one year is suitable, but, because this is a wide-ranging Bill, it would be wise to review its progress, should it come into force. We would obviously want that review to be comprehensive, and the proposal for a five-year expiry strikes the right balance. It will give the legislation time to bed in and, we hope, take effect. The legislation would then expire after five years and, if need be, be replaced by even more effective legislation, drawing on the experience that will have been accrued over those five years and after we have had a review. The Government are happy to endorse the generous approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) in putting forward the proposal for a five-year review. I know that the legislation will proceed on that basis, with the enthusiastic support of Members across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am delighted to hear that SmartWater is sold out of Shropshire, but my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who was not present earlier, will probably be disappointed to learn that it is not mentioned specifically in the Bill because the Government did not accept an amendment that I had tabled to that effect.

It was a pleasure to hear what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). He and I have worked together in the House for a long time. Today we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury, and we see the prospect of the Churches, and particularly the Church of England, uniting to seek a constructive way forward. Willing the end is one thing, but willing the means is another. Willing the means is one of the tasks that confront the new Archbishop, and it is a task that the Government have had to perform in dealing with the Bill.

There is much in the Bill that will improve matters. Only time will tell whether I am right in feeling that it should have contained additional measures which would have made it more effective, but I do not think that we have heard the last of this issue. However, I shall not refer to the measures that were not included in the Bill, because in a Third Reading debate we can only comment on what it contains now. I think that, as far as it goes, it is great. Let us ensure that the Government bring it into effect very quickly, because there is still scope for the dragging of feet. I see no reason why it should not receive Royal Assent fairly soon, and be implemented within two months of that.

Immigration Queues (UK Airports)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope I reassured him in my opening response that doing nothing is precisely what we are not doing. We are doing quite a lot, as I will detail a little more in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. In the few weeks he has been in charge of Border Force, Brian Moore has visited Heathrow twice, including over Easter—one of the peak busiest times of the year—to see precisely how Border Force coped over that difficult and challenging period. The answer was that, despite the predictions we had that Easter would mean gridlock at Heathrow, actually it did not. Heathrow coped well over Easter.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about e-gates and iris recognition immigration system gates. The IRIS gates commissioned by the previous Government are being phased out because they have come to the end of their technological life. They are less reliable than the e-gates that we are replacing them with and which provide a much better passenger experience.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about risk-based controls. As he knows, I have said—as has the Home Secretary in front of the Home Affairs Committee—that the principle of risk-based controls is a sound one to explore, but he will know that, as the John Vine report showed, what we had, when we thought we had risk-based controls, actually were not risk-based controls. Information had been withheld from successive Ministers over the previous five years.

The right hon. Gentleman asked, quite reasonably, what we have done. I have mentioned some of the actions we have already taken. We have rebalanced staff across Heathrow’s terminals; we are opening the new control room to allow us to monitor and deal with demand across the airports, so Border Force staff will not be stuck in terminals, as they used to be; we have completed our recruitment to mobile teams that can deal with unexpected surges; and we are encouraging all eligible passengers to use the e-passport gates, and are now getting close to 50% of those eligible to use them doing so, which significantly improves the flow-through, particularly for UK citizens.

We have, as a result, freed up more experienced staff from those e-passport gates to man the non-EU desks and to help reduce queues there. We are cross-training more and more of our staff so that they can work flexibly across all areas of border control. So very significant steps have been taken in the past few months to make the airports work more efficiently, and I am sure that passengers and the House will see the effects of that in the coming months.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but is there any way to give greater priority to British passport holders when there are very long queues?

[Damian Green]

British and—I suspect my hon. Friend might not wish to hear this—other EU citizens have priority. We do fewer checks on them, for obvious reasons. Our service level agreement is that 95% of them should go through in fewer than 25 minutes, as opposed to 95% in fewer than 45 minutes for non-British and non-EU passengers. We try to make the welcome back to this country for British tourists or business people travelling abroad as good as possible.

Tribunals (Maximum Compensation Awards) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a short Bill that would set a limit on compensation for awards for unfair or wrongful dismissal or discrimination arising out of employment and provides that that maximum limit should be £50,000. I propose this partly because I know that the Government are considering the matter, although they announced their review in May whereas my Bill was presented as long ago as 5 July 2010.

At the moment, there are strict limits on the awards that a tribunal can give in respect of claims for unfair dismissal arising from ordinary employment law. When the claim for unfair dismissal is based on discrimination, however, an unlimited amount of damages can be awarded. That is now leading to all sorts of farcical situations. The situation has been recognised by a group described by Mr Mark Leftly in The Independent on Sunday on 5 June as “an influential group” in the City,

“led by Sir Michael Snyder”

who have

“told ministers that employment law must be overhauled, with tribunal awards for discrimination cases capped at £50,000”—

the exact figure proposed in my Bill. The article goes on to say that

“an employee who successfully sues for discrimination, be it racial, sexual orientation or gender, can get unlimited awards. There is a growing belief that this has led to employees without genuine grievances making discrimination claims.”

People are making or threatening to make claims when they are faced with dismissal, saying that they will not go for the ordinary unfair dismissal but will base their claim on the fact that their dismissal has been on the grounds of racial discrimination or discrimination based on sex, gender or something similar. We are getting a two-tier system in which people threaten to sue in a tribunal for the much larger, open-ended awards that are available and my Bill would place a cap of £50,000 on all that.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

In the interests of clarity, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many such claims have been unsuccessful? That would give weight to the argument that people are claiming just for a chance of getting some money.

[Mr Chope]

I have the figures somewhere, but I do not have them to hand this instant because I have a lot of papers. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not answering his question, but the figures that I saw show that many claims are unsuccessful or not pursued, quite often because they are the subject of a settlement. Quite often the settlement is between unequal parties. The claimant has nothing to lose by taking the case to a tribunal but the employer is faced with substantial legal costs, plus disruption to his business, in defending his position. Those claims can end up being settled out of court, as it is called. They would probably be regarded by the hon. Gentleman as unsuccessful claims, but they might have been taken to the tribunal had it not been for the imbalance of power between the applicant and the employer.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May I help my hon. Friend on that point? I suspect that no accurate figures are available because many of these claims are resolved before the application is put to the industrial tribunal. Although figures will be available for those withdrawn or settled after the industrial tribunal proceedings began, I suspect there will be many thousands of other cases that the public do not know about.

[Mr Chope]

To put the issue in context, I will quote briefly from some newspapers. On 24 October 2008, the MailOnline had the headline “Asian bank worker gets record £2.8m race discrimination payout”. On 10 September 2009, another headline read: “Sacked council manager wins £1 million age discrimination payout”,

and a report has come out in the past few days saying:

“Discrimination compensation payouts hit an all time high.

A recent annual survey of compensation awards in the Equal Opportunities Review has revealed that the amount being paid out by employers in discrimination cases has more than doubled in two years.”

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a level below a claim which employers are quite concerned about? They are being threatened with being taken to a tribunal as a way of extracting money from them. Many employers are advised at local level to give in and not allow the case to go to a tribunal. In that respect, there is a certain element of the blackmailers charter about all this. I wondered whether my hon. Friend had thought about that and why he had not included it in his Bill.

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that I could have included it in the Bill, but it is implicit that having a lower maximum figure in the case of unfair dismissal and an absolute maximum figure—there is no maximum figure at present—in the case of discrimination cases will reduce the bargaining power in a situation such as that my hon. Friend outlined. He described it as blackmail. We know that companies can sometimes be threatened with being taken to a tribunal and subject to all sorts of allegations it will find difficult to answer, so they pay up to an aggrieved ex-employee.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to look at the employment tribunal annual reports for 2007-08 to 2009-10. They set out the median compensation awarded in race, sex and disability discrimination cases. In 2009-10, the median for race discrimination was £5,392 and for sex discrimination it was £6,275, which are well short of the millions referred to in MailOnline.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously I cannot quarrel with the statistics that the hon. Lady quotes, but the issue is causing the coalition Government concern. That is why on 11 May the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced that the Government would look in detail at the case for reforming compensation for discrimination:

“Compensation levels for cases of discrimination are unlimited and employers worry that high awards may encourage people to take weak, speculative or vexatious cases in the hope of a large payout. This can lead to employers settling such cases before they reach a Tribunal.”

The Government therefore seem to think that there is a problem.

I see my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration on the Front Bench—we could have done with his wisdom on asylum cases in the previous debate. I hope he will be able to bring some of that wisdom to bear on this subject in particular, as I had the opportunity to talk to an official from his Department who said that the Government were carrying out a review of the subject. The point that I made to my hon. Friend’s official was that that is all very well, but how will it deal with the rulings in the European Court of Justice. In the ECJ case Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (1993) IRLR 445, the court decided that the cap that had previously been put on discrimination compensation did not provide an adequate remedy under European Community law.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so that I can confirm to him now, should the debate run out of time before I have chance to reply in full, which I very much look forward to doing, that the Government will be launching a public consultation on this specific matter later in the year. As he has already said, this is a matter that the Government are considering and receiving recommendations on, and we want the widest possible input into the public discussion of this important matter.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I thought that in the announcement on 11 May his colleague with responsibility for employment relations had announced the extension of the Government’s review of employment law into this area. The question I was trying to get an answer to was how compatible the Government’s aspiration to introduce a limit on compensatory awards was with the ECJ case to which I have just referred. The issue was drawn to my attention by staff in the House of Commons Library who wondered whether my Bill would cut across EU law, and that is why I have included clause 2, which states:

“This Act shall have effect and shall be construed by the courts of the United Kingdom as having effect notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

thereby reasserting the sovereignty of this Parliament to decide on such issues and not be subject to rulings from the ECJ interpreting European Union law.

Some firms of solicitors are already on to this point. I have a report from Lee Rogers, an associate at Weightmans solicitors, who says that the Government may face obstacles if they decide to impose such a cap. I really wanted to find out from my hon. Friend whether the Government recognised that this was a problem and, if so, how they would overcome it. There is no point in going out for consultation on something where the Government’s ability to manoeuvre is restricted by European Union law, unless the Government are saying that they will override that law. The fact that my hon. Friend does not seek to intervene again suggests to me that either the message that went through his office was misinterpreted, or that when he sought information from the responsible Minister he did not get a clear answer, so he has done the best that he can in his inimitable way from the Front Bench today with the problems that the Government obviously have on this issue. The public do not believe that compensation for discrimination should be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds; they think that is unreasonable.

People talk colloquially about something costing an arm and a leg, and I would not want to make this issue seem anything other than serious, but if somebody were to lose one leg below the knee, under the criminal injuries compensation scheme they would be entitled to £33,000. If they were to lose one arm and one leg, they would be entitled to far less compensation than is paid to people who bring successful claims for discrimination before an employment tribunal. We value the damage of hurt feelings from discrimination cases far more than the criminal injuries compensation scheme values the actual loss of a leg or an arm and that is absolutely ridiculous, so if the Government were able to bring in some amending legislation that would be very useful.

I also cannot understand why, if the Government are concerned about the level of compensation and tribunal awards, they allowed the ceiling for such awards to be raised in line with inflation in a recent statutory instrument. If they felt that the awards were already too high, why did they not rein them back and not increase their maximum level in line with inflation?

This is a simple, straightforward Bill, and I hope that it receives hon. Members’ support so that it can be discussed in Committee, and so that the Minister can be asked probing questions and answer those I have put to the House this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I stand to oppose the Bill. There was little hard evidence in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for the Bill. The evidence available from employment tribunals on the levels of compensatory awards shows that they are nothing like the figures that he gave. Of course, there have been some high-profile cases in the papers, but the compensation awarded in the vast majority of tribunal cases is less than £10,000.

The Bill intends to limit compensation in wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and discrimination tribunal cases. Most people recognise that it is important to have employment regulation that is fair and treats employees properly. The Opposition do not believe that setting the arbitrary figure in the Bill of £50,000 as the maximum that can be awarded in compensation, without having a wider debate about the employment, legal and equalities issues, is the proper way to set employment policy. Issues such as compensation, fines and penalties for health and safety, rights on leave and dismissal, and many others should be dealt with in a far more integrated way.

As a constituency MP, I saw the Hull trawlermen suffer hugely from not having proper employment rights; they had no redundancy rights and had to fight for pensions. I am therefore very aware of the need for good, clear employment protection legislation. When I worked in law centres before I entered the House, I often acted for people who found themselves in great difficulties with employers who had not treated them fairly and properly.

Of course, before 1997, to get unfair dismissal protection one had to be in employment for two years and there was no statutory right to annual paid leave unless it was in one’s contract. From 1997, the Labour Government opted into the social chapter, brought in the right to paid annual leave, reduced the period for unfair dismissal protection to one year, brought in the statutory right to paternity leave and improved maternity leave. It would be a retrograde step to start to unpick the straightforward and basic employment protection rights we now have in this country.

I will return to the compensation levels that I referred to in my intervention. When we make laws in this country, we must do so based on evidence and consider carefully what that evidence shows. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Christchurch, £4,903 was the median award in 2009-10 for unfair dismissal claims in tribunals. That is nowhere near the millions that he talked about.

[Mr Chope]

My Bill does not talk about medians, but would limit the excessive awards. She will be aware of a disability discrimination award of £729,347. My Bill would prevent that from happening again.

Drugs (Roadside Testing) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I speak to my Bill, may I, on behalf of the whole House and my constituents, congratulate His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, on his 90th birthday today?

My Bill, which I hope will receive a Second Reading today, is part of an iterative process to try to maintain pressure on the Government to take seriously the issue of drug-driving. They talk the talk—I refer to both the present and the previous Government—but they have not delivered on the action. Since I was a Minister with responsibility for road safety and then a shadow Transport Minister, I have taken a deep interest in the subject of trying to get evidence to ensure that people are deterred, detected and punished if they are guilty of driving with drugs in their body.

There have been some horrific fatal accidents and accidents causing serious injury. I remember one on the A31 in my constituency, in which a young student was killed in a head-on crash because a lorry driver was on the wrong side of the road, having gone to sleep after taking a lot of amphetamines. There is a real problem here, as the Government accept. As recently as last Sunday, the Minister with responsibility for roads, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), produced an article saying that it was essential to get to grips with the issue. My concern is that unless or until the Government enable roadside drug testing to take place, we will never get to grips with the issue.

Back in 2003 I served on the Standing Committee on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, which was enacted that year. That Bill included provisions to alter the road traffic legislation to allow a roadside drug test of people suspected of having drugs in their system. The test was to show not whether they were impaired by drugs, but whether they had drugs in their system. We were told then that the technology existed and that in due course the test would be available. It was spelled out in the Bill, however, that Home Office type approval was necessary.

That was back in 2003, and not only do we still not have Home Office type approval for a roadside drug- testing device, but the Home Office has not yet even been able to draw up a specification against which type approval might be given. Until a specification is drawn up, it is not possible for the experts in the field to submit their ideas. The best the Government can do is say that they have agreed a specification and type approval for a testing device which could be retained in police stations. That is something, but it is not the answer to the problem. It means that the police will have to have grounds for arresting somebody at the roadside before taking them to the police station. One can assume that relatively few people will be taken to the police station because of the difficulty of establishing at the roadside a reasonable suspicion that a driver has drugs in his system.

Why can we not have a system of roadside drug-testing devices? The irony—it is so sad—is that in this country we are trying to achieve an export-led manufacturing recovery for our economy. It is British experts and British manufacturers who are the key players in the technology. A firm called Concateno is already exporting devices to enable roadside drug testing to take place. It is exporting them all over the world. Various countries, including Finland, Croatia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have introduced legislation to enable roadside testing for drugs to take place, often utilising the very same devices produced by Concateno. Even more ironically, these drug-screening devices are used by the police forces themselves to screen police recruits to see whether they have drugs in their system. They are also used by the Ministry of Justice in the Prison Service and by quite a lot of schools, where pupils who have been caught with cannabis or other drugs are put on a drug abstinence regime which is then reinforced by these screening devices. These devices are therefore widely used.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the police, and by implication the Home Office, should have sufficient confidence in these devices to use them to test members of the police force, and yet they apparently do not have enough confidence in them to test drivers at the roadside?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When presented with such evidence, one has to question the motives. Why has the Home Office been so slow in coming forward with a specification against which it might be able to give type approval for these devices? It may be because it knows that were there to be such roadside testing, there would be a lot more work for the police to do, because many drivers have drugs in their system and if they were detected by such screening devices at the roadside following an accident, the whole process of law would come into play and many of them would end up with a conviction. We know that there is a cost associated with that, and I suspect that behind all this delay is a reluctance by the Home Office to open up a Pandora’s box of increased detection of offences and increased burden on the court system, and ultimately, perhaps, increased numbers of people in prison.

What could be happening? Funnily enough, on Wednesday of this week there was a short post from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from the Limestone Coast police in South Australia, which said:

“Statistics released by Limestone Coast police have shown significantly more people are being caught driving under the influence of drugs, than under the influence of alcohol. Superintendent Trevor Twilley says 6 per cent of people tested for drug driving are coming back with positive results, while less than half a per cent are returning positive results for alcohol.”

That is a direct consequence of the state of South Australia equipping its police with the technology and the means to do roadside drug tests. It is relatively new in South Australia but it is already having a major impact. If it can be done in South Australia, why can we not do it here, and now?

My Bill, like previous Bills along the same lines, says that a type approval for this drug-testing device must be in place within 12 months. My original Bill, introduced under the ten-minute procedure in April 2007, had the exclusive support of those who were at that time Opposition Members. Among those who supported that and subsequent Bills are a number of distinguished Members of the House. The Bill that I introduced in December 2007, which was identical to my ten-minute rule Bill, was supported by none other than my right hon. Friend the Leader of House, who I am delighted to see in his place today, and also by four colleagues who are now Select Committee Chairmen, and one colleague who is now a Deputy Speaker of this House, as well as, of course, what might be described as the more usual suspects, my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies). The legislation thus had a wide range of support, and that was back in 2007. The Bill then said that the type approval should be produced within one year. My right hon. Friend was obviously keen that that should happen. He is now in a very powerful position in the Government—arguably even more powerful than the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who will reply to the debate.

Why cannot the Government, with the support of the Leader of House and that of the Minister with responsibility for roads, who was also a signatory to one of my Bills in identical terms on this subject, deliver on this reasonable proposition that we should have type approval for a roadside drug-testing piece of equipment? I am sure that it would result in far fewer people driving on our roads under the influence of drugs or with drugs in their system. Far too few people are being brought to justice at the moment, so people think they can drive with drugs in their system with impunity. It is relatively rare that the courts are asked to deal with people who are guilty of drug-driving, because it is quite hard to detect at the moment.

One of the most famous recent cases was reported on 14 September 2010 when somebody called George Michael was jailed for eight weeks for drug-driving. He crashed his car while under the influence of cannabis and was given a five-year driving ban. He had also been guilty of driving under the influence of drugs on a previous occasion. I am not sure what Members of the House will think about the sentence that was imposed, but it shows that this illegal activity of drug-driving is taking place in this country, and the police themselves suggest that it is much more widespread than has so far been recognised by the Government.

We have had any number of Government initiatives promising to clamp down on drug-driving and have a publicity campaign about it. Even this week, in the Mail Online, there is an article similar to that in The Sunday Times to which I have already referred, saying that the Minister is determined to do something about it. All he has to do, if he really has the will, is to go to Concateno and ask what type approval would be needed to ensure that we can have a roadside testing device. Concateno would be able to give him that information relatively easily and the specification could be drawn up and the testing device given type approval sooner rather than later.

In the Government’s most recent road safety programme, they refer to this issue but only in the most general terms. Even the target that was set as recently as March, that the type approval for the device that would be used in police stations would be completed, has not yet been met. It was said that it would done by the end of April, but we are now in June and it still has not been completed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be candid in explaining the reasons. For one reason or another, we have still not got the type approval that we need for both the roadside testing device and the testing device to be used in police stations. Until we get that we will not have an effective regime for dealing with the scourge of drug-driving.

The principle that Ministers should apply is this: where there is a will, there is a way. If the ministerial team has the will to do something about this and is prepared to override the block in the Home Office, particularly in its scientific branch, they will be able to deal with this. I think that it is an indictment of the Home Office’s scientific branch that, despite all its expertise, it is still unable to come up with the type approval specification.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is the Home Office not right to be cautious about approving a device that could lead to someone getting a criminal sentence, and possibly going to jail if the accident is serious enough? On this occasion, delay may be wise and prudential, rather than the folly of bureaucracy.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is certainly right that it is absolutely vital that the devices used in police stations to provide conclusive evidence that a person has drugs in their system are 100% accurate. We are on the threshold of having type approval for such devices. I am dealing with screening devices that could be used at the roadside and that are comparable to the devices used to identify those suspected of drink-driving. Those screening devices, which people have to blow into through a tube, indicate prima facie whether there is excess alcohol in the system. It might turn out that those people, even if they have a positive breath test, are found not to test positive when they get down to the police station and a blood sample is taken. The device is a screening device. It enables the police, following road traffic accidents or offences, to screen people they suspect of having alcohol in their system. I am suggesting that we urgently need a similar system for people who are suspected of having drugs in their system.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Press reports are saying that the screening devices used for drug-driving will be made evidential in and of themselves, without a second test back at the police station. Would it not be rather peculiar to have two different standards for roadside testing, one that had to be checked at the police station and one that had become evidential in itself?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is right, but he has read reports that these roadside devices will be used to provide evidence of guilt in themselves. As a lawyer, not to mention as a politician, I would be rather concerned about that, because I think that trying to streamline the processes in such a way could lead to an enormous amount of injustice. On the most recent sitting Friday we heard that quite a lot of criminal records are inaccurate. If the criminal records are inaccurate, how can we be sure that a roadside device for indentifying whether someone has excess alcohol in their system will be 100% accurate?

In response to my hon. Friend’s reasonable concerns, I would argue that we should keep the existing system for detecting alcohol, which has proved successful and resulted in a significant reduction in the number of people driving with excess alcohol in their system. We should keep the system of a roadside test and apply the same screening principle to people suspected of having taken drugs or whose driving is impaired as a result. We should then ensure that there is a cast-iron, rigorous system at the police station for ensuring the accuracy of those tests.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case and I agree with much of what he says. We hear of the dangers of passive smoking, so if a person has been in the presence of someone smoking cannabis and has ingested the fumes passively, might that not show up in some tests? Can we be assured that someone would not be found to have taken drugs when there had been a passive intake, rather than a distinct taking of drugs?

[Mr Chope]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend leaves me speechless, because I know nothing anything about how people can be contaminated by others smoking cannabis and so cannot comment on that. Perhaps he will in due course make a further contribution to the debate and explain a little more of his background knowledge—and how he acquired it. To be candid, I do not know the answer to his point.

Whatever the answer is, it should be within the capabilities of the Home Office’s scientific branch to reach a conclusion within an eight-year time scale, as it has already been working on this for eight years and we are now talking about another two or three years. If all the promises that have been made are treated in the same way in future, we will still be debating this in five, six or seven years’ time. Meanwhile, people will continue to be killed and maimed on our roads as a result of drug-driving. Drug-driving kills or injures people on our roads every week. I know that the Government and the Minister responsible for road safety take the issue seriously. They talk the talk, but can we please ensure that we introduce roadside drug-testing systems sooner rather than later, which means before the end of this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said, people may think that by taking certain substances they are doing themselves great benefit and putting themselves in a state where it will be easier for them to drive. If they are feeling all pumped up and hyped up after being in a nightclub, they think that taking cannabis might slow them down and get them back on the right track. I would submit that it is very dangerous for anyone to go down that road.

That is cannabis. Secondly, there is cocaine.

[Mr Chope]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has dealt with cannabis.

It is thought that one of the reasons prison officers are so relaxed about the widespread use of cannabis in prison is that it keeps the prisoners—or inmates, as the politically correct would describe them—in a relaxed state.

[Mr Nuttall]

That might be so, but the fact is that the use of such drugs is illegal. I hope that one of these devices will be authorised for roadside drug testing in the near future, because it would then be a small step for them to be used in prisons, making it easier to ascertain which of the inmates has had access to illicit drugs.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ultimately, however, it will be for the courts to decide, not the police, so I do not think it could be said that we would be living in a police state. The police will put the evidence before the magistrates court or, in appropriate cases, the Crown court, where the jury will weigh up the evidence and decide whether the person is guilty of the offence. Let us stick to what we are talking about, which is driving under the influence of drugs.

Cocaine causes over-confidence and can cause erratic behaviour. After a night out using cocaine, people often report that they feel as though they have flu. Some people, however—I said that different drugs can affect people in different ways—feel sleepy and lack concentration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) commented that drug taking among young people, particularly in nightclubs, is still very prevalent. One of the principal drugs used in those circumstances is ecstasy. Ecstasy makes the heart beat faster, which can cause a surge of adrenalin and result in a driver feeling over-confident and therefore taking additional risks that could, and do, cause accidents.

LSD can, depending on the individual concerned, appear to speed up or slow down time and movement, making the speed of other vehicles difficult to judge. It can distort colour, sound and objects, and users often see objects that are not there. LSD can cause people to feel panicky and confused—obviously a dangerous state to be in while driving.

Speed makes people feel wide awake and excited. Of course, I refer to speed, the drug, rather than vehicle speed. People who have taken speed find it difficult to sit still and have difficulty sleeping. Someone who has taken speed and has not been able to sleep at the weekend would probably be tired and dangerous on the road. Speed can also make people feel very panicky.

The problem is complicated by the fact that medicinal drugs that are legally prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner can also adversely affect a person’s ability to drive. It is, of course, the responsibility of the driver to ensure that he does not commit an offence when driving under the influence of drugs. Doctors do, however, advise patients of the dangers of the side effects of medication. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency issues advice to general practitioners on the possible effects of a variety of drugs. GPs are advised to assume that the majority of adult patients are actual or potential drivers.

The Medical Commission on Accident Prevention has published a booklet, which is available to all GPs, setting out its views on the commoner conditions that affect one’s fitness to drive safely. The booklet, entitled “The Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive”, contains chapters on prescribed and illicit medicines and driving. Various suggestions are offered to GPs on the advice that should be given to patients, such as not driving at all until any side effects are known, not driving if feeling unwell, and not combining alcohol with drugs. As will be seen from the cases I refer to later, the combination of alcohol and drugs is sadly all too common in cases of death by dangerous driving. GPs are also advised to warn that stimulants and euphoria-producing drugs may lead to unnecessary risks being taken.

In addition to that advice, the DVLA issues the “At a glance guide to the current medical standards of fitness to drive”, which contains sections on driving while taking medication for psychiatric and cardiovascular disorders. Specific illnesses such as epilepsy and diabetes are also covered. A review of the effects of over-the-counter medicines and the associated potential for unwanted sleepiness was published in 2004.

We should not forget the impact of the internet in this area. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency noted in its evidence to the North review, to which I will refer later, that

“there is an increasing trend of buying prescription only medicines over the Internet.”

Clearly there are dangers that medicines purchased in that way may be misused, because there is no opportunity for an individual to be given advice about the possible dangers and side effects.

Publicity was first given to the problems of driving under the influence of drugs, particularly lawful drugs, by a report published as long ago as April 1995 by the Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, entitled “Drugs other than alcohol and driving in the European Union”. Compared with the research into drink-driving, there was little real understanding of the effects of drugs on one’s ability to drive.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is making some interesting points, but I do not want him to think that my Bill would cover roadside testing for non-illegal or medicinal drugs. I am trying to deal with people who have illegal drugs and substances in their body while driving.

[Mr Nuttall]

That might be so, but, as I have pointed out, drugs are defined as anything that is an intoxicant, and that includes not just illicit drugs but medicinally approved and prescribed drugs and common drinks such as those containing caffeine and, in extremis, water. Although the focus will be on illegal drugs when the device is eventually brought into use, the producers of the device ought to look at the definition of the word “drug” and produce a device that covers both illicit and medically prescribed drugs, because both are dangerous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I could not agree more. I am merely drawing the House’s attention to the findings of a particular survey. I do not seek in any way to draw any further conclusion from it, but there is clearly a problem if that survey—and it is only a single survey—is to be believed.

[Mr Chope]

Is there not an even more important survey, which is the one that shows that half of the young people who admit to driving with drugs in their system say that they would not do so if they thought that there was a possibility of their being subject to roadside testing for the presence of those drugs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on pushing this matter as he has in this debate. I know he has a significant long-term interest in the subject and has been frustrated over a long period of time about the lack of movement in securing the appropriate checks for the roadside detection of drug use. That is why I congratulate him and rise to support him as best I can.

I also obviously welcome the brief comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who has demonstrated in some detail his considerable knowledge of this area of policy, with its history and accompanying problems. I am also waiting for the debate on my Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill, in which I shall tilt at windmills. Perhaps we will reach that fourth debate in the fullness of time, although I am not so sure.

I have followed road safety issues for a number of years—ever since, indeed, the sister of one of my closest school friends was killed by a drink-driver just after I left school at the age of 18. I have toured around many a primary school in my constituency to talk about road safety in general terms. This is another side of the coin: it is not just about making people aware of what they should do when they cross the road, but about ensuring that we protect those who use our roads and those who walk beside them.

Most people in the UK see driving under the influence of drugs as a growing problem and a growing mess. It is one of those areas where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North described, the devil is in the detail. We all agree that we want to get rid of this menace; it is a question of having the appropriate method of detection, being able to stand up in court whatever evidence the police have found and then to secure appropriate convictions. That should act as a deterrent to those who might be considering such a course of action.

The public and the press—and, indeed, most hon. Members—would really like to see some action on this matter. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North about all the problems that the detail brings, but we have had a lot of time to think about it. I flicked through some research in preparation for this debate and thought it was interesting to see how past Governments had tackled the issue. There is cross-party agreement on it, so I refuse to make any party political points; there is little distance between the two main parties’ positions—or among any of the parties, for that matter.

If we go back to 31 May 2005, we find BBC reports saying:

“Police officers could soon be using special hand-held detectors in a roadside crackdown on drug-driving. The machines would be used to test motorists for recreational drugs or tranquillisers—which can seriously affect them—at the wheel.”

We then get to what I guess is the main point:

“The Home Office is expected to release its specifications for a testing device soon”,

which we will find is a common theme of the press releases. It continued:

“In December 2004, police were given new powers to carry out roadside impairment tests on drivers they suspected of being under the influence of drugs. Prior to that drivers could choose to take part in the impairment tests, but refusal became an offence in the same way as failure to provide a breath test.”

Back then, a company was touting its wares in this field, with a device that it claimed could pick up a number of the problem drugs.

Moving to 10 May 2009—we should note that all these dates seem to be around the time of local or other elections; that is not a criticism of Labour, because we have done the same this year ourselves—we see a newspaper article which states:

“Motorists face roadside drug tests under Government plans.”

It is as if it has been lifted from the BBC and rewritten, which is quite odd because normally the BBC lifts its information from other news organisations. This is a report in The Daily Telegraph—[Interruption.] There is no one from the BBC up there in the Press Gallery; they will watch us later! The article goes on:

“The Government is ready to change the law so that any driver can be prosecuted for getting behind the wheel with any illegal drug in their bloodstream. Officers would be issued with so-called ‘drugalyzers’ to enable them to screen motorists for a number of substances including cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine. Should the tests prove positive, the driver would be arrested and taken to the police station for a doctor to take a blood sample”—

and so on and so forth in the process outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North.

It continued:

“The change in the law would bring Britain into line with a number of countries, including Italy, Romania, Croatia and part of Australia, where roadside testing is already in place.”

Although discussions had started in 2005, it was not until 2009 that the Home Office was talking to a number of companies about a design that could be used by the police in Britain. The article went on:

“Detailed specifications are expected to be drawn up by the Home Office and Forensic Science Service within the next few months”—

of 2009—

“and roadside tests could become a reality in two to five years.”

Two years later, I could turn to yet another press release—but I will not, because Members will guess what it contains.

The public are beginning to get a tiny bit hacked off with politicians. We all know that they are hacked off with us in general—they think that we do not do as much as we should, or as quickly as we should, and that what we do, we do badly. We have great public support for action in this field, and they do not understand why it has taken us so long to move from recognising the problem to having a workable solution out on the streets that helps the police to detect a crime that causes so many accidents.

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that Members would like to know that only last week The Sunday Times had an article headed “Stoned drivers will soon face the ‘drugalyser’”, supported by comments from the roads Minister. That is the latest episode in this saga.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is correct: the saga continues. A game of table tennis seems to be going on between the Home Office and the Department for Transport. The public, and I, would like to see some action. Approval should be given for detection devices for use by police officers in testing. They have been developed, and a number of them are in existence. We ought to get our bureaucratic processes sorted out, so that we can have them available for use across the police forces of the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North detailed the Department for Transport’s consultation document on road safety compliance back in November 2008. Produced just a handful of years ago, that paper stated:

“We could explore the viability of creating a new offence to target those who drive after taking illegal drugs—those that are controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—which can impair a user’s ability to drive. The public rightly perceive”—

this had already been spotted—

“users of these drugs who drive as a danger to road safety”

and to everybody on the roads. The public wanted action to protect themselves.

People who drive under the influence of drugs increase the number of accidents on our roads, and they increase the cost of insurance for all those drivers who drive innocently and honestly on our streets. As we have heard, the human cost of the accidents that they cause can be massive.

The Labour party issued a consultation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North detailed, and it asked the right questions and got the right answers. Sir Peter North’s consultation was very good and was received well on both sides of the House, although the final report was not published until 16 June 2010. The main recommendations of the North review relating to drug-driving were that police procedures enforcing current drug-driving laws should be improved and that there should be early approval for saliva testing and a device that can do that. Both those recommendations have great cross-party support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. As I have said, I also agree with many of the sentiments in the Bill. My concern is how it will be applied in practice. My real concern is how individuals will use these devices to target specific sections of society and then use that evidence to say that people are under the influence of drugs.

[Mr Chope]

The Bill would not introduce random testing. At the moment we do not allow random breath testing for alcohol and the Bill would not allow random testing for drugs. It would allow testing where the motorist has either been seen to be committing a road traffic offence, or been driving in a way that has caused the police to believe that he might be driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I agree with much of what he says, but the key point is that the police can already tell such individuals that they believe they are under the influence of drugs and will test them at the police station. I am not sure many police officers in Hertfordshire would be keen to allow an individual to get back into a vehicle and continue driving if they felt that the individual was sufficiently impaired to stop and question them in the first place. In nine cases out of 10 they would no doubt take them back to the police station and test them.

There is also the issue of costs and road safety. The previous Government and this Government have done a lot to highlight road safety. A number of excellent charities such as Brake are doing everything they can to ensure that people are educated in improving road safety and, for example, are made more aware of the fact that if people drive at 20 mph in a residential area instead of 30 mph, small children will be less likely to be killed. A lot of work has gone into that and I would refute the suggestion that the reason for the delay by parties on both side of the House was cost. The real reason, as the previous Government concluded, is that none of the previous devices have been considered sufficiently reliable to be used for roadside testing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry spoke about specifications, and the Bill seeks to introduce the specification in the next 12 months. If the previous Government concluded that none of the specific kit out there is sufficiently reliable, I am not sure that we should simply say that one of those pieces of equipment should be taken on board within the next 12 months. My fear is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned on more than one occasion, that would endanger innocent people, and delay may not be the result of bureaucracy but of ensuring—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend refers to the fifth amendment, but he will be aware that there is statute law in the United States stating that there is implied consent on the part of every driver of a motor vehicle. By taking out a driving licence, they are not covered by the fifth amendment, because by implied consent in law they agree to be subject to a test if the police suspect that they have an illegal substance in their body while driving. I am not sure that he is comparing like with like, because a similar statutory regime exists in the United States notwithstanding the fifth amendment.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s intervention is extremely helpful, but we can see how clear America is about understanding the process that is followed, and about what it is doing in relation to people’s constitutional rights. That is what I am highlighting.

If we do what is suggested in the Bill, we have to be aware of the very important principle that is, to some extent, being undermined. It is not necessarily disproportionate to do it, and it may be absolutely essential—I would not begin to say that we should not have the breathalyser and the assumption that if someone refuses a test, they have probably committed an offence anyway. I do not think that is disproportionate, but it is important to be aware of the risk that we are taking with our constitution, and we must ensure that we are very careful if we ever take the idea further. The next time an hon. Member introduces a private Member’s Bill that would do something that looks very good and would improve society, we must consider whether we are doing anything to the constitution that we should be very careful about.

That is another reason for supporting Her Majesty’s Government in this particular area. They are right to be slow and deliberative. The worst thing to do would be to get some fancy bit of kit introduced—made by Philips, as I think was suggested earlier, or perhaps by Samsung Electronics—that comes in, absolutely whizzo, and tests for all drugs but one, or takes just one reading. This “nanogram” thing really makes me suspicious, because it must be easy to find a nanogram from somewhere if that is what one wants to do, or for a nanogram to be stuck in the machine from the last person, who might have come from Gloucestershire. The police might cross over into Somerset, and then some good Somerset fellow would spit on this thing and find himself caught out by a Gloucestershire nanogram. I am very concerned about Gloucestershire nanograms.

I urge Her Majesty’s Government to be very careful about the testing of the machines, and to ensure that they really do what they are said to do. That is the other great point of complexity. When a Labour Transport Minister, one Barbara Castle, introduced the breathalyser in the late 1960s, it was simply a few crystals that changed colour if somebody was over the limit, and they then went for a test. The machines have obviously become much more sophisticated, but they are testing for one thing and one thing only. They are not about finding out whether someone has had five cups of coffee, or whether they have been in one of those dance clubs that we were hearing about earlier, where 76% of people have taken drugs. I must say, I was shocked by that. We have tea dances in Somerset, where I do not think such things take place. The machine that we have is accurate and accepted, but the machines that are yet to come in may be given increasing evidential value despite testing for so many things and being at greater risk of getting things wrong. The Government really need to be, and clearly are being, very cautious.

We have heard a lot of comparisons with Australia. It is not always the model for the United Kingdom to follow, although it sometimes is. In its drink-driving laws, it has accepted random testing for a very long time, because it felt that it had a very serious problem. We have never accepted that. Australia may feel, in its circumstances, that having something relatively untested is necessary in the light of the problems that it has faced.

I am sorry to say that I will not go on with such eloquence and at such length as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. I am full of admiration for him, and I wish that I could do so. I wish to conclude with some key points that we have to remember. First, I hope that the Minister will ensure that we put the cart behind the horse—we have to get things the right way around—by establishing the levels that make a substance legal or illegal. Secondly, we must look at the question of somebody using a prescribed drug that in other circumstances is illegal. Will we simply ban them from driving whenever they go through that course of treatment? If we take the zero-reading approach that an hon. Friend suggested, we would do so. Thirdly, we must always bear in mind the deep constitutional principle of non-self-incrimination. We may accept that it can be overridden, but at least we would know what we were doing. Fourthly, we must consider the quality of the machine, and ask whether it will really work. Finally, we must keep the process in the hands of Parliament and not delegate these nanograms to judges. Noble, lordly and wise as they are, we need to make the law, so that they can enforce it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am not aware of that specific scheme that operates in Northamptonshire and the midlands, but I am familiar with a number of innovative locally developed programmes that bring various agencies and organisations together to send out preventive messages about drug-driving, drink-driving and speed. I remember spending an afternoon watching one of those presentations and seeing some of the hard-hitting images. I saw a victim in a wheelchair and the lifelong impact that being involved in a road accident had had on him. The impact that that real-life context had on the young people who received that presentation was palpable. To get across road safety messages to young people, we should look at the broader context and underline the real-life consequences of thoughtlessness in relation to those who might be in the car or vehicle with them on the road.

Clearly, road deaths are a tragedy, and road traffic collisions are the leading cause of death for young adults aged 15 to 24. They account for more than a quarter of deaths in the 15 to 19 age group. Injuries caused in such collisions lead to suffering and distress, and can result in a serious lessening in quality of life. It is not only the victims who suffer, but their partners, children, families, friends and all those associated with them.

There is also a serious detrimental impact on the emergency services, on health costs, on economic output, and on the roads. It is estimated that preventing all collisions could benefit the economy by £16 billion a year. Insurance payouts for motoring claims alone are now more than £12 billion a year. That is why I say clearly to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who implied that there was a financial reason why measures had not been advanced more speedily, that that is absolutely not the case. Given the costs to society arising from such incidents, we need to move forward as quickly as possible to deliver on road safety and drug-driving. As the many contributions to the debate have highlighted, there are levels of complexity, and there are issues that need care and attention. Even so, we should get on with this and ensure that the relevant “drugalysers” are available in police stations and, thereafter, on our roads. There are, however, some complex issues and dilemmas in relation to how that will fit into the context of the existing law and in relation to appropriate changes to the law to make arrangements more robust.

Road deaths are not all a result of drug-driving—we do not know the level of drug-driving. A survey of a sample of victims of fatal road crashes between 1996 and 2000 showed traces of drugs in 18% of drivers—six times more than a survey 10 years earlier. Hon. Members who read their newspapers this morning may have read a survey by the insurer Direct Line, which highlights the potential scale of the problem. We are in no doubt about the seriousness of the issue and the need for it to be addressed effectively and appropriately.

Nevertheless, we can say that more than half of road deaths are associated with one or more of the following: driving while impaired by drugs; drink-driving; speeding; careless or dangerous driving; and driving while distracted and not wearing a seat belt. Drug-driving is a serious problem that we as a Government must address. We will address all bad driving behaviour, not just speeding, as sometimes appeared to happen in the recent past. Drug-driving, like drink-driving, is something to which we want to give particular attention.

As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and others, we set out our plans in the Government response to Sir Peter North’s report on drink and drug-driving law and to the related recommendations of the Transport Committee. Last month they were included in the Department for Transport’s new strategic framework for road safety. We agree, in principle, with the main thrust of the 23 recommendations in the North report. The steps recommended are

“to approve preliminary testing equipment which can be procured by police forces for use initially in police stations, and later at the roadside; to implement other measures to make the law against drug-driving work more effectively; to continue research into equipment which could be approved for the police to test for these substances; on the basis of this work, to examine the case for a new specific offence—alongside the existing one—which would relieve the need for the police to prove impairment case-by-case where a specified drug had been detected.”

The report proposed that

“priority should be given to type approval for, and supply to police stations of, preliminary drug testing devices… type approval ought in the first instance to focus on devices capable of detection of those drugs or categories of drugs which are the most prevalent, including amongst drivers, recognising that more than one device may be needed to cover the whole range.”

There has been discussion of both the nature of the drugs involved and the interrelationship between different drugs. Drugs are often not taken in isolation. They may be taken along with other substances, including other drugs. The concept of polysubstance, or multiple-substance, drug abuse is well known. The science and technology that can provide meaningful, reliable readings in the context of different substances taken together are not entirely straightforward. The need to assure those in the criminal justice system and those who may be required to take tests that neither false positives nor false negatives are being created, with all the consequences that that may involve, has informed the careful approach that has been taken.

Our priority is to deter people from driving when impaired by a drug, and to ensure that those who persist in such dangerous behaviour are detected and punished effectively. Considerable progress has been made in reducing the level of drink-driving, but drug-driving can clearly be just as dangerous, which is why we are anxious to do more work in that regard.

I noted the discussion between my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Bury North about the need for clarity on the provisions of the current law. Under section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle when unfit to drive through drink or drugs, whether legal or illegal. The offence is to be unfit, not simply to have a drug in the body. “Unfit” in this context means having, for the time being, an impaired ability to drive properly. Section 6 empowers the police, subject to certain conditions, to conduct at the roadside or at a police station compulsory preliminary or screening tests for impairment and the presence of a drug. If a preliminary test is positive, the police can immediately require the suspect to take a blood test. In the absence of a positive preliminary test, a blood test can only be authorised by a doctor.

While I think it right to engage in broader discussion of whether the law itself should be changed, the availability of equipment enabling the initial test to be conducted can itself make a difference in speeding up the process because the authorisation of a doctor is not required at that stage, thus ensuring that the process can be conducted more efficiently.



I want to clarify the fact that only the evidence from a blood test can be used in a prosecution to support a constable’s opinion that a person was driving while impaired by a drug. People might think that simply having a drug in one’s system creates the offence, but it is attempting to drive while unfit that creates the substantive offence.

The hon. Member for Eltham and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset referred to the field impairment test, which can be persuasive in demonstrating impairment when presented in court, but other evidence can be provided. It is not essential that the impairment test is failed. Other factors can be presented to the court, and ultimately it is for the court to determine, on all the evidence, whether the driving was impaired and whether the person was driving while unfit through drink or drugs. The various elements fit together.

The police can already take a suspected drug-driver to a police station and require him or her to provide an evidential blood specimen. Currently, however, the requirement can be made only if a medical practitioner is called to the police station and advises that the person’s condition may be due to a drug. The availability of an approved device will mean that if a positive reading is obtained, a blood specimen can be taken immediately, potentially by a custody suite nurse, without the need to call out a medical practitioner. Clearly, this will save time and money and, we believe, will be effective in ensuring that more people are brought to justice.

In that context, according to the latest figures I have on drug-driving, 1,598 were convicted of the offence—that is, the impairment offence. If one has more than the prescribed number of milligrams of alcohol in one’s blood, that is the strict liability offence, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset highlighted. The vast majority of cases are dealt with in that way, although probably many people who fail the drink-driving test have taken drugs as well as alcohol. It is therefore difficult to get specific figures for the conviction of those who have driven illegally, having taken drugs.

The essence of the Bill is that we need to do more. The coalition agreement sets out our commitment to authorising drug-testing technology, which will streamline procedures, for use in tackling drug-driving and we will fulfil that commitment. The analysis will show whether drivers had a drug in their system that might have caused impairment. In a prosecution it will support a police officer’s opinion that a person was driving while impaired by a drug.

In the debate we heard a number of contributions relating to the assessment of the device and the type approval process. Such a device must legally be of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and no devices are yet approved. Drug screeners are already commercially available, but they are designed for other purposes and use in other settings.

Successful use of a testing device—for example, where someone is referred for drug treatment—is not the same as testing to justify an invasive physical procedure for evidence that could support a criminal charge. Use of devices in other countries might be dependent on their different operational powers, requirements and practices, their different laws and legal conditions, and their particular social and political expectations. It is relevant to highlight experience from other countries, but it is also difficult to ascribe direct read-across in the way that perhaps has been suggested, albeit that we should learn from overseas experience.

The concept of type approval for drug screeners is parallel to the long-established type approval of devices used for other traffic law enforcement, such as speed and red light cameras, and breath-alcohol test devices. The primary purpose of type approval and its requirements is to ensure that the approved device is reliable, consistent, precise and accurate. This prevents repeated court challenges on the grounds that the reading allegedly justifying subsequent police action came from a device in which no confidence could be placed. If the level below which a device was not required to detect was raised, for example, some people pharmacologically affected by a drug might not be detected. If a device falsely gave a negative reading, a suspect might be allowed to continue driving, which apart from frustrating the ends of justice could clearly be dangerous. Not letting the suspect go despite a negative reading would be time-consuming and bureaucratic for the police, and might be seen by the suspect as oppressive and give rise, understandably, to complaint. Type approval of devices without requiring them to satisfy a detailed specification with clear standards and rigorous extensive testing, as required for all other type approvals, might be liable to judicial review on the grounds of unfairly favouring current manufacturers and of being irrational. But in saying all of that, I do not use that as an excuse for not getting on with things. I simply seek to set the context of the work that is required.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend talks about type approval, but surely the first thing is the specification. Am I right in believing that the Home Office has still not finalised the specification for the roadside drug-testing equipment? What is the problem in drawing up the specification?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have already said, we are seeking to prioritise, as was reflected in the North report, the creation of drug-testing equipment within the police station as the first step. We have worked on the specification for that and we want to see station-based devices available before the end of this year. Six devices are going through field trials and detailed laboratory tests are also necessary. Timing of approval depends on device performance, manufacturer’s reaction, and how quickly it is able to sign the agreement required with the Home Office before the Secretary of State signs the approval order. Purchase and deployment of the devices would then be matters for local police decision. We are pressing hard to see that by the end of this year. That then feeds through to the next step, which is the roadside testing, and our advisers are finalising the additional environmental requirement that devices would have to meet for use at the roadside. Obviously, the environmental issues are different out on the street compared with being in the police station. I can assure my hon. Friend that the specification document is going through final quality assurance, and we expect to receive it shortly. It will then be put to Ministers to decide how best to proceed further. I assure my hon. Friend that we are not just sitting on our hands. We are getting on with the work on the use of the device within the police station and are taking steps forward in relation to a device that can be type-approved for the roadside.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend therefore confirm that the Government’s response in March 2011 to the North review that they hoped to take decisions on type approval for the machine in the police station by the end of June is still on the programme, and can he assure me that the specification for the roadside test will be published before the end of this calendar year?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

When we move from the specification to issuing the type approval, as it is known, a formal legal document has to be drawn up with the necessary approvals and presented to give that consent. In order for police forces to have the equipment in their police stations by the end of the year, the necessary legal documentation to facilitate the type approval, building on the experience of the pilots to which I have referred, would need to be in place. It is the approval that is absolutely key.

Reference has been made to experience in Australia, but recent research has shown that in western Australia, where roadside drug screeners have been brought into use, one in four tests was found to be inaccurate and more rigorous analysis of the specimens in a laboratory led to the exoneration of a number of motorists. Clearly we want to ensure that we get this right, and also recognise the need to take into account experience developed overseas.

On the issue of possible new offences and the question of whether there should be a different offence, and not simply looking at equipment to test or being able to support impairment, we are giving separate consideration to the case for introducing a simple, objective offence of having a specified drug in the body while driving. In addition to simplifying police enforcement, this could give a stronger message against drug-driving and act as a more powerful deterrent. Such an offence would also immediately make a roadside testing device much more valuable. The new offence would be in addition to the current offence of driving while impaired by drugs. Removing the need to prove impairment could deliver a significant improvement in enforcement.

We will, however, keep the impairment offence for those cases where impairment has been caused by a non-specified drug, such as one available on prescription or over the counter. That reflects a number of points that have been made by hon. Members in the debate. Introducing a new offence would be a very complex issue and there would be a need to consider a number of questions of principle, policy and practicality. In many ways that alludes to the comments made by hon. Members in our discussions on the Bill.

We will continue the research and other work that is necessary before any decisions can be made, but at this stage I cannot pre-empt that work. Any proposals that we produce will be subject to further consultation, regulatory clearance and other impact assessments, and implementation would clearly and, for the reasons that have been highlighted today, require primary legislation.

To conclude, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in wanting effective action against drug-driving. I applaud his dedication to the cause, and I recognise his frustrations and, indeed, those of previous Governments and other Ministers in taking action. It has therefore been good for us to hold this debate and to underline those issues today, but I hope he agrees that we are pursuing the goal vigorously and in the most appropriate manner, and in that context I hope that he will not press his Bill to a vote.

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, may I respond to what has been an excellent debate?

When I became a Member we used to have one day a year on a Friday for a road safety debate, and in a sense this debate has been about one aspect of road safety, highlighting the deep interest that Members from all parts of the House have in the subject. I am very grateful to my hon. Friends for their contributions and to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on the Opposition Front Bench for what he had to say.

I accept the bona fides of the Government and of my hon. Friend the Minister, but I remain disappointed that we are not going even faster. My hon. Friend was not even able to reconfirm, as the March response to the North review stated, that the Government hope to take decisions on type approval by the end of June. That has been replaced by a target for the devices to be in some police stations by the end of the year. So it goes on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) so brilliantly said, quoting from various press releases over the years. Action always seems to be just around the corner, but we never quite get there. Let us hope that we do get there in the end.

In responding to the points that have been made, rather than going into a lot of detail, I commend to Members a brilliant analysis by Tina Cafaro, clinical professor of law at the Western New England college school of law, writing in the Western New England Law Review in 2010, under an article entitled, “Slipping Through the Cracks: Why Can’t We Stop Drugged Driving?”

In 70 or so pages, Professor Cafaro goes into the detail of what has happened in other countries and the differences between drug-driving and drink-driving, concluding that we will never make good progress unless we have a system of zero tolerance for illegal drugs in the body when people drive—leaving to one side the problem of prescribed and legal drugs. She comes down in favour of zero tolerance, rather as a number of my hon. Friends have during this debate, and I hope that we will now have a widespread debate about where we go from here, because the Government recognise that we should do more.

I hope that the road safety lobby, and other colleagues who are concerned about civil liberties and so on, will engage positively in a debate on whether we should introduce new legislation to deal not only with people who drive while impaired by drugs but with those who drive with illegal drugs in their system.

Having said all that, and bearing in my mind my conflict of interest, given that I wish to proceed quickly to the next item on the Order Paper, I seek the leave of the House to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, reminding them that we will be here to hold them to account if the things said today are not delivered. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Criminal Records (Public Access) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second Time.

This Bill is similar to my previous Bill in that it comprises just one substantive clause, but it also has a financial provision and it would need to have a money resolution. The Bill arises from what has been accepted for a long time as a big anomaly in public access to court records, particularly magistrates court records. It is most effectively summarised in the Information Tribunal decision EA/2009/0037 in the case of John Carleton and the Information Commissioner on 24 August 2009.

The tribunal looked at the issue of somebody who wished to get access to the record of a conviction in a magistrates court. Because that person was not present at the court hearing, and because the press did not cover the matter and report it, it was not possible for that person to get information from the magistrates court without getting specific permission from the court. In order to do that, they needed to write to the court manager detailing the request and asking for an appointment at court to make a formal request to a justice of the peace. They were able to get that application granted only if they could show that it was in the public interest for them to be able to access that information. The court decided that, although the conviction was on the public record, it was not publicly accessible because of data protection legislation. The relevant paragraphs of the decision read as follows:

“34. The Tribunal notes that there are apparently anomalies created by the current Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation in this area and which are mentioned briefly below.

35. If the Appellant, as a member of the public, had attended the court on the relevant date there is no reason to suppose that he would not have been able to hear all the information that he was requesting because it would have been part of the normal, public court proceedings.

36. If the Appellant had found out that the press or the media had covered the case and was able to get a copy of the newspaper report or media broadcast then – although the personal data in question would have been processed by becoming part of those reports – the Appellant would have had legitimate access to the information and the personal data he was seeking.

37. If the local newspaper or media outlet put the court report within a webpage on the internet or as a ‘podcast’ to be downloaded by the Appellant – whether there was a ‘search’ facility on the site allowing specific names or topics to be highlighted and retrieved or not - and then viewed, printed out, played or stored, then all of that is legitimate processing of personal data within the current statutory legislation.

38. However he did not attend the Magistrates Court on the day in question and he was seeking the personal data in relation to the individual – from the court itself - after the event.

39. That situation is not permitted in the Magistrates’ Court by the current Statutory regimes save through the filtering situation incorporating permission to inspect the Court Register made in person on application to a Justice of the Peace.

40. It may well be that the Ministry of Justice wish to draw this appeal, the Good Practice highlighted by the Information Commissioner – and these remarks – to the attention of HMCS’s Justices’ Clerks and Legal Managers because it is unlikely that this Appellant’s request is the only one of its kind received by the Magistrates’ Courts throughout England and Wales.”

Only yesterday, Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, was reported in the newspapers as saying:

“I believe that transparency and visibility help the public understand how the criminal justice system works, and shining a light on the workings of the courtroom can only serve to boost its efficiency and effectiveness.”

He was actually speaking in support of a proposal to allow cameras into courts across the country, which is far beyond what I am talking about in this Bill.

This Bill would mean that if somebody was convicted in a magistrates court and that conviction was recorded by that court, as it has to be under a statutory duty, it should be possible for anybody to get access to that information because it is public information and it should be publicly available. At the moment, the only way somebody can get access to that information is by carrying out a criminal records office check. They can do that only if they know a police officer who is prepared to carry out the check, unofficially, on their behalf, with or without a fee, or if they belong to an organisation that can get access to the criminal records office’s information.

The trouble is that the criminal records office’s information goes far beyond just the details of convictions. It includes a lot of prejudicial information, such as details of who has been arrested and not charged, who has been charged and then acquitted in court, and even who has been the subject of suspicion. Such information is all included in the records of the criminal records office. I am not suggesting that people should be able to get easy access to that information, but I am suggesting that they should be able to find out much more easily whether somebody has been convicted in a magistrates court of drinking and driving.

I give that example because if the Government insist on reversing the House of Lords amendment to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, it will not be long before this House is enabling people to be elected as police and crime commissioners and that Bill says that it will not be possible for anyone to stand for election to that post if they have a previous conviction, which could include a conviction for a drink-drive offence. Why, therefore, should this information in the magistrates courts not be available? It is already available, but it is not available to everyone and it is not available easily. That is why this Bill is described as a means to facilitate public access to court registers.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that it would be very easy and, indeed, desirable to ensure that this information contained the record of convictions in not only magistrates courts but the Crown courts?

[Mr Chope]

Yes, it would. Of course there are far fewer Crown court convictions and far fewer Crown courts, so it is much easier to get access to that information. As my hon. Friend will have noticed, the Bill states that

“‘a criminal records office’ means the Criminal Records Bureau or any successor body with similar statutory functions to the Criminal Records Bureau”.

It also states:

“A criminal records office must keep, in electronic form, copies of all Magistrates’ Courts Registers, and any other registers produced by a court listing convictions”.

Obviously, that could include Crown court registers.

In drafting this Bill, I have tried to make the regulation and the demands placed on the criminal records office as light as possible. I have done so by, among other things, saying that none of this would have to be retrospective, and so only after the Bill was enacted would the magistrates courts’ registers have to be communicated in electronic form to the criminal records office. There would be no burden on the criminal records office to collate the information on all those records. All that would happen would be that the records would be available in electronic form and could be investigated on the internet by members of the public.

I expect what would happen—this has already been happening in the US—is that people who were interested in providing a public service would start to collate the records themselves, thereby producing a combined database that would be accessible, perhaps for a fee, by members of the public. It would set up almost a private sector alternative to the Criminal Records Bureau.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Many people will be quite astonished that records of convictions are not as publicly available as they should be, I would argue, in a free society such as ours. Does my hon. Friend think that this provision would make the Criminal Records Bureau a little more efficient? If people had direct information about those who have been convicted, it might free up some of the bureaucratic burden for which that organisation is, unfortunately, somewhat infamous.

[Mr Chope]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have not recently had any constituency cases relating to the Criminal Records Bureau, but there is a real problem with the time it takes to get information out of it, particularly if one wants to check records for potential volunteers or members of staff.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

A moment ago, my hon. Friend suggested that the electronic record the Bill seeks to create would be capable of being investigated by the public on the internet. Can he direct the House to the clause that mandates that to be the case?

[Mr Chope]

Clause 1(1) of the Bill states

“and must make them accessible to the public”.

As they are going to be in electronic form, I had assumed that that would be the means by which they would be made accessible to the public. If my hon. and learned Friend is suggesting that he does not think that that is spelt out clearly enough, I would obviously be happy to consider those representations. The idea behind the Bill is that such information would be accessible without someone having physically to go along to the criminal records office. Ultimately, it would be for the criminal records office to decide under the terms of the Bill in what way it would make the records accessible to the public.

The point is quite short and simple. It comes down to the basic principle that if somebody is convicted in a court, that knowledge should be publicly available and easily accessed by the public. At the moment, much to the surprise of many of us, unless one is actually in the court and hears what is happening or reads about it in the newspapers, it might go undetected and might be hard to detect in the future.

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), a number of employers might in due course want to see whether somebody who is applying for a job has a conviction from the local magistrates court. The Bill would facilitate their being able to do that without their having to engineer a situation in which they could get a CRB check on that individual.

The significance of the Bill will become greater as we find that fewer and fewer proceedings in the magistrates courts are covered by local newspapers. I am fortunate to have the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times, which take delight in printing at length reports from the magistrates courts. That is relatively unusual in local newspapers these days, so if people cannot find out what is happening through their local newspapers there must be an alternative way of enabling them to get that knowledge. That is what the Bill is all about.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I shall be as brief as the Bill, which contains only a few clauses. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has pointed out the anomaly that if someone is present in a court or reads a court report, its decisions are a matter of public record but that as time passes the case becomes subject to freedom of information provisions. He made it clear that the intention of the Bill is that such information should be available online. I was wondering about that, because it occurred to me that if we wanted to find out about an individual, we would have to happen across the particular magistrates court that held their record. However, he suggests that he would amend the Bill to clarify that point.

I am not sure that the Bill is consistent with our debates in Committee on the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there was considerable debate about returning information supplied for Criminal Records Bureau checks to the individual so that they could check its accuracy before it was passed to a potential employer or a voluntary organisation. The hon. Gentleman’s Bill does not seem consistent with the Government’s direction of travel in that regard.

[Mr Chope]

Unlike the Criminal Records Bureau, the Bill would not rely on gossip, hearsay or information about cautions or about people who are arrested on suspicion but not charged. It would deal only with written registers from magistrates courts.

[Clive Efford]

I accept that point, and I shall speak briefly about accuracy of information in a moment.

Before the debate I checked the internet, as I was concerned about some of the fee-charging organisations that purport to provide information about criminal record checks. There seemed to be no way to check the background of such organisations to find out whether they were sound and operated reliable processes. A job applicant might find that an employer uses such services and that the information is inaccurate. That is a matter of concern, and is something that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—yet, the Bill would not deal with it.

There have been cases when information from magistrates courts has been called into question. Between 1980 and 2006, there was a substantial incident in Leeds when more than 2,000 cases were not recorded accurately at a magistrates court and a number of people avoided sentences and fines. It was thus not possible to check their records at a later date. One of the reasons given for that failure was the amount of bureaucracy and the burden it placed on magistrates courts, so we should want to consider the implications of the Bill for magistrates courts before we might support it.

We have no objection in principle to the hon. Gentleman’s desire to share information that is already in the public domain. The force of the logic in his argument is on record, but at this stage he has failed to convince us that the Bill would solve the problems and that it would not have unintended consequences. We will be interested to hear the Government’s response to his contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I accept my hon. and learned Friend’s point about the rehabilitation of offenders, but does not the Criminal Records Bureau keep a record of spent convictions, so that a conviction does not disappear once it is spent?

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend is right, but access to a spent conviction can be gained only where Parliament believes that there should continue to be access to spent convictions to prevent harm that might arise were the convictions not to be apparent to those making criminal records checks. The Bill would go much further and make generally available to the public the entire criminal record of those who might well have mended their ways many years before. That is the first problem with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

What solution does my hon. and learned Friend propose to this acknowledged problem?

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. The short answer—I will be completely honest with him—is that I do not know, because I have not thought about it. I am seeking to point out the Bill’s defects and why it will therefore not secure my support on Second Reading. The solution can no doubt be taken up by Ministers in due course. I none the less consider the points I have made to be valid, so I urge the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for giving me this opportunity to talk about his private Member’s Bill. I will, if I may, set out how the current system works and our concerns about the Bill as drafted.

The Bill seeks to set up a system under which details of all court convictions will be held by the Criminal Records Bureau, and access to those records will then be available to the general public. This involves several issues, which I will tackle one at a time. First, the Bill would require court conviction details to by held by the CRB. The CRB was established in 2002 and acts as a one-stop shop for organisations checking police records and, in relevant cases, information held by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. It is important to understand the purpose of the criminal records checking system and why there are so many careful considerations about what information the CRB may hold and issue compared with the proposed system, which would be open and accessible in every detail to everyone in this country.

At the moment, two levels of CRB check are available: standard and enhanced disclosures. Both contain conviction information taken from the police national computer, with enhanced disclosure also involving a check of local police records for relevant and proportionate information —local police intelligence is sometimes termed “soft” information. A standard certificate can be obtained if two criteria are fulfilled: first, that the position under consideration falls within the exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; and, secondly, that it has been prescribed under Police Act 1997 regulations as a “prescribed purpose”. That is why I intervened on my hon. Friend to question whether there was an inconsistency between the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the laudable desires expressed in his Bill, which perhaps cannot be translated into reality by these means.

An enhanced certificate with barred list information can be obtained if three criteria are fulfilled: that the application falls within the exceptions order; that it is for a prescribed purpose; and that it relates to a position for which suitability information, including barred list information, can be obtained, as also set out in Police Act regulations. At the moment, there are several positions for which barred list information can be given on an enhanced CRB disclosure, including, for children’s barred list information, positions relating to regulated activity in relation to children, other care and supervision for children, fostering and child minding; and, for adults’ barred list information, positions relating to regulated activity in relation to vulnerable adults, registered social care agencies and the Commissioner for Older People in Wales. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the Protection of Freedoms Bill is in Committee, where changes to these arrangements are being discussed. There is a further level of check—basic—that has yet to be introduced in England and Wales.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned the timeliness of CRB checks. In April 2011, consequent on changes to the recording and holding of information by the police, the CRB issued 95.1% of enhanced certificates within 28 days; the figure for March was 95.4%. That is a vast improvement on which it is to be congratulated. Demand for CRB checks has increased year on year and they are now in the millions each year. That improvement is an impressive result.

CRB checks are mainly used for those working with children or vulnerable adults, but they are undertaken for a wide range of other purposes, such as licensing and in respect of people in positions of trust. In addition to the certificates, individuals can make a subject access request if they wish to find out what information is held about them by individual police forces.

The CRB operates under the provisions of part V of the Police Act. To achieve what my hon. Friend suggests in the Bill would require amendments to the legislation. The Bill therefore would not work as it stands.

The Bill would allow anyone to access court records from any court in England or Wales. We rightly have open justice whereby anyone can go into any court to observe what is happening, with a few exceptions involving families and children. The Bill proposes a fundamental change to that access.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Lady is pouring a lot of cold water on my Bill, but does she accept that an anomaly needs to be addressed, or does she not think that there is an anomaly at all?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I think that there is differential access; information can be obtained by someone who is present on the day of proceedings or if they read about it in the newspapers. The anomaly, as I see it, is about how much information is available to whom, when and in what fashion. What monitor is available to protect those on whom information is held from people who are not acting in the public interest? That is the test at the moment. Anyone can seek information from a court: the test is whether it is in the public interest. That is a matter for a further debate.

What is being suggested would add to the functions of the CRB by requiring it to keep a central database of all court outcomes, or results as they are known in the trade. We have never had such a database. Under the current system, people can visit their local court or any other court and read the results of court hearings in the local and national press. Newspapers and other media outlets can obtain free of charge copies of court registers containing the outcomes of criminal cases and the details of upcoming cases. As I have said, we do have an open system of justice.

If we went down the road proposed in the Bill, where would it lead? First, there is the question of cost. I need hardly explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that the Government are reducing the deficit. All Departments are working hard to reduce their costs, and introducing a new system such as this would incur substantial costs.

Further, what real mischief is the Bill designed to remedy? What benefit would be achieved from setting up such a system? How would it benefit our communities? It appears to us that the aim is to make the justice process more transparent, by allowing anyone, anywhere in England and Wales, to find out about convictions in any court, but why would we need to do that when we already have an open justice system? The Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 state, in paragraph (15) of rule 5.4, that every court register

“shall be open to inspection during reasonable hours by any justice of the peace, or any person authorised in that behalf by a justice of the peace or the Lord Chancellor.”

As court registers contain personal information that would not be made available in court or elsewhere, the change that my hon. Friend suggests would not simply be a matter of transferring the information to the Criminal Records Bureau. Magistrates courts registers are held not by the CRB but by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Recordable offences—not all offences—are passed electronically from HMCTS to the police national computer, from which the CRB accesses them. Making magistrates courts’ registers available to the CRB would therefore require a process to transfer and store them, with the associated costs.

There is considerable information kept on magistrates courts registers that is not in the public domain. It includes, among many other things, details of individuals’ driving licence numbers, personal details of the recipients of compensation and details of vulnerable victims and witnesses, including those in sexual and domestic violence cases. Court registers also contain much information on people found not guilty or acquitted. Does my hon. Friend think that should be in the public domain, too? If not, as I assume, we would need to find a way of removing that information—again, at considerable cost and contrary to the provisions of the Bill.

Magistrates courts registers also include cases on which there are reporting restrictions in place to stop the naming of individuals—offenders, witnesses, victims or others. Those cases would need to be identified—another costly process, as they are recorded only at first hearing so a linking process would have be identified—and removed from the public register. The Bill does not allow for that, either.

Magistrates courts also hear some civil and family cases, details of which are recorded in the register. Those cases would need to be filtered out before publication, but the Bill does not allow for that. Proceedings on more serious crimes are concluded in the Crown court, and from reading the Bill it seems that they, too, are to be included in its provisions. Clause 1(1) refers to

“any other registers produced by a court listing convictions”,

not just those from magistrates courts. Crown court registers are not currently held electronically. The official record is on paper, and making it available would require extra investment.

It is difficult to see what access to court records would provide for the public unless there were some search facility. My hon. Friend said that there would be, but that is not specified in the Bill. Such a facility would be very costly to develop, as literally millions of records a year would need to be sorted through. Someone could find the result they were looking for only if they knew the exact person, court or hearing involved. Effectively, the public would have access to endless data but get very little useful information—a costly exercise for very little public value.

We are also concerned that the Bill could work against rehabilitating those convicted by the courts. Let me explain why I say that. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 sets out various times after which a conviction becomes spent—when it does not have to be disclosed. My hon. Friend said that it would be done in real time, or within relatively real time, and that an electronic system could be devised incorporating a natural lapse of spent convictions. The aim of current legislation is to allow individuals to move on with their lives, particularly those whose offence was at the lower end of the scale. In order to safeguard the more vulnerable elements of our society, such as children and the old or infirm, certain professions are exempted from the Act, and all convictions, whether spent or not, have to be disclosed.

That is where the Criminal Records Bureau comes in. That is why we have an expert body doing the criminal records work. It does the necessary checks, and passes the information on to a prospective employer when relevant. I think that most people would consider that to be perfectly reasonable. It strikes a balance between open access to the criminal records system and the rights of those who have transgressed to move on with their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made a point about people who change their names in order to get away from a criminal record. The Bill does not address that point. However, the CRB has in place a thorough system of identity checking. The registered body, which must countersign any application to the CRB, is under a statutory duty to carry out thorough identity checks. The proposed online system would not put in place anything to cover that loophole.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that we are changing how the system operates through the provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill that is before the House, as I mentioned briefly before. Furthermore, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was itself the subject of a recent Green Paper, and the results of that consultation process are still under review by the Ministry of Justice. We would not want to take any action that could prejudge or impact in any way upon that review. However, if we put in place the system proposed in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, there would be considerable potential for anyone to circumvent the provisions of the 1974 Act and find out about matters that have become spent.

To avoid that we would need to put in place a series of checks to weed out such spent offences, which would add to the cost overall. However, if court registers were made available online or in some other electronic form by the CRB, there would be no guarantee that removing the spent conviction from the records would achieve much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

That comes as a great surprise to me. I thank the Minister, however, for her response. All the mischiefs she said would arise were my Bill to be enacted are the very mischiefs that can arise at the moment when information is gleaned at the time of the court case by the media. That takes me back to the point I made at the outset, which was that if

“the press or the media had covered the case and was able to get a copy of the newspaper report or media broadcast then”—

at that time—

“although the personal data in question would have been processed by becoming part of those reports—the Appellant would have had legitimate access to the information and the personal data he was seeking…If the local newspaper or media outlet put the court report within a webpage on the internet or as a ‘podcast’ to be downloaded by the Appellant—whether there was a ‘search’ facility on the site allowing specific names or topics to be highlighted and retrieved or not—and then viewed, printed out, played or stored, then all of that is legitimate processing of personal data within the current statutory legislation.”

I am grateful to those who participated in the debate. I think that everybody, except the Minister perhaps, recognises that there is an anomaly. It is inconsistent that court cases can be dealt with differently as regards public access to information about those cases depending on whether they are covered by the media, whether an individual is present in court and so on.

If the Minister reconsiders the issue, I hope that she will recognise that there is an anomaly. If she accepts that there is one, I hope that she will feel that it is incumbent on her Department to try to find a solution. Although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) poured quite a lot of cold water on my Bill, he accepted that there was an anomaly and that this was an attempt to address it. When the Director of Public Prosecutions talks about the possibility of introducing cameras into courts and reasserting the importance of public access to the criminal justice system, it seems anomalous that we have this problem. One thing that has come out of the debate is that I have accepted that my Bill is probably not the right solution to the problem at this time, but I hope that the pressure of the debate on the Minister will be such that she will try to get her officials to work on coming up with a proper solution—perhaps one that could be brought forward as an amendment to the Protection of Freedoms Bill on Report, as all the issues relating to the criminal records office are being dealt with in that Bill.

Finally, I am very concerned about the inaccuracies on the registers, which must cause everybody great concern. The Criminal Records Bureau is producing inaccurate material. I had a constituent who was a wing commander who wanted to do some voluntary work somewhere. He found that somebody had stolen his identity and that his records had been linked with the criminal records of another person. That caused enormous embarrassment and, in the end, it was only after we went to see the then Minister in the Home Office that things were put right. My constituent was the victim of fraud, but there seem to be a lot of victims of mistake.

[Lynne Featherstone]

On the point that the Criminal Records Bureau might be holding incorrect information, I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to know that one of the new provisions in the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill means that the certificate will now go only to the individual applicant and not to the employer, giving them the chance to dispute the information before it causes any harm to their employment.

[Mr Chope]

That is helpful, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was making the point that inaccurate information is being recorded in courts. We must have a system to put that right. My Bill relates only to prospective court registers, not historical ones. Even so, I hope we can have a system whereby from now on magistrates court records of convictions are 100% accurate, rather than containing anomalies and inaccuracies. That is my hope—perhaps it is an aspiration—but having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed Directive (Information Systems)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The Minister refers to the Council of Europe convention, which covers 47 countries plus the United States and other countries, but what added value does the directive have when compared with that convention? If the directive is inadequately drafted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) says it is, why do we not wait to see whether it can be correctly drafted before we sign up to it?

[James Brokenshire]

The directive builds on the convention and deals with certain additional issues, such as the response that other EU countries provide to requests for information on cyber-related attacks and cybercrimes, so we think that it has important benefits. It is precisely because of those practical benefits that we think it appropriate to opt in at this point and to negotiate on and change the drafting where it requires further work. We believe that, because of the directive’s practical and direct benefits, it is important to be there and do that.