Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Jeremy Browne(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Inter-Parliamentary Scrutiny (EU Foreign, Defence and Security Policy)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Jeremy Browne(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to respond to today’s important debate. I notice on the Order Paper that this afternoon the House had the opportunity to consider the question, “What do Ministers do?” The House might find it helpful, therefore, to know that the Minister for Europe, at this very moment, is meeting the Danish State Secretary and other parliamentarians in Copenhagen to discuss the Danish presidency of the European Union in 2012, and other EU and NATO issues. That is why, despite not having specific departmental responsibilities for Europe, I have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Foreign Office this afternoon.
I thank and pay tribute, in particular, to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), for all his work, and to other Members who have contributed this afternoon, including the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and the former Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). I am grateful to them all for their insights into the future workings of, and arrangements for, scrutiny of defence matters across Europe, and their experiences of how it has functioned in the past.
In getting to this point, I welcome the positive dialogue that the Government have enjoyed over the past year with interested MPs and peers on this issue. I know that the Minister for Europe is grateful for the close engagement and leadership of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Chairman of the European Union Select Committee in the other place. Since its formation after the second world war, the Western European Union Assembly has served to promote consultation and co-operation on defence and security matters in western Europe. I pay tribute to the efforts of Members here and in the other place, both past and present, who have played an important role in pursuing United Kingdom and European interests through the Assembly.
The closure of the WEU and its Assembly does not mean that member states do not recognise the value and importance of parliamentarians taking part in debate with their peers on European defence. The Government attach importance to parliamentary scrutiny of the EU’s common security and defence policy, and want to ensure that the cross-European parliamentary debate on European defence issues currently performed by the WEU Assembly continues. Inter-parliamentary discussion serves to enhance and enlighten the national scrutiny work of Parliaments and complements the breadth of knowledge that already exists in the House. That is a good thing, so we wish this overall endeavour well.
Let me be clear about the Government’s role in the process. In March last year, Governments across Europe decided to close the WEU, the bulk of its functions having already been transferred to the European Union. In doing so, we recognise the value of continuing inter-parliamentary debate on European defence and security policy. To ensure that a future forum could be established to facilitate that, we have worked to help discussions with interested parliamentarians on how this might be taken forward. During those discussions we set out the Government’s preferences. Ultimately, however, it is for national European parliamentarians to decide what form that future inter-parliamentary scrutiny arrangement should take. It is not for Governments to dictate to parliamentarians how they should scrutinise the functions of those Governments.
The UK Government have clear priorities. We believe in the primacy of national parliamentary scrutiny of the EU’s common foreign and security policy—a point that was raised on many occasions in this debate. That reflects the intergovernmental nature of the policy, and within it the common security and defence policy. Given the role played by national Parliaments, there is no need for any new arrangements involving an expansion of the European Parliament’s competences to scrutinise the CFSP. The European Parliament has a role—as acknowledged and recognised in the report—but an inter-parliamentary body better reflects the intergovernmental nature of the CFSP. The question was asked whether the European Parliament would take over the WEU’s role. The answer is no, that is not the case. European defence is an intergovernmental issue, and national parliamentarians must remain at the heart of scrutinising it, as proposed in the report that we are considering this afternoon. The Lisbon treaty provides for the European Parliament to be consulted on the CFSP, and therefore it will have a role in the new body, but operational EU security and defence decisions will remain for sovereign Governments only, as at present.
Mr Browne
We wish to ensure that there is a suitable body that can scrutinise co-operation between individual member states. That should be done by the Parliaments of member states, working in concert with the European Union in a way that is appropriate. That is the balance that we are trying to achieve and which we believe the report also tries to achieve. We also believe that any new arrangements should be better suited to supporting and informing the national scrutiny process. They should capitalise on the expertise of relevant parliamentarians in this policy area and allow for a free and open exchange of information among European states.
The new arrangements also need to demonstrate value for money for the taxpayer. Given the current financial pressures facing Europe, we support the proposal in the Foreign Affairs Committee report that any future mechanism for inter-parliamentary dialogue on the common security and defence policy should operate with the minimum of cost and bureaucracy. The UK’s current annual subscription payment to the WEU is €2.3 million. Although the WEU Assembly played a useful role in engaging views from across Europe, we and other WEU Council members believe this inter-parliamentary debating function can be delivered much more efficiently outside WEU structures. The new body will operate at a fraction of the current cost, as envisaged in the Foreign Affairs Committee report, and, more appropriately, be paid for by national Parliaments rather than Governments. Any move to create another standing body to manage future arrangements—as envisaged in the amendment, which was not selected for debate this afternoon—is contrary to UK and WEU members’ goals. One of the prime drivers behind the decision by the UK and WEU member states to wind up the WEU was its poor cost-effectiveness.
Finally, the Government believe that the new arrangement should include third states outside the 27 members of the EU. One of the major strengths of the CSDP is its ability to draw on support from outside the EU. The report acknowledges this and we welcome the extension of a standing invitation to EU candidate countries, but we remain convinced that non-EU European NATO members such as Norway should receive a standing invitation. European defence policy and NATO share common political and security interests. Norway in particular has provided valuable contributions to EU operations and is currently an associate member of the WEU. We see no reason why its inclusion in future arrangements should be anything other than permanent.
To sum up, in this policy area, the Government see real value in inter-parliamentary collective debate that informs the national scrutiny process of EU member states. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report represents an important step towards developing practical, low-cost, inclusive arrangements that will benefit parliamentarians across Europe, and I urge hon. Members to give the report their support this afternoon.