Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

The Digital Economy Act was a good example of a piece of rushed legislation that was not properly scrutinised, but we are doing our best to get it back on track. There have been bumps in the road, but we continue to work with the music industry and the internet provider industries to crack down on advertising, payments and illegal piracy sites.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I do not believe I have an interest to declare, but if anybody wishes to crawl over my register of interests and come to a different conclusion, I am happy for them to do so.

Is it the Government’s plan to regulate and tax the gambling industry on a point-of-consumption basis? If so, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Gambling Commission is prevented from empire building and using that as an excuse to hike up its fees?

[Hugh Robertson]

As my hon. Friend will be well aware, the point of the proposed legislation is consumer protection and there are no plans at the moment for the Gambling Commission to increase its fees.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept that more bureaucracy is preventing CCTV cameras from being adopted. Under the previous Government, a centralised control mechanism was put in place, but it did not actually assess whether the CCTV systems were effective or cutting crime. We think that these decisions are better made locally, but we also want to ensure, through a code of practice, that CCTV is proportionate and effective, and delivers what it needs to deliver.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

CCTV provides courts with unbiased evidence; leads to people changing their plea from not guilty to guilty; saves the police and the courts time and money; brings criminals to justice; and proves people’s innocence. The Government should be doing all they can to roll out CCTV as far as possible, but they are not doing so. Why do they not want to roll it out to more local communities?

[James Brokenshire]

I say to my hon. Friend that the Government support the use of CCTV and that it can be a very important way of bringing criminals to justice. He may wish to speak to his police and crime commissioner, who will hold a new community safety budget, part of which they may wish to apply to support CCTV projects.

Knife Crime

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members will have noticed the new clock displays in the Chamber, which I am sure we are all extremely impressed with. The top display shows the current time, as before. When a speech is not being timed, the bottom display will show the time it started, also as before. If it becomes necessary to introduce a speech limit, the bottom display will change to show the time remaining to the Member who has the floor. As in the House itself, that display can award an extra minute for each of the first two interventions in a speech, but as things stand, I do not intend to impose a time limit.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I strongly endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I visited a church in my Taunton constituency a few weeks ago and I was told about the theft of metal from the church roof and the damage it had done. The church was very supportive of the proposals brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, as are Members on both sides of the House. We are keen to see Parliament pass the Bill and for it to come into law. It is obviously not a Government Bill, and my hon. Friend may well be keen to permit a degree of flexibility, but the Government want to see achieved the objective that we both share—to pass this legislation into law.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Minister talks about the amendments that he thinks do not add to what the Government are trying to achieve, so it would be useful if he made clear exactly what the Government are trying to achieve with this Bill. Some people think that its main purpose is to try to reduce scrap metal theft, which is something we all want to do, but the scrap metal industry seems to think that it is to try to deal with the unintended consequences of changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, so will he clarify what exactly the purpose is?

[Mr Browne]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I join him in celebrating the work of St John’s neighbourhood watch in Worcestershire as well as other neighbourhood watch schemes around the country that do so much to make our communities safer.

This new clause will ensure that the intention is complied with, in that a licence can be easily seen by anyone who wishes to see it, whether they be law enforcers, consumers or members of the general public. The Home Office has carefully considered whether there needs to be a sanction attached to failure to display a licence—a point that I know will be of interest to certain of my hon. Friends. We have taken the view that a sanction is needed and that a criminal offence is appropriate, albeit one that applies a modest financial penalty—namely a maximum £1,000 fine. We would expect law enforcement agencies to seek compliance in the first instance, rather than proceeding immediately to prosecution. Compliance with the requirement is relatively straightforward in that the licence with which a dealer is issued is to be displayed. This, coupled with the low penalty and the requirement to create a visual licence regime, is what has drawn us to this conclusion.

It is on this basis that I resist amendments (a) and (b). Amendment (a) seeks to place a mental element into the criminal offence so that the elements of the offence are made out only if a scrap metal dealer “knowingly” fails to comply. Proving the dealer’s mental state—the motivation—at the point when the decision was made to criminal standards of proof would be extremely difficult to prove in a court of law and it would make the securing of convictions very difficult. Amendment (b) creates a defence against the charge—namely, that if the licence was

“removed from display without the knowledge or consent”

of the dealer, that dealer will have a clear statutory defence to the charge against him. I also resist amendments (c) and (d) on the grounds that we are requiring a copy of the licence, not merely its “details”, to be displayed. I believe that requiring a licence or its copy would considerably strengthen the requirements.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister says he is not prepared to accept amendment (b), which I think is an excellent amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). What happens if someone comes in to steal a scrap metal dealer’s licence from the wall, a few moments, minutes or hours before the local authority comes in to inspect where the licence is? Surely we cannot be penalising scrap metal dealers whose licences are stolen without their permission.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on getting his Bill to this stage. I want to follow on from the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which were crucial. I do not think that any Member of any party does not want to do something about the scourge of metal theft, which is an outrage and needs to be tackled in a far more robust manner than has so far been the case and, indeed, than is proposed by the Bill.

The purpose of my amendments, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, is to improve what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is trying to achieve. I do not doubt that the way in which the Bill is drafted is well intentioned, nor that it has some good parts, but my amendments, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, are designed to improve it. To be honest, that is the purpose of a Bill’s Report stage. The idea that some people have that we should simply nod through legislation as it appears, whether it is flawed or not, is novel but highly irresponsible. This House’s job is to scrutinise legislation and make sure that it is fit for purpose. We do ourselves a great disservice when we pass legislation without proper scrutiny; it leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. That is what my amendments seek to address. I want to improve the Bill, not bury it. For the record, if my hon. Friend and I had intended to bury the Bill we would have talked it out on Second Reading. I made my objections at that time and I am now seeking to do something about them on Report.

I will not dwell too much on other Members’ amendments, because my hon. Friend has, as ever, eloquently spoken to his, as has the Minister, albeit briefly. It is a shame that the Minister did not discuss my hon. Friend’s amendments in detail, or mine for that matter, which takes us back to my point about proper scrutiny of legislation. It is all very well for the Minister to take the approach, “Well, we’ve looked at the amendments and we don’t agree with them,” but that is not scrutiny or a debate; it is an attempt to impose the will of the Executive on everybody else. We need to do much better and have a proper debate in order to get what we all want, namely a fit-for-purpose Bill.

Amendments 34 and 35, which I tabled, deal with the maximum penalty for people who are in breach of clause 1. The maximum penalty has been set at a level 5 fine, which is currently £5,000. I have proposed a level 3 fine in amendment 34 and a level 1 fine in amendment 35 to find out whether we want there to be a fixed amount. The problem with the level 5 amount is that it may change to an unlimited fine if the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are implemented. I tabled the amendments so that all hon. Members would know what is being proposed. The fine might not just go up to £5,000, but be unlimited. I want the House to determine whether it finds that proportionate or over the top.

Amendments 36 and 37 relate to clause 2. Amendment 36 would leave out subsection (4)(c), which states that the site licence must

“name the site manager of each site”

as well as the licensee. That seems to be somewhat over the top, as it would bring site managers into the criminal proceedings set out in clause 10(4)(b). That should be removed.

Amendment 37 would leave out the provision that somebody

“may not hold more than one licence issued by any one authority.”

There may be business reasons for having more than one licence that covers more than one authority. For example, there might be separate businesses with separate managers that are owned by one person. Once again with this provision, the Bill, although well intentioned, is not particularly practical and perhaps needs to be thought about again.

Before I go on to amendments 38 to 43, which relate to the next clause, I want to touch on amendment 90, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It states that somebody with unspent convictions should not be able to hold a licence. That seems to be a perfectly sensible amendment that would beef up the legislation, rather than water it down. Thus far, we have not heard the case why somebody in that situation should have a licence. If people do not accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, they are basically saying that even though this whole area is subject to lots of criminal activity, we are still happy for somebody with an unspent conviction to hold a licence. That is complete nonsense. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South to accept the amendment. I am certain that anybody who is following these proceedings would urge him to do so as well. This is a clear loophole that could be closed with immediate effect. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for bringing the amendment forward.

I also want to touch on Government amendment 5, which would get us into the ludicrous situation of changing the business hours during which scrap metal may be traded to between 9 o’clock in the morning and 5 o’clock in the evening. Although the Minister’s comments were rather brief, he seemed to say that that was to fit the pattern of local authority working hours. It would be a ludicrous state of affairs if the whole of industry had to work to local authority working hours. Local authorities have to monitor many things. For argument’s sake, let us take the selling of alcohol to people who are under age. I am not sure that the Government would introduce legislation to say that alcohol may be served only between the hours of 9 and 5, so that local authorities can keep on top of all the legislation.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I have been resisting the urge to intervene on every amendment that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I do so in this case because the Government have sought to protect people from the state behaving with excessive authority. Under the current wording, a local council could stipulate that a scrap metal dealer can operate for only one hour a week, which would effectively put it out of business. We thought that if interim arrangements were in place, perhaps pending an appeal, it would not be reasonable for a scrap metal dealer who may eventually be found not to have behaved inappropriately to be put out of business by a local authority. We have tried to find an arrangement that will enable the dealer to continue to operate, and I would have thought my hon. Friend would approve of that. He should not assume that the Government have malign motives the whole time. Often we are trying to do things that balance various considerations but overall serve the public good.

[Philip Davies]

I never question the Government’s motives, but I often question their output. It was the Minister, not I, who raised the idea of businesses fitting in with local authority hours. That is a rather strange state of affairs, because it seems to me that local authorities ought to align themselves with business hours rather than businesses with local authority working hours. That may well be a debate for another day, but I hope he will at least reflect on it.

Amendment 38 would leave out the reference to the site manager in clause 3(2)(a). Bringing the site manager into the determination of whether a licence should be granted is not appropriate, because the responsibility should lie with the applicant for the licence. Also, the site manager can change from time to time. Amendment 39 is on exactly the same lines.

Amendment 40 relates to the provision that someone’s suitability to hold a licence can depend on

“any previous refusal of an application for a relevant environmental permit or registration (and the reasons for the refusal)”.

It is intended to probe why there should be consideration of a relevant environmental permit. Why not just judge each applicant afresh on their merits? If there are reasons to refuse an application, it should be refused, so that provision does not seem necessary. Amendment 41, like amendments 38 and 39, relates to site managers.

Amendment 42 relates to the provision giving the Secretary of State the power to change the licensing criteria by issuing new guidance that the local authority must follow. My point is that the Government should instead get the criteria right now. The whole point of our debates is to scrutinise the Bill and make it fit for purpose, but it seems that the Government’s approach is to pass any old Bill and then give themselves the power to vary it at a later date as they think appropriate. Legislation should not be made in that way. Amendment 43, again, relates to site managers.

Amendment 147 relates to the provision allowing a council to issue a licence on the condition that the scrap metal dealer does not receive scrap metal between specified hours of the day if they have a relevant conviction. My point is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in his amendment 90. I believe that the reference should be to unspent rather than relevant convictions, because the term “relevant” may well be open to debate.

Amendment 46 relates to the same provision, on which I wish to press the Minister a bit further. Where is the evidence that that condition will prevent the trading of stolen metal? We all want that to happen, but I am not entirely sure that clause 3(8)(a) will achieve it. It will place conditions on legitimate businesses, but where is the evidence that it will make any difference at all to metal theft? I asked what the purpose of the Bill was, because if it is to stop metal theft, as the Minister said, I am not entirely sure that such conditions will help.

Clause 3(8) states that scrap metal must be kept in its original form for up to 72 hours, which amendment 49 would change to 48 hours. Why is the figure in the Bill 72 hours and not a shorter period if the system is efficient? The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 cites 72 hours in respect of an available punishment in the form of an additional licence requirement, but I wondered why 72 hours is in the Bill. If someone can explain that point, we can soon deal with the amendment. Amendment 50 would change 72 hours to 96, so if people think the period in question should be longer, we have an alternative, just as we do if they think it should be shorter.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Members of the House who may believe that my hon. Friend has malign motives in trying to talk at greater length than is strictly necessary, or in tabling amendments that are not wholly necessary, may find evidence to support that assertion in precisely this type of measure. We could spend ages discussing whether 71 or 73 hours would be better than 72, but the Government have consulted the scrap metal sector and local governments, and the consensus from those with relevant interest in the area is that a time limit of 72 hours is appropriate. It does not seem a particularly good use of the House’s time to spend long periods discussing whether 72 hours is perfect. Of course that figure is, by its nature, somewhat arbitrary. It happens to be three days, but it is no less arbitrary than any other figure, and all relevant parties consider it an appropriate amount of time.

[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.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

The Bill is a private Member’s Bill, not a Government Bill. My understanding is that it is compliant with the degree of standardisation in government as to what is commonly meant by terms such as “local authorities”. Of course, licensing in other regards is done at district level, so I would not read into the Bill anything more than exists. It was thought that that would be an appropriate, effective and efficient level for the regulations to be undertaken to everyone’s satisfaction.

[Philip Davies]

It looks like lazy drafting to me. Certain things should be carried out by district councils and others by county councils. The point of legislation is to deem which is the most appropriate. I would venture, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has done, that the matter should be dealt with by county councils, but we will see what others think.

Amendment 141 would be significant. With regard to mobile collectors, it would replace the term “regularly engages” with

“engages on more than 300 days in a calendar year”.

This gets at whether mobile collecting is somebody’s full-time occupation. The Bill states that the mobile collector must be regularly engaged in door-to-door sales to be registered, but what constitutes “regularly” is surely open to dispute. My amendment would make sense of that. Does the measure regularise the “Steptoe and Son” people who might be out there? I do not know what the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South mean by “regularly”, so some clarity on that would help.

Amendments 145 and 146 relate to the offence of recklessly making a statement after being requested to provide further evidence. It is one thing to have an offence of knowingly making a false statement, but adding the word “recklessly” gets us into dangerous territory. I am not entirely sure what the definition of “reckless” is in this regard. Perhaps the Minister could help, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who is usually an expert in this field, could tell us what “recklessly” means. It would be best to leave the word out and leave it at “knowingly”.

That relates to my amendments in this group. I am not too happy with one or two others, and I intended to talk about those, but given that time is pressing and we have other matters to discuss, I will leave my comments there. I do so in the hope that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South will accept that my amendments have been tabled in an attempt to help the Bill and provide the scrutiny that it deserves, so that we end up with legislation that we are all happy with—that is the whole point of the Report stage of a Bill.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I have to confess, having listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) for the past hour or two, that I have quite a lot of affection for both of them. The contribution that they make to scrutinising private Members’ Bills should not be ignored. To that extent, they do the House a service. I call them friends in the political sense, and in the opposition years we worked closely together on the 1922 Committee. I do not therefore dismiss their arguments lightly. But given that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, in an interview with Materials Recycling World, said that he would not talk out the Bill, I do not want to do his job for him. I shall simply say that I support the new clause moved by the Minister, but I am not persuaded by the force of the arguments for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I will not delay the House for very long because the official Opposition support new clause 2 and welcome the Government’s consideration of this matter.

As the Minister said, new clause 2 has come about because the police have said that they want the record of dealings to be tightened and the Government to introduce measures to improve proof of accuracy. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister have responded to those requests with new clause 2. As the Minister said, it will require dealers to record more information about metal disposed of by paying attention to the description of the metal and the date and time of disposal, as well as who disposed of it, to whom it was disposed and any consideration received. This is an important matter, because the new clause adopts a firmer approach to tightening the outlets for stolen metal, as does the rest of the Bill. In our earlier discussions we were clear across the House that our approach to the desecration of war memorials and damage done to railways, churches and voluntary organisations needs to be tightened considerably. The way to do that is to cut off, at source, openings for the disposal of stolen metal through metal outlets. New clause 2 is an additional measure in supporting that approach.

I wish to make two quick points about new clause 4. I can understand why the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has tabled it, but—I am in danger of sounding ministerial—I agree with the Minister’s approach. There is no evidence to my knowledge that individuals under the age of 21 are committing more offences than those over 21. I do not believe the Bill should contain a discriminatory clause that, if enacted, would prevent people under 21 from engaging in legitimate metal dealings. If people are committing offences, it does not matter whether they are 19 or 23. The important thing is the offence being committed. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue new clause 4. If he does so, he will not have the support of the official Opposition, which I know will trouble him greatly.

I also agree with the Minister that the use of SmartWater, as proposed by new clause 6, would be restrictive rather than expansive. SmartWater is a trade name. It is not necessarily the final product: other products may eventually come on the market. New clause 6 would be restrictive, rather than creating fuller powers under the Act—as I hope the Bill will become shortly—to be implemented in a reasonable way. With those few comments, I give the Minister a fair wind.

[Philip Davies]

I intend to speak to my amendments in the group and, in doing so, say how disappointed I am that the Minister chose entirely to ignore them. We might have to tease him into leaping to his feet at some point to clarify certain points. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to explain his amendments, as he will be able to do that far better than I ever could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I entirely support the Bill and its intention, and hope very much that it will make progress today and subsequently become law. However, while my constituents, like many other commuters, have suffered all the train delays that we have talked about, it is also the case that the treasure of Forty Hall has been ransacked far too often. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the Bill in its current form covers theft from the roofs of such properties.

[Philip Davies]

We all want to ensure that the Bill covers such thefts, but I fear that it does not. If accepted, my amendments 135 and 16 would make it clear beyond any doubt that they were covered. If we are building up people’s hopes, it is in all our interests to make the position clear in the Bill. I am not suggesting the replacement of any definitions; I merely wish to ensure that everything is covered.

Although I think that the word “used” would be more appropriate than the word “old” in clause 18, amendment 135 adds the word “used” rather than deleting the word “old”. I have a feeling that those who drafted the Bill intended the clause to contain the word “used” rather than the word “old”, but the fact is people might well take advantage of the technicality, and that would disappoint me just as much as it would disappoint my hon. Friend.

Clause 18 lists the metals that are not to be treated as scrap metal. Amendment 138 inserts the further metals listed in the original Bill, minus one, namely rhodium. Reducing the number of metals covered by the Bill surely reduces its scope. The 1964 Act contained the same exclusions as the original Bill, so I am not entirely sure what has changed.

Although 135 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I signed it because, although I am sure all his amendments are good, I thought this one was particularly good. Clause 18 enables the Secretary of State to change the definition of scrap metal by order. It seems to me that the definition could change all the time as a result. People could be caught by the definition of a scrap metal dealer one day, no longer caught by it the next day, and caught by it again the day after that, which is not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs. Given that the whole Bill is about scrap metal and scrap metal dealers, a proper definition is surely not too much to ask. We do not want to have to keep revisiting the definition.

If the Government and my hon. Friend are willing to accept my earlier amendments specifying exactly what is meant by scrap metal, we can safely get rid of this part of the Bill, which is what my hon. Friend’s amendment would do. As things stand, there could be some controversy. It seems to me that the Bill in its current form would allow someone to continue to operate a business under the name “Stolen War Memorials R Us” outside Parliament, because it does not make clear what the definition of scrap metal includes. Time is pressing, but let me particularly commend the amendments relating to that definition. We want everyone outside this place to know exactly what the Bill covers, and to ensure that there are no loopholes. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Jeremy Browne]

I will engage briefly with the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke to amendment 66 on financial penalties. Of course, we can always believe that such penalties should be higher or lower, but we believe that those in the Bill are proportionate. He also tabled amendment 73, on proper records, and amendment 74, on the requirement to keep paperwork for three years. A desire to regulate the industry effectively goes to the heart of the Bill. Obviously, we need scrap metal dealers to keep proper, orderly records; otherwise it is not possible for local authorities or the police to check that they are buying and selling the metal that they claim to be buying and selling. We cannot have a Bill in which there is no requirement to keep proper records, because that would mean that we would have to be satisfied with improper, sloppy or inadequate records instead. We are seeking to be consistent and to make the Bill sufficiently onerous in order for it to be effective.

In amendment 66, my hon. Friend seems to be concerned that the fines are too onerous. It is a difficult situation, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch thinks that the Government are too worried about punishing transgressors, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley seems to have adopted a whole new approach, namely that the Government’s attitude is overly tough and that they fine at a level that is, in his view, inappropriately high. We think that we have struck the right balance.

On amendment 132, I am reliably informed that most metal salvage operators are scrap metal dealers. We do not want two overlapping schemes. The way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has framed the Bill should reduce the regulatory burden on motor salvage operators.

There has been considerable discussion of what constitutes scrap metal and a scrap metal dealer. We are satisfied with the definition in the Bill. It does not specify every single item that could be construed as being scrap metal, but we think that the definition encompasses them, to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). On the difference between old and used, as I understand it, if I have an old car that has reached the end of its life—this is the crucial point—it might be suitable to be turned into scrap metal. Under the definition provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, if I had bought a car yesterday and had driven it back from the showroom and it was then turned into scrap metal by someone on my behalf, it would also be regarded as scrap metal, but I think that most people would understand the distinction that it would not be old and, therefore, not scrap metal.

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister think that the definition is suitable for everything that we want to be covered by the Bill? What harm would by done by accepting amendment 136? It would not take anything away from the existing definition, but add, for the sake of clarity, items of sentimental or heritage value, war memorials, places of worship and metal used for the purposes of rail travel, so that we were certain that they were all covered.

[Mr Browne]

The Government do not agree with the amendment, because we believe that the definition covers those items and because I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for legislative simplicity and for not implementing legislation that is too difficult for people to understand or comply with. People in this House or beyond may have strong beliefs about how inappropriate it would be to steal and trade other types of metal. It would be impossible to have an exhaustive list in the Bill of every single type of metal, what form it takes and in what circumstances it is displayed. We are confident that the definition includes exactly those items, which is, in part, why the Government are such enthusiastic supporters of my hon. Friend’s Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I am afraid that that is entirely unsatisfactory, because nobody is asking for a comprehensive definition of every type of metal. Amendment 136 would not take away anything from the definition in the Bill, but would simply add to it. The Minister said that he does not want the legislation to be complicated. The amendment would make it more simple, because it would make it abundantly clear that such matters are covered by the Bill. Whether the Minister thinks that my amendment is needed or not, I do not see how he thinks that it would make the Bill worse.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 114, in clause 15, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘1 year’.

Amendment 115, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘2 years’.

Amendment 116, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘3 years’.

Amendment 117, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘4 years’.

Amendment 118, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(c) publish the crime figures associated with scrap metal theft for the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 119, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(d) publish the crime figures associated with metal theft generally for the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 120, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(e) publish comparative figures for 1(c) and 1(d) for the preceding equivalent period to the review to show trends in metal crime.’.

Amendment 121, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(f) publish figures showing the number of convictions for each new offence created in the Bill.’.

Amendment 122, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(g) publish a study comparing the use of all legislation in existence prior to the introduction of this Act to this Act and the role that has played in tackling metal theft.’.

Amendment 123, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(h) publish an assessment of the effect that prohibiting scrap metal dealers from using cash has had on business.’.

Amendment 124, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(i) publish a study of the cost to all scrap metal businesses over the period of the review of the new legislation.’.

Amendment 126, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(k) publish a comparison of convictions under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 compared to the convictions for the same offences under this Act for a period of the same length as the term of the review.’.

Amendment 127, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(l) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal to Scotland in the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 128, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(m) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal to Europe in the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 129, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(n) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal through UK ports to other countries exlcuding Scotland and Europe in the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 99, in clause 17, page 9, line 37, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 100, page 9, line 40, leave out ‘under section 11(2) or 18(8)’ and insert

‘or regulations under this Act’.

Amendment 131, page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 85, in clause 20, page 11, line 41, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line 42 and insert

‘shall come into force two months after Royal Assent’.

Amendment 86, page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

[Philip Davies]

I hope to strike more oil with this group of amendments than I have managed thus far. I am rather disappointed that the Minister’s approach so far has been, “This is my script. I won’t listen to the debate, I will just stick to my script come what may.” My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I will have another go at persuading him that the Bill could be improved.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

May I gently say to my hon. Friend that he makes a slightly unfair criticism? The first part of our deliberation today was on new clause 1, which the Government introduced after listening to representations made in Committee by a Member who is in neither of the governing parties. We have sought to have a collegiate and broad-based approach throughout the process, and we continue to do so.

[Philip Davies]

I am even more disappointed now, because it appears that only my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I were excluded from the deliberations. The Minister might have been hoping to satisfy me with that intervention, but he has done the exact opposite.

The background to new clause 7 is my fear that we are being asked to agree, in a rushed way and without proper scrutiny, to a Bill that really should have been a Government Bill. It should have gone through the full rigour of scrutiny in the House, and that clearly has not been the case, which is most unsatisfactory. It seems to me perfectly legitimate when one-clause private Members’ Bills are introduced to tidy up technicalities, but we are being asked to rush through a wide-ranging Bill that will have wide-ranging consequences for the public, a particular industry, people linked to that industry and various organisations that are hoping that their property will be better protected. The House should therefore give the Bill proper scrutiny, and that has not been the case.

Our job is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure that the legislation that we pass is fit for purpose. Based on our deliberations so far, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that that is the case with this Bill, because of the rushed time scale. The new clause is designed to address that problem. It states that the Act—should the Bill become an Act—

“shall expire one year from the date on which it receives Royal Assent”,

and that section 146 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which dealt with the banning of cash payments in the industry, shall expire on the same date. That provision itself was a late entry to the 2012 Act, rushed through at the last minute as a knee-jerk reaction without proper scrutiny. It was the “looking as if we’re doing something” approach to politics.

The new clause would enable the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has worked incredibly hard to bring to the statute book to be brought into force, but give the Government time to come back to us with legislation that was better thought through and better scrutinised by both Houses. We would therefore end up with legislation that we could all be satisfied was fit for purpose, rather than the final word being this Bill, which is being rushed through and in which we may well make a mistake.

[Mr Hanson]

My worry with the hon. Gentleman’s approach is that, as he will know, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 includes measures on metal theft that have not yet come into force but which the Bill would repeal. He now indicates that those measures could be reviewed again in 12 months’ time after Royal Assent. The Government—and, I hope, the industry—want certainty that a clear regime is in place. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on that, as this legislation could lead to further uncertainty in the industry.

[Philip Davies]

That does not need to be the case. The Government could set out their intention to bring forward a Bill that deals with the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and we could at least give that proper scrutiny. We are heading towards a scenario in which legislation is rushed through without proper scrutiny. I would have thought that the shadow Minister would be in favour of making the Government return to the House and go through a proper legislative process, rather than simply rushing it through. Nothing of what I propose will prevent any of the provisions from being included in the Bill; I just want to ensure that they get proper consideration.

I thought that the ban on cash payments was ill-advised and extremely un-British. If somebody is breaking the law, the illegal part is the crime they are committing, not the method of payment they use. Somebody might go into a newsagent and steal newspapers, but it would be ridiculous to propose banning people from buying newspapers for cash. I do not see the logic; it is a totally un-British approach. There is nothing to stop the Government bringing this legislation back, but we must ensure that it receives proper consideration.

New clause 7 proposes that the Act shall expire within a year, which I think gives the Government plenty of opportunity to bring forward new legislation. If this matter is so important to the Government—they say that it is and I do not doubt that is true—a year is a perfectly long enough time for them to bring forward a proper Bill, including all the measures in this Bill, that can proceed through both Houses of Parliament.

[Richard Ottaway]

I am listening closely to my hon. Friend, and I confess that I agree that some sort of review would be appropriate. I disagree, however, with the assertion that the legislation is being rushed, as it seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time.

Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend. If the Bill concludes all stages today, including Report and Third Reading, I would be prepared to recommend to the Government—and would seek to persuade them to introduce it in another place—an amendment to clause 15 which would provide for the review that my hon. Friend wants three years after section 1 comes into force. In addition, although new clause 7 provides for a sunset clause after one year, I would seek to persuade the Government to introduce in another place a sunset or expiry clause for five years after section 1 comes into force. I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that that balance would provide for the review he wants but allow the Act time to operate so that an accurate, worthy assessment and review can be made.

[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.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I was wondering whether it would be better to react at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, and whether that might encourage brevity from my hon. Friend, or whether to react now. What does he believe would be most likely to bring proceedings to an appropriate conclusion?

[Philip Davies]

I can assure the Minister that his making a clear commitment now would help to speed things along.

[Mr Browne]

I suspected that that might be the case, which is why I have leapt to my feet again. Having had the opportunity to consider my hon. Friend’s amendments and having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) of his wish for the Government to make the concession when the other place deliberates on the Bill, I endorse that approach, as do the Government as a whole—to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), there is no conspiracy. The Government will seek to support the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South.

[Philip Davies]

Some may argue that this is a red letter day for me—it is the first time I have extracted a concession from a Government of any persuasion. I accept it in the spirit it was given, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for showing such a flexible attitude. A review is essential, as is an expiry date which, in effect, forces the Government to return to the legislation in future, having considered all the evidence from the review. That will ensure that we get legislation that is right in the long term. That is absolutely the right approach—I gently suggest that it is a model for future legislation, but I will not push my luck too far.

To tidy up the other amendments in my name in the group, I suggest that the Government should, as part of the review, publish the crime figures associated with scrap metal theft for the whole of the period of the review. Given that we are seeking to tackle the problem of metal theft, those figures will be an important part of any review. My amendments would ensure that they would be part of it, so—I am on a roll—I hope the Minister agrees to them.

I also ask the Government to publish a study comparing the use of all legislation prior to the introduction of the Bill, and an assessment of the effect that prohibiting scrap metal dealers from using cash has on business. The general tenor of the amendments is to ensure that crime and the scrap metal industry are properly considered by the review. I am sure that that is what all hon. Members would want and expect, and the amendments will ensure that it happens.

On that note, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for his flexible approach and his willingness to accept an earlier review than the Bill allows and an expiry date. That is a great credit not only to him, but to the Bill.

[Mr Hanson]

I suspect that in the future when an unknown university student in an unknown university does a model exercise on legislating on a particular problem, they will look at the Bill on scrap metal dealers as an example of how not to proceed with legislation. With due respect to the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister, new clause 7 would add a potential further delay to the legislation.

The problem of metal theft was identified on both sides of the House as an urgent issue, because the inflated price of metal was causing an increase in the amount of metal stolen from churches, war memorials and so on. The Opposition, trying to focus the Government’s mind on the matter, tabled amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill about a year ago. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, who kicked the matter into the long grass. The Government came to realise, through pressure from Members including the hon. Members for Croydon South, for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), that this was a problem and revisited the matter. They tabled amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that broadly reflected the Opposition’s earlier amendments. Most of the aspects that we had included were there. With Opposition support, the amendments on metal theft were included in the Bill, now an Act.

Sections 145 to 147 of the Act were scheduled for implementation in December. However, the Bill before us today would repeal those sections before they have even been brought into effect, because the Government have realised that the points that the Opposition made nearly 12 months ago—with, I accept, cross-party support from coalition Back Benchers—were valid.

The Government have supported the hon. Member for Croydon South in bringing forward the Bill, which had full support from the Opposition on Second Reading. The Minister and the hon. Gentleman have been very gracious in their approach to the Bill and they have accepted amendments that the Opposition tabled in Committee. Now we face the threat of the Bill being talked out because the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) have concerns about it. In the light of the new clause calling for a delay—[Interruption.] For a review, then. As a result, the Minister and the hon. Member for Croydon South have agreed a review date after three years and a sunset clause after five years.

[Philip Davies]

I have a great deal of time for the shadow Minister and we agree with each other on far too many occasions, but I do not know what he is talking about. The new clause would not introduce any delay into the Bill—far from it. It would introduce a review, but there was a review in the Bill anyway and it would merely be brought forward. It would also mean that in five years’ time, the Government would have to bring back more considered legislation. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman’s problem is.

[Mr Hanson]

My problem is that the way in which the Government have approached this issue has been piecemeal, unco-ordinated and involved U-turns on legislation before it has even come into effect. What we most want out of this is certainty for the people who provide scrap metal services and are trying to plan their businesses and invest in providing that valuable service to the community, as well as certainty in the deterrent effect of the legislation for those people who are carrying out despicable acts. All the way through, the Government’s approach has been piecemeal: there have been U-turns, uncertainty and not a great deal of focus, and I say that while respecting what the hon. Member for Croydon South has done in introducing the Bill, and respecting the Minister for accepting amendments in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Philip Davies]

I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister for showing such flexibility, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that the shadow Minister was not at his best—let us phrase it like that—on this group of amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for thinking that the process could be named after me, but, if it is to bear my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, it would certainly be better as the Ottaway-Davies new clause—we should get the seniority right in these matters.

On the basis of the Minister’s offer that the Bill will be reviewed after three years and expire after five, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

Form and effect of licence

Amendments made: 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

‘() name the authority,’.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 6, after ‘licensee,’, insert—

‘() name the authority,’.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

‘( ) A licence is to be in a form which—

(a) complies with subsections (4) and (6), and

(b) enables the licensee to comply with section [Display of licence] (display of licence).

( ) The Secretary of State may in regulations prescribe further requirements as to the form and content of licences.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 3

Issue of licence

Amendments made: 4, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

‘() the Natural Resources Body for Wales;’.

Amendment 5, page 3, line 17, leave out ‘between specified hours of the day’ and insert

‘except between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on any day’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 4

Revocation of licence and imposition of conditions

Amendments made: 6, page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to ‘comes’ and insert

‘A revocation or variation under this section’.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

‘(6A) But if the authority considers that the licence should not continue in force without conditions, it may by notice provide—

(a) that, until a revocation under this section comes into effect, the licence is subject to one or both of the conditions set out in section3(8), or

(b) that a variation under this section comes into effect immediately.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 6

Supply of information by authority

Amendment made: 8, page 4, line 8, after ‘Agency,’, insert—

‘() the Natural Resources Body for Wales,’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 7

Register of licences

Amendments made: 9, page 4, line 13, at end insert

‘issued by authorities in England.

‘( ) The Natural Resources Body for Wales must maintain a register of scrap metal licences issued by authorities in Wales.’.

Amendment 10, page 4, line 14, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘registers’.

Amendment 11, page 4, line 21, leave out ‘register is’ and insert ‘registers are’.

Amendment 12, page 4, line 22, after ‘Agency’, insert

‘or the Natural Resources Body for Wales’.

Amendment 13, page 4, line 22, leave out second ‘the’ and insert ‘its’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 8

Notification requirements

Amendments made: 14, page 4, line 38, leave out ‘the Environment Agency’ and insert ‘the relevant environment body’.

Amendment 15, page 5, line 4, leave out ‘the Environment Agency’ and insert ‘the relevant environment body’.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 5, leave out ‘Agency’ and insert ‘body’.

Amendment 17, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

‘( ) In this section “the relevant environment body” means—

(a) for an authority in England, the Environment Agency;

(b) for an authority in Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 12

Records of dealings

Amendments made: 18, page 6, line 26, divide Clause 12 into two clauses, the first [Records of dealings: receipt of metal] to consist of subsections (1) to (5) and the second [Records: supplementary] to consist of subsections (6) to (11).

Amendment 19, page 6, line 30, leave out ‘type and weight’ and insert

‘type (or types if mixed), form, condition, weight and any marks identifying previous owners or other distinguishing features’.

Amendment 20, page 6, line 42, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

‘(4) If the dealer pays for the metal by cheque, the dealer must keep a copy of the cheque.

(5) If the dealer pays for the metal by electronic transfer—

(a) the dealer must keep the receipt identifying the transfer, or

(b) if no receipt identifying the transfer was obtained, the dealer must record particulars identifying the transfer.’.

Amendment 21, page 7, line 7, after ‘subsections (2) and (5)’, insert

‘and section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal](3) and (4)’.

Amendment 22, page 7, line 13, after ‘subsections (2) to (5)’, insert

‘and section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal](3) and (4)’.

Amendment 23, page 7, line 14, at end insert

‘or (as the case may be) disposed of.’.

Amendment 24, page 7, line 15, after ‘under’, insert

‘section [Records of dealings: receipt of metal], section [Records of dealings: disposal of metal] or’.

Amendment 25, page 7, line 18, after ‘at’, insert

‘or (as the case may be) despatched from’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 13

Right to enter and inspect

Amendment made: 26, page 8, line 24, leave out ‘section 12’ and insert

‘section [Records of dealings: receipt of metal] or [Records of dealings: disposal of metal]’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on getting his Bill this far. He has done so with a fair amount of determination and dedication to the cause, and he is to be commended for that.

On Second Reading, I set out some of my concerns about how the legislation would play out. I still have many of those concerns and I am not entirely sure that the Bill will deliver what we and the public want it to—namely, a reduction in metal theft. The biggest problem is the derisory sentences given out by the courts to those who ply this despicable trade. Unfortunately, the Bill will do nothing to alter that state of affairs. I hope that the Government will not imagine that, once the Bill is passed, metal theft will have been dealt with and that we will be able to walk away from the problem and forget all about it. I hope that they will think about the sentencing regime that needs to be put in place to ensure that the severity of the crimes is reflected in the sentences given out by the courts. Until that happens, there will still be people who think that it is worth their while to indulge in this crime, and that cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs.

However, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has said that there will be an earlier review and an expiry date, so I am happy to support the Bill’s Third Reading. I wish it well. He will understand that I shall follow its progress in another place very closely, and I look forward to it receiving Royal Assent. We all want the Bill to succeed, and I want it to do so as much as anyone else does. I congratulate him on getting it as far as this.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Indeed, I will come to the question of enforcement a bit later.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the low risk of being caught is driving much of this theft. What assessment has he made of the use of SmartWater? Where it has been used by churches, Network Rail or war memorials—indeed, SmartWater provides the product to war memorials free of charge—the amount of theft has gone down considerably, because the chance of being caught goes up considerably.

[Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Putting SmartWater on to cables and using a UV light on materials that come into yards is acting as a deterrent. However, such is the nature of market forces that people are already beginning to find a way round that. Technology has to move on and continue to provide a deterrent—again, a point I shall come to in a minute.

The escalating problem of scrap metal theft results from the confluence of two things: the global rise in commodity prices over recent years and a badly regulated industry, which my Bill will tackle. It proposes a tough but fair regime for our scrap metal industry. It will support legitimate dealers and penalise the parasites who profit from the things we hold most sacred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), to other hon. Members and indeed to you, Mr Speaker, for the fact that a long-standing engagement in Yorkshire this afternoon, which was in place before I knew the dates for private Members’ Bills—all hon. Members know my interest in those—means that I will have to depart relatively hastily? I apologise to those who will speak later, because that is not a discourtesy I would normally do people. I assure everyone that I will read the record of the contributions that come later in the debate with great interest, but I wanted to apologise in advance. No discourtesy is meant to anybody by my leaving early.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in the ballot and on raising a subject that, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made clear, is without doubt a major problem in this country that affects an awful lot of people. We can all agree that there is a problem, although we may not necessarily agree on the most appropriate solution. The advantage of the fact that I have to depart early is that I will be prevented from going on at as much length as I might otherwise have done, which I am sure will cause great pleasure to all involved. I just wanted to take the opportunity to set out some of my concerns about the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that we all agree about the problem. I very much hope that some of my concerns may be taken into account in Committee and, if not then, on Report, as we all want to see an approach that will be effective in tackling the problem.

There clearly is a major problem that we need to tackle. Metal theft has an unquantifiable cost to society. Let us consider, for example, the danger to people in hospitals if there is a loss of power because of the theft of some key metal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made clear in his opening remarks; the disconnection of telephone services, which means that people can be cut off from the emergency services; and the theft of such pivotal things as the dry riser valves used to put out fires. Of course we are also talking about the sentimental value of numerous world war statues that have been remorselessly ripped down where they have stood for decades.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on introducing the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has rightly identified some of the problems caused by that metal theft, but there is a further problem. Many churches in my constituency have had lead stripped from their roofs, and the Day’s and Atkinson’s Almshouse Charity has had lead stolen from its roofs on four occasions. On only one of those occasions was the theft “successful”, as on the three other occasions all the thieves did was cause damage, which then gives a cost to the almshouses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not only metal theft itself, but the difficulties caused by damage to properties from unsuccessful thefts?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A considerable cost is incurred by many organisations and by society where local communities have been left without various services and where organisations that do fantastic work in those communities are compromised in the amount they can do for them because of the cost of the theft. The Association of British Insurers has claimed that this is costing £1 million a week in insurance claims and that 300 tonnes of metal is stolen every week, which is the equivalent of 300 cars. The ABI has also said that UK metal thefts have doubled in the past five years, to about 1,000 reported incidents a week.

Metal thefts are also a problem in my constituency. In April, there was a spate of thefts of brass door handles. Inspector Tatham of the Shipley neighbourhood policing team told my local paper:

“We have had a number of reports of brass theft from homes near the A650 in Shipley so far this month and are investigating the matter. The thieves appear to be targeting older properties with brass door handles”.

In addition, 28 iron cellar grates dating back to Victorian times were stolen last year from the world heritage site at Saltaire in my constituency. Metal theft also often takes place in very dangerous locations; my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made the point that at least 10 people died in the past year while attempting to steal metal on railway lines. So many costs, both financial and human, are involved in metal theft, which is why I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter to the House.

Let me deal with the current position under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Special regulations have applied to scrap metal dealers since at least the late 1800s in order to help tackle the theft of metal. The 1964 Act places specific controls on scrap metal dealers to discourage the trade in stolen metal; these are in addition to the general requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The controls under the 1964 Act include the fact that dealers have to register with the local authority and local authorities have to maintain a list of dealers. Dealers are required to keep a variety of records, including details of the types of metal received, of the processing of that metal and of the names of those disposing of metal at their site. A failure to meet the requirements of the 1964 Act may lead to a fine of up to £1,000.

The Government have also set up the metal theft taskforce. On 29 November last year the Chancellor announced £5 million of Treasury funding to establish a multi-agency national metal theft taskforce, to be led by the British Transport police. The Home Office has said that the taskforce will

“develop intelligence, coordinate activity and target and disrupt criminal networks—both the thieves and also the criminal market, including rogue elements of the scrap metal industry.”

Last June, we also had the waste review, which was set up to consider available penalties and sentencing guidelines for scrap metal theft and there is certainly scope for increasing the penalties for and sentencing of people involved in these crimes. The Select Committee on Transport produced a report in January that made a number of recommendations for reform, including

“introducing a new offence of aggravated trespass on the railways to increase the penalties associated with cable theft.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, we also have the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and last minute amendments were introduced to the Bill to make it illegal for scrap metal dealers to accept cash for transactions. I was very nervous about that. In principle, it seemed to me to be perhaps a step too far, but now we have a new Bill proposed seemingly only five minutes after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act was passed. My understanding is that the new measures will not commence until this autumn, so we seem already to be discussing a new law to replace one that has not yet even come into force. I wonder about the sense in this House introducing new legislation when the previous legislation has not even come into play.

The Bill repeals the 1964 Act and replaces it with legislation that empowers local authorities with a more robust and, I am sure my hon. Friend would say, more enforceable licence regime for all those who deal and collect scrap metal. The key features are: any individual or business who carries out business as a scrap metal dealer must complete an enhanced application process to get a licence; local authorities can refuse unsuitable applicants and have the power to revoke licences; all sellers of metal must provide verifiable ID at the point of sale, which is recorded and retained by the dealer; the cashless offence will apply to all scrap metal dealers without exception, including those who conduct house-to-house collections, and although there are a few concerns about how to protect people selling scrap metal at their house and to ensure that they get proper payment for their goods, I am sure that we can discuss that later; the police will have the power by court order to close unlicensed premises; a single national and publicly available register of all scrap metal dealers will be published; and the definition of a scrap metal dealer will include motor salvage operators, bringing that licensing scheme within one new scrap metal licensing regime. In a nutshell, the Bill seems to be suggesting an awful lot of new regulations and new offences. We need to determine not the intention behind them or how well meaning they are, but how effective they will be in tackling a problem that we all agree must be tackled.

It seems to me that a real problem has been identified with the Bill.

[Richard Ottaway]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with close interest, but, on his last point about our introducing a lot more regulations, in truth we already have a lot of regulation and it is not working. We are reforming the existing regulation rather than bringing in new regulation.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but we might have drawn a slightly different conclusion from the point on which we agree. My point would be that we do indeed have a lot of regulation for scrap metal, as the 1964 Act includes quite a bit of it, but, as he has identified, it has not worked and is not working. If regulating the industry has not worked, I am not entirely sure that the solution is even more regulation. I am not entirely sure where the evidence is that suggests that solution and that is the nub of my concern.

It seems to me that the only solution proposed to solve the problem is regulation, regulation, regulation. I wonder whether other measures could be a bit more successful, such as SmartWater, which I mentioned earlier and which is already having a great effect in reducing theft. Not only does it help to bring people to justice, but it acts as a deterrent to stealing the metal in the first place. Another measure might involve increasing the sentences for people who are caught. If we had more robust penalties and sentencing for this crime and if we sent people to prison and kept them there longer, that would have a much more beneficial effect on the local community and metal theft than simply tackling the scrap metal dealers.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. However, although his points about stronger penalties for those who cause the crime and the deterrents are all valid, people only steal to get money and the easiest way for them to get money is to get cash. If we remove cash from the equation and make the process transparent, so that they have to go through legal channels, that will be the most powerful deterrent in ensuring that people are not minded to steal metal in the first place. Does he agree?

[Philip Davies]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point and she might well be right. Time will tell. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South will be successful with his Bill and we will see, but I am not necessarily as confident as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that that will happen. The criminals who are engaged in such illegal activity are clearly making a lot of money from it, and I do not believe that on the back of this Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made it clear that he did not see it as a silver bullet—those people will pack up their equipment and say, “It was nice while it lasted, but now we’ll all move on to knitting,” or to some other activity of which we would all approve. I suspect that they will continue with their criminal activity and will merely pursue it in a different way. It will probably go underground and through illegitimate businesses rather than legitimate scrap metal dealerships.

We should be wary of the idea that regulating businesses will solve the problem. I have always taken what might be deemed an old-fashioned view of such matters and if someone is going out and committing the crime of stealing metal, we should be clamping down on the people who are going out and stealing the metal. The Bill seems to be chiefly aimed at clamping down on the metal dealers further down the line. The people going out and stealing the metal are not being targeted as much as the dealers.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we should be clamping down on the people who are stealing the plaques, the memorials and the cabling, but in the case of my own dad’s plaque, the dealer who bought it had bought tens of thousands of plaques and war memorials from across south London. Does my hon. Friend not agree that as well as going after the people who are stealing the items, we should come down like a ton of bricks on the people who know what they are buying and should not let them continue to operate in the industry? That is what the Bill would achieve.

[Philip Davies]

I have a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend says and I think the whole House will have sympathy for what happened and for the distress it must have caused him. Of course, we all want to clamp down on not only the people who steal but on the people who knowingly trade in such metal. I do not think that anybody would deny that, but the proposals in the Bill do not just clamp down on the people involved in the theft or in the trading of stolen metal. The Bill is clamping down on everybody. In effect, it states that everybody involved in the trade is a criminal, that we will treat them all as criminals and that we will clamp down on them all. My point is that it is rather unfair to categorise a whole industry as involved in illegality. In every industry, there are good people and bad people and the Bill imposes extra costs and burdens on the good as well as the bad.

[Caroline Nokes]

I should like to draw on the experience of one of the largest scrap metal dealers, operating on the edge of my constituency. It makes the point that it wants cash to be removed from transactions, so that the business does not have the additional risk of having to carry large amounts of cash daily, and so that customers do not come to it expecting to get cash. Its argument is that that would make its business more secure and more economically efficient.

[Philip Davies]

That may well be the case. Of course, there is no compulsion on anybody to make cash transactions. If a business does not want to trade in cash, it is perfectly at liberty not to do so.

The Government may well have changed their tune slightly on the subject. Their views on reform were recorded in their written evidence to the Transport Committee in November last year, in which they said that

“Against that”—

that is, calls for action on the issue of scrap metal theft through regulation—

“it would be necessary to consider carefully the additional burden which new regulation might put on legitimate businesses, and the extent to which the disposal of stolen metal might still continue on an illegal basis. Given the Government’s general aim to reduce and simplify regulation, there would need to be a strong case made to justify any new regulation.”

The Government were wise to sound a note of caution, as regulation is not always the way forward, yet more regulation is proposed. I am not entirely sure that it is entirely justified. More importantly, I am not entirely convinced that it will stop metal theft. We may end up with a lose-lose situation: the regulation will punish not just the bad scrap metal dealers, but all of them.

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

My hon. Friend makes a compelling case. He may have seen the British Metals Recycling Association’s briefing on the Bill. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, it seems to be in favour of funding the Bill and its provisions through “a small licence fee”. Does he share my concern that, often, what starts off as a small licence fee soon becomes a very large licence fee?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. We have seen many examples where a local authority is given a small amount of power, and, before we know it, it is expanding and empire-building at every possible opportunity, and increasing costs on a salami-slice basis. Before we know it, an industry that thought it worth paying a small cost to deal with a problem finds that there is still a big problem, but its costs have gone up hugely and show no sign of abating.

[Richard Ottaway]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Before this argument runs away with itself, I should confirm to the House that although the local authority would have the power to set the licence fee, a cap will be set in regulations by the Home Office.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that clarification. Let us just hope that we always have sensible people in the Home Office. Clearly, we can have confidence at the moment: I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), is on the Front Bench. I do not want to alarm him unduly about his career prospects, but Ministers come and go, and although we may have confidence in this Minister, I am not sure that I share the faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South that every future Home Office Minister, whatever their party, will show the same wisdom as this Minister in setting the regulations.

As I was saying, the Bill would affect legitimate businesses. It is worth showing the other side of the industry, because there are good operators in it, as some newspaper stories show; unlike my hon. Friend, I am a big fan of the media, so I am sure that these stories are true. Let me set out one case involving a scrap metal dealer. I am sure that this happens time and again; I am picking out just one example, as the House would not want me to go through every single newspaper report of this kind. I use this story as an illustration. A scrap metal dealer called the police when he was asked to purchase a war memorial from offenders. When Lana Jane Clitheroe and Paul David Kelly pleaded guilty to stealing from a war memorial in St Mary’s church on Lewisham High street, the district judge, Julia Newton from Bromley magistrates court, said in her sentencing remarks:

“A scrap metal dealer was approached by the Defendants; he very quickly realised what the item was and refused to accept it.”

He alerted the police to the problem, so that they were able to catch the offenders.

Many legitimate scrap metal dealers are part of the solution to the problem. They do not want to be involved in any illegal activity and to take things that have been stolen, and they play a crucial role in alerting the authorities to the problem. I feel nervous about saying to the scrap metal dealer who was involved in that case, “I will treat you as if you are potentially involved in criminal activity, and put on you a huge new burden and cost.” What has that person done wrong? What has he done to deserve that? He is part of the solution, not the problem.

Another scrap metal dealer

“donated £21,000 to replace metal plaques stolen from a war memorial in south London.

Fourteen bronze plaques bearing the names of 243 World War I servicemen were stolen from Carshalton war memorial in Sutton in September 2011.”

The scrap metal dealer

“said he was as ‘outraged as everyone else’ that it had been ‘plundered’.”

These are good people—people whom we should be trying to help, and whose side we should be on. The Bill would impose on those people huge burdens and extra costs. What have they done to deserve those extra burdens and costs? Nothing, as far as I can see. We are castigating a whole industry because of some people who are operating illegitimately in that industry. My solution is to go after the criminals. Let us pursue criminals, not a whole industry, which includes some very good people who are not criminals at all.

On bringing offenders to justice, we can use the Theft Act 1968 to charge unscrupulous scrap metal dealers with handling stolen goods. There is already a law with which to tackle the problem of people who handle stolen goods. In addition to using all the existing scrap metal legislation, we should use the Theft Act to prosecute those who accept stolen scrap metal and pass it on. It states:

“(1) A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

(2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.”

That is already on the statute book. If a scrap metal dealer is found guilty of handling stolen goods—the definition in the Theft Act makes it perfectly clear that someone handling stolen metal is guilty of handling stolen goods—it is already in statute that they can be sent to prison for a term not exceeding 14 years.

If we actually gave proper sentences, and sentencing guidance was strengthened, so that the provisions in the Theft Act were invoked and a few 10-year-plus sentences were handed down by the courts to these people, we would find a vast drop in the number of scrap metal dealers handling stolen goods, without imposing any kind of extra licensing regime, bureaucracy, or cost, and without giving local authorities more police-like powers to interfere in every nook and cranny of people’s businesses. Let us just start handing down some proper sentences to these people; we will find that some people go legitimate very quickly indeed.

If someone walks off the street into a scrap metal dealer with a chunk of railway line in their hand, or a £500,000 statue or a huge great war memorial in a van, and the scrap metal dealer accepts it and pays them a few pounds for it without any questions asked, the scrap metal dealer should be prosecuted under the Theft Act. If the police and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot get a conviction for that, it says more about our criminal justice system than about anything else.

[Mr Nuttall]

Has my hon. Friend heard anything in the debate so far or read anything in the Bill that would give him any confidence that the new regime, once it came into force, would be any more capable of being enforced and securing convictions than the present one?

[Philip Davies]

No. That is part of the problem. My hon. Friend makes a good point. When politicians are faced with a problem, their solution always seems to incorporate two ingredients. The first is that they must be seen to be doing something. It is the bane of all politicians. The second ingredient is that what they propose must not offend anybody. As long as a politician has a solution that looks as though they are doing something and it does not offend anybody, whether it does any good or not, they will go down that road every time. Rather than looking as though we are doing something and being tough, I would like us to spend a little more time looking at whether the proposed course of action will work and whether it is absolutely necessary. I am not entirely sure that the Bill passes that test.

On offender profiles, according to the Transport Committee in its 14th report of January this year, which was on cable theft from railways,

“Perpetrators can be broadly split into two groups; small-scale, local offenders and organised crime groups. We heard from the BTP”—

the British Transport Police—

“that local criminals were responsible for the majority of thefts from the railway, these being ‘opportunist but nonetheless professional criminals’…and that up to 80% of those arrested for metal theft have previous convictions for similar crimes.”

Here we hit the problem: 80% of the people caught for metal theft have previous convictions for metal theft. The police have done their bit. Under the current regulatory regime, the police have got these people, and what happens? The perpetrators get a derisory sentence from the courts and they are back out on the streets stealing metal again in five minutes flat. So it is not the regulation, but the sentencing of these offenders that is the problem.

Metal theft has recently been included in the serious organised crime strategy. The British Transport Police welcomed this but noted that a maximum of only 30% of cable thefts involved organised criminal gangs. Chief Inspector Carl Burkey, of Airedale and North Bradford police, which is my local police division, said in March this year:

“We have been pleased to take part with partners and reinforce the message locally that officers are working hard to frustrate the sale of stolen metal in Airedale and North Bradford.

Metal theft is a crime which can be life threatening to thieves and seriously disrupt commuters when it affects rail services, and it is important that scrap dealers remain vigilant when offered stolen metal. We will…work closely with all partners and would urge anyone who has information about metal theft to contact ourselves or Crimestoppers.”

One of the main solutions to the problem is for members of the community to be the eyes and ears on the ground—that is what my police chief inspector said—and to report any suspicious activity that they see. When that happens, the police are quite successful in catching the perpetrators.

We come back to sentencing. Metal theft and handling should be seen as an aggravating part of the sentence, taking into account the disruption or the severe sentimental loss that such crimes cause, particularly in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I referred earlier to District Judge Julia Newton from Bromley magistrates court when she sentenced a pair who had stolen a war memorial in Lewisham. She also said:

“The war memorial is described by Father Scott Anderson, the Vicar of St Mary’s Church. He believes the memorial plaque had been in the church since approximately 1920-1925. The plaque displayed the names of some of those who had fallen in the First World War. It is described as being a large and heavy plaque, approximately 1.25 metres high and 1.75 metres tall. The impact of the loss of the plaque is described by Father Anderson. The stolen plaque is expressed to be invaluable to both the Church and the families whose relatives’ names appear on it. He cannot even estimate the value. He describes the feeling amongst the members of the Church and Local Community as being both ‘in shock and saddened.’

Those named on the memorial are remembered by family, relatives and fellow countrymen. The desecration of the memorial will be seen by many as an affront. The historic value of the plaque is incalculable.

The seriousness of this offence is determined not only by the culpability of the Defendants, but also the harm caused. This offence was committed without a thought for the impact that their actions would have on individuals or the wider community. In assessing the harm caused, it is not simply the monetary loss in replacing the memorial which is to be taken into consideration, but the public feeling of many as described by Father Anderson.”

The judge took all that into account and said that the risk of re-offending was assessed as high. She said that she took the view that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. Bearing all these factors in mind, the sentence of the court would have been 180 days in custody, but because the offenders had pleaded guilty, it would be reduced by one third. The sentence would be 120 days imprisonment. That seems to rank high in terms of the sentences handed down by the court for this type of crime. I therefore praise the judge for bearing all those circumstances in mind as aggravating factors when she came to sentence the offenders. I encourage judges to do more of that, so that sentences are more of a deterrent.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend’s expertise in these matters is well known. Perhaps he will be able to confirm that although a sentence of 120 days imprisonment was handed down, it is highly unlikely that the criminals would have served anywhere near 120 days in prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Sadly, my hon. Friend is right. One of the great outrages of the Labour Government was that they introduced a law which meant that everybody, no matter how well or badly they behaved themselves, had to be released from prison halfway through their prison sentence. It was not that they became eligible for release halfway through their sentence; they had to be released halfway through their sentence. For some of the lower-end offences, people can be released much earlier than halfway through the sentence.

According to the Ministry of Justice, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm, somebody sentenced to six months in prison can be let out within six weeks, which is a scandal. Somebody sentenced to prison for 12 months can be released after three months, and somebody sent to prison for two years can be released after seven and a half months. This is what the Government should be focusing on. Let us have proper sentences handed out by the court. When people who are involved in this despicable crime are sent to prison, let us keep them in prison for the length of the sentence that the court handed out, rather than letting them back out into the community in five minutes flat to carry on from where they left off. If we were to go down that route, it would have a much greater impact on the level of crimes such as metal theft.

Technology will be a huge tool in counteracting such crime. I mentioned SmartWater earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South also praised it in glowing terms. The SmartWater Foundation, which is providing it free of charge for all war memorials, is to be highly commended. Network Rail experienced a huge reduction in metal theft when it used SmartWater. To illustrate the point, the SmartWater technology is so good that different parts of the track can be identified by the type of water on it, so when somebody turns up at a scrap dealership with metal that is covered by SmartWater, not only can it be identified as stolen, but it is possible to identify exactly where it has been stolen from.

This technology is one of the main reasons why we should be hopeful for the future and about our ability to tackle the crime of metal theft. Rather than using it just to catch people, SmartWater and the police have been working together to use it more as a deterrent. They take the ultraviolet equipment to the local scrap metal dealerships, put up signage saying that anything that has SmartWater on it will not be accepted at the dealership, and that all scrap metal is tested. There is plenty of evidence to show that when SmartWater is used, scrap metal dealers will not accept stolen metal because they know what the consequences will be if they are caught with it on their premises.

One of the most telling things that my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks was that the low chance of being caught was driving the crime. We must use SmartWater much more. I know from a question to the Church Commissioners last month that the Church of England is now using SmartWater to cover many of its roofs, and we know that it is to be used on war memorials. I think that we should be encouraging as many people as possible to use SmartWater to deal with this problem at a reasonably low cost.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) referred to the British Metals Recycling Association, which he said—I think he is right—appears to be in favour of the Bill, but some of the things it has said in the past have actually made a great deal of sense. It has identified illegal scrap metal sites as the main problem and called for better enforcement of existing legislation by the police and the Environment Agency to close illegal sites. If that is right—I have no reason to think otherwise—and illegal scrap metal sites are the main problem, the introduction of an awful lot of new regulation and new costs for legal scrap metal dealerships would not only make no difference to the problem, but be likely to make it worse. The only possible impact would be to encourage some of the legitimate scrap metal dealers, who do not want the cost of the regulation to become illegal. The danger is that some of the Bill’s provisions might inadvertently make the problem worse.

The British Metals Recycling Association has previously expressed concern that any move towards cashless transactions could simply disadvantage small, legal and well-run scrap sites, unless there was

“effective enforcement against unregulated operators”.

[Mr Robin Walker]

My hon. Friend is clearly a champion of free markets, but he must understand that in order for them to work properly they need a level playing field. Is not one of the risks that the current changes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will make it difficult for small operators if the unlicensed operators are able to accept cash and they are not? Is not that why the proposed change in this Bill to make sure that all operators are subject to the cash ban is so important? It would provide the level playing field that will allow a proper free market.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point, which he makes characteristically well. The issue is whether we will end up with a level playing field. I do not doubt that we will end up with a level playing field for all legitimate scrap metal dealers—that is clearly the case—but, according to the British Metals Recycling Association, much of the problem is not with the legal dealers, but with the illegal ones, so we do not have a level playing field and all the Bill would do is further uneven it by making it even harder for legitimate sites to compete with illegal ones.

The key point—this is where we might come to some agreement—is that this could work, as the British Metals Recycling Association has stated, only if there were

“effective enforcement against unregulated operators”.

My concern is that we would have an awful lot of enforcement against regulated operators, which is what the Bill would do. It is about targeting those who are already regulated and piling more regulation on them, but that will not help to tackle the unregulated ones.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman certainly represents the most progressive part of the 18th century, but will he accept that if the organisations involved with this problem—the British Transport police, the British Metals Recycling Association, the Association of Train Operating Companies, the police generally and local authorities—believe that this is necessary and support the measure, should we not take on board what they say?

[Philip Davies]

I am rather wrapped up in wondering whether the hon. Gentleman’s first comment was a compliment or an insult; I will go away and think about it, but perhaps he will make it clear. I was rather startled by his second point, because I think it was the first time in all the years I have been listening to him in this House that he has seemed to have made the point that if the police think something is a good idea this House should deliver what they want. I remember when he sat on the Government Benches in the last Parliament and talked about anti-terrorist legislation, for example. He was a great champion of the view that, “Well of course the police want all these powers, but it is our job to resist giving them to them.” As someone who is generally a big fan of supporting the police, I welcome his conversion to a more authoritarian approach to crime and law and order, but it is rather uncharacteristic.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are getting away from licensing. Mr Davies, I think you are desperate to get back to where you were and I am sure that you do not want to be distracted.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you read me like a book. I was just thinking about how I did not want to be distracted by the hon. Gentleman, but I have every confidence that his next intervention will put us back on track.

[Mr Winnick]

I was not aware that I was off track last time. If it were simply the police who were saying that these measures were necessary, the hon. Gentleman, whom I would not dream of insulting, could say that the argument would not necessarily be valid, but they are one of a number of bodies that want this. What I am saying is that those who have to try to deal with the problem—I mentioned local authorities and the local police in the Walsall borough—all seem to be of the same view that it is necessary to strengthen the law.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that the police are reassured to know that the hon. Gentleman is not wholeheartedly behind them, but I am sure that they still welcome his move in their direction on this issue. As I made clear just before you arrived in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must press on as I have to go to an engagement in Yorkshire, which will be a huge relief to all Members in the Chamber.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend concludes his opening remarks, will he confirm that the real question the House has to decide on this afternoon is whether this is being done because the Government have to be seen to be doing something or because it will actually move the issue forward?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right.

In summary—I reiterate that I mean no discourtesy to anyone by having to leave pretty smartly after finishing speaking and hope that no offence is taken—we all agree that there is a problem and that this is a terrible crime that needs to be tackled robustly. What we have to consider today is whether the Bill will actually bring about the kind of change we want to see that will stop the outrages that we have all seen in our local communities. I am not entirely persuaded.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for raising the issue and know that his intentions are absolutely honourable. In many respects, I hope that I am wrong, that he is right and that these changes will bring about the difference we all want to see, but I am not necessarily convinced. It is very easy on these occasions for us all to say, “This is absolutely marvellous, so let’s rush headlong into this and go along with it.” It is the duty of this House occasionally to pause, think and ask, “Are we absolutely convinced that this will do what we hope it will do?”

I hope that the Bill gets a fair hearing today on Second Reading and do not intend to cause my hon. Friend any problems in that respect, but I hope that he will think about it so that in Committee and on Report we can look again at some of the issues and think about whether we can do something that will make a real difference, not just something that sounds good, looks good, reads well in the local media but which, in a few years’ time, will not have sorted out the problem that we need to tackle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

First, the hon. Lady makes a claim in her question about what my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister said, but he is absolutely clear that he did not say what she has said he did. Also, I challenge her use of the figure of 6,000 in relation to the Metropolitan police. I think she has used a figure that relates to certain officers across the whole country, rather than in the Metropolitan police. However, I can probably do no better than to quote Sir Denis O’Connor, who is currently Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary. Commenting on what has been reported about the Metropolitan police, he said:

“Are there some concerns? Yes. Should they be able to get on top of it? Yes.”

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Technology is crucial in helping the Metropolitan police and other police forces to tackle crime. I know that the Home Office has not quite grasped yet the importance of DNA and CCTV in tackling crime, but may I commend to the Home Secretary the use of SmartWater, a great UK success story that helps the police to reduce crime? The company is based in London. May I suggest that she goes to visit, to see what a great job it can do in helping to reduce crime?

[Mrs May]

I will not be tempted down the route that my hon. Friend is attempting to take me on some of the issues he referred to in his question—issues on which he has a different opinion from me. However, in answer to his question, we are very open and willing to look at any new technology that will help the police to do their job, which is to cut crime. I can assure him that either I or another Home Office Minister will be pleased to make the visit that he has requested.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I met the various anti-trafficking NGOs recently, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, given her background in this sector. We are trying very hard to get better at recognising children who are genuine victims and not potential criminals, and there are now signs that our training of officers is having a good effect in this regard.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T7. I recently visited the United States police hall of fame in Florida, which educates people and celebrates the work of the US police force, as well as providing a memorial to US police officers who have died in service. Building on the fantastic work of Michael Winner, does the Minister agree that having a UK police hall of fame would be very appropriate? Will the Home Office support setting one up?

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure the whole House would agree that we should honour those police officers who lose their lives while doing their duty for their country. There is a police memorial at the national arboretum, which I visited this year for the Care Of Police Survivors service. There is also an annual national police memorial day service, which Ministers attend and which will take place on 30 September, and there are police bravery awards. It is right that we do a great deal to recognise police bravery, and I am happy to discuss this with my hon. Friend.

Women (Global Economy)

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Turner, to serve under your stewardship today. Today’s debate is on women in the global economy. It is true to say that women now drive the world economy. Globally, they control £20 trillion of annual consumer spending, and that could climb as high as £28 trillion by 2015. Their £13 trillion in total yearly earnings could reach £18 trillion in the same period. In aggregate, women represent a growth market more than twice as big as China and India combined. Given those sums, it would be foolish to underestimate that economic force.

Carol Bagnold, HSBC’s regional commercial director for London, said:

“The female economy is hugely important for the UK and globally in terms of the international stage. Wealth is shifting, and the scale of contribution from women in both the business and consumer world is growing.

The States have recognised this with a plot of research done. In the UK the statistics show the same opportunity and we need to grasp this. 60% of personal wealth will sit with females by 2025, 37% of start-ups are now female owned, within the corporate world there”

is a

“growing number of females controlling the finances.”

Women are now the largest emerging economy. British women in their early 20s already earn 3.6% more than men of the same age. Women in full-time work are seeing their wages grow at more than twice the rate of men’s, and if that growth continues the average pay of women in the UK will overtake men’s by 2020.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s flow so early in her speech. Does she agree that those figures show that there is no need for politically correct positive discrimination, quotas or targets, because women are more than capable of competing on equal terms with men, and that we should focus on jobs and opportunities being given on merit alone?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with half of what my hon. Friend says. We are taking significant steps forward, and I will refer to various women and business executives who make similar comments, but they include the caveat that different sorts of support are essential for women to enable them to achieve the positions they want, and to continue their jobs and professional advancement through a complex cycle, because women are the carers and nurturers in society.

In the UK, 700,000 businesses are female-owned and estimated turnover in 2011 was £130 billion according to the International Centre for Entrepreneurship. For the first time, there are more young female millionaires than young male millionaires, so women are becoming wealthier younger. It seems that women are now truly an unstoppable economic force. However, in tandem with those positive statistics is the fact that although women may be earning more when younger, things change dramatically in their 30s when they have families. Between the ages of 40 and 49, there is a significant difference—about £3—in the hourly rate of women and men of the same working age.

We are often told that if women set up businesses at the same rate as men, there would be 150,000 new starts a year. As well as that, if we increased women’s participation in the workplace, we could add another £15 billion to £22 billion to the UK economy. We are also told that it will take another 70 years to achieve gender balance in the boardroom, such is the state of affairs there. Both sets of statistics are true, but neither does justice to the full role that women play globally.

Academics talk of women’s achievements reaching a plateau after a high point pre-2000 when a diverse raft of ground-breaking women took to the national and international stage. In this House in 1979, Margaret Thatcher became the first and only female Prime Minister. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was appointed the first woman law lord in 1988. Stella Rimington was appointed the first female head of MI5 in 1992, and Debbie Moore was the first woman to establish a public limited company in 1984.

The rapid rise of women to leadership roles faltered as we approached the 21st century. Martin, Warren-Smith, Scott and Roper commented on the alarming lack of progress, and Vanhala stated that there has not been a significant increase since the early 1990s. That prompted Broadbent and Kirkham to write that:

“after a promising start why aren’t women moving on, even in ‘feminised’ professions such as accountancy”.

In their book, “Through the Labyrinth”, Eagly and Carli wrote about the distinct lack of women in powerful roles. However, others, including Broadridge, Broadbent and Kirkham are now asking whether we have reached a pivotal point in the advancement of women in leadership, and suggesting that to deliver the next level of progress a new understanding of female leadership might be required.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is too modest to mention it, but I commend her work with her book “If Chloe Can”, and the magazine that she set up and has delivered to thousands of schoolgirls throughout the country in scores of schools. She turned it into a play, and what she has achieved is remarkable. Does she agree that role models are crucial, and that women and other people can achieve their ambitions, whatever their background, if they have other people’s paths and examples to follow?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I do indeed believe that, and I am not the only one. A huge body of work has been done on that. Ofsted did a report last year, and this year Girlguiding UK did a report on the importance of role models. I came to the same conclusion after 10 years of research on the Genda Agenda, and in the Ideopolis report and the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission. I originally sought to look specifically at Merseyside where evidence unfortunately showed that the statistics for girls claiming benefit were double the national average, but for those setting up in business they were half the national average. That was not because of the academic qualifications they did or did not have, not because they did not have drive and determination, and not because they did not have the wherewithal; it was purely because of a lack of role models. If girls do not know what opportunities are out there, they cannot follow a path and achieve.

If I wanted to make a chocolate cake, I would not try to fathom out how much butter, flour and chocolate I would need. I would go to a recipe book, or follow the recipe of someone who had got it right. If I then wanted to tweak and perfect it with extra chocolate flakes and buttons, I would. In the same way, I teach young girls and older girls that there is a path that they can follow, and show them the raw ingredients that they need to achieve.

Another positive comment I always make to young girls from all backgrounds—this is key—is that when I did an academic qualitative and quantitative study of the top 100 women in the world from all backgrounds, the determining factors were not who someone was related to, or what academic qualifications they had. Personality and character traits determined their future. Being persistent, determined, consistent, a good team player, optimistic, and able to find a way of doing things even when hurdles were put in the way were the key determining factors for whether people achieved. That was a long answer, but it encapsulates 10 years’ work.

[Philip Davies]

I thought that at this point I would urge the Minister—if my hon. Friend wants to comment, she can—to do the following. It seems to me, having been one of the many colleagues who went to see the performance of “If Chloe Can” when it was turned into a play and who also saw the production in Speaker’s House, that if the Government and the Minister really want to do something useful, giving some support and funding to allow that to go around the country as my hon. Friend envisages would be far more worth while than just talking about these things.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I would never have been so bold as to make such a plea, but as he has, on my behalf, I shall endorse it thoroughly.

I argue not only that women have reached a pivotal point, but that we need to understand and ensure that we in the broader sense—all of society—support the complex female life cycle. I am talking about the life cycle of a woman as mother, carer and nurturer. We also need to understand how those biological and atavistic needs drive, motivate and influence women’s choices. Women’s natural predisposition to be carers and nurturers regularly dictates the style and type of job that they do, the type of business that they establish and the choice of hours worked in order to fit around the needs of their family. Perhaps targets for the extra number of businesses that women should set up, how much extra they could add to the economy or how great a percentage could be on a board are artificial and too simplistic a range of targets and do not take into account innate human desires.

As we look to the global stage and look at businesses, we are noticing that there has been a change from a hierarchical structure in business and organisations to a flatter one. Executive leaders are seeing and feeling that, but is everyone else convinced? Targets are not enough. They do not work sustainably and are not as effective as they need to be. We can look to other countries. In China, the Philippines and Thailand, things are very balanced. In Japan, that is not the case. There, women take only 6% of the top jobs. We have to look at the cultural effects. The McKinsey study in Europe showed a much improved gender balance. In China, 70% of women are in work, but India is far behind, with 35%. Again, that shows the cultural significance and difference.

Eve Baldwin, the global human resources director for Unilever, says that she has noticed that 50% of entry-level positions are taken by women, but 80% of promotions go to men. Why are we still not landing job promotions? It seems that organisations still prefer a male style. Perhaps there is still a lack of acceptance of different styles. Perhaps organisations do not appreciate the different dimensions and character types that women can bring to the business world. That needs to be fixed internally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Turner, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) in this debate. She has to go off to a Public Bill Committee. I hope that you, Mr Turner, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is the shadow Minister for Equalities, the Minister for Equalities and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) will all forgive me as I have to go off to a Select Committee soon, so I will be unable to stay for the wind-up speeches. I apologise in advance for that.

In all honesty, I was not intending to speak in this debate. When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West speak, I was even less keen, given how much research she has done on this subject. She made a fantastic speech and clearly knows her stuff. I have not done any research at all, Mr Turner, so I would not want you to compare my speech with that of my hon. Friend, because it certainly will not compare. However, the things that she said have prompted me to make a few points.

I commend my hon. Friend because, as I said in one of my interventions, her work with “If Chloe Can” is truly inspirational to lots of girls. She attended a theatre production, when “If Chloe Can” made its debut in the west end, and saw a thousand schoolgirls from many deprived parts of London hugely excited, not only by the production by the National Youth Theatre—which I also compliment—but by seeing some fantastic women from all walks of life whom she had persuaded to attend. Those women talked about their life stories and encouraged those girls to think they could achieve something with their lives and achieve their ambitions if they set out to do so, irrespective of their backgrounds. All that is inspirational.

The work that my hon. Friend has done in pursuing that aim is truly amazing. Lots of people in politics talk a good game, but I must say that there are not that many who go through the motions of doing something. She does not just talk about things; she goes out and does the things I have described, quietly getting on with it. She should be commended greatly for the work that she does. I say that even though she only half-agreed with my opening intervention, but I will overlook that fact for now.

I will talk about a couple of things. My hon. Friend talked about the pay gap between men and women in their late 30s and 40s, which contrasts with the situation when they are in their 20s. It struck me that there was something rather inevitable about that particular problem, and I am not entirely sure that anything can be done—or indeed, should be done—to address it.

If a man carries on working through his 20s and 30s, one hopes that he will progress in his job, whereas a woman may have made her own choice to leave work to have a child before coming back to work later. It would be bizarre if the woman came back on the same pay or higher pay than the man who had been slaving away for an extra 10 or 15 years in that particular company. It seems to me that some of these things, whether they are right or wrong, are simply inevitable and are not a matter for the Government to start interfering with. They simply reflect the inevitability of life.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am always interested in hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say on this subject. Although I understand the argument he is making about the impact of taking time out of the workplace, does he accept that one potential solution to the problem he describes is to share the time out of the workplace more equitably between fathers and mothers, and to take measures to promote that sharing of time away from work?

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. The bit that I am not particularly convinced about is that even if we equalise the opportunities for men and women to take time off work to look after children, my guess—I am not an expert in these matters, but this is my guess—is that through nature women will be more likely to want to take that time off work than men. I could be completely wrong, but that is my guess. We can equalise the opportunity as much as possible, but I suspect that even if we did so, women would be much more likely to take maternity leave than men would be to take paternity leave.

[Kate Green]

indicated dissent.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady may disagree and if the Government implement such a scheme, we will see what happens. I hope that, if the Government do so and what I say proves to be true, she will come back and acknowledge that that was the case, rather than sticking to her sort of feminist dogma, which is not really wedded to the real world.

However, I agree with some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made about child care and its regulation. We seem to have an obsession in this country with making every job in the world a job that someone needs a degree to do. One of the latest examples of that is childminding. When parents look for a childminder, the most important factor—it would certainly be the most important factor for me regarding my children—is that their children are happy and safe, and that they are in a happy and safe environment. Whether or not the childminder has a degree is of no consequence to me whatever.

The Government have to start trusting parents a lot more. Parents are perfectly capable of deciding who is a good childminder and who is not without the Government imposing unnecessary regulations on the child care sector and making people have increasingly large amounts of qualifications that are totally unnecessary. The Government should just let parents get on with choosing the right childminder for their children, which may end up being cheaper, thereby allowing women to return to work.

However, there is scope for helping children with child care. My starting point is that so many people in this country seem to have decided that they do not want to work that when people clearly want to work, the Government should be out there, giving them as much support as possible so that they can. If there are lots of women who would prefer to go out to work and who want to achieve something in life, there is a role for the Government in trying to make that process as easy as possible.

I should say in passing that I do not think that it is useful to frown on those women who want not to go out to work but to stay at home and bring up their children. They should be encouraged to do so and they should not be looked down on by others for making that choice. The issue is that we should help people to fulfil their ambitions and to make the choices that they want to make.

I also want to touch on maternity leave and the kinds of regulations that apply. I do not think that anybody objects to the principle of maternity leave, but we should be rather careful because lots of things that can be well meaning and that seem, on the face of it, to be a good thing for women can end up, in practical terms, being a barrier for women.

Whether people like it or not, and whether other hon. Members in this room want to acknowledge it or not, I suspect that there are still many people in businesses out there who look at a woman of a certain age, see how old they are—perhaps somebody in their late 20s, who has recently married—and think to themselves, “Hold on a minute. If I take this person on, the chances are that they will be leaving to have a child and I will be having a huge disruption to my business, and possibly a huge cost as well. I will find it very difficult to replace this person, particularly for a fixed period of time.”

As a result, that businessperson may not give that woman that particular opportunity, although otherwise they would have done. We have to guard against these well-meaning schemes that are not actually providing opportunities for women, but providing barriers to women getting a job in the workplace. Before anyone runs away with the idea that it is just male employers who will think like that, I should say that I suspect that female employers are just as prone to make that kind of decision as male employers are.

We have got to look at certain companies. For my sins, before I entered Parliament I used to work for Asda. For a company such as Asda, regulations and obligations are meat and drink. Asda employs 140,000 people, so having people take time off for maternity leave is absolutely no problem at all. In fact, many companies of that size will make a point of offering enhanced employment terms as a way of attracting the best people to work for them, because they can afford to allow people to take time off.

I ask you, Mr Turner, to bear in mind those companies that employ one or two people. If a small businessman employs two people and one person takes off an ever-increasing amount of time, that causes huge disruption to their business—there may not even be a successful business for that woman to go back to, given the disruption and cost incurred. Nobody objects to the Government’s wanting to introduce measures that genuinely help people, including women, in the workplace, but we should be very careful about going over the top in imposing too many onerous conditions on businesses that will end up having exactly the opposite outcome to the one intended.

If the Government want to help women in the global economy and help them to fulfil their potential, the way to do that is exactly the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West has been going about doing it, which is to provide people with role models and to show them how they can achieve their goals, irrespective of their background. It is to show them that even people who leave school with very few qualifications can achieve their goals if they have the right characteristics and the right determination to go about their lives. I urge the Government to do those encouraging things and not to go down a politically correct route with quotas and other such things.

All we want—all I want, certainly—is for people to be given jobs and opportunities on merit and merit alone. If we believe in true equality, surely we should be gender-blind; it should be irrelevant whether someone is male or female. I could not care less whether the board of a company has 95% men or 95% women. All we should care about is that they are the best people for the job and for the company. It will not advance women if the Government go down the route of having quotas for this and quotas for that and politically correct decision making; that will make people feel that women have got to where they are only through some situation that has been concocted to achieve a particular outcome. That does not do women any good; it does no one any favours. Everyone has to feel that everyone has got there on the same basis, and that basis should always be merit.

I commend what my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West has done in pursuing the agenda of merit and in allowing women to fulfil their ambitions and dreams, and I hope that the Government follow that model rather than trying to have some “get equal quick” scheme, which would not advance women at all but advance political correctness and build up huge resentment among the public. I will now allow the Front-Bench spokespeople to have their say. I apologise again for having to leave for my Select Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have made it absolutely clear that the focus of the police is on fighting crime. I have set them only one target, which is to cut crime. Indeed, it is right that forces up and down the country are now looking—as they have done for several years, including under the last Labour Government—at bringing in the private sector to their forces where they feel that functions can be done more cost-effectively by the private sector. But I have also made it clear—as I did at the Police Federation conference last week—that we will not move the powers of warranted officers from officers to the private sector.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

One of the most pointless, expensive and time-wasting aspects of the bureaucracy that the police have to deal with is the equality and diversity industry that mushroomed under the last Labour Government, which I saw for myself when I visited West Yorkshire police on Friday. Could I meet the Home Secretary or the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to discuss how we can streamline this process so that we can get more resources on to the front line?

[Mrs May]

It is entirely right that we encourage the police to see more diversity in their ranks. There are many ways in which we do want to see more women and people from black and minority ethnic communities joining the police force and being able to press through the ranks, but my hon. Friend makes the important point that in looking at these issues we do not want bureaucratic processes to take over. Either I or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will meet him to discuss this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We do need to speed up a bit. If the Minister could provide slightly shorter answers, that would be helpful to the House.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In 1999, Michael Weir was convicted of the murder of Mr Harris. The only link to that crime was DNA found on a glove of Michael Weir’s. Michael Weir’s DNA was taken after he was arrested on a drugs-related charge that had been discontinued two years earlier; he had been discharged. Will the Minister confirm that under the Government’s new plans for DNA retention, Michael Weir’s DNA sample would no longer have been on the database, and Mr Harris’s murderer would never have been brought to justice?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has consistently argued for the indefinite retention of DNA profiles. We certainly recognise the importance of DNA in solving crimes. It is rarely possible to say that convictions could not have been obtained without DNA evidence, although of course the availability of DNA evidence can frequently help to focus an investigation. We have been clear on ensuring that those convicted of crimes remain on the DNA database indefinitely, and speculative searches are undertaken on each occasion.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.

We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.

The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.

Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if someone’s DNA is held on a database, it does not impinge on their freedoms to go about their daily lawful business, unimpeded in anything they want to do? Does he further agree that people’s freedoms are enhanced by having as many murderers, rapists and other serious offenders brought to justice and put behind bars, rather than having them wandering the streets because their DNA is not on a database?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter. He has been consistent in his support for the Opposition’s proposals and has joined us in Divisions. Deep down, he understands that the Conservative party’s legacy as the party of law and order is seriously being put at risk by measures that are soft on individuals who have the potential to commit rape, murder or other serious crimes, who could be prevented from committing those crimes if their DNA were on a database for a longer period. I believe that that presents a real risk not just to public, but to the reputation of the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister know of any innocent person who has been negatively affected by the placing of his details on a DNA database? This is a question of balance. The Government’s main aim appears to be to ensure that the DNA of someone who has not committed a crime is not put on the database, but as far as I know that does such people no harm. Surely a greater danger is posed by the person whose DNA should be on the database but is not, and who then commits a crime that is not detected.

[Mr Hanson]

I hesitate to agree with the hon. Gentleman yet again, but I do agree with him. As far as I am aware, the fact that someone’s DNA is on the database under the 2010 Act is known only by the police—if they wish to examine it—and by the person concerned, and they can tell whoever they wish to tell, or alternatively tell no one. It is not a matter of public knowledge.

This is the nub of my amendment, flawed though it is. Of the 23,000 people I mentioned earlier, about 6,000 a year will go on to commit serious crimes, including rape and other sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. I simply ask—as I have on every occasion when I have had an opportunity to discuss the issue—why we should allow that to happen when we have the ability, potentially, to prevent it from happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a concern about certain other groups, as well as those in ethnic minority communities, whose DNA is retained disproportionately. We have proportionately the largest DNA database of any country in the world. I am sorry to say that at the end of the previous Labour Government we lost our way on civil liberties issues. That has been acknowledged and there has been a mea culpa; those on the Front Bench, leaders and candidates in the Labour leadership election have all admitted that this had been a problem for us. However, we now have an opportunity to pause and to look at these issues carefully again.

[Philip Davies]

I wish to bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the case of his constituent who intervened in the fight and was put on the DNA database. How has that person’s life been negatively affected by having those details on the DNA database? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if people do not go on to commit a crime, they will not be negatively affected by having their details on a DNA database?

[Keith Vaz]

I ask the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks up for the rights of the individual, this: why should a totally innocent person who seeks to intervene to stop a fight—one of the have-a-go heroes of this world, of whom he is the champion, not just in Shipley, but in other parts of the country—have their DNA retained because of their act of kindness in trying to stop further violence? It is absolutely wrong for that to happen; such people should be able to intervene and not fear that any DNA should be kept.

[Philip Davies]

I will have another go. Rather than asking me a question, although I am happy to debate it at a later date, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will answer my question: how was this person negatively affected by having their details on the DNA database?

[Keith Vaz]

I thought that I had answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. Why should a person in such a situation, through no fault of their own, have any part of their identity retained by a third party, given that they were not involved in any criminal offence? This is about freedom and liberty; it is a freedom not to have our information kept on a database.

If everybody was on the DNA database, the situation would be different. I am not advocating such an approach, because the state already has far too much information on us. We talked about all the offences created under successive Governments in respect of entry into people’s properties and the review that that Government have announced. Why should we suddenly want to give up all this information? Who is to retain it? How long is it to be retained for? Those are crucial questions and this Government are adopting the right approach. We have to pause, we have to examine what has happened over the past few years and we have to say, “Enough is enough.” I hope that, in looking at these issues, we will address the fundamental flaws in the database. If any suggestions are going to be made to improve the situation, I am sure that Parliament would want to enact them. However, the course that has been advocated—removing the DNA of innocent people over a specific period—is the right one to adopt at the moment.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 15 and 19 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 64

Restrictions on scope of regulated activites: children