| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that this afternoon, in a written answer, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food divulged the rather alarming information that genetically modified crops had been planted in this country during the past two years, contrary to Government policy, on the basis of recent information from Advanta Seeds UK. Perhaps you are not aware that the Minister then provided further information to journalists to the effect that 14,000 hectares of GM crops had been sown and that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions became aware of that on 17 April.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put a point of order to the Chair.
Mr. Heath: First, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had any approaches from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at any time during the past four weeks seeking to make the House aware of that information? Secondly, is it in order for a Minister inadvertently to give
the House partial and perhaps misleading information in the form of a written answer and then provide much fuller information, which is essential to an understanding of the case, to the press but not to right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously, the Chair cannot comment on the contents of answers to questions tabled by hon. Members, but no doubt the Government and the House will have heard the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Kent County Council Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.2 pm
Mr. Paul Clark (Gillingham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We are here to debate the Kent County Council Bill, but hon. Members will be fully aware that an identical Bill, the Medway Council Bill, relates to the Medway unitary authority. The purpose of the two Bills is to cover the administrative area of the county of Kent. Therefore, it will be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to the Kent County Council Bill, I refer also to the Medway Council Bill.
Together, the Bills seek to reduce the levels of acquisitive crime such as burglary by making it harder to dispose of stolen goods and turn them into cash. The Bills have cross-party support on both councils and are a good example of inter-agency working and a co-operative approach to issues under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Mrs. Fiona Jones (Newark): As we are considering two Bills tonight, can we have some clarification? Will we be voting on both Bills, or will we have a vote on one Bill and then consider the other Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) responds to that, let me inform the hon. Lady and the House that although we are dealing principally with the Kent County Council Bill, it will be in order for hon. Members to refer, where appropriate, to both Bills.
Mr. Clark: I could not respond to that intervention as it was clearly a point of order for the Chair. However, as the two Bills are identical in purpose, it would not be untoward to refer to them both.
The Kent County Council Bill follows a two-year period of consultation with business, commencing in 1998. The promoters have taken into account many of the comments that were received and have amended the Bill considerably to ensure that it properly recognises how the businesses that it covers work and to minimise its administrative impact on those businesses.
The Bill seeks to regulate the unregulated second-hand trade. Home Office research supported by police intelligence shows that a large proportion of stolen property passes through the unregulated second-hand market. During 1997 and 1998, more than £105 million worth of goods were stolen in Kent and the recovery rate was only 25 per cent.
The scope of the proposed legislation will jointly provide Kent county constabulary and local authority trading standards officers with a comprehensive intelligence picture enabling effective enforcement. Burglary and car crime are Home Office and Kent police priorities. The recording provisions in the Bill would lead to an increase in intelligence and allow stolen goods to be traced through the supply chain to identify dishonest businesses.
I have a particular interest as my constituency falls in the Kent policing area of Medway. In autumn 1999, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home
Secretary launched an initiative called Radium, funded by the Home Office. A main thrust of the initiative is to investigate the disruption of markets for stolen goods.Police and trading standards officers have encouraged local second-hand dealers to subscribe to a voluntary scheme requiring them to keep records to identify those selling goods to the dealer. As a result of this and other crime reduction strands of Operation Radium, the level of acquisitive crime in Medway has fallen by 19 per cent. Specifically, Operation Radium has supported the Home Office evidence and shown that a substantial proportion of stolen goods are disposed of locally through the second-hand trade. Although bona fide dealers have supported the voluntary scheme, there are a number of dealers selling goods of a type which are often stolen who will not participate or co-operate fully in that voluntary scheme.
There are particular types of businesses such as second-hand car parts shops that are particularly unwilling to operate the scheme. If a car is stolen and not recovered, what happens to it? How are the parts disposed of?
There is some confirmation of how some of these stolen goods are laundered. It comes directly from those involved in the thefts. When asked, "How do you dispose of your stolen property?", criminals responded to Kent police in this vein:
- Cheques and credit cards to a female . . . antiques to a handler in Herne Bay and jewellery to a second hand shop in Margate.
- to friends and known handlers in the Deal area and second hand shops in Dover . . .
- Burglaries are committed between nine in the morning and two in the afternoon and property is sold to second hand shops later the same afternoon.
I turn now to some of the specific provisions of the Bill to ensure clarity of understanding. The need to register will apply only to persons dealing in second-hand goods in the course of a business. It will not apply to private individuals. Case law from other statutes indicates that there is scope for amateur collectors to dabble in the acquisition and disposal of goods without necessarily being treated as a trader.
Dealers will be required to register themselves and their business premises. To reduce the burden on businesses, registration is free and lasts for three years, and a single registration will cover both councils. There are exemptions because we recognise the issues involved. They include registered charities, for example. There are also exemptions for businesses already covered by similar provisions such as scrap-metal dealers and pawnbrokers. There are also exemptions for those dealing in goods in respect of which police statistics show that there is no particular problem, such as second-hand books.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Has the hon. Gentleman taken sufficient account of the legitimate
architectural salvage trade, which can achieve considerable savings in energy by the re-use of materials? Is he willing to consider that matter in Committee?
Mr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The Bill contains a provision to exempt those involved in recycling processes. The promoters and those who oppose the Bill will have an opportunity to discuss such details in the Select Committee.
Registered dealers will have to keep records detailing the name and address of the person from whom articles were acquired, the date of the transaction, a description sufficient to identify the articles and, in the case of motor vehicles, a record of the odometer reading. The promoters have taken note of comments from opponents of the Bill, and plan to introduce an amendment that will exclude items if the dealer has reasonable grounds to believe that they will be sold for less than £10. The legislation allows for that figure to be increased with the approval of the Secretary of State at the request of the council.
The provision will exclude a substantial number of low-value items from the record-keeping requirements, and will be helpful to businesses such as those that carry out house clearances as they effectively will not need to record the details of any goods that they expect to be sold for £10 or less.
If an article is sold for a price exceeding £100, the name and address of the purchaser must also be recorded. Consultation has shown that there are concerns about the purchaser of valuable items disclosing his personal details to an unknown dealer. An amendment has been incorporated to allow other details to be accepted--for example, payment by credit card or cheque, with the details being recorded, and for cash transactions, other forms of personal identification such as a driving licence or passport number.
As Operation Radium has shown, a substantial number of stolen goods pass through dealers' premises. However, there are other means of distributing stolen goods, including occasional sales and boot fairs. As a result, the legislation seeks to provide intelligence to the enforcement agencies to identify dealers and to obtain advance notice of such sales.
Both the owner and occupier of the premises on which the sale is to take place and the person operating the sale must give 21 days' written notification to the council. Operators of occasional sales will be required to keep a register of all sellers and their vehicle registration numbers. That will allow the police or trading standards officers to check on individuals attending sales, to see whether there is a pattern that suggests a trade status. The requirement to record a registration number is intended to reduce the likelihood of false information being given.
As I commented to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on Second Reading, we are considering the underlying principles of the Bill. The detail is a matter for the Select Committee.
There have been four petitions against the Kent County Council Bill, with duplicate petitions against the Medway Council Bill, with the exception of the petition from the Ashford cattle market, which relates solely to the Kent County Council Bill.
I shall deal briefly with the substantial issues raised by the petitioners.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |