| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): I entirely accept my hon. Friend's wish that crime be reduced, and I know that he would only oppose the Bill if he saw a key matter of principle in it. How does he square his view with the fact that the Bill would be no more onerous for the businesses affected than the industry's voluntary code of practice? How can he argue as a matter of principle, therefore, that it would impose burdens on them?
Mr. Wyatt: I wish that it were more than a voluntary code--that is the point. The voluntary code is not often practised. I will deal with the burden of that, if my hon. Friend will allow me to pursue my argument.
The two Bills have escaped any requirement for assessment, by being private Bills. Although, as hon. Members have said, they have been out to tender, as it were, and what people in Kent believe has been taken into account, I could show the House five or 10 letters from people who have not been consulted--especially people in the antiques trade, on which the measure would have an especially negative impact.
We do not know the financial or the proportional costs, and we cannot yet say what the significant benefit would be. Indeed, the two Bills might meet the description in the Government's better regulation taskforce report of two weeks ago, as being regulations heaped upon regulations, with no thought of how they might be implemented and practised by small businesses, especially those in the antiques trade.
It is fair to say that there was no consultation in the drafting of the two Bills and there has been little meaningful dialogue with the antiques trade since. The sheer quantity of paperwork that the Bills would demand
of traders is extraordinary. An accurate description of the purchase of any items costing more than £10 would now have to include such things as--I take my examples from this week's edition of the magazine Loot--a used mattress, a pair of shoes, two office chairs and an eight-month-old neutered Himalayan rabbit called Barney.Hon. Members should consider the example of the sale of the contents of a deceased person's house, which might well contain 400, 500 or 600 items to be catalogued for sale. We all know how much we gather in our lives. Much of the material does not have much value, but most individual items are worth more than £10. In the case of even one house, those detailed descriptions would run into hundreds of records. Let us think of the many records that would have to be collated in Kent; add them all up, add in purchases from individuals, check the fairs and go outside the county to check with dealers registered outside who deal inside the county. Hon. Members will appreciate that a mountain of paper would accumulate.
It will take the police an enormous amount of time to compile and store such records if they need access to them. The resources that will be required to catalogue, collate and inspect such a mass of information are much greater than we are being led to believe. When I talked to the police in Kent, I suggested that one solution would be to use software to enable everyone to do this, but that suggestion fell on stony ground.
Mr. Paul Clark: My hon. Friend should have sold it to them.
Some records at some time will always be useful to the authorities. However I cannot believe that anyone could defend placing such a bureaucratic burden on small businesses. The importance of precisely and accurately targeting only essential information is well illustrated by the newspaper advertisement that read:
- Farmer aged 38 wishes to meet unmarried woman in early thirties who owns a tractor: please send photo of tractor.
Mr. Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is the principle that I am trying to suggest. If it is of such fundamental importance, why is it being introduced piecemeal? If seven--perhaps eight--counties have such legislation and it is so important for reducing crime, it ought to be introduced by the Government and not in a back-door way in a private Bill.
Dr. Ladyman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wyatt: If my hon. Friend does not mind I will just get going.
I mentioned small businesses because that is largely how the antiques trade works, and it may be difficult for hon. Members to understand that. Most stolen goods are of low value, for quick sale, and are drug and juvenile crime related. The Bill does not deal with that problem because such goods are not offered for sale to responsible second-hand traders. The dishonest traders will not register themselves with Kent county council, nor will they give their names and addresses when they sell, or keep descriptions and records.
Mr. Paul Clark: The whole reason for the Bill is to close down the market for those stolen goods. Does my hon. Friend not accept the evidence on a market reduction approach that is stacked up in the Home Office, and is available from the Kent police authority? His constituency is covered by that authority. Does he not accept that evidence that much stolen property ends up in the second-hand market? We are told that by the criminals themselves. Does he not agree with their evidence?
Mr. Wyatt: I think that that was a speech rather than an intervention, but I will try to answer the questions. Boot sales are one of the central issues. The Bill is a catch-all to try to get to the bottom of what is going on in boot sales throughout the country, but in this instance in Kent. A simpler way to deal with the problem would be for the car boot sale organiser to register the car and the number plate as each car goes in. The Bill does not go about dealing with the problem in the right way.
Furthermore, as Kent has no bordering county to the east or north, the Bill will push this trade to Essex or Sussex--or, more probably, to south London. We all know that anything of real value that is stolen is immediately removed as far from the scene of the crime as possible. No burglar is likely to sell valuable stolen property on his doorstep. The Bill is likely to encourage the export of stolen goods, as others have said. That, for me, is the issue. If the legislation is so important, let us introduce it nationally.
Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's patience. Surely the point is that if the Bill is as successful as many hon. Members think it will be, the likelihood is that after an experimental period--to which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred--the Government of the day will almost certainly adopt it and introduce it nationally. I will make my hon. Friend an offer. In a year or two, when the legislation is a success, I will join him in encouraging the Home Secretary to introduce it on a national basis.
Mr. Wyatt: Again, I think that was probably a speech.
The measure relating to Yorkshire was passed in 1991. I take issue with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as my figures for Yorkshire are slightly different from his, and I may discuss that in a minute. However, if the Yorkshire measure was so profound in 1991, why is there no follow-up Act in 2000? That is not the way to go. If I am correct and the Bill is based on improving the Yorkshire legislation, it is up to the Minister to introduce it as a major Bill.
Mrs. Fiona Jones: May I just--[Interruption.] It is interesting that a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), is speaking in our debate. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for the police to enter private premises. It appears to me that if one strips away--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady again that she must frame her intervention in the form of a question and be brief.
Mrs. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1984 Act makes provision for the police to enter people's premises? Therefore, it is debatable whether the Bill makes any provision differing from that of the Act?
Mr. Wyatt: I confess that I do not have profound knowledge of the 1984 Act, so I take my hon. Friend's word that that is the case.
The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I am a member, is examining the rather larger issue of stolen artefacts. If one buys a second-hand car, one gets a logbook; if one buys a house, one gets information. Therefore, when one buys an antique, why cannot it be logged? That is so fundamental as to be a national issue.
Hon. Members have referred to the Yorkshire experience and the legislation passed in 1991. I am happy to argue about figures, but mine show that there were 4,971 burglaries, and 4,806 last year. That is a reduction of only--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |