| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Hear, hear.
Mr. MacShane: Other Conservative Members also say, "Hear, hear."
Mr. Helmer was asked by the BBC interviewer whether the Conservative party would be looking at withdrawal. He replied:
"well, it's a vote winner for UKIP perhaps because we haven't been sufficiently clear. But I don't think you need to offer withdrawal with a capital W."
There are Conservative Members who believe in withdrawal with a small w. It is time that they came out and were honest on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), as always, was passionate on the question of Europe and quoted one of my favourite poets, Alexander Pope. He will remember another of Pope's couplets:
"Old politicians chew on wisdom past,
And totter on in business to the last."
I know that the last speech that my hon. Friend will make in the House will be the first speech that I heard him make 10 years ago, which was for detachment or withdrawal from the EU. He has been completely consistent and honest.
Mr. MacShane: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for not giving way, so that I might cover other points.
Mr. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mitchell:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All these insults are taken in the playful spirit in which they are intended. I am sure that they are meant very kindly.
16 Jun 2004 : Column 879
Is my hon. Friend saying that we cannot alter enormities such as the CFA, the CAP and the common monetary and economic policy without withdrawing? Is that the essence of what he is saying?
Mr. MacShane: Of course not. We are at the table—certainly since I entered the House—seeking a share of the EU budget going to agriculture. It has come down by about 10 per cent. That has been done by agreement. My point is that we require the consent of 24 other member states. To pretend otherwise is dishonest, and to say that a law will be passed in the House to take back control of our fishing waters or to leave the CAP, and not accept the consequences of that, means withdrawal—whether with a capital W or a small w. I ask hon. Members to be honest on this point.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) called for a further and full debate on the EU constitutional treaty. I cannot promise him that from the Dispatch Box—but, through the usual channels, I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I would object to such a debate if time were found.He asked a serious question on voting weights, which is a big issue that does not directly involve the United Kingdom. Every country in Europe has so-called red lines. I hope that we can achieve a deal at the end of this week.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the charter of fundamental rights, and it is important that we get that right. Mr. Elmar Brok, the leading German MEP who speaks for the CDU on European matters, said on "Newsnight" on 18 May that the charter of fundamental rights
"has no impact on national legislation, national law and national jurisdiction."
Either he is right or the lurid scare stories that we have heard from Opposition Members are. I believe that Mr. Brok is closer to the truth, as will become clear over the weekend.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli talked about the need for a sensible economic policy in Europe, and I continually make speeches on such issues when I travel around the continent to speak about Government policy. I am happy to share those speeches with the House another time, but it is a responsibility of national Governments to make decisions in Berlin, Paris, Rome and elsewhere that ensure that Europe is as competitive as possible. That brings me to the point made by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), as an absence of constitutional treaties is not helpful for Britain. As I said, a constitution for Europe is present in the existing treaties, and the new constitution restores power to national Governments. If taken seriously by hon. Members, it would restore power not just to our Parliament but to all the Parliaments in Europe. There is a notion that Britain can stand alone outside Europe or make a dramatic breakthrough under the existing constitutional treaties—but we need to be at the table making the arguments, as Digby Jones of the CBI said.
Mr. MacShane:
I cannot accept interventions, as I need to refer to the speeches of other hon. Members.
16 Jun 2004 : Column 880
The right hon. Member for Wells made much of the question of primacy, which I have dealt with by citing Lord Justice Scott. I fundamentally agree with the right hon. Member that the job of politicians is to avoid a road smash, but when will his party work with the other centre-right parties of Europe to argue the British case, whether on Turkey—on which there is no divide between the parties—or on the liberal economic policies to which the right hon. Member for Charnwood referred? Parliament is one-legged in Europe because the main Opposition party refuses to work with its fellow centre-right politicians on those important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that Europe is a crucial issue for Britain, and that it needs to reform. Ministers, he said, should go out and explain to the British people the benefits of EU membership. I could not agree more. I fully support the praise that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) lavished on the Council of Europe, an extremely important organisation. There is more to Europe than the European Union. Interestingly, every single country outside the EU that I deal with is knocking on the door to join, including Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, other Balkan states and Turkey. Amazingly, while the rest of Europe wants to become part of the European Union and work in partnership with us, often looking to us for inspiration and leadership, the Opposition have been so thoroughly UKIP-ised that all we hear is talk of withdrawal from Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton stressed the importance of the EU as a force for peace. If he travelled west of the Balkans, he would see how right he is. The EU is a great and noble construction that we should support in every possible way.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) talked about giving away our birthright, which is the kind of language that debases the entire debate. The constitutional treaty will increase the power of national Governments and national Parliaments, while one new clause gives UKIP and many Opposition Members a present that they have long wanted—the chance to leave the European Union. Labour Members, most other hon. Members and the British people will vote yes to Europe and yes to a constitutional treaty to make the Europe of tomorrow work yet more efficiently and effectively.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
PETITION
Road Safety
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): The petition of residents of Briton, Saxon, Roman and Norman roads and Stone street in Faversham and supporters of the Kingsfield traffic action group requests that the House of Commons
urges the Government to take immediate steps to ensure that the local council protects the safety of residents and their children on the roads in busy areas
To lie upon the Table.
16 Jun 2004 : Column 881
Door Staff Registration
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
7 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): The debate is about door staff, door stewards, doorkeepers or bouncers, as they are variously called. It is a great pleasure to see the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety in her place, and I thank her.
On 21 October I attended a meeting at Temptations nightclub at Newport, where I was told of concerns that doorkeepers on the island have about the doorkeeper registration scheme, which must be implemented under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Before I go into the details, I shall headline some of the questions that I hope the Minister will answer during the debate or shortly afterwards.
First, did the Minister know when she signed the commencement order how damaging it would be to small businesses in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight if it were enforced, or was she not told of the shortage of registered doorkeepers at the time that she signed the commencement order in the middle of May? Secondly, will she encourage the police and local councils to take a light touch approach to enforcement, and in particular not to threaten people's licences while there are not enough doorkeepers? Thirdly, does she think the registration costs are affordable to part-time and casual doorkeepers?
Fourthly, will the Minister obtain an urgent report from the Security Industry Authority on registration, to see how well the SIA is responding and how quickly it is responding to the challenge of registering people when they apply? Fifthly, why were the Isle of Wight and Hampshire selected as a pilot area without doorkeepers being consulted? Who agreed to that? Sixthly, who took the decision to introduce the scheme area by area? Was it the SIA or was it Ministers? Was that envisaged in debate on the Bill? I believe not. If not, when was that determined?
Seventhly, will anyone be put out of work if they have not received a doorkeeper's badge? Eighthly, is enforcement the SIA's responsibility or that of the police or the licensing authority? At present, I can only say thank goodness that in my constituency there appears to be no authority able and willing to enforce this ill-thought-out and hastily implemented scheme.
After the meeting to which I referred, I had a letter from Zoe Mitchell, who is the secretary of the Isle of Wight Association of Professional Door Stewards. Among other things she asked:
"If a majority of Stewards refuse to undergo the course or apply for the licence, what are your"—
this is a letter sent to the SIA—
"procedures to protect the pubs and clubs from closure?"
She went on to tell Mr. Drane of the SIA that during the previous week she had found it impossible to find anyone who can and/or will answer her questions. She had, she said, been pushed from pillar to post.
16 Jun 2004 : Column 882
That was on 30 November. On 22 October, the day after the meeting, Sarah Hunnybun, who is a licensing enforcement officer at the Isle of Wight council, told me that
"proposals by the SIA are flawed and will be seriously detrimental to crime and disorder on a local level."
"I am representing the Isle of Wight on a small working party with the SIA, and we have discussed these issues with them at various levels during the past year, but have reached a point where the SIA is either unwilling or unable to address our concerns."
She mentioned a number of concerns, including the low pay of door staff, which makes it impossible for them to afford the high cost of training and registration. She pointed out that training requirements were unlikely to be finally confirmed until November or December 2003 and that, as a result, training courses were unlikely to commence until January 2004. In conclusion, she said:
"the costs of registration and training of the individuals involved will inevitably lead to a scarcity of licensed door supervisors, leading to premises possibly having to close down".
The reply that I received with regard to that matter was pretty inadequate. The chief executive of the SIA referred to
"a policy of full consultation and collaboration with key stakeholder groups within all sectors of the Private Security Industry".
I ask now whether that included doorkeepers and those who employ them. He pointed out that the SIA
"was instrumental in setting up a liaison group with licensing officers and the police in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight",
and said that assurances had been received that training would be available to meet anticipated demand. He stated that the SIA had anticipated a possible shortage and had
"put in place contingency plans which have been drawn up with the intention of minimising disruption."
The reply failed to justify the level of the fee or to answer the points about grandfather rights. I wrote back to the chief executive and pointed out my dissatisfaction with his reply.
Subsequently, I had a meeting with Mr. Drane and his deputy head of compliance, Dianne Tranmer. He was unable to explain whether doorkeepers or their employers had been consulted. He said that he felt that the level of fee was not an issue for doorkeepers and acknowledged that the training required to bring those with grandfather rights, which he had now sorted out, up to the new standard was not yet available in my constituency. Of course, the cost of travelling from my constituency to Hampshire for four days is significant, especially for part-timers who may have another job and may lose work. Finally, Mr. Drane said that it was his intention that the scheme would come on track on 4 June.
On 30 March, the SIA said that the Isle Wight school of food and wine
"currently estimate to have 48 door supervisors trained in the coming weeks."
Mr. Drane said that he was informed that Ministers would be
"laying the commencement order before Parliament mid to late April."
Miss Hunnybun wrote to me saying
"some of their replies to your questions . . . directly conflict with what I know to be the case in certain areas, for example, that they felt the licence fee of £190 was not an issue for doorpersons."
"the fee has been set to cover the cost of the SIA. (It is interesting to note that when members of the SIA visit the Island, they stay at a well-known 4-star hotel as opposed to somewhere cheaper like the Travel Inn!!)"
That is the sort of thing that pushes up the cost of the licences for doorkeepers. She added:
"Our primary concern still remains that, after the 4th June, there will be a shortage of licensed door supervisors for the amount of premises that will require them, particularly the IW Pop Festival and Cowes Week"—
the former took place last weekend, while Cowes week will be in the first full week of August—
"whose security staff will all need to be SIA licensed."
That shows that there was ample warning to the SIA, but it was immobile.
On 10 May, I wrote to the Home Secretary. I understand that the letter did not arrive, but I e-mailed it and sent hard copy. I told him that only 14 doorkeepers had been registered in the two counties out of an estimated 2,000 that were currently employed. I said:
"More doorkeepers' applications are in train, but nothing like sufficient to meet the two counties' needs. In other words, for whatever reason, it is impossible for businesses to comply with the legislation if it takes effect on 4th June."
I was not the only person saying that. Mr. J.U. Burke, a licensing officer for the city of Southampton—the lead authority in the two counties in dealing with the SIA on this matter—wrote a lengthy letter on 12 May to the chairman of the SIA. It listed a host of problems, some of which I have mentioned, but included the proposal by the police and local authority representatives who attended the 4 May meeting with the SIA to consider postponing the implementation date. I, too, had requested that. The letter also said that the closure of premises as a result of the shortage of door staff would be a front-page media story and bad publicity for all concerned.
I understand that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) have also written to the Home Office on the subject. My hon. Friend—I cannot speak for the others—has yet to receive a reply.
Mr. Burke also drew attention to the problem of who is responsible for enforcement. He said that
"enforcement of the law in relation to door supervisors is clearly the role of the SIA and not that of the Local Authority. It was presumably envisaged that the substantial licence fees paid to the SIA would cover enforcement . . . In addition the SIA representatives have been unable to indicate any statutory authority for local authority officers to demand proof of SIA licence."
He reminded the chairman of the SIA:
"At the meeting in May, we learnt that enforcement is not now proposed to take place until the end of June or early July and such enforcement is anticipated to be in the form of a warning."
That may have been true as far as Mr. Burke was concerned, but on the same day the SIA issued a press release that was entitled:
"Inaction by door supervisors could force pubs and clubs to close".
"all eligible applications received by 7 May"—
the press release was written five days later—would be processed
"in time for the start of licensing on 4 June, but Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will still be left with a significant shortage of licensed door supervisors."
The SIA accepted that the scheme was under pressure and threatening the livelihoods of doorkeepers and proprietors. However, it went on to blame those doorkeepers and proprietors by saying that
"inaction by individual door supervisors and venue operators can only be through deliberate means or neglect."
They threatened proprietors by stating:
"If licensees use unlicensed door staff after 4 June, they could put their premises licence at risk."
That is not an appropriate way in which to deal with small businesses and individuals who have taken on a part-time or casual job and cannot afford to invest the money in the training.
On 28 May, the assistant chief constable of Hampshire police wrote to licensees stating:
"From that date"—
"it will be an offence to work as a door supervisor without a licence or to employ unlicensed door supervisors . . . those found committing these offences will be liable for prosecution at any time . . . a very limited policy of discretion will be adopted by the Hampshire Constabulary until the 4th September 2004. Individuals who have submitted their applications too late to be processed by the 4th June will be issued with a letter from the SIA informing the individual that their application is being processed. Between the 4th June and 4th September officers will have the discretion to issue such individuals working without a licence a formal warning."
I take that to mean something akin to a police caution. The police have a licence to prosecute and they will issue a formal warning. The letter says nothing about what would happen to licensees. Of course, a caution against licensees could have damaging implications for the future of their licence.
Mark Watson, the general manager of Colonel Bogey's in Sandown, wrote to me on 28 May. He stated:
"As previously discussed with you, it has once again been proved that the system is letting us down badly and will create a problem.
My doorman"—
I think that he meant "doormen" but perhaps he means one doorman—
"took their exam on 28th April. After daily telephone calls to the British Institute of Innkeeping to 'chase' the doorman's certificates (you are not able to apply to the SIA without these certificates) they were delivered . . . on 26th May."
That is a delay of a month. The letter continues:
"We are now in the process of applying for the SIA licence and this, as quoted by the SIA, will take 4 to 6 weeks."
On 3 June, I eventually established that the relevant legislation would take effect on the following day because the Minister had signed the order in the
16 Jun 2004 : Column 885
previous week. I thank the Library for that information and I am also grateful for the help that I obtained from Bridget Brooks, a Home Office official. I immediately made representations to the Isle of Wight council and Hampshire constabulary to adopt a light-touch enforcement regime. However, on 5 June, Mark Watson told me that the police had threatened a pub for which he has responsibility, The Redan in Ryde, with closure on the first night of the scheme's operation because he was employing an unregistered doorkeeper.
On 7 June, in the periodical The Publican, Colin Pollard, the licensee at The Hobbit in Southampton said:
"It has been a nightmare trying to get the forms in. We've had a number returned and it's not clear why. It's a relief that the police are taking this into consideration but whether they prosecute is still at their discretion."
John Burke, the licensing officer for Southampton to whom I referred earlier, said:
"We are frustrated, this could have been done a lot better. We were running a good operation with our door supervisors already, so why try to reinvent the wheel?"
Mark Watson told me on 11 June:
"All my staff's applications have been sent. Most of them have been returned as marked either incomplete or not enough documentation.
Firstly, the SIA application clearly states on several fields 'Country (Leave blank if in the UK)'. So this field has been left blank, but the forms have been returned to me as 'this field is incomplete because it has been left blank'.
One of my staff supplied a passport, a plastic and paper driving licence, a birth certificate and two household bills. This form was returned as 'insufficient identity'."
He wrote to me again on 16 June to say that more of his door staff had had their applications returned, and he complained that important documents were being sent second class rather than by recorded delivery. He said:
"To describe the system as a fiasco is an understatement. The cost for each of my staff including application fee, training, wages and travel (as we had to train off the Isle of Wight) is in the region of £750 per door person. I have 14 door staff. £10,5000 of our profits down the drain. Yet another stealth tax. I resent the intimidatory stance offered by the SIA in recent press releases and emails received."
He went on to say that it was easier to obtain a shotgun licence than SIA registration.
What happened at the Isle of Wight music festival? I mean the Nokia Isle of Wight music festival, forgive me. A senior representative called Jill—she would not give her surname—of Rock Steady, the organisation responsible for security at the festival told a constituent of mine that she was not SIA registered. Actually, she thought that the authority in question was called the CIA. She said that the laws were different in England from those on the Isle of Wight and that there was no requirement for an SIA-registered person. She would not say whether anyone on site was SIA registered. She also said that the festival had been given an exemption from the relevant legislation by the Isle of Wight council. The Minister will know, as will the council, that it has no power to exempt anyone from that legislation. Jill also claimed to be qualified to teach doorkeepers to SIA registration standard.
I have received the impression of arrogant, uncaring and out-of-touch officials in the SIA who are either ignoring advice or have been told to drive a policy
16 Jun 2004 : Column 886
through, regardless of the consequences. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the latter is not the case, and I hope that she will be able to answer some of my questions tonight.
7.18 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |