| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Darling relating to the Crossrail Bill not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not
(2) proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Security of Energy Supply may continue, though opposed, for three hours or until Six o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Mr. Watts.]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
That Mr Andrew Mackay be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr David Heathcoat-Amory be added.—[Joan Ryan, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
ARMED FORCES BILL
That Vera Baird, Mr Simon Burns, Mr David Burrowes, Mr Alan Campbell, Ben Chapman, Mr George Howarth, Mr Gerald Howarth, Mr Kevan Jones, Robert Key, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Mr Michael Moore, Bob Russell, Jim Sheridan and Mr Don Touhig be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.—[Joan Ryan, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITIONS
Broseley Leisure Centre
10 pm
Mr. Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I present a petition on behalf of the users of Broseley leisure centre, which
Declares that there is a social requirement for a multi-purpose leisure facility in Broseley in order to meet the needs of the local community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons make Broseley Town Council and Bridgnorth District Council aware of the petitioners' concerns.
To lie upon the Table.
19 Dec 2005 : Column 1678
May Avenue (Castle Point)
10.1 pm
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Like many communities in south Essex, Castle Point faces a new plague. We are becoming flat-land, with good houses demolished to make way for massive blocks of flats that harm neighbours, do nothing for the street scene and place our already over-burdened infrastructure under even greater pressures. The drive of the Office of the Deputy Prime for more building and yet higher densities is causing that, and it is damaging our communities. It must stop.
The Petition of residents affected by the plan to build an additional twelve flats in May Avenue, Castle Point,
Declares that the plan to build twelve flats in May Avenue will be detrimental to the Petitioners as local residents and also to the wider community of Castle Point, which is already overdeveloped for the infrastructure that exists.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to do all within its power to ensure that Castle Point Borough councillors reject the application.
Essex Police Force
Bob Spink: I am privileged to present a separate petition that, like my early-day motion 1010, seeks to resist the Government's drive to replace our local police force with a merged, more remote body that, if the excellent survey by the Evening Echo is anything to go by, is very much against the wishes of the people of Essex.
Declares that they wish to support option four of a stand alone strategic police force for Essex and they object to Government plans to merge police forces which would lead to unacceptable centralisation with the possibility of political control and higher costs, and with less local control and accountability of the police; and they welcome the cross-Party actions of Essex MPs to save Essex Police Force.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to withdraw its dangerous and politically motivated policy of merging police forces and retain Essex Police Force in its current format.
Thundersley (Toilet Facilities)
Bob Spink: My third petition is again quite separate. I present it on behalf of the people in Thundersley in Castle Point, who wish the provision of a decent set of public toilets in Thundersley village to be maintained. One of the measures of a decent borough council is that it maintains good facilities, particularly for the elderly.
Declares that Castle Point Borough Council is not providing toilet facilities in Thundersley Village. These facilities are very much needed and can be easily made safe for all users by proper
- design and management. The petition further declares that other councils provide decent toilet facilities and that the level of council tax in Castle Point is extremely high.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to do all within its power to ensure that Castle Point Borough councillors provide the toilet facilities we need.
Gloucestershire Constabulary
10.4 pm
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): This is a petition from the residents of Gloucestershire, supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). It has been signed by 1,037 residents of Gloucestershire and the shadow Home Secretary.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons note the commendations bestowed upon the Gloucestershire Constabulary; the excellent quality of service that is provided by the Constabulary and the Constabulary's excellent capability to address criminality in Gloucestershire. The Petitioners further request that the House of Commons urge the Home Office to maintain the Constabulary as an independent force and give support to the Constabulary to continue its independent programme of development for the people of Gloucestershire.
To lie upon the Table.
19 Dec 2005 : Column 1680
Internet (Rogue Dialling)
Motion made and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Kevin Brennan.]
10.5 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): After a lengthy and, dare I say it, extended debate about police force boundaries, I want to focus on the victims of a particular crime—we always say that we want to put victims first. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the appalling situation that 19 households in my constituency have experienced as victims of what has become known as internet rogue dialling. I also want to discuss the dismal treatment that those constituents have received as BT customers and highlight the regulatory mess, from which we are now emerging with the help of the Minister for Industry and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), but which still leaves my constituents and thousands more all over the country as out-of-pocket victims who feel that they have been living a nightmare.
Although there have been various problems associated with premium rate service abuse, I am discussing one specific type of scam—for "scam", read "crime". It did not involve the victims making any judgments or misjudgments while using the internet, and it did not involve misleading online advertisements or offers that might have lured people into such a predicament. All my constituents did was open their telephone bill and find charges, usually for hundreds of pounds, for calls that they never made. The largest charge was for more than £800, and those people can prove that they never made those calls.
Ofcom accepts that that is what happened, and it has provided me with a briefing for this debate:
"There exists a type of 'rogue' dialler using premium rate ('09') international and satellite numbering that proved to be a serious virus type problem during 2004 and resulted in substantial levels of consumer harm. This resulted in ICSTIS receiving an unprecedented volume of complaints and enquiries from consumers about this activity. The majority of those cases involved websites simply installing diallers without permission and with stealth, resulting in consumers receiving high bills and subsequently disputing them on the grounds that they had no knowledge these calls were being made."
The rogue calls were usually to an obscure, faraway place, in the case of most of my constituents, the island of Tuvalu, which I confess that I had never heard of until I took up this matter, and a wave of complaints was made to BT, the police and the regulators. The matter was highlighted in East Anglia by BBC "Look East", but other victims have subsequently contacted me from all over the country.
BT has also provided me with a brief, which states:
"at one time some 2,000 cases were being reported daily to ICSTIS; ICSTIS were taking up to 26 weeks to conclude investigations; ICSTIS often did not know who ran the services in order for customers to approach them to their money back as records were not up to date, and some unscrupulous terminating comms providers dragged their feet in complying with requests to update ICSTIS; ICSTIS had no real 'teeth' to make them comply".
It is clear that BT tended to blame the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services.
19 Dec 2005 : Column 1681
The real problem was that whoever people complained to, BT said, in effect, "It's not me, guv—it's not my fault." One of my constituents, Mr. Gasson, received a bill for more than £600-worth of calls that he never made. He spoke to BT and then contacted the police, who referred him back to BT. Since then, he has been pursued for payment and there have been heaps of correspondence between him, myself and BT. Today, he has been cut off for not paying for something that he never bought.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |