Previous Section Index Home Page

27 Jun 2007 : Column 89WH—continued

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) put his finger on something important when he said—I tried to scribble it down, and I hope that I have recalled it properly—that the dispute was no longer about territory, but increasingly about ideology, and we must remember that in the case of the kidnapped soldiers. The hon. Gentleman is right that the activities of Sunni Jihadists, which the hon. Member for Cheadle also mentioned and which include Fatah al-Islam—the group responsible for the fighting at the Nahr El Bared refugee camp near Tripoli in the north of Lebanon—are a worrying development. These people are the self-appointed representatives of a movement inspired by the belief that there should be an Islamic caliphate from Manila to Madrid. It is a movement that considers the kidnapping, torture and murder of infidels and non-Sunnis to be a duty for jihadists if it assists in building that caliphate and destroying the structures and notions of sovereign states and democratic
27 Jun 2007 : Column 90WH
institutions, including the United Nations. It has murdered some of the best that the United Nations had, in Baghdad and since. Added to that mix, as hon. Members have hinted, we might consider the nefarious work of Iran and the Shi’a theocracies, which work ceaselessly to support the violence and terrorism perpetrated by Hezbollah and Hamas. Help is also being given to the Taliban in Afghanistan, although I cannot go into that in this debate, and our soldiers are being murdered too. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s observation. It is important to the discussion about what to do to get the soldiers out.

We continue to work closely with the UN, and have offered it the Government’s continued support as it works towards a successful outcome. What is needed as a first step, as hon. Members have said, is humanitarian access to the captured soldiers. That has been requested repeatedly by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a very important player. We second the call of the ICRC to Hezbollah and others to give that access.

Of course, the abductions by Hezbollah last summer precipitated a wider conflict with Israel. I was there during the terrible violence last July in Lebanon and Israel. I was in Palestine and Jordan and witnessed the horrific consequences of those kidnappings. As the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire showed in his remarks, it is easy for such an event to spark off a calamity. A ceasefire was eventually constructed, but it took a lot of doing. It is very easy—the hon. Member for Cheadle raised the point—to call for a ceasefire; it is a different matter to construct one. I heard calls at the time for a UN peacekeeping force to fight its way into Lebanon. I would like to see nations do that. I have heard questions such as, “What militias have had their weapons taken from them?” Try taking the weapons off Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. It is an alternative Government—a self-appointed group of terrorists who act as if they are the Government of Lebanon. We must understand that Hezbollah has a hybrid relationship with Lebanon. It has Members of Parliament but it also has its own army. If it decides to go to war with Israel it drags Lebanon into that war. There should be in Lebanon, as the United Nations resolution made very clear, one Government and one gun—the Lebanese army, which should be the representative of, and controlled by, the Lebanese Parliament.

I have been watching, week by week—as we all have, I am sure—the majority in the democratically elected Government of Prime Minister Siniora in Lebanon being systematically murdered; its majority is being reduced by murder—and it is not just Members of Parliament who are being murdered by whoever is responsible. It just happens that the people who are being murdered at the moment are all anti-Syrian. I shall not add two and two and make five, but we should ask who is doing the murdering. In the last murder the victim’s son was killed as well, because those responsible knew that if there were a by-election the son would win it. That is how ruthless the opponents of democracy in Lebanon are. That is how ruthless Hezbollah is. Those Hezbollah hit squads are capable not only of kidnapping soldiers but, in sophisticated ways, of murdering even the most important people in Lebanese politics, such as Hariri.


27 Jun 2007 : Column 91WH

Mrs. Ellman: I congratulate the Minister on his firm grasp of the complexities of the situation in Lebanon and the middle east generally. Does he share my concern about the continuing reports on the build-up of arms by Hezbollah in Lebanon since the ceasefire agreement, and the growing concern that, with such a build-up and the intention to start firing on northern Israel again, the seeds of a new conflict have already been sown?

Dr. Howells: It is an important question. I recently travelled to the Israeli border in Lebanon, an area to which the Lebanese army had not been for a long time, south of the Litani river. I spoke with General Graziano, who is in charge of the UNIFIL forces there. He told me that the forces had not intercepted any significant smuggling of arms across that part of the border from Syria into Lebanon, but that he had no way of knowing what arms had been smuggled across the rest of the Lebanese-Syrian border, especially in the north.

I am sure that many people are watching those borders carefully. Syria has said that if it sees, for example, German peacekeepers moving too close to the border, it will regard it as an act of war. That does not sound to me like the policy of a state that is interested in creating a sustainable peace in the region. General Graziano’s view was that in the interregnum between the creation of a ceasefire and the UNIFIL force’s managing to go down into southern Lebanon, Hezbollah had rearmed itself. Its Iranian and Syrian backers had ensured that it had its 107 mm rockets and everything else that it required, in case it wanted to begin once again to attack Israeli towns. That is a very worrying situation and my hon. Friend is right to raise it.


27 Jun 2007 : Column 92WH

Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the few minutes left of the debate, will the Minister say something about contacts that have been made with Hamas and about the release of Corporal Shalit? In particular, what discussions did the British consul general in Jerusalem have when he met Ismael Haniya, the Hamas Prime Minister? We know that the case of Alan Johnston was raised. Was the case of Corporal Shalit raised? What continuing contact is being made?

Dr. Howells: I am happy to speak about that. We have been working mostly, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, with the Egyptians. They continue to mediate between the Israelis and Hamas towards the release of Corporal Shalit. We understand that the stumbling block continues to be the names and overall numbers of Palestinian prisoners that would be released in exchange. A very large number has been given. Recent events in Gaza are certainly one cause for concern in the context, but we continue to support the Egyptians in their efforts.

I think it was the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) who said that it might be a good idea if Turkey were to become involved. We have been trying wherever possible to persuade the regional powers that they should become more involved. I was very glad, as the hon. Member for Cotswold knows, because we have debated this issue before, to see a renaissance in Saudi international diplomacy; it is very important, and I hope that they will put the kind of energy into getting Corporal Shalit released that they tried to put into the broader middle east peace process last month and the month before. I think that it is a good suggestion that Turkey should be involved.

By way of a precise response, our diplomats have not raised Shalit in face-to-face discussions, but only Alan Johnston. It was a UK consular issue.


27 Jun 2007 : Column 93WH

Sentencing (Retail Crime)

11 am

Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): First, I should like to explode some common myths about shop theft. There is a view that shoplifting is a petty or victimless crime of ordinary people taking a few bits off the shelves on impulse, and that it is not really criminal behaviour and shoplifters are not really criminals, but that is by no means the entire picture. We should all be concerned that shop thefts are increasing: 296,044 were recorded by the police in 2005-06, which was up by more than 14,200 on the previous year. Official figures show that shop theft increased by 1 per cent. between 2000 and 2006, but data collected by the British Retail Consortium indicate an increase of 70 per cent. in that period. That huge discrepancy could be down to under-reporting to the police.

We should also be concerned that there were 10,000 physical assaults on shop workers last year, 7,000 of which were linked to shoplifting. Behind those statistics lie horrifying incidents involving the assault and abuse of shop workers. I recently met two brave women who work in Asda. One of them had been the victim of an armed robbery, in which a gun was held to her head, and the other had been attacked with an axe. Since the attacks, they have felt frightened to go to work every day.

The local paper in my constituency, the Stockport Express, reported in March that there had been a spate of 19 armed robberies of late-night shops and off-licences. In April, there was an awful case in which a woman shop worker suffered horrendous injuries when she was hit in the face with a hammer for four bottles of vermouth and a few packets of cigarettes. Other Stockport cases that have recently been reported to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers include that of a youth who attacked a shop manager when he was challenged for stealing beer. The deputy manager went to assist the manager, but the youth broke free and produced a hypodermic syringe, saying that he had AIDS, and started chasing staff members, before eventually escaping. In another case, a woman was confronted for stealing magazines and said that she was going to pay for them. When she was told to leave the store and not to return, she became abusive and threatened to come back and stab the sales assistant.

Sixty per cent. of violent incidents occur when staff attempt to detain criminals or to protect property from theft. Many shop workers are faced with that dilemma every day, and there are many cases of traumatised workers leaving their jobs. In order to deal with shoplifting, it is important to understand the link between it and other criminal activities, such as organised crime. Much shop theft is done by people who are desperate for cash to buy drugs or alcohol. A Home Office report entitled “Strengthening powers to tackle anti-social behaviour” said that people who commit retail theft are 85 per cent. likely to be drug users and to live “chaotic” lifestyles.

A recent report by the Centre for Retail Research found that the biggest shoplifters are men. It said that shoplifters are


27 Jun 2007 : Column 94WH

Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and she makes a powerful case. She said that there were 10,000 physical attacks on shop workers last year. Given those attacks, the antisocial behaviour in shops and the fact that some shoplifting is driven significantly by large-scale organised crime, is not it crucial that the full force of the law is brought to bear on the perpetrators of those crimes? Any signal that the seriousness of the offence of shoplifting might be downgraded sends entirely the wrong message. Would not it be good to get some reassurance from the Minister ahead of the national respect for shop workers day on 11 July that has been organised by USDAW, which has done much to campaign for shop workers on this issue?

Ann Coffey: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I agree entirely with that important point about the message that is being sent about the seriousness of shop crime. I know that he has a long record of campaigning for shop crime to be treated more seriously, both to make shops safer for shop workers and to make communities safer for constituents to shop in.

Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She makes an excellent case, particularly in highlighting the vulnerability of many female shop workers. Is not it incredible that, against that background, the Sentencing Guidelines Council should suggest that even persistent shoplifters should no longer be sent to prison?

Ann Coffey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. All sentencing options should be open to the courts when dealing with shoplifters, and there should not be a presumption that offences are trivial before they are dealt with in court.

Shoplifting has also been linked to gun crime and terrorism. A report on Operation Trident, which investigated shootings within the Afro-Caribbean community, said that a generation of young people had moved from shoplifting to gun crime within six years. There have also been many reports of terrorists raising funds through organised shoplifting. Far from being a trivial offence, shoplifting may be a visible sign of a shoplifter’s more extensive criminal activity, or of his or her link to organised crime. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that many shop workers are assaulted, because they often have to challenge people who are not novices in crime.

If sentencing policy is to be effective in preventing retail crime, it is important to recognise that shoplifting is not the victimless, petty crime that it is portrayed as, and that shoplifters are often hardened criminals. It is also important that sentencing policy should take account of the fact that people may start as shoplifters but end up involved in more criminal activities. That is why it is vital that first offences are treated appropriately.

That brings me to fixed penalty notices for disorder. In 2004, the scope of PNDs was extended to include shop theft offences. Many people expressed concern that shop theft was being trivialised and put on the
27 Jun 2007 : Column 95WH
same level as parking offences or litter dropping. PNDs were intended to be used in cases of the theft of goods worth less than £200, and they were not meant to be used for repeat offenders. Victims’ views were also meant to be taken into account when deciding whether to use PNDs instead of prosecuting. More importantly, they were meant for first offenders, although the length of time since any previous offence could be taken into account. The idea was that they would provide a quick penalty for shoplifting and would discourage further offences, but regrettably they seem to have been much misused. Businesses claim that some offenders collect notices like parking tickets.

Police officers are not supposed to give on-the-spot fines to drug users. If a drug offender is not identified and is given a PND, they stand no chance of receiving treatment or coming off drugs. An offender who is given a PND will not be drug-tested on the scene and so probably will not be identified. That is important, because the reason that people are tested on arrest is to identify underlying problems and to stop the spiral of crime.

PNDs have a part to play in the overall system, but I remain concerned about their overall effectiveness and about the consistency of their use. The British Retail Consortium has dozens of examples in which police guidance on PNDs has been flouted, including cases in which multiple PNDs have been issued to persistent offenders, sometimes in the same day, and two cases in which PNDs were issued to offenders wearing electronic tags, one of whom was a previous employee and was on parole. Those are clear breaches of guidance, as PNDs should not be given to repeat offenders.

Other examples of guidance breaches include the issuing of PNDs to aggressive and disorderly individuals and to those using foil bags, indicating that the offence was planned. For those who do not know, a foil bag is lined with layers of aluminium foil, which enables the carrier to shoplift because it blocks out store sensors. PNDs have been issued in cases involving goods worth well in excess of the recommended £100 limit and even in excess of the £200 exceptional circumstances limit. In other cases, PNDs have been issued without the victim’s consent. Victims should not be pressurised into accepting the issuing of a PND simply because it makes life easier for the police. A PND disposal removes the possibility of the criminal court awarding a compensation order in the victim’s favour.

A recent survey of solicitors for BBC Radio 4’s “Law in Action” programme found that some people racked up as many as five fixed penalty notices in a matter of months without getting a criminal record. Parliamentary figures show that in 2004 only 2,072 PNDs were issued for shop theft. In 2005, the number leapt tenfold to 21,997. In the first six months of last year, the number was 16,807; new figures from the House of Commons Library suggest that it will rise to 37,463 for the whole of 2006. That could mean that PNDs have been effective and that more shoplifters are being caught, but it could equally indicate a level of abuse and that PNDs are being handed out like confetti. Even if we accept that PNDs are being issued legitimately to first-time shoplifters, it is staggering that only 41.2 per cent of related fines are paid.


27 Jun 2007 : Column 96WH

There is no national system for recording PNDs—the figures are collected by individual police forces—so it is not possible to say how many have been given to repeat offenders. Police forces are supposed to record the issuing of PNDs on the police national computer, but there is evidence that that does not always happen.

A report from the Office for Criminal Justice Reform published in February 2006 confirmed that the way in which PNDs are issued is not consistent from area to area. The report refers to the poor quality of notices, which are mainly hand-written, and to problems with recording information on the police national computer. Those things make it easier for an offender to get away with multiple offences, because they could, for example, move between police authorities.

On a national level, the jury is out about the effectiveness of PNDs as a deterrent for would-be first-time shoplifters. The recent announcement that police will be able to defer payment of PNDs for shoplifting for three to six months has been met with consternation because of the message that it sends out. I understand that deferments will take place only when the police feel that a community will benefit from the shoplifter signing, by way of an alternative, an acceptable behaviour contract. I welcome that, because it will enable us to pay some attention to underlying social problems, but it is important that people have confidence that deferments will be effective, which means having confidence that PNDs are being used effectively. Before the measure is introduced, will the Minister undertake a thorough, national evaluation of PNDs? Such a review would include collecting information on the extent to which guidelines are adhered to, including on the recording of offences; the number of people who reoffend having been issued a PND; and what action is taken against the high proportion who do not pay PND fines. The evaluation should also include evidence from stakeholders.

There is anecdotal evidence that criminals move into retail crime because there is less risk and penalties are lower. I should like to see an assessment of whether the perceived weakening of punishments for shop theft is making retail premises more attractive to thieves than domestic properties such as houses and cars.

The Sentencing Advisory Panel is currently drafting advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which it is expected to publish in the autumn. The proposal to remove or cap custodial sentences for shop theft at 16 weeks for even the more persistent offenders has caused anxiety among businesses, especially when combined with the increased use of PNDs. It will be helpful if the Minister confirms that the full range of sanctions under the criminal justice system will remain available, from PNDs to antisocial behaviour orders and drug treatment orders, and custodial sentences of whatever length a court believes to be appropriate.

This year, the national respect for shop workers day, which is organised by USDAW, will be held on Wednesday 11 July. To emphasise the important part that local shops play in the life of the community, the theme of the day will be that safer shops make for safer communities. A shop that is the target of persistent crime and antisocial behaviour is not a safe place for staff or customers.

Communities would benefit if reducing retail crime, including shoplifting, was made a key police performance
27 Jun 2007 : Column 97WH
indicator. Will the Minister consider that? It would encourage local crime and disorder partnerships to use the full range of their resources and available measures to tackle retail crime. I congratulate the Government on introducing a wide range of measures that may be used to tackle retail crime, including shoplifting, but there needs to be better co-ordination at both national and local level. Will the Minister consider writing to crime and disorder partnerships to draw their attention to the available measures?

As a result of my concerns, I would like the Minister to consider instituting a review of the current and future sentencing framework for retail crime. The review should involve all the major stakeholders, including USDAW, the British Retail Consortium, and big employers such as Morrisons and Tesco.

Nobody wants a situation in which the retail environment is increasingly seen by thieves as a place where they can act with impunity. Preventing crime and antisocial behaviour in and around stores and shopping centres is vital for the regeneration and strengthening of our communities, and for the well-being of shop workers and customers.


Next Section Index Home Page