Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether Pathways 1 and 2 of the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme and the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy are the only safe and legal routes to the United Kingdom for Afghans, including children still stranded in Afghanistan.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The UK continues to welcome refugees and people in need through existing resettlement schemes which include the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS), Community Sponsorship, the Mandate Resettlement Scheme, and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).
Referrals for the UKRS, Community Sponsorship, Mandate Resettlement and Pathway 2 of the ACRS are assessed and submitted by UNHCR. These assessments are based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities and the UK does not seek to influence which cases are referred by UNHCR.
A route for ACRS Pathway 1 Stage 2: Separated Families was opened on 30 July 2024. The window to submit an expression of interest will remain open until 30 October 2024.
Those who have been resettled in the UK under Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme Pathway 1 and were evacuated during Operation Pitting without their immediate family members can submit an expression of interest under this pathway.
Further information is viewable at: Afghan citizens resettlement scheme: Separated Families Pathway - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
The ARAP was launched on 1 April 2021 and remains open. The UK formally opened ACRS on 6 January 2022 and it remains operational.
The UK has made an ambitious and generous commitment to help at-risk people in Afghanistan and, so far, we have brought around 30,100 people to safety, including thousands of people eligible for our Afghan schemes. We continue to honour our commitments to bring eligible Afghans to the UK.
The data published within the immigration system statistics release Immigration system statistics, year ending March 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) provides a breakdown of arrivals by quarter. The number of individuals resettled under the schemes is as follows: 15,592 individuals under ARAP, 9,703 individuals under ACRS Pathway 1, 663 individuals under ACRS Pathway 2 and 1, 207 individuals under ACRS Pathway 3.
Afghan operational data is viewable on Gov.UK.
Afghan operational data is released quarterly with the next publication due around the 24 August 2024.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 23 January (HL1524), under what circumstances (1) a human rights, social justice, or environmental activist, and (2) an individual expressing socialist views, crosses the threshold for Prevent referrals as ‘left wing extremist’; and whether such an individual needs to be planning, involved in or threatening acts of violence in order to be so considered.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
Frontline professionals, when deciding whether to make a referral, should consider whether they believe the person they are concerned about may be on a pathway that could lead to terrorism. In determining whether a concern meets the threshold for referral to Prevent, it is important to consider the harm posed to the person, as well as whether accessing support through Prevent might stop potential wider societal harm committed by the person. A risk-based approach should always be followed, using professional judgement and curiosity. There is no single model of a person’s radicalisation journey or single profile of a radicalised person. There may be times when the precise ideological driver is not clear. Yet, like any safeguarding mechanism, it is far better to receive referrals which turn out not to be of concern than for someone who genuinely needs support to be missed.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 20 December 2023 (HL1279), whether they will now answer the question put; namely, what steps they are taking to inform parliamentarians about the two reports cited in the original question.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
As set out by the response to Written Answer HL767 and HL1279, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked the document titled “Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016” “in confidence”. The Government has no plans to publish the document. The current Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, referred to in the response to question HL1279 is available on gov.uk at the following link: Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 20 December 2023 (HL1278), on what basis the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked its report Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 "in confidence" and did not publish it, given that the working protocol between the Home Secretary and the ACMD states that "The ACMD will publish its advice concurrent with its presentation to Ministers, unless there are pressing public or health protection reasons, or other reasons, for not doing so."
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
As the ACMD is an independent Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), sponsored by the Home Office, the basis for publication of its reports is a matter for the ACMD.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what guidance they are providing for Prevent practitioners on the circumstances under which they are required to refer an individual involved in human rights, social justice or environmental activism who is not expressing support for violence.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
Prevent practitioners should follow the Prevent duty guidance. Free training is available on gov.uk which includes the notice, check, share procedure. Practitioners should consider whether they believe the person may be on a pathway that could lead to terrorism. Those with specific Prevent responsibilities are expected to have a good understanding of extremist ideologies as a key driver of radicalisation and should complete any required ideology training.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they made of the effectiveness of overdose prevention centres in reducing death and other harms caused by drug use to individuals and society; and why they do not support pilot overdose prevention centres.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
The Government does not support drug consumption rooms. We have been clear that we have concerns about the potential for these facilities to appear to condone drug use and to encourage the continued illicit supply of drugs. They will not be introduced in England and Wales.
We are aware of previous international studies of DCRs, sometimes referred to as overdose prevention centres, although there is usually little or no focus on how far DCRs reduce illicit drug use by those using DCRs, or whether they result in reductions in overall drug use. Methodological and geographical differences as well as the small number of cities where DCRs operate makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions at this stage. In addition, the impact of DCRs in isolation is hard to measure as a range of other support and interventions such as needle and syringe exchange programmes are often provided within a DCR.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 14 December (HL767), on what basis the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs report Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, sent to the Home Secretary in December 2016, was shared "in confidence"; and who took the decision to waive any such confidentiality in relation to the part of the report that has been made public.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
As set out by the response to Written Answer HL767, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked the document titled “Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016” “in confidence”. The document was not intended for publication and there are no plans to publish it. The portion that has been made public was made public under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) and following the decision of the relevant tribunal (case reference EA/2021/0301).
The portion released under the FOIA 2000 recommended a review of the Working Protocol between the ACMD and the Home Office to take into account the functions of the ACMD under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The Working Protocol has not been revised since 2011 and is available at the following link: Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Government intends to undertake a review in due course and if this results in a revised Working Protocol, the revised version will be published on gov.uk.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 14 December (HL767), what steps they have taken to ensure that parliamentarians are properly informed about the issues raised in the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs report Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, sent to the Home Secretary in December 2016.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
As set out by the response to Written Answer HL767, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked the document titled “Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016” “in confidence”. The document was not intended for publication and there are no plans to publish it. The portion that has been made public was made public under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) and following the decision of the relevant tribunal (case reference EA/2021/0301).
The portion released under the FOIA 2000 recommended a review of the Working Protocol between the ACMD and the Home Office to take into account the functions of the ACMD under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The Working Protocol has not been revised since 2011 and is available at the following link: Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Government intends to undertake a review in due course and if this results in a revised Working Protocol, the revised version will be published on gov.uk.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 14 December (HL767), what is the status of the review of the Working Protocol between the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs and the Home Office; when the review will be completed; and whether it will be published.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
As set out by the response to Written Answer HL767, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked the document titled “Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016” “in confidence”. The document was not intended for publication and there are no plans to publish it. The portion that has been made public was made public under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) and following the decision of the relevant tribunal (case reference EA/2021/0301).
The portion released under the FOIA 2000 recommended a review of the Working Protocol between the ACMD and the Home Office to take into account the functions of the ACMD under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The Working Protocol has not been revised since 2011 and is available at the following link: Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Government intends to undertake a review in due course and if this results in a revised Working Protocol, the revised version will be published on gov.uk.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what policy changes they are actively considering, formulating and developing in relation to the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs report sent to the Home Secretary in December 2016, titled Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016; and when they expect this policy process to conclude.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Shadow Minister (Business and Trade)
The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (PSA) was designed to complement the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), by introducing civil sanctions and offences for those who produce, possess with intent to supply, supply, offer to supply and import or export new psychoactive substances which are not controlled under the MDA or which are not otherwise exempt. One of the important safeguards which the PSA provides is ensuring there are no gaps in law enforcement powers to tackle newly emerging harmful drugs. This is in the context that prior to 2016 criminal gangs were designing new psychoactive drugs with different chemical structures in order to evade MDA controls. Substances can be moved into the MDA following advice on their harms from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and subject to the decisions of Ministers.
A review of the PSA published in 2018 found that there is no evidence that the PSA has adversely affected the process or timeliness with which substances can be controlled under the MDA, with substances continuing to be controlled after the Act was introduced. Review of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (publishing.service.gov.uk). The government keeps all legislation under review, but has no plans to change either legislative regime substantially.
The report referred to as ‘Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016’ was shared with the Home Office in confidence by the ACMD and is not a public document. One recommendation has been made public, concerning a review of the Working Protocol between the ACMD and the Home Office, which the government has agreed to undertake.