EU/Canada Negotiations: Passenger Name Record Data

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

Until the UK leaves the EU it remains a full member, and the Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s right to opt in to, or opt out of, forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security and protecting our civil liberties.

The Government have decided to opt in to a Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the European Union and Canada for the transfer and use of passenger name record (PNR) data.

This agreement will replace the EU/Canada PNR agreement which expired in 2009. The UK opted-in to negotiations for a new agreement which opened in 2010. When an envisaged agreement was presented to the European Parliament for approval in July 2014, the Parliament referred it to the Court of Justice of the European Union for an opinion on its compliance with the treaties and the charter of fundamental rights. In July 2017, the Court found that the envisaged agreement could not be concluded in its current form and the Council has now decided to reopen negotiations.

The UK, in common with the other EU member states and with an increasing number of third countries, places considerable value on the processing and analysis of PNR data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.

PNR data is used by many countries to detect individuals involved in serious crime and terrorism-related activity as well as enabling the protection of vulnerable victims of trafficking.

The Government believe that PNR agreements between the EU and third countries play a vital role in assuring the protection of personal data within PNR data and providing legal certainty for air carriers required to disclose personal data to third countries’ authorities. It is for this reason the Government have decided to opt in to the negotiation of an EU/Canada agreement on the transfer and use of PNR data to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious transnational crime.

[HCWS434]

Draft Transfer of Responsibility for Relevant Children (Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2017

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 General Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Transfer of Responsibility for Relevant Children (Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. In introducing this secondary legislation the Government are seeking to extend the scope of the national transfer scheme to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The scheme, which was launched by the Government in July 2016, makes it easier for local authorities to transfer legal responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to another participating local authority. It is designed to encourage a fairer distribution of unaccompanied children in local authorities across the UK, so that a small number of local authorities are no longer asked to look after a disproportionate number of unaccompanied children and safeguard the best interests of the children concerned.

The national transfer scheme is underpinned by provisions in part 5 of the Immigration Act 2016. Section 69 of that Act creates a mechanism in England to transfer responsibility for caring for unaccompanied children from one local authority to another local authority. Section 70 enables the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to provide information about their support to children in their care. Section 71 enables the Secretary of State to direct a local authority that refuses to comply with a request to accept an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child to supply written reasons explaining their refusal. Finally, section 72 enables the Secretary of State to require local authorities to co-operate in the transfer of unaccompanied children from one local authority to another.

Those provisions currently apply only to English local authorities, which means that local authorities in Wales and Scotland, and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, have not yet participated in the scheme. In extending the scope of the transfer provisions in the Act, the regulations provide the legal framework for local authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to accept transfers under the scheme.

I want to make it clear that the national transfer scheme was designed as a voluntary scheme, and we hope that local authorities in Scotland and Wales, and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, will feel able to participate. My officials have worked closely with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and with local government associations in Scotland and Wales to take account of the unique circumstances in each nation. As I have mentioned, there are provisions in the Act for the Secretary of State to mandate the scheme. The Government want the scheme to remain a collaborative effort between central, local and devolved government, and it is in that vein that we have worked with partners across the UK to develop proposals to extend the scheme.

The national transfer scheme has made significant progress since it was launched in July 2016, and we are extremely grateful for the support provided by local authorities that are looking after unaccompanied children. Until the end of September 2017, 555 unaccompanied children had successfully been transferred. That is a significant achievement, but there is more to do. There are more than 4,500 unaccompanied children in English local authorities, and a handful of local authorities continue to look after a disproportionate number. If we are to achieve a fairer distribution of caring responsibilities across the UK, we need local authorities from all parts of the country to be able to participate in the scheme so that all children can be afforded the best possible care and support.

We know that there is support for the national transfer scheme across the country, and that is why it is important for this legislation to come into force, so that we are able to build on the excellent work of local authorities in every part of the UK in caring for asylum-seeking and refugee children and ensure that the scheme is a truly national scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I welcome the support from across the room for this change. We all acknowledge that it is an important principle that we should enable local authorities from across the devolved nations to play a part in the scheme. I thank both the hon. Members who spoke today. The issue of unaccompanied asylum seeking children has been debated many times in this place, and I know that it is a subject about which many of us feel very strongly.

We have a proven track record of offering sanctuary to those in need of protection, and our record in supporting children affected by conflict and persecution is no different. In the year ending September 2017, the UK granted asylum or another form of leave to almost 9,000 children and we have granted leave to nearly 49,000 children since 2010. As of September 2017, a total of 9,394 people had resettled in the UK under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised an important question about the guardianship scheme that is in operation in Scotland and asked whether we would consider looking at an independent guardian for unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the rest of the United Kingdom. By virtue of being looked after, these children are provided with a professional social worker and an independent reviewing officer to oversee their care arrangements, as well as access to an independent advocate and visitor. All unaccompanied asylum seeking children in England are referred to the Refugee Council’s children’s panel, and they are also entitled to legal assistance in pursuing their asylum claim. We believe that those arrangements ensure that children are provided with the independent support and advice that they need, and we currently have no plans to introduce a guardianship scheme.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Swansea East, raised the issue of funding. She will be aware that in 2016 we significantly increased the amount of funding available to local authorities to enable them to support these young people. It is important to emphasise that one of my predecessors as Minister for Immigration undertook that we would complete a review, and we are evaluating that now. We keep the issue uppermost in our minds, and I have had regular contact, even just in the past two weeks, with local authority leaders, the Local Government Association and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities . They are not slow in making their views known to me.

I welcome the extension of the scheme. It plays an important part in our commitment to refugee children. Last week, as part of the UK-France treaty, we agreed to change the date to 18 January 2018—last Thursday—to enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Dubs amendment. I regard those children as very important. I want to see the 480 children we have committed to look after brought here. That will enable us to work more closely with France, Greece and Italy to fulfil our obligations and be proud that we have achieved that.

Question put and agreed to.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). This Bill runs to the absolute heart of Government—the duty to keep us safe. I will keep my very brief remarks to the issue of privacy, which was raised in Committee and remains a point of debate.

Nobody wishes to legislate to protect the public while at the same time unfairly and unreasonably restricting the rights of the individual. None of us wishes to give the state unnecessary powers. It was against such arbitrary authority that our first charter of rights, Magna Carta, was established, and why we can to this day find written into the stone floor of Tewkesbury abbey the words:

“Magna Carta est lex, caveat deinde rex”.

Magna Carta is law, and let the king beware. Today, as we debate the power of the state, I believe it is most certainly not the Head of State who threatens our law and safety, but those who threaten our state from within, and we must make our law accordingly.

The amendments that the Government have tabled on privacy protections go further than ever before in transparency, oversight and the safeguards that apply to the powers in the Bill. A great deal of advice has come from the Public Bill Committee, the ISC and the Opposition parties, and the Government have indeed listened. The amendments make it clear that warrants or other authorisation should not be granted where information could reasonably be obtained by less intrusive means. If the information is already on the internet—let us face it, there is plenty of such information—it can be got without recourse to the Bill’s provisions. The Government amendments also require persons exercising functions under the legislation to have regard to the public interest and the protection of privacy, as well as other principles that underpin the legislation. The amendments also make clear the criminal offences that apply to the misuse of powers under the Bill, which puts beyond doubt the severe penalties that would apply in the event of deliberate wrongdoing by a public authority.

Privacy is at the heart of this vital piece of legislation, but its point is protection. The House should remember the statistics cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns), which I do not intend to repeat. We must be very careful not to dilute the Bill so much that the ability of our agencies to keep up with technology and those who use it in a very sophisticated way to do us harm is itself harmed. The baby must stay in the bath, while the dirty water is thrown out.

I know there has been a lot of interest in the Bill, but I also know that the amendments to it need to be weighed, rather than counted. In my estimation, it is a sound and important Bill. It will ensure that the warning in Tewkesbury abbey can be amended for our own time: “Magna Carta est lex, caveat deinde nequam”—Magna Carta is law, and let criminals beware.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). Having spoken on Second Reading, when I focused on economic cybercrime, and having followed the progress of the Bill, I want to make a few brief remarks on the first group of amendments, particularly Government new clause 5.

Privacy is the ability of an individual or a group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby to express themselves selectively. The boundaries and content of what is considered private differ among cultures and individuals, but they share common themes. It was not a Latinist, but the Colombian novelist and Nobel prize winner Gabriel García Márquez who once observed:

“Everyone has three lives: public, private and secret.”

However, we all know there are some in our society whose secrecy cannot be allowed to prevail and whose privacy cannot be a shield that allows crimes to be committed, whether those crimes are terrorism, child abuse, people trafficking or cybercrime.

There are people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned, attempt to hide from the rest of society behind passwords, encryptions and codes known only among themselves. Because of the speed of technological change, they are operating not just outside the law, but ahead of it. That is why the law must catch up, and the Bill, with the Government new clauses, will achieve such a goal.

If we are to enhance the law and to codify the powers that our security services need to keep us safe, we must ensure that the oversight regime is robust and satisfies the other watchdogs of our liberty—Parliament and the press. The Bill creates a world-leading oversight regime that brings together three existing commissioners and provides new powers and resources for a new independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Under the Bill, warrants must be subject to a new double lock in that they must be approved by the judicial commissioner before they can be issued by the Secretary of State.

Privacy is the mirror image of oversight, and the Bill and its amendments go very far in protecting individual rights. In particular, the Bill sets out the very specific circumstances in which the powers it provides for can be used. It makes clear the purposes for which those powers can be used, the overarching human rights obligation that constrains the use of those powers and whether each of the powers in the Bill is to be used in a targeted way or in bulk. The Bill goes on in that vein.

I believe that the Government have listened, acted and got the balance right between the powers necessary to keep us safe, the right to privacy of the individual and the oversight necessary to ensure that neither privacy nor safety is compromised. In conclusion, the Bill represents the pragmatic pursuit of safety in the modern age and an effective renewal of the law in the digital age. I urge the House to support its passage tonight and in the coming days.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

If we take the precept into account, we can see that police funding has been protected over the past four years. The one person we did not listen to was the Labour shadow Secretary of State, because he wanted to cut it by 10%.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

T7. What success have the Government had in recent months in deporting overstayers who have been working here illegally?

[James Brokenshire]

I underline the important work in confronting crimes linked to those working illegally. In 2015, more than 38,000 people were removed or deported from the UK, including a 28% increase in voluntary returns. That highlights the fact that people realise that it is so much tougher to get work here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

1. What steps her Department is taking to protect 16 and 17 year olds who are victims of child sexual exploitation.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to protect 16 and 17 year olds who are victims of child sexual exploitation.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Before I answer the question, may I say that later this afternoon I shall of course make a statement on the Paris terrorist attacks? I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the people of France, particularly with the victims—and their friends and families—of those terrible and horrific attacks.

Tackling child sexual exploitation is a top priority for this Government. We have already prioritised child sexual abuse as a national threat in the strategic policing requirement, and made significant progress since the “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report in March 2015.

[Mrs May]

We should all welcome the fact that more people, including young people and children, now feel able to come forward and report when abuse or exploitation has taken place, but, as the hon. Lady will be aware, the question of how the reports are then dealt with is not to do with police numbers. We saw that in the Rotherham report. Sadly, reports came through that police and others had been aware of the child exploitation that was taking place, yet appropriate action was not taken. Following the “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report in March this year, there will be a requirement that all police officers are trained in raising their response to child sexual exploitation. We have also revised the guidance, so that we provide clear information about how to identify child abuse and neglect and what action to take.

[Caroline Nokes]

May I also associate myself with the comments made earlier by my right hon. Friend?

The recent report “Old Enough to Know Better?” by the Children’s Society has recommended that, when the victim of a sexual offence is 16 or 17 years old, it should be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would send a very strong message to perpetrators and build on the work already done by this Government to protect the victims of sexual exploitation?

[Mrs May]

I agree that we always need to send very clear messages to the perpetrators about how seriously we take this crime and the intent to deal with it. The courts will always consider a case more seriously when the victim is a child, and that includes 16 or 17 year olds. The Sentencing Council’s definitive guidance on sexual offences came into effect in April last year, and it provides for the courts to sentence more severely individuals in cases where victims are particularly vulnerable, as will often be the case with sexual exploitation involving 16 or 17 year olds.

Modern Slavery Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I remind the House that in taking the position that they have today, the Government are rejecting the cross-party recommendation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and his Committee; rejecting the discussions we had in the Modern Slavery Bill Committee that resulted in a nine-to-nine vote with the Chair casting his vote in favour of the Government; rejecting the will of another place, where a cross-party group of MPs led by Lord Hylton tabled this amendment; and rejecting the advice of every organisation involved in dealing with this issue outside this House.

That is for the Government to determine. I am simply saying that if, by the end of this debate, they do not change their mind, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the House of Lords amendment and, if that is defeated, reluctantly accept the Government’s late, compromise, dragged-out proposal.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on amendments to the Modern Slavery Bill—a critical Bill that will have far-reaching consequences for those who seek to abuse, and indeed have abused, and those who have suffered from that abuse. I was pleased to able to serve on the Committee that scrutinised the Bill, and I can honestly say that it did so in depth and very carefully. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for her commitment to this issue and her determination to get this vital piece of anti-slavery legislation on to the statute book.

I recognise that amendment 72, tabled by the noble Lord Hylton, has the very best of intentions, but as my hon. Friend said the most important thing is to get this Bill on to the statute book before Parliament is dissolved in just over a week’s time. If we leave it any later—if the Lords continue to press these amendments—I fear we will lose the Bill altogether and its important work will be undone. Abusers will be safe from the law, while the poor and vulnerable they abuse will have less protection under it.

[Mr Hanson]

Let me assure the hon. Lady, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, that we will do nothing to stop the passage of this Bill if the Lords accept the amendment in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the shadow Minister for that assurance.

My constituents who have contacted me on this issue want to know that there will be additional evidence of legal employer-employee relationships and a confirmation that employers will be forced to pay the minimum wage. The current rules stop employees changing employer, and vice versa, during the term of their visa. Amendment 72 would permit someone on an overseas domestic worker visa to change employer without having to go to the authorities.

[Michael Connarty]

Is the hon. Lady aware that under the previous Government, who brought in the three-year visa, people could change their employer, but her Government took that right away? Will she apologise to her constituents for that?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Let me make the point that his Government had 13 years in which to introduce such legislation. In fact, we have had to wait 200 years for a piece of modern day slavery legislation.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does not the hon. Lady agree, though, that a modern slavery Bill ought to be more than just its title and the campaign behind it? It ought to be good law that will be able to affect the lives of the most vulnerable. Does she not agree that this Bill falls down on that in some important respects?

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course we all want this to be good law, which is precisely what the Minister intends. We do not want loopholes that enable slave masters to find new victims; we do not want these slaves to be without the protection we are seeking to give them.

[Karen Bradley]

Has my hon. Friend reflected on the fact that when the Modern Slavery Bill becomes the Modern Slavery Act and we can say to employers applying for the visa, “If you bring your employee into the United Kingdom and abuse them, you will be subject to life imprisonment”, that will be a big deterrent that should prevent abusive employers who intend to bring in employees and treat them as slaves from doing so?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course she is absolutely right—it is a massive deterrent, and we must have it on the statute book.

Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer, the national policing lead on modern slavery, and Ian Cruxton, the director of the organised crime command at the National Crime Agency, have expressed concern that the Lords amendment would inadvertently undermine the fight against modern slavery—a fight that we all agree has to be won. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will advise the Lords to withdraw their amendment, well intentioned as it may be, to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book in this Parliament, that those guilty of modern slavery will not be allowed off the hook, and those suffering the misery of it will be given protection and hope.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right. Concerns about the national referral mechanism have been raised for some time. That is why the Government had a review of the NRM undertaken. That review has now been published, and we will set out our response to it in the modern slavery strategy that will, as I said, soon be published by the Government. We recognise the issues that have been raised in the review of the NRM, and I am pleased that it has taken place. We will of course put support for victims at the heart of what we are doing.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment as anti-slavery commissioner designate and expand a little on how his role will help to stamp out this dreadful crime?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment. Many people in this House who have been involved in looking at the issues around human trafficking and modern slavery will know of the very good work that he did as a detective chief inspector in the Metropolitan police, particularly on human trafficking matters. As the anti-slavery commissioner, he will be able to ensure that the agencies, particularly law enforcement agencies, are doing what they need to be able to do tackle this crime. As right hon. and hon. Members may have seen, he has already said publicly that one of his concerns about identifying this crime is ensuring that when victims of trafficking and slavery come forward, the police are able to recognise that they have been victims.

Modern Slavery Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

I have no doubt whatsoever not only that our proposal to extend the GLA’s remit to other sectors of employment is long overdue, but that it will eventually pay for itself and, therefore, not be a burden on the Government. I ask colleagues to forget the red tape challenge and to consider people’s lives.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I will speak very briefly, but I want to commend the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing in this important Bill.

I vividly remember, more than two years ago, that some of the members of the Southampton Stop the Traffik group came to my constituency surgery to explain in detail some of the problems associated with people trafficking and modern-day slavery in the city and the wider area. When I mentioned those problems to other constituents, they found it shocking and could not believe that it was happening in somewhere such as Romsey. One key problem we face in tackling the scourge of slavery is that in many cases it is out of sight, and therefore very much out of mind.

I have absolutely no intention of being partisan on this issue. As a member of the Public Bill Committee, what came across very clearly to me was the massive consensus for having something on the statute book. It has taken a long time to get to this point—I know that previous Governments wanted to act—and there is a sense of pride that the current Government have brought forward legislation.

It is absolutely imperative to have a law that is practical and pragmatic, that will work and be enforceable, and that does not prescribe too tightly the roles of local authorities and of the anti-slavery commissioner in tackling the problem. We need such flexibility, because you can bet your bottom dollar that those involved in this illegal trade will also be flexible in seeking to find ways around new legislation. I therefore want the role of the anti-slavery commissioner to be able to adapt as time goes on, much as the role of police and crime commissioners is evolving in our counties. As their role evolves, so the anti-slavery commissioner’s role should be truly inventive and of critical importance. The Government are absolutely right to institute that role, but it must be given sufficient flexibility to allow it to develop over time.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We are really short of time in this debate, so I apologise for taking more, Madam Deputy Speaker. If there are any talent spotters on the Government Front Bench, I think the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) has an excellent role in the other place.

I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group—we are writing to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority about the new clauses in this group—but let me say that we have now gone beyond the stage at which we can continue to will the objectives without willing the means. Adequate staff and resources are needed to ensure that the GLA is effective.

To turn briefly to the new clauses and the amendment tabled in relation to prostitution, I apologise to all Members of the House for inundating them with briefings over the past 48 hours. I am very sorry, but this debate came up in a hurry, and it was important to give people the chance to express their views. I have always respected my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is very well intentioned. I support new clause 7 because developing a strategy is critical, and amendment 1, which is the decriminalisation amendment, but I am fundamentally opposed to new clause 6, because it is worrying, counter-productive and dangerous. New clause 22 would give us the opportunity and enough time to undertake a proper review.

I know that sex work is abhorrent for some Members. I must say that in the years since I convened some of the first meetings of the Ipswich Safety First campaign in this House, after five women were killed there, I have met a number of men and women who were not coerced into sex work and do not want their livelihoods to be curtailed by the proposed criminalisation of their clients. It is true that I have met many others who entered prostitution to overcome economic disadvantage—they suffered in poverty to enable them to pay the rent and put food on the table for their children—but that has been made worse by welfare benefit cuts, escalating housing costs and energy bills. The answer is not to criminalise any of their activities, but to tackle the underlying cause by not cutting welfare benefits and ensuring people have an affordable roof over their heads and giving them access to decent, paid employment.

The whole issue has focused on the idea that by stopping the supply of clients, prostitution will somehow disappear, as will all the exploitation, trafficking and violent abuse. The Swedish model has been suggested as an example, but there was absolutely overwhelming opposition to it in the briefings that I have circulated. Those briefings have come from charities such as Scot-Pep—the Scottish Prostitutes Education Project—which is funded by the state; the Royal College of Nursing, the nurses themselves; and the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, which is another Government-funded organisation to get women and others off the game, that nevertheless says that the Swedish model would be counter-productive.

The Home Office has commissioned academic research, and I have circulated a letter from 30 academics from universities around the country that basically says that the proposed legislation is dangerous. We must listen to sex workers: the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Sex Worker Open University, the Harlots collective, the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe—flamboyant names, but they represent sex workers, and all are opposed to the criminalisation of clients.

Psychoactive Substances

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The Government and law enforcement agencies have investigative resources, so we monitor these things very closely, which I hope is what the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

One of the real problems with so-called legal highs is that they are available in shops on our high streets, so young people believe that they will not do them any harm. What action will the Government’s decision enable us to take to crack down on their sale on the high street?

[Norman Baker]

Law enforcement agencies take action against the sale of illegal substances. As I have said, some 19% of so-called legal highs contain controlled substances. Other steps are being taken through other legislation to deal with these matters and I assure my hon. Friend and others that the Government is looking actively at what other steps we can take to deal with this increasing problem.

Let me make some progress. On our reading of article 4 of the proposed regulation, member states would only be able to adopt their own measures—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—in relation to substances that are not the subject of EU restrictions. Where the EU has acted, member states would not be free to impose their own standards. Given that the new regulation provides for a tiered scheme of restrictions, it is entirely possible that the EU may decide that a measure merits a moderate restriction, whereas our own scientific evidence and domestic concerns suggest that it should require a severe restriction, with the ensuing categorisation under domestic drug control legislation. The reverse, of course, equally applies. This scenario further demonstrates our belief that the proposals as they stand are incompatible with subsidiarity, as member states must have the flexibility to impose the appropriate level of controls as circumstances within their borders merit.

Given the experience since 2005, it is difficult to see how enhancing the EU’s prerogative in controlling these substances would meet the second condition of subsidiarity, namely that objectives can be better achieved at EU rather than member state level. Under the current risk assessment and control framework, only 13 risk assessments on such substances have been carried out by the EU since 2005, with nine substances subsequently coming under EU-wide control. Of these, the UK had already controlled eight, and we have since controlled the ninth as well. The control of just nine substances in eight years is woefully insufficient to keep pace with the fast-moving marketplace. Although the current proposals would involve an accelerated risk assessment and control process, that would still be a reactive model in which it would take time for sufficient evidence of harms to emerge to trigger a risk assessment.

Furthermore, the vast majority of these substances seen in Europe in recent years have already been classed as illegal drugs in the UK. With many other member states also being well ahead of the EU-level response to this threat, we simply do not accept that the Commission’s proposals would add any material value at all to the domestic approaches already being taken.

We also believe both the regulation and the directive to be Schengen-building measures, a view which is not to date accepted by the Commission. Although we will be arguing that these proposals build on areas of the Schengen agreement in which the UK participates—and thus is able to opt out of—that does not necessarily mean we would exercise that power. The proposals as they currently stand, and as they develop through negotiation, will be judged on their merits, with the primary considerations being the subsidiarity and proportionality of the measures.

Having said all that, I readily acknowledge that we have benefited greatly from the EU-level monitoring and identification systems put in place for these substances, and support strongly a role for the EU in facilitating the sharing of information and best practice in responding to developments. Indeed, I suggest that an enhanced role for information exchange is where the true value of EU action lies. However, we do not believe that the current proposals for common standards in relation to controls on new psychoactive substances are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, as sanctions in this area are best determined by member states responding flexibly to national circumstances. It is for that reason that I commend this motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend tell us what success Hampshire constabulary has had in cutting crime in the Eastleigh area?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I am happy to report to my hon. Friend and the House that I can give her that answer. I am extremely happy to report that in the 12 months to September 2012, there was a fall of 17% in offences recorded by the police in Eastleigh, showing the great success of the Hampshire police.