Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Diana Johnson Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his speech and his usual courtesy.
National security is the foremost responsibility of any Government and, I am pleased to say, is always taken seriously by the House. Proscription is a vital part of our national security powers. Proscription orders enable us to tackle and disrupt terror groups that are co-operating around the world. That makes proscription a very serious matter. Proscription makes it illegal to belong to or support in any way a listed organisation. Any proscription order should therefore be taken very seriously.
For that reason, successive Governments have attempted to ensure that there is cross-party parliamentary support for proscription orders. As a matter of courtesy, the shadow Home Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee are written to as soon as an order is laid in Parliament. However, on this occasion, the shadow Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee were not the first people to be briefed.
It appears that journalists were briefed before the order was even laid in Parliament. The political editor of The Sun newspaper, Tom Newton Dunn, was tweeting about the content of the order two hours before it appeared in the Vote Office and long before the shadow Home Secretary was written to. I raised that issue in the House on Monday. I am grateful that the Minister looked into it and wrote to me on 17 June. I am happy to accept his assurance that he did not authorise the disclosure, and I hope that it will not happen again. However, that raises the question of who did authorise it.
Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary lost her most senior political adviser after an investigation into her conduct by the Cabinet Secretary. It now appears that somebody else in the Home Secretary’s Department is disclosing national security information to The Sun. I hope that the Minister will update the House on what steps have been taken to identify who was behind the disclosure, and how the Home Secretary is getting a grip on what is happening in her Department.
Diana Johnson
I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He makes the point clearly that these are important matters that need to be treated properly by the Government in the way they behave.
To move on to the substance of the order, the situation in Syria and Iraq is a tragedy that poses a clear threat close to home. Today, we are discussing five groups that pose a threat to British interests at home and abroad. The scale of the national security threat that is posed to the UK by ISIS fighters was highlighted in the last annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I would like to put on the record my thanks for the work that it does to keep the House informed of such issues.
The Opposition do not have access to the same intelligence as the Home Secretary and the Minister. However, on the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given the House and the information that he has set out clearly today, the Opposition are happy to give the motion our full support.
Rarely can a proscription order have been laid about such a high-profile group as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is commonly referred to as ISIS or ISIL. It is now regarded as the world’s largest and most powerful terrorist group. As we have heard in interventions today, it is not a new group. I am sure I speak for everyone in the House and outside when I say how horrified I was to see the mass executions that ISIS claimed credit for just this week. The proscription of ISIS is unusual, because it is rare for an organisation to get so large and well funded before a proscription order is imposed. The US State Department proscribed ISIS in 2004, when ISIS was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. Will the Minister confirm whether it was regarded as a proscribed group at that time because it was an affiliate of al-Qaeda? In 2013, ISIS attempted to merge with the al-Nusra Front, another affiliate of al-Qaeda. That merger seemed to prompt the United Kingdom Government to list the al-Nusra Front as an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and therefore as a proscribed organisation. Will the Minister be clear about the status of ISIS at that time and why it was not specifically listed?
I turn to financial support for the organisation. What measures are being taken to ensure that our financial regulations are used to prevent the money that ISIS now has from being transferred, and, if possible, to seize any funds? We know that a number of large banks have been guilty of serious errors in compliance in the past few years, and I would be grateful if the Minister said what extra steps the Financial Conduct Authority will take to ensure that terrorists’ funds are not being moved between countries through international organisations.
The other four groups that we are discussing are less high profile than ISIS but appear equally dangerous. All are fighting in Syria, which, as the Minister said, is destabilising a larger area and posing a threat to the UK and our allies, including Turkey. The first, Kateeba al-Kawthar, is an Islamist terrorist organisation with links to al-Qaeda, which has grown in Syria and is part of the movement to establish an Islamist Syrian state. The Abdallah Azzam Brigades is another Islamist terror group operating in Syria. As the Minister said, it originated in Pakistan and demonstrates how Syria has become the centre for Islamist campaigns across the world.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command started life as a group committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said, it has been around for many years. In the past, it has blown up aircraft and used bombs. After a period of little activity over the past 20 years, the group has resurfaced in the Syrian conflict, supporting Assad, and has been active in refugee camps. Again, that demonstrates the ability of groups in Syria to destabilise the wider region.
The Turkish People’s Liberation Party-Front, or THKP-C, is another pro-Assad group that has been linked to a range of attacks in Syria and Turkey. Again, it is not a new group. It has grown out of a left-wing radical group but is now committing terrorist atrocities and poses an international threat.
All the groups that we are discussing are operating in Syria, but as I have said, British jihadists are joining them and thus posing a huge threat to the UK when they return. The scale of the problem is shocking. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister suggested that there are likely to be several hundred British fighters in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs that Committee, referred to that point earlier. The Prime Minister’s office revealed yesterday that there had been 65 Syria-related arrests since the start of 2013, of which 40 were between January and March this year. There have also been 15 passport seizures in the past year. What efforts are being made to identify the recruiters of those individuals, and are any of the groups listed suspected of actively recruiting in the United Kingdom? If they are, why were they not proscribed earlier?
The Prevent agenda has its limitations, and in recent weeks it has been shown to have some failures within it is as well. What changes to it have been introduced to address the rise of Syrian-related jihad, and what is being done to target those most likely to be recruited, and indeed the recruiters?
The Government are introducing new offences of participating in terrorism abroad in their Serious Crime Bill, and the Opposition—of course—support the principle behind that. As it is already an offence to support a proscribed group, will that cover those who leave the UK to join organisations such as ISIL or al-Qaeda now?
Finally, may I ask about TPIM orders—terrorism prevention and investigation measures? Of course we all want to see more prosecutions, and we support the new offences to try to obtain them. However, the Government have a pretty poor record of getting such convictions. None of the former TPIM suspects was convicted. That is because—I am sure the Minister will agree—the Government face the same problem as the previous Government: little of the available evidence against those suspects is admissible in open court. How do the Government intend to gather admissible evidence from Syria in order to take action against returning fighters? That is why we occasionally need to have TPIMs, control orders, or an equivalent. The independent reviewer of terrorism recognised that in his annual report, and suggested some changes to TPIMs, including reintroducing the relocation power. He also found that the TPIM regime was “withering”. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s position towards such orders, which may well be necessary in coming months when we have to deal with those who are returning from Syria?
Oral Answers to Questions
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am grateful to him for the work that he has done on the particular issue of modern slavery and human trafficking. We will follow a twin-track approach: the legislation will obviously enable us to strengthen our law enforcement ability, particularly to deal with those perpetrating this crime, and it will also of course set up the anti-slavery commissioner. The action plan that I intend to publish will focus very clearly on the support that we can give victims. We want to ensure that victims are supported and we want people to give evidence against the perpetrators, because if we can reduce the number of perpetrators, we will reduce the number of victims.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary refers to having limited voluntary pilots, which is all very well, but numerous charities, the cross-party Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill and the other place all support having independent guardians or advocates to protect trafficked children and support putting this on a full statutory basis. Will she say whether she will attempt to overturn the new clause—clause 65 of the Immigration Bill—and if so, why?
Mrs May
We, of course, want to ensure that we provide that support for child victims and, as I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), that is why we have brought forward the trials of independent advocates. They align almost entirely with the role of child trafficking guardians, but with some exceptions: our advocates support all child victims of trafficking, whether trafficked into the UK or within the UK, and obviously focus on the needs of children, not on those of adults. We are trialling them because the support currently given is inconsistent—some local authority areas give better support than others—and we want to ensure that the system introduced is the one that will work and provide the best level of support.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for the letter from the Home Secretary to the shadow Home Secretary, laying out the rationale for the proscription of the three groups.
There is a long tradition of cross-party co-operation on issues of national security, and the Opposition will support the Government in their motion today. As the Minister has laid out, section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 sets out the grounds on which a group can be proscribed.
Proscription is a vital tool against terrorism, and it enables us to tackle and disrupt terror groups co-operating around the world. Of course that makes proscription a serious matter. It makes it illegal to belong to, or support in any way, a listed organisation. This is a draconian measure, so we should use the power only when we know that it is appropriate.
In this case, the Opposition are happy to accept the Minister, and the Home Secretary’s assurances on the basis that all three groups seem to have been involved in terrorism at the highest end of seriousness, including some directed at our citizens and allies.
Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis came to prominence during the Arab spring. It aims to establish sharia law in Egypt. The group, which appears to be al-Qaeda-inspired if not linked, has been responsible for a string of terror attacks, which the Minister outlined. In 2010, the group was linked with an attack on a Jordanian and Israeli pipeline. In 2013, it was thought to be responsible for rocket attacks into southern Israel as well as the murder of three South Koreans and an Egyptian. In January this year, as the Minister set out, the group was linked with a suicide attack that killed 16 people, including 14 police officers.
Al Murabitun has an even closer al-Qaeda link, having emerged out of al-Qaeda in the Land of Islamic Maghreb and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa. The group has been linked to jihadists across north Africa and to terror attacks in Algeria and Niger, both killing scores of people. In particular, I should mention the January 2013 attack on the In Amenas gas facility, which killed 30 people including Britons and Americans.
Finally we have Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia, whose founder is known to have ties to al-Qaeda. The State Department says that that organisation
“is ideologically aligned with al-Qaeda and tied to its affiliates, including AQIM”.
The group has been involved in a number of attacks on western targets in Libya and Tunisia.
The Opposition are always limited in what we can say in these cases, because we do not have access to the same intelligence as the Minister and the Home Secretary. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment in general terms on why the United Kingdom has decided to act now, as many of the groups have committed attacks on our allies or have resulted in the deaths of Britons over the past two years.
Last time a proscription order was discussed in the House, I raised the effect of proscription on content relating to terror groups appearing on social media. That content is hosted outside the United Kingdom but is readily accessible in the United Kingdom. The Minister helpfully laid out the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit. Will he confirm what progress the group has made on removing material in the past year and how many pages it has managed to take down? Last year, the Minister told the House how the counter terrorism internet referral unit took referrals and passed them on to ISPs. What measures are in place proactively to seek out such sites and to get the hosting companies, whether they are Google, Facebook or other companies, to seek out and remove such content?
I was pleased this morning that the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, announced additional industry support for the Internet Watch Foundation to tackle online child abuse. What similar measures have been discussed in relation to counter-terrorism?
As I said earlier, the Opposition are always limited in what we can say about proscription, because it is up to the Home Secretary to analyse the evidence and make a decision. However, that did not stop the Government using proscription to score political points when they were in opposition. The present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said in this House that he would ban the group Hizb ut-Tahrir. I hope the Minister will comment on why the Prime Minister made that rash promise. If the Prime Minister was right to make that promise, why has not the Home Secretary acted on it?
Keith Vaz
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of Hizb ut-Tahrir. I was in the House when the Prime Minister made that pledge and I think he meant it genuinely and thinks that the group ought to be banned because of its violent activity. Is she therefore as surprised as I am that even though the Prime Minister feels that a group is a terrorist organisation, it carries on with its activities and the Government appear to be unable to do anything about it?
Diana Johnson
The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee makes an important point. I hope that the Minister will respond to our concerns and will be able to reassure the House that he is continuing to watch and consider the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Last year, I raised in the House my concerns about the activity of Hizb ut-Tahrir on university campuses. Hizb ut-Tahrir was singled out by the Prevent strategy review as a group that was active on university campuses radicalising students. It would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on what has happened to deal with that issue.
Finally, I want to raise the issue mentioned by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It concerns de-proscription and time limits. The Minister is well aware from the comments and interventions that have been made as the House has considered several such motions that the Home Affairs Committee and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have long been asking the Government how a group can be de-proscribed. The only group ever to be de-proscribed obtained that through judicial review. The Select Committee has been pushing the Government for some time to get a proper structure in place to make these decisions.
According to the independent reviewer of terrorism, the Home Office was at one point considering an annual review of the proscribed list to see which groups still met the criteria. Of course, we should encourage any group to renounce terrorism. The Home Office clearly needs to justify the continued proscription of terror groups, on some of which we know that the independent reviewer of terrorism suggests there is no current evidence of terrorist involvement even in this century. According to the independent reviewer’s website last summer, the Home Office had compiled a list of up to 14 groups that no longer met the criteria for proscription. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct?
The independent reviewer had been calling for that annual review of proscribed groups, but the Home Office seems now to have ignored that suggestion and instead instigated this procedure, which the Minister set out in response to interventions, whereby an individual who is directly affected by a proscription order can apply for the order to be lifted. Owing to the level of concern, does the Minister consider it appropriate to set out in detail how that procedure takes place, so that hon. Members can fully understand how an individual, who might put themselves in difficulty by coming forward, might access it and take it forward? It would be helpful if the Minister were to put a letter or note in the Library setting that out in detail.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I touched on that issue a few moments ago. He will know that I mentioned it in my evidence to his Select Committee, which has recently had a session with Google. I recognise the Select Committee’s work to support community groups to harness social media and other technologies more effectively to ensure that there is a full and informed debate on the internet, not one simple narrative.
I have highlighted the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit, as well as our more general work and ongoing dialogue with the industry about what further steps can be taken. The CTIRU has reach in this country, but much of the material is hosted overseas. Some of the steps taken in and consideration given to combating child sexual exploitation imagery—ensuring that it is more effectively filtered and blocked—is learning that can be taken forward and applied in this area. That theme very much underpinned the recommendations of the extremism taskforce. We are continuing to do that work.
Diana Johnson
To return to the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir, was the Prime Minister rash to promise that he would ban it?
James Brokenshire
The Prime Minister was very clear in underlining the concern about that group. As I have said, we continue to be concerned about that organisation, which is why we continue to monitor its activities. I have already told the House that the Government obviously have to be cognisant of the statutory tests in looking at all the evidence and deciding whether tests are satisfied. We do not comment on which organisations continue to be under review for proscription, so I will not be led down that path, but we have to be satisfied on the clear statutory tests in introducing an order in this House.
Another issue relates to groups changing their name. Section 3(6) of the 2000 Act allows the Home Secretary, by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure, to specify an alternative name for a proscribed organisation. We keep under close review whether organisations are seeking to use an alias. We have used that mechanism to introduce orders to add other names of proscribed organisations. I underline that the use of an alternative name that is not listed does not prevent the police and the Crown Prosecution Service from taking action against an individual for proscription offences. Such action is based on an assessment made by the police and the CPS.
I have commented on de-proscription. The right hon. Member for Leicester East has highlighted the LTTE—the Tamil Tigers—in the past. He congratulated me on my current role and the work in which I am engaged, and now that he is back in his place I want to recognise the many jobs that he does as an MP and Chair of the Select Committee—it does a broad spread of work in my areas of responsibility and other areas—and he is involved in other activities. I certainly congratulate him on the many jobs that he holds. He has raised the issue of de-proscription as Chair of the Select Committee, as well as in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. We judge that the responsibility for it is as I explained in relation to the de-proscription process.
Oral Answers to Questions
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last year, after Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed absconded from his TPIM, the Home Secretary told this House that he no longer posed a threat to the UK.
Turning to AM, another terrorist subject, Lord Justice Mitting concluded that AM was involved in
“a viable plot to commit mass murder by bringing down transatlantic passenger airlines by suicide bombings, which was disrupted by the arrest and prosecution of a number of individuals in the United Kingdom”,
and that
“there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people”.
With AM’s TPIM order arbitrarily ending this month, will the Minister now confirm to the House that AM no longer presents a threat to the United Kingdom?
James Brokenshire
It would be wrong to comment on the detailed operational issues surrounding TPIM subjects, as that could undermine the very work of the police and security services. The police and security services have been clear that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk from such individuals, and they have tailored plans in place to manage them. If any individual engages in any further terrorist-related activity after the expiry of their TPIM, the police will not hesitate to prosecute.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Today the House is debating the Government’s first responsibility, which is to keep their citizens safe, in this case from acts of terror, and the expiry of the six TPIM orders on individuals who have been identified as posing a terrorist threat, but who will all have restrictions removed from them, regardless of the security assessment, because of the two-year limit on the life of the orders brought in by the coalition Government.
Different views have been expressed, but one thing unites the House: we would all prefer not to need TPIMs or control orders. We would all prefer to see terrorist suspects prosecuted. That would be fairer, more effective and cheaper, but it is not always possible. We are debating how to deal most effectively and fairly with the small number of exceptional cases that cannot be prosecuted. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has said, those on TPIMs are accused of
“terrorist activities at the highest end of seriousness, even by standards of international terrorism.”
For the past decade, Labour and the Conservatives have agreed on the need to have terrorism orders that are restrictive but viewed by successive Home Secretaries and the High Court to be necessary and proportionate. The current Home Secretary decided to weaken those powers, first by removing the power to relocate, and secondly by introducing an automatic ending of such orders after two years. That leaves a series of questions about her judgment.
As six of the individuals subject to TPIMs will have all restrictions ended this month, owing to the legislation that the Home Secretary introduced, the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary still need addressing: what risk does each man pose, and what action has the Home Secretary taken to reduce the risk? Parliament needs to know whether TPIMs are still fit for purpose and whether reforms are now needed in the interests of public safety. It is important that she recognises that these are genuine concerns.
We heard many excellent contributions in this high-quality debate, including from two former Home Secretaries, my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson); from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee; from the former shadow Minister who led for Labour when the TPIMs Bill went through Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe); and from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). We also heard three contributions from the Government Benches.
Given the number of points that have been made, I will limit my remarks to the issues that I think the Government still need to respond to. First, the TPIMs regime was supposed to allow more prosecutions at the same time as providing protection for the public. Will the Minister confirm whether any of the individuals subject to TPIMs have actually been prosecuted for terrorist-related activity?
Secondly, we know that two of the people subject to TPIMs have absconded. The fact that the power of relocation is no longer available to the Home Secretary might have something to do with that. Will the Minister agree to reflect on whether it was wise to ignore the advice of the former Conservative Home Secretary, the noble Lord Howard, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the noble Lord Carlile, and the police when removing the power of relocation?
When TPIMs replaced control orders, Parliament was promised that the introduction of those weaker powers would be accompanied by extra surveillance capacity. The Public Bill Committee was promised an elaborate web of 24-hour surveillance provided by specially trained officers. The cost was predicted to rise from £1.8 million a year for a control order to £18 million a year for a TPIM, but Ibrahim Magag disappeared by getting into a taxi and Mohamed did the same by donning a burqa and removing his tag. Will the Minister set out whether the TPIMs regime provided the direct surveillance of suspects that Parliament was promised? For example, was either of those suspects under direct surveillance when they disappeared?
The Home Secretary pointed out that individuals had in the past been taken off control orders. Indeed they were, but the difference is that in those cases the individuals were no longer deemed to pose a high risk. Now the decision has been taken away from the Government with the automatic ending of a TPIM after a maximum of two years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, when pressing the Home Secretary on her personal view on when individuals should come off TPIMs, asked whether she thought that they posed a risk. She refused to answer.
The Home Secretary was also asked whether she thought that the person known as CD still posed a risk. As she was previously able to tell us what the risk assessment was for Magag and Mohamed, it is rather unfortunate that she was unable to be as candid on the Floor of the House in this important debate about these individuals.
Let me say clearly to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that nobody wants people to remain on TPIM orders indefinitely, but we do want a proper risk assessment as to when a person should come off a TPIM order, not an arbitrary two-year time limit. That is our position, and I hope he will reflect on that.
Control orders and TPIMs have had some parliamentary oversight from the Intelligence and Security Committee, and that vital form of accountability needs to continue. The Opposition would like an assurance that the ISC will be given the individual risk assessments for each person who is currently subject to a TPIM order and the individual plans for them once they are no longer subject to it.
It would be helpful if the Minister said a little more about what is going to happen after these orders come to an end. He has referred to specially tailored packages, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked for more information about exactly what that would mean. I understand the constraints that the Minister is under, but a more general comment would be welcome.
When TPIMs replaced control orders, the extra cost continued to be borne by the Home Office. Will the Minister say where any extra funding will come from and clarify whether Ministers will remain responsible for the oversight of these individuals once the TPIM orders have been lifted?
I want to ask the Minister about any additional powers that might be required. The Opposition have offered assistance and co-operation to bring in necessary but proportionate measures on a cross-party basis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) referred to the issue that David Anderson raised about the possibility of a provision akin to a licence condition being imposed when someone comes off a TPIM order. The Opposition would be willing to consider that with the Minister if he were willing to engage in such discussions.
Will the Minister comment on the restriction on foreign travel? When someone is placed on a TPIM order, their passport should be confiscated, although that did not happen in the case of Mohamed, and we have not got to the bottom of where the passport is or whether it is still in existence. Seven of the current TPIM suspects are thought to have travelled abroad to Pakistan, Syria or Somalia to attend terrorist training camps, where they develop the expertise and skills that make them so dangerous. I heard what the Home Secretary said about the use of the royal prerogative, but will the Minister confirm whether any additional powers are needed to stop these individuals travelling abroad once they are no longer restricted by TPIM orders?
We hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we have used an Opposition day debate to raise an important matter, to offer co-operation on an issue of national security, and to work together on a cross-party basis to make sure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose.
Oral Answers to Questions
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
We recently launched our £100 million super-connected cities broadband voucher scheme, providing qualifying small and medium-sized enterprises with up to £3,000 of funding to access superfast broadband. As part of the autumn statement, further support measures were announced for the film industry, sport, and regional arts and culture, and there was an announcement of a new £10 million competitive fund to market test innovative solutions to deliver superfast broadband to reach some of the UK’s most remote communities.
Diana Johnson
I thank the Secretary of State for announcing Hull as the city of culture for 2017 on 20 November, and for immediately getting on a train to visit the city—we very much appreciated that. In line with the original thinking on the city of culture status, will she help the city by making sure that some of our great cultural prizes, such as the Turner prize, the Booker prize and the Brit awards, come to Hull in 2017?
Maria Miller
The city of culture programme is a great way to showcase our great cultural assets outside London and around the country. I was delighted to meet so many of the people who were crucial in putting Hull’s bid together. I would also like to commiserate with those that did not make it to that final accolade, as the semi-finalists were also extremely strong. I will do all I can to make sure that being city of culture in 2017 is as successful for Hull as being city of culture has been for Derry/Londonderry.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
1. What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
6. What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
This Government are committed to reducing the gender pay gap. Women have had the legal right to equal pay for nearly 40 years, but there is still a long way to go before we achieve equality in the workplace. The Government’s focus is on driving the necessary culture change in business, in particular through improving transparency.
Diana Johnson
Forty-three years on from Barbara Castle’s landmark Equal Pay Act 1970, will the right hon. Lady be pleased to be remembered as the Minister who brought in a fee of £1,200 for a pregnant sacked woman to take a case to an employment tribunal on grounds of discrimination and her right to equal pay?
Maria Miller
I am disappointed that the hon. Lady continues to follow this line of questioning, as she is at risk of scaremongering with her reference to the £1,200. She will know that the vast majority of individuals who want to bring a tribunal claim will pay a far lower fee and that our remissions scheme will protect those who cannot pay. I hope she will ensure that she is not scaremongering in this regard because pregnant women will want to know the facts about the support available to them.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and explanation, and for taking the time to talk to me about the order earlier today. There is a long tradition of cross-party co-operation on issues of national security, and the Opposition will support the Government’s motion.
Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a group can be proscribed if the Home Secretary is persuaded that it
“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, (b) prepares for terrorism, (c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or (d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
In addition to the Minister’s speech, a wealth of publicly available evidence links Imarat Kavkaz to acts of terror.
Indeed, the United Kingdom is two years behind the United States in proscribing the organisation. The United States acted in 2011, after Imarat Kavkaz was linked to two deadly attacks in Moscow. In January 2011, the group was linked to an attack at Moscow international airport, in which 35 people were killed and scores were wounded. The group was also linked to an attack carried out by two female bombers in March 2010, which killed 39 people in the Moscow metro.
The State Department helpfully gave us background information on Imarat Kavkaz or the Caucasus Emirate, as it is otherwise known. The group was founded in late 2007 by the Chechen extremist Doku Umarov. It is an Islamic militant organisation based in Russia’s north Caucasus. Its stated goal is the liberation of what it considers Muslim lands from the control of Moscow. It regularly conducts attacks against Russian security forces in the north Caucasus. As the Minister said, Imarat Kavkaz is linked to al-Qaeda through its leader, Doku Umarov, who I understand is one of the world’s most wanted terrorists.
Terrorist organisations originating in that part of the world have been in the spotlight because of last year’s attacks in Boston in the United States. In the light of those attacks, it is appropriate for the Government to review the activity of related groups in the United Kingdom.
The Opposition are always limited in what they can say in such cases, because we do not of course have access to the same intelligence as the Home Secretary. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister commented generally on why the United Kingdom has decided to act now.
I also want to ask the Minister about the effects of proscription on social media. Imarat Kavkaz has a number of Facebook pages and a range of fan pages are directed towards Doku Umarov. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether Facebook will be prohibited from hosting such fan pages and allowing people in the United Kingdom to access them once the group is proscribed.
James Brokenshire
The Government take the misuse of social media and the internet extremely seriously. The group’s Facebook page has been referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, which has responsibility for assessing such issues. If the site is assessed to be illegal, the CTIRU will flag that up with Facebook directly and have it taken down.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for responding on that point.
As I said earlier, the Opposition are always limited in what they can say about proscription because it is up to the Home Secretary to analyse the evidence and make a decision. However, that did not stop the previous Opposition calling for proscription. The former Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, said to the House that he wanted Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned. I hope that the Minister will say what progress has been made in banning Hizb ut-Tahrir and that he will assure the House that he continues to keep the activities of that group under review.
Earlier this year, I raised in the House my concerns about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir on university campuses. It was singled out by the Prevent strategy review as a group that was active in radicalising students on university campuses. That concern is particularly pertinent given the current trial of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who were radicalised at the university of Greenwich.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of de-proscription and time limits. The Minister is well aware that the Home Affairs Committee has long asked the Government how a group can be de-proscribed. The only group ever to be de-proscribed sought de-proscription through judicial review proceedings. The Select Committee has been pushing the Government for some time to put a proper structure in place for making such decisions. Time-limiting proscription was recommended by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. He felt that a proscription order should be subject to a review after a fixed period, following which it could be renewed or it would lapse. The Minister has been pressed on that issue on previous occasions. I hope that he will update the House tonight on the Government’s position or at least give an indication of the steps the Government are taking towards reaching a conclusion on how to de-proscribe.
Modern-day Slavery
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the excellent chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern day slavery, made a powerful and well-informed speech. She did so in an inclusive way, and paid tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), after what was obviously a hard-fought election for the position of chair. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) also talked about the need to put victims at the heart of the Bill and for us to lead the world with a modern slavery Bill. I also pay tribute to Anthony Steen, who did so much to raise this issue in the last Parliament, and to Baroness Butler-Sloss, who takes a keen interest in this matter in the other place.
Given that we are debating slavery, it gives me special pride to speak from the Front Bench as a Hull MP. We have heard many mentions this afternoon of William Wilberforce, who was also a Hull MP and one of the leaders of a 20-year campaign to bring about the abolition of the slave trade. In a Back-Bench debate, it is important to note that he did that entirely from the Back Benches. The full horror of the slave trade is remembered at the excellent William Wilberforce museum in Hull, which I would encourage all hon. Members to visit when they visit our city as the city of culture in 2017 or before. We are also fortunate to have the Wilberforce institute for the study of slavery and emancipation, which is attached to the university of Hull and provides great information. I am sure that it will also offer support to hon. Members looking at the draft Bill.
It is worth reminding the House that when the slave trade was abolished, through William Wilberforce’s Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, it was felt appropriate to compensate the slave owners, not the victims. It is shocking now, but the family of the Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone received £93,526 in compensation for losing their 2,039 slaves after abolition. Several hon. Members have made the point that we hope that any proceeds that are available will go to the victims of this dreadful crime, and perhaps also to the police and the Human Trafficking Foundation.
I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to this excellent debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) spoke knowledgeably, as ever, about the needs of trafficked children, and about the need for multi-agency safeguarding hubs to be extended to every area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) talked in some harrowing detail about child abuse and slavery in India, and shocked all hon. Members when he talked about children as young as three being used as prostitutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) talked knowledgeably about the EU dimension as well as the Scottish experience, and the need for the auditing of supply chains.
The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) paid tribute to the NGOs—very important—and also raised the issue of supply chains. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked harrowingly about his constituency experience of 23 British slaves who had been slaves for up to 15 years, and about the vital work that needs to be done to raise public awareness of the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the global sex trade and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) talked about the need to make sure that people understand it happens anywhere—down our own streets and roads. The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) talked about the particular issues of electronic payments and civil penalties that could be used. He made some very interesting points and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). As a former Home Office Minister and chair of the all-party group on Nigeria, she spoke knowledgeably on issues related to her experience in those roles.
We know, and we have heard again today, that modern-day slavery exists. We think that there are around 27 million people enslaved around the world. The UK Human Trafficking Centre estimates that at least 2,200 human beings were trafficked into the UK in 2012. In 2009, the Home Affairs Committee held an investigation into human trafficking and it estimated that the number is likely to be nearer 5,000. Just two weeks ago in Lambeth we saw three women escape from what appears to have been 30 years of enslavement. Few people can understand how that could happen on an ordinary street in south London, but although that is an extreme case, it is far from isolated.
Modern-day slavery is on the rise. Human beings, mainly women and children, are being trafficked into and within the UK to work as labourers, domestic servants, prostitutes, cannabis farmers, forced beggars and to do a whole range of other jobs. We have had a number of excellent suggestions this afternoon on what can be done to tackle this practice, and I know that the Minister will have been listening carefully.
I put it on record that the Opposition support the principle of such an important Bill on modern-day slavery. We will work constructively with the Government to ensure the Bill passes within the limited parliamentary time available, and we will press for a Bill that does all that is needed to address this horrendous practice. I stress that the Opposition will be looking for a Bill that puts victims at its centre and the first step is to recognise who the victims are. The situations into which people are trafficked either from outside or within the UK are disparate and we need a system that recognises that. It is not just neighbours, such as those in the Lambeth case, who fail to recognise victims in their midst. Too many cases are missed by the police, social workers, health workers and immigration staff.
We need front-line professionals across a range of sectors to be trained to recognise trafficking in all its forms. There has to be an understanding that enslavement does not have to mean chains or cellars. Once we have identified victims, we need to give them protection and support, and that is where we think the current system is left wanting. There is a national referral mechanism to collate information on victims, but it is currently not fit for purpose. As I mentioned, the UK Human Trafficking Centre, in collaboration with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, identified 2,255 human trafficking victims, whereas the NRM identified 1,186. The failure is equally pronounced for children: the UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 549 child victims in 2012, while the NRM identified 349. We think the true figure is probably much higher. Given that there are 23 bodies authorised to refer to the NRM, the Government need to address urgently the multiple deficiencies in the system that are stopping referrals. One measure the Opposition support fully is the introduction of a commissioner to oversee the proper collection and use of information.
Once we have identified victims, we have to ensure that the support is there to look after them. The support required will depend on the circumstances in which people have been trafficked. We must not criminalise human trafficking victims. We have to move away from a situation where the first instinct of the authorities is to treat people as an immigration problem rather than as victims. If we are to get more prosecutions, the first stage has to be to identify and protect the victims. They will then be more willing to come forward as witnesses.
We know that support for child victims is a particular weakness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, a horrifying 60% of child victims taken into care go missing. One local authority admitted to losing 90% of children. This happens because the strength of the bond between child victim and trafficker is not diminished when the child is taken into care. Factors that made the child vulnerable in the first place remain and often the trafficker will retain a psychological hold. Without special provision, the child will often return to the trafficker. This is especially true if the child is repatriated. I welcome the vital cross-border work being done to minimise the risks to children when they are returned home.
Trafficked children in the UK require specialist care that is tailored to their individual circumstances. That kind of tailored care will only be provided if trafficked children are given specialist and independent guardians. That system has worked elsewhere in Europe, and, as the Minister will know, was set out in the EU directive on human trafficking. The Government have so far decided not to introduce a system of guardians, but I hope they will look at that again. The Government’s own review “Still at Risk”, which was commissioned by the Home Office, was unequivocal about the need for guardians.
Domestic workers were mentioned, as was the need for a review of the changes introduced to the domestic workers visa. Statistics presented by hon. Members make the case for a reconsideration their unintended consequences.
On prosecutions, the Opposition will certainly support the Government in increasing the penalties for convictions for offences relating to human trafficking, but will look to the Government to introduce aggravated offences for such cases as well. We would also support the inclusion of the specific offence of child trafficking and exploitation, which currently does not exist. I pay tribute to ECPAT for highlighting that particular issue.
In conclusion, I commend the Government for their commitment to introducing a modern slavery Bill, but I urge them not to waste the opportunity before us. There would be many more prosecutions if we could identify more victims and give them the support and protection they need to become witnesses and then help them to rebuild their lives. Unless the Bill recognises that, we will waste a great opportunity. I want to finish by quoting William Wilberforce’s words to the House of Commons on 12 May 1789, which I think sum up the position today:
“The nature and all the circumstances of this trade are now laid open to us; we can no longer plead ignorance, we cannot evade it”.—[Official Report, 12 May 1789; Vol. 28, c. 63.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make verbally the amendment I made in Hansard. In my statement to the House about Mr Mohamed, I told the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that I thought the police had his passport. I wrote to him afterwards explaining that that information was incorrect. The police did not have his passport, because when he returned to the UK, he was not in possession of a passport and therefore it was not possible to remove it from him.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s weak TPIMs regime reaches a milestone on 26 January 2014, when seven out of the eight TPIM orders expire and cannot be renewed. This includes the TPIM governing AY, who is believed to be a key member of the group behind attempts to blow up transatlantic flights with liquid bombs and who travelled to Pakistan to learn bomb making, and AM, who was involved in the same plot. Lord Justice Wilkie concluded that he was “highly intelligent” and
“prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives.”
Will she explain why these individuals will be freed from all restrictions by the end of January 2014?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady is aware of the legislation, as is everybody else, but I take issue with her description of TPIMs. As she will have heard me say in answer to her hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation stated:
“In terms of security, the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against untriable and undeportable persons who are judged on substantial grounds to be dangerous terrorists,”.
The hon. Lady talks about people coming off TPIMs as if no one had ever come off a control order. In fact, 43 people came off control orders because the previous Government revoked them because they were quashed in court, or in six cases because people absconded and were never seen again.
Psychoactive Substances
Diana Johnson Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his post. The Opposition were particularly pleased about his appointment to the Home Office. I thank him for his explanation of the Government’s position on this proposal.
The European Commission’s proposals are technical but important. We should be thankful for the work undertaken by members of the European Scrutiny Committee to assist our deliberations. As the Minister explained, the measures are an attempt to take an EU-wide approach to the problem of legal highs. No one in this House should underestimate the scale of the problem. The UN estimates that the UK has the largest legal highs market in the world. It is estimated that 670,000 young Britons aged 16 to 24 have taken legal highs.
Many of the figures on the scale of the problem already come from the EU through the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. That agency found 73 new synthetic drugs in 2012, which is up from 49 in 2011. The rate of proliferation is increasing. At times this year, about two new substances have been arriving in the UK market every week. Hundreds have been catalogued in the marketplace. There are more than 500 internet shops that supply the substances to the UK market. There are also an unknown but increasing number of head shops on the high street.
It is therefore clear that there is some truth in the Commission’s assessment that member states have not been able effectively to respond to the threat posed by legal highs and that collective action is needed. The Commission is perhaps being unfair on several other member states that have taken action. Countries such as Ireland have been more proactive in responding to the rapid proliferation of the new drugs. The UK Government have been singularly ineffective in tackling this problem. That is why the UK market is now the largest in Europe.
Norman Baker
I just want to put the record straight. The hon. Lady mentioned that there were 49 new drugs in 2011. Only 17 of those crossed the channel to the UK and 14 of them were already controlled by the UK Government. Of the 73 in 2012, only 18 have been seen in the UK and eight had already been controlled.
Diana Johnson
I will come on to the discrepancies between the Home Office figures and the figures of other bodies. The Home Office does not have access to the figures on all the new legal highs that are available on the internet and in head shops.
I want to return to the EU proposal to introduce a cross-European response. The Commission proposes to strengthen the existing monitoring centre, the EMCDDA, to enable it to undertake assessments of new substances and determine how dangerous they are. That determination will inform a classification that is decided on by the Commission with some input from member states.
The Commission wants to address two problems through the proposals. The first and, going by the Commission’s documents, possibly the foremost, is the impediment to the legitimate trade in new psychoactive substances caused by restrictions imposed by individual member states. Secondly, the Commission recognises the public health need. From the drafting of the proposals, it could be construed that the Commission is giving that secondary status.
I agree with the evidence of the Minister for Immigration to the European Scrutiny Committee in which he said that it was not entirely clear what “mischief” the Commission was attempting to tackle. In the regulations, free trade appears to be afforded equal status to prevention of harm. The Opposition share the Government’s surprise that the regulation is justified under the legal auspices of protecting free trade, rather than article 5 concerns relating to justice and home affairs. That focus is surprising given that even the Commission recognises that only a small, unquantifiable percentage of new psychoactive substances have a legitimate use.
The European Scrutiny Committee states that the
“trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate purposes is difficult to quantify”.
I agree with its conclusion:
“Given that uncertainty, as well as the known risks associated with their recreational use, we do not consider that new psychoactive substances should necessarily be treated in the same way as other tradable commodities… Divergent national rules cited by the Commission as an obstacle to legitimate trade, in our view, often reflect differing cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs”.
Although the Opposition have some reservations about the Commission’s motivations, we are willing to engage in addressing the health harms posed by legal highs. We also give the Commission some credit for recognising that harm.
Reading the Commission’s proposal, however, it is not clear how it would determine harm. Article 7 lays out the procedure for risk assessment connected with the substance, and article 10 states the conditions for the determination of levels of health, social and safety risks, following the risk assessment. Article 9 deals with urgent public health requirements, while articles 11, 12 and 13 lay out three levels of control, depending on the level of risk identified. It is important to note for article 11 and substances deemed a low risk that that would mean no restrictions at all.
That does not give an entirely satisfactory account of how the EMCDDA would determine the level of harm associated with each drug. The articles I have mentioned lay out a process, but it is not entirely clear that the EMCDDA will have the evidence available to make classifications that correspond to the level of harm outlined. EMCDDA assessments would not extend to clinical trials, and it is therefore not clear how it would be in a position to rule out addictiveness, long-term psychological harm, or the effect of combining the drugs with alcohol.
It is important to remember that most deaths associated with legal highs come about accidentally, and I am not convinced that the Commission’s proposals adequately explain how the EMCDDA would account for such dangers. Perhaps the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that point, and say what representations the UK Government have made to the Commission. It is also not clear how such proposals will impact on the UK’s capacity to determine our own classification system—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).
Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)
Is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question that we are seeking to pass this measure today to demonstrate our expertise in and judgment on these various substances, those that are emerging and those that are well known such as khat—I have seen the devastation that causes right across north, west and east Africa—which is finding its way to these shores? Precisely for those reasons we want to rely on our expertise and judgment and get a system in place in time, rather than relying on the lowest common denominator from Europe.
Diana Johnson
If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know I was making the case for why I am questioning whether the procedure in this proposal would actually work. I want the Minister to respond to the Government’s advice on the point about the effect that such a proposal would have on any determination this country could make about its own classification.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The hon. Lady rightly raises the question of our making our own determinations, which I hope she will agree should be evidence based. Has she seen the advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that khat should not be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and will the official Opposition follow that evidence-based line when it comes to a vote in the Statutory Instrument Committee?
Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman should perhaps look to his own coalition Government, who decided not to follow the advice of the ACMD. As a Member of one of the two ruling coalition parties, perhaps he should question his own Ministers on that point.
Diana Johnson
I am going to move on because I do not want to get sidetracked into a debate on khat as that is not the purpose of this debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could ask his Ministers about their position as they are part of the Government who are not using—[Interruption.] Well, I have made my position clear. He should look to his own Ministers. The Liberal Democrats cannot have it all ways—I know they try, but perhaps on this they should look to their Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office.
It would be helpful if the Minister set out clearly his position on classification. EU co-operation on drugs is not new, but previously the agreement was that drugs, as recognised by the UN agreement on narcotics, needed to be controlled and the trafficking of drugs tackled. The proposals we are discussing go far further than that. Drugs that would be deemed low risk will not be restricted; those deemed a moderate risk will be prohibited from the consumer market; and the most dangerous drugs will be prohibited altogether, with a possible exception for medical use. I should make it clear that the Opposition do not want to cede powers on drug classification to the EU, and I press the Minister on the Government’s legal advice on how the adoption of the directive could affect the UK Government’s position. The Home Office explanatory memorandum states:
“we do not consider that the measure complies with the principle of proportionality. In particular, the effect of Article 4 of the draft Regulation fetters the UK from adopting more stringent measures to control NPS. In our view, it is vital for the UK, guided as necessary by EU expertise in NPS but not bound by it, to have the final say when deciding whether to exceed any minimum standards mandated by the EU.”
Although the Opposition concur generally with that, it would be helpful if the Minister explained exactly what the Government mean by “fetters”. Do the Government believe that article 4 would prevent them from placing strong prohibitions on a substance?
When we turn to articles 3 and 4, we see that the Commission has placed a strong emphasis on free trade, as I have said. Article 3, on free movement, states:
“New psychoactive substances and mixtures shall move freely in the Union for commercial and industrial use”.
Article 4, on the prevention of barriers to free movement, states that, in so far as
“the Union has not adopted measures to subject a new psychoactive substance to market restriction under this Regulation, Member States may adopt…regulations”.
Is it the Government’s view that member states could impose restrictions only before the EU has classified a drug? Would the Commission classifying a drug as low risk, and therefore not restricting sale in any way, count as having adopted a measure, therefore precluding further action from member states? For its part, the Commission thinks not—it argues that in its impact assessment.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes a detailed and powerful argument. I am gathering that she supports generally what the Government are doing. Many Government Members would like to know that the Opposition will not vote against the motion tonight.
Diana Johnson
I have a few more pages of notes, and then all will be revealed. The hon. Gentleman will have picked up that the Opposition have a number of questions on whether the proposal would be helpful in dealing with the problem of legal highs.
The impact assessment states:
“Member States would be able to apply national measures before the introduction of any EU-level measure in…respect of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, and to go further than what is foreseen by EU measures in full respect of the provisions of Article 114”.
Will the Minister respond to that explanation on that point?
One point made strongly by the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place was that national states are more competent than the EU to make decisions because specific factors might influence the dangers of each drug in different national contexts. The Opposition agree with that assessment. One particular issue is what substances are mixed with—one psychoactive substance could form part of a compound street drug that is far more dangerous. That is a problem for the UK, which, as I have said, has Europe’s largest legal highs market. That draws attention to a failing of the Government’s response to legal highs—the failure to address the emergence of regional drugs, meaning drugs going under a generic street name, but often containing a variety of different substances that become popular in a certain region. Sadly, we have seen repeatedly over a number of years that batches of such drugs can contain a dangerous substance, often with lethal consequences.
Because the Opposition believe that member states are best placed to determine the level of harm posed by a new psychoactive substance, we do not believe that the proposal from the EU Commission is either necessary or proportionate. Therefore, we agree with the reasoned opinion put by the European Scrutiny Committee and supported by the Government. However, even if the House and the other place were to reject the Commission’s proposals—the other place has, I believe, already rejected the proposals—it should not be taken as an excuse by this Eurosceptic Government to opt out of EU co-operation on investigating and assessing new psychoactive substances. The Opposition see a clear need for EU-wide co-operation on a laboratory to research new substances without giving it the power to classify substances.
Currently, hundreds of new substances arrive on the UK market. The Government’s temporary banning orders have been used on only three occasions. I therefore dispute what the Minister has said about taking swift action. There are two reasons for this: a failure by Ministers to refer substances to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the capabilities of the advisory council. It has said that it can assess only two or three substances a year. It is clear that it will never be able to keep up with the number of new drugs on the market, so the UK Drug Policy Commission and others called for a joint EU-wide laboratory to provide advice and information to relevant authorities. We support that. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has long produced lists of new substances that have always been far ahead of the Home Office’s forensic early warning system. I have repeatedly asked Ministers why substances that are identified by the EMCDDA as being on sale in the UK are not automatically added to the forensic early warning system. This goes back to the Minister’s intervention on the numbers. The EMCDDA numbers are far higher than the Home Office numbers, and that needs to be looked at. Perhaps the Minister will finally be able to explain why there is such a disparity between the two lists.
In conclusion, the Opposition are in agreement with both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government that the EU Commission proposal is neither necessary nor desirable. We would like the Government to be more precise about the consequences of adopting the directive on the UK’s current system of drug regulation. We do not want the Government to use tonight’s debate as an excuse to avoid greater EU co-operation to assess the dangers posed by legal highs, particularly to our young people.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I shall try to be relatively brief and to resist the temptation to discuss the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I think that it was the first speech that I have heard in which someone has objected to the concept of talking to other people to identify good practice, which is surely something that most of us would want to do.
It is clear that a huge problem is posed by new psychoactive substances. As that has been reiterated so many times, I shall not go into it in detail now, but I will say that the rise in the number of such substances is partly our fault, because our prohibition-led policy has made it possible to be sentenced to years in jail for possessing one tablet of known harm, but to receive no penalty for possessing something else of unknown harm, which could be far more serious.
We know that some of the new substances are more harmful than substances that we have already controlled. Our use of the term “legal highs” suggests to the public that it is all right to take such substances, because it implies that they are safer than others. If ecstasy is a class A drug and another substance is legal, that suggests that we have made an assessment of the risk, which is deeply misleading. It flies in the face of any evidence-based policy, but it also flies in the face of what we all want to do, which is to reduce the harms from drug use. All substances of this kind, whether legal or illegal, have harms, and we must try to reduce those harms.
I agree with the Minister that the European proposal is not the right one to adopt, but what is the correct way in which to deal with all these substances? On the general subject, I follow the Portuguese line. I think that decriminalisation has worked very well there. Only those on the far right in politics opposed it originally, and now it is supported by people throughout the political spectrum and by the police themselves. The Home Affairs Committee conducted a detailed study of all the issues, and that was our very clear finding.
What is the solution? What is not the solution is simply to ban everything that is psychoactive. I suspect that that is what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is proposing, and it is certainly what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) proposed in a new clause to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which would have included making the sale of caffeine, including coffee, illegal. I do not think that that was the intention of the new clause, but it illustrates the problems that arise when we try to ban things. Coffee is a psychoactive substance. I will not ask how many Members who are present have consumed some of that psychoactive substance today, but quite a number will have done so. That illustrates the danger of being extremist and banning everything.
What we should do is adopt an alternative to the European proposal, and emulate, for example, what has been done in New Zealand. When the New Zealand Government asked the New Zealand Law Commission to look at their drug laws—the Select Committee report goes into this in much more detail—the commission proposed the establishment of an independent regulatory authority to test substances, so that manufacturers and importers would have to demonstrate their safety. I am pleased to see that other members of the Select Committee are present. We proposed that urgent action should be taken, based on existing trading standards and consumer protection legislation, to deal with the sale of untested substances. The onus should be on the person selling a substance to check that it is safe. That is the right way to tackle the huge number of new psychoactive substances.
Diana Johnson
Perhaps I could correct the record. The new clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have dealt with exactly the problem that he has raised by building on the work that had already been done in relation to young people who were sniffing glue. I believe that it was a Conservative Government who had previously legislated to put the onus on shopkeepers who sold substances that could be used for that purpose, and the new clause was intended to put the onus on the seller in the same way. I take exception to the way in which he has described its aims.
Dr Huppert
New clause 2 stated:
“It is an offence for a person to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance, including but not restricted to…a powder…a pill…a liquid; or…a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be so acting, that the substance is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication.”
That would make it illegal to sell coffee. It is perfectly possible to be intoxicated by caffeine, which is an addictive substance. The hon. Lady is right to say that the new clause deals only with the supply of substances, but, although some of us may have concerns about Starbucks paying taxes or otherwise, I think that making the company illegal would be going too far.
Roughly one in five of the notified new psychoactive substances are used for legitimate purposes in industry or research, or as active substances in medicines. We must be extremely careful about how we proceed, because a global ban would give rise to all sorts of problems.
We have touched on the Home Secretary’s decision to ban khat. She has tabled a statutory instrument to do so. That was her decision; it was not a jointly signed off one, and I was very disappointed by it.
I was also very disappointed and surprised that the shadow Minister had no idea what her own policy was. [Interruption.] If she would like to say what it is, I will be happy to take an intervention. Apparently, she does not wish to do so.
The Government have twice asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs what to do about khat. This is a classic example of a legal high that exists and would be covered by this provision, and where we have to work out what to do. The ACMD said that
“the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”
It also said that
“the evidence shows that khat has no direct causal links to adverse medical effects”.
It went on to say there is no robust evidence of a causal link between khat consumption and any of the social harms indicated, and no evidence of it being connected with organised criminal behaviour.