Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Jeff Smith Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate and to speak in favour of new clause 17, which is tabled in my name. I am delighted that many hon. Members on both sides have expressed their support for it.

I will not move the new clause this evening, because I am lucky to have had conversations with the Lord Chancellor, who I am delighted to see is in his place, about the nature of this particular crime. This crime is, I would argue, almost unique in that it is a complete betrayal. It is a complete betrayal because it is not just by a person, but by the parent of a child at its most vulnerable stage. It is a complete betrayal because it is a failure—yes, of those parents, but actually of our entire society—to protect the most vulnerable. It is a complete betrayal because it allows a crime to continue when it should have stopped days before, and in this case days are lifetimes.

I am talking, of course, about the terrible abuse of children like Tony Hudgell—children who, like Tony, are in the early stages of life. They are not able to give evidence to a court, because they are in their 40th or 50th day of life. They could not possibly stand up in a court and give testimony, and they could not possibly point the finger at their abuser, so they find themselves in the invidious position of not being able to get the full weight of the law brought against their aggressor, because they are too young, too innocent, too silent to be able to bring that action.

The Lord Chancellor has spoken to me privately—I hope that he will not mind my raising it publicly—about how we share the same horror of these crimes and these offences, but at the moment the law does not allow the same sentencing. I only ask that in the next few months, before the Bill gets to the Lords and the change comes that we all hope for, he looks at this legislation and realises that there is a small lacuna—a gap—in which the sentencing could be corrected. It does not require a complete redrafting of the law, but a small swish of his pen, as his quill hits the vellum to change the sentences and match them appropriately to the crimes—crimes that would have reached the same sentence had the child been able to point the finger and identify the criminal.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about some of the amendments and new clauses that I strongly support: to protect shop workers from abuse; to protect people from harassment outside abortion clinics, as has happened in my constituency; and to protect the ability to meaningfully protest. I therefore want to confine my brief remarks to new clause 30, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). It is the same as a new clause that was tabled in Committee in her name and my own. I do not need to speak for long because she covered the issues very well in her excellent speech.

I want to pay tribute to my constituent Julia Cooper, who first approached me a few months ago to tell me about her experience at Sale Water Park, which is adjacent to my constituency. She had been out with a friend and was breastfeeding her baby when a stranger put on a telephoto lens and started taking photographs of her in the park without permission. She confronted the individual, but he refused to delete the pictures. She complained to the park authorities and then to the police, and was told that there was nothing that they could do. I was shocked for two reasons. First, I was shocked that a stranger would actually take long lens photos of someone breastfeeding without their consent. Secondly, I was equally shocked that the police said that there was nothing in the law that they could do to tackle the issue.

When I raised this issue previously in Women and Equalities questions in the Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said:

“This is unacceptable and we will deal with it.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 364.]

It is therefore disappointing, having raised the issue in Committee and tabling the new clause today, that the Government seem to be kicking this into the long grass with a review by the Law Commission. This is a pretty simple issue that could be dealt with quickly and effectively today through new clause 30. We should accept the new clause, because the number of people who have contacted Julia, other campaigners and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow are testament to the number of times that this has happened around the country. It is now happening every week.

We ought to be taking action now. We should not be kicking this issue into the long grass. If this new clause is pushed to a vote this evening, and I hope that it may be, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to support it. If not, I do hope that the Lords will look at this issue and perhaps bring forward something similar when it is dealt with there. It is shocking and disgraceful behaviour, and we could take action today—now—to stop it.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I want to address new clause 76, which offers the Government an opportunity to save lives. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not in his place, but I have let him know that I will mention him. On this occasion, he has been a bit soft. I think that is probably the first time that I have said that and it will probably be the last time that I do. The reason that I say it is that in his new clause 76, he proposes increasing the penalty for dangerous driving from two years’ to five years’ imprisonment. I have only had a cursory search and the Justice Secretary will probably correct me if I am wrong, but the problem with my hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the maximum penalty for possession of class A drugs is seven years and for possession of firearms 10 years.

I will touch on this matter briefly, because I am not sure whether it has been through the courts. I had occasion, through very nearly becoming a victim of a dangerous driver evading the police, to have various conversations with police drivers, and they seem to be of the opinion that miscreants know the various penalties for dangerous driving, possession of drugs and the possession of firearms, and they will evade the police and drive at enormous speed simply to make sure that they are not caught with firearms or drugs in the car, so there is a problem with the structure of incentives around dangerous driving. Elsewhere, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley tabled an amendment relating to a requirement to turn off the engine, but the point is that if police officers seek to stop someone who knows they are in possession of firearms or drugs, which would earn them a sentence greater than that for dangerous driving, then off they might well go. That can be a very dangerous thing indeed. I should not mention the speeds involved, but I know that people will find ways, with very high-performance cars, of outrunning the police.

My suggestion to the Government is to take advantage of this Bill and the section relating to driving offences, inspired by new clause 76, and do something to make sure that an offence is introduced for which the penalty, if someone refuses to stop for the police and then drives in an evasive manner, committing dangerous driving offences, is sufficient to deter even people who might have firearms or class A drugs in the vehicle. I encourage Ministers to consult police officers who drive with that in mind. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary.

Misuse of Drugs Act

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the time for this debate, to the cross-party Members who supported the application, and particularly to the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for co-sponsoring it.

This May marks 50 years since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 received Royal Assent. Back in 1971 there were three television channels; smoking indoors was normal everywhere from schools to doctors’ waiting rooms; and women could legally be sacked for being pregnant. Our culture and society now are completely different from that time, but our drugs regime remains the same, focusing on prohibition, criminalisation and punishment rather than looking at the evidence on what reduces harm to individuals and to society.

The 1971 Act was intended to prevent the use of controlled drugs, eliminate illegal drug markets and reduce the harms of drug use; it is not working. The data suggests that in 1971 there were fewer than 100 drug-related deaths in England and Wales; in 2019, drug-related deaths in England and Wales rose for the eighth year in a row to 4,393. There has been a 52% increase in drug-related deaths over the past 10 years, and 2,883 deaths resulted directly from drug misuse. These people mattered and many of their deaths were preventable. If there were better laws and properly funded treatment services, many could still be with us today.

In the late 60s, around 1% of adults had used drugs at some point in their life; the proportion is now 34%. While the drug market remains in the hands of criminal gangs, drugs are getting stronger and more adulterated. People are dying because they do not know what is in the drugs they are using. Even the Government acknowledge the failings. A 2014 Home Office report reviewed the evidence and said that

“there is no relationship between tougher/punitive sanctions on drug possession and the level of drug use in a country.”

Last year, Carol Black’s review of drugs for the Government said that the evidence suggests that

“enforcement crackdowns have little…impact on the overall drug supply…and can often have the unintended consequence of increasing violence, for example by creating a gap in the market for dealers to compete over, or increasing distrust in the drugs market.”

The police force in County Durham published evidence in which drug users were interviewed about a large-scale undercover police operation, which lasted six months, cost more than half a million pounds, and resulted in the arrest of over 30 people involved in the supply of class A drugs. When users were asked how long they thought the operation had strangled the supply of heroin for, one estimated four hours, and another just two hours. If people want more evidence than that, I recommend the books by former undercover cop, Neil Woods, who gives a graphic illustration of how the market is there and how, even if that market is interrupted, people come in and fill the gap. We cannot arrest our way out of this problem.

Through county lines, dealing and exploitation, more and more young people have been pulled into drug supply and a life of crime. In 2017 alone, 38,000 people were criminalised for possession of drugs in England and Wales, almost 3,000 of them under the age of 18—people unnecessarily criminalised, limiting their future life chances and their educational and employment opportunities.

A third of the prison population are there because of drug offences or offences relating to drug use. Putting people in custodial settings as a result of their substance use punishes those who need help, does not address the root cause of their issues, and is, more often than not, counterproductive All those things add up to part of the human cost of our drugs policy, but what about the financial cost?

According to the Home Office, in England alone, policing and enforcing current drug policy costs £1.4 billion annually. Half of acquisitive crime is related to illegal drug use. A different Home Office-commissioned report said that the failure of drug policies costs the taxpayer £10.7 billion a year in policing, healthcare and crime. The total societal costs of harms relating to illegal drug use is now £19.3 billion.

Another consequence of the 1971 Act is how it has held back scientific and medical developments. Drugs in schedule 1 such as Psilocybin, MDMA, LSD and DMT are showing real promise as potentially life-changing treatment options for conditions such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and addictions. While it is technically possible, it is slow, difficult and expensive to do medical research into schedule 1 substances. Under this policy regime, we are wasting money, wasting the resources of the criminal justice system, wasting the chance to do better research and to find evidence to inform our drug policy and our medical interventions, and wasting lives.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the scope of the impact of the drugs scene today and the implication that it has on residents, including in my constituency of York Central where there is an incredibly high level of drug deaths. This is how I got involved in the issue. I have been on a journey and learned how a public health approach can be transformative in diverting people away from crime, in ensuring that there is no exploitation, in providing good treatment, including engagement with drug consumption spaces, and in taking that full public health approach. Does he agree that we need a sea change now to see harm reduction, as has been tried and tested elsewhere, which has incredible outcomes that he, too, has seen.

[Jeff Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This anniversary is surely the time to take stock, to change our approach to one that is rooted in evidence, and to do what is best for public health.

In 2019, the Health and Social Care Committee recommended such an approach. It called for

“a radical change in UK drugs policy”

moving

“from a criminal justice to a health approach.

It said:

“Responsibility for drugs policy should move from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care.”

It supported a consultation on decriminalisation of drugs for personal use. By the way, decriminalisation is supported by the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society for Public Health.

The Government published their response earlier this year, saying that they had “no intention” of decriminalising drugs. They said:

“Drugs are illegal because scientific and medical analysis has shown they are harmful to human health”—

apart, of course, from alcohol, a drug that is more harmful to the user than most drugs aside from heroin, crack and methamphetamine. It is certainly not less harmful to the user compared with cannabis or ecstasy, for example, and it is legal.

Let us think for a minute, following the Government’s logic, what would happen if we made alcohol illegal because it is harmful to human health. People would not stop using it. They would get it from the black market, as they did during prohibition in the USA. People would die from badly produced moonshine, as they did in the USA, and the profits would go into the pockets of criminal gangs. Instead of that, we mitigate the harm from alcohol use by legalising it, regulating it, making sure that it is not poisonous and making it safe, and we can invest the tax raised from its sale in the NHS and public messaging. No one has ever given me a convincing argument as to why we do not take the same approach to cannabis, as many US states and increasing numbers of countries around the world are now doing. There is simply no logic to the Government’s approach.

There would be different approaches to different drugs, but what is common is that the current regime is not working. Over the last half a century, there have been calls for reform from a wide range of parliamentary Committees and public bodies. We have an increasing body of evidence to look at on how things could change for the better. The evidence from countries that have liberalised their approach to drugs does not suggest an associated increase in use.

The example of Portugal is worth highlighting again. In the early noughties, Portugal was in the grip of Europe’s worst heroin and drug death crisis. In 2001, it ended the criminalisation of people who use drugs and established a health-led approach instead. Since then, drug-related deaths have fallen and have remained below the EU average. The proportion of the prison population sentenced for drug offences fell from over 40% to 15%. The number of annual drug overdose deaths reduced from 318 in 2000 to 40 in 2015. There was an 18% reduction in the social costs of drug use in the first 10 years of decriminalisation. Problematic use and school-age use both fell, and rates of drug use in Portugal remain consistently below the EU average.

Even within the current regime, the Government could stop blocking some proven harm reduction measures, such as overdose prevention centres and drug safety testing, and they could ramp up and even out the provision of naloxone and heroin-assisted treatment. They could have encouraged more diversion schemes and more deferred prosecution schemes and could properly reinvest in the treatment budgets that have been cut in recent years.

[Rachael Maskell]

On the issue of diversion, I was told a powerful story about how young people, instead of getting a criminal record, were given the opportunity in life for someone to invest in them. As a result, they got apprenticeships and then got a job instead of a criminal record. Surely that is a better way forward for these young people’s lives.

[Jeff Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the evidence in the UK. There have been some very good diversion schemes in Durham and the west midlands, and there are others. We do not need to look at the evidence abroad; we can look at the evidence in the UK.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, particularly in relation to cannabis, the initial warning and the fixed penalty notice that we use at the moment do not prevent in any way, shape or form people from also being given a diversion scheme and other steps being taken? There is no barrier to that at the moment, for example, in relation to cannabis.

[Jeff Smith]

That is true. My problem with cannabis is that the supply is still in the hands of organised criminal gangs. That, for me, is not a sensible way to approach our drug policy.

We can explore models of decriminalisation, and we know that those are associated with reduced risks of recidivism, a reduced burden on police resources and savings to the public purse related to social costs, or we can look at models of legalised regulation. Whatever happens, we need a wholesale, new approach to this problem. The Government need to be honest that the last 50 years of drug policy have been a failure and have come at a terrible human, societal and economic cost. We need to commit to a public health approach rather than a criminal justice approach to drugs policy—one focused on saving lives and rooted in support and compassion for those who abuse drugs.

Among the MPs who want to speak in today’s debate, there will not be a single view on the way we go forward and what an alternative to the current approach to drugs policy should look like, and there will be different approaches for different substances. I look forward to hearing the views of Members, but I suspect that we probably mostly agree that, on the 50th anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is worth looking honestly at the legacy of that 50-year-old legislation and considering what needs to change to better serve our constituents and our communities. We should take this opportunity for political parties and the media to stop weaponising drugs policy and have a grown-up discussion about how we protect our communities. Today I am calling on the Government to launch a full, open-minded review of this legislation to learn from our mistakes, because we cannot afford another 50 years of failure.

I will leave the final words to Anne-Marie Cockburn, who is a campaigner for Anyone’s Child: Families for Safer Drug Control. Anne-Marie’s daughter Martha, like people through the generations for thousands of years, just wanted to have a bit of fun and get high. She researched on the internet how to get high safely. She was 15 years old when she took an overdose of MDMA that killed her. Anne-Marie says: “As I stand by my daughter’s grave, what more evidence do I need that UK drug policy needs to change?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

Politicians are often most criticised for sitting on the fence. While I am sure that Whips across the House like to believe they are skilled in the power of persuasion, there is no hiding the fact that, often, many MPs made up their minds on issues long ago. However, it is clear that the time for an open and honest debate on the future of the UK’s drug policy is desperately needed, not least because the current strategy does not appear to be working.

When I speak to individuals from South Yorkshire police, the problem is self-evident. While time spent catching dealers temporarily reduces supply, there appears to be no lack of criminals. An ex-police officer told me recently about a huge drugs bust in April, in which everyone from the top ring leaders to the small dealers were arrested. After thousands of hours of police work, millions of pounds-worth of drugs were discovered, yet according to the former police officer I spoke to, the raid managed to keep cannabis off the streets for a whole two hours. Being tough on dealers does not seem to be working. The gains made by the police are small, and for this reason I have concluded that enforcement alone will never get us to a solution.

Every time someone buys drugs, they become part of the criminal supply chain; put simply, it links them directly to dealers who have no problem with carrying a knife or a gun. Because suppliers operate outside the law, they do not have the police to protect them, so instead they protect themselves with weapons. They do not pay taxes either, nor do they give a receipt. Equally, they are not held responsible if their product leads to hospitalisation or even death. While we are talking about drug reform, decriminalisation where users are not penalised for possessing drugs will not fix these issues.

The answer may be to totally legalise cannabis and, potentially, other drugs. I have heard some say that putting drugs in the hands of the Government or a legal partner takes the production and supply chains and any customer transaction out of the hands of criminals. I have also heard that such a policy makes sense as it would ensure that the quality of products will be controlled, leading to fewer deaths from consumption. Taxes could be raised and we could get consumers out of the supply chain.

Yet I am not convinced that adopting these policies would be trouble-free. For one thing, are we to believe that the persons involved in drugs would simply leave and go to find employment in a regular job? I am not convinced. After all, research from the Institute of Economic Affairs concluded that the current black market in cannabis is worth £2.6 billion per year, with 255 tonnes sold to 3 million users in 2016. Any movement to Government-controlled legalisation of cannabis would be a huge loss for current criminals, and I fear they would simply move into selling harder drugs, which it would be grossly irresponsible ever even to consider regulating.

Secondly, the legalisation of something like cannabis may lead to an upsurge in usage. There is conflicting evidence, but a recent peer-reviewed study conducted in the United States concluded that cannabis use has increased in states where the drug was legalised. With cannabis use increasingly being linked to psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety and schizophrenia, what toll would liberalisation have on our NHS and its mental health services?

[Jeff Smith]

The hon. Member makes an important point, but is he aware that the difficulty with cannabis is that it is made up of different compounds? THC and CBD are the two main ones, and the problem with the cannabis we buy on the street, which is mainly skunk, is that it is very high in THC, and that is what causes the problem. If we legalise cannabis and make the product safer by regulating it, we would have a better balanced product that is not as dangerous and will not be leading to the kind of consequences he has talked about.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Member for saying that, but I still go back to what I said before. If we legalise the cannabis we have talked about and make that safe, I still think the illegal or the criminal element would continue selling the cannabis—[Interruption.] It is not a good place to be.

The questions I have raised today are not new to those involved in policy making, yet such arguments will be new to many of my constituents, who unfortunately have had to deal with the effects of illicit drug dealing in their communities. That is why I believe this House and the Government need to have an open mind when considering reform in this regard. Before we rush into anything, we must ask what the potential effects of reform are, especially for our children and young people.

I therefore believe that, as compassionate individuals, the best thing for us to do is to deter people from starting the habit in the first place. With regard to drugs, this means doing everything we can—as parents, family members, community members, society, Government—to educate our children and look out for them, too. We need to look at who all their friends are, have high expectations for how they behave, keep them entertained and encouraged, keep them fit and healthy and, most importantly, give them a vision of a great future.

We also need to take responsibility for our own actions. That means the minority of successful people out there who are earning good money need to stop their weekend coke habit or their marijuana habit because, contrary to what they think, this practice is hurting communities and putting lives in danger. They need to think again because they are part of the problem. They are part of that chain and they are fuelling demand. Every time these people take drugs in expensive bars and nightclubs, they are part of the chain that has a nine-year-old running drugs, they are part of the chain that puts a knife in the hands of a 16-year-old, and they are part of the chain that leaves grieving parents mourning the loss of a son or a daughter who has just overdosed.

Put simply, there will be a lot less demand if the people who are not addicted but take drugs recreationally stop doing so. This reduction in demand would ensure that the market would shrink, and the number of dealers and crime would be reduced. When our police do the big drugs bust, maybe the streets will be drugs-free not for two hours; just maybe they will be permanently free from these dangerous substances.

In summary, we need to stop our young people getting involved in drugs by educating them about the damage they cause. We also need to put more support into helping those already affected by drug addiction. These two simple policies alone will help drastically reduce demand and therefore the size of the market. In turn, this would give our police forces a fighting chance to catch the dealers and other criminals involved in these supply chains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

I thank the Minister for his response—I am pleased that he is open to listening on this issue—and my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), for their contributions, although I agree with the SNP spokesperson that it is regrettable that those three individuals, rather than health representatives, should be responding to a debate on drug policy.

We await the second report of the Carol Black review. The first report set out the very significant problems very well. However, the Government were very clear, in the remit she was given, that she is not able to look at legislative change, and I think that it is regrettable. I agree actually with the Minister that there is no silver bullet. This is a complex issue, and all I have been saying really, and all that most people have been saying, is: let us look at the evidence, let us review the Act and let us see if it is still fit for purpose. I personally do not think that is too much to ask.

This is the first time we have had a debate on drug policy in this Chamber since 2017, which is a shame because it is an issue in many—probably most—of our constituencies. As politicians, we really need to address this issue thoughtfully and with careful consideration to find the right way forward. I hope it is not another four years before we discuss this issue and look at the best way forward by looking at the evidence of how we reduce harm to our communities.

Finally, I thank all the speakers who have taken part in the debate today and, again, the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow arrangements to be made for the next item of business.

Protection of Retail Workers

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am a proud member of USDAW, which does so much great campaign work on this issue.

The pandemic has shown once and for all how vital retail workers are. They have been largely unsung heroes on the frontline of the pandemic—dealing with the public, keeping us supplied and keeping our society going, yet they are regularly abused and assaulted. We have heard some of the shocking statistics from hon. Members, and things have got worse over the last year. In Co-op stores alone in the first quarter of 2021, there have been almost 400 incidents where weapons have been used against shop workers, and more than half of those have been sharp implements such as a syringe, knife or bottle. That is just in the first quarter of 2021.

As today’s report from the Home Affairs Committee says, many incidents go unreported. Some of the people who are reluctant to report incidents said in their evidence to the Committee that it is part of the job, but it should not be part of the job. When I discussed this issue with local shop workers in Didsbury in my constituency, it was clear that this was a really big problem. Despite what the Daily Mail might think, Didsbury is an enviably nice, welcoming, cosmopolitan and mainly middle-class area—and a no-go zone for no one—but we have had issues in recent years with gangs of young people shoplifting. The fear is that when they are challenged, they then become aggressive and abusive, or worse.

A couple of years ago, I wrote to the regional managers of the bigger stores in the area, asking for their support for better security and engagement with the local traders association. Most of them were positive and responsive, but not all, and it should not be down to the attitudes of individual employers or owners for retail workers to be properly protected. The Government need to introduce a framework of protection for workers, which means ensuring that people understand that there are consequences for abusing or assaulting retail workers. As the petition asks for, we need the creation of a specific new criminal offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing retail workers. That is supported across the country by staff, by unions and by shop owners, from small businesses to retail giants. We have heard that, in Scotland, legislation to protect shop workers from violence will come into force on 24 August. I congratulate everyone who has made that happen, but if it is good enough for Scotland, why not for the rest of the UK? We have an opportunity. We do not need to wait for a full Bill to pass through Parliament. If we can support new clause 45 as tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we have an opportunity to make a real difference for retail workers, so let us take that opportunity. Let us help the people who should not be scared just by going to work. “Freedom From Fear”, the USDAW campaign slogan, should not be just a campaign slogan. It should be reality for the people who serve us.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

The Government like to talk tough on crime, but since 2010 the MOJ has been cut more than any other Department: police funding was cut, recorder sitting days were cut, the CPS was cut, and more than half the courts across England and Wales were closed. The new resources that the Minister has talked about will not make up for those 10 years of cuts. That is not being tough on crime, is it?

[Chris Philp]

I will tell the House what is being tough on crime. According to the crime survey for England and Wales—the only source of crime statistics that the Office for National Statistics says is reliable—the number of crimes in the jurisdiction of England and Wales has gone down by 41% since 2010, and that is the number that matters the most.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I do share that objective, so does the Home Secretary, and so do the whole Government. Where we need to legislate to tighten up the law in this area to make these crossings impossible, we will not draw back or hesitate before taking those steps. We are determined to do whatever it takes to make sure that our borders are properly policed. If that requires legislation, then we will legislate.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

The Minister talked earlier—with some pride, I think—about our taking the highest number of applications from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which is good. Overall, the UK takes three times fewer asylum applications than France, three times fewer than Spain and four times fewer than Germany. So if we were to reopen safe routes properly, what level of asylum applications does he think would be a fair share for us to deal with?

[Chris Philp]

When it comes to helping vulnerable people, it is far more effective to help those who are in dangerous locations rather than shipping people from, say, Spain to the United Kingdom, because countries like Spain are already safe countries. As I say, we do more than our fair share when it comes to protecting vulnerable people. I have already referenced the fact that we have the highest number of UASCs of any European country, and our resettlement programme, in the five years from 2015 to 2020, took in more people directly from conflict zones than any other European country. So any suggestion that this country is not doing its fair share is completely wrong and completely misguided.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Jeff Smith Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate remotely. Last week, one Member described the hybrid system as “sub-optimal”, and that is undoubtedly the case, but it does at least allow everyone the chance to take part in debates safely.

If the Leader of the House is going to press ahead with his proposals for a physical Parliament after recess, I hope he will explain how we could debate this Bill any more effectively while only small numbers of Members can be allowed in the Chamber; how Members who are shielding or self-isolating could take part in this debate; how Members who have childcare responsibilities and kids off school during the crisis could take part in this debate; and how we could sensibly have a Division involving 600 people at the end of this debate, while social distancing. Perhaps he will also explain why the House of Commons should follow different advice from that given to the rest of the country.

Let me move on to the Bill. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said about the EU citizens who are keeping our care system and our health service going at this most difficult of times. They are heroes, like the rest of the staff in our care and health sector and the other key workers in this crisis. They are highly skilled; they should be highly valued. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the income threshold and our concerns about the risk to the future care sector under the Government’s proposals.

Three quarters of my constituents voted to remain in the EU, and the principles of openness, co-operation, internationalism and solidarity that led so many of them to do that have not changed. Yes, free movement brings challenges, but it also brings huge economic, social and cultural benefits. It will be a sad day when my constituents and other UK citizens will no longer have the ability to travel freely and to study, live and work easily across our wonderful continent.

I recognise that free movement is going to end as a result of the Bill, but the way the Government are going about it is unacceptable, most worryingly in the granting to the Executive of wide Henry VIII powers, which many of my constituents in south Manchester do not trust this Government with. Side-lining Parliament is ironic in the context of the arguments for taking back control to Parliament.

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produced a report on the almost identical 2017-19 Bill and expressed serious concerns about the wide scope of its regulation-making powers. The Committee stated that it was “frankly disturbed” that the Government would attempt to confer permanent powers to Ministers

“to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate”

as long as it was loosely connected to clause 4 of that Bill. It is a serious report and I refer all Members to the concerns expressed in it.

Other Members have raised the important issues in respect of detention, unaccompanied vulnerable children and visas, so I shall not go over them again. I wish to use the brief time I have left to raise one specific issue for future consideration. As we design a future work and immigration system, and as we come out of this crisis, it is more important than ever to support our cultural industries, which have been hit harder than most by the crisis. Lots of my constituents in south Manchester work in the entertainment industry, many of them in the live music and performance professions. Loss of freedom of movement could have a seriously detrimental effect on the live performance industry. If we make it harder for EU artists to perform in the UK, we are vulnerable to measures that make it harder for our artists to perform around the EU. Winding up a Westminster Hall debate just four months ago, in January, the Minister, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), said:

“It is essential that free movement is protected for artists post 2020.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 56WH.]

Organisations in the music industry are pressing for an EU-wide touring visa for musicians, performers, road crew, tour managers, sound and light engineers—all the people who make the industry such a vital contributor to our economic and cultural life. We need a passporting system with reciprocal arrangements, so performers can continue to tour easily after the transition period. A two-year, multi-entry touring visa that is cheap and easy to administer is a deliverable ask.

Music remains a low-earning sector, with musicians earning £23,000 a year on average. They would not meet the salary threshold under the Government’s proposal, so it is vital that the Government come up with a system that supports the live music and performance industries, which employ so many of my constituents and make all our lives richer and more rewarding.

Local Government

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to follow our excellent shadow Minister, and to be able to contribute briefly to today’s debate on this statutory instrument. First, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I rent my constituency premises from the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, and I am proud to do so. As we have heard, yesterday was International Firefighters’ Memorial Day, so I would like to begin by adding my tribute to the bravery of all our firefighters, past and present. As the shadow Minister said, firefighters have played a vital part in keeping people safe during the coronavirus crisis, but they also put their lives on the line all year round, and we are all grateful to them.

Although this is a piece of legislation with limited scope, it is a motion that will prove important for the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service and, perhaps more importantly, for the public it works so hard to protect. Good strategic oversight and governance of our emergency services is a key way of ensuring the safety of our communities and the effectiveness of our fire and rescue service in Manchester. It is essential that we have the best possible framework in place, along with proper funding, to ensure that the fire and rescue service is run as effectively as possible. We need the best possible means to hold to account those who manage the service, which is why I am supporting this legislation today.

In early 2018, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority carried out a review of its governance arrangements in the light of the first 12 months of the Mayor’s term of office. As part of that, it undertook a review of the fire and rescue function, and it was important that that review included consideration of the issues identified in the Kerslake report, particularly in relation to the co-ordination and communication between the emergency services following the Manchester Arena bombing. It is important that we learn the lessons of that tragic incident.

That report made recommendations for the improvement of co-operation between the fire service and other emergency services. The GMCA agreed that it would be clearer and more transparent, and that it would provide more accountable leadership for the fire functions, if the Mayor were able to delegate those functions to the deputy Mayor for policing and crime, and for the scrutiny functions to sit with the police and crime panel, which would then become the police, fire and crime panel. This statutory instrument does those two things, and I am pleased to support it on that basis.

This is an expansion of the scrutiny panel’s duties that I know the police and crime panel has been keen to achieve, not for its own sake but because it is keen to ensure real integration in how the services are run, and effective scrutiny of that integrated working. This will mean that there are clear lines of accountability to our excellent deputy Mayor. Allowing the Mayor to delegate fire and rescue functions to the deputy Mayor will enable her to accelerate the pace of change and to ensure that collaboration is implemented more effectively and that strategic risks are reviewed across both services. The changes will also provide a single point of contact for the public and ensure quicker decision making at the appropriate level, while ensuring delivery of the duty to collaborate. They will allow informed and rounded arrangements for prevention and a more co-ordinated response to manage the terror threat. As a result, I am confident that we can look forward to increased collaboration between the fire service and other emergency services, enabling them to act more efficiently and effectively in the services that they provide to the people of Greater Manchester. The issue is particularly important in the current context. The need for properly integrated services, maximising the efficiency of working between our blue light services, comes at a time when both the police and the fire and rescue authority in Greater Manchester are under huge pressure.

Ten years of austerity has hit the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service hard. Since 2010, it has seen more than £20 million per year removed from its budget. As we have heard, over that period the Government grant to the fire and rescue service has reduced from approximately £75 million to about £53 million—a decrease of almost 30%. On the ground, that means that the services have had to lose 16 fire engines since 2010, dropping from 66 to 50, a 24% reduction. According to figures from the FBU, it means that Greater Manchester lost 624 firefighters between 2010 and 2019.

All that has happened at a time when Greater Manchester’s population is increasing; there was an increase of over 150,000 during the same period. At the same time, the built environment is becoming more complex and the fire service is facing additional pressures. Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, Greater Manchester formed the high-rise taskforce to try to prevent anything like that from happening in our region. As we have heard, it has been carrying out proactive inspections of all the high-rise blocks to ensure that fire safety regulations are being complied with and that people feel safe in their homes. But Greater Manchester still has 78 buildings that have adopted interim measures because of significant fire safety deficiencies. Making all those buildings safe is now an urgent task.

That is all happening now, and it is hard enough without coronavirus. But the impact of the current coronavirus crisis on local authority budgets will inevitably take its toll. We know that the 10 Greater Manchester authorities are forecasting £424 million of lost income as well as £169 million in extra costs as a result of coronavirus. Although the £170 million of funding announced by the Government is, of course, welcome, there are no Government commitments yet to fully reimburse the authorities for that lost income. Without that money, we may well have to see further cuts to our blue light services. There will inevitably be a significant negative impact on council tax collection, which poses a risk to the police and fire budgets in future years, with collection fund deficits and implications around calculating the tax base.

In the short term, the Government really need to commit to fully reimbursing local authorities for their losses due to coronavirus. Local authorities are already struggling after years of being the hardest hit part of the public sector, and they simply cannot afford to be hit again. Longer term, when we are on the other side of the coronavirus crisis, I hope we will see the Government make an honest assessment of the levels of funding for Greater Manchester fire and rescue service and the police, and increased central funding to keep our people safe.

In this context, of course, it will take more than efficient governance to enable the fire and rescue service to continue keeping people safe—it will take proper investment in our blue light services as well. But effective and efficient governance is important, and enabling the high-level strategic overview and accountability to be integrated will help deliver efficiency and accountability to our service. On that basis, I welcome the legislation today as crucial to help improve our work and the work of the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service, and ultimately keep our communities in Greater Manchester safe.

Mental Health Act: Section 136

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

The subject of this debate is section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but I am discussing only a tiny aspect of it. As a Minister from the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), is responding, I am dodging all leaflets, letters and things that I have received from Mind and all the rest of it, and just narrowly looking at one little thing.

This evening, there is a dinner for the parliamentary police graduates; those of us who have been on the course with the police are going. The great advantage of the course, as with similar courses, is that people on it learn what it is like to be a police officer, both on and behind the frontline. Many of us come back from it wishing to make legal changes, because we have seen what it is like to face the problems that police officers face day in, day out. I have often used this route to address issues to do with child protection cases—I think I have 12 or 13 of them. There is one that I have nagged on for some considerable time. It comes from an experience that I had when out in a patrol car with a couple of uniformed cops in Wandsworth. I have raised this matter several times, but some of the answers that I have received—I hesitate to say this to Minister—were not very clever.

Section 136 gives the police the power to remove a person from a public place to a place of safety when that person appears to be suffering from mental disorder. The person will need to be deemed by the police to be in immediate need of care and control as their behaviour is of concern. They are detained, not arrested. From 2018 to 2019, some 50,000 people were detained under the Mental Health Act; about 18,000 or 19,000 people were detained under section 136. It is a little piece of a big Act that has a big effect, and most of it is positive—including, ultimately, for the people detained.

As I say, a person will be deemed by the police to be in immediate need of care and control because their behaviour is of concern. Frequently, this is when the police are trying to stop the individual committing suicide. There have been tragic misinterpretations, and because of a civil quirk I will touch on, the police have had to release the person detained without taking them into a place of care. Ultimately, that person has gone home, or to a relative, and committed suicide. I want this tiny change so that that cannot happen.

As I have said, it is important to point out that the person is not under arrest. When a decision is made to remove them, they are being removed for their own care to a place of safety. The police power is to facilitate the assessment of their health and wellbeing, as well as to provide safety for the people around them. That is excellent, as far as it goes. My primary focus is on the fact that this applies fully only if the individual is in what is deemed to be a public place.

My interest comes from my personal involvement in one case, as I have said, plus from considerable discussions with frontline police officers over the years—predominantly from the Metropolitan police and the Surrey police—and with Professor Rix, who has just retired as a psychiatric consultant, and who was so upset about what was happening that he has been campaigning with the police. There are also a few senior police officers up and down the country who are so concerned that they are campaigning on this as well.

A few years ago, I joined two young uniformed police officers in their response car in Wandsworth. We attended a call with the blues and twos on. It was quite spectacular for me, sitting in the back seat. The officers were excellent drivers; how we missed hitting people on the way there was quite remarkable. We dashed to a residential council tower block, of which Wandsworth has quite a number, and went up to the 14th floor, where a very nervous lady—the mother of the household—let us in.

When we walked in, we saw the woman’s 22-year-old daughter standing on the windowsill of the open window, about to jump. The moment she saw us, she moved further towards the edge, so we moved back out and tried as best we could to persuade her to come down from that precarious position. We quickly established that she had a history of genuine suicide attempts, so this was for real. We pulled back to some degree because she clearly did not like the sight of uniformed police, but fortunately we were joined by two plain clothes officers. One was a very quick and clever lady officer, who entered the flat and managed to persuade the girl to come down from the windowsill and sit on the bed. She saw the pills that the girl planned to take for the suicide if she was not able to jump out of the window, pushed them to one side, gradually removed them and calmed the girl down. The girl clearly needed to go to a place of safety for psychiatric and medical help, but she vehemently refused and became very agitated the moment that was mentioned. She made a number of attempts to go back to the window, and had to be caught and brought back to the bed.

In the meantime, we made contact with the nearby St George’s Hospital psychiatric unit, seeking urgent assistance and someone of professional standing, as required under section 136, effectively to commit her so that she could be taken away to safety. The unit was busy, and it was some considerable time before a healthcare official finally turned up, with an ambulance and a crew. Many healthcare professionals say that it is better to have an ambulance than a police car in such circumstances, but it had completely the opposite effect for that young lady. When she saw the ambulance coming, she was off for the window again, and we had to get her back. The healthcare professional asked her to come quietly into care. That made matters even worse, and we had a tremendous struggle, but in due course the sad young lady was transported to the unit at St George’s, which is designed to be a place of safety. A life was saved—eventually.

The whole pantomime in that 14th-floor flat had occupied five officers and three NHS staff for about four hours. I am not counting myself, as a bystander. I warn any Members who go on such trips that it is par for the course that the police do not like us to get involved. I was trying to help in another case when there was a bit of a fight, and a very large police sergeant told me to keep out of the way, because “We don’t want a” dot-dot-dot “by-election”; that was really caring of him.

It was obvious from the beginning that the police themselves could quite simply have taken care of the young lady quickly and gently. They were very competent, and could have sorted it out and taken her to care. Admittedly, they would have taken her in a police car, but it could have been a plain police car—not an ambulance. Immediate action would have meant that she was transferred to safe care and would have met the required time limit for assessment, which I think is 24 hours. It would have been very quick, and would have reduced the continuing risk over the period in which we saw her attempts to leap out of the window. It was a huge waste of time, except for the end result, for the police and the national health service professional; that is aside from the up-and-down agitation for the young lady.

Under section 136 of the Mental Health Act, if this pantomime had taken place in a public place—if we had managed to persuade the young lady to go outside the flat’s front door and place herself on the landing—the police would have been able to take her into detention and take her to the hospital. We would not have had to wait for a mental health professional, and she would have gone into the care of St George’s.

When I raised this in a debate in 2017, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department assured me that there was a triage system under a new, innovative policy, so that

“most police officers will be deployed alongside mental health professionals, so if a call comes into the centre that somebody is experiencing a problem of the type we have heard about, mental health professionals will be sent along with the police officers as they respond.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 269.]

I liked the Minister. She was very earnest, and she clearly believed everything she was saying to me. I was polite, and I did not look for pigs flying around the Chamber, as I could have done. On hearing her remarks, Professor Rix and police officers who were campaigning on the issue—Professor Rix was here this evening—were absolutely astonished. The politer comments were, “Get real”, and, “Yeah, right.”

There are throughout the United Kingdom large numbers of frontline police officers who respond to all sorts of emergencies, including events like this one. There are not the same number of mental health professionals waiting around, driving around, going out with the police or waiting for a call, so that they can meet the police when they are on patrol to deal with a situation like this.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. When I speak to the police service in Greater Manchester, they tell me what an enormous proportion of their time is spent dealing with people in mental health crisis. There are a number of aspects to this; I will not comment on his individual case. This surely points to the need for much greater investment in mental health crisis care and mental health community services. I hope that he will go on to mention that, and that the Minister will respond. While I am on my feet, perhaps I can ask the Minister when the Government plan to bring forward the White Paper in response to the Wessely review.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I suspected that I might get that question. That is why, as I very carefully explained, I asked for a Home Office Minister, not a Department of Health Minister. I suspect it would be better if the hon. Gentleman asked a written question, rather than asking my poor hon. Friend on the Front Bench something that he cannot possibly answer because he is not expecting it.

I found the reality of going out with the police to be completely different from what my very lovely Under-Secretary of State lady told me. The system just does not work. I am therefore suggesting a change that has been requested by the police. When I have put this to the police, the enthusiasm has been emphatic. They have been quite clear about it. One of them, who has had to deal with a lot of these cases, again in central London, commented, “Whoever puts this through will be a hero as far as we’re concerned.” But also, unwittingly, they will be a hero for those mentally ill people who are in distress, who need help and who may well commit suicide.

I am requesting a simple change, effectively removing the restrictive reference to a public place. It is quite simple to do. I have a small ten-minute rule Bill that would have fitted the purpose, but I pulled it because the Department of Health said that it had a review, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) suggested. It does have a review, and there is a lot to be reviewed. This is a simple change to make life just that little bit easier for our battered policemen when they are dealing sympathetically—I have always found them sympathetic in these cases—with people who are mentally ill, and who are threatening to damage other people or themselves.

As I said, it has been enthusiastically supported by police officers and by Professor Rix, who has almost made it his psychiatric gift to the nation to undertake this campaign for a number of years.

Experience tells me that the Minister will, in the nicest possible way, probably say, “Thank you, but no thank you,” or, “We’re reviewing this”; I can see by his smile that the temptation is there. Having been a Minister in similar debates, I can assure him that it is possible—I have done it myself—to see the words that you have been given to read out and deviate from them. If the answer that I got before is the answer that he is going to give me, can he stall it? Instead, will he genuinely look at this and meet me, Professor Rix and one or two of the police officers who are deeply into this, to see whether we can do something positive to make it much easier for police officers in these circumstances to deal with individuals, particularly those who are either going to hurt somebody else or hurt themselves? I have a string of cases from the police and Professor Rix that I could go through with him.

As I said, something like 19,000 people were detained under section 136 in 2018-19. That is not known by most people, but it is certainly known by the police officers who are helping people in desperate circumstances to keep themselves alive or not hurt other people. This is a plea to the Minister to be positive this time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

1. If she will make it her policy to maintain the rights of unaccompanied child refugees in Europe to family reunion in the UK in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

10. If she will make it her policy to maintain the rights of unaccompanied child refugees in Europe to family reunion in the UK in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

The UK has a long and proud tradition of offering protection to vulnerable people fleeing war and persecution, and the Government take the welfare of vulnerable children seriously. We support the principle of family unity wholeheartedly, and the Government are committed to meeting our obligation under section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to seek to negotiate an agreement with the EU on family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

[Jeff Smith]

The House of Lords Home Affairs Committee recommendation is to temporarily maintain the current rights for family reunion in the event of a no-deal exit to avoid legal limbo. Will the Home Secretary assure this House that the Government will do that to protect vulnerable families in the event of a no deal?

[Priti Patel]

I would like to reiterate that the Government are committed to getting a deal and, with that, fulfilling our section 17 obligation to move forward in the right way. As I have already made clear, we are committed to ensuring that we protect those who are vulnerable and, importantly, that we continue to have high standards when it comes to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. That is absolutely the principle underpinning the proposals put forward in the White Paper, which was published in December last year. We want to have a single immigration system that treats everybody from every country according to the skills and talents that they can bring to the United Kingdom, not one based on where they come from.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

T6. The Carol Black review of drugs is specifically not considering legislative reform, but that may be exactly what we need to address the violence and harm associated with the drug market, so will the Secretary of State look again at the terms of reference of the review and at least consider that as in the scope of part two of the review?

[Sajid Javid]

The independent review of drugs misuse to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, I think it is fair to say, the most comprehensive review that has ever been commissioned on such a subject by a Government. It has a broad remit and, when Dame Carol Black reports back—I think there will be an interim report this summer—we will take it very seriously.