Acid Attacks

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him on both points. I particularly endorse his point about the revulsion and wave of anxiety created by this spate of attacks. As well as shop sales, the issue of online sales will need to be addressed, including of substances other than sulphuric acid.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to control online sales, because if substances cannot be bought at the corner shop sales will move online. Does he agree that, despite the practical difficulties in extending regulations to the online sphere, it is no less important that we tackle that if we are to restrict the supply of corrosive chemicals to illegitimate users?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear that part of the problem is online, and it will increasingly be so. That does need to be addressed as part of this initiative.

I have one other request for an outcome to the review that the Home Secretary has announced. In March, I asked a written question about the number of acid attacks in each of the last five years, and I was dismayed to receive this reply from the Minister’s predecessor:

“The Home Office does not collect data on the number of acid attacks.”

Since then, through freedom of information requests, a good deal of data have been published. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that in future, given the increasing concern about the matter, her Department will collect and publish data on acid attacks.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for bringing this very important debate before the House today. How timely it is. I also thank colleagues who have made important contributions this evening. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone he set for us this evening. I agree with every point he made.

Even before the terrible events of last Thursday, which left five people injured, one with life-changing injuries, it was clear that the use of acids and other corrosives to attack people is a growing threat that must be addressed with urgency. Violence of any kind is unacceptable, but I think there is something particularly troubling about these kinds of attack. Corrosive substances cause severe burns and serious tissue damage. All too frequently, victims’ lives are altered forever. Nobody should have to go through this kind of mental and physical trauma. We have heard from victims who say that the injuries have deeply affected their sense of self. The challenge of returning to a normal life can sometimes feel almost insurmountable.

Sadly, these disturbing acts of violence are not new. The use of acids goes back centuries. However, the increase in incidents in this country is undoubtedly very worrying. In April, there was the attack in a Hackney nightclub, which left a number of people with severe burns and serious eye injuries, and we have heard the hon. Gentleman speak so eloquently and movingly this evening about the two cousins who were attacked in his constituency. It is vital that we do all we can to prevent these horrendous attacks from happening. We must not let those behind such attacks spread fear through society.

The law in this area is already strong, with acid attackers facing up to a life sentence in prison in certain cases. Meanwhile, suspicious transactions involving sulphuric acid must be reported to the police. However, it is vital to ensure that we are doing everything possible to tackle this emerging threat. Earlier this month, the Home Office held a joint event with the National Police Chiefs Council, which I attended. The meeting brought together law enforcement, Government, retailers, the NHS, experts and local policing to discuss the acid attacks and build up a better evidence picture. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that we must have better data on the scale of the threat to help us to understand how we will tackle it. Last October, with the help of the National Police Chiefs Council, we got more information from the police, which we have put into the public domain—it is on the Home Office website. We will be repeating that exercise, so that we collect data more regularly and have a much better understanding of the scale of the threat.

That meeting provided the basis for the action plan to tackle acid attacks that was announced by the Home Secretary on Sunday. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman —[Interruption.] I have been passed a useful note telling me that he has been made a right hon. Gentleman—it is richly deserved—so I apologise for not picking that up earlier. The action plan will include a wide-ranging review of the law enforcement and criminal justice response, existing legislation, access to harmful products and the support offered to victims. I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and all colleagues here tonight that the points he has raised are being actively considered as part of that review.

[Lyn Brown]

I genuinely thank the Minister for putting the review in motion. I welcome the breadth of the urgent issues that the Government have indicated will be under consideration, but I wonder whether she thinks it is a good time for the review to take a broader look at the safety of the changes made to the sale of substances such as sulphuric acid by the Deregulation Act 2015. I understand that the experts who sat on the former Poisons Board, who had real expertise in this area, had serious concerns and favoured alternative reforms.

[Sarah Newton]

As I say, this is a wide-ranging review. We are definitely looking at the Poisons Act 1972, and I will make sure the hon. Lady’s point is taken into careful consideration. We are looking at the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance to prosecutors, to ensure that acid and other corrosive substances can be classed as dangerous weapons. In addition, we will look again at the Poisons Act and whether more can be done to cover these harmful substances.

We will make sure that those who commit these terrible crimes feel the full force of the law. We will seek to ensure that everyone working in the criminal justice system, from police officers to prosecutors, has the powers they need severely to punish those who commit these appalling crimes. As the Home Secretary has said, life sentences must not be reserved for acid attack survivors. Further work will also take place with retailers, including online, to agree measures to restrict sales of acid and other corrosive substances. Victim support needs to be at the very heart of our response. We need to make sure that victims get the support they need, now and in the years ahead.

We are working on this with great urgency. We are about to go into recess, but I want to reassure the right hon. Member for East Ham that when Parliament gets back in September I will make sure that I update colleagues who are interested and seek an opportunity to update the House on the considerable progress that we expect to be able to make over the summer.

Backbench Business

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and to follow such distinguished and learned speakers. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on securing the debate. It is no secret that my concerns about the way the European arrest warrant works probably come from a different starting place from his, but I was very interested in what he had to say. He raised really important issues about the human rights of UK citizens extradited to other countries. Those issues deserve to be debated and taken very seriously. I will address some of the human rights issues in my remarks. I must admit that I have no knowledge of the cases that the hon. Gentleman raised today. I look forward to learning more about them.

Labour’s starting point is that the UK’s membership of the European arrest warrant system is an invaluable and effective tool for the British courts to catch fugitives, both in the interests of our country’s security and to provide justice for those of our constituents who have had the misfortune to be the victims of crime committed by those who can catch an easyJet flight and disappear. I know that the hon. Gentleman who instigated the debate would not forget that this mechanism—this warrant—enabled Hussain Osman to be brought to justice after he fled to Italy following the failed suicide bombing in London in July 2005. The most recent Home Office data show that the UK has used the mechanism of the European arrest warrant to bring some 2,500 individuals from outside the UK to face justice since the system was introduced in 2004.

I believe that the principle of the arrest warrant is right and that we should look to iron out any difficulties that exist. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who speaks for the Scottish National party, said, we should work from within the system—that is the better way to do it—rather than starting again from the beginning.

However, the most urgent issue for us to discuss right now is whether it is possible for us to maintain membership of this very valuable system when we leave the EU. One of Labour’s key tests for the Brexit deal is whether it protects national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime. We know that as recently as a year ago the Prime Minister herself considered it necessary to remain in the European Union to retain membership of the European arrest warrant system, because she said as much. That was one reason why she concluded that

“remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism.”

The Prime Minister has been facing the challenge of proving herself wrong and ensuring that this country remains as secure as it is today. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that. I hope to see him back here in the coming months, but I look for promotion for him, because I think that he has done a sterling job in this role and the one before, so I am not necessarily hoping, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is, to see him back in this role, although he does do it particularly well. Perhaps the Minister can update us on the progress that the Prime Minister is making, in terms of ensuring that this country remains as secure as it is today, with the negotiations about our remaining in the European arrest warrant system.

As far as I can see, the Conservative party’s real problem is that even if it were theoretically possible to negotiate continued membership of the European arrest warrant system from outside the EU—I think we all agree that that would be a tall order—that would mean accepting in principle the right of the European Court of Justice to arbitrate in cases of disagreement, and the Conservatives have made it clear that they seek to be outside the purview of the ECJ in all matters. Does the Minister agree with Labour that it is in the interests of our country’s national security to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the event of disagreement over the European arrest warrant? Can he give a specific answer to whether it is possible to have associate membership of the EAW system without being subject to ECJ arbitration? Perhaps he agrees with Mike Kennedy, a former chief operating officer of the Crown Prosecution Service and a former president of Eurojust, who said recently in evidence to the Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the European Union in the other place:

“Any sort of alternative to the court is going to be quite difficult to negotiate and agree. I just do not know how long that would take, but I suspect it would take longer than is available.”

We know from experience that negotiating third-country access to the European arrest warrant is notoriously difficult. Norway and Iceland spent 15 years attempting that, and both countries are in Schengen and the European economic area, but I understand that there are no plans for us to be members of either. Moreover, their surrender agreements are weaker in two ways. First, they require the alleged offences to be the same in both countries, thus losing the flexibility that comes from member states agreeing to respect the decision of one another’s criminal justice systems. Secondly, they allow countries to refuse to surrender their own nationals, making it tricky, for example, if a national of another EU country commits an offence on UK soil and then jumps on the same easyJet flight back home.

In contrast, the strength of the European arrest warrant is not only that it allows suspects to be returned to the UK, even if the crime they are suspected of committing has a different legal basis from the law applying in the country they fled to, but it has strict timescales that are effectively enforced, so that fugitives are returned to face justice speedily. Those two factors make the European arrest warrant far more powerful than any other extradition procedure anywhere in the world.

I heard the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East and the hon. Member for Monmouth, and I am always up for better protection for human rights.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The security of our country is so important, especially from terrorism. Does she agree that when we are all back—if we are back, subject to the electorate, after 8 June—this should be a priority? The Government’s stance on Brexit at the moment is very much to do with immigration, but security and protecting our people is the Government’s first task. Making sure this agenda is pursued is extremely important. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Lyn Brown]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a foremost priority. The major priority for any Government is to protect their citizens. Everyone in this Chamber will recognise that people will not forgive us if we negotiate away the very things that keep them safe if, God forbid, at some time in the future something happens that could have been prevented if we had remained within the European arrest warrant system and the basic constructs of the EU. They have meant that we have been able to share information and to have other partnership arrangements to keep people safe thus far. They will not forgive if we negotiate away their right to life, their freedoms and their security. They will not forgive.

If we leave the European arrest warrant system, the alternative is to fall back on previous extradition treaties, which are far more cumbersome and in some cases have become so out of date that they will require EU countries to change their own laws in respect of the UK, which is an unlikely prospect.

Labour’s question to the Minister is simple. What guarantees can the Government give that the current benefits that we get from the European arrest warrant system will be maintained when we leave? While I am on the subject, can he reassure us that we will also retain access to the many pan-EU data and information-sharing systems and exchange systems, such as for fingerprinting, airline travel, foreign convictions and intelligence data, which our police forces routinely use? I look forward to his reply, given that he has quite a lot of time to entertain us.

I said that I would respond to some of the human rights issues raised by the hon. Member for Monmouth, who spoke passionately of the concerns about treatment of UK citizens who are passed over to other jurisdictions under the European arrest warrant, and the possibility that the system might be used to extradite political opponents. If we believe that an individual’s human rights are being threatened during the process, that is absolutely a matter for concern, but it is fair to say that it is a concern for the European authorities as well.

I mention that because the hon. Gentleman spoke about the conditions in which people are being held. In a speech outlining her priorities on 25 April last year, the European Commissioner for Justice, Vera Jourová, stated that her priority was to improve pre-trial detention safeguards, because

“poor detention conditions can indeed lead to refusal of extradition under the European arrest warrant, as the European Court of Justice has recently made clear.”

It is therefore possible for prison conditions in the destination country to be taken into account when a European arrest warrant is executed. I am delighted that the European Court of Justice has played a useful role in clarifying that point.

If prison conditions in other countries are unacceptable, of course they should be improved, but I differ from the hon. Member for Monmouth, in that I see the European Union structures as a good mechanism by which to achieve some sought-for improvements. There have already been some attempts to do so—for example through the European supervision orders, which are designed to reassure courts that they can release foreign nationals on bail without fear that they will abscond—but further action absolutely needs to be taken, not least because article 7 of the European treaty contains a commitment to protect human rights. My concern is that our position outside the European Union will undoubtedly weaken our opportunities to keep pushing for such improvements.

In conclusion, we must ensure that UK citizens accused of committing crimes in other EU countries are treated decently, and we should use whatever influence we have to achieve that result, but the priority today is for the Government to provide greater reassurance about how they will ensure that our security is not compromised by the decision to leave the European Union, because our constituents will not forgive us if they do not. I look forward thoroughly to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

No, that is not what I was saying at all. I was saying that I am not an expert on other systems and that it is the independent judiciary who will take a view in an individual case. They will look at the evidence in front of them and make a judgment that they feel is appropriate, looking at a range of issues including human rights and proportionality, as I said earlier. That is a matter for the independent judiciary. I will not prejudge what a judiciary that is independent by definition would do—that would be wrong.

Looking ahead, we will need to negotiate the best possible deal with Europe. I absolutely support the Prime Minister as the best person to get the right deal for our country with our partners in Europe, including thinking about the tools and mechanisms for co-operation with EU member states to help all European citizens, including our own, to remain safe. The hon. Member for West Ham asked me to outline how we are progressing with that work. I am sure that she appreciates—she has a twinkle in her eye—that she is tempting me to give a running commentary on our negotiations with the European Union, which is a temptation I will resist just for a little longer.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister is generous and kind to give way, but what about the ECJ? Perhaps he could just give us a soupçon on whether or not he believes we will be able to allow the ECJ to arbitrate in matters where there is disagreement. Does he think there is any likelihood of that being accepted at all?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady’s intervention anticipates the point that I was just about to make. In a few of her questions, including the one she has just asked, she is asking me to prejudge the negotiations, which I will not do. We will go through some complicated and, no doubt, at times difficult negotiations in the months and years ahead.

Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 General Committees

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I add my welcome to the folk from Hansard. I am always very grateful to them, especially on occasions like this when I cannot necessarily pronounce the words that I attempt. From my mangled pronunciations they take something that resembles English—that is going to be very important today. Thank you.

I have some specific comments on the substance of the order, and questions to the Minister about it. Before that, there is an important point to raise about a job that orders such as this can actually do, following on from what the Minister said in the conclusion of her speech about prevention, treatment and education. Let us be honest—the chemicals most commonly referred to using the street name “spice” have now been banned at least twice over, by the Psychoactive Substances Act and by a statutory instrument amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act that we considered just last year. Despite that, the Manchester Evening News exposed an epidemic of spice being abused by vulnerable people in the city centre in recent months. One study found that up to 90% of rough sleepers use the drug, with appalling consequences for individual and public health, serious criminality and antisocial behaviour. The media refer to people who are on spice as “zombies”; that is an unfortunate term, but it does not seem a huge exaggeration, because they are very vulnerable people who are taken advantage of by drug pedlars who evidently do not care about their activities being criminal.

We have come here today to ban another drug that has already, in effect, been banned under previous legislation. The Acts might be doing the job of making dangerous substances illegal, but on their own they are clearly not sufficient for the more fundamental work of keeping those substances out the hands of vulnerable people. Can the Minister help us to understand why such problems continue to occur? Does she think it is because Greater Manchester police has lost more than 23% of its officers since 2010, or because the right capacity for personal, social and health education for young people is not in place across the country and shows absolutely no signs of being so? I would genuinely appreciate anything the Minister is able to say about the direction the Government might take in future to rectify this situation. I gently remind her and the Committee that the comprehensive drugs strategy that was promised is now a year overdue—this is the second time that I have asked about it in a statutory instrument Committee in the last year.

That said, the Opposition support the order. Last December, the outgoing chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs expressed concern that the changes might not be brought into law in good time, so I welcome this opportunity to support these amendments to the law, which the advisory council endorses.

Moving on to the details of the order, article 3 controls a synthetic opioid known in the easy-going terminology so beloved of pharmacologists as U-47,700, placing it in class A. The chemical was originally created for research purposes, but it clearly has no legitimate use. Abuse of the substance has started to spread in the United States, with a pattern similar to that of heroin. More than 80 deaths have been attributed to it. The novelty of the substance means that there is relatively little evidence of broader or more long-term social and health harms as yet—although death seems fairly terminal. Similarities to other opiates and the precedents from the US indicate that the substance poses a real threat to the public. With that in mind, it is appropriate for the substance to be brought under legal control at this time.

I am aware that the advisory council plans to conduct a broad-based review of the impact of drug classification on legitimate scientific research. Much of the background remains unclear, and I would appreciate any details that the Minister can offer on the timing and scope of the review. I accept that she may wish to write to me about some of the issues I am raising today.

Article 4 puts a list of 12 methylphenidate-based drugs under control as class B substances. The first seven are already under a temporary control order following advice from the advisory council in 2015 and 2016. More recent advice from the advisory council endorsed the addition of five more similar substances to the list. Methylphenidate and all the substances listed are stimulants, but each has a different chemical structure, and some have different psychoactive effects. The effects are broadly similar to those of cocaine, but the social impact can be even worse. Compulsion to use the drug again can be overwhelming. That can manifest itself in needle users repeatedly taking the drug in public places. The public health impacts have included at least one needle injury to a child, as well as distress at the bizarre and worrying behaviour that the drug can bring on.

The council’s full review of substances of this type took place more than two years ago, and more recent information about harms to users does not seem to be available. I would appreciate any additional information that the Minister might have on that. Substances of this type were implicated in two deaths in 2014, and the advisory council considers that they increase risks, understandably, of hepatitis C and HIV transmission from unsafe injections, so there appears to be adequate evidence for the proposed controls.

Finally, article 5 places a list of so-called designer benzodiazepines in class C. Such drugs have psychoactive effects similar to alcohol and can cause sedation, drowsiness and amnesia, as well as slurred speech and lack of co-ordination. There is evidence that a significant number of deaths are associated with these benzodiazepines. In Scotland in particular, there was a sharp and worrying upward trend in their presence in coroners’ toxicology findings up to the summer of last year, when the reported data end. There is a real risk of death from overdose, especially when the drugs are mixed with opioids such as heroin. Tolerance and dependence are a strong possibility, with the social harms that often result from that. The advisory council recommendations suggest that there is a strong case for placing these substances under control.

Given that the Minister referred to Italy, I know she is aware that the benzodiazepines controlled by article 5 include etizolam, which has been found to have some therapeutic use in the treatment of insomnia—frankly, I am interested in that—and panic attacks. The council also singled out etizolam as causing the most harm. I know that, bearing those facts in mind, the Minister has written to the council to ask it to keep the inclusion of etizolam in the schedule under review. I would be interested to receive an update from her about any developments as and when they occur. It would be unfortunate to have to revisit the order in months or years to come to remove a substance from the schedule because its inclusion was impeding important medical treatment.

In conclusion, the Opposition support the draft order. It is based on recommendations from expert advisers, which is welcome, and it draws on clear evidence of the real existing and potential harm to communities and vulnerable people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I welcome the constructive comments of the hon. Member for West Ham and will attempt to respond to them now. She raised some detailed points about evidence from the ACMD, and I will be pleased to write to her about them. She is right to say that all our decisions are based on the ACMD’s advice; I am very grateful for the work of Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, who so ably chairs the organisation, and that of the people who share their expertise to enable us to make the best possible decisions. I will write to the hon. Lady about the details, but I will say a few words about our approach. We asked the ACMD to look at the scope of the scientific research on the particular questions that she raised. That work is ongoing, and I will give an indication in my letter of when we anticipate that the ACMD will complete it.

It is really important that we understand how harmful these substances are. We must make every effort not only to send out very clear messages about their harmfulness, but to restrict supply—both internationally, by preventing such substances from coming into our country, and domestically, by preventing those that are being manufactured here from getting into the hands of the vulnerable people whom the hon. Lady described so well in her speech. Equally, some controlled substances can have a positive medicinal effect, and it is important that we have a regime that permits that to happen. I am very pleased that the ACMD is getting on with looking into and revising the structure of it to ensure that it is really fit for purpose and that we are striking the right balance. I look forward to its coming back to me shortly with its review.

I hope that that has addressed the issues that the hon. Lady raised about these substances. I agree with her that although it is essential that we take action to ban such substances, as we are doing today, that is not everything that we need to do. We must also prevent people of all ages from desiring to take them in the first place, in order to prevent all the terrible consequences—the health consequences for users and the consequences for society more broadly.

The hon. Lady invited me to comment on the Government’s direction of travel. It is absolutely clear that, irrespective of whether it has been published, the strategy is really focused on an evidence base for how we can best educate young people in particular about the harms of wanting to take drugs. We need to enable them to be resilient and understand the risks so that they do not even want to take them in the first place. I am sure she agrees that the Government’s decision to make PSHE and sex and relationships education compulsory is vital for that. Extremely good work is already being done by PSHE teachers throughout the country. We also have the excellent resource “Frank”, which pools all the best available information for young people.

[Lyn Brown]

I was trying to be sisterly by not intervening any earlier, but the issue of “Frank” has got to me. When we discussed “Frank” on the Psychoactive Substances Bill Committee, we agreed across parties that it was not the best resource that could be available and that it needed a massive overhaul and update. I say gently to the Minister that it would be lovely if she wrote to me to let me know how that work is progressing.

[Sarah Newton]

I appreciate the spirit and manner of the hon. Lady’s question, and I can assure her that the comments that she made were obviously taken on board. That work is ongoing, and it is regularly updated. I have met the PSHE Association, and I have been to conferences where there have been experts from around the world, so we are constantly learning and updating that resource.

It is pleasing to note that the number of young people taking drugs is really declining. The high was in 2003, and the number now is less than half the number then; it is down to just over 8% of young people who are experimenting with drugs. That is 8% too many, but it is a significant reduction in the number of young people who want to take drugs in the first place.

The interventions to support people to come off drugs are also improving. The number of people going into therapy has increased—it is up on the 2010 number. People get access to that treatment, and the percentage of people who are sustaining not taking drugs after they leave treatment is about 80%, so we have seen significant progress.

I would love to get on and publish the drugs strategy, but I assure Members that even without that strategy we are moving with vigour and at pace to address what we would all agree is a scourge for the people concerned and the communities involved. The hon. Lady mentioned the situation in Manchester. I have been in touch with the police there, and they have reassured me that they have the resources needed. The police budget has been protected, but operational decisions about how the police are deployed are very much down to the police themselves. Of course, measures such as the one we are now considering will give them more enforcement powers. They will be able to go after people even for possession offences, to reduce the prevalence of this harm on the street.

I hope that I have given enough evidence today to enable Members to agree with me that this order is an important step in tackling a very challenging issue for our country, and that alongside work to prevent people from taking drugs and to make sure that good-quality recovery opportunities are always available for people, it will really help to prevent the harms that we associate with these substances.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017 Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 General Committees

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The Minister will be delighted to know that I will not repeat at length my arguments against the course that the Government have taken on police and fire mergers. I will, however, begin by saying that the core of our objection last year concerned local demand and local consent. We thought then—and still think today—that it is wrong to force a merger of police and fire authorities on an area that does not want one.

Thankfully, that does not apply to these draft orders, which have received the consent of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and are part of a wider devolution deal. That deal should enable the Manchester city region to adapt, to the extent that any level of government can, to the extremely difficult combination of reduced service funding and increased service demand that they will face over coming years. We welcome the devolution settlement as a way to bring powers together at a level where they can be used effectively and their use can be held accountable effectively.

There is a long history of local authorities working together across Greater Manchester, with or without a permanent statutory framework, which bodes well for such reforms. That history of co-operation in major cities is one that the Conservative party has not generally had much respect for, so I am delighted by the apparent change of heart. We still have serious concerns about the fragmentation and incoherence of this Government’s attempts at devolution within England thus far, but that need not prevent us from endorsing reforms if they go in the right direction.

I hope that none of us assumes that the devolution process has gone far enough to put in place genuine devolution to Manchester. Our local areas need more control over revenue raised locally, so that such deals will not simply transfer responsibility for cuts made by central Government. Governments should never pass the buck without passing the bucks. Local government needs a system for national funding that is fair, transparent and based on real need—not sweetheart deals with Ministers at meetings in cars outside Downing Street. That is particularly important for areas such as fire and rescue and policing, where community safety is paramount.

More generally, the current model of piecemeal reform is inadequate. Restructuring should not be imposed from the top down and cannot be based only on local authorities going cap in hand to Ministers either. We need to make devolution the default if we are to open up public services to the experience and creativity of local areas and truly demonstrate our trust in the people who are most affected by changes in policy.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority consent documents noted that the draft orders

“will need to be in place by February 2017 at the latest to allow sufficient time for Mayoral candidates to be fully aware of the powers of the elected Mayor and to prepare a manifesto.”

Clearly, that has not happened, since it is now the middle of March and some of the legislation determining the new Mayor’s powers is still not fully confirmed. Does the Minister have an explanation?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that not only the mayoral candidates need to be sighted of the Mayor’s powers but the Manchester electorate, many of whom are completely baffled by what the Mayor will and will not be able to do.

[Lyn Brown]

I completely and utterly agree. My hon. Friend made the point better than I could.

More broadly, this is the first case—apart from the now well-established arrangements in Greater London—where full accountability and power relating to policing will be assigned to the elected Mayor of a city region. The fact that responsibility for fire and rescue services will be mixed in at the same time makes it doubly significant, because the Mayor of London does not have direct responsibility for fire and rescue. There is now an urgent case to be made that the new Mayor of Greater Manchester will have a truly unprecedented degree of authority across those two public services. It will be an important test case for future structural reform.

It is important to note that the offices of Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and of police and crime commissioner for the area have already been combined to some extent for almost two years now, because Tony Lloyd, Labour’s elected PCC, was appointed as interim Mayor on 29 May 2015. He has served in both capacities admirably and has set an excellent standard, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will live up to, starting on 8 May.

To sum up, we support the draft orders. They will help to cement the devolution settlement for Greater Manchester, which has received the agreement of local authorities and residents in and around that great city. I hope that members of all parties will join me in wishing the new Mayor well in helping the city region to deal with the undoubted challenges of the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Just over a year ago, the Chancellor promised real-terms protection for police funding, but the Met faces real-terms cuts of £47 million, Manchester faces a £12 million one and West Yorkshire faces a £9 million one—England and Wales as a whole faces a massive £200 million cut. That has consequences, with violent crime deprioritised, domestic violence victims ignored and neighbourhood policing eroded. All of that has been evidenced by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, yet we have heard nothing from the Minister except complacency. Who should the public believe: the Minister of broken promises or the independent HMIC?

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the tone in which the hon. Lady has asked the question. If she actually looks at the HMIC report, she will see that it is clear that this is not about levels of funding; the report is very much about how the police use the funding they have. I gently point out to her that, if they are using the precept abilities they have, not only is every single police force in the country, bar one, protected, but indeed, this year overall we are seeing an increase in the resources for police forces. Even in London, the police have seen a £30 million increase in their reserves, which means there has been money that they have not used.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have communicated our plan to the French and to other European countries, and we have discussed with them what is best for these children. Like so many other hon. Members, he fails to listen to my points about how these children are made vulnerable and what is in their best interest. I respectfully ask him to reconsider his very high moral tone. Although he might not agree with it, we are doing what we believe is best for those children.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

You’re not.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady is chuntering, but we are doing what we believe is best. I recognise that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has a different position, but I ask him to reconsider his language.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

In terms of the work we are doing around police funding, I have regular conversations with the Chief Secretary and the Treasury more generally. I am happy to feed back to the hon. and learned Lady more detail on this issue once we have had our next round of conversations.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Whichever way you cut it, the cake is just too small. More than 20,000 police officers have been cut since 2010, and now we know from the Office for National Statistics that crime is twice as high as the Government say. When will the Minister recognise that the combination of high crime and low police numbers leaves the public at risk?

[Brandon Lewis]

I would respectfully say to the hon. Lady, who I know would want to be giving a very clear and transparent set of figures, that what she has said is not accurate at all. The reality is that the ONS has, for the very first time, included cyber-crime and fraud in its figures. It has recorded those figures for the first time, so it is not true to say that the figures have doubled. I am just sad that Labour, when in government, never gave these kinds of figures and had that kind of thing done, which is the right thing to do. I would also congratulate people for recording more crime more generally—[Interruption.]

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The official Opposition welcome this debate. In the run-up to the referendum in June last year and the months since, we have heard much about how our decision to leave the European Union will affect Britain’s economy. We have debated what it means for our businesses, our trading relationships, our nation’s finances and, most importantly, the personal finances of individuals and households throughout our country. That is all of deep concern to me and many other Members.

Of perhaps even greater significance is the threat to our national security that could come from our leaving the European Union and, in particular, the effect that doing so will have on the ability of our police to protect our citizens. Today, as we turn our focus to those issues, the Government need to provide stronger assurances that our nation’s security will not be compromised by our decision to leave the EU. I say gently to the Minister that while his long speech was strong on analysis and strong on detail about the institutions, we did not really hear anything about how we were going to do the things that he wants us to effect.

Some hon. Members lament the fact that in the 40-plus years since we decided to join the common market, it has become far more than simply a trading arrangement. Given the nature of the threats that we face, however, it is unsurprising that European countries have found it convenient to co-operate in other areas, including the field of justice and home affairs. Quite simply, it was in our national interest to do so, because the security threats that we face are not confined to our national borders. Whether we are fighting international terrorist networks, tracking down fugitives from justice, obtaining crucial information on the activities of suspects abroad or maintaining effective border controls, it simply makes more sense to act together. Those issues are paramount to our country and to the security of our citizens. Whatever our personal view on the EU referendum, we urgently need reassurance from the Minister that our national security and our ability to combat crime within our borders will not be compromised by the decision to leave. Many hon. Members have issues that they want to raise this afternoon.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that for us in Northern Ireland, it is especially key that we keep our relationships with Ireland and the way in which we work together, and that we improve work on counter-terrorism? Only eight out of 110 extradition requests have been granted. There is still a great deal of work to be done, and we have to build on that.

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are three main issues on which the Opposition seek answers this afternoon: our ability to participate in the common arrest warrant; our future relationship with Europol; and our access to Europe-wide crime prevention databases, including the Schengen information system.

I will come to each of those things in turn, but first there is a general point to be made. As many in the House remember, our optimal relationship with the European Union in the field of security and justice was comprehensively debated during the previous Parliament. We opted out of all provisions relating to police and criminal justice so that we could have a fresh debate about which initiatives we wanted to be part of, and then opt into them again. That initiative was negotiated with European member states by the previous Labour Government and continued by the subsequent coalition. The process consisted of two years of negotiation and debate in this House, in government and in Brussels, and it culminated in Britain deciding to opt back in to 35 specific measures that we considered to be in our national interest.

Those measures included the European arrest warrant, Europol and access to the Schengen information system—the three things that I am concerned about today. I know that our Prime Minister is also concerned about them because it was she, as Home Secretary, who put it to the House on 7 April 2014 that we should opt back into the measures. It is so nice to have confidence that there will be unanimity in the Chamber this afternoon on this oft-contentious subject. However, the opt-in happened before the referendum, and now, in this post-referendum world, the Government need to tell us how they will ensure that we still have access to those measures, which we so recently decided that we needed to keep our citizens safe.

We do not have time today to rehearse the two years of debate that led to a decision to co-operate in each of the 35 areas that we decided to opt back into, so I will focus on our main concerns. There is no doubt that the European arrest warrant is a crucial tool in the fight against crime in the UK. Introduced in 2004, it provides a mechanism whereby crime suspects who have left the country—fugitives—can be surrendered back to the UK automatically by another European member state. It means that suspects who have fled can be returned in a matter of weeks or days. Crucially, it means that suspects can be returned to the UK even if the legal basis for the crime that they are suspected of committing is different from that under the law that applies in the country to which they have fled. That is because the European arrest warrant is underpinned by the principle that European Union countries agree to respect the decisions of each other’s criminal justice systems, even if they differ.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I think that the hon. Lady has just made the point that I wanted to raise, which is that that principle means that we have to accept that justice systems across the rest of the EU are as good as ours. Does she have confidence that that is the case?

[Lyn Brown]

I have confidence that the European arrest warrant is far more powerful than any other extradition process anywhere in the world, and we would be stupid if we let it go.

Since the European arrest warrant was introduced in 2004, the UK has used it to bring 2,500 individuals from outside the UK to face justice. Let us not forget that it was the mechanism that ensured that Hussain Osman was brought to justice after he fled to Italy after a failed suicide bombing in London in 2005. The problem that we face is that the European arrest warrant is available exclusively to EU members. We will have to overcome considerable hurdles if we are to maintain the current arrangements and we are not in the European Union. In fact, as a recent briefing from the Centre for European Reform think-tank states, if, having left the EU, the UK wanted to get a similar deal,

“it would need to convince its partners to change their constitutions. In some cases, this would trigger a referendum.”

Do we really think that countries would hold such a referendum because we have decided to leave the EU?

Some countries outside the European Union have attempted to negotiate access to the common arrest warrant system. Norway and Iceland, for example, have concluded a surrender agreement with the EU that represents an attempt to get the same benefits, although it has not yet come into force. That agreement is weaker in two ways. First, it requires the alleged offences to be the same in both countries, thus losing the flexibility that comes from the agreement of member states to respect the decisions of each other’s criminal justice systems. Secondly, it allows countries to refuse to surrender their own nationals, which would make things tricky if a national of an EU country were to commit an offence on UK soil, for example.

On top of that—as if that were not bad enough—the agreement took 15 years to negotiate, and that was for countries in both Schengen and the European economic area, but as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, there are no plans for us to be members of either. The alternative is that we fall back on previous extradition treaties that are far more cumbersome and will, in some cases, require EU countries to change their own laws in respect of the UK.

It is hard to see how any of those options are preferable to the current arrangements. I find it particularly hard to understand how this fits with the Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday to “work together more” in response to threats to our common security. While it is not difficult for an individual who has broken the law in Britain to hop on a cheap flight to another European country, I fear that it will be very hard indeed, without the European arrest warrant, for us to get them back again. For that reason, Labour calls on the Government to ensure that the current arrangements are maintained.

I turn to our second concern. This House approved regulations confirming our opt-in to Europol only a few weeks ago, and we did that because it is vital to our national security. Europol—the European Police Office, to give it its proper title—exists to combat serious international organised crime by means of co-operation between the relevant authorities of member states, including those tasked with customs, immigration services, borders and financial policing. As we know, Europol is not able to mandate national forces to undertake investigations, but it provides information and resources that enable national investigations to take place.

In the words of the British director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, whose previous career was in UK security institutions, our decision to opt into Europol is:

“Good for Britain’s security, great for police cooperation in Europe.”

Indeed, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service confirmed on 12 December during a debate in a European Committee that Europol provides

“a vital tool in helping UK law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate investigations involving cross-border serious and organised crime”.

He also said:

“About 40% of everything that Europol does is linked to work that is either provided or requested by the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 12 December 2016; c. 5-7.]

However, when pushed about whether we can maintain our membership of Europol, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, speaking in this House last year, was able to say only that the Government will seek to:

“preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 45.]

When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) asked him the same question about Europol yesterday, we got no more information about how that could be done.

[Joanna Cherry]

Is the hon. Lady aware that Rob Wainwright said last year that negotiating security pacts from outside the bloc of Europol, in the event of Britain leaving the EU, would be a “damage-limitation exercise”? Does she agree that what we need to hear from the Government is not a eulogy about how great Europol is—we all know that already—but an indication of how they are going to limit the damage caused by leaving the European Union and agencies such as Europol?

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. I agree with her that this simply is not good enough.

Although Europol has arrangements for third-party access, they raise serious questions. The Government stated in a policy paper that was published last year:

“There are a number of important differences between what Europol provides to third country operational cooperation partners with which it has agreements, and EU members”.

In particular, they highlighted the inability directly to submit data and conduct searches within the Europol databases, the need to conclude a separate bilateral arrangement to connect to Europol’s secure information exchange network application, and the inability to sit on Europol’s management board, which sets the organisation’s strategy. That tells us that Mr Wainwright is highly unlikely to stay in his post. In summary, to borrow the words of David Armond, deputy director general of the National Crime Agency, any alternative arrangement to full membership would be

“sub-optimal, not as good as what we’ve currently got”.

Frankly, that does not feel comfortable to me.

Our third concern is about access to pan-European databases, which are important for the routine work of our police forces. Let me give some examples. Access to European criminal records data—the European criminal records information system—is limited exclusively to EU member states. The common European asylum system includes a fingerprint database known as Eurodac that prevents individuals from reapplying for asylum once a claim has been rejected. We currently have access to the Schengen information system, despite not being a member of Schengen, and that contains information on lost identity documents and, importantly, wanted persons.

The Minister’s permanent secretary stated in his foreword to the Home Office’s most recent annual report that strengthening data exchanges with our European allies was essential to combating terrorism. I would be grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, if he confirmed whether we will still have access to these databases outside the European Union and, if so, whether that access will come at a financial cost.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is making an impressive and powerful speech on this issue. Some of us may not now need to speak, but I am sure that that will not stop us. At the moment, on ECRIS, if a German citizen is arrested in London, we are able to know within three minutes exactly what their previous convictions are. We will want an arrangement that is just as good if we are no longer to have our existing access.

[Lyn Brown]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are simply not getting any guarantees from our Government that that is what they will be able to provide, or that they will even negotiate for it.

There is a more general problem about accessing the data we need to combat crime and keep us safe. Even if we, outside the EU, have access to European databases, we might not be able to use them. European data protection law is clear that no information can be handed to a third country—we will be such a country—that does not adhere to EU laws on privacy. Although our Government have said that they will apply EU data protection law at least until the point of Brexit, we do not yet know if they intend to do so afterwards. However, we certainly know what happens if our data laws do not adhere to European privacy rules: the European Court of Justice will simply invalidate any data sharing agreement, as it did on the so-called safe harbour agreement between the EU and the US. What guarantees will the Government give that the information that our police and security agencies need from European Union databases will not also be turned off when we leave?

In conclusion, we have deep concerns that it will be harder for us to protect our citizens when we leave the European Union. We need the Government to reassure us that they intend to reduce or eliminate this risk through their Brexit negotiations. It is one thing to have our prosperity under threat from the complexities of maintaining access to the single market—frankly, that is bad enough—but it is quite another if our security and the very lives of our citizens are under threat because the complexities of maintaining cross-border co-operation with our police and security services were not properly considered before leaving. To quote the Centre for European Reform again, justice and home affairs

“is not like trade, which creates winners and losers: the only losers from increased co-operation in law enforcement are the criminals themselves.”

My question to the Minister is simple: what guarantees will he give that Britain’s security will not be compromised by our leaving the European Union?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to local government, the Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 6. Of those Members representing constituencies in England, the Ayes were 280 and the Noes were 6, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Policing and Crime Bill

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said just a few moments ago, we do want to look at strengthening victims’ rights, but we want to make sure that we do so in a correct, appropriate and proportionate way. I want to do that work, and in due course we will come forward with those proposals and ensure that we are doing it properly. Taking into account the work we are doing, Lords amendments 24, 96 and 136 to 142 are at best premature and at worst confused, unfocused and unnecessary. As such, we argue that they should be rejected by this House.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister.

We support Lords amendments 24, 96 and 136 to 142, along with consequential amendments 159, 302 and 307, and we will vote to retain them in the Bill. We also supported the original amendment 134, with consequential amendment 305. We are glad to see that the Government have changed their position, so we will not oppose their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 134.

I thank those in the other place who have worked to bring these issues to our attention, particularly Baroness O’Neill and Baroness Brinton. I congratulate my noble Friends Lord Rosser and Baroness Royall, whose determination and outstanding advocacy for the most vulnerable in our society has led to the Government accepting our amendments to the stalking code. Each of the substantive issues before us is deserving of a full debate in its own right, but we have only a short amount of time. I will deal with each in turn.

Lords amendment 24—Lords amendment 159 is consequential to it—is a new clause that requires the Government to commission an independent inquiry into the way in which the police handle complaints relating to allegations of corruption between the police and newspaper organisations. It is commonly known as the Leveson 2 amendment, because it is similar in scope to the proposed second part of the Leveson inquiry. As was announced by Judge Leveson on 14 September 2011, this is a proposed examination into

“whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct”

and into any failure of the police and others properly to investigate allegations relating to News International and other news organisations. In 2012, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. David Cameron, said:

“When I set up this inquiry, I also said that there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the conduct of the first police investigation.—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 446.]

Yet the Government’s consultation, which ends today, as we have heard, could be seen as a weakening of that commitment. That underlines the need for the clarity that this amendment would provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is not the Government’s position extremely sensible? A succession of criminal trials have looked into this matter. They have proceeded in a proper judicial way, and most of the information that we need is already available. To go on inquiring, inquiring and inquiring is merely adding to the already £50 million cost that there has been to the taxpayer.

[Lyn Brown]

I am really sorry that the hon. Gentleman continues to plough that path. As I have said, the second part of this inquiry was quite clearly in the mind of his Prime Minister when he made statements to this House. If we cannot accept the words of his Prime Minister—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Lyn Brown]

Oh, really.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his concern on record.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is promoting me. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister to the sovereign, not to me.

[Lyn Brown]

I have heard some specious arguments in this place.

I hope that the Lords amendment is acceptable to Government Members and the Minister. It is explicit that the inquiry should not begin until the Attorney General determines that it would not be prejudicial to any ongoing relevant criminal investigations or court cases. To oppose the amendment is therefore tantamount to admitting that the Government are no longer committed to an investigation into corruption between news organisations and the police, and that they are not prepared to investigate how allegations of corruption are dealt with. If the Government block Lords amendment 24 today, the public really can have no option but to draw the conclusion that this Government have no commitment to asking the important and hard questions of our national institutions.

I now turn to Lords amendment 96, with consequential amendment 302, which was proposed in the other place by Lord Rosser. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the principle of parity of legal funding for bereaved families at inquests involving the police. Many hon. Members have championed this cause, including during the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to the tireless campaigning and personal commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Unequal funding at inquests and the injustice associated with that was highlighted by the sorry saga of the Hillsborough hearings. The scales of justice were weighted against the families of those who had lost their lives. Public money was used not to discover the truth, but instead to defend an untenable narrative perpetuated by South Yorkshire police. The coroner dealing with the first pre-inquest hearings into the 21 victims of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings backed and commended applications for their bereaved families to get legal funding for proper representation, but did not have the power to authorise the funds.

Fees in major cases have attracted considerable public interest, but inquests at which the police are legally represented are not confined to major tragedies such as Hillsborough; far more common are inquests into the deaths of individuals who are little known. Many bereaved families can find themselves in an adversarial and aggressive environment when they go to an inquest. Many are not in a position to match the spending of the police or other parts of the public sector for their own legal representation. In fact, bereaved families have to try, if at all possible, to find their own money to have any sort of legal representation. Opposition Members believe that the overwhelming public interest lies in these inquiries discovering the truth. It follows that public money should be there to establish the truth, not just to protect public institutions, and that must mean equal funding.

In the other place, the Government accepted that many would sympathise with the intention of the amendment. When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister commissioned the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, to compile a report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. We are encouraged to wait for his report before considering the issues further, yet we already know that a system of unequal funding at inquests is wrong. Public funds are used to deny justice and hide the truth. The Government need to act now to change a process that appears to be geared more towards trying to grind down bereaved families than enabling them to get at the truth. The Government really should accept the amendment.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I urge Ministers to listen closely to the hon. Lady’s strong point. When someone dies while in the care of the state in a detained environment, people too often go up against the might of the state. That is simply not fair and it should not be tolerated.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

We also support Lords amendments 136 to 142, which were tabled by Baroness Brinton, along with consequential amendment 307. Those amendments are designed to improve the way in which the criminal justice system interacts with victims of crime, and they are based on the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I presume that the amendments will be acceptable to the Government because, as we have heard, they would enact the 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment to introduce a victims’ bill of rights. Let me remind the Minister of what that manifesto says:

“we will strengthen victims’ rights further, with a new Victims’ Law that will enshrine key rights for victims”.

I understand that the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), already committed to a Green Paper on this issue in a private meeting with the campaign group Voice 4 Victims in February last year, but we are yet to have sight of that. This Bill is the ideal opportunity to take the matter forward, so I encourage the Government, even at this late stage, to think again and not oppose the amendments.

The House will know that victims’ rights are protected in the victims code, which was introduced in 2005 by a Labour Government. We still support that code, but the rights included in it are not legally binding, and in the past few years it has become clear that a firmer legal basis is required to give distressed and vulnerable victims the protection that they need.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if the 2012 European directive on victims’ rights were put on a statutory footing in England and Wales, we would be following the lead of that which happens in Scotland already?

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but I think that talking about Europe might be too much of a red flag in this Chamber.

If the amendments are agreed to, they will create a statutory duty on elected police leadership to produce an area victims plan depending on local needs, and they will require the commissioner for victims and witnesses to assess the adequacy of such plans. Finally, the amendments will empower the Secretary of State to order a homicide review—basically, a cold case review—when nobody has been charged with a crime. Taken together, the measures would allow the victims code to be better enforced and ensure that our criminal justice system works better for the victims of crime. The Government will, I hope, offer their wholehearted support to these amendments.

Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 134, with consequential amendment 305, which was proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Royall. The amendment would increase the maximum penalty for those found guilty of stalking from five to 10 years. In cases where the offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum penalty would be increased from seven to 14 years. We are delighted that the Government have chosen to accept our case, and I congratulate my noble Friend and all who have pursued the campaign.

Home Office data suggest that as many as one in five women and one in 10 men will be stalked at some point in their lives. Just because stalking is common, it does not mean that it is not a serious matter. Stalking destroys lives. It violates an individual’s right to privacy, and therefore destroys their personal freedoms. It causes fear, and rightly so, since too often it is a precursor to violent confrontation.

I know that sentencing guidelines and specific sentences are the responsibility of the Sentencing Council and judges respectively. However, extending the maximum penalty will allow for greater flexibility in the most serious cases and make it clear that stalking is a serious offence. The Labour party has provided the Government with the opportunity to give judges the necessary flexibility to hand out appropriate sentences to serious criminals. I am delighted that the Government have seen the need for that and responded appropriately.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I rise to support the Government’s amendment on stalking in lieu of Lords amendment 134. This is a momentous day, because the proposed measures, which would have the effect of significantly strengthening protections for victims of stalking, represent the culmination of a 16-month campaign. I truly hope that what began with a meeting with my GP constituent Dr Eleanor Aston in 2015 will end here today.

In doubling the maximum sentences for stalking, the Government’s proposals emphatically and decisively do two things. First, they recognise that stalking is not a minor offence. Instead, it is a horrible, violating, destructive crime that rips relationships apart, ruins careers and can cause lasting mental harm. All too often, it is the gateway to serious violence. Secondly, the Government’s amendments will ensure that courts have the tools that they need to deal with the most serious cases accordingly. Most crucially of all, it will give the courts powers truly to protect victims and to put their needs front and centre in the criminal justice system.

Let me be clear: when we talk about victims of stalking, we are not simply referring to the rich and famous: this campaign has made it crystal clear that ordinary men and women can fall victim to stalking just as readily and just as severely as those in the public eye.

[Lyn Brown]

Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I say that it was remiss of me not to mention the work that he has done on the matter and congratulate him on it?

[Alex Chalk]

That is very gracious of the hon. Lady, and I am grateful. The context for the proposals was the horrific seven-year ordeal suffered by my constituent at the hands of her former patient. I will not go through all the detail now, but I will set out some of it. He turned up at her surgery over 100 times. He posted foul items through the letterbox. He followed her on patient visits, slashed her tyres and sent threatening mail. He appeared at a children’s birthday party her daughter was attending. That caused her exceptional anxiety and fear. After serving a short prison sentence, he—in a pattern that is not uncommon with this type of offence—restarted his campaign. Dr Aston received packages at her surgery in Gloucester and at her home in Cheltenham. One was threatening and abusive, and made it clear that he knew where her children went to school. The second package simply said, “Guess who’s back”. When he was arrested again, the search on his computer revealed that the inquiry, “How long after a person disappears are they assumed dead?” The judge who sentenced Dr Aston’s stalker made it clear that he did not think he had the tools he needed, stating in open court that he had no doubt that the stalker was dangerous in the sense of posing a significant risk, but he went on:

“I am frustrated that the maximum sentence...is five years. I would, if I could, give you longer.”

Europol

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 General Committees

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am grateful for your clear explanation as to the process. I obviously needed that today and I am dead pleased that you are in the Chair.

The Minister did not answer the question about why we are not having this debate on the Floor of the House, which the Opposition would welcome. We have argued consistently that participating in Europol helps to keep Britain safe. It is a vital tool in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. Opting into Europol’s revised governance framework will allow Britain to continue to participate in Europol and strengthen Europol’s capacity to help to tackle serious crime. We therefore support the Government’s decision to opt in.

Europol’s role is to facilitate the rapid exchange of criminal intelligence and security information between EU member states. Europol supports more than 40,000 international criminal investigations each year, and many of those cases are vital to British security. In 2011, police were able to identify links between an investigation in Northern Ireland and an investigation in Portugal after basic checks of Europol systems. That led to a large investigation of a west African organised crime group operating across Europe, west Africa and south America. There have subsequently been 25 co-ordinated arrests and seizures across Europe, and that gang has been well and truly broken up.

In 2012, a law enforcement agency received intelligence regarding a threat against an individual’s life in another EU member state and a probable suspect in a third member state. Checks of Europol systems enabled the speedy identification both of the intended victim and of the potential suspect, and law enforcement authorities were able to take swift action and save a life.

If I go on much longer, our Whip is likely to pull me down, but those two small cases show that Europol co-operation means that criminals and terrorists cannot easily use European borders to evade the intelligence and oversight of law enforcement authorities. Europol is a vital tool for ensuring that national Governments, not international crime organisations, are in control. In May, the European Council and Parliament adopted a new set of regulations, which updates Europol’s governance structure, objectives and tasks and will take effect on 1 May 2017. Those regulations make some important changes, and I will briefly outline the benefits of those.

As we know, cybercrime is one of the greatest challenges that our police face. It pays no attention to national borders, and the activity of an individual in one country may have perilous consequences for citizens in another. The European cybercrime centre estimates that cybercrime costs EU member states €265 billion a year. The new regulations will make it easier for Europol to help member states tackle cybercrime by giving that centre a clear mandate as a Union centre of “specialised expertise for combating” crime. Similarly, the regulations give the EU internet referral unit a clear mandate to tackle online terrorist propaganda.

I stress that the regulations do not allow Europol to mandate national investigations. Article 4 of the regulations states:

“Europol shall not apply coercive measures in carrying out its tasks.”

Article 3 makes it clear that Europol “shall support” national security forces rather than lead them, and national Governments are not required to share data if they think that would threaten their “essential interests” or jeopardise current operations. Taken together, those measures preserve Europol’s status as an information and data-sharing hub rather than a supranational crime agency. Indeed, the European Scrutiny Committee concluded that it is

“satisfied that the outcome achieved respects the division of competences between Member States and EU institutions”.

Although the benefits of the changes that I have outlined are important, the nub of the issue is that the regulations bring about substantive changes to Europol’s governance arrangements. Having spoken to the House of Commons Library staff and studied the European Scrutiny Committee report, I understand that if we do not agree to the regulations, Britain’s participation in Europol could be called into question altogether. There is indeed a process for ejecting us, or anyone, from Europol if the Commission and Council agree that our opt-out renders co-operation inoperable.

Put plainly, we could find ourselves out of Europol by May next year when Brexit negotiations will only just have begun. Indeed, the Minister implied the same thing on the 14 November when he notified the European Scrutiny Committee of the Government’s intention to opt in:

“Opting in will maintain operational continuity for UK law enforcement ahead of exiting the EU…and that law enforcement agencies can continue to access Europol systems and intelligence.”

Given the enormous benefits that Europol participation brings to Britain, the Opposition would not want to bring about any risk of the UK being ejected from Europol on 1 May. We therefore support the Government’s decision to opt into the new regulations.

As I am sure the Committee will know, the current director of Europol is a British man called Rob Wainwright. He took over Europol after a career serving major British security institutions such as NCIS and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. His career shows how European co-operation allows for British influence to spread abroad. Director Wainwright tweeted that the Government’s decision to opt in is

“Good for Britain’s security, great for police co-operation in Europe.”

I agree entirely with Director Wainwright. International crime did not stop on 23 June 2016 and, sadly, the threat of international terrorism persists. That is why I want us to remain part of Europol if and when we leave the European Union, and I want Britain to continue to lead the way in furthering police co-operation across the continent.

Unfortunately, the Government cannot guarantee our continued participation in Europol after Brexit. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has offered warm words about maintaining security arrangements. In fact, he said that he wants us to “maintain or even strengthen” co-operation, as we have heard, but when he has been pushed as to whether that means we will continue to be a member of Europol he has not been able to make that guarantee. Instead he told the House that the Government will seek to

“preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 45.]

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, whatever our Government want to do, the other 27 Governments would have to agree to our remaining in Europol? They would in fact have very good reason to do so, since we provide about 40% of the intelligence on which they rely. We are an extremely valuable and massive net contributor of the intelligence and information that they enjoy through their membership of Europol.

[Lyn Brown]

I am not going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not even going to play party politics with this. I am going to move on gently and seamlessly to say that I think that the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service is a competent and loyal advocate of Government policy, so I am sure he will say exactly the same thing as the hon. Gentleman. However, I must say that I do not find a pledge to do the “best we can” particularly reassuring when we are dealing with matters as fundamental as national security and the lives of British citizens.

I would press the Minister to go a bit further today, and say that preserving our security arrangements and maintaining British influence over security matters will be a top priority for the Government in their exit negotiations. I do not think that is too much to ask. Keeping citizens safe should always be the first priority of any Government. Europol and other forms of European security co-operation such as the European arrest warrant are vital tools to keep our citizens safe.

Whatever else the Government do in the negotiations, they must not leave us in a situation in which we fall out of Europol and start to co-operate less with our European partners on security matters. If that were to happen, the Government would be letting the British people down. Their ability to tackle crime and keep citizens safe would be diminished. The Government would be ceding control to serious criminals.