British Jihadis (Iraq and Syria)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend and I have spoken about her constituent and the distress caused to her family. It is important that there is due process that is transparent both for the individuals involved and the public.

Lest anyone doubt the relationship between travelling to jihad conflict zones and radicalisation, it is worth noting that research from the Institute for Global Change, which surveyed a sample of prominent jihadis from the middle east and Africa, found that nearly two thirds had fought in one of the three major hubs of jihadi conflict over the past 30 years. Here in the UK, Salman Abedi travelled to Libya shortly before his terrorist attack, which killed 22 people at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester last year. Two of the London Bridge attackers, Khuram Butt and Youssef Zaghba, had expressed an interest in travelling to Syria to join Daesh.

Are more than 400 of those returning individuals in jail or going through the court system? We simply do not know, because the Government will not release the figures, despite repeated requests. There is strong demand from the public to know how many who travelled to fight foreign jihad are currently free in British communities. Those men and women are escaping justice, despite having been prepared to fight British troops in the name of a sickeningly evil cause. If they are not locked up or deradicalised, they are potentially able to import back to British streets brutal killing techniques learned on the battlefield. The Government must know what the figure is. It is simple to collate, and they were prepared to give it back in May 2016 when Advocate General Lord Keen responded to a parliamentary question stating that, at that point, there had been 54 successful prosecutions of returnees from Iraq and Syria, with 30 more cases ongoing.

The refusal to update the number of prosecutions is fuelling the suspicion that in fact only a fraction of returnees are being charged because it is often too difficult to amass sufficient evidence that is admissible in an open court. That suspicion extends to suspected terror suspects who are deported back to the UK. Here, the lack of prosecution cannot be attributed to someone slipping into the country unnoticed, difficult though that in itself should be. Deportees are directly handed back to the UK authorities by another nation. They should be delivered straight into the judicial system and made to pay for their crime, but how many are? Again, at present we do not know because the Government have claimed that they do not hold the information in this form. That is simply not credible.

Last month, I was granted special access to a British woman in a removal centre in Izmir, Turkey. The Turkish authorities wished to deport her back to the UK with her two young children. I hope that the Minister will share my concern over the detention of those children, who are aged just three and one, and will report to the woman’s Member of Parliament about what they are doing on this case.

The Turkish authorities gave me the identities of six other British nationals, two adults and four children, who they said had been deported from the Izmir removal centre in the past 12 months. In speaking to the Security Minister before this debate, I was asked not to name these individuals on security grounds. On this occasion, I am content to agree to that request, but I will say this: it comes to something when a foreign country is prepared to be more forthcoming to a British MP about the terror threat posed by particular British citizens than Her Majesty’s own Government.

Some will claim that this obfuscation is based on a laudable need to maintain a deterrent effect rather than on a desire to save the Government from embarrassment; that it is better to remain vague because future generations are less likely to be deterred from following the next call to global jihad if they know how few of their brothers and sisters have been jailed for previous attempts. Yet such a view surely grossly underestimates the sophistication of the jihadis’ communication capacity. If British justice is falling short, Daesh, al-Qaida and whatever is the next strain of this evil perversion will be able to get that message out to potential recruits. Will the Government take this opportunity to be more transparent on this vital issue?

In her response, will the Minister answer the following questions: how many UK nationals deported back to the UK have been subject to a managed return because of their suspected support for ISIS, as described in the Home Secretary’s response to me here on 8 January; how many of those have been charged with a terror-related offence; how many of the aforementioned “approximately 850 UK-linked individuals” were deported back to the UK; how many of those have been charged with a terror-related offence; and what is the total number of these 850 who have been charged with a terror-related offence?

Finally, rather than attempting to hide the weakness of our legal system in regard to returning jihadis, will the Government consider the following proposal to strengthen it? The Home Secretary has already said that she will consider extending the period of pre-charge detention to allow the authorities more time to prepare a case, but will the Government consider the steps that have been taken in Australia where it has been made an offence to travel without a verifiable legitimate reason to certain designated terror hotspots—as Iraq and Syria were while that conflict was taking place. The declared area offence law is in its infancy in Australia, having only been on the statute book since 2014, yet the independent reviewer of terror legislation there has just recommended that it be extended for a further five years. Surely there is value in following our ally to create our own UK jihadi travel ban, placing the burden on the suspected terrorist to give proof of legitimate purpose if he or she travels to a designated conflict zone.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I respectfully say that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely on to something there because, crucially, there is evidence that can be provided to prove the case. The difficulty in so many other cases is that, if we want to uphold our way of life, that means not prosecuting people unless we have sufficient evidence to put them on trial and convict them. Unfortunately, it is very often difficult to establish what they have been doing in Syria, and it is therefore difficult to bring a prosecution. His idea is a good one.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister.

[Alex Chalk]

Not yet!

[John Woodcock]

I am sorry—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is absolutely right.

The approach that I have described would reflect the reality that, for the overwhelming majority, there is no legitimate reason whatever to travel to a jihadi conflict zone. The fact of their going is proof enough that they are supporters of terror. By following this simple step, which is already on the statute book in other countries to which we are allied, we would have a better chance of ensuring that these people face the consequences of their actions if they survive their experience to return to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this debate and on raising an important issue on which he has done much work. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime, on whose behalf I am speaking tonight, very much values his contribution. May I also thank all colleagues who have contributed this evening, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely)?

The safety and security of our country, our people and our communities remains the Government’s No. 1 priority. Regretfully, our country and, indeed, this House have seen the tragic impact of terrorists who seek to use violence to undermine and destroy our society’s commitment to liberal values. Of course, their cowardly actions serve only to strengthen our resolve and our determination to protect the United Kingdom and to disrupt those who engage in terrorism.

Central to that work to protect the public is our management of the threat posed by British-linked individuals who aspire to travel, and who have successfully travelled, to Syria and Iraq to fight for Daesh. The Government have also planned and prepared for the risk posed by those who return.

We have been clear over the past few years that people should not travel to Syria and parts of Iraq. The horrific nature of Daesh’s brutal regime is well documented and there is no doubt that anyone who, for whatever reason, has travelled to those areas against UK Government advice is putting themselves not only in considerable danger, but under justifiable suspicion.

As we have stated previously in the House, we know that more than 850 UK-linked individuals of national security concern travelled to engage with the Syrian conflict. We estimate that over 15% of those who travelled have been killed in fighting in the region and just under half have returned to the UK. A significant proportion of those individuals who have already returned are assessed as no longer being of national security concern. The Government have been clear throughout the conflict that any British national who has travelled to Syria or Iraq and chosen to fight for Daesh has made themselves a legitimate target while in the conflict zone.

[Alex Chalk]

As a distinguished barrister, my hon. Friend will know, however, that the difficulty for prosecuting authorities is establishing what those individuals were doing in those foreign fields. Given that we apply the rule of law and believe in justice, that inevitably means that, all too often, under the current system people who were probably doing something will get away with it.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He brings his legal learning, knowledge and experience to the House, to great effect. He is right and has hit the nub of the problem, namely the tension that this democratic, liberal country faces when dealing with people who have gone overseas and to whom we require, rightly, the rule of law to apply as it does to any other citizen. The difficulty posed by that, of course, is the gathering of evidence to prove the case to the required standards.

Stalking Protection Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who made some powerful points.

I am delighted to support this Bill, which represents a key piece of the jigsaw in terms of how we ought to approach the scourge of stalking. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for her efforts, determination and leadership on this important issue.

The issue is very close to my heart, and I was grateful for the opportunity, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and Members across this House and in the other place, to play a part in addressing the problem of inadequate sentencing. But if sentencing is principally about protecting victims after stalking has spiralled out of control, the SPOs are about arming the courts with tools to address this behaviour beforehand; they are about prevention as well as protection.

Before examining the SPOs in detail, I want to say a little about the context. Attitudes have changed. Gone—or almost gone—are the days when this was thought of as a bit of a joke or just a case of overly enthusiastic romantic advances. Lest we forget, the crime of stalking did not exist until 2012, and it is only thanks to the bravery of so many people—usually, but not exclusively, women—that we have been educated on this shocking phenomenon. We now increasingly appreciate that stalking is a horrible, violating crime that rips relationships apart and shatters lives. Inevitably, it is the cases involving celebrities that hit the headlines, but it is important to emphasise that this phenomenon is no respecter of fame or fortune. It is far more indiscriminate than that, and anyone can be a victim. I want to mention two examples, if I may.

Dr Eleanor Aston was a constituent of mine. I say “was” because she has now left the United Kingdom. She was a successful and popular GP, as Gloucester Crown Court was later to hear, and she was stalked over a nine-year period. This bears out the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) that these incidents often last for many years. Dr Aston was stalked by a patient who first attended her surgery in 2007. As is often the case in this type of offending, it began innocuously enough. A few cards progressed on to inappropriate messages, then messages started to be left on her car windscreen. It then became more serious, with the stalker attending the surgery more than 100 times. He vandalised it and posted foul items through the letterbox, and then began to attend her home. He attended a children’s party that her daughter was at, and her water supply was even interfered with. The situation escalated to the point that the police advised her to change her name and address, and even come off the General Medical Council register. She was off work for many months and was later diagnosed, perhaps unsurprisingly, with post-traumatic stress disorder. The stalker spent some time in prison, but when he was released she received two packages: one contained standard abusive material; the other simply said, “Guess who’s back.”

The second case relates to the 20-year-old hairdresser, Hollie Gazzard, who was murdered in 2014 by an ex-partner. The point was ably made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) that stalking is all too often a gateway offence—if I can use that expression—leading to something even more serious. Indeed, some particularly powerful individuals have referred to it as murder in slow motion. Out of the tragedy of Hollie Gazzard’s death, her inspirational family—her parents Nick and Mandy and her sister Chloe—have set up the Hollie Gazzard Trust in Gloucestershire to improve protection for the victims of stalking in Gloucestershire and beyond. I am grateful to the mayor of Cheltenham for including the trust as one of her charities.

Those are just two examples of ordinary people from just one county, Gloucestershire, so it is no surprise that research carried out by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust in 2017 showed that a staggeringly high proportion of homicides against women were preceded by behaviour that could properly be characterised as stalking. In that context, the stalking protection orders set out in the Bill will provide a powerful tool to be used while a stalking investigation is ongoing. They will give the magistrates courts a larger and better equipped toolbox with which to tackle such behaviour at an early stage and to protect victims. An order will be able to prohibit acts associated with stalking or require an individual to

“do anything described in the order.”

That can be used to impose positive obligations, which is an important difference. Ordinary bail conditions can say, “You must not go within a hundred yards of that address” or “You must attend court on such and such an occasion”, but this order could impose positive obligations, including an obligation to attend drugs or alcohol programmes. As we have already heard, the orders will have criminal sanctions. In plain English, if you do not comply, you will get locked up.

That is all welcome, but if I may, I will add a couple of notes of caution. First, it would really help if, as part of the positive obligations, the court could require an individual to undergo psychiatric evaluation. One of the things that makes victims’ testimony even more disarmingly powerful is that they often show a measure of compassion towards the people who have tormented them to their wits’ end, and even sometimes close to the point of suicide. They recognise that they are often struggling with their own mental health problems. It would be helpful if the courts could have, in the toolbox that I mentioned, the power to compel individuals to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

The second issue is that, if the SPOs are going to work, they will have to be deployed quickly. If there is too much delay, there is a risk of the behaviour becoming entrenched and therefore far more difficult to address. Why do I say that? Because my experience as a prosecutor in court, prosecuting offences of this nature and speaking to witnesses and victims, tells me that committed, entrenched stalkers show themselves unwilling to comply with orders of the court, or even incapable of so doing, even though that might lead to imprisonment. Very often, by the time someone gets to the long process of prosecution, the stalker will have ignored the police officer who told them to stop, and they will have ignored the harassment warning and the bail conditions that ordered them to stop. If a solution is to work, the problem needs to get nipped in the bud early, which will require police officers to take matters seriously. I am grateful for the fact that a huge amount of work has been done in Gloucestershire to ensure that police officers have the tools they need to recognise stalking and to act on it expeditiously, which is vital.

Orders must be imposed early, and before the inevitable delays that come from investigation, charge and trial. Conscientious and attentive police officers will be vital to the process, and changes could be made to allow individuals to play a greater role in gathering evidence and reporting it to the police in a way that serves the needs of victims, instead of the process being labour intensive and sometimes difficult. However, that is something to be discussed in detail on another day. For present purposes, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on taking up the baton in such a spectacular and effective way. I am grateful to hon. Members across the House, and I am delighted to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, particularly given that this Bill is being introduced by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is always a pleasure to be here on Friday discussing Bills, which may not be the longest Bills that we have ever considered, but they are ones that have a significant impact and deal with a hole in the law that needs to be filled, and that can only be done via primary legislation.

As I said with regard to the previous Bill, it is clear why there is a need for this Bill, why it is proportionate and what effect it will have. The test that I apply on a Friday has certainly been met in this case. For me, it is time that we looked at the impact of stalking on victims. This is not just about a person pestering someone—perhaps sending the odd couple of things they did not want; it is about a person actually setting out to control their victim, to dominate their life, to make it so that they almost cannot live a normal life for fear of another person’s actions, and to control them in a way that has similarities to behaviour in abusive relationships, when people are not looking to hold someone in great affection but to control them through their actions and behaviour.

It is very welcome that in criminal offences relating to stalking, we have seen increases in sentences: we have seen it viewed as something far more serious in society and in our own law over recent years. None the less, there is still this gap for those who are engaging in behaviour that is clearly wholly inappropriate. We will now have an ability to deal with them through the court. That is why there is a clear need for this Bill.

Looking at whether this Bill is proportionate takes me to the process of the application and how the orders will be granted. It will be a chief police officer who applies and who looks at whether there is clear evidence that needs to be taken forward. It will be the magistrates court that takes a decision as to whether to apply the order and what should be done with it, and then there is the fact that it can be appealed to a Crown court. There are plenty of protections in place, which means that the Bill is eminently proportionate. Furthermore, the order can fit the person. As hon. Members have already said, it is right that some people have mental health assessments, because their behaviour in many cases suggests mental health issues. This measure is a highly proportionate part of the law because it provides for tackling and putting to the test a genuine illness that may be driving someone’s behaviour, rather than just looking to threaten someone with punishment.

I particularly like the fact that an interim order can be put in place while the main application is under way, because we would not want someone to ramp up their campaign of harassment in the hope that they might stop the order being pursued or make the victim less determined to go forward while the application was waiting to be considered by the court. I am always a bit fearful of that. Indeed, this is why we have interlocutory injunctions, which go before the main hearing, when there has been an application to court. Such injunctions mean that the actual hearing does not become a pointless affair due to the person continuing their behavioural patterns up to the point at which the court can consider the case fully.

This is a proportionate piece of legislation, but I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who made it clear that it should not be seen as a replacement for the criminal law. It is not about replacing the prosecution process or stopping someone being prosecuted. I was keen to speak on this Bill to make it clear that no police officer should look at this provision as an alternative to prosecution. If there is evidence that the crime has been committed, the police should go through exactly the same process; this Bill is not a substitute.

[Alex Chalk]

In the case of my constituent—a GP in Cheltenham—the only way in which she could begin the process of rebuilding her life was to know that the person who had been tormenting her was behind bars. We should not do it willy-nilly, but there are occasions when people have to be locked up, and this legislation should not be a substitute for custody. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Kevin Foster]

I absolutely agree. This is not a substitute for someone being locked up or paying the price that Parliament has set down for certain crimes. Victims need to see justice done. As with the previous Bill we discussed, this legislation provides an additional power for dealing with poor behaviour and poor conduct in society. It is not an alternative power for dealing with poor conduct. I welcome the Minister to her place, and I am interested in hearing how she will ensure that with guidance issued to the police through the Home Office. How will the Department make it clear to the police that this is an additional provision that takes their powers further? It is not a choice between prosecution or this; it is now prosecution and this. This Bill covers behaviour that is not quite caught by current criminal offences. It is an expansion, not an alternative. The Bill does include penalties of imprisonment for continuing to breach the orders, and that is appropriate. There are some people who will not stop even after many remedies, and they probably need the threat of prison to put them off.

This Bill is welcome. It is an appropriate and proportionate step, and I am interested in how the police will implement it in my constituency of Torbay. It provides that the chief officer can apply for an order only in respect of someone in their area. How will the Minister ensure that there is co-operation between police forces in cases where the person resides outside the area or is being a nuisance to someone who goes between two areas? Those questions are about making the Bill an effective piece of legislation. How will the Minister ensure that victims of stalking—as with victims of domestic violence—feel that they can safely come forward and give their point of view, and that this new power is well known about? If people are not aware of the law, they may not know what rights they have to ask the police force to take action.

I am conscious of the time, and I have absolutely no intention of continuing to a point at which I would talk this Bill out. [Interruption.] I hear some enthusiastic approval from the Opposition Benches; I will conclude in the very near future.

I appreciate and welcome this Bill. I hope that I get the opportunity to serve on the Committee and take part in some of the detailed scrutiny of exactly how this will work and move forward. That applies particularly to the guidance that is issued to chief police officers when they make these decisions, because we want this power to be effective, and an addition, not an alternative, to the existing criminal law.

Migration Policy and the Economy

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Harper]

I see that that point has engaged SNP Members, but we will have plenty of time to debate it later. I mention it now because the Government have published a very clear document for EU nationals called “Rights of EU Citizens in the UK”. Every hon. Member who speaks to EU nationals already in Britain should ensure that they see that document, so they know that the Government have made it very clear that they are not just welcome, but positively encouraged to stay here after we have left the EU. If they have been here for five years, they can get settled status; if not, they can stay for that period and then get it. We want them to stay. My point is about what we do after we have left the EU when new EU nationals want to come and work in Britain. It is worth distinguishing those categories so that there is no opportunity for mischief-making or for anyone to pretend that we do not want existing EU nationals to stay under the Government’s very generous offer.

There has been some debate in the media today about our negotiations, but from the document produced by Michel Barnier’s team, which sets out the British Government’s offer on EU citizens and the demands of the EU27, we can see that we are not a million miles away. There are some issues left that still have to be negotiated on, but on the vast majority there is complete agreement, including residence, exportable benefits and access to the health service. We are within touching distance of reaching a deal on that basis, which will set the mind of many people—EU nationals and British citizens—at rest.

I am also very keen that students keep coming to the United Kingdom to attend our fantastic universities. It is worth mentioning that over the last year the number of international students coming to Britain has increased. Students make very little net impact on the immigration figures because usually they complete their course and then leave; those who want to stay are welcome to do so if they get a graduate-level job, but then they are counted as a worker and not as a student. We have a fantastic offer for international students and I am very pleased that the Home Secretary has asked the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the contribution that international students make to our economy. I look forward to seeing the results of that research.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the University of Gloucestershire has a campus in Cheltenham. Does it not always bear emphasising that our fantastic universities are effectively one of the great exporters in the British economy, because they bring in so much foreign currency? They are one of the jewels in our crown and we should nurture them at every opportunity.

[Mr Harper]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is not quite, but almost, my Gloucestershire neighbour, for that intervention. He is absolutely right that we have some fantastic educational institutions. In my constituency, Hartpury College is a provider of both further and higher education. It has international students from around the world, particularly on some of its sport courses, and is a global leader. Those are the sorts of educational opportunities that we should be extending; I want to see that continue, and there is no reason why it should not be able to.

Modern Slavery Act 2015

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend puts the point very well. There is a need to look at the whole area of labour force enforcement. The co-operation between the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Home Office and so on in sharing data and information is important.

The Minister may want to consider an additional point about awareness. Only last week there was a case in the area of my local authority, Gedling Borough Council. The case is in the public domain. Just outside my constituency, people found a victim of labour exploitation working on their farm, Hammond farm. They were found by a person being made aware by a chance remark that caused them to question what was happening. Part of this is about enforcement but it is also about trying to raise awareness so that people may question what is happening and try to report it to the appropriate authorities. We might want to consider how we do that.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

I will give way, but before I do, let me say that I have been in this House a long time, and we give way a lot and that is fine—I do not mind doing it—but Members cannot have it both ways if I then speak for a long time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

From when you started. The benefit of that is that I will be putting on a time limit of seven minutes and I will not have to reduce it to six—I do not want to do that. Are you sure you want to intervene, Mr Chalk?

[Alex Chalk]

If I may. As somebody who has prosecuted offences of servitude in the past, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the passion that he is showing regarding this horrible offence which robs people of their dignity. Raising awareness is vital. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Salvation Army in Cheltenham, who last week held an event on this? We need to get the message out to people that everyone needs to be on their guard.

[Vernon Coaker]

If you will nod at me, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I need to start thinking about finishing, that would be good.

Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 General Committees

[Sarah Newton]

I appreciate the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition and the other comments that have been made.

I was delighted that we were able to publish the drugs strategy. It has largely had a warm welcome, including from the Labour party. I am very appreciative of that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley pointed out that the national recovery champion potentially has a significant role, and I am pleased about the warm welcome for that. As the hon. Lady will know, it takes time to make public appointments; there must be a proper, rigorous public appointment process. That process has started and we very much hope that someone will be in the post, up and running, before the end of the year, or in the early part of next year. The work of constructing the board is, of course, moving along.

The drugs strategy was the result of a huge amount of cross-Government working. We have good inter-ministerial working, and the hon. Lady will note that the strategy is a joint one, owned by me and by the Department of Health. That is important, because the heart of the strategy is to enable people to break their addiction and to prevent people from becoming addicted to harmful substances in the first place; the recovery champion sums up the heart of the strategy.

We are working urgently and at a considerable pace with other Departments to implement the strategy. I am sure that the hon. Lady noticed over the summer the excellent work published by the Department of Health, which examined what works in recovery services. We set out an ambitious outcomes framework to enable people to get access to services that enable them to sustain their recovery over a long period. We have made good progress in implementing many aspects of the drugs strategy that we communicated in the summer.

The crime survey, about which there were some questions, is incredibly important. It has been running for decades and provides a very large sample—38,000 people, on a regular basis, give extremely good and valuable data on the experience of crime from a victim’s point of view. That helps us and those engaged in policing to make sure that there are the right resources, by which I do not mean just monetary resources: we make sure that the police have the tools they need, and that we have set out the right offences to enable them to bear down on crime.

The survey is important, but of course it is not the only one we use in relation to drugs policy. We have used a lot of data gathered from Public Health England. The hon. Lady will be well aware of the investment the Government have made in the past few years across the UK, with a lot of support from our colleagues in Scotland, so that we collect good toxicology information and so that emerging and changing trends in drug use are captured in the data collected by Public Health England, as well as through the crime survey.

I assure the hon. Lady that we are evidence-based policy makers, and always want to make sure that we have the most appropriate and up-to-date evidence on which to form our policies. We also work with the ACMD: not only do we ask it for advice about particular substances and how they should be scheduled, but we ask it to consider the effectiveness of drug and alcohol rehabilitation services. It has an important role to play, and undertakes research to enable us to do our work.

The hon. Lady commented on the changes in the crime survey and sample sizes, and I shall write to her about why we decided to proceed as we are doing, and how we will make sure to everyone’s satisfaction that we collect the data we need to do all we can to keep people safe. It is pleasing that, after a sustained effort over a number of years, fewer people—particularly young people—are taking drugs, but clearly I am worried, as are the Government, about the number of people who are dying from overdoses. We are doing a huge amount of work to tailor interventions so that lives are saved, to protect people and to enable them to make the journey to recovery.

I hope that those answers are reassuring, and that I have made the case to support the measure.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I entirely support the measure, but will the Minister clarify the position regarding the Psychoactive Substances Act? This substance was presumably already controlled under that legislation. What will bringing the substance within the 1971 Act bring to that prohibition, which aims to increase protection in our country?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right. The great success of the Psychoactive Substances Act is that, when Public Health England or police officers are worried about a new substance they see appearing on the market, immediate protection can be put in place, with a lesser burden of evidence required than for full scheduling, to prevent people from getting that harmful substance. Temporary control orders give time for the evidence base to be gathered—the full toxicology reports and the data from Public Health England and police forces—and put in the round to measure the harm in full, so that we can properly schedule substances under the 1971 Act, which is exactly what we are seeing today; the whole process is working its way through.

Stronger penalties are associated with the possession or dealing of drugs according to the schedule. We very much hope that those stronger, tougher penalties act as a deterrent and send out a clear message to young people or anyone that these are harmful substances that we do not want them to even think about taking.

General Election Campaign: Abuse and Intimidation

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing that experience. She is absolutely right: it is essential that people from every sort of background and from every part of our country feel that they can represent their communities. The Conservative party has put in a lot of effort over a number of years to break down the barriers so that people with disabilities can serve their communities locally or nationally. I was very proud of our party for setting up a new fund in the Cabinet Office, which provides funding to people who need to make reasonable adjustments to stand for office and to serve their community. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on to that candidate our sincere gratitude for her perseverance—not being bullied or intimidated, but carrying on and taking a message of hope to her community. I encourage her to report that incident to the police. She has clear online evidence of hate crime perpetrated against her, and I would fully expect her local constabulary to take that seriously and go after the appalling person who wrote such things.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the social media platforms have a role to play? So many people get fed up with reporting abuse and nothing seems to happen to the individual who perpetrates it. If social media companies are serious about upholding their house rules, is it not vital that they issue a system of yellow cards and, if necessary, red cards to stop people having the platform they need to perpetrate this vile abuse?

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. When social media companies are notified of this type of abuse, harassment and bullying, we expect them to take that material down. The police have the power to request that such material is taken down. It is important that people report instances of hate crime, and that those reports are followed up and prosecuted.

The law does not differentiate criminal offences committed on social media from those committed anywhere else. It is the action that is illegal. Robust legislation is in place to deal with internet trolls, cyber-stalking, harassment, and perpetrators of grossly offensive, obscene or menacing behaviour. A number of criminal offences may be committed by those abusing others on social media. These include credible threats of violence; damage to property; sending grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages; harassment; and stalking.

The Crown Prosecution Service recently revised its guidelines on social media to help to ensure a robust criminal justice system response. The updated guidelines incorporate new and emerging crimes that are being committed online and provide clear advice to help with the prosecution of cyber-enabled crime. On 21 August, the CPS published new public statements on how it will prosecute hate crime. The Director of Public Prosecutions committed the CPS to treating online hate crimes as seriously as those committed face to face. The CPS also launched revised legal guidance that sets out how prosecutors should make the charging decisions and handle these cases in court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend has recently visited the BBC. Its fact-checking work is invaluable during elections and all year round. A number of extremely good programmes on the radio and television look at statistics and provide really good rebuttals to some of the myths we hear peddled. Social media companies need to do more. They have a responsibility to act when there is clear evidence of information being put out and leading to the sort of harm we are seeing.

[Alex Chalk]

rose—

[Sarah Newton]

I will just finish my point, but then I will definitely take more interventions.

The work we are doing in schools is incredibly important, so that young people are taught to be critical thinkers, are robust and are able to ask themselves some straightforward questions about the motivation of the person putting information before them. They will then become more resilient and questioning, coming to their own conclusions and accessing the very good resources that give the facts of the matter.

[Alex Chalk]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the duties of social media companies have to go beyond simply deleting an offensive post? They have to ensure that there are consequences for the perpetrator by suspending or even deleting their account. The companies show themselves to be incredibly reluctant to do so, no doubt for financial reasons, and they need to reassess. Does she agree?

[Sarah Newton]

There must be consequences for perpetrators of hate crime and the list of crimes that I have outlined. It is essential that people report, so that the police can take the appropriate action and people feel that there are consequences for the crimes they commit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Today’s timely debate focuses on the important issue of the abuse and intimidation of candidates and the public in UK elections, but I would like to begin with a note of thanks to Mr Deputy Speaker for his support in ensuring my personal safety and that on colleagues on both sides of the House as we go about our business. I know that many of my colleagues will share my thanks and put them on record.

Let me clear: abusive behaviour has no place in our democracy. I must stress that Opposition Members condemn any action that seeks to undermine our tradition of free and fair elections. We welcome the Government’s decision to conduct an independent inquiry, and we look forward to working with them to tackle this issue, which affects candidates from all political parties. In that spirit, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) is giving evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life this afternoon on behalf of the Labour party.

Sadly, many colleagues on both sides of the House have experienced some form of abuse and intimidation as candidates or MPs, and many can talk about the experiences their party campaigners and volunteers have also had. Unfortunately, candidates and public office holders are vulnerable to abuse. The tragic murder of our parliamentary colleague and friend Jo Cox last year and the stabbing of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) in 2010 remind us of the serious threats we face and of the longevity of this issue.

We would be doing a disservice to the democracy we all believe in if we did not recognise that this is an issue for all political parties. If we are going to have the honest and constructive debate we need to have on this subject, we must recognise that individuals claiming to be supporters of every political party represented in this Chamber have, either online or offline, abused candidates from other political parties. That is wrong and it will always be wrong, no matter which party the abuser claims to support.

Unfortunately, abuse and intimidation have taken place during previous elections too. Those who claim that this is a recent development are perhaps inadvertently covering up the real issue. This topic is not new to scrutiny. In 2013, the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism, of which I am a member, published the findings of its inquiry into electoral conduct. The inquiry had a particular focus on racism and discrimination in campaigning, and it marked the first time that such matters had been analysed in a systematic way by Members of the House. The APPG published its final update in July, which showed that electoral misconduct was a challenge for all parties during elections.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady is making an important speech, but does she not acknowledge that the tempo and tone of what happened in the 2017 election was of a different order of magnitude from what had gone before? I am quite prepared to accept that what happened was cross-party and affected people on both sides of the House, but it was at a level that was particularly concerning.

[Cat Smith]

I will answer some of those points in my speech. I suspect that what happened was partly due to the increased use of social media sites, which have more users than at previous elections, but I will come to that.

The same inquiry and the Law Commission argue that the current legal system is not fit for purpose. They urged the Government to redraft electoral offences in a more simple and modern way, so that they can be readily understood and enforced by campaigners, the public and the police, and the Opposition would support that.

We must see some action on this issue. The Government’s domestic policy agenda cannot stop because of the Brexit negotiations. In response to a written parliamentary question last week, the Minister stated that the Government will respond to the Law Commission’s 2016 interim report in due course. Can he be a little more specific on the timeframe? The Institute for Jewish Policy Research findings published this week showed that one quarter of British people hold an anti-Semitic belief. Those findings make for sobering reading.

Given the high prevalence of this, it would be foolish and wrong for any party in this House to assume that it did not have members or activists who hold such beliefs. Labour Members recognise that political parties have a responsibility to stamp out any form of abusive behaviour. To ensure that Labour Members comply with the high standards expected by our party, our internal procedures for dealing with abuse and intimidation were reviewed and improved following the Chakrabarti report on anti-Semitism. We have a detailed and publicly available social media policy, and we have employed more staff in our governance and legal unit to make sure that our members’ conduct is up to scratch.

However, social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook must take their share of the responsibility for this issue and act faster to prevent and remove abusive behaviour online. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) pointed out in the Westminster Hall debate on this topic before the summer recess, Facebook was very quick to remove pictures of a woman breastfeeding, but when my hon. Friend reported a fake account that was set up in her name sending out intimidating messages, it took Facebook two weeks to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I associate myself with the remarks of my party leader, who has been very clear—indeed, he sent out such advice to Labour party candidates during the last election—that we should fight elections on the basis of policies, politics and the record of the Government, not play it personal. With that approach, we can have a debate in public that may influence the debate taking place on social media, and we may see a downturn in the levels of abuse highlighted by Members on both sides of the House.

This abuse does not take place in a vacuum. We must look at the campaign spearheaded by Lynton Crosby in the London mayoral election, which was even described by Baroness Warsi as “appalling”. That was because of the attacks on Sadiq Khan, which are widely understood to have been racist in nature.

[Alex Chalk]

I do not want to inflame this discussion, because the hon. Lady is making some fair points, but does she not agree that there is a duty on all of us to moderate our language in the public sphere? For example, it does not help to use language like the word “murderers” in the context of the Grenfell Tower atrocity, because it revs people up. Is there not a duty on all of us to be careful about what we say in the public domain?

[Cat Smith]

I agree that there is a duty on all Members of this House to be very considered in the language they use in all matters and to talk about policies and politics rather than personalities. Politics has been drifting towards a focus on personalities, and I think that is damaging.

The politics of hope will always win out over the politics of fear, and it played a role in the general election. It was positive that 2.5 million people voted who did not cast a vote in the previous general election, and that gives us a great sense of hope. If we want politics to be more representative, and if we want to encourage a diverse selection of candidates from all political parties to stand, we need to conduct our politics in the spirit of hope.

Drugs Policy

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on a really excellent speech? It was a privilege to be here for the first maiden speech by a brightly coloured turbaned Sikh. I am looking forward to a number of maiden speeches today. In my own maiden speech two years ago, I said among other things that I looked forward to arguing for reform of our drug laws. There has been very little chance to do so since then, so I welcome the debate today. However, unfortunately, the Government’s new drug strategy is a massive missed opportunity.

We do not get a new strategy very often. There is always the hope that it might contain some radical thinking. This strategy, sadly, offers little that is new. It is more of the same approach that is not working, that has seen an increase in drug-related deaths in the UK and that sees the UK responsible for nearly a third of Europe’s drug deaths.

My friend Cara’s son is five tomorrow. It will be his third birthday without his father Jake, who died of a heroin overdose. Cara wants to legalise drugs to end the stigma around drug use and to end the unnecessary criminalisation of drug users that made it so hard for her family to deal with Jake’s addiction, and makes it more difficult for people to seek help with drug problems.

The day after tomorrow, Thursday, will be the fourth anniversary of the death of 15-year-old Martha Cockburn, who died after taking ecstasy that turned out to be 91% pure; as a result, she died of an accidental overdose. Martha’s mum, Anne-Marie, who I think is in the Public Gallery, now campaigns for the legalisation and regulation of ecstasy, among other drugs. Martha died because there was no controlling measures on the substance that killed her and no way for Martha to check the safety of the substance she was using. Martha was failed by our approach to drug policy.

Many people who have been touched by the loss of loved ones want a more measured debate and a more rational approach to drug policy. Fifty people a week are dying of drug-related deaths in the UK—50 Marthas and Jakes. Our first duty in this place has to be to try to keep people safe and we are failing. The biggest missed opportunity in this strategy is the fact that we have not even considered decriminalisation or legalisation of some drugs as a solution to the problem. We have heard a number of times about Portugal, which decriminalised the use of drugs in 2001. Its drug-induced death rate is five times lower than the EU average. It had 16 overdose deaths last year and there has been a massive reduction in HIV infections.

In an article last week on the publication of the strategy, the Home Secretary said:

“We owe it to future generations to work together for a society free of drugs.”

Talk of a society free of drugs is a dangerous fantasy. Humans have taken drugs for thousands of years and are not going to stop because the Home Secretary produces a new strategy. It is a dangerous fantasy because it diverts attention and resources from the real challenge, which is how we make drug taking safer, how we educate users, how we reduce the consumption of dangerous drugs, how we take control of the drug trade from the criminals who want to exploit vulnerable users, and how we stop criminalising thousands of people unnecessarily. Many people are being criminalised because they have a medical or psychological problem. We need to recognise the link between early childhood trauma, including abuse, and addiction in later life. It is a closer link than that between obesity and diabetes. Drug addiction is often a psychological or biological problem, and criminalising people who have those problems is not the answer. In other cases, we are criminalising people unnecessarily for using a relatively harm-free intoxicant.

The best example is cannabis. It is surely wrong that we criminalise people for using a substance less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol—a substance that the overwhelming majority of people find pleasant, relatively harm-free and even a rewarding experience to take. We have all-party parliamentary groups that extol the virtues of beer, wine and whisky, but when we talk about a substance that is less harmful than alcohol, we are not allowed to say that it can be a positive experience.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, but I regret to say that he is wrong in one particular regard. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has made it crystal clear that cannabis is an extremely dangerous drug that can be a gateway to mental health difficulties. Does he not agree that, if we were to decriminalise it, it would send a dangerous message to young people that cannabis is somehow safe? Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Jeff Smith]

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I do not think that is the evidence and I do not think that is the message. There is a host of evidence through the years that cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol.

Terror Attacks

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House. We have protected the police budget from 2015 to 2020. We will be conducting the review to find out what else we could do better to combat terrorism. The security services are leading on the review, looking at what has happened in the past. We will have an open mind as to what is needed, depending on what that review reveals.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

At present, a person who pleads guilty to possessing a well-known extremist publication, which includes instructions for making home-made bombs, will typically be sentenced to just 14 months. So they will be out in seven months, and will still be radicalised and a danger. Does the Home Secretary agree that the time has come to toughen up sentences under sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000?

[Amber Rudd]

It is fair to say that that is exactly the sort of instance I was referring to in my comments earlier. We must look at tougher sentencing, as Max Hill has suggested, in those sort of instances.