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

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I want to talk about unaccompanied migrant children. These children, and teenagers, are alone. They have fled war zones and famine. Many of them have been abused, sexually abused and assaulted. They are trapped in camps in Greece and northern France, but have family members in the UK who could look after them. As a country, we need to demonstrate our commitment to these children.

Under the current EU procedures, their rights are enshrined in a network of obligations reinforced by international agreement. When we leave the European Union at the end of December, those protections will fall away. The political declaration of 17 October 2019 between the European Union and the UK set out the framework of what can be negotiated in the future agreement. On the basis of that declaration, the Commission was given a negotiation mandate, but there is no mention in it of asylum, refugees or unaccompanied children. The Commission has competency in this area so, as I understand it, there is no question of negotiating with individual member states after we leave in December.

Therefore, to continue to offer a safe route for these children to join family members in the UK, we must have clear Immigration Rules. We need to amend this immigration Bill to ensure that, in taking back control, as the Government say repeatedly, unaccompanied children are not forgotten. We are talking about children and teenagers who are alone, frightened, isolated, vulnerable and desperate. Without safe legal routes to sanctuary, they will be easy prey for trafficking and smuggling gangs.

The Government’s position is to weaken these children’s rights. Their current proposals are discretionary, not mandatory, with no objective criteria on which to base an application and no rights of appeal, leaving a child in danger and in limbo. Time is running out for these children. We have to do better. Many improvements need to be made to the Bill. In particular, protecting the rights of these children is paramount. Are we a country that values, respects and protects children, or are we not? Will we fail in our duty to help these children and young people? I hope not.

UK Borders Control Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Fascinating as it is to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on what Peter Mandelson thought about immigration, thousands of people in this country today hope to hear a debate on Second Reading about the dangerous, costly and unpopular practice of pavement parking, my private Member’s Bill that is a little further down the Order Paper. As the hon. Gentleman promised to be brief, I wonder whether he will be able to bring his remarks to a close at some stage. That would be very helpful.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was making a speech on the current Bill. It is not for the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) to stand up and give an advert for his Bill. The hon. Member for Shipley is in order and has been speaking for a very short period of time thus far. We should allow him to make his points without interruption. That might help the speed of business.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not entirely sure what has happened to the patience of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), but as you said, I have only just got started. He has ensured that the chances of getting on to his Bill have become more limited, but I shall make progress. I can see why he is anxious—he does not want us to talk about Liberal Democrat immigration policy and wanted to divert attention away from it.

The Government have faced a perfect storm. In some respects, this country will always have much higher immigration. Many more people from the EU want to come to this country rather than go to other EU countries. That is partly, or perhaps mainly, because of language. If a person is looking for a job, they will go to a country where they can speak the language. It is great benefit to all that English has become a universal language, but immigration is a downside, because people from the EU who speak English who are looking for a job are more likely to come here than go to other EU countries.

The benefits system is another factor. I applaud the Government for the efforts they have made to restrict access to benefits for people from the EU. It is much tougher for people coming to this country to claim benefits. The Government intend to make it tougher still, which I very much support. Many EU countries have a system of benefits under which people have to pay in before they can take something out. Under our system, people can to a large extent take things out even if they have not paid anything in. That is also a pressure on immigration into this country.

There is also—the Government could never have predicted this—the collapse in the economy around the EU and the fact that economic growth in this country has been so much better than in the rest of the EU. I think I am right in saying—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that this country created more new jobs in the last year than the rest of the EU put together. Of course, that will be a magnet for people looking for a job, and they will want to come to this country. I fully accept that there is no way the Prime Minister could have predicted that five years ago, when he made the promise that he did. He has faced a perfect storm.

That is why my hon. Friend’s Bill is so important. We may be a victim of our success in some ways, and other things may be beyond our control, but the fact is that, although people want to control immigration into this country, they also want something else: some honesty in the debate on immigration. Whatever anybody says, and no matter what rhetoric people use, the honest fact—the public know this, so I have no idea why politicians are so reluctant to admit it—is that while we are a member of the EU under the current regime, we cannot control immigration. We cannot say that a certain number of people will come into this country—we simply cannot. The Prime Minister made his promise in good faith, but it was one he was not entitled to make, because we do not have the ability to control the numbers of people coming into this country. My hon. Friend’s Bill would allow us to do that.

In my view, we need to leave the EU; that is the only way we can control immigration into this country—not just the numbers, but the nature. My hon. Friend made the good point that the free movement of people may sound like a great principle to some, but it also means free movement of criminals. If we look at the nationality of the prison population, we see that there has been a massive increase in recent times in the number of Bulgarians and Romanians. If we had had proper controls, we could probably have stopped those people coming into the country in the first place because of the criminal records they have back home.

We need to control immigration—I think that is something the Minister agrees with, and the Government also seem to agree with it—but we have to be honest with people. We have to acknowledge and accept that the only way we can control immigration is by stopping the free movement of people in the EU. As long as we have that, we cannot control immigration, and we will just be spitting in the wind with the measures we take. I therefore hope that, to properly control immigration, the Government will accept my hon. Friend’s Bill.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 4, on page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

This would remove the 200-mile limit on the Home Secretary’s ability to relocate people.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.

Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 9, line 33, at end insert—

‘6B Regulated Activity Measure

(1) The Secretary of State may impose on the individual restrictions on taking part in regulated activity relating to—

(a) vulnerable adults;

(b) children; or

(c) both.

(2) In this section “Regulated Activity” is as defined in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Act 2006.’.

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to prevent an individual on a TPIM working (including voluntary work) with children or vulnerable adults or both.

Clause 14 stand part.

Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 10, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3) Appointments required under subsection (1) may include appointments with persons involved in delivering programmes established under Part 5, Chapter 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2014.’.

This amendment would make clear that the Secretary of State can instruct an individual on a TPIM to attend de-radicalisation programmes.

Clauses 15 and 16 stand part.

[Diana Johnson]

Part 2 of the Bill relates to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. This grouping includes clauses 12 to 16 as well as Labour’s amendments, so I intend to use my contribution to address all the issues concerning TPIMs in part 2. The amendments are all probing, as we are broadly supportive of the changes the clauses introduce, especially the U-turn on relocation powers, which clause 12 reintroduces.

The Home Secretary introduced TPIMs in the first Session of this Parliament to replace Labour’s control orders. She claimed at the time that that was a fundamental rebalancing of security and liberty. In fact, there were only two major differences between control orders and TPIMs, or control orders-lite, as they have been called: the relocation power and the two-year limit. She also said that she had been forced to introduce TPIMs because too many control orders were being challenged in the courts. Although judicial oversight was of course a key element of the control orders regime, the courts had continued to find that control orders, including the power to relocate, were both necessary and proportionate in a number of cases, including all those that were later transferred to TPIMs.

I think that every Member of this House would agree that it is always better to prosecute individuals, wherever possible, for terrorist offences. No one wants TPIMs or control orders; we would all much rather see prosecutions for those involved in terrorism activity. However, in a very small number of cases evidence is inadmissible, for example because it would compromise security, and therefore prosecutions cannot be brought. That means we need an alternative measure to deal with the threat those individuals pose.

Deferred Divisions

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I thought that I was going to get one of my traditional and routine tickings-off from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that it was just an interruption for the 7 o’clock motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is the season of good will, Mr Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for the early Christmas cheer.

To return to the Bill, what new measures does it contain? I suppose that its unique selling point is the introduction of temporary exclusion orders. They are a relatively new feature, and I do not think that there has been much discussion of them. They are designed to ban British citizens who are suspected of travelling abroad to fight for terror groups from re-entering the UK, and they involve the cancellation of travel documents and the inclusion of such individuals on watch lists and no-fly lists. The Bill allows the cancellation of passports at the border for up to 30 days. The police and border forces will be able to seize the passports and tickets of British citizens if they suspect that those individuals intend to engage in terrorism-related activities at their destination.

That all moves us quite conveniently and neatly towards the idea of statelessness, which we have looked at in relation to other matters that we have debated in the House, and which seems to be the drift and the trend. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me where we have got with the 30 days issue. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s speech, in which she said clearly that the Government are in control of allowing people back in. Well, we have heard about some of the difficulties with that. What happens if there is a breakdown of bilateral relationships with other nations that are not prepared to play along with the UK’s game? Surely, an effective state of statelessness will emerge.

The Bill includes the stronger enforcement of TPIMs, including an ability for the authorities to force suspects to move to another part of the country, which amounts to internal exile. There is no great difference between that and the main feature of Labour’s control orders. The Bill also contains curious stuff about colleges and universities, and the expectation that our higher education institutions will prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism. The measures include banning extremist speakers from campus grounds. How that is to be achieved without massive impacts on academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education institutions is beyond me. I am looking forward to guidance about how those freedoms will be maintained and guaranteed. Our universities and colleges have already started to raise concerns. I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) who said that only yesterday there was concern about how the proposal would be represented in colleges and universities. We have to be careful about how we pursue such a measure.

Perhaps most controversially, the Bill contains measures to require internet service providers to retain data on internet protocol addresses to enable authorities to identify individual users. That brings us neatly to the ongoing concern about, and the trend towards, the Home Secretary’s much-coveted snoopers charter. We are all in the business of doing all that we can to keep the people of our nation safe and secure, but that does not always mean that we must necessarily agree with everything that the Home Secretary says from the Dispatch Box. Some of us might even have a different way of doing things and different suggestions about how to get the balance right between assuring our safety and security and making sure that there is no compromise on our civil liberties. That is why in Scotland, where we have specific responsibilities on that agenda, we take a different view about how it can be better progressed. In Scotland, we want to ensure that our police and our other public bodies have the tools they need not only to tackle and prevent terrorism but to maintain a community where civil liberties are respected and where measures that are introduced are proportionate and have full community support. We have our own separate and distinct legal system in Scotland, and we have a range of devolved responsibilities. We have responsibilities for delivering large parts of the agenda in the Bill, particularly on the Prevent side. Once again, we have seen an almost total lack of consultation between this Government and the Scottish Government, who have specific responsibilities for delivering large swathes of the Bill because of devolved competences.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with the 7 o’clock motion, I will come back to him so that he can complete his speech.

Historical Child Sex Abuse

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming: follow-up, HC 203; Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 21 October and 11 November 2014, on historic child abuse, HC 710; Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, on historic child abuse, reported to the House on 21 October, 28 October and 11 November 2014, HC 710; Third Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2014-15, on Child sexual exploitation in Rotherham: some issues for local government, HC 648.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Before we move on to the debate, let me say to the House that this is an important debate dealing with matters that have horrified Members in all parts of the House and people across the country. No doubt Members will wish to express those concerns in strong terms, but I must remind the House of two points. First, Members need to avoid reference to cases that are active before the courts. The sub judice resolution agreed by the House is designed to ensure that what is said in the House does not prejudice fair trials and, where merited, successful prosecutions. It is important that we respect that. In cases of doubt about the status of a case, I would advise Members to err on the side of caution.

Secondly, even if the matters are not active before the courts, I would caution Members to think carefully about the impact of their words before making critical references to individuals. Freedom of speech is essential for the work of this House and to allow us to represent our constituents without fear of outside interference, but it is an obligation on all Members to exercise that privilege responsibly. I am sure that all Members taking part are fully aware of those two points, but I think that as we start this very important debate, we do well to remind ourselves of its context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is quite right about the time he usually takes, that the normal expectation for opening speeches in all Back-Bench debates is 15 to 20 minutes. That is much longer than he usually speaks for, so I am sure he will be able to put his points very eloquently within that time.

[Simon Danczuk]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me start with William’s story. I have changed his name to protect his identity. He is in his late 50s and his wife does not know that he was abused. He believes it would ruin his relationship if she found out. You could not wish to meet a more polite, intelligent and endearing gentleman. He does not look like a gentleman: he has tattoos, his face and skin are weathered, and he is quite dishevelled. William came to see me four months ago to tell me what had happened to him as a child. In 1970, he had been placed in Knowl View residential school in Rochdale, a place for youngsters with behavioural problems. The initial ethos was caring and supportive: the hitting of children was frowned upon and children were to be listened to.

As William pointed out to me, that ethos did not last very long. Within weeks of him arriving, he was being abused, both by teachers and by fellow pupils. Physical and sexual abuse was meted out on a daily basis. From the age of 13, he was bullied and abused, both physically and sexually. Sobbing, he explained to me how he was pleased when a younger boy who was more attractive was placed in the school, because that child became the focus of attention. One day, Cyril Smith tried it on with him, but one of the good teachers saved him. Obviously, at the time, William did not know that Smith was part of a paedophile network operating at the school. It was just one of the networks to which Smith would belong in his long paedophilic career.

William eventually escaped by running away and he has spent the rest of his life working on fairgrounds, an articulate, smart lad whose life chances were limited by his abusers. Needless to say, he is sad and wants justice. Only time will tell whether Greater Manchester police will deliver that for him.

Let me turn to John, who came to my office a few months ago. He suffered a similar fate at Knowl View school. He attacked one of his abusers and ended up going to prison. Years later, he sat in my office seeking help to find accommodation because he was homeless. Abuse had destroyed John’s life.

It is for those people—William and John—that we are here today. They are the survivors. As children, they suffered horrendous abuse. Now, as adults, they are determined to share their stories and bring the abusers to justice.

That desire to get to the truth about child abuse, however, has not been universally shared. We now know that from at least the 1970s up to the present day, there have been not only people in positions of power who have sexually abused children, but powerful people willing to cover up that abuse and obstruct justice. People were more concerned about their own careers and protecting the system than they were about the lives that were being shattered. From the systematic abuse by Jimmy Savile, which has been well documented, to the continual abuse committed by Cyril Smith, which Matt Baker and I have detailed, it is clear that there was a culture of acceptance of child sex abuse by the powerful and well connected.

Amazingly, that attitude seems to have been well known at the time. Indeed, I was recently shown an episode of “Spitting Image” that was produced and aired in June 1987. The sketch mocks Conservative youth unemployment policy by joking that the Government had been very good at

“getting to grips with youngsters”

through their “rent boy scheme” The joke was on the Conservative policy, but it was also on the boys who were raped and abused by politicians.

In addition, we have seen the shocking spectacle of a former Whip, Tim Fortescue, openly telling the BBC that the Whips in the 1970s would help MPs to cover up scandals, including incidents with small boys. It seems that the culture of child abuse around politics was an open secret, yet nothing was done and children continued to be abused.

This problem was not confined just to politics and broadcasters. There are many instances, which I and others have documented, of the police ignoring child sex abuse. Let us not forget that this is the agency charged with keeping children safe, yet there was systematic ignorance by the police of the abuse that was going on.

During my own investigation, Cyril Smith was found to be the subject of multiple police investigations, all of which were dropped. There are many examples of retired police officers offering powerful testimony to me and my staff about past investigations of child abuse. They were shut down once it was apparent that high-profile politicians and other establishment figures were involved. They include Operation Circus, which focused on what was known as the Piccadilly Circus “meat rack”, where men would pick up adolescent boys for sex. Cyril Smith was among the powerful politicians spotted here taking boys back to a flat in north London. Questions must be asked about why those investigations did not continue.

Last Sunday, events took an even more sinister turn and there were allegations that sexually abused children had been murdered and that they involved people with a connection to this House. As shocking as those claims are, I am wholly convinced that we should take them seriously. When responding to the Wanless and Whittam review of missing files at the Home Office, the Prime Minister described those who believed in child abuse cover-ups as “conspiracy theorists”. My view is that those comments were extremely insensitive and I think he will regret them in the months and years ahead. I have to admit that some of the claims that sometimes surround child abuse in that period can seem extreme, but from what I have seen and heard it is not hard to conclude that there was a paedophile network at Westminster during that period. The network organised child abuse and conspired to protect each of its members from exposure. Cyril Smith was certainly a part of it.

Earlier this year, I told the Home Affairs Committee that a dossier containing allegations about child abuse by politicians had been handed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan. That revelation helped lead to the Wanless and Whittam review and to the establishment of the overarching inquiry, but not everybody was pleased with the idea that I might challenge Lord Brittan. The night before my appearance before the Committee, I had an encounter with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). After the 10 pm vote, he drew me to one side outside the Chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day. He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death, as he was unwell.

I understand that people are cautious about naming parliamentarians, but I think that people who might know about child abuse allegations should answer questions, whatever their position. We should not shy away from that.

I move on to the inquiry itself. It is fair to say that we are in a bit of a mess. First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily blame the Government or, indeed, the Home Office, but it is clear that mistakes have been made. What the Home Office permanent secretary told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday is quite revealing. He said that the Home Office had not appreciated the emotional nature of the inquiry when setting it up and appointing the chair. I was pleased to hear the permanent secretary say that this is now one of the top three priorities for the Home Office.

I do not want to dwell too long on false starts and the progress that still needs to be made. Too much time has been lost already. On the chair, however, I understand that the Home Office is now considering 100 names. Clearly, the process will not be quick and I do not think it should be rushed, but we need to get the right person in place. To do that, it is clear that we need more scrutiny and transparency of the appointment process. I am still confused and disturbed by the role of the Home Office in drafting the letter from Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary. On the new chairperson, it is important for the Home Office not to have any involvement in any letter to or agreement with the Home Secretary—it should stay well out of it.

It is now clear that we cannot have another chair with significant links to people who might be investigated in the course of this inquiry. I am pleased that the permanent secretary has said that they are looking “further afield” and considering people from outside a narrow Westminster circle.

The other thing that is clear is that there needs to be a much greater role for survivors. I started my speech with two stories about survivors, to remind the House that this inquiry should always be focused on them. I am sure that meeting groups and representatives will redouble the Home Secretary’s efforts to make sure that the inquiry gets to the truth. It is not enough, however, simply to meet survivors—the Home Office needs to listen to them, too. For example, I understand that at a recent meeting with the Home Secretary, there was a vote on whether the inquiry should be a statutory one. I am given to understand that the vote was unanimously in favour. May I ask the Minister whether these views are really being taken on board?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber for a few minutes. The debate has been going on for some considerable time. The normal convention is that Members should be in the Chamber to hear more of the debate—rather than just a few minutes of the current speech—before they intervene. The hon. Gentleman is returning to the House and he should know the courtesies of the House well. He should not need to be reminded of them.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is welcome to intervene on me whenever the appropriate time comes.

I want to give the House some specific information relating to the inquiry that we are talking about. I also have some questions and suggestions for the Home Secretary and for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is here in her place. First, we need to know that the Home Office has instructed all Ministries and Government agencies—including the security services, the NHS, police forces, local authorities and schools—not to destroy any documents that are even remotely connected to child sex abuse. I might be wrong, but I believe that if this were a statutory inquiry, that would already have been done. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that important point.

The Home Secretary has been firm about the security services needing to hand over evidence, but she has not explained how that has or will be done. This may not even be necessary, but it is worth considering empowering the inquiry to compel the security services to hand over information in the event that that becomes necessary. The selection of the inquiry chair has been discussed, but it is crucial. I accept that whoever the chair is they will be the chair of a panel and the panel as a whole will have a role to play. I would like to understand better exactly how the chair will be selected, how MPs are going to be consulted on that and how survivors are going to be consulted. I very much hope the panel will have a role in the chair’s selection.

There are fears, some of which have been expressed today, that the police lack adequate resources to carry out the necessary investigations, particularly now that this has moved into a murder inquiry. I know that the police inquiries have already moved up quite a few notches since this inquiry was announced, and I do not think that is a coincidence. I believe that police numbers on Operation Fernbridge and associated investigations have grown from seven to 40 in the past few months, which is very good news. I hope that trend continues and that the police are given all the resources they need to get to the bottom of this, once and for all.

Historically, however, the police have been part of the story, just as MPs, celebrities and everyone else has been, and it is imperative that people coming forward have absolute confidence that they will be heard and that leads will be correctly followed up. So, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), it must be made clear how the inquiry that will be looking at the processes—the cover-ups—will handle allegations and ensure that they are picked up properly by the appropriate police force.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. There will be a seven-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches in today’s debate. We will start with seven minutes, but it might be necessary to reduce the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I do not expect to hear you, Mr Carswell, continually shouting across the Chamber at Members who are speaking, as you just did to the previous speaker. Just because you are sitting further away from me than you did in the past does not mean I cannot hear you, and I would be grateful if you listened to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend says that it is very easy for people to get from one country to another and that we need to do something about these crimes. Surely the solution would be to make it much harder to get from one country to another. What we should be doing is stopping this free movement of people which is allowing all these criminals to come through our border controls daily with impunity. Surely that is what we should be dealing with.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are very short of time, and I am trying to protect the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who has been waiting patiently to speak. Taking interventions from people, however eminent, who have just entered the Chamber in the past few minutes would not really be fair on the final speakers.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. All I would say is that often such people are evading our border controls, so it is a lot more complicated than my hon. Friend says.

I have witnessed at first hand, in the ports in my constituency, just how difficult it is for Border Force and for the police to tackle the activities of serious and well-organised international criminal gangs, and that work relies on international co-operation. Members will recall that only last summer a metal container containing a number of fleeing Afghan Sikhs was intercepted at Tilbury. Anyone who spends an amount of time in a poorly ventilated metal container is dicing with death—they are playing Russian roulette with their life. They have to be desperate to do that and there are people willing to exploit that desperation and make considerable sums out of them. We are not going to be able to tackle that kind of people trafficking without having good, strong international co-operation. In witnessing that incident, it was impressive to see how quickly arrests were made, and that was very much due to the co-operation between law enforcement agencies in the various ports that that container had travelled through. In that event, the perpetrators came from within our own jurisdiction, but that is not always the case. Such people trafficking is happening every day, and we have to get a lot sharper and smarter at dealing with it. These measures will be an important tool in doing so.

I am grateful for the changes the Government have made to the European arrest warrant, which go a long way to tackling many of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about people’s liberties and the need to make sure that people will not be extradited for offences that would not be offences in this country. I feel strongly that we will be vigilant about that, that we will make sure the process continues to operate in a way that underlines the need for justice, and that we will always be vigilant in protecting the liberties of our own subjects. The reality is that the EAW will be deployed only in dealing with the most serious crime—murder, manslaughter, rape, terrorism, war crimes and people trafficking. Much as I dislike the EU, I am not going to get in the way of justice for victims of such offences, and let perverts and murderers walk free.

There are some outside this House who would rather engage in an ideological war about Europe than do what is necessary to keep our people safe—I am not in that category. If I thought these measures were not necessary, I would not support them. There is a very real debate to be had about our relationship with Europe, and it is one that Conservative Members are determined to have before letting the people decide in a referendum. In the meantime, lets give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to do the job to keep us safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a most powerful speech; he has persuaded me tonight to vote against this measure. As a good Tory, I always vote against Opposition motions anyway. Will he expand a little more on his point?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak briefly so that we can get to the wind-ups. I am afraid that his hon. Friend has shaved a minute off his time; he has 47 seconds.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Habeas corpus is at risk. We also risk bringing in the European public prosecutor, because if that body is created—and it is under discussion—we will find that it can get the member states that join to issue arrest warrants, circumventing the protection that we have in our own law and the referendum lock. Of absolutely crucial importance is this issue of mutual recognition. Once we start with mutual recognition, we then set similar standards, and our justice will have crept away. The arrest warrant is very dangerous; it is against Tory party policy. The procedure has been dreadful and we should defeat it this evening.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Offence of exploitation—

‘(1) A person commits an offence if they exploit a person by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person.

(2) A person may be in a situation of exploitation whether or not—

(a) escape from the situation is practically possible for the person; or

(b) the person has attempted to escape from the situation.

(3) The consent or apparent consent of the person of the exploitation is irrelevant where any of the means set forth in section 9(1) has been used.’

New clause 24—Human trafficking—

‘(1) Any person who for the purpose of exploiting a person or persons—

(a) recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives a person including by exchange or transfer of control over that or those persons;

(b) by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person,

commits an offence of human trafficking.

(2) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsection 2(1)(a) or to the exploitation shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subsection 2(1)(b) have been used.’

New clause 20—Control of assets related to modern slavery offences—

‘(1) In section 40 (Restraint orders) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after subsection (9) insert—

“(10) In the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court shall presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.”

(2) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to—

(a) presume a freezing order will be granted within 24 hours in respect of assets where the court is satisfied that—

(i) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that some of those assets have been obtained as a result of an offence under this Act, and

(ii) those assets are over and above those reasonably required for living and business expenses.

(b) confer on the police power to issue a notice on financial advisers and institutions placing a duty of care on those institutions in respect of movement of assets that might hinder an investigation into an offence under this Act.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to provide that assets recovered in respect of an offence under this Act shall be paid to one or more of—

(a) the police and/or,

(b) the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and

(c) the victim or victims of the offence.

(4) The court will require an asset declaration from anyone subject to a restraint order within 24 hours in respect of any financial interests in assets held in whole or in part in the United Kingdom and in overseas territories. In the event of a false declaration, this will be treated as an aggregated factor in the setting of any future penalty.

(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless laid before in draft and approved by both Houses of Parliament.’

New clause 21—Civil remedy—

‘(1) An individual who is a victim of an offence under section 1, 2 or 4 may bring a civil action against the perpetrator in the County Court and may recover damages and reasonable legal costs.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “damages” shall include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s services or labour or the value of the victim’s labour as guaranteed under the national minimum wage guarantees of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.”

This provision creates a civil remedy for victims of trafficking, to allow victims to pursue a civil claim for compensation directly from the trafficker in the absence of a criminal prosecution.

Amendment 132, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(c) the person exploits another person within the meaning of section 3(4), (5) or (6) of this Act and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is being exploited.”

Amendment 135, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) it is irrelevant whether a child consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and

(b) a child may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—

(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or

(ii) the child has attempted to escape from the condition.”

Amendment 136, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) it is irrelevant whether a person consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and

(b) a person may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—

(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or

(ii) the person has attempted to escape from the condition.”

Amendment 133, page 1, line 17, after “labour”, insert “or is being exploited”

Amendment 143, page 2, line 3, at end add—

‘(5) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsections 1(1)(a) or 1(1)(b) shall be irrelevant.”

Amendment 152, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 2.

Amendment 134, page 2, line 30, clause 3, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of section (1) a person is exploited only if one or more of subsections (4), (5) or (6) of this section apply in relation to the person.”

Amendment 151, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert—

00 “Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

In section 69, subsection (2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, after “debt owned by the Crown”, insert—

“(e) in the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court must presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.””

Amendment 138, in clause 41, page 29, line 29, at end add—

‘(9) A child is not guilty of an offence if—

(a) he or she was under the age of 18 when the act which constitutes the offence was done; and

(b) the offence was integral to or consequent on the trafficking, slavery or exploitation of which he or she was a victim.”

This amendment aims to ensure a child victim of trafficking is not obliged to prove they were compelled to commit an offence before being able to access the protection of the statutory defence in line with international standards.

[Diana Johnson]

New clause 3 and new clause 4 seek to introduce specific offences for child and adult exploitation, and I would like to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.

The Bill fails to cover cases of severe labour exploitation, and many recent high profile cases show we need specific laws to tackle it. New clause 3 would also help to stop workers being exploited and paid below the minimum wage, which is often a driving force behind local businesses being undercut by unscrupulous employers. The new clause would be a historic measure that would, for the first time, make the exploitation of workers, adults and children an offence. Importantly, it also addresses what has been described as “a lacuna” in the Bill, which fails to recognise the specific nature of exploitation of children in the UK and fails to address the issues that have led to so few successful prosecutions for child trafficking and slavery. This grouping incorporates a series of amendments from all parties with a common aim—to enable more prosecutions for trafficking, slavery or exploitation. This is exactly in line with what the Minister said repeatedly in Committee about getting more prosecutions.

At this stage, the Opposition are focusing specifically on the offences of exploitation, even though in Committee we tabled or supported many of the other amendments that have been tabled today. We support their aims and hope to return to them in the other place.

The Government claim that the Bill will enable more prosecutions. To do so, it transposes existing offences from three pieces of legislation into a single Bill. The Bill maintains the current offence of holding someone in slavery and merges two existing offences of human trafficking into a single offence of human trafficking. To secure a prosecution for human trafficking, it is necessary to show that X was trafficked and that this trafficking was done for the purposes of exploitation. It is important to stress that, because nothing in the Bill deals with the structures of these offences or the very high threshold needed to get convictions. In short, I do not think there is anything here that will enable more prosecutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind Members that, as a result of the timetable set by the Government, the debate on this group of amendments and new clauses must end at 4 pm, and I must allow time for the Minister to respond. I should be grateful if Members would bear that in mind when making their speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Field]

I also wish to speak on that theme, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know you will be pleased to hear that we will not press the matter to a vote, but we hope that the Minister will pick up the idea and translate it into effect in the other place. The change involved would be quite simple. The whole House agrees that we want to get more money back from these evil people. At the moment, we can start the process of freezing assets on the day the investigation begins. However, we have to prove that the person with the assets is likely to dissipate them around the world. The proposed change would mean that any agency attempting to freeze assets under the provisions of this Bill—which I hope will soon become an Act—would not be required to meet any threshold of proof that the person would otherwise dissipate them. That would make a huge difference to the number of people we hope will be prosecuted, as they could then have their assets frozen. There would then be a ready source of moneys with which the Government could make good on their wish to compensate the victims of slavery. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) —as I call him on many of these occasions—has pointed out, those moneys could be used to help to pay for the policing involved, which would make the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 more effective.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Before I call Mr David Burrowes, I must ask him to bear it in mind that we have one more speaker on this group of amendments. If he and Mr Durkan could each speak for about four minutes, that would give the Minister time to reply before 4 o’clock.

[Mr Burrowes]

I rise to commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), particularly for his new clause 20, which I support. Many have said that we need to follow the money, but we also need to recover it and ensure that it gets to the right places, not least law enforcement agencies. I am aware from previous discussions about proceeds of crime that it becomes a territorial issue, not least within the Government. It is important, and it is very much in the Minister’s and Department’s self-interest, to ensure that the money is recovered and that it goes where we want it to in law enforcement. So I very much commend the purpose of the new clause.

I will speak briefly to amendments 132, 133 and 134, continuing the debate we had in Committee about the importance of recognising and prosecuting exploitation, whether or not a person has been trafficked, and where the form of exploitation cannot be construed as slavery, servitude or forced labour. I will not go over old ground. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter following the debate, where she sought to reassure the Committee that such situations are covered by the definition of “forced labour” in European Court of Human Rights case law and the Court’s understanding of that as “all work or service.” My concern is that we should not just rely on European jurisprudence and we need to take the opportunity to have clarity in the Bill, not least for front-line officers, who are trying to use all the tools in the box. We will have the guidance that the Minister says is going to come, but we need greater clarity on the wider understanding of “exploitation”.

The Minister also provided reassurance by saying that situations of begging, benefit fraud and petty criminality can be covered by prosecution for other offences. I hear that, but I have concerns relating to those other offences, not least those involving assisting or encouraging another offence, for example, begging or theft. That would mean that to prosecute exploitation we would be relying on construing the victim not as a victim, but as an offender, aided or encouraged by their exploiter. We recognise that the victims are the victims, and we need to ensure that “exploitation” covers the entire range of modern day slavery. Further work can be done on that, perhaps in the other place. She also said that other penalties can be attracted, but I am not convinced that they are sufficient, given the nature of these offences. So I ask for further consideration of a wider construction of “exploitation”. We also need to ensure, as my proposal seeks to do, that that construction covers the nasty exploitation of children. We have the definition of exploitation in clauses 3(5) and 3(6) and this is about widening the construction in the way that the Minister and all of us want, particularly in relation to children.

Finally, I wish to flag up the issue of consent. That is a live issue, where work still needs to be done. We all agree on the law; the issue is whether it should be explicit in the Bill, avoiding the Minister’s concerns about it getting in the way of prosecution and about relying on evidence where consent is an issue, but making it clear that what we all say—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 16—Accommodation operated by gangmasters—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this Act being passed bring forward regulations to require gangmasters providing, or soliciting a third party to provide, accommodation to a worker to—

(a) agree and keep of a copy of a tenancy agreement with the worker;

(b) provide and keep copies of receipts for any rent paid by the worker to them; and

(c) keep a rent book recording rent due and paid.

(2) In section 7 of the Gangmaster (Licensing) Act 2004 after subsection (5) insert—

“(6) It shall be a condition of holding a license under this section that the gangmaster provide on request to the Authority or a local authority the documents required under regulations made under section (Accommodation operated by Gangmasters) of the Modern Slavery Act 2014.”

(3) The Authority and police shall have the right of inspection of tenancy agreements held by letting agencies where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a number of properties are let or sub-let by the same individual to multiple workers.”

New clause 17—Gangmasters: offences, financial transactions—

In the Gangmaster Licensing Act 2004 after section 13 (Offences: payments to or by gangmasters) insert—

“13A Offences: gangmasters, financial transactions

(1) This section applies to a person who is acting as a gangmaster in respect of a worker (“W”).

(2) The person commits an offence if whilst acting as set out in subsection (1) they make a payment to W that is not made either—

(a) by a cheque which under section 81A of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is not transferable, or

(b) by an electronic transfer of funds (authorised by credit or debit card or otherwise), or

(3) The person commits an offence if—

(a) whilst making a payment to W in respect of work they do not keep a record of the payment and the hours worked for which the payment is due, or

(b) if they do not produce such a record when required to by either the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or the police.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2) to permit other methods of payment.

(5) In this section making a payment includes payment in kind (with goods or services).

(6) If a gangmaster pays a worker in breach of subsection (2), each of the following is guilty of an offence—

(a) the gangmaster;

(b) if the payment is made with the knowledge of the person to whom the gangmaster is supplying W, that person; and

(c) any person who makes the payment acting for the gangmaster.

(7) It is a defence for a person within subsection (4)(a) or (b) who is charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person—

(a) made arrangements to ensure that the payment was not made in breach of subsection (1), and

(b) took all reasonable steps to ensure that those arrangements were complied with.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

New clause 18—Provision of fixed penalty notices for gangmasters—

‘(1) The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 12 (Offences: acting as a gangmaster, being in possession of false documents etc.) after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for fixed monetary penalties to be applied for an offence under this Act where—

(a) the offence is of a lower level of severity, and

(b) slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour is not a contributory factor in the offence.

(4B) Regulations made under subsection (4A) shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless laid before in draft and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””

New clause 19—Investigation of modern slavery offences by Gangmasters Licensing Authority—

‘(1) In section 1 (The Gangmasters Licensing Authority) after “holding licences under this Act,” insert—

“(c) investigate offences under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2014, and related offences of fraud, where those offences involve gangmasters,

(d) investigate offences under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2014, and related offences of fraud, where those offences are alleged to have been committed by a person licensed under this Act, whether or not the offence was committed in their capacity as a gangmaster,”

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer powers on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in order to investigate offences under this Act.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) shall include provision to require financial institutions to disclose details of financial holdings to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or the police in pursuit of an investigation of an offence under this Act.

(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless they have been laid before in draft, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 2—Protection from slavery from overseas domestic workers—

‘(1) All overseas and domestic workers, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—

(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;

(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period up to 12 months as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves adequately without recourse to public funds; and

(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”

New clause 6—Procuring sex for payment—

‘(1) A person commits an offence under this section if he or she procures sexual intercourse or any other sexual act, whether for himself or for another person, in return for payment.

(2) A “payment” includes—

(a) payment that is promised or is given or promised by another person; and

(b) provision of non-financial benefits, including, but not limited to, drugs or alcohol.”

New clause 7—Strategy on assistance and support for exiting prostitution—

The Secretary of State shall, at least once in every year, publish a strategy to ensure that a programmes of assistance and support is made available to a person who wishes to leave prostitution.”

New clause 22—Prostitution and sexual exploitation—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the links between prostitution and human trafficking and sexual exploitation in England and Wales.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons;

(b) the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against those trafficking people for sexual exploitation; and

(c) the extent to which alternative legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the European Union, including Northern Ireland, have been effective at reducing sexual exploitation and the number of people trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

(3) The review under subsection (1) must be completed and a copy must be laid before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent.”

New clause 23—Consultation on prostitution, sexual exploitation and trafficking—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a statutory consultation on the introduction of legislation prohibiting the procurement of sex for payment.

(2) The consultation in subsection (1) must seek to ascertain the degree to which the prohibition of sex for payment would—

(a) reduce the number of people sexually exploited in England and Wales;

(b) reduce demand for sexual services from sexually exploited persons in England and Wales;

(c) reduce the number of people trafficked into England and Wales for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

(3) In undertaking the consultation in subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—

(a) seek the views of those who work with trafficked and exploited persons in England and Wales;

(b) seek the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers; and

(c) allow submissions from members of the public.

(4) The consultation must be completed and a summary of the results laid before Parliament within six months of the date of Royal Assent.”

Amendment 1, page 45, line 21, at end insert—

“Street Offences Act 1959

‘(10) Omit section 1”

[Mr Hanson]

New clause 1 and the other amendments in this group address a wide range of issues that are linked by the terminology of exploitation but cover different aspects of concern. They include my suggestions on gangmasters; comments and suggestions on the same topic by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay); how we deal with overseas domestic workers; and a wide ranging group of amendments on how we deal with the sensitive, difficult and challenging issue of prostitution. I will cover a number of issues, and I hope I do justice to them and set out the official Opposition’s position.

New clause 1 revisits an issue that we discussed intensely in Committee: the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We considered a number of things to do with extending the role of that authority, and in the light of those discussions the new clause simply establishes that

“The Secretary of State may by order amend section 3 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004”

to include other areas of work should a future Secretary of State determine that exploitation, modern slavery or trafficking was taking place. It gives the Secretary of State power to do that by order, rather than having to introduce new legislation.

UK Drugs Policy

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

You are of course a criminal—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I am not a criminal.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are certainly not a criminal, but others may well be criminals if they take drugs or alcohol and put members of the public in danger as a consequence. They are criminals, but just taking a drug or drinking something does not make them criminals.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If we look at the difference between recreational drug usage and smoking, we will see that the harm is so much greater with smoking. For every 1,000 smokers who are admitted to hospital, 123 of them are suffering from health problems directly caused by smoking. If we look at 1,000 drug users who are admitted to hospital, only two of them are there because of the use of illegal drugs. We have at least one drug in this country—we could add alcohol to the list —that is far more dangerous than anything that anybody uses by way of recreational drugs or other illegal drugs. We must focus our attention on dealing with that as a health problem rather than as a criminal problem.

Let me come back to one of my opening propositions, which is that the war on drugs has been lost. A survey of the public earlier this year proves that that is not just my view. It is the view not just of the world leaders who used to hold office to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred, but of 84% of people in this country. It is true that only 39%—up from 27% in 2008—of those in the same survey believed in the widespread decriminalisation of illegal substances. The likely reason for that is the hangover from the debate that we have not been having in this country for the past four decades. We have not had a national debate on this issue, which is why people have not turned their minds to the question of whether some form of liberalisation, some different approach, taking into account the detrimental health effects, is the right way forward.

As the hon. Member for Newport West said, what is the point of this war on drugs? If it is to prevent people from taking substances that may harm them, plainly it is not working. According to the most recent crime survey for England and Wales, 2.7% of adults had taken class A drugs in 1996 compared with 2.6% now—statistically not significant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in her place, referred to the fact that there has been a seeming reduction in cannabis usage among young people. There are many reasons for that, one of which might be the tougher line that has been taken on cannabis by the Government, which has driven people into using so-called legal highs, on which the Minister has today published his report.

If we talked to criminal justice professionals—judges, the police and probation officers—we would learn that they do not support the war on drugs. It is a war that has been lost. If we acknowledged that fact and looked at the experience of Portugal and the other jurisdictions that have liberalised their drug regimes and taken away criminal penalties for small amounts of possession, we would free up enormous resources for the police. More importantly, we would free up enormous financial resources for the treatment of those who are addicted to these substances. Therefore, I venture to suggest that I am correct in my first proposition—I think the Minister will agree with me—that the war on drugs has been lost and that we must look very carefully at a new policy.

My second proposition was that the health outcomes of existing policy are at best poor. In fact, what also happens is that society is harmed by existing policy. We know that funding a drug habit is not a cheap business. It increases crime, particularly acquisitive crime. Drug dependency is therefore one of the drivers of crime in this country. Home Office figures for 2003-04 show that the annual cost of drug-related offending is £13.9 billion, £9.9 billion of which goes to the victims of crime. The other £4 billion of public money is being poured into the criminal justice system every year to deal with the issue. If that £4 billion were taken away from the criminal justice system and put into the health system to try to encourage better outcomes, we would not only get something better for those who use illegal substances and for society, but achieve a reduction in the total amount that has to be spent.

If existing policy is not deterring drug use and drug dependency, it is leading to crime, and that cannot be in anybody’s interests. A great deal of money is evidently being wasted, and it is money that, in these times of austerity, should not be wasted.

Let us turn now to the health of those who take illegal substances. By criminalising them, are we dealing adequately with them? Many young people who take drugs have no idea not only what they are taking, but what the effects might be. Those who are standing in a nightclub at 1o’clock in the morning having consumed, no doubt, a large amount of vodka are much more interested in getting the pill than they are in what is in the pill. What is in the pill is not always what people have been told. They might be told that it is MDMA when it is some other entactogen that has not been tested on humans. It may be rat poison, or it may even be harmless. Even if someone does know that the pill they are about to pop is ecstasy, there is no guarantee that they are aware of its potential effects. Although there are admirable websites such as Talk to Frank, not many young people necessarily go on them. Not everyone knows about the risks of these drugs or how to mitigate those risks. We know that from some of the tragic cases that we have seen in the past of users taking excessive amounts of drugs in clubs and elsewhere.

Let us consider those who inject their drugs, and look at the comparative treatment in other places, and the experience of the criminal justice system in Georgia. Georgia reduced its prison population from 24,000 to 10,000 by taking out of prison those who had been put there for possession of small amounts of drugs. The first result of that was a massive saving to the taxpayers who fund the Republic of Georgia. Much more importantly, there was an incredible improvement in the health of the prison population. Deaths in prison fell, and there was a significant reduction in the hepatitis C and HIV infection rates among the prison population. I am not sure whether that experience is included in the Minister’s report, but it is another strong indication that we are not doing this right and that if we focused on this as a health issue rather than as a criminal justice issue, we would serve our constituents and our society a great deal better.

Untrammelled use of drugs, especially recreational drugs, fuels disinhibition in those who take them, and that in itself leads to criminal behaviour. We know that that is a significant part of organised crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that 50% of all organised crime in the UK involves illegal drugs, mostly class A drugs. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has said that drugs are the most profitable sector of organised international crime, with a total turnover of $2 trillion in 2009.

My third proposition is that other countries are doing this much better, and that is why the Minister’s views and the report that he and his predecessors, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, have pushed for so hard, are so important. In the limited time available, I will deal only—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member referred to the limited time. Mr Deputy Speaker asked Members to confine their remarks to about eight minutes, so that everyone who wished to speak would be able to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now been speaking for fifteen and a half minutes. I would be grateful if he came to a conclusion.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be quick.

The experience in Portugal is absolutely clear: liberalisation of the regime for small amounts of possession is the way forward. I know that the Minister believes that, and while other hon. Members have pointed to the fact that there are no conclusions in the report, I venture to suggest that that is because they have looked only at the section on Portugal. If they go to page 51 of the report, they will see a section entitled “Observations”. I dread to think of the negotiation that went on in the Home Office to replace the word “Conclusions” with “Observations”. There are four bullet points there. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and anyone who is interested in the issue need to look at the experience of Portugal and those four bullet points, because they are essentially the conclusions of the Portuguese experience. The most important is the second one, which states:

“There is evidence from Portugal of improved health prospects for users, though these cannot be attributed to decriminalisation alone.”

Whether or not they cannot be attributed to decriminalisation alone, what is clear, from all the contributions in the debate, is that the existing regime, contained in the 1971 Act, is not working, and that we need a different approach. That approach, which the Minister is championing today and which is the subject matter of the debate, is a great thing, which I urge the House to think about deeply. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

National Crime Agency

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind those wishing to participate in the debate that we have approximately two hours left before we start the winding-up speeches. I am not going to set a time-limit at present, but I ask for contributions of 10 minutes or less—otherwise setting a time-limit will be necessary. I have also assumed, with apologies to the Front-Bench teams, that the concluding speeches need to be 10 minutes. If that is not sufficient, someone should let me know. I ask Members to take fewer than 10 minutes for their contributions, which should help to ensure that everyone is able to participate.