Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the order was laid before Parliament on 25 June. As noble Lords will be aware, temporary control legislation is a vehicle which enables us to act relatively swiftly to protect the public. It also provides time for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to gather evidence and prepare full advice on the permanent control of such drugs.

The order specifies seven methylphenidate-based new psychoactive substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Government are grateful for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’s continued support in informing the Government’s response to emerging new psychoactive substances sold as so-called legal highs. The advisory council’s advice informed the order that we are considering today.

On 31 March, the then Minister for Crime Prevention received a recommendation from the advisory council under the temporary control provisions of the 1971 Act. The ACMD advised that five new psychoactive substances, related to the Class B drug methylphenidate, were being misused and that their misuse was having sufficiently harmful effects to warrant temporary control. This advice was accepted and a temporary order for the five substances came into force on 10 April 2015.

Following the coming into force of that order, the Government are aware that online retailers immediately withdrew those substances from sale and replaced them with a further two closely related substances. This came to light through the advisory council’s considerations in preparation of advice for permanent control. On 16 June, the advisory council provided further advice on the two related substances and recommended that they should be included in this new temporary order. The ACMD continues to gather evidence to support a full report on these compounds.

The previous temporary order made on 10 April lapsed on 27 June, as there was insufficient time for both Houses to approve the order. The new temporary order that we are considering today came into force on 27 June to replace that order. This order specifies all seven methylphenidate-based new psychoactive substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control.

The methylphenidate-based substances are highly potent stimulants. One of these substances, ethylphenidate, was marketed online as an alternative to cocaine. Their harms are reported to include anxiety, paranoia, visual disturbance, chest pain and a strong urge to re-dose. Other reported harms include bizarre and violent behaviour, loss of fine motor control and high risk of bacterial infection and local tissue damage from injecting.

One branded formulation, Burst, was reported as causing particular problems in the Edinburgh area, including among injecting drug users, who report reinjecting repeatedly. There has also recently been a report of an outbreak of infections in that area associated with the injecting of new psychoactive substances, believed to involve ethylphenidate.

The National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths reported five cases in 2013-14 where ethylphenidate was found in post-mortem toxicology, and another two cases where ethylphenidate was implicated in the cause of death during 2013-14. The advisory council recommended that urgent action should be taken due to the extremely potent nature of these compounds. For these reasons, the Minister for Policing, Crime, Criminal Justice and Victims accepted the advisory council’s advice. The order, which is already in force, applies UK-wide to protect the public. It enables enforcement action against suppliers and traffickers while the advisory council prepares full advice on these compounds.

Under the order, front-line officers have additional powers to disrupt the sale of the substances online and in local head shops by targeting retailers who they suspect of selling temporary class drugs—if not other controlled drugs—including seizing their stock for analysis.

The activity is supported by the Home Office forensic early-warning system, which continues to provide added forensic capability to police forces. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially to young and vulnerable people, that these compounds are harmful drugs. The Government and the advisory council continue to monitor, through UK and EU drugs early-warning systems, these and other emerging compounds marketed as legal alternatives to controlled drugs.

Of course, until the Government receive the full report on these drugs they will continue to update public health messages to inform the public on drug harms, using the latest evidence gathered from early-warning systems. We know that the law change, on its own, cannot deter all those inclined to use or experiment with these drugs. However, we expect the order to have a notable impact on the availability and, in turn, demand for these drugs, as we saw with other substances.

Noble Lords will remember that methoxetamine was subject to temporary control and subsequently controlled permanently under the 1971 Act. We are aware that, on introduction of the temporary order, online sellers of these compounds immediately removed them from sale. Anecdotal reports from Edinburgh, where these compounds were first reported as being injected, also suggest a reduction in the number of people seeking treatment as a result of harms suffered from injecting them.

In conclusion, Parliament’s approval of the order will ensure that it remains in force to reduce the threat to the public posed by these temporary class drugs for up to 12 months, while the advisory council prepares full advice on harms in relation to permanent control. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and reasons for this order, which we support. As he said, the order is a temporary class drug order that can be made if the substance or, in this case, substances are not class A, B or C drugs, and if the Secretary of State has either consulted the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs or received a recommendation from the ACMD that a temporary class drug order should be made. The drug also has to be one that is being, or is likely to be, misused, and that misuse is having or is capable of having harmful effects.

The Explanatory Memorandum sets out the evidence in support of the necessary requirements that have to be met to make this order—which, as the Minister said, came into force towards the end of June and can remain in force for a maximum of 12 months. Having been made, the order requires a resolution of both Houses within 40 sitting days if it is to remain in force.

It would be helpful if the Minister could say why it was not possible for the Government to find time for this order to be discussed in this House between 25 June, when it was laid before Parliament, and 22 July, nearly a month later, when the House rose for the Summer Recess, particularly bearing in mind that the order came into force on 27 June. It is now nearly some two and a half months after it came into force that we are able to consider the order. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response on that point.

One of the purposes of such a temporary order is that it enables a new psychoactive substance or substances to be brought under the temporary control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, while, as the Minister said, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs can make a full assessment of its harms for consideration for permanent control as a drug under that Act. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the provisions of this order and its consequences will be communicated to key stakeholders and the wider public, especially young people. Presumably this has now been done.

Who are deemed to be the key stakeholders and do they differ from those listed as being consulted in paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, headed “Consultation Outcome”? Are, for example, the businesses selling these substances in the legal-highs market, referred to in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, regarded as key stakeholders and thus advised of the terms of this order?

Although the Minister addressed the point in his opening comments, since the order has been in force for nearly two and a half months, is there any information on the impact that it has had on the level of use and availability of the two further related substances now subject to this order that were not included in the previous order? Might implementation and enforcement of the order be resulting, in respect of those two further substances, in the risks set out in paragraph 6.1 of the impact assessment materialising? Those risks are of course in respect of chemical derivatives or alternative new psychoactive substances imitating their effects being introduced in an attempt to circumvent the temporary drug control.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support on this matter. This issue impacts society as a whole and when we are considering such matters it is important not only to discuss them but, where possible, that agreement is reached. We are looking at this particular issue and the challenges that psychoactive substances pose generally as a major challenge for society as a whole.

The noble Lord raised the issue of scheduling and timetabling. While I do not have a detailed assessment, based on my own previous roles in government, including as a government Whip, I can say that this is scheduled according to other parliamentary business and is discussed through the usual channels. The important point to bear in mind is that we proceed with this order now, as the noble Lord acknowledged, and do so in a timely fashion.

Turning to the noble Lord’s question about communication—again, a very important point—included within “key stakeholders” are the ACMD, the Department of Health, BIS, industry and the MHRA. It is important that all key stakeholders that were part of the initial consultation are included in the communications that have taken place. The noble Lord also asked about the additional two substances or derivative products that were subsequently included. I will write to him about specific issues or evidence that have been raised.

I also stress that tackling the legal high market continues to be an important priority for this Government and the advisory council’s work programme. Noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s action to ban the supply of psychoactive substances for human consumption for their psychoactive effect through the Psychoactive Substances Bill. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill completed its passage through this House before the Summer Recess and has now been introduced in the House of Commons. When in force, the Bill will give powers to the police and other enforcement agencies to enable them to disrupt the supply of these dangerous and harmful compounds, including tackling their availability on the internet.

The legislative action is supportive of the long-term strategic objectives—many of which I know noble Lords share—set out in the Government’s action plan: to reduce demand by raising awareness of the harms of psychoactive substances; to make it difficult to obtain and supply those that pose risks to health; and to ensure that statutory services are able to effectively provide treatment and support recovery. Our balanced approach to tackling psychoactive substance misuse includes the development of toolkits on prevention, and programmes on treatment such as NEPTUNE. We have also taken action in response to the New Psychoactive Substances Review Expert Panel’s recommendations to help local areas prevent and respond to the use of new psychoactive substances, including guidance on taking action against the head shops I mentioned earlier. We have acted swiftly on the advisory council’s advice to make the temporary class drug order presented today to protect the public from the potential harms of these substances.

We are committed to a drugs policy that is informed by evidence of harm and the advisory council’s expert advice. Our duty as a Government is to consider this advice in light of all the information made available by drugs early warning systems to ensure that our response is proportionate to the threat posed by emerging drugs. As I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge, the UK continues to lead international action to tackle the emergence of new psychoactive substances. Our efforts, supported by key partners, led to the international control of mephedrone by the UN in March this year. We continue to share best practice on a balanced approach, including recently sharing our world-leading treatment guidance with our international partners. We also continue to work with our key partners on a list of new compounds that are causing concern, with a view to the UN subjecting these compounds to international control in due course. I hope that noble Lords will find that this legislative measure is conducive to ensuring that ultimately the public are protected from the harms of these new psychoactive substances, and I therefore again commend the order to noble Lords.

[Lord Rosser]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I come back to my question about who the key stakeholders are? Paragraph 8 refers to who is consulted. Paragraph 9 states:

“The provisions of this Order and its consequences will be communicated to key stakeholders and the wider public, especially young people”.

Paragraph 10 makes reference to,

“those businesses selling these substances in the ‘legal highs’ market”.

Does the reference to the key stakeholders—that is, those who will be advised of the provisions of this order and its consequences—include, for example, those businesses selling these substances in the legal highs market, referred to in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (Prescribed Limits Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations will bring in new alcohol limits for professional mariners in UK waters or serving on board UK-flagged ships wherever they are in the world. These limits, more restrictive than those in place today, are aligned with those agreed at the International Maritime Organization to apply to all shipping around the globe, with the intention of improving maritime safety.

Noble Lords will be aware of the vital contribution made by the maritime industry to the well-being of this country. In this London International Shipping Week we are celebrating the fact that 95% of our imports and exports are carried by ship, and that the maritime sector contributes up to £13.8 billion of direct gross value added to the UK economy each year. It is therefore crucial that we seek to ensure the safe operation of this industry, working with shipping and port operators and with other maritime nations around the world. One source of risk that we can tackle together is that posed by alcohol consumption, which can impair the ability of mariners to fulfil safety-critical duties.

On the roads, a driver with 100 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash than is a driver who has not consumed alcohol. If the amount of alcohol is 150 milligrams or more, it is roundly 25 times more likely. The same underlying principle applies on a ship; excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of error and accident. The current alcohol limits for professional mariners were introduced by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and are the same as those applied to motorists in England and Wales—in the case of breath, 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres; in the case of blood, 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres; and, in the case of urine, 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

At that time, there was no internationally agreed alcohol limit for mariners. This situation changed in 2010, when the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention of the International Maritime Organization was amended. For the first time, mandatory alcohol limits for mariners globally were agreed—in the case of breath, 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and, in the case of blood, 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres. These regulations will bring UK legislation into line with the alcohol limits agreed internationally, with the addition of a limit in the case of urine of 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres. In doing so, we will reinforce the importance of these limits in securing the safety of ships, and all those who travel on them.

Furthermore, having common international limits helps to ensure that mariners know what is expected of them wherever they are, and enforcement when people are found to have exceeded those limits, national borders not being visibly marked at sea. The regulations also require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the amendments they make and publish a report of the review’s conclusions. This provision seeks to ensure the continued effectiveness of the alcohol limits set for professional mariners for the long term. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to maintaining safe navigation around these shores and, indeed, wherever ships registered in the UK may sail. These new limits on mariners’ consumption of alcohol are an example of how we are doing this in co-operation with our international partners. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Once again, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and objectives of this order, which again we support. Before the introduction of the International Convention for the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers in 1978, the training standards for seafarers were established by individual Governments, which almost inevitably meant widely differing standards between different countries. Since it came into force in 1984, the STCW convention has been subject to a number of revisions and this country has supported and implemented all of the previous amendments. The amendments agreed at the STCW Manila conference in 2010 further updated the convention and the code, and included, for the first time, putting mandatory limits on alcohol consumption, instead of an advisory one, for those on watch-keeping duty. These amendments came into force on 1 January 2012, with a five-year transitional period ending on 1 January 2017.

The STCW convention is incorporated into European law, and the new alcohol limits which are the subject of the order we are discussing are covered by a 2012 EU directive. This order changes the UK’s existing alcohol limits for professional mariners to match those now set by the STCW’s watch-keeping standards for fitness for duty by amending Section 81 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. As the Minister said, the levels are being changed to 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood as required by the STCW and EU directive, and to the commensurate figure of 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine for consistency.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the consultation exercise on the Manila amendments, including the ones covered by this order, and indicates that all the bodies consulted agreed that the alcohol limits for professional mariners should be amended to match those set by the Manila amendments. Why does it appear to have taken over 10 months to seek the approval of this House to an order with which, apparently, all those consulted agreed? The transposition note in respect of this order also states, in respect of Article 2 on transposition, that compliance with the EU directive was required by 4 July 2014. I am assuming that was not the deadline date for approving this order, but perhaps the Minister could say what it was we were required to do by 4 July 2014, and whether we met that date.

The Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 4.2 that the limits for alcohol prescribed in Section 81 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 apply to professional mariners only,

“as the provisions relating to non-professional mariners in Section 80 have not been commenced”.

Would the Minister confirm that the STCW convention and code, and the EU directive, apply only to professional mariners and not to non-professional mariners as well? Assuming that to be the case, why have the provisions relating to UK non-professional mariners in Section 80 of the 2003 Act not been commenced for a lengthy number of years? What are the current alcohol limits for non-professional mariners?

The regulations, which, I repeat, we support, deal with a safety issue. Indeed, some shipping companies take a much firmer view on what is an acceptable alcohol limit than those provided for in current or proposed legislation. I am not personally aware of how serious is the problem of breached alcohol limits by professional mariners in UK waters. If the Minister cannot say so immediately, I hope that he might provide some information on how many instances there have been over an appropriate 12-month period of UK professional mariners in UK waters or on UK-registered ships being in breach of the current statutory limits, and how many instances there have been of non-UK professional mariners being in breach of those limits in UK waters.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support of the Government’s proposals and the regulations before us. He is right that this was decided upon by the 2010 Manila conference. For the first time it is being looked at from an international basis, which is very much the right way forward in ensuring that standards are maintained.

The noble Lord raised the issue of this taking 10 months. This was part of the wider effort to ensure we transposed all the Manila amendments. That has taken some time, even though this part was agreed to by the consultees, as the noble Lord mentioned.

On the 4 July deadline, all other parts of the Manila amendments were transposed by March 2015 in advance of the 4 July deadline. The passing of the regulations will ensure compliance in that respect.

The noble Lord raised the issue of non-professional mariners. Indeed, I raised that question myself in looking at the regulations. At the moment, it applies specifically to professional mariners. It is my understanding that the question of whether these rules should apply to non-professional mariners has been consulted upon. Part of the challenge posed during the consultation in the 2000s—I believe during the time that the noble Lord’s party were in government—was how this would be monitored and, more importantly, applied effectively. Nevertheless, as he rightly pointed out, it is an issue that has not been commenced. As far as the Government are concerned, it is an issue that we will continue to look at as we move forward with the new regulations on professional mariners. Nevertheless, he is right to raise that issue.

The noble Lord also spoke on the evidence of accidents relating to alcohol consumption. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch has identified 19 accidents where alcohol consumption played a significant part since 2009. One led to a fatality and two led to the complete loss of a ship. Many of the others presented a significant risk to human life and the marine environment, where it was fortunate that a worse outcome was avoided.

With those responses, and once again thanking the noble Lord for his support, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said in my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, this is an area which I myself raised, and I shall certainly take back his comments. As the noble Lord acknowledged, the challenge posed was that of enforcement. However, he is also right to point out that, whether one is a professional mariner or not, the damage that can be caused by alcohol consumption is very much the same as the impact that alcohol consumption can have on our roads. I note the noble Lord’s concerns in that respect.

[Lord Rosser]

I fully take the Minister’s point that the issue of non-professional mariners has been going on for some years, but do the STCW convention and the code apply only to professional mariners or do they apply to both?

UK Opt-in to the Proposed Council Decision on the Relocation of Migrants within the EU (EUC Report)

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the European Union Committee and the members of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for this report. I will direct my comments to the specific points made in the report and the conclusions set out in the last two paragraphs in respect of the Council decision that the committee retains under scrutiny.

The number of migrants and refugees attempting to reach Europe via the central Mediterranean Sea route has increased considerably, rising from 40,000 illegal border crossings in 2013 to more than 170,000 in 2014. On the eastern Mediterranean route through Turkey to the European Union via Greece, southern Bulgaria or Cyprus, there were just over 50,000 illegal border crossings last year. The EU border agency said in March this year that anywhere between 500,000 and 1 million people were waiting in Libya to cross the Mediterranean.

In response to this major unfolding and all too often tragic humanitarian disaster in the Mediterranean, the European Commission, as the report says, published a proposal just under two months ago for a mandatory emergency relocation scheme in respect of Syrian and Eritrean nationals who arrive in Italy and Greece seeking asylum. The scheme aims to relocate 40,000 people to other member states over the next two years. The EU Committee report notes:

“While the Commission has presented the current proposal as a temporary measure, it intends that it should be a precursor to a permanent and mandatory scheme”,

to be brought forward by the end of this year.

Under the proposal, responsibility for deciding the asylum claim would rest with the member state that accepts the relocated asylum seeker. Doing this would constitute a temporary and limited departure from the usual Dublin system for determining which state is responsible for processing an asylum claim, namely the member state through which the applicant entered the EU. Our opt-in arrangements mean that we decide on a case-by-case basis whether to participate in new EU legislative measures on asylum and immigration. In this instance, the three-month deadline for indicating that we wish to participate in its negotiation and adoption, if that be the case, falls on 27 August this year.

In an article in a national newspaper on 13 May, the Home Secretary said that the United Kingdom would not participate in mandatory relocation or resettlement schemes, since in the Government’s view the schemes would create “pull factors” for further migration, strengthen the incentives for people smugglers’ activities and reduce the incentives on individual member states to ensure effective asylum systems of their own. Indeed, these points were similar to those made by the coalition Government in October 2014 when they supported the ending of Italy’s search and rescue mission in the Mediterranean Sea.

A number of other member states have also expressed their opposition to the introduction of mandatory relocation quotas. The European Union Committee’s report refers to a lack of clarity in the light of the European Council meeting on 23 April this year and the conclusions following a Council discussion on the Commission’s proposal towards the end of last month. In its report, the committee says that it is,

“not in a position to express a view on the relative merits of a voluntary and a mandatory scheme, but we do not understand why the Commission, despite the clearly expressed view of the European Council, should have persisted in proposing a mandatory scheme, which it must have known was unlikely to be accepted by the Member States”.

The report also draws attention to the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum, in which they state their opposition to mandatory relocation and any form of relocation of asylum cases within the EU, and their conclusion that they are minded not to opt in to the proposal. However, as has been said, the committee’s report goes on to say that the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum,

“leaves open the possibility that this position may be reviewed before the deadline of 27 August”,

subject to three factors. These factors are that the proposal is amended to be a voluntary scheme, that there is consideration of how to implement an effective response to the situation in the Mediterranean, and that there is consideration of how the UK can contribute to a,

“response to migratory pressures on some Member States without opting in”.

No doubt the Minister will be updating us on whether the Government anticipate, or are, reviewing their position.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, the committee’s report sets out the reasons why it is not convinced by some of the Government’s objections to the proposed decision, before stating:

“The Government’s approach will do little to help the response to a humanitarian crisis within the EU’s borders”,

and that:

“The reputational risk of a continued failure to act, to individual Member States as well as to the EU as a whole, is great”.

The report concludes by saying that the committee believes that,

“it is in the United Kingdom’s interest to take part in the negotiation”,

of the proposed Council decision,

“and that, should an amended or a new proposal be brought forward giving effect to the European Council’s Conclusions in April and June 2015, the Government should reconsider its position and opt in”.

There is an obvious difficulty in expressing a view about specific proposals that, as I understand it, have not yet been made and conceivably may never be made. We have already said that we should decouple asylum from migration targets, since the considerations in determining our decisions on these two issues are—or should be—very different. We have already said that we would take more Syrian refugees. However, with respect to relocating those asylum seekers who have already entered the EU through Italy and Greece, the responsibility for processing their asylum claims should remain, as now, with the member states through which the applicants entered the EU and not with the member states, including the United Kingdom, that accept the relocated asylum seekers. Neither could we go along with a proposal that told us how many refugees we had to take, since that is a decision that should be made in this country, by this country.

The Prime Minister has announced a modest expansion of the UK’s resettlement programme, particularly for vulnerable Syrian refugees. I conclude by simply asking the Minister: on the basis of what criteria have decisions to date implementing that modest expansion been made? How modest has that expansion been? Are any changes in the criteria being considered?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, on a topic of debate on which there have been a range of views and a degree of passion and contention on all sides, I think that there are some things on which we can express some agreement. First, the report—presented very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, on behalf of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee—is an excellent piece of work. It is thorough and clear in its analysis and its recommendations. It is quite incredible that the committee has managed to produce this report and publish it on 15 July, despite the Commission producing the proposal only on 27 May. I also pay tribute to the business managers for arranging to squeeze the debate in before the House rises for Recess. I think we can agree on all of that.

The second point that we can all agree on is that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, this is a humanitarian crisis that impacts on the consciences of us all. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, mentioned, this is a crisis on a scale that we have not seen in the post-war world. It therefore demands a response. Many noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in particular—reminded us of our proud tradition in this country of providing protection for those persecuted around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about the Ugandan Asians. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked about the Vietnamese boat people, as he referred to them, and to the Kindertransport. I remember my own experience growing up in the town of Gateshead, which may not seem very remarkable to many Members of this House, but it is home to one of the largest and most significant Orthodox Jewish communities in the world and has one of its leading universities, the Talmudical College. The people of Gateshead and Tyneside provided hospitality to people who came there fleeing the Nazi regime in Europe. I say this as someone who had the privilege of growing up there: they enriched our community and still do.

Since the crisis unfolded, the Government have been clear that relocating migrants within Europe is the wrong response. It does nothing more than move the problem about Europe and does absolutely nothing to address the underlying cause of people getting on the boats. It risks undermining control of our own borders and asylum system. The Government have no plans to opt into any relocation scheme, whether voluntary or mandatory.

We have been very clear that the time and attention that has been committed within the EU to negotiating the measure would have been far better spent on implementing long-term and sustainable solutions to the crisis, on tackling the abuse of the asylum system and on building capacity in those member states under pressure. The Government’s view is that real solidarity with other European countries is best expressed through practical co-operation to build capability in the asylum and migration systems of member states struggling to deal with the migratory flows.

The UK will continue to provide concrete support via the European Asylum Support Office to countries such as Greece—which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to—Italy and Bulgaria. In the last three years, the UK has contributed more resources to the EASO than any other member state, totalling over 1,000 expert working days to missions in Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Cyprus. Two UK asylum experts have just returned from EASO-led deployments to Italy, and one has just returned from Rome after a three-month deployment. The UK has made bilateral contributions to a number of countries, including Greece, for example by funding voluntary returns—where £2 million has been spent over the past two years from 2013 to 2015—and asylum programmes, where £600,000 has been spent over the past three years. We are happy to consider further requests for bilateral assistance where that can augment EU-level action.

The extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council on Monday reached political agreement on the amended relocation and resettlement measure. We have not opted into this measure, so did not support it. The Council also reached conclusions on resettlement, although of course there was no formal legislative proposal to discuss there. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said from Her Majesty’s Opposition’s perspective, we have been clear that our contribution to resettlement efforts will continue under national schemes and not under the EU arrangement. I will come back to the noble Earl’s questions on the existing schemes, such as the Gateway, Mandate and Syrian vulnerable persons relocation schemes, a little latter, but we estimate we will contribute through those schemes by resettling 2,200 people over the next two years. That is not a target, but a projection based on current activity. I am glad that the EU is now moving beyond this debate and am hopeful that the focus of our efforts can now move firmly to action where it matters: on tackling the causes of illegal migration and the organised trafficking gangs behind it, and on increasing support and protection in the region for all those who need it.

We are establishing a dedicated law enforcement team to tackle the threat posed by illegal immigration from north Africa. The 90-strong team will bring together officers from the National Crime Agency, Border Force, Immigration Enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service, with the task of relentlessly pursuing and disrupting organised crime groups profiting from the people-smuggling trade. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, was right to talk about the way in which these desperate, incredibly vulnerable people are exploited.

As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, we are leading the way. We are proud of leading the world in tackling modern slavery with the legislation that we passed earlier this year. We see the establishment of the task force as being consistent with that aim. Tackling this issue in the long term can be done only with a comprehensive solution. That means helping the countries these people come from to reduce the push factors, which my noble friend Lord Ribeiro referred to, to build stability, to create livelihoods and to go after the criminal gangs. With a handful of staff based in Europol cells in Sicily and The Hague, and the rest on standby in the UK to deploy to different areas in the region as required, the task force will exploit every opportunity at source, in transit countries and in Europe, to smash the gangs and criminal operations.

However, we also need a Government in Libya that we can work with to address this problem, as the majority of people travel through that country. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, we need to break the link between embarking in unseaworthy boats from north Africa and entering and remaining in the EU illegally. My noble friend Lord Hodgson referred to the example he was given by FRONTEX of the experience in Malta. This form of illegal migration funds organised crime and undermines fair immigration controls by allowing economic migrants unfair and uncontrolled access to our countries. That is not to say that they are all economic migrants—there are incredibly large numbers of vulnerable people. They are a proportion of those coming through the central Mediterranean route, but in the eastern Mediterranean route people are primarily coming from the war-torn areas of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Wherever possible, we should return the boats immediately from whence they came. If we cannot do that, we must ensure that when they arrive on EU shores we stop, fingerprint and screen migrants to control their movement and distinguish between genuine refugees and economic migrants. In particular, we support the idea of establishing hot spots at pressure points along the external border to ensure proper licensing, processing and fingerprinting of arriving migrants. We must ensure that they cannot travel further than their point of arrival and must return them without delay to their country of origin. That means investing real effort in infrastructure and expertise at the most exposed borders. However, it also requires the determination to make it happen, not least from those countries most affected. The scale of the present situation requires even more ambitious thinking and we need greater ambition and momentum on initiatives such as the Khartoum process.

My noble friend Lord Ribeiro asked specifically how we were moving forward with this. There will be a very important summit later this year in Malta—the Valletta summit. As a positive development, this will involve working jointly with African partners. As my noble friend suggested, it is important that we can demonstrate real progress in tackling the migration challenge beyond political announcements. The Valletta summit must help to drive concrete action on the upstream elements of the EU agenda, delivering a comprehensive plan for action. That plan should include increased ambition under current EU partnerships such as the Khartoum and Rabat processes. However, it must also encompass broader initiatives to disrupt people smugglers and traffickers, and efforts to dissuade migrants from attempting the Mediterranean crossing and to address root causes through the development of humanitarian programmes.

The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked me to confirm that DfID would be involved in that, and it is absolutely a key partner. One thing that the noble Lord will understand better than most is the importance of getting different departments involved in this process—be it the Foreign Office, DfID, the MoD or the Home Office—working very closely together. One of the responses to the debate held on 9 July was to say that there should be a cross-ministerial meeting between Ministers in this House to address the concerns that your Lordships have expressed on many occasions, not only in Oral Questions but in debates and in this report, and I am pleased to say that that will take place on 14 October.

The UK will be providing support to all three regional development and protection programmes. There our focus must be on building stability and creating livelihoods. Noble Lords will also be aware that the UK has been at the forefront of the international response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. We have pledged £900 million, making us the second-largest donor bilaterally and our support has reached hundreds of thousands of people across the region. Since the crisis began, we have granted asylum to over 4,200 Syrian nationals, and only last month the Prime Minister announced that we would be expanding that programme.

On that point, it is worth reflecting on the letter sent by James Brokenshire, my colleague in the Home Office in charge of immigration, who I know gave evidence to the Committee and then followed up, I think also quite promptly, with written explanations of points raised there. He made the point that, when we talk about where this country stands internationally in terms of responding to this crisis, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out, despite immense fiscal pressures at the present time, we have ring-fenced and protected our overseas development aid programme at 0.7%—in fact, 0.71%—of GNI. This compares to 0.41% and 0.36% of German and French GNI respectively. In absolute terms, while Germany spent £9.97 billion and France £6.3 billion, the UK contribution was £11.77 billion. That underscores the commitment that we have to protecting the most vulnerable in our society.

I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and my noble friend Lord Cormack to say more about the FRONTEX operation and fingerprinting. Some of the front-line member states fingerprint very few migrants arriving on their shores, contrary to what the Dublin regulations say should happen. As an example of the practical co-operation that is taking place, we have offered to provide support for that for member states.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, asked a number of key questions, which I want to address as I draw my remarks to a close. She asked, further to the Justice and Home Affairs Council resolution of 20 July, whether there would be EU legislation establishing a relocation scheme. After much discussion on the proposal for a council decision establishing the relocation mechanism for Italy and Greece at the extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council this week, the council reached political agreement on the latest text. The negotiations have been difficult, and formal adoption cannot take place until the European Parliament consultation process has taken place. We expect this to be completed in September, and we therefore expect the legislation establishing the scheme some time in the autumn.

The noble Baroness asked what form such legislation would take and on what legal basis it will be adopted. As outlined in the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum of 9 June, the proposed legal basis is Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. She also asked what relation this legislation would have to the European Commission’s original proposed Council decision on the relocation of migrants. We will deposit the text agreed by the Council on Monday; the legislation is broadly in line with the Commission’s proposal of 27 May, with the exception that the numbers of migrants that each participating member state will take is set out in the separate resolution agreed by the member states in the Council on Monday, and is not determined through the mandatory allocation scheme originally proposed by the Commission.

Several noble Lords asked about the ongoing operations by the Royal Navy. We are proud of what HMS “Bulwark” and HMS “Enterprise” have done, as well as the two cutters that are with them, which, with helicopter support, will continue in support of our humanitarian operation in the Mediterranean.

I was asked about absolute numbers in terms of Gateway, Mandate and the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Under Gateway, 6,300 cases have been resettled over the past 10 years, at 750 refugees per year. Mandate has operated since 1995. The Gateway scheme sources the annual 750 quota for refugees from a small number of targeted locations; Mandate is designed to resettle individual refugees from anywhere in the world. The Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme, launched in January 2014, has taken 187 people to date, but I stress that that needs to be seen in the context of 4,200 who have been given leave to remain in the UK.

I hope that in these remarks I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are not insensitive to the immense humanitarian crisis that we are seeing around the world and to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough was right to draw our attention. We are not insensitive to that, but we are simply at a point of disagreement over the actual means of dealing with it, preferring to take the argument much further upstream to prevent the flows, systems, schemes and criminal gangs, which cause people to get on these boats to embark on this perilous journey. That commitment will continue as we go forward.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister mentioned a figure of 187 being accepted. Can he say what criteria are being used to lead to a situation of just 187 being accepted?

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to write with the details of the specific criteria. I would stress that, whereas we agreed through the UNHCR a set of terms for the scheme that we would operate and the ways in which they refer to us, that is in addition to the far larger number of 4,200 asylum seekers from Syria to whom we have granted leave to remain in this country.

With those remarks, I thank the committee for its work and I particularly thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has presented it. I hope that I might have offered some comfort that we have taken seriously the points which she raised and I hope that she may feel able to withdraw her Motion.

Asylum: Sexual Orientation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

A review is going on into the very serious accusations that were made. It has been part of the Stephen Shaw review, which will report shortly. We take those accusations very seriously, and new guidelines are being prepared to ensure that such things do not happen again.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Bearing in mind that the chief inspector made a number of critical observations in his report, including on training, inconsistency of approach, the recording of information and the stereotyping of applicants—as well as the very differing appeal rates for detained fast-track sexual orientation decisions compared with detained fast-track asylum claims as a whole—when is a further independent investigation going to be carried out to check whether the required improvements in dealing with claims made on the basis of sexual orientation have actually been made, as opposed to the Home Office saying that they have, and are actually being delivered?

[Lord Bates]

We have to be very careful that we do not have overlapping investigations. A serious piece of work was done following some very serious accusations by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration last year, and we have undertaken to implement all the recommendations. In addition, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, a further action plan is being discussed with non-governmental organisations. We should allow those to go forward and ensure that the independent chief inspector continues to do his job in monitoring how his recommendations are implemented.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his courtesy and thoroughness in responding to points raised and amendments tabled by noble Lords during our considerations of the Bill, including when the response has been made subsequently in writing. Although reservations about the likely effectiveness of the Bill have been expressed by some noble Lords during our deliberations, I am sure we all hope that, when the Bill is finally passed, it will make a favourable impact on the very real problem that it is intended to help address.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the way that he has conducted proceedings on the Bill. We have had disagreements over how effective we think that this legislation will be, but, as the Minister said, we share the aim of reducing harm. We hope that, with the assistance of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Bill will be further improved in the other place so that the harmful effects that could possibly arise from it are at least lessened.

Surveillance Legislation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

It is a major part of the consideration. I think that we were very interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who talked about the level of scrutiny that was there and the support for the Home Secretary who takes the decision. We recognise that, ultimately, they are the ones with the responsibility, and they are the ones who should therefore have the authority.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In the debate last week on investigatory powers, the Minister said that the Government would come forward with a draft Bill after the pending Recess which would then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister then said that he hoped or thought that,

“the period of time for pre-legislative scrutiny might be shortened, and that the period of time for scrutiny through the House might be quicker than it otherwise would have been had it not been for all the evidence, reports and consideration”—[Official Report, 8/7/15; cols. 235-36]—

now in the public domain. I am sure that that is a perfectly reasonable hope or expectation to have, but can the Minister confirm that there will not be any government pressure to go further than that by seeking to curtail either the pre-legislative scrutiny process or the period of time for scrutiny of the proposed legislation by Parliament?

[Lord Bates]

That is a fair point. We have been around this track several times before. The Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra looked at the communications data Bill and did a very thorough piece of work. We then had the Intelligence and Security Committee report and the Anderson review, which took more than a year to complete. We then had the RUSI review. People are coming together towards a consensus, which should mean that the passage of the Bill, as a result of the diligent work that has gone on before, should be smoother and quicker and therefore we can get the powers to the security agencies that they need to keep us safe.

UK: Population

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, this is clearly not a debate that has, if I may use the vernacular, packed in the punters—to the slight disappointment, I imagine, of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is the only noble Lord taking part who is not required to be here under our normal practices and procedures for holding a debate such as this. Whether that is due to a lack of interest in the subject matter or the fact that it is now well after 4 pm on a Thursday, or some other reason, is a question that I would probably be best advised to leave unanswered.

One thing is certain however: there is no lack of interest in the subject on the part of either the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, or the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Indeed, I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, speak on the issue more than once—I do not make that comment in any critical vein—in debates in the Chamber on, I believe, Home Office legislation. I know that he feels there are serious, basic questions that need answering, as he has made clear very powerfully today. I assume that this debate is about the issue of the size of this country’s population both now and in the future, whether it is likely that the population size will reach a level at which it might become unsustainable and how “unsustainable” would be defined; I assume that the debate is not about the background of people who either currently or may in the future live in this country.

Questions that must arise from this debate on the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, are what is an unsustainable level of population for the United Kingdom, what are the criteria against which we should judge that level, and whether we think we have reached, nearly reached, or are a long way from reaching it? There is also the question of whether the issue of unsustainability or otherwise should be looked at on a United Kingdom basis or on a country or region basis, since the population is not increasing uniformly across the United Kingdom. In the year to mid-2014, for example, the highest population growth was in London—1.45%—and the east and south-east regions had the next highest population growth. I am not aware of the Mayor of London repeatedly telling us that the population of London has become, or is becoming, unsustainable. Indeed, he spends much of his time telling us what a marvellous problem-free place London is—apart from, in his view apparently, the Tube drivers—and giving every appearance of encouraging people to come to London, including to purchase new homes in the capital that they have little intention of living in themselves.

I could make extended comments about the effect on any discussion about population size of promises made before an election to bring down net migration figures to tens of thousands not so much not being delivered but resulting, in some years, in the figure going in exactly the opposite direction. The effect of this is to lead some people to believe that the population of this country must either already be or be becoming larger than the Government think is sustainable. I could also make extended comments about the failure to secure our borders not assisting the situation, including the climate in which any discussion about population size takes place, which, on top of incomplete information for too long about whether those entering the country have or have not left again by the time that they should, means having a Government who apparently do not know how many people are in this country who should not be here. That too generates feeling among some that the population size is or must be becoming unsustainable.

I will not dwell on those points, though, because the size of our population is determined by other factors in addition to migration, including the birth rate and increasing life expectancy—the latter of which I am personally very much in favour of, albeit that I probably need to declare an interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, we have as usual been provided with a very helpful briefing pack for this debate by the Library. The population of the United Kingdom at the end of June last year was estimated to be just over 64.5 million, with the number of people resident in the UK over the year to mid-2014 increasing by nearly half a million, as has already been said. That includes natural growth of just over 226,000—that is, births minus deaths—and net international migration of just under 260,000, with net international migration in the year to mid-2014 being the highest since the year to mid-2011 and up by 76,300 from 183,400 the previous year.

Interestingly, the number of births occurring in the year to mid-2014 is down on that in the previous year, continuing the downward movement seen in births since the peak in the year to mid-2012. The number and proportion of older people continue to rise, with over 11.4 million aged 65 and over in mid-2014, compared to 11.1 million the previous year, with the number of deaths being, as I understand it, the lowest seen for over 50 years. These mid-year population estimates do not account for short-term migrants, whether they be people who come to the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom for a period of less than twelve months.

It is clear from the data that the population forecasts for the years ahead are not about whether the population will increase but the rate at which it will increase. A document from the Department for Communities and Local Government, dated 27 February this year, sets out the 2012-based household projections for England for the years 2012 to 2037. It states:

“The number of households in England is projected to grow to 27.5 million from 22.3 million by 2037, an increase of 5.2 million (24 per cent) over 2012. This equates to on average 210,000 additional households per year. The projected change in household population over the same period is an additional 8.4 million people, increasing the household population in England to 60.9 million by 2037 and representing a 16 per cent change”,

over 2012. The total household population in England in 2012 was 52.5 million. The projected figures through to 2037 also showed a projected total household population for England in 2017 of 54.4 million. The latest statistical bulletin from the Office for National Statistics states that the population estimate for England for mid-2014 is 54.3 million, which is very nearly the Department for Communities and Local Government estimate for three years later than 2014, namely 2017. That suggests that the projections through to 2037 already need updating, unless somebody is expecting a fairly dramatic reduction in the average annual percentage growth in population figure, which seems unlikely.

Of course, the population of this country has risen dramatically over the years and has not been found to be unsustainable or resulted in us grinding to a halt, but rather the opposite. The national infrastructure and public services have been developed to meet the needs of an expanding population and indeed to improve the quality of life of an expanding population.

I do not know how much the Minister will be able to say in response, but I would at least like to ask whether the Government think that the present level of population in the United Kingdom is unsustainable and whether they think that the present level of annual growth in our population is unsustainable. If so, for how many more years do they think that the current level of annual population growth can continue before we reach an unsustainable population size? What is the Government’s definition of “unsustainable”? I also ask whether the Government believe that there is a level of population size for the United Kingdom beyond which any further increase is unsustainable, and if so on what the Government would base that conclusion. It would also be helpful to know whether the Government have any criteria against which they would judge whether any particular level of population size for the United Kingdom, or for any country or region within the United Kingdom, is unsustainable. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the Government are doing or have commissioned any studies or reports on these questions in order to inform future policy decisions.

It seems that unless we can find some generally accepted answers to these questions it becomes very difficult to have a meaningful debate on this issue, because one person’s view on what constitutes an unsustainable population size will differ widely from another person’s view. For some, a significant increase, for example, in the number of houses being built in their country town, and thus the population of that town and the proverbial concreting-over of the countryside immediately around the town, will be seen as an example of unsustainable population growth. For others, almost any likely increase in the population of the country will be seen as sustainable provided the necessary investment is made in the infrastructure and provision of public services to meet the needs of that higher population.

There is also a need to try to achieve rather more accurate projected future population figures, since estimates which are regularly, and rather too quickly, proved to have underestimated the growth in population will not inspire confidence in either government or the ability of government to address properly the issues that arise, and have always arisen, as the population of this country grows, if that indeed is what will continue to happen over the long term in this country. I look forward with interest to the Government’s response to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I mentioned early in my speech that the figure was 91,000 for the coming year for non-EU students. Overstaying is a significant problem that we face. The accuracy of that figure will increase significantly now that we have introduced exit checks at our borders. People who come here to study should study. If they want to come here to work, they should go back and then apply to come back to work here. In fact, from a technical point of view, tier 4 applicants, people who are studying here at bone fide universities, are able to transfer to a tier 2 status, which is graduate-level employment, so that they can continue to contribute to the economy. They can do that directly and there is no limit on the number who can progress on that route. We want to get that message out.

[Lord Rosser]

This debate is now turning into one about immigration, rather than one about what is and is not a sustainable level of population for this country. I referred to the projections of future population. Is it the Government’s view that, if those projections prove right, that constitutes an unsustainable level of population? What is the Government’s definition of an unsustainable level of population?

[Lord Bates]

I hear what the noble Lord says. In essence, I am trying to answer in an indirect way but it is a way that may not be appropriate. I do not think that the previous Labour Government ever set out an arbitrary cap for a future level of population. There are certain things we can control. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said earlier, we are not talking about embarking on some draconian clampdown on reproduction rates, or trying to make some forecast of mortality rates. The thing within our control is the levels of migration into this country, particularly from outside the EU, and that is where the attention of the Government is focused.

[Lord Rosser]

The noble Lord has the projected figures for the increase in population; they are in government publications. Do the Government believe that, if those projections prove right and the population increases in accordance with them, that will mean an unsustainable level of population?

[Lord Bates]

I understand that the noble Lord is doing a good job of seeking to draw out from me a statement that X number represents sustainability and Y number indicates unsustainability. I am trying to say—I agree that it is a slightly nuanced argument even for a Thursday afternoon—that we want to talk about migration levels because, effectively, we can deal with those. He is talking about something in the future which we cannot control. We are interested in dealing with the now.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, the key point is that virtually all future population growth is as a result of immigration. We need to be clear about that. Therefore, as a practical matter, we do not need to say that we want 80 million, 90 million, 70 million or 40 million. If we think the numbers are getting too great and if we understand that three-quarters of the public think that, we have to bring the level of immigration down, as the noble Lord was outlining.

[Lord Rosser]

I agree, to an extent, with what the noble Lord, Lord Green, has said, but what I was trying to establish—and I appreciate that net migration has an impact on the figures, as do birth rates and mortality rates—was whether it is the Government’s view that their own projections constitute an unsustainable level of population. I am unable to get an answer from the Minister as to whether the Government believe that their own figures constitute an unsustainable level of population.

[Lord Bates]

I think I said early on that the Prime Minister has set this as a key priority. He is chairing the immigration task force. If we did not think it was a problem the Prime Minister has many other things pressing on his agenda and requiring his attention. For the reasons I have mentioned, he has rightly focused on an area that he wants to ensure we get a grip on; that is, to reduce the pressure on our public services and all the negative factors, but also balance that by recognising the positive contributions that the right people can make to the UK economy and to our relations with the world.

The Government believe in controlled immigration, not mass immigration. Immigration brings real benefits to the UK and we will always be welcoming to people from around the world. That is why we have that standing that I mentioned in terms of soft power. We also know that immigration must be controlled. When immigration is out of control, it puts pressure on schools, houses, hospitals and transport, as noble Lords have referred to. That is why our policies are aimed at reducing immigration and building an immigration system that is fair to British citizens and legitimate migrants, that is tough on those who abuse the system or flout the law, and that ensures that people come to the UK for the right reasons: to work hard and contribute to our economy and society.

Women: Dishonour-based Violence

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend puts his finger on a key point. When you look at the level of prosecutions, after the legislation has been put through and the initiatives have been announced, we have not got a strong story to tell. The previous Labour Government introduced forced marriage protection orders; as a result there have been some 800 of those orders, which are a civil function. But we very much want to see further criminal prosecutions so that the message goes out that we do not tolerate this type of behaviour at all.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In the light of the answers that the Minister has already given, what resources are the Government providing this year and next to promote measures and action seeking to prevent dishonour-based violence? The support of which organisations or bodies has been secured by the Government in the drive to prevent dishonour-based violence against girls and women in this country?

[Lord Bates]

We have worked on a cross-party basis; the Serious Crime Act introduced new measures on female genital mutilation and the anti-social behaviour and crime Act introduced measures on forced marriage. We have now produced various statutory guidance, which is now available and being promoted to police forces. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is going to undertake a review this summer into so-called honour-based crimes to see what more can be done in police forces across the country. A great deal is being done, but we are not complacent—more needs to be done.

Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring that I am a member of the police service parliamentary scheme committee and I have also taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme itself.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for giving us an opportunity to discuss these regulations. The three speeches that we have heard so far have been eloquent and forceful. I am afraid that is not something I will be able to match, given that much of my contribution will be in the form of questions to the Minister as I am not entirely sure what these regulations mean in practice. I am sure he will be able to provide me with the answers since, as I understand it, these regulations have now been in force for some three and a half months, unless they have somehow been delayed. I hope that the Minister will respond on the basis of his experience of how these regulations are working and the impact they are having.

First, I refer to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is a fairly old report, given that it was published on 26 March this year. The committee stated in paragraph 8 of the report on the regulations:

“The concept of not allowing a closed shop to operate is well established but no-one, including the Home Office, is aware of a precedent for the proposal that members can opt into a ‘union’ and use its services without also paying a subscription”.

I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether he believes that is a fair statement—namely, that the Home Office is unaware of a precedent for the proposal. In fact, it is no longer a proposal but a reality in these regulations. Will he also say why the Home Office felt it was necessary to have this arrangement uniquely for the Police Federation?

As the Minister will also be aware, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee expressed surprise that no estimate of the predicted financial impact of this legislation on the federation had been provided. I am sure that will not be a surprise question for the Minister and that he expected it to be raised. Why was no estimate given of the predicted financial impact of this legislation on the federation, and why did the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee feel moved to comment on that fact? What is the Government’s estimate of the predicted financial impact of this legislation on the federation, since, presumably, they have not embarked on bringing these regulations into force without knowing the answer to that question? Therefore, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would answer the question, which was also raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

If officers previously paid no subscription but then opted to pay one, can they at any time opt back into paying no subscription—for example, in circumstances where they received advice or support that led them to change from paying no subscription to paying one? Can they yo-yo to and fro between paying no subscription and paying one simply to cover the period during which they feel they require advice or support from the federation? Then, once they have had that advice or support, can they immediately opt back into paying no subscription? I would be grateful if the Minister would answer that question.

Can the Police Federation alone decide whether it will provide any level of service at all to officers who join the federation but decline to pay any subscription, or would it be stopped from doing this by these or any other regulations and be compelled to provide some level of service to officers who join but do not pay any subscription? At the moment that is not entirely clear to me from the information in front of me.

Paragraph 10 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report states:

“The Home Office also states that, apart from the provisions about specified matters outlined in these Regulations, legislation does not otherwise set out which members are eligible for what benefit. Further detail on the specific benefits that the Federation provides and the eligibility criteria for these benefits would be outlined in the Police Federation’s Fund Rules”.

That is a direct quote from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, telling us what the Home Office has stated. In the light of that, do the Police Federation’s fund rules have to be approved by the Secretary of State, or is it a matter solely for the federation to decide what these rules say, provided that they do not conflict with the provisions about,

“specified matters outlined in these Regulations”?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for tabling this debate. At this late hour, I have indulged in a quite unique experience of opening my fast at Ramadan at the Dispatch Box, so every day certainly brings a new challenge and a new experience. I also thank all other noble Lords for their contributions on this subject.

I say from the outset, in response to various points made by noble Lords, that the Government—the Home Secretary, all Home Office Ministers and I, as a Minister for countering extremism—recognise the important role that the police service plays across a variety of important areas, none perhaps more pertinent than some of the challenges we currently confront. Along with other Ministers and the Home Secretary, I was with the chief constables only yesterday at a conference where we looked at general policing issues and, more specifically, at some of the issues we face in countering extremism.

Turning to the issue under discussion this evening, the Government’s view is that it is vital that the Police Federation can command the trust of its members and the public. Sir David Normington’s independent review found that the federation had lost trust and it was clear that the organisation required fundamental reform, a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, alluded. I take this opportunity to explain how the amending regulations assist with addressing this issue. In line with the Government’s statutory obligations, these changes were subject to a period of consultation with the federation last year. The Home Secretary was clear in her speech to the federation’s annual conference in May 2014 that the Government welcomed its commitment to implementing the Normington reforms. At the same time, she outlined her intention to make a number of additional regulatory changes to support greater transparency and accountability for the federation.

Since 1919, when the federation was established, all officers automatically become members on joining the police, as has already been mentioned. Every officer from the ranks of constable to chief inspector was compelled to join the federation. They had no choice. The statutory instrument, which came into force on 2 April, ensures that new officers now actively choose whether and when to join the Police Federation at any point in their service. It is therefore their choice. Officers previously had the right to opt out of paying federation subscriptions, and so forgoing certain member benefits or services, but this was not necessarily consistent or clear to officers. The recent changes mean that officers will in future actively choose whether to pay subscriptions and receive the services and benefits to which they entitle them. This in part addresses a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. It is also vital that the federation earn the right to represent its members. These changes, which are integral to federation reform, will help ensure a future where that will be the case.

The unique status of police officers, and their importance to the public, means they cannot join a trade union. The federation was created by statute as the recognised mechanism for representing the interests of officers. However, this should not mean that it can complacently rely on all officers being members. That is why the changes made ensure that the federation cannot discriminate in respect of certain core services it provides to its members based on the date they choose to join and pay subscriptions.

I understand that the federation has objected to this change, comparing it to,

“a driver using an uninsured motor vehicle, having an accident, and then contacting the insurance company for cover after the event”.

This point was raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, there is a key flaw in this analogy. A motorist who is dissatisfied with their insurance company has the option of taking their business elsewhere. This is simply not the case for the thousands of rank and file officers up and down the country who continue to show professionalism, dedication and sacrifice in the line of duty. These changes are about putting power in these individual officers’ hands to influence their federation.

It cannot be right for a federation that fails to command the confidence and trust of its members to be able to hold them to ransom. The ultimate conclusion of the federation’s position is that all officers should become members as a form of insurance, rather than be convinced of the merits of federation membership. That is the opposite of what we are seeking to achieve, which is giving officers the power to decide whether the federation has set out a compelling case for membership. The federation effectively holds a monopoly when it comes to providing support and representation to police officers. It should not be able to use that position to threaten to withhold assistance from any officer who chooses to join later in their service.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, also asserted that this will lead to an unreasonable financial burden for the federation—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—in representing new members who have not “paid their dues” earlier in their career. We would dispute that. Although all subscribing officers should have access to the same support, a member who chooses not to pay subscriptions will continue to have only limited entitlements.

[Lord Rosser]

Does the Minister intend to go on to tell us what those limited entitlements are? Are they the same limited entitlements that I understand such officers are allowed now, and is it provided for in the regulations that they have some limited entitlements? I would be grateful if the Minister could spell out what they are. Are they actually set out in these regulations or are they in the regulations which I think the SI before us seeks to amend?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I will come to some of the specific points the noble Lord has raised. On the exact entitlements, it will be more appropriate for me to write to the noble Lord and other Members. I say to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that one of the issues raised was concern about the financial capacity of the federation to deal with changes that are being made. A review of the federation’s accounts last year found that it currently holds reserves of over £54 million. Indeed, the Normington review also recommended that the federation should reduce annual member subscriptions by 25% per cent, from an average of £258.96 to £194.22, given the level of federation reserves. In the very unlikely event that the federation finds itself in financial difficulty as a result of subscription income reducing, that would surely suggest that it had failed to convince rank and file officers of the merits of membership. That said, with the level of reserves currently held, that is highly unlikely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also talked about a disproportionate response from the Government. In the interests of upholding openness and transparency, the instrument also clarifies the Home Secretary’s powers to scrutinise details of all funds held for federation purposes. Normington was also clear that the federation must convince its members and the public of the good value for money of the work that the federation undertakes.

Finally, at the request of the federation, the instrument also makes provision for it to reimburse police forces for the payment of salaries of members of the national federation’s joint central committee and for the central co-ordination of federation funds. This supports the Normington recommendation that there should be greater national oversight and transparency of federation finances.

If I do not cover all the questions that I have been asked this evening, I shall certainly review the contributions and write appropriately. On what the instrument does, the regulations laid on 12 March covered areas of membership, removing compulsory membership of the federation and applying a duty on the federation to inform new officers that they may opt in. Secondly, officers will pay subscriptions only if they actively choose to, and the instrument applies a duty on the federation to inform new officers that they may opt to pay subscriptions. On the accounts—this is a point that I have already made—it clarifies the Home Secretary’s powers to call in and scrutinise all the accounts held by the federation at national or local branch level, for all moneys held by the federation.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord also asked whether the federation was now required to inform each new officer of the non-compulsory nature of membership. The short answer to that is yes. The recent changes impose a new duty on the federation to inform new officers that membership is non-compulsory. This duty may be satisfied through internal communications to staff, on notice boards and through local representatives.

[Lord Rosser]

How will the federation know who all the new officers are? Will it be told by chief constables, or what? Is it left to the federation to find out who the new recruits are? Will there be an onus on the federation, or on the police forces to tell the federation whom has recently been recruited and whom it should give this information to?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The onus is on the federation. As I said earlier, it is for the federation to make the case for new police officers to say that they need to join the federation and tell them that it offers the services that it does. This is something that the federation will need to do to ensure that officers realise the benefits of being part of the body. Any representative body would have to make that case.

[Lord Rosser]

What the Minister is saying—and I am just trying to get this clear—is that the federation will have to advise any new officer who is recruited into a police force of the fact that they can join the federation but they do not have to and that, if they join, they do not have to pay any subscriptions: it is up to them. The Minister is saying that it is for the local branch of the federation to find out who the management of the local police force has recruited into the force. Surely, there must be some obligation on those who run the police force to tell the local branch federation whom they have recruited and whom the federation then has—as I understand it—a statutory responsibility to advise that they can join the federation but they do not have to. Indeed, if the federation does not do that, it is liable to a penalty. Yet the Minister is saying that it is up to the local federation to find out who the management has recruited into the local police force. Surely that cannot be right; it must be for the management or the local chief constable to tell the federation who the new recruits are.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think that the noble Lord is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that—I said that it was for the federation to make the case for its membership. So I think that he should reflect on what I have said from the Dispatch Box. In his usual style, he has asked a raft of questions and, as I said earlier, on specific areas I shall reflect on contributions made and respond accordingly.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Perhaps I can make my point; I have listened to the points that he has made. Every police force locally and every local branch has a relationship. As it works currently, they will be informed of new recruits joining, and it is for the federation to make the case for new recruits to join. No doubt they will outline the membership benefits at that time. The important thing with these regulations is that they put the choice in the hands of the individual police officer. In any representative body, no matter what profession you are talking about, that is how it works.

[Lord Rosser]

I think that the noble Lord has answered the question. If he had answered it before and I had not heard him, I apologise. What the noble Lord has just said is that the federation will be advised of the new people who have joined the force, and that was simply the question that I was asking: will it be advised by the police force who the new recruits are, rather than the federation itself having to find out? As far as I understand, the Minister has now made it clear that the local branch of the federation will be advised who the new people are and therefore the people that the federation have to advise. That has answered the question I asked.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Perhaps the reason why there was some confusion on my part is that that is how it works now. There is no change. The noble Lord is perhaps pursuing a line that is actually currently the way it works. Perhaps I can move on, given the lateness of the hour, and answer some of the other questions. I assure him once again that if there is anything I have missed, I will seek to write to cover those points.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked whether an officer could still receive benefit if they choose not to pay a subscription, and whether it was in the gift of the federation to decide whether it supports non-paying members. Prior to this arrangement, it was possible for an officer to withhold payment of their subscription, and as a result they were entitled only to a limited number of benefits, dictated entirely by the federation. It is entirely in the gift of the federation to determine what benefits it would provide to members who opt out of paying subscriptions.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that the PFEW is unique, in that members can access services as soon as they opt in. Yes, the PFEW is unique and police officers cannot join a union. As I said in my main contribution, the PFEW is the only organisation they can join in the rank and file and it is absolutely right that police officers, who do a unique job, have arrangements that give them access to strong representation.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what the reference to “each new member” meant in new Regulation 4A(b). The reference is to a new member of the police force, not to a new member of the PFEW. The noble Lord asked other questions and I will seek to review the comments that have been made.

The Government of course value the incredible contribution that police officers up and down the country make and the vital role they fulfil. The relationship between the Home Office and the police remains very strong. It is a constructive relationship, and as I have said on several occasions this evening, it is the Government’s view that it is important for the Police Federation to earn the confidence of officers in order to make the best use of members’ subscriptions and represent them with transparency and integrity. The changes made by the Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015 will assist in that.

The noble Lord Mackenzie asked about the recent PFEW survey and evidence that government policy is leading to low morale among officers. I assure him and all noble Lords that the Government are determined to ensure that policing remains a rewarding, professional and respected career, and our reforms are certainly seeking to achieve just that. Part of that is ensuring that the Police Federation represents its members with both integrity and transparency. I have already spoken about the Government’s strong support for our police forces.

We believe that the changes made by the Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015 will assist the federation in ultimately regaining the trust of its members and indeed the public.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

10: Clause 3, page 2, line 14, leave out “such” and insert “—
(a) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and(b) such other”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I do not wish to speculate on whether it was my eloquence and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee or the letter of 2 July from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that carried more weight with the Government, who have now put their name to an amendment providing for the Secretary of State to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in specific circumstances. I hope it might be the former explanation but I fear it is probably the latter.

The letter from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs stated that the Home Office should amend the Bill so that:

“In keeping with our role in the Misuse of Drugs Act, there should be a statutory duty to consult ACMD”.

Nevertheless, it is one for the record when the Minister responsible for the Bill adds his name to an amendment moved by the Opposition. I thank the Minister for that and for delivering so handsomely, in my opinion, on his undertaking in the debate in Committee on this issue to consider the matter further in advance of Report.

I do not think there is really any need for me to say any more, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, may wish to contribute. But on the basis that the Minister’s name is on this amendment and that therefore he will not be opposing it but supporting it, I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment. We moved a similar amendment in Committee. Obviously, we are very pleased that, for whatever reason, the Minister has added his name to what is now the Labour Party amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has raised a concern about whether it was consultation and the debate in Committee that persuaded the Government to change their mind on this or whether it was the letter from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It is very disappointing that the consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs did not take place at a much earlier stage in the preparation of the Bill, rather than after its publication. It certainly would have saved a lot of time and debate if that had happened. Even now, from the latest letter in the correspondence between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which we saw yesterday, it appears that the advisory council wants further changes and amendments. It is not right that we should have a half-baked Bill presented to this House on the understanding that it does not really matter because, if any deficiencies are highlighted as a result of this late consultation, they can be put right in the other place. We in this House have the right to amend Bills to make them worthy of being passed into law. We should not rely on amendments made by either the Government or the Opposition in the other place when the Bill is first presented to this Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I shall be brief, but we have an amendment in this group, which states:

“Regulations under this section providing for medical research activity to be excluded from the application of the offences under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within one week of sections 4 to 10 coming into effect”.

Something that has been referred to already is the letter that was received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. One point made in that letter was that the Bill could,

“seriously inhibit medical and scientific research on psychoactive substances”.

We have had the response from the Government in a letter to me, in which they referred to the views of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I take it that that includes the views of the advisory council on the Bill’s potentially seriously inhibiting medical and scientific research on these substances. The Government’s letter said:

“So that we can properly consider the ACMD’s advice, we now propose to defer tabling Government amendments on these issues until the Commons stages”.

On the basis that that is still the position—and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are still looking at the matter of the impact on research with a view to tabling amendments in the Commons—that would certainly suffice with regard to our Amendment 23, if the Minister can give that assurance.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for all their points. As discussed in Committee, there is common ground between these amendments and the Government’s position. As I said in Committee, it is the Government’s absolute and determined objective that bona fide medical and scientific research should be untouched by the provisions of the Bill. We will deal with the issue of research on cannabis when we reach Amendment 25.

It is already the case that broad swathes of research involving psychoactive substances fall outside the blanket ban. If a substance is not intended for human consumption for its psychoactive effects, it will not be caught by the Bill. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 exempts investigational medicinal products used in clinical trials. However, I understand, and the Government fully accept, that this exemption does not go far enough. This is an issue of some concern for the academic and scientific community. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred in Committee and again today to the letter in support of her Amendment 12 sent to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary by the Academy of Medical Sciences and five other leading scientific institutions. My noble friend Lord Bates responded to that letter yesterday. I shall read out the critical paragraph in that response:

“We have now had some further discussions with the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council. In going forward, we need to ensure that any amendment to the Bill satisfies the scientific community as represented by the Academy of Medical Sciences and your co-signatories, as well as our own policy and legislative requirements. For this reason, we intend to develop this work in the coming weeks with a view to introducing an amendment when the Bill is considered by the House of Commons. To help achieve this I would value engagement between your representatives and officials from both the Home Office and the Department of Health to reach a common understanding and satisfactory outcome in the next few weeks”.

I hope that that will reassure noble Lords that we are firmly committed to bringing forward an appropriate amendment on this issue, but it will take more time to get it right in consultation with the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and others. We need to ensure that bona fide medical and scientific research is excluded from the ambit of the Bill, while not creating a loophole for others, whose only purpose is the recreational use of psychoactive substances, to exploit.

Amendment 11 is on a different point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in seeking to expand the definition of medicinal products, and therefore the exemption for such products, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The noble Baroness is pushing at an open door here. As I also indicated in Committee, this is another area we are considering further with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

We are conscious that the Bill as drafted does not include unlicensed medicines for human use known as “specials”. These are lawfully manufactured, imported, distributed or supplied for the treatment of individual patients after being ordered by a range of healthcare professionals, not just doctors. As such, they need to be taken out of scope of the definition of a psychoactive substance.

In its letter to the Home Secretary, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs specifically raised concerns about the scope of exemption for herbal medicines. The European Herbal & Traditional Medicine Practitioners Association has also flagged a need to ensure that the exemption for medicines includes herbal medicines used by practitioners on a named-patient basis. This is another area where we are actively reviewing whether we need to adjust the current definitions in the Bill.

Medicines legislation is a complex area, as I know noble Lords are aware, and defining bona fide research is not as straightforward as one might imagine. We have certainly not so far been able to identify an off-the-shelf definition in existing legislation which we can readily apply. It is regrettable that we have not been able to table amendments in time for the House today, and I fear we will not be in a position to do so for Third Reading next Monday. I ask noble Lords to bear with us. We will use the time over the Summer Recess—no holidays for us—to bring forward appropriate amendments in the Commons. I will ensure that noble Lords taking part in this debate have sight of those amendments. Your Lordships’ House will then have an opportunity to consider the issue further when the Bill returns from the Commons in the autumn.

I hope that, in the light of that commitment, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will be content to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

17: Clause 6, page 3, line 20, leave out “or B” and insert “, B or C”

[Lord Rosser]

The purpose of this group of amendments relating to prison premises is to make supplying or offering to supply new psychoactive substances on prison premises an aggravating feature affecting the seriousness of the offence. It was the Secretary of State for Justice who said in the Commons just three weeks ago that,

“there is an unacceptable level of drug use, both of illegal drugs and so-called legal highs, in our prisons”.

In the same exchange, the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place said:

“Thirty-five per cent. of prisoners have a drug addiction and 6% acquire that addiction while in prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/15; col. 737.]

A succession of inspection reports produced by the prisons inspectorate, covering Highpoint, Bristol, Liverpool and Deerbolt prisons among others, has shown high levels of use of synthetic cannabis.

There is a market in drugs in at least some prisons, and it can lead as well to incidents of bullying, harassment and debt. The taking of psychoactive substances can undermine safety in our prisons. It may exacerbate unpredictable behaviour and the threat of violence and, in certain instances, increase the risk of suicide and self-harm. In a bulletin this month, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman wrote:

“The use of New Psychoactive Substances … is a source of increasing concern, not least in prison. As these substances are not allowed in prison, and also because they are difficult to test for, it is possible that in addition to the cases in this bulletin there were other prisoners who had used such drugs before their death”.

The bulletin goes on to look at 19 deaths in prison between April 2012 and September 2014 where the prisoner was known or strongly suspected to have been using NPS-type drugs before their death. Continuing, the ombudsman wrote:

“NPS cover a range of substances, and the precise health risks are difficult to establish. However, there is emerging evidence that there are dangers to both physical and mental health, and there may in some cases be links to suicide or self-harm. Staff and other prisoners may be at risk from users reacting violently to the effects of NPS … Trading of these substances in prison can also lead to debt, violence and intimidation. Once again, this creates the potential to increase self-harm or suicide among the vulnerable, as well as adding to the security and control problems facing staff”.

Drug addiction is a key factor that leads to individuals committing crimes, and if some end up in prison as a result of the crimes that they have committed, they ought at the very least to be in a safe and constructive environment where action can be taken to wean them off drugs and be one part of the process of reducing the prospect of them reoffending when they are released from prison. However, that is not always the case. The prison environment is potentially profitable for a dealer because of the vulnerability of many of the people inside and the fact that it is literally a captive market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I am very grateful for that. Perhaps we should take a little bit more time over this. There are some provisions in the current statutory guidance; for example, if the offence occurs in the vicinity of a school one hour before or one hour after—so the vicinity of a school is defined. My first instinct—this is not our official position because we are discussing this—is that the terminology should be something around targeting any premises intended to locate vulnerable individuals or the supply to such individuals, so perhaps a broader range might be helpful in this regard. That will certainly be contained in that provision. We are going to write to the Sentencing Council. We will wait to see whether the Sentencing Council responds as quickly as the ACMD to letters from the Home Office, but we may have some responses in the latter stages of the Bill as to what its thinking is.

Whether we use the sentencing guidelines or statute to tackle these issues, particularly prisons—and I am very mindful of the examples that were given and, of course, the remarks of my noble friend Lord Blencathra about anomalies—in the current statutory sentencing guidelines aggravating factors include an offence committed while on bail or licence, but there does not seem to be reference to an offence committed while being detained in prison. Of course, that is because the argument is that these are covered by prison regulations but there is no doubt, just as the Children’s Society said, that over the past few years new psychoactive substances have gone from being an issue that was barely ever mentioned to now being its top concern. To have that example given this morning on the “Today” programme, with someone saying that this comes ahead of many other pressures—top of the list of concerns—shows that it is clearly growing in importance. Of course, the intervention of the ombudsman adds to that.

In the light of that and the letter that my right honourable friend Mike Penning will write to the Sentencing Council to ask it to take into account the views expressed in your Lordships’ House in this debate, including on this amendment, about the problem of these new psychoactive substances in prisons and on the prison estate, it may be that there is scope to go further on this issue. But I would be very happy to continue a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about how we might go further, particularly on whether the personal possession of new psychoactive substances in prison should be an offence. I am very happy to look at whether we could go further on that and perhaps look at an amendment that could be introduced later on.

I should also make the point that going down the route of the sentencing guidelines we have laid out here is probably more likely, because it goes with the grain of the current process of advising on sentences and for the courts to have regard to that. We should wait to see the Sentencing Council’s response to my right honourable friend Mike Penning’s letter, which has either gone today or will go tomorrow, and see if there is more that can be done at a later stage. I believe that we are travelling in the same direction here. We recognise that this is a growing problem. We want to deal with it and it is a question of what is the most effective way to ensure that yet again we do not create unintentional loopholes, which are exploited by the people who are the very target of this legislation. In that spirit, perhaps the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Before I respond, could I be clear about what the Minister is or is not offering? Is he offering to come back at Third Reading on this issue? I sense that he is not, but he is the one who has to tell me if he is talking in those terms, which obviously would influence my decision. He has not, as I understand it, made any commitment to provide amendments along the lines we have suggested when the Bill reaches the Commons either. If I have understood him correctly—that he is not offering to come back at Third Reading on this issue of prisons and he is not offering to table amendments along the lines of our amendment in relation to prisons when the Bill is in the Commons—that will influence what I have to say. But I am asking the Minister to say whether he is offering to come back at Third Reading or to table amendments along the lines of our amendment to the Bill when it gets to the Commons.

[Lord Bates]

The principal point, which is about dealing with the issue of prisoners, is partially dealt with by the action that is being taken today or tomorrow—we do not have to wait until Third Reading—which is the letter from the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice to the chair of the Sentencing Council, asking him to take into account the views of your Lordships’ House expressed in these two areas.

The noble Lord will know, from when he was in government, that a certain process needs to be gone through before formal amendments can be laid. To be entirely frank, I doubt whether I can go through all that process of the communication with the different departments and get the clearance to lay an amendment in time for Third Reading. It is likely to be when the Bill arrives in another place. None the less, I hope that the noble Lord might feel that there is enough there, along with our good will in supporting the thrust of what he is seeking to do, for him to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister has not given me a commitment to come back at Third Reading, and I am not surprised. Neither is there a commitment that when the Bill gets to the Commons, amendments along the lines that I am proposing will be put into the Bill by the Government. I think that is a fair summary of what the noble Lord has said.

[Lord Bates]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but he may end up with something better for tackling the problem in the response of the Sentencing Council to the concerns raised in this debate by him and by others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I am also reflecting on some of the arguments that have been made. There is an argument in relation to the 2005 Act; there have been others as if to say, “We don’t want to put things in the Bill because circumstances may change”. In thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I say that the reality is that—for the reasons that the Minister explained —the Bill contains a provision that it will be an aggravating feature to supply or offer to supply such substances in the vicinity of a school. Indeed, as I understand the Minister to have said, that has been in legislation for some time. In other words, this issue has not arisen and then suddenly moved on or disappeared.

Likewise, the issue of drugs in prison is not particularly new. We have an issue with new psychoactive substances because they are relatively recent. We are also in a situation where the issue is clearly significant in prisons. It has been commented on by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and by the ombudsman. It has even been commented on by the Secretary of State for Justice. I do not think that the Minister is going to come to the Dispatch Box and tell me that he has any reason for believing that the issue of drugs in prisons is going to disappear in a short time.

This is an issue which needs addressing, and in the same way as the issue of supplying or offering to supply in the vicinity of schools has been addressed—namely, by making it a statutory aggravating feature reflecting the seriousness of the offence. It is of course then for the court to determine what the sentence will be in the light of that aggravating feature. The Minister has said that this is an opportunity and that we can express our views. The best way to do that would be by taking a vote to see whether the House is of the view that such an offence—of supplying or offering to supply new psychoactive substances on prison premises—should be an aggravating factor increasing the seriousness of the offence, as it will continue to be under the Bill for supplying in the vicinity of a school.

We already have that continuing provision in the Bill about supplying or offering to supply in the vicinity of a school. In the light of that, the argument has been made that there is an equally serious issue in relation to our prisons—and frankly, there is no evidence that it is about to disappear. The problem in relation to drugs has been there for some time. The issue of the new psychoactive substances is an opportunity for the House to express its view that it should be an aggravating feature affecting the seriousness of the offence. The court would then have to decide what the sentence will be by taking that into account. I wish to test the opinion of the House to see whether it agrees with me on that.

[Lord Bates]

Before the noble Lord sits down, just to be clear to those who are listening to this point in the debate, we are not arguing about whether it will be an aggravating factor. The Minister has written to the chair of the Sentencing Council, so it is not in doubt that we are looking at ways in which it will be an aggravating matter. The question is whether it should be a statutory one on the face of the Bill or one which, as a result of legislation which his Government passed in 2005 and 2009, now rests within the responsibility of the Sentencing Council to determine. That is really what is at issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

When it comes to being a statutory aggravating feature affecting the seriousness of the offence, the issue is whether it will be on a par with supplying in the vicinity of a school. I wish to test the opinion of the House on that.

Division on Amendment 17