Police Dogs and Horses

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I suppose I should thank you, Mr Crausby, for your injunction at the beginning not to mention the court case that has triggered the debate. I have now lost a third of my speech because I cannot talk about what went on—but that is entirely my own fault, as I should have thought about it earlier. However, I wish PC Wardell and Finn all the very best for a speedy recovery.

I thank the 120,000 people who signed the petition that triggered the debate, the hon. Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) for an excellent introduction, and the Petitions Committee for giving us the opportunity to have this discussion. It is a really good example of the e-petitions system working to concentrate minds here in Parliament and to bring issues the attention that they merit.

I declare an interest. I am not just the shadow Policing Minister; I am an unapologetic animal lover. A membership card for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds sits alongside my party membership card in my purse. As some in the House will know, one of my best friends in the world is my beautiful but rather wilful Yorkie, Cara. She certainly does not think that I own her; in fact, it is quite the other way around. They do rather leave paw prints on our hearts.

I was very upset when I read about the horrendous attack on the police dog, Finn, that sparked the debate. Unfortunately, that attack is not an isolated incident. There is so much to read about on the internet, and the research we did to prepare ourselves for this debate was rather harrowing.

I will just talk about one incident because I am not sure whether this dog has been mentioned. In 2013, Fuzz was struck with a metal bar by a robbery suspect who was wanted for stealing a moped. Despite the attack, Fuzz kept hold of the man until he was arrested. He was then rushed for veterinary treatment on his eye and face. There are so many disturbing stories out there, but I will not repeat some that have been mentioned by my hon. Friends today. I have crossed out more of my speech than I have left.

The sad truth is that some criminals think they can cruelly and brutally attack our police dogs and horses and that there will be few or no repercussions. That simply cannot be right. It is inappropriate for me to comment on the details of Finn’s case, as the legal process is still ongoing, but the charges brought for one such attack have highlighted a wider issue that many have with the legal protection afforded to animals working in the police service.

As we have heard, many charges presented to those who attack a police animal are made under the Criminal Damages Act 1971, but that legislation is designed to deal with people destroying or damaging property that belongs to another, not with animal cruelty. I know of one police and crime commissioner who has said that it is just “astonishing” that attacking a police dog who helps to uphold the law is treated the same as kicking in the door panel of a car.

The “Finn’s Law” campaign has rightly said that police animals

“deserve better protection than property.”

I totally and utterly agree. Charging someone with criminal damage in such instances has the unsatisfactory implication that the victim is the property owner, rather than the animal itself. Finn, Fuzz and Bud, a police horse attacked by a Newcastle football hooligan, are not merely police property. They are not disposable objects as easily replaced as a broken window, but valued public servants and real victims. They are personalities—sentient, beautiful and often loved animals who, just like us, feel real pain when they are subjected to violence. The law should recognise them as such and give them the protection they deserve.

As has been mentioned, those who attack police animals can also be charged under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it a criminal offence to subject an animal to unnecessary suffering. The Act is an important piece of legislation, but it was not passed with brutal attacks on animals in mind, and the maximum punishment is six months in prison or a fine of up to £20,000. That is much lower than the maximum penalty of 10 years available under the Criminal Damages Act 1971 or the American federal laws mentioned in the petition.

My own personal view is that there needs to be a review of the Animal Welfare Act, as I am not sure that that law is as robust as many of us would like. There are concerns from handlers that charges are not brought in most cases. There are no reliable national statistics about attacks on police animals, and I would like the Ministers to look into that. As we have heard, a survey by the “Finn’s Law” campaign found that 75.7% of handlers have experienced their dog being punched or kicked, but charges were brought in only 8% of those attacks.

The Government have produced an official response to the petition, arguing that

“An additional offence dealing specifically with attacks on police animals or a move to change their legal status is unnecessary in light of the maximum penalties already in place. An additional and separate offence may not result in more prosecutions, or increased sentences.”

I get that and I respect the Government’s position; I also recognise that it is good practice to avoid duplicating laws on the statute book. However, I would like the Minister to address some of the concerns we have raised today.

Can the Minister assure us that he will write to the Sentencing Council and express the view of this House that police animals suffer greatly from some attacks and are valued members of our law enforcement teams? Attacks on them should not be treated the same as attacks on property and should carry an appropriately severe penalty. Although the Criminal Damages Act 1971 carries potentially severe penalties, it has the unsatisfactory implication of treating police animals as property and, as we have heard, it is not fit for purpose when dealing with crimes against our serving animals—or, indeed, animals per se. Will the Minister, who has received very warm plaudits from his hon. Friends, commit to working with his phalanx of civil servants to bring forward an alternative proposal that would not treat such attacks as we treat the kicking of a door panel on a police car?

Today we can make a difference to these loyal and brave animals. It is not too late for the Government to amend the Policing and Crime Bill in the Lords to that effect. I am sure that if the Minister did so, he would receive cross-party support, and I might even join in with some of those warm plaudits. Will he commit to reviewing how often charges are brought when police animals are punched or kicked? In order for the Government to do that, they will have to start collecting proper statistics on the number of attacks on police animals, just as we argued they need to with regard to attacks on police officers a fortnight ago. It is not beyond the Government’s ken to do so. With the IT available, it should not be a burden and would take a matter of moments.

Police animals such as Finn, Fuzz and Bud work tirelessly to help our police tackle crime. When they are attacked, they feel real pain and suffering, which in turn breaks the hearts of their handlers such as PC Dave Wardell. They deserve the full protection of the law. The Minister needs to recognise that many of those who work with police animals think the law is currently failing to offer that protection. They and I would like to know what he will do to address those serious and warranted concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), I have received a huge amount of emails and correspondence on this issue, none of which, I am sorry to say, asked about the welfare of PC Wardell—it was all concerned about Finn, which highlights just how much the public and we care about animals. I am pleased that both are recovering well.

As I said earlier this month, when we twice debated officer safety at length, any kind of assault on a police officer, or on the animals and people who work with them, is completely unacceptable, so I am grateful for this opportunity not only to reiterate that message but to restate my personal commitment to moving forward on this issue.

The particular abilities of dogs make them a vital part of the police team, and indeed the police family. Part of the complication, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned, is that the issue is wider than police dogs. We also have police horses and fire dogs—I met Reqs from Hertfordshire, and he is a fine specimen of a Labrador—and there are other service dogs too. Anyone who thinks it is appropriate, excusable or acceptable to mistreat, abuse or attack a guide dog or a hearing dog also needs to understand the severity of the crime they are committing. If we move forward on this issue, it is important that we encapsulate the kinds of dogs that serve our community and are extensions of the community that they serve.

Dogs provide important support in many areas of our public services. I have met Reqs, a fire and rescue dog, but there are other dogs working within our military or working to keep our borders safe. We often ask such animals to take on dangerous roles that we either would not ask humans to do or that it would simply not be practical for humans to do. These animals play a hugely important part in ensuring our safety and security.

Police dogs, for example, make a fantastic contribution in searches for suspects, vulnerable people and evidence, in specialist searches for drugs, explosives, firearms and bodies, in crime scene work and, of course, in tracking suspects. The pictures of Finn after the attack remind us of the specific dangers faced more widely by police dogs that are working in pursuit and public order situations. They and their handlers show incredible bravery and go about their work with dedication and courage to keep us safe and fight crime. They show remarkable courage and discipline.

Another police dog, PD Ghost of Merseyside police, lost his life last week while carrying out his duties. He was hit by a car in a tragic accident. The media coverage of his illustrious career—chasing and holding dangerous criminals to keep the local community safe—shows just how much we have lost with his passing. I offer my condolences to his handler, PC Dave Bartley, too.

Much of today’s debate has understandably focused on dogs, but it is important to remember that horses are also an important part of the police family. As well as making a contribution to local policing in our rural communities, police horses are often called on to perform their duties in the face of danger, including in serious public order situations. It is hugely upsetting to read stories such as those reported in the media following the million-mask march in London last year, when people looked to bring down a police horse and its rider, which is a cowardly and dangerous act. The images are still clear in my mind of a football match that I attended when I was young: police horses were brought in to ensure safety and security, and some fans decided to throw darts at the police horses. That is simply not acceptable.

On Friday afternoon I saw the preparation for the safety and security of the visitors and spectators at the England-Scotland football match. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, the vision of a police horse rider goes beyond anything that somebody at ground level can see. They therefore play an important role in ensuring that the policing is conducted and structured in the right way. More generally, we should all seek to encourage the Police Federation to consider adding a category at the police bravery awards to recognise the bravery shown by police animals.

The language used to describe attacks on police assault animals goes to the core of how we move this debate forward. I absolutely understand that the language used in the charging of assaults can be completely unpalatable. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made that point directly. We do not simply see these brave and important members of our policing family as property. They are more than property. They are a living, breathing thing, but a charge of criminal damage can suggest that they are nothing more than property. I appreciate how that can be upsetting and can seem wrong. I see how for many it can be the crux of the issue, and I agree with them.

The issue is complicated, because it goes more widely than police dogs. None of us thinks of police animals as just equipment. They are an important part of the job, but they are not just equipment. That does not seem to me to convey properly the respect and gratitude that we rightly feel for those animals, for their contribution to law enforcement and public safety more widely. That is why I have written to my ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explore whether we can do more in law to offer appropriate protection to working animals.

I appreciate Members’ earlier calls about the Policing and Crime Bill, but I think it unlikely that we will do something in that Bill, partly because the Bill is at Report stage in the House of Lords and is likely to receive Royal Assent at the turn of the year. We need to do some work with the Sentencing Council. I will come to penalties in a moment; the point made about them was fair. There is work to do on ensuring that the penalties—which are severe and match those elsewhere in the world—that are linked to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 apply to animals in a way that is appropriate and correct in language, as well as on ensuring the ability to prosecute.

We must also consider using the law not just for police dogs and horses, but more widely for service and working dogs—that might cover guide dogs and potentially those used by the fire and rescue service and others. It is important that we do that piece of work. Other work is going on—I will come to it in a moment; it touches on some of the points the hon. Member for West Ham made about assessing—that means that we might not be able to put something in the Policing and Crime Bill, but if there is a need for legislative change, I will consider opportunities to do so in 2017.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I think he is an honourable man who will keep his word, and I accept that sometimes when we legislate in haste, we legislate badly, and it would be better to do this well. Has he thought of any forthcoming Bills from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice or DEFRA that he might be able to tag this on to? I always think that a date is a better way to hold the Government to account. It is something tangible and concrete to hang it on.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Lady for ensuring that she does her best to hold me to account, as well as to tempt me into pre-judging what Bills might be introduced in the next Session. I hope she will understand if I resist, but I will say that if we see while working through the issue that a legislative change is required—Sentencing Council changes might not require it—I will seek to do something in 2017, which is not that far away.

We expect a huge amount from our police support animals, in terms of their training, temperament and performance in their various roles and the dangerous situations in which we ask them to perform. The scale of support for the petition shows that the public hugely appreciate their work. It is only fair that police dogs and horses receive the best possible protection as they go about their duties.

As has been outlined in this debate by Members and in the response to the petition, significant penalties are already in place that can be issued to those who attack animals that support the police. I recognise that this e-petition debate is about more than just penalties. I hope I have covered some of that already, but I will go further. I am glad that the penalties currently available reflect the seriousness of the offence; the issue is how and where they are used to prosecute successfully. As has been said, an attack on a police dog or other police support animal can be treated as causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. An attack on a police animal can be considered by the court as an aggravating factor, leading to a higher sentence within the range of six months’ custody.

Under some circumstances, assaults on support animals can be treated as criminal damage. I appreciate that that use of language can seem inappropriate, but it is important to note that that charge carries a much wider sentencing range, allowing for penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. I appreciate the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made about the valuations required, but we must also bear in mind that the valuation of a police dog, with its training, would be well in excess of the figures involved. Finn’s attacker has been charged with this offence, given the seriousness of the assault.

The petition calls for protection in line with that afforded to police support animals by the US Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act 2000, as the hon. Member for West Ham said. Under that legislation, causing harm to a police animal in the US carries a maximum tariff of one year in prison. Where the offence is more serious, the maximum penalty can be as high as 10 years, so the maximum penalties available there, if used, are about the same as the maximum penalties here in England and Wales. The issue is whether they are being used and presented in the right way. I agree that the framework within which the offence is held, prosecuted and used is crucial; at the moment, many people feel that it is not ideal. That is why I have outlined that I will work with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Justice, as well as campaigners and colleagues throughout this House, to consider how we can take the issue forward in a positive way.

Police Officer Safety

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I join the whole House today in wishing the officer who was stabbed in Lancashire a very speedy recovery. I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on her moving and poignant maiden speech. She has done the memory of Jo, her constituents and this House proud by her contribution today. She also made me cry.

In this place, we make the laws, but we depend on police officers to go out into our communities and enforce them. This relationship places a special duty on us all in this place, and indeed in the Government, to ensure that police officers can do their job safely and free from fear of attack. As demonstrated by the horrific stories that we have heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), all too often we are failing in that special duty.

I was particularly affected by the story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) of the clumsy daddy. Nobody should have to experience that level of violence in their job and then have to lie to their children in that way.

A couple of weeks back, as I do every possible year, I attended a memorial service for PC Nina MacKay, who was attacked and stabbed 19 years ago when she went to arrest a wanted man in his home in my constituency. Her wounds were fatal. She was just 25 years old—a young woman with her entire life ahead of her, murdered as she went about her job.

Although police officer deaths are mercifully rare, almost all officers are violently confronted at some point in their careers. I have been looking at the case logs of attacks on police officers in the London borough of Westminster, to see the situation faced by the police working in the borough in which we sit. There have been 80 attacks on police officers in Westminster since May. Of these, 22 were classified as actual bodily harm and five as grievous bodily harm. The vast majority of the attacks were on the streets of Westminster, a few were in residential premises and 14 took place while the perpetrator was in police custody. I know that there were 80 attacks in Westminster since May because the Metropolitan Police Service has kept what are called the Operation Hampshire databases for each borough since April. Every time a police officer is attacked in London, there is now a strict protocol.

The incident is recorded as a crime and registered in the human resources log. A welfare officer—that is important—an investigation officer and someone from the senior leadership is immediately notified of the attack. The attacked officer is kept up to date with the progress of investigations. Most importantly, they are provided with welfare support, someone to ask how they are and provide support if it is wanted or needed. The process is designed to ensure that officers know that an assault on them is taken as seriously as an assault on any member of the public. Experiencing violence should not be accepted or expected as part of their jobs. They should not be considered second-class victims.

I was told by one officer about an attack that he endured when he was a young man and new to the police. It was long before these new protocols were even thought of. He was surrounded by a group of men. They punched him, kicked him and spat at him. He was shaken up. I can imagine that it frightened him, and it certainly dented his confidence. When he got back to the station the very next day, his colleagues congratulated him on a job well done and on the fact that he was in for the night shift, but one boss had the emotional intelligence to come to him, ask why he was there and encourage him to go home and spend the night with his family. He told me, “It was the smallest thing, but it was the most important thing.” I hope that officers in London are receiving that small but important thing now that Operation Hampshire is in place. If an officer in London is attacked, the protocol ensures that there is welfare support. They will not have to rely on the judgment and kindness of one decent boss.

Welfare care is important, but so is recording. We are told that there were an estimated 23,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales last year. As we have heard, this is a number that we can have absolutely no confidence in. I have been told that it is not much better than a back-of-an-envelope job. The Home Office says that it has

“worked with police forces to try and improve the data further”,

as the Minister reiterated today. However, I heard him say only that he wants to add an additional category of assault with an injury to the recorded crime data. I would like him to go further—he is not a bad man. I want him to ask all police services to adopt the comprehensive and systematic approach taken by the Metropolitan and Hampshire police services. The Hampshire approach includes recording every incident in human resource logs, and integrating data collection with welfare provision. As my story of that young police officer shows, good systems are not just about collecting data, but about offering support.

Proper recording of assaults may give us a better idea of the scale of the problem we are facing, but it will not reduce the number of attacks. For that, Government action is necessary, so I come to sentencing. The Police Federation has raised concerns that a man who punched a police officer in the face and kicked them to the floor received just a 12-month community order. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax highlighted a case where a man assaulted four police officers, gouged their eyes and inflicted serious injury. He received only a two-month suspended sentence. Will the Minister commit to reiterating to the Sentencing Council, which I obviously respect the independence of, the seriousness with which we in this place treat attacks on police officers?

It would be wrong of me to speak on this matter without acknowledging the substantial cuts the police have had to absorb since the Conservatives came to power. There are 20,000 fewer police officers in the United Kingdom than in 2010—a reduction of 11.7%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) told us how this is really stretching services in Greater Manchester, as it is elsewhere. That thin blue line has been getting thinner and thinner.

The cuts are leading to under-reporting by the public as their confidence is dented, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). There are concerns that the cuts are also leading to an increase in single crewing, which may well make police officers—particularly at night and when responding to emergency situations—even more vulnerable. But there are no reliable statistics on the amount of single crewing each police force is undertaking. We do not know definitively whether it is becoming more common and in which situations it is used. We do not know whether it has made officers more vulnerable to attack. PCCs and the Home Office need to know the answers to these questions if they are to make informed strategic decisions and, most importantly, keep our officers safe from unnecessary danger.

Today, we have had calls for the Government to improve the recording and reporting of these attacks. The Minster has been asked to work with the Sentencing Council to ensure that appropriate punishments are meted out. He has also been asked to look at the way police cuts are stretching our services. I hope that he will take these requests seriously and act on them urgently. Our police officers deserve to know that their welfare is paramount.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our co-operation and membership of Europol will obviously continue in full with us as a full and strong contributing member of Europol, which of course predates the European institutions. We have been very clear that our co-operation with member states, and our determination to ensure the security and protection of the people of this country, will continue when we are no longer a member of the EU.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

After the Paris Metro bombing in 1995 it took 10 years to extradite Rachid Ramda from the UK, but after the London tube bombings in 2005 it took just 56 days to extradite Hussain Osman from Italy to the UK. The difference in time in bringing murderous terrorists to justice was a result of the European arrest warrant. I cannot believe that the Minister will not guarantee that, however Brexit is negotiated by this Government, there is no question whatsoever of our ending our commitment to the European arrest warrant. Can he please guarantee to the House today that the European arrest warrant will continue?

Disclosure and Barring Service

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jeff Smith]

I absolutely agree. The case is similar to that of Nazim in my constituency. Despite my office raising the issue both with the DBS and with the Government, he became unable to work because his licence expired, which understandably caused him and his family a huge amount of stress and some financial hardship.

The second case is of Angela Gallagher, a constituent of mine who lost a job as an occupational therapist because her DBS certificate was so delayed. She spoke to me about her constant phone calls to the DBS for updates only to be told to be patient and that the DBS was working through the backlog. She could not understand why, after she had been offered a job, the system was putting such obstacles in her way. She described how it affected her family’s finances—at the time, she was forced to sign on to out-of-work benefits—and how her mental health was affected by the stress caused by the delay and by her inability to access the job.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point and an excellent speech. One of my constituents told me how, although she knew there was nothing in her background that could possibly come up, the stress of waiting made her worry that somebody had made something up about her that was going to come to light. Waiting for weeks and weeks for a resolution added to her mental ill health.

[Jeff Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an extremely stressful process for a person stuck in this limbo.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech on behalf of her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) for joining the debate and for again representing his constituents with such clarity and integrity.

As my own mailbag can attest, delays occurring in the Disclosure and Barring Service are making life exceptionally difficult for many workers in this country. Frankly, Minister, we need to sort that out. As we know, the DBS enables employers to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain types of job. The service plays a vital role in keeping our young people and vulnerable adults safe. Having access to DBS certificates is essential for people who want to pursue careers working with vulnerable people and groups, and for organisations such as hospitals and schools, which need to recruit staff.

One of my constituents, a qualified teacher working with children with special educational needs, informed me that her DBS check had been stuck with the Metropolitan Police Service for three months, despite the fact that it has a target of 18 days. Since her DBS expired in February, she has been offered a number of roles but has been unable to start work because of the delay. Without work, she is now in arrears with her rent, her car insurance and other monthly bills.

In May 2016, it was reported that 10% of the staff of one primary school in north London were unable to fulfil their roles because of the delays. The headteacher said:

“Under official guidelines you can do a risk assessment based on the DBS from someone’s previous job, but they have to be supervised at all times…In one case we had to wait four months for a check to come through. There’s already a teacher shortage in London so this is a headache we could do without.”

That is the real impact of the delays: schools with teacher shortages are unable to recruit staff, unemployed teachers are falling into debt and employees are left waiting anxiously for months. That is simply not good enough.

These delays cause real anxiety, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington attested. Employees are expecting to hear back within eight weeks, and as the weeks pass they become really anxious that the delays are the result of a complication with their check. The problem is made worse by the fact that application processing times seem to be entirely arbitrary. People in that situation understandably fear that their job offer will be withdrawn. I also know from my constituents that people from the same area who apply at the same time will sometimes get radically different response times.

[James Berry]

The hon. Lady will be probably aware that in some of these cases, the fact that an individual has moved a number of times and a number of different police forces have to be contacted can explain the longer delay, even if they have applied at the same time as another constituent. Six police forces having to do checks will involve a much longer process than just one.

[Lyn Brown]

I accept that point, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that that is a symptom of living in London. My constituents have not all lived in West Ham all their lives; they have travelled from all over the country, and yet they are still given an arbitrary response time. I would really like the Minister to explain whether there is a system for prioritising some checks over others—or does she have another explanation, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) does, for the vastly differing response times that constituents experience?

The DBS states that it aims to deal with 95% of applications within eight weeks. It is currently at 93.8%, which is below that target but not far off. However, that figure masks what is actually a deep problem in some parts of the country: the severe delays that kick in when some police forces get involved in the process. As we know, there are five stages to a DBS check. The majority of delays occur at stage 4, when individual police forces check their records to make sure that the potential matches are not missed.

Police forces have targets to process 85% of applications within 14 days and 90% within 18 days. In July 2016, the Metropolitan Police Service hit its 14-day target just 14% of the time. Things do not get much better for its 18-day target, which it met just 19% of the time. In April 2016, the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), revealed in a written answer that the Metropolitan Police Service took on average 85 days to carry out stage 4 of the DBS process.

Let us recap: the whole process from stage 1 to stage 5 should take eight weeks. However, the Metropolitan Police Service is taking an average of 85 days to do its part of the process—that is just over 12 weeks. In those circumstances, it is literally impossible for the DBS to meet its eight-week target because one of the five stages is taking longer than the total target time. No wonder I, as a London MP, receive so many complaints about the service from my constituents.

Having researched the details, it is of little surprise to me that the Metropolitan Police Service is struggling. Just look at what has happened to its support staff, which have been cut by a third since the Conservatives came to power: down from 14,179 in 2010 to 9,521 in 2016. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood rightly said, those cuts have had consequences. Under the strain of falling staff numbers, a substantial backlog of applications has emerged. All police forces have a target of having no more than 12 days’ worth of work on DBS checks at any one time, meaning that if no new applications were received, police forces would be able to deal with all existing applications within 12 days. The most recent figures available show that it would take the Metropolitan Police Service 60 days to complete the pile of DBS applications it is sitting on, and only if no more came in. That is five times the target.

This is not only a London issue. In Nottinghamshire, the 14-day target for stage 4 of the process is currently being met just 7% of the time, while in North Yorkshire the target for both 14 and 18 days is being met just 12% of the time. In fact, according to the Government’s July 2016 red, amber or green assessment, 17 of the 50 forces were judged to be providing a second-rate service or worse. Something has to be done to improve the situation, and fast. We cannot have potential employees and potential employers waiting for so long. I want to know what the Government will do about it. It is unfair on both sides and it is causing financial damage.

This is not a new phenomenon. Research by the House of Commons Library revealed that the Met has not hit its 14-day target since February 2008. That is more than eight years for which my constituents, and other people living and working in London, have had to put up with a substandard service. For six of those years, the Minister’s party has been in government. A Government press release from earlier this month stated that they have been

“working very closely with the Met to help improve performance and good progress is being made to reduce applications in progress.”

If that is true, it is very welcome, but I am yet to see any evidence that good progress is being made. The most recent figures show a service struggling to keep up with demand, and people having to wait far longer than they should to have their applications processed.

Will the Minister inform the House of precisely what steps the Government have taken in the short term to help police forces to clear their backlogs? Will she also tell us how long she anticipates it will take for the service to return to an acceptable level? Some undefined time in the future is simply not good enough when people’s livelihoods and careers depend on their being able to get these checks carried out promptly.

The police missing their time targets is not the only problem. The DBS has failed to meet its accuracy targets in each of the last three months as well. I am told that the failures are administrative, such as spelling a name wrong or placing an inaccurate date of birth on the form, but that is not clear from the DBS business plan, which explains the performance indicators, because an inaccurate check is not defined. I am not told that it is administrative; I am not told that it is a small issue; and I am not reassured that inappropriate people are not getting DBS certificates, or that people who should be given certificates are not being refused. Will the Minister assure us today that the accuracy failures are largely administrative? Can she give us a figure for them, or a percentage? Can she give us any reassurance whatever? Will she prove to the House that inappropriate people have not been receiving DBS certificates to which they are not entitled?

I do not want to downplay the importance of administrative failures. They need to be rectified because they really do have knock-on effects. Take another of my constituents, who contacted me earlier this year about her DBS check. She informed me that after waiting six months for her application to be processed, her certificate, when it finally arrived, was inaccurately filled in, as it failed to include a previous name. As a result of delays and inaccurate information, my constituent was unable to take up employment as a childminder and has lost significant earnings. These are legal documents and they need to be filled in as accurately as possible so that people can use them.

Will the Minister inform the House of the steps the Government have taken to make sure that the accuracy of barring decisions improves in future? I really would like to be reassured that she takes this matter seriously. My hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood and for Manchester, Withington asked a number of pertinent questions in the course of their contributions. They asked for detail, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide it today, but, if not, will she commit to answering us in writing within the next week or so?

Let us face it: the longer delays to DBS checks are the result of cuts to our police services. The Metropolitan Police Service and other struggling police services are simply overburdened with the number of applications they are receiving. They do not have the resources they need. We know that since 2010 the Met has seen police support staff cut by 33%, and today we have heard about the reality of those cuts: poorer services and people missing out on jobs. That is, I am afraid, the Government’s record on the DBS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I completely understand that if there is job insecurity, that makes it difficult to retain good-quality staff. I visited the Metropolitan police unit only a few weeks ago and witnessed the training process. The decision-making process is complex, and it takes time to train staff. Even when the DBS sits down with the Met or any other police force that is having difficulty and agrees extra funding, it takes at least six months to train someone so that they can carry out the checks.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is right that the PCS union has acknowledged that there has been a change of leadership at the Met. The Home Office has provided considerable support to help improve processes, and the DBS has funded more than 100 new staff, so there has been a huge amount of effort. The hon. Lady understands, as I do, that more of the staff have now been given full-time contracts. The DBS sits down with the police forces each year and agrees the contracts based on the anticipated number of checks. If the number of checks requested goes up, more staff have to be recruited. Sometimes it is efficient and right to have temporary staff; on other occasions we need more full-time staff. Such contractual decisions are made between the DBS and the police forces. I have also seen that no stone is left unturned. The Met has asked for support from other police forces that have a surplus of staff with the right expertise to help. So I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that every effort has been made between the DBS and the police forces to get the necessary resources in.

Only two police forces are not meeting their timeliness performance targets: the Met and Surrey. In the case of Surrey, a relatively small number of people are affected and a recovery plan has been agreed with the DBS, which is going well. I can share that information and be certain about it because the DBS regularly publishes the data on its own website. That addresses one of the issues that the hon. Lady raised, about the transparency of data. Opposition Members have quoted extensively from performance data, so there is not an issue of transparency here. Those data are on local police force performance as well as the DBS’s own organisational performance, and the next data will be published later this month. I look at such data on a daily basis.

[Lyn Brown]

I am struggling with what the Minister is telling us. First, we know there has been a problem in the Met since 2008, which is a long time. We know that the delays in the Met are massive. If the DBS has been placing money in the Metropolitan Police Service so that it can get the checks done, then it must have been significantly underpaying the Met for several years in order for us to have got to the current situation. I am afraid I cannot accept what the Minister is saying about that.

The Minister also tells us that only two police forces are not meeting the timescales, but in the Government’s own assessment, on the red, amber and green scale, 17 of the 50 forces were judged to be providing a second-rate service or worse. It is not only two police forces; by the Government’s own admission, it is more.

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady raises a couple of points. The data I am referring to are the most recent. We will get another tranche of data this month, so she will be able to see for herself what the information is.

On how the Metropolitan police or any other police force is funded, the fact is that the DBS funds police units to do police checks. Whether they have received adequate funding over a certain period of time is a fair question. I have been to Liverpool and had conversations with the DBS, and I am monitoring the situation on a weekly basis. I will go back to the DBS to make sure that all the recovery plans we have discussed are implemented. I can say no more to reassure the hon. Lady about how seriously I take this issue. I and my officials are focused on it, and I am regularly involved with the DBS to make sure we tackle it.

As I have said, I visited the Metropolitan police unit recently. The hon. Lady has acknowledged that significant extra resources and changes in leadership have been put in place, and the unit is processing 20% more applications than it receives. That gives me some confidence that it will reduce the backlog over time. If the unit was processing only the number of applications that it was receiving, we would not have any confidence that it was dealing with the backlog, but it is, and 20% is significant. I am therefore confident that it will make significant progress.

It is important that the DBS continues to work closely with the Metropolitan police and any other police forces that are having difficulties to make sure that they are given the necessary resources to do the job. I know that the Metropolitan police take the matter seriously. I have been to Sidcup and spent time with the team there, and they talked me through what they were doing about it. They know full well that I will be back again to personally check up on their progress.

I will go through the range of other questions that hon. Members asked me on issues from portability to escalation and redress.

Child Refugees: Age Checks

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend needs to be aware that both the Dublin regulation and section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016—the so-called Dubs amendment—define children as those under the age of 18. Indeed, a large number of those in the camps are both male and 16 or 17-year-olds, and we have never tried to mislead anyone about that particular fact.

The criterion being used at this stage for the Dublin children is family connections in the UK. Those children are our priority and they are the ones we have seen being brought across this week. Further children will be brought across, and some of that initial assessment will enable further work to be done, including fingerprinting. If there are cases where, for example, the person concerned has been brought to the attention of a European immigration authority or has applied for a visa somewhere in the world to come to the UK, we will be able to have further information, so that work is being done.

The age issue can arise because of Home Office concerns about the claimed age or because the individual does not accept the initial assessment process. Where there is doubt, the individual will be referred to a local authority children’s services department for a careful, case-law compliant age assessment and will be treated as a child while the outcome is awaited. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of children under section 11 of the Children Act 2004, regardless of their immigration status or nationality. This safeguards the individual who is required to undergo an age assessment and safeguards children already in the care population from the presence of an adult being placed in the same living accommodation.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I want to start by welcoming all refugees who have entered Britain in the last few days to their new home. I hope that our country will provide them with a safe space that enables them to put behind them the traumas and difficulties they have faced. Welcome to Britain.

The Government committed to taking unaccompanied child refugees in May. The Home Office have therefore had five months to assess the age of the young people—five months in which refugees have had to live their lives in limbo and in conditions that none of us would like to live in, and certainly not to have our children live in. I am sure the Minister can assure the House that this delay is a result of the Home Office carefully assessing the age of the young people we are granting sanctuary to.

Europol has warned that at least 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have gone missing since entering Europe after fleeing the most terrible political situation in Syria and elsewhere in north Africa and the middle east. Citizens UK thinks there are at least 54 unaccompanied girls, mainly Eritreans, in the Calais camp, and they are eligible to enter under the Dubs amendment. These are children who have had their homes, their parents and their entire lives taken away from them and they are in real danger. Does the Minister agree that our resolve to give sanctuary and protection to unaccompanied child refugees must remain undiminished? We cannot succumb to compassion fatigue.

I know that some Conservative Members have called for dental checks to determine the age of children coming over, but the Journal of Forensic Sciences found that when it comes to determining if someone is aged between 17 and 19 years old, dental checks are wrong up to 50% of the time. The British Dental Association, whose members would presumably have to carry out the mooted checks, has said that they would be “inappropriate and unethical”. Does the Minister agree that calling for dental checks is an unworkable red herring?

I am pleased that the Government are committed to helping unaccompanied child refugees, and 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020. However, given the scale of the refugee crisis, we can and should do more. There will be challenges along the way and things will not go perfectly, but helping people in dire need—and they are—is the right thing to do. When we meet bumps in the road people in this place, and in other positions of power, we should keep a calm head and continue to offer a welcoming embrace to those who are fleeing the most desperate circumstances.

[Mr Goodwill]

The points made by the hon. Lady encapsulate the vast majority of the United Kingdom’s view of the compassion that we should show and our legal responsibility to step up to the mark to ensure that vulnerable children in those camps are looked after as well as possible. It is in the joint interests of both the United Kingdom and the French Republic that the camp is removed, and, more importantly, that is in the interests of the people in that camp. I must make it clear that nobody needs to be in that camp. The French have facilities for people who ask to leave the camp and large numbers have already left it.

I have already covered the point on dental checks. One additional point, which I think some of the media have failed to grasp, is that there are two distinct categories of children. First, there are the Dublin III children, who qualify because they have family here in the United Kingdom, and those are the children whom we prioritise to move before the camps are cleared. Secondly, there are the children who qualify under the Dubs amendment. The criterion in that case is where their needs will best be served. I can assure the House that we will prioritise the most vulnerable in that group—the under-13s and those who are vulnerable for other reasons—to ensure that that can happen. They cannot be processed as quickly. We need to remove them to a place of safety as the clearance starts and then ensure that we can fully live up to the commitments that this Government made when they accepted the Dubs amendment.

Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) order 2016

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 General Committees

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. It might be cold outside, but there is a little warmth inside this room.

As I understand it, and as the Minister explained really well, the draft order will bring a range of cannabinoids and one anabolic steroid under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Its contents are in accordance with recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and it has been made after careful evaluation of the harmful societal impact of the substances.

Article 4 of the order will bring the anabolic steroid known as dienedione under permanent control as a class C drug. As we have heard, professional athletes are currently prohibited from using dienedione, as it is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency as a performance-enhancing drug. UK Anti-Doping has an arrangement with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The arrangement is sensible, because substances that are manufactured to aid elite sports performance can become popular among amateur sportsmen and women. Sometimes these performance-enhancing substances can carry really significant health risks. We are pleased that the ACMD undertook a review of dienedione at the request of the doping agency in 2015 and that the advisory council recommends controlling the substance as a class C drug because it is similar to other anabolic steroids, which have been found to have a number of really harmful effects, including cardiovascular difficulties and liver dysfunction.

The advisory council notes that anabolic steroids pose a particular risk to the young people. They state that the drugs

“potentially disrupt the normal pattern of growth and behavioural maturation.”

The ACMD points out that controlling the substance may help to reduce both demand and supply, minimising the risk of health harms, as the Minister stated. Given that carefully crafted and evidence-based recommendation from the advisory council, Her Majesty’s Opposition support the proposed controls on dienedione.

Article 3 of the order brings a range of third-generation synthetic cannabinoids under permanent control as class B substances. Synthetic cannabinoids are drugs that are designed to mimic the psychoactive effects of cannabis, as the Minister stated. Looking at past ACMD reports, there can be no doubt of the harm that these substances bring. Synthetic cannabinoids can produce severe adverse effects, including increased heart rate, panic attacks and convulsions. A number of users have visited A&E as a result of vomiting, hallucinations, and so on.

Early academic research suggests that users show evidence of acute withdrawal associated with cessation of long-term use of these products, suggesting dependence. The ACMD warns that there have been

“reports of psychosis and other psychiatric presentations associated with their use.”

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction stated that

“their use has caused many serious poisonings and even deaths—sometimes these have manifested as outbreaks of mass poisonings.”

Given those harms, the Government have rightly moved to control synthetic cannabinoids substances in the past, as they did in both 2009 and 2012. However, the ACMD reported in November 2014 that since that action was taken, a third generation of synthetic cannabinoids, outside of the scope of controls, has entered the market and become widely available. In that report, a revised generic description of synthetic cannabinoids was put forward by the ACMD and accepted by Parliament under an order similar to this one.

This game of whack-a-mole, as I like to put it, has been going on between drug suppliers and the Government over synthetic cannabinoids, showing just why we needed legislation such as the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which introduced a ban on all substances that mimic the effects of controlled drugs. We hope that that Act, which came into force this year, will finally allow the Government to get one step ahead of the market and will significantly reduce the supply of these dangerous substances. May I also say, quite selfishly, that it might even the reduce the number of statutory instruments before Parliament?

This is the first order to place new psychoactive substances under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that Parliament has been asked to affirm since the Psychoactive Substances Act came into force. The Opposition were clear during the passage of the Psychoactive Substances Act that it should not be used as an excuse not to place dangerous substances under the stricter controls provided for by the Misuse of Drugs Act, so we are pleased to see the order. However, although we welcome the controls brought by the Psychoactive Substances Act and by the order, we have always been clear that legislation can be effective only if there is a wider strategy to reduce the demand for harmful substances. That is particularly true for synthetic cannabinoids, which, as Mentor points out, have become prevalent among vulnerable groups such as street homeless communities and prisoners. Hon. Members who served on the Psychoactive Substances Bill Committee—some are in this Committee Room today—will remember well our debates on that issue. Such vulnerable groups are usually less responsive to changes in the legal status of substances and in greater need of targeted intervention programmes.

During the passage of the Psychoactive Substances Act, the Government appeared to agree with us. They promised that the Act would be rolled out alongside a comprehensive drug awareness and education strategy. The previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), wrote to me—he wrote to me quite a lot, actually—and made that pledge:

“Going forward, we are developing a strategic communications plan to support the implementation of the Bill in April 2016. In developing our plans, we are recognising the value of raising public awareness of the harms of drug misuse”.

The Act came into force on 26 May; here we are, five months later, and the Government have still not released the promised education and awareness strategy. All that has been produced is the “Resource pack for informal educators and practitioners” on the Home Office website, which directs people to existing Government services such as “Talk to Frank”. I am not going to reiterate our debate about “Talk to Frank”, because that would take way too long and because my concerns have been outlined on numerous occasions, but we reached a conclusion across the Psychoactive Substances Bill Committee that the “Talk to Frank” service was frankly not doing what it needed to. I was expecting much more from the Government, and I know that drug charities were too. Perhaps the Government are planning to include a comprehensive education and awareness strategy for new psychoactive substances within their five-year reduction strategy, which was due to be published this summer but was not. Will the Minister explain why we have yet to see that strategy? Could she tell us when we will be able to see it, if the Government still intend to produce one?

I will push the Minister on one more point, which she did not cover in her speech. I am told that synthetic cannabinoids act on the same brain cell receptors as natural cannabis. People who suffer from multiple sclerosis and other such conditions may therefore be tempted to use such substances to alleviate their truly difficult and awful symptoms. I really have enormous sympathy for anyone suffering from multiple sclerosis who seeks the most effective pain relief available and who therefore seeks, in the absence of suitable prescribed products, to use substances available from local traders, shall we call them. Sufferers should not need to use illegal and unregulated substances that are in themselves harmful in order to have access to the medical benefits that are ascribed to cannabis.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party passed a resolution at its conference last weekend that called for exactly what the hon. Lady is talking about: the decriminalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes. I understand that that resolution had the backing of the First Minister of Scotland. It is interesting to note the direction of travel there. Having said that, the Scottish Government have control over health, but not over this issue. The hon. Lady, and any other Member who wishes to do so, may feel free to back the devolution of those powers, so that the Scottish Government can make those decisions. I support what she says about decriminalisation for medicinal purposes.

[Lyn Brown]

I was not going that far. Let me be really clear. I am not going that far; I am starting to tremble. THC is the active ingredient in cannabis. It is used effectively in a drug called Sativex. Sativex is already licensed in the UK to relieve the symptoms of conditions such as MS. The Minister may be aware that Sativex is not available on the NHS in England, due to the cost of the drug, whereas in Wales, Sativex is available to sufferers on prescription.

Sufferers of conditions such as MS—and, I am told, pain from some cancers that cannot be controlled by drugs that the NHS currently uses—should not suffer greater pain and difficulty just because they live, on this occasion only, on the wrong side of the border. We certainly do not want to push sufferers into unregulated, synthetic and potentially dangerous cannabinoid usage. This is something that the Government could and should get a grip of.

So while it is ultimately a decision for NICE, will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department of Health and try to get NICE to look at this again? To conclude, the Opposition support the order before us. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has made clear recommendations that these substances should be controlled after evaluating the evidence that they pose a societal risk. Legislation which controls substances will be successful only if it is part of an overall strategy to reduce demand for harmful substances.

The Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive education and awareness strategy alongside psychoactive substances and the delay in publishing their five-year strategy to reduce drug harm suggest that they are not taking this component of reducing drug harms seriously enough. Let us face it, the people who are caught up in use of these harmful and addictive substances will suffer most from the Government’s failure. It is very costly to pick up the pieces of blighted lives. Prevention, in this case as in most others, is much better than cure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I would like to thank the hon. Member for West Ham and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for their interesting contributions. I welcome the hon Member for West Ham to her new position and look forward to working with her. She rightly says that this is an incredibly important area of policy. What could be more important for us as parliamentarians than keeping the communities we represent safe? I welcome the hon. Lady’s support. As she says, new psychoactive substances have already cost too many lives. The Psychoactive Substances Act is sending out a clear message: this Government will take whatever action is necessary to keep our families and communities safe. These drugs are not legal or safe and we will not allow them to be sold in this country. The hon. Lady is quite right that it is a game of cat and mouse and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 enabled us to get ahead of the game.

But where drugs continue to emerge, which are sufficiently harmful to warrant control under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Government have a duty to impose that higher regime of control, both to support enforcement in restricting the supply of these substances and to send out the message that these drugs are too harmful to be in circulation.

Our approach to drugs must continue to be proportionate, informed by evidence of harm and ACMD advice, and characterised by a balanced response. The ACMD’s advice today is precisely that: it is proportionate and appropriate to control these emerging drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are acting on that advice and will continue to do so.

I would like to reassure everyone that the Government understand that the response to drugs needs to be broader than restricting supply through legislation. I have made it my priority to take action to prevent the harms caused by drug misuse. I have first-hand experience of working with drug users and understand the complexities that they as individuals have to overcome in their recovery process, before we can begin to consider the wider harms and costs to our families, friends and communities. I fully recognise the scale of the challenge.

As a Minister I have already seen a range of excellent work across the country, including in Durham where the police are working with local partners and charities, including the Centre for Change, to tackle the supply, to empower people to resist drugs and to put in place highly effective programmes to help them recover from their dependence. That is why it is so important to have a balanced drugs strategy.

I can assure the Committee that the Government are committed to publishing a new cross-Government drugs strategy and will do so soon. That will include new action to prevent the onset of drug use and its escalation at all ages through universal action, combined with more targeted action for individual people.

That includes placing much greater emphasis on building resilience. This is where I would like to go into more detail to answer the questions about the educational tools and resources that are available. Since the introduction of the Psychoactive Substances Act we have developed a range of new and specific resources.

Yesterday I was at the national conference, sponsored by Mentor-ADEPIS, of all of those involved in our country. It pulled together all the best evidence and practice available to educators, teachers, parents and people working with young offenders, right across the spectrum. It is worth noting that ADEPIS has been praised by the United Nations as an example of best practice.

We really are leading the world in this area. One only needs to look at the data that clearly show the number of people across all age groups, particularly young people, who are no longer tempted to take drugs. We have seen really good evidence and data to show that fewer people are taking drugs and, indeed, alcohol.

Of course, we are not complacent. The number of deaths from people misusing drugs is too high. One person dying from taking drugs is one too many. Although I am not at all complacent, it is worth noting the success and achievement of those involved in drug education, prevention and rehabilitation services.

“Talk to Frank”, which came under some criticism from the hon. Member for West Ham, has been updated since the Psychoactive Substances Act. We do keep the databases and portals for the information and tools available regularly updated. We put evidence at the heart of everything that we do. It was interesting, when meeting the practitioners who are day in, day out on the front line of delivering this education in schools and a variety of settings, to hear the importance of using an evidence base.

Some things that we think, with very good intentions, will absolutely do the trick—for example, the short, sharp shock of ex-drug addicts or police officers going into schools—do not always work. Enabling young people to be more resilient, to focus on their health and wellbeing, and to make risk assessments and manage their own risky behaviours produce a far more sustainable and effective result.

I hope that by elaborating that, I have reassured the Committee that there is a lot of very good work going on.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister has clearly supported our position on personal, social, health and economic education in her short statement. I am grateful to her for that. I say gently, and with a smile on my face, I will be pressing her on that in future. Will she tell me, however, when the Government will actually produce the strategy?

Finally, the Minister was kind enough to nod and smile at me when I was talking about Sativex. It would be great if she could tell us, on the record, that she will talk to her colleagues in the Department of Health and NICE about making it available to patients in England.

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady anticipated my next point, which was to address the concerns that a number of honourable colleagues have expressed to me this morning. First, however, I will come back to her on PSHE. It is incredibly important that young people are provided extremely good education in schools, not only so that they can make the most of all the great opportunities of 21st-century Britain, but so that they understand the considerable risks that come along with that, especially online. Given my ministerial portfolio, I look at things such as the sexualisation of children and what more we can do to enable young people to have appropriate, respectful sexual relationships, and I am fully aware of the need for comprehensive, age-appropriate education for young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I will answer the question. Cannabis is clearly a very harmful substance, and there is no evidence at all to support its decriminalisation. Moreover, we already have a very good regime that allows classified drugs to be used in scientific research and the development of medicinal substances—not only cannabis. I assure hon. Members that I have met with my colleagues over in the Department of Health, and that my officials have been in touch with officials there to re-examine the existing regime to ensure that it is not preventing scientific research, or stopping pharmaceutical companies from asking for licences to use cannabis.

We have talked about one particular medicine today, but a whole range of research is in fact funded by the Department of Health, such as research into the use of cannabis in the treatment of not only cancer but Parkinson’s disease. I have assured myself, through working with my colleagues, that the existing regime is fit for purpose and is producing beneficial effects. If at any stage scientists, researchers or medical researchers come to me with evidence that our regime is standing in the way of the positive use of listed substances that might have medicinal or positive effects, of course I will examine that evidence.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way and, I have to say, remarkably wonderful this morning, but may I press her on Sativex? She is right that our scientists have produced good, beneficial medicines from cannabis, THC and so on, but we need them to be available. It is no good them being available only to people in Wales, but not to people in England as well. I know that this is not part of her portfolio, but it would be great to have an ally pushing at the Department of Health and NICE to get those benefits available to all people in the United Kingdom.

[Sarah Newton]

I will also take the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East.

Rights of EU Nationals

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

It is of course open to the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward such a motion. This motion is about protecting the rights of EU nationals in the United Kingdom, which the United Kingdom Government are in a position to do.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

My husband is a UK citizen based in Germany, where he runs a very small business. He was horrified by the tone of his Government in looking after his rights as a person who is working and has established himself abroad. He said to me, “Do they not understand that threatening Europe is not the best way to open negotiations?” I merely said, “No, they don’t.”

[Joanna Cherry]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. As I have said, if, as we are constantly told by the Brexiteers, having trade agreements with Britain is such a fantastic option for the other 27 member states of the European Union, why must the Government keep individuals up their sleeve as bargaining chips?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

My right hon. and learned Friend has made a perfectly reasonable point. The only problem that the Government have with the motion is that it does not go far enough, in that it does not include the rights of British citizens living in other EU member states, which we would demand to be protected in return. It is impossible for us to support the motion, because that reassurance is not contained in it.

I fully appreciate the importance of giving certainty to EU citizens who have built a life here in the United Kingdom. As I have already said, they should be reassured that we are working on the basis that we want to protect those people’s status in UK law beyond the point at which we leave the EU.

[Lyn Brown]

As the Minister knows, I am very fond of him—[Interruption.]. It is true; it is a guilty secret. However, I am genuinely wondering why he has not responded to the question asked a moment ago by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Why are we still debating this issue, given that the Government clearly agree with the motion?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have made it crystal clear, I hope, that the motion does not go far enough because it does not extend the protections that SNP Members want for EU citizens here in the UK to British citizens, including Scottish citizens—people from Stranraer, Montrose and Edinburgh—who are living and working elsewhere in the EU and who require reciprocal protection. That is all we are saying. If the SNP Members had included that in their motion, we would have been more than happy to support it, but this is a fatal omission.

EU Nationals in the UK

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The Government’s refusal to guarantee the status of our EU residents is, quite frankly, an utter disgrace. Last weekend, I spoke to an Italian woman who has lived and worked in Britain for 30 years. She has made Britain her home. She has raised her family here. Her children were born here and they are working here. She was in tears when she told me of her worry that she and her family were about to be deported. It absolutely broke my heart.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

indicated dissent.

[Lyn Brown]

Intervene, then.

There are 3 million EU nationals living in the UK. Just like my constituent, they have jobs and homes, and are concerned about the future for their families. These are families who have entered the UK legally, made their homes here, paid their taxes, and have made a wonderful contribution to our country. The very least these families deserve is to have certainty about their future.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

In this time of uncertainty post-Brexit, this is surely one area where the Government could act to give certainty immediately. Saying that EU citizens are not in any “immediate” danger of having their status changed is frankly not good enough. The Government have the power to act now and should do so.

[Lyn Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The Home Secretary has said that these people’s lives will be a “factor” in the forthcoming negotiations over our exit from the EU. She has implied that the rights of EU citizens living here cannot be guaranteed because the Government need to seek guarantees about the rights of UK citizens living on the continent. It is appalling; people’s lives should not be treated as a bargaining chip. The Government’s strategy is not only heartless—it is inept. We do not want the other 27 member states to threaten the rights of the 1.2 million British nationals living on the continent, so why are we starting negotiations by threatening the rights of EU nationals living here?

I can only presume that the Home Secretary’s focus is not really on negotiations with the EU. Her tub-thumping, I presume, is designed to court the votes of the right-wing Tory membership—an olive branch after, and I say this gently, her low-profile support for the remain campaign. Using people as bargaining chips in EU negotiations is one level of insult; using them as pawns in a Tory “Game of Thrones” is quite another. A Prime Minister with any sense of responsibility could have stopped this happening. By resigning from office before settling the most basic questions about leaving the EU, this Prime Minister has left our exit strategy to the vagaries of a Tory leadership contest. The rights of EU nationals, the speed of our exit, and our future relationship with the EU are all factors in the Tory leadership campaign. This leaves 150,000 Tory party members in a position of disproportionate influence.

The failure to make a commitment to EU nationals comes with grave consequences. Racists and xenophobes are feeling emboldened and are spreading poison within our constituencies. I am ashamed to say that, in my constituency, a residential block was sprayed with a swastika and the word “out” in large, bold letters. I know that Members across the country have had to deal with similarly vile incidents. There has been a 57% increase in hate crime since the referendum. A straightforward and clear message that EU residents are valued and welcome to stay for as long as they like would put racists back in their place. The destructive idea that there may be forced deportations would be rubbished in an instant.

If the Home Secretary is too busy to act, the Prime Minister should do so. I know he wants to run away from the responsibility for our leaving the European Union, but it was his referendum. He should have made sure that plans were in place for the immediate aftermath, no matter what the result. By abdicating his responsibility, the Prime Minister has left us all at the mercy of a Tory leadership campaign that is making us lurch to the right. It is our neighbours and friends from elsewhere in the EU who are suffering the most. It is a national disgrace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right to say that there are many good efforts being made in communities to prevent extremism within communities. The Government want to support that and to give voice to those mainstream voices working to promote the values that we share across our society. In relation to the threat from Daesh and the threat from Islamist terrorism, we of course watch carefully how matters are developing. It is the case that the threat arises from specific groups, from people who are inspired by groups, not just Daesh but al-Qaeda as well, and people who may be inspired online on the internet. That is why it is so important that we deal not just with physical presence, but with the bigoted ideology that underlies the terrorist threat, because it is only by dealing with that ideology that we will be able to deal with the terrorist threat.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

In the light of last week’s conviction of the man who launched an unprovoked knife attack at Leytonstone tube station, and some unverified reports that the Orlando shooter suffered from bipolar disorder, we should be mindful of the Royal United Services Institute’s estimate that in 35% of cases of lone wolf terrorism, there was an indication of a mental health disorder. What action has the Home Secretary taken, and what information and guidance have been issued to GPs and other health professionals on assessing the risks of radicalisation of their patients?

[Mrs May]

I referred earlier to the Prevent duty, which covers the whole of the public sector. That is why we have been conducting significant training within the public sector, including in the health service, about issues associated with radicalisation. Alongside that, I am sure that, given her question, the hon. Lady will welcome the parity of esteem that the Government are now giving to mental health and physical health inside the NHS.

draft Licensing Act 2003 (Her majesty The Queen's Birthday Licensing Hours) order 2016

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 General Committees

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and intent of the order, which we support. The order will permit licensed premises to open for two additional hours, beginning at 11 pm, on 10 and 11 June. As we have already heard, that is the weekend of the Queen’s official birthday; I am sure that some public events are already being planned to celebrate the joyous occasion. This order would allow premises to stay open later without having to give a temporary event notice. We agree with the Government that it would not be appropriate to relax licensing hours for the sale of alcohol off licensed premises; I am sure that anybody who wishes to celebrate at home will buy alcohol in advance during normal trading hours.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a licensing hours order. As we have heard, that power has previously been used to extend licensing hours for the royal wedding, the diamond jubilee and the World cup. I am sure we all recall those occasions fondly and agree that, ignoring England’s performance in the football, they were a great success. What more significant an occasion is there than the birthday of our longest-reigning monarch? We saw only last week how keen people are to mark the occasion: even POTUS flew in to celebrate with the Queen on her actual birthday.

The consultation on the order sought a wide range of views. The Government consulted the Welsh Government; the national police lead on alcohol; the police and crime commissioners’ lead on alcohol; the Local Government Association; the Institute of Licensing; the National Organisation of Residents’ Associations; the British Beer and Pub Association; and the Association of Multiple Licensed Retailers. All of the respondents, with the exception of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, agreed that the plans should go ahead.

The Association of PCCs had concerns that the order would be disruptive and pose an increased risk of alcohol-related disorder. The concerns are indeed serious, especially as both Wales and England will play football matches on 11 June, which could lead to all-day drinking. However, I have been reassured that there is no evidence that there was serious disruption or disorder during the previous periods covered by licensing hour orders.

The near unanimous support for the order is in stark contrast to the consultation of 2011—the first time the power was used—when there was widespread concern about an increase in crime and disorder. The enthusiasm shown this time round is a testament to the success of previous licensing hours orders and to the magnitude of the occasion that we are about to celebrate.

I note that the last time the power was used for the 2014 World cup in Brazil, the impact assessment that was produced stated:

“While England are certain to be playing in the matches in the first period, there is a high probability that they will not be playing in the later matches.”

Sadly, the Government’s impact assessment was all too accurate. Reading it drew my attention to the fact that no impact assessment has been prepared this time round, so may I gently ask the Minister why?

I was encouraged to read in the explanatory memorandum that the order saves businesses the £21 fee for getting a temporary event notice. It is estimated that the pub industry will make a cumulative saving of between £240,000 and £480,000. I hope that the forecasts are as accurate this time as they were about England’s chances in the World cup.

This information on the benefits of the order is most welcome. However, the explanatory memorandum is a little thin on the ground when it comes to the costs of the order. The memorandum states:

“The impact on the public sector may comprise additional policing costs. However, the operational response will vary from force to force and within force, depending on the perception of likely crime and disorder associated with late night opening. The Government would expect forces to meet these costs from within their existing budgets.”

As the order has now been used on two separate royal occasions, I wonder whether the memorandum could have been slightly more helpful. The Government seem to be able to forecast the potential savings for businesses based on previous celebrations, but fail to do the same for the costs for the police. I say gently that providing that extra information might have eased the concerns that the PCCs expressed during the consultation.

We support the order. The Queen’s 90th birthday is a moment of national significance and celebration. Keeping the pubs open for an extra couple of hours will make the party all the more enjoyable, I am sure. I look forward to passing a similar order when England win Euro 2016 but, hopefully, that will come with a proper assessment of the costs and an improved explanatory memorandum.