Prisons and Probation

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I take the intervention in the spirit in which it is meant, but I hope we are not going to have a war over who did what when. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see in a moment, we are talking not about the last 10 years, but the last 50 years.

I should make a special mention of the debate on prison reform in the other place on 21 January in the name of the noble Lord Fowler. Lest the Lord Chancellor take exception to the wording of today’s motion—

“That this House believes UK prisons are in crisis”—

the noble Lord ended his excellent speech with these words:

“In 1970, we faced a prisons crisis; today, we face a prisons scandal.”

Every speech in that debate was superb, and I hope this House can live up to those high standards today.

Lord Fowler set out five proposals. In concluding the debate, the Minister, Lord Faulks, said he

“had no difficulty in supporting any of them”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 910-940.]

I assume the same can be said for the Lord Chancellor. To remind him, the five proposals are: deprivation of liberty, but not to make life as uncomfortable as possible; end overcrowding; reduce the number of people sent to prison; do so by re-examining sentences; and pass responsibility to the governor and staff. The Lord Chancellor has spoken approvingly of the last of those points, but does he agree with Lord Fowler and his Minister on the other four points? More importantly, if he does, how will he set out to accomplish them? That is not a trick question. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is in muesli mode or Shipley mode today. He has made some fine rhetorical flourishes on the subject of prison reform and set reviews in progress, but what action do his Government intend to take?

I am happy to give the Lord Chancellor a platform today to add some substance to the rhetoric—it is a platform rather than a scaffold—but I will do so by setting out the scale of the task before him. Let me begin with the basic issue of safety. In the 12 months to September 2015, there were 267 deaths in prison custody—95 suicides, up from 60 in the same period in 2010; 153 deaths from natural causes, up from 123; and seven homicides. There have been the same number of homicides in prison in the past two years as there were in the preceding eight. In the 12 months to June 2015, there were 28,881 reported incidents of self-harm, up by 21% in just a year; 4,156 assaults on staff, a 20% rise from the year before; and 578 serious assaults on staff, a rise of 42% from the year before. Tragically, a prison officer, Lorraine Barwell—it was the first such incident of its type in a quarter of a century—died in July last year after being the victim of an attack in the line of duty one month earlier. We owe it to her and her family to ensure that her colleagues are as safe as possible.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has started by setting out staggering and appalling statistics on the number of prisoners who have sadly taken their own lives or who are self-harming. Does that not underline the problems of mental health in prisons? What more should the Government do to tackle the serious problem of mental ill health among the prisoner population?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend—I know he speaks from a position of knowledge on the subject—is right. I will come to that in a moment.

The prison riot squad was called out 343 times last year—once a day on average—compared with 223 times the year before and 118 times in 2010. Alcohol finds have nearly trebled since 2010. From mobile phones to drugs and legal highs, the list of what people can smuggle into prison at the moment is elastic. According to one prisoner at HMP Oakwood, a prison that the previous Lord Chancellor called

“an excellent model for the future”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 114.],

it was easier to get drugs than soap, so there are some restrictions. Earlier this month, seven officers reported suffering ill effects from inadvertently inhaling legal highs. You couldn’t make that up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did as Deputy Mayor of London, when he was responsible for policing and crime and made a significant contribution to reducing knife crime on our streets and in deploying the Metropolitan police more effectively. I think all of us would agree that prisons and probation cannot work effectively unless there is a close working relationship with the police service. However, I would caution against making a change at this point of the kind my hon. Friend suggests. It is a fascinating idea, and it has been put to me by others whom I respect, but we are just 12 months into the transforming rehabilitation programme initiated by my predecessor, and it is only appropriate that we acknowledge that that programme has already seen an increase in the number of frontline probation officers, again of more than 500.[Official Report, 23 February 2016, Vol. 606, c. 3-4MC.] Yes, it has brought in commercial expertise, but it has also brought in the charitable and voluntary sector and, for the first time, there is a direct requirement to provide support for those prisoners who leave after serving sentences of 12 months or less.

I think that was a humane and wise decision on the part of my predecessor, because we know that people who serve shorter sentences are more likely to reoffend. We can debate the factors that drive that, but what is undeniable is that if someone has served a shorter sentence—if they are part of that cohort more likely to reoffend—they deserve the support of probation just as much as, if not more than, other offenders.

The situation that used to prevail, where these offenders would be given £46 and left to their own devices as they went through the prison gate, was replaced by my predecessor and it is only appropriate that this House, whatever other criticisms it directs at this Government, acknowledges that that was a step forward for which he was responsible.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the persistent failure in reducing reoffending rates. Of course part of the challenge in successfully rehabilitating a prisoner is making sure their health and welfare are looked after while they are in prison and also that, when they are released from prison, there is adequate support in the community, particularly for their mental health needs. What more does the right hon. Gentleman think should be done, that is not being done at present, to improve that?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and let me answer it by saying a little more about my analysis—our shared view on the Front Bench—of what contributes to crime, and therefore how we might reduce it.

There are more than 85,000 people in our prisons; 5,000 of them are female prisoners, and almost 10,000 are foreign national offenders, and we obviously want to try to reduce that number by having as many as possible serving sentences abroad. Of the remainder, some have made a conscious decision to do the wrong thing; they have crossed a moral line and society has to make it clear, with a serious punishment, that they should not be let out. It is not just that they are a danger to others; we have got to enforce the principle—the clear, bright line between right and wrong. But there are others in our prison system who will be suffering from mental health problems, and sometimes very serious personality disorders, and while they pose a danger to the public, they also pose a danger to themselves. We need to ensure we improve what is called diversion and liaison—the early detection of these problems and making sure there is an appropriate health solution—and if we do need to keep them safe, whether in a secure hospital or a prison, we also need to ensure that there is the right mental health provision for them.

One of the things I have been doing in the last two weeks is talking to the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister with responsibility for prisoners’ health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), and I am due to talk to Simon Stevens, the director of the NHS, in order to ensure we can develop a more sophisticated approach. I am also grateful for the work done in this area by Lord Bradley, whose report on offenders’ mental health under the last Government contains a number of powerful recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

12. What representations he has received from (a) international bodies, (b) the Council of Europe and (c) the UN on the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

16. What representations he has received from (a) international bodies, (b) the Council of Europe and (c) the UN on the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

I have met many of our international partners, from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid. The Secretary of State for Justice has met many others, including Secretary-General Jagland of the Council of Europe. Those meetings are important opportunities to reinforce Britain’s proud tradition of promoting freedom and discuss how the Government intend to strengthen it both at home and abroad.

[Mr Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should listen to all our international partners. I can tell him that Prince Zeid did not say that to me at all. When we have those meetings, they are a good opportunity to discuss the reality of our plans for reform. I made it clear that our forthcoming Bill of Rights proposals are based on staying within the convention. I explained the kind of abuses that we want to be rid of under the Human Rights Act and some of the challenges that successive Governments have had with the Strasbourg Court. That allows us to contrast our common-sense reforms with some of the baseless scaremongering coming from some of our critics.

[Andrew Gwynne]

But the UN special rapporteur on torture, Mr Juan Mendez, has warned that the Government’s plot to replace the Human Rights Act with a Tory Bill of Rights is “dangerous, pernicious” and would set

“a very bad example to the rest of the world”.

Is he not right?

[Mr Raab]

That is not right. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in all the meetings I have had with all the UN officials that pass through Westminster, none has ever used that kind of language in front of me. I very much doubt that they would.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Wales has a very impressive education programme, and I will come to that later in my contribution.

New clause 1 seeks to amend the Education Act 2002 to make personal, social, health and economic education include a focus on drugs and new psychoactive substances. It should be a foundation subject in any national curriculum. The Government’s drug education strategy contains some warm words about providing good quality education and advice so that young people and their parents are provided with credible information on actively resisting substance misuse, but these warm words are not, and were not, acted upon. The coalition Government reversed Labour’s plans to make PSHE a statutory requirement, despite that being recommended in the review carried out by Sir Alasdair Macdonald. They closed the drugs education forum, a source of expertise on drugs education in England which disseminated information to teachers across the country. The forum was closed as part of a drastic cut in drugs education spending. According to the Department of Health, drugs education spending was reduced from £3.9 million in 2009-10 to around £500,000 in 2010-11.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the need for PSHE to include these measures. Given that Five Year Forward view set out by Simon Stevens for the national health service assumes £5 billion-worth of savings coming from prevention, is this not exactly the kind of prevention we should be promoting in our schools?

[Lyn Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I remember my facts rightly, the Government estimated that having a comprehensive drugs education would cost approximately £500 for every pupil in England and Wales. If we offset that against the average of nearly £1 million that would be spent on a person misusing substances over the course of their lifetime, we can see it can be cost-effective to provide decent, comprehensive drugs education and so stop us spending at the other end, on people misusing and abusing substances.

Statistics provided by Mentor UK, the drug and alcohol charity, demonstrate that this was a disastrous set of decisions by the Government. Some 60% of schools now teach drugs education for one hour or less per year, and 59% of pupils say they cannot remember having a drugs education lesson in the last year. Paul Tuohy, former chief executive of Mentor, has told a national newspaper:

“We are probably in the worst situation for drug education for decades.”

Where there is drugs education in our schools, the quality is questioned. Ofsted found that 40% of PSHE teaching was not good and needed to improve. A 2013 survey of teachers by the PSHE Association reported that 81% of respondents would like more classroom resources for drugs and alcohol education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s approach to this matter, as it makes a lot of sense. The Government’s approach could create uncertainty and send out mixed messages not just to the gay community, but to the population at large.

[Lyn Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us look at the context and the evidence. Poppers have been used recreationally in Britain for more than 30 years, and, in all that time, no Government—not one—have sought to ban them. The word “poppers” is used to describe a group of different chemical compounds, some of which carry more potential harms than others. They are a popular substance in some sections of the gay community because, I am told, they enhance sexual experience. The National AIDS Trust argues that amyl nitrite and butyl nitrite are relatively rare in Britain because they are regulated by the Medicines Act 1968 and by EU law. As a result of that regulatory regime, the most common compound of poppers in the UK is isopropyl nitrite, which is weaker and does not pose a significant health risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I agree that if we do not place poppers on the exempt list today, we are likely to replace a regulated market with a criminal market, which is in no one’s interest.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The situation is worse than that set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). What is likely to happen if we make poppers illegal is that a gay man who uses poppers to enhance sexual pleasure may well be tempted to go on the black market and use a Class A or Class B drug, which would increase the risk of unprotected sex and, as a consequence, sexually transmitted infections.

[Lyn Brown]

I totally agree. My hon. Friend probably puts it better than I could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he brings me on to the issue of alkyl nitrites. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), has said—this was a bit of shock for me after 28 years in this House—that Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box having had poppers. I think that is what she said and it was a great surprise to the House. She obviously knows more than I do about such issues, even though she claims that she knew nothing about drugs until she became the shadow Minister with responsibility for drugs.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Having served on the Bill Committee alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), my recollection is that Ernest Bevin of the post-war Labour Government had a bit of a heart murmur and was prescribed amyl nitrate by his doctor. It is alleged that he sniffed poppers around the Cabinet table.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I wonder whether they are still in use around the Cabinet table.

The Minister has moved some way since the Home Affairs Committee report’s recommendation 45:

“We accept the evidence given by Professor Iversen, the National Aids Trust, and the Gay Men’s Health Collective on alkyl nitrites”.

Professor Iversen said that they were

“not seen to be capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a societal problem”,

and therefore we recommended, unanimously, that they should not be banned. We said that if the Government were to present evidence that changed that position and our view, they should, of course, be added to the list of banned substances. Indeed, the report states:

“If in the future there is any evidence produced to the contrary, then ‘poppers’ should be removed from the exempted list or controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act.”

As a result of the immensely able work of the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), the Minister wrote to me last night proposing that a review should begin. He felt that there should still be a case for putting poppers on the banned list, but that if the evidence changed he would come back to the House, or by some other order, and put them on the exempted list. I think that that approach is the wrong way around.

The shadow Minister has asked me for my view and I have listened to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who I know also has constituents who are very concerned about drugs issues. The Committee, which also addressed the banning of laughing gas, does not believe that this particular case has been made. This is my personal view and other Committee members can, of course, say what they want, but when we considered the issue and voted unanimously on it, we did not consider poppers to be harmful.

The Minister wrote back to us and told us that poppers are beneficial, as if in some cases they may well be mandatory. He wrote that

“the Government recognises that representations have been made to the effect that ‘poppers’ have a beneficial health and relationship effect in enabling anal sex for some men who have sex with men, amid concern about the impact of the ban on these men. In consultation with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the Home Office will now consider whether there is evidence to support these claims and, if so, whether it is sufficient to justify exempting the alkyl nitrites group (or individual substances in the group).”

Although I welcome that approach—it is a really positive step forward—it is actually the wrong way around. A better course of action would be to put alkyl nitrites on the exempted list, conduct the review and then come back to the House or by order and change the position. It is what we like to call evidence-based decision making. That is what we have said consistently over the eight years I have chaired the Home Affairs Committee.

There is a lot of emotion out there about drugs, and a lot of people have great concerns. Some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), are passionately in favour of liberalisation, while others have a different position, but why take a position of banning and then unbanning? That affects the huge authority that the Government have in respect of this very important Bill. The Minister has the whole House with him on it. I doubt we are going to divide on many issues, which is pretty rare for Home Office Bills. I am trying to think of another Bill where that has happened. There is always a division of some kind, but why divide the House on this issue when there is no reason to do so?

I call on the Minister to accept amendment 5, or to not oppose it, and to let us move forward constructively. He could have his review, come back and then everyone in this House will accept what the experts say. Without equivocation, I give him a guarantee that if the review decides that poppers are harmful, I will be the first in the Division Lobby with him, supporting that view. But to ban and then unban sends a powerful message to a section of our community that they are not being listened to, and to experts who have given evidence to us that they are wrong.

I urge the Minister, even at this late stage—as I have said, he is a Minister who listens to the House, the Home Affairs Committee and individual views—to look at the issue again and ensure that alkyl nitrites are put on the exempted list until his review is concluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I am not convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s premise. We consistently disagree on drugs policy. The evidence from Ireland is clear. Its blanket ban has been a success, with the closure of head shops and less accessibility to new psychoactive substances.

Everyone agrees that this is the most significant change in drugs legislation since 1971. This is a huge step-change and represents progress in tackling the new drugs on the market. It is not matched, however, with the same commitment to provide funding for education and information. The Department for Transport spent £1.952 million on developing, delivering and evaluating its communications campaign to ensure people became aware of enhanced police powers in relation to drug-driving—I know the Minister was very much in favour of putting that in the statute book—and in particular driving under the influence of cannabis. We do not see that same matched funding commitment to such a significant Bill. We need to see where that will come from to ensure that the good words expressed in the strategic communication plan have a real effect. We need the public to be informed. We need a strategy that covers social media. We need to involve the Angelus Foundation. For the foundation not to be linked to FRANK is frankly ridiculous. That needs to change. FRANK needs to talk better with Angelus and learn from it, in particular from its film awareness campaign. It is so important to have the common goal of alerting young people to the harms presented by NPSs. I look forward to hearing some reassurance on that from the Minister.

I would like to touch very briefly on two other aspects of the Bill. There are amendments on cannabis. I want to link them to new clause 6, which seeks to suggest that arrests and detention for class A drugs should trigger assessment and treatment. I want to highlight the fact that the big issue for young people, along with NPSs, is their use and misuse of cannabis. Cannabis is having a profound effect on them. I visited Highbury Corner magistrates court with the Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor. He heard that cannabis has an impact on many young people, but only Islington has a drug treatment facility or the ability to deal with that treatment. Justices have at least one hand tied behind their back when it comes to getting young people the treatment they need. We need to tackle that, along with treatment facilities for NPSs. We need to get up to speed with where the market is going. It is going away from substitute treatment for addiction to the old opiate substances and towards needing an holistic approach to treatment and education. We must get up to speed and the review needs to convince us it is doing that.

Finally, I come to poppers. In Committee I raised concerns about the ban on behalf of many people, including the gay community. I am very pleased that the Government have, belatedly, reached a point where they are going to look seriously at the evidence and at exempting alkyl nitrate. I agree with the Government that there are some complications, however. I raised in an intervention the fact there are already controls around the supply of alkyl nitrates. Under-18s are caught by the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. All of these areas need to be looked at, because there is commonality. The problem with poppers-alkyl nitrates is that they can be tweaked and abused so that the substance becomes harmful. Historically, that has been the case.

The reference to the Home Office about this is somewhat historical. It is not new, and it should not have led to an 11th-hour conversion to consider putting it on the exemption list. The Bill has been around for months—this issue was raised in the other place—so it is encouraging, if also disappointing, that we are still, at this late stage, considering exemptions. I am willing to go with the evidence, however, because it is complicated and we do not want the blanket ban diluted. We need to ensure that this is done properly, with evidence, so that, as the Home Affairs Committee said, there is eventually an exemption.

There are many other issues to talk about, but I want to give others the opportunity to speak. I broadly welcome the fact that, at long last, we will have a blanket ban on the statute book. It will be a force for good, particularly in protecting young people.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I support the Bill and its aims. Indeed, I wound up the Second Reading debate in the Chamber because Labour felt it was important to view it not just as a Home Office Bill—although that is where it is placed—but in terms of its public health aspects. As Labour’s shadow public health Minister, therefore, I have been keen to promote some of the public health issues. I also commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who led the Opposition in Committee and in the House today in an exemplary fashion.

I support the Bill and want to make it as good as it can be. There are several areas where it is not as strong as it ought to be, and that is why I am proud to support my hon. Friend in tabling several amendments. In particular, I want to talk about new clause 1, on PSHE, and amendment 5, on poppers, because both have an important public health aspect to them.

On new clause 1, I mentioned in an intervention that Simon Stevens, in his Five Year Forward View for the NHS, had identified £5 billion of savings that could be reinvested into the NHS as a consequence of prevention. The Government were unwise to cut £200 million from the public health budget, because that is the very kind of prevention that will not now bear fruit in year five of the Five Year Forward View, but they could redeem themselves by adopting the new clause. I have always viewed it as a weakness that we do not have statutory PSHE in this country. Many schools do it, but it is a “something else” added on to the curriculum; it is not given the focus it ought to be given.

If we are serious about tackling the whole range of health inequalities, we could start providing statutory PSHE for children from a very young age. If we are to talk about the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and drugs, and about sex and relationships, we must do it in the context of a statutory framework in all our schools. There are huge public health benefits to doing so. When the Minister comes to consider the views expressed today, he could do nothing better than read in Hansard—I know he was listening—the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), because she got it spot on. The real benefits of having statutory PSHE in schools are clear. It would really strengthen the Bill’s aims and ambitions.

Our amendment 5 relates to poppers. In the short time I have been Labour’s shadow public health Minister, I have met lots of charities and organisations in the public health world, and many of them, including drug abuse charities, have raised many issues with me. Not one has raised poppers as an issue.

I will tell the Minister who has raised the issue of poppers with me, and that is a large number of LGBT charities and organisations. There is a public health role here. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made some very important points, not just on the health and wellbeing of gay and lesbian people, but on some of the mental health and relationship issues surrounding what we are discussing today.

Prisons and Secure Training Centres: Safety

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. and learned Friend has a detailed knowledge of the criminal justice system. It is appropriate and important that the option of custody is always available. There will be some young offenders for whom a custodial sentence is appropriate, but it is also right, in particular where we can keep people out of custody and deal with drug, alcohol or substance abuse or mental health problems, that we make sure that there is an appropriate intervention that keeps them out of the sometimes tough and brutal environment of prison, but only if we can be certain that the intervention is getting their life back on track.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Given the severity of the allegations being made and the seriousness with which we should take the safeguarding issues presented to us, can the Secretary of State inform the House whether the officers concerned at the detention centres are being replaced by temporary personnel while the investigations into safeguarding take place?

[Michael Gove]

Seven individuals have been suspended. It is my understanding that staffing is at an appropriate level, but during my conversation with the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board I will seek to satisfy myself that we have exactly the level of both staffing and monitoring that we need to keep people safe.

State Pension Age (Women)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black]

It is noticeable, and a pity, how few Conservatives have turned out.

It is important to highlight that the Government did not send out a single letter to women. There was no official correspondence between the Government and the individuals affected, alerting them to the changes that were going to happen to them. Even the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, recognised that not everybody knew that the changes had happened in the 1995 Act.

A response to a freedom of information request states that the Department eventually wrote to individuals affected and that

“Mail campaigns took place between 2009 and 2013.”

That is 14 years after the 1995 Act. Women were not personally notified by anybody official until 14 years after the changes came in. That is 14 fewer years that women have had to prepare and to try to make alternative arrangements.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. In a nutshell, is not the injustice to that set of women the fact that they have had not one but two changes to the state pension age, that the process has been accelerated and that there are no transitional arrangements in place? Is not that the real unfairness?

[Mhairi Black]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this Backbench Business Committee debate. I commend the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for her opening remarks and pay tribute to the WASPI campaign, particularly to Marion and Anne and all the other ladies who helped campaign on this important issue. I have worked long and hard with them over the past few months. We have had meetings with my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I lobbied my constituents with the WASPI group in Morrisons in Denton recently and I think that I was the first in this Parliament to raise the issue at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I am therefore glad that the subject has been brought to the Floor of the House for a full debate.

A very real injustice has been done to this group of women born in the 1950s. We can go through the history again: there have been two changes to their state pension age and, if that were not bad enough, the real injustice has been the acceleration of the process, which has left many women who were not expecting the changes having to make alternative arrangements. When it came to the private pensions of Members of Parliament, those within 10 years of their normal state pension age could remain on the old scheme, but the group of women we are considering have had no chance to put in place their alternative arrangements.

[Barbara Keeley]

Government Members have asked Opposition Members for our transitional arrangement suggestions. I made some. I gave examples from other countries: some have bridge pensions while others look after people who are made redundant. It is up to the Government, who have made the £30 billion pension grab, to come up with ideas.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right. When the Pensions Act 2011 was debated in the House of the Commons, the current Secretary of State said,

“but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]

Where are they? Those ladies are still waiting. It is about time the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and set out those transitional arrangements, because those women cannot wait forever.

We have already had the first U-turn from the former Pensions Minister, who said that he was not properly briefed. That says a lot about the calibre of Liberal Democrat Ministers in the former coalition Government. Now we have a Pensions Minister in the other place, who was a champion for those ladies until she took the Queen’s shilling. She now says that she cannot do anything about it. What utter nonsense. What is the point of having a Minister if she cannot do anything about it? It is time that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions got off their backsides and did something to help those women.

Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), I will give the Minister some friendly advice. I appreciate that it is not his area of responsibility but that of the noble Lady at the other end of the building who speaks on pensions. My hon. Friend likened the WASPI ladies to wasps. Wasps can be pests and nuisances. They cannot easily be bashed away and, when that happens, they get angry and come back. If they are really annoyed, they sting and, unlike bees, they can sting more than once. Let us have some justice for these ladies; it is long overdue.

Women and the Economy

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I must correct the hon. Gentleman: it was a Labour Government who left that measure on the statute book. It took Conservative-led Governments another five and a half years to put that into action. Even now, what is being put into action is insufficient. It does not, for example, provide for a full breakdown of grades and job roles, so there is more to do. Of course it is a welcome measure, and we are proud to have brought it forward, but I hope the Government will not rest on their laurels and will be prepared to go further.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of the impact on women of the Government’s policies. She will be aware that there have been huge reductions in public services, and that women constitute 75% of the local government workforce, 77% of the NHS workforce and 80% of the workforce in social care. Does she agree that these reductions are having a huge impact on the employment prospects of women in the public services?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right about that. Of course the public services, too, traditionally have had a better record in many respects on promotion for women and other groups with protected characteristics, such as black and minority ethnic workers. There is certainly a concern that cuts to public sector spending will have an impact on women’s employment, and on their employment prospects, and that those cuts are part of the reason why unemployment has remained higher among women than men.

As I say, many of the Chancellor’s policies that are harmful to the interests of women are still, sadly, in place: the freeze and cuts to child benefit, universal credit, local housing allowance and tax credits; the cuts to the family element of tax credits; the changes to disregards, tapers and thresholds; the disincentive for second earners, often women, in universal credit; the benefit cap; the two-child policy in child tax credits; increased parent conditionality; and an alarming rise in lone parent sanctions. Even the free childcare offer is shrouded in complexity and uncertainty, is delayed and is apparently more limited in scope than had previously been planned for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Certainly, I am unable to describe the policies of the Government as pro-female, or indeed feminist. Perhaps the Minister will seek to defend the Prime Minister’s record.

Those women who saw their pension age increase as a result of the Pensions Act 2011, particularly those born between April 1951 and April 1953, have been hit especially hard. Not only do they have to wait longer for their pension, but unlike a man of exactly the same age, they are not eligible for a single-tier pension.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend will know the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and I have done in raising this issue. On Saturday, I was at Denton Morrison’s with the Women Against State Pension Inequality—WASPI—campaign group. It made that point to many of my constituents who were completely unaware of the changes and the acceleration in the state pension age, so those women who were expecting to get their state pension will be sorely disappointed. They said that the Government’s communications on this have been absolutely abysmal.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right. I, too, have met the WASPI women. Just the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) held a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject in which she pointed out the lack of notice to these women. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and others when the legislation was passed by this House in 2011.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My constituents in Stockport would probably understand where the Minister is coming from, were their courthouse not down for closure. It is one of the busiest in Greater Manchester, was refurbished as recently as 2010 and has specialist facilities for witness support and protection. Is this not a short-sighted move by the Ministry of Justice? Will he now save Stockport courthouse?

[Mr Vara]

There is nothing short-sighted about having a consultation, the purpose of which is to allow people such as the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to have their say and try to persuade us that, all things considered, the court should be retained. As I said, no decisions have been taken and we are carefully considering all the submissions.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s flattering remarks. The United Kingdom is a world leader in research of this kind. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the unintended consequence of parts of the Bill may be to inhibit some of that research? We need to ensure, therefore, that the Bill is absolutely tight, so that that research can continue.

[Lyn Brown]

I certainly agree. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend said:

“Would it not be a tragedy if the United Kingdom, one of the leading research nations in the world, avoided finding a cure for some awful psychiatric disorder due to our failure to include the appropriate exemptions for scientists?”—[Official Report, 19 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 779.]

Thanks to pressure exerted on the Government, Lord Bates, who led the Bill through the Lords for the Government, wrote to Lord Rosser and other peers to state that the Government were actively considering the issue and were in discussion with the ACMD. He pledged that the Government would table amendments addressing concerns about medical research during the Commons Committee stage. His colleague, Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen, stated that the Government have no intention of stopping “bona fide research”. I am glad that the Government listened to Labour’s concerns and have delivered on Lord Bates’s promise by introducing a new clause that will specifically exempt academic activities. I absolutely support the amendments.

However, I cannot help but feel that the Government could have avoided the need hastily to draft the amendments and table some significant information if they had properly consulted the ACMD before they produced the first draft of the Bill. This has been a very quick—I would not say rushed—Bill. We had Second Reading in the Commons a week ago and here we are in Committee, and there are still issues that are yet to be completely ironed out in Committee to make the Bill enforceable in our courts of law.

We need to take into consideration organisations such as the ACMD, which consists of leading experts on drugs, many of whom work in academia. If they had been consulted on the original draft of the Bill, they would undoubtedly have spotted the problems with the Government’s original plans. The amendment could have been in the Bill from the beginning, and parliamentary time could have been spent more productively in looking at the goals of the Bill and how well the Bill will help the Government to achieve them.

[Mike Penning]

At the outset, I want to say that legislation is passed in Parliament by introducing a draft Bill, which is then scrutinised. I welcome the scrutiny that took place in the Lords. The reason why the Bill started in the Lords—this is probably above my pay grade—is that there are so many genuine experts there. Perhaps if it had started in this House the same amendments would have been introduced by colleagues on both sides of the House. I do not mind that; colleagues who know me well enough know that I am pragmatic.

I have a couple of points about the shadow Minister’s comments. This should have been done years ago under previous Administrations—I think we all know that. For every day that we do not do this, people are dying. I accept that it is rushed, to a degree—there was a huge gap between the Bill being in the Lords and coming to us—but it is right and proper for this House to expedite the Bill, while doing everything possible about any anomalies that generally concern groups of people, in particular on the research side. If there were any such anomalies in the legislation, I would let no one prevent us from changing things. That is why we have tabled the amendments. Unashamedly, I have already mentioned belt and braces. If we need to amend things further as we go on, we will do so, so that we do not prevent research in such an important area.

I wanted to touch on the scrutiny work done in the other House. I sat in on the debate on Second Reading and Report, on the steps of the Throne—it is a great honour to be able to do such things—and it was fascinating. One group of people was fundamentally opposed, as in our House, but it was a tiny group. We got around bits such as “Will this affect people in churches with incense?” and, once we had got rid of that stuff, we could actually ask, “Does the Bill do what it says on the tin?” and “Does it allow the research to continue to take place?” which is absolutely vital. New clause 3 would improve the Bill, and that is why we can take out clause 10. That is because we were listening, and this is the way forward.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

The Committee has the benefit of a two-for-one offer from the official Opposition: we have not one shadow Minister, but two. We feel strongly that we are dealing not only with a home affairs issue but a public health one. As Labour’s shadow public health Minister, I think it is important for us to have a health voice in Committee.

I will not test your patience, Mr Howarth, by going over what we discussed in detail on Second Reading, but I want to make it clear in the clause stand part debate that we support the general aims of the Bill. The Labour party committed to banning legal highs before the last election, and we do not shy away from that commitment today. On Second Reading we pointed to evidence from the Republic of Ireland and it is true that the only way to draft an effective Bill is to include a blanket ban. Most if not all Members of the House of Commons—

[The Chair]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to address his remarks to clause 1—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Oh yes.

[The Chair]

I look forward to that with great anticipation.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely, Mr Howarth. I was only stating our agreement. The clause constitutes the overview of the structure of the Bill and creates a blanket ban on the production, distribution, sale and supply of psychoactive substances in the United Kingdom. That is why discussion of the blanket ban was relevant to the stand part debate.

We have to place it on the record, however, that we recognise the need to control the production and supply of such substances, and the need to educate young people about the real nature of the drugs, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham said. The Minister was right that drugs such as Black Mamba and Spice are already banned, but they can be tweaked and we need to be on the front foot. We also need to look at the health of prisoners, which is why I am pleased that the Minister has tabled the Government amendments. I am pleased that the issue of research has been clarified, because that situation needed fundamental improvement in the Bill. I am satisfied that the Minister has committed to further improvements on Report, if necessary. We will hold him to that. With that, we fully support the Government’s aims and intentions to ban legal highs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Meaning of “psychoactive substance” etc

[Owen Thompson]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

(a) is not prohibited by the United Nations Drug Conventions of 1961 and 1971, or by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by substances listed in these conventions and

(b) is not an exempted substance (see section 3)”

This new definition includes part of the alternative definition of psychoactive substances proposed by ACMD which clearly merits debate and clear reasons why it should be rejected - if it is to be rejected. This would also incorporate reference to harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

The answer to the first question is yes; I am more than confident about that. As the explanatory notes say, the CPS is responsible for the costs in prosecution terms. We do not think that will be an enormous burden. I am responsible for 43 police authorities, and the costs of policing this type of problem in our communities is huge. Public health is obviously for local authorities. I used to be shadow Minister for public health, and the cost burden is very interesting. We have seen in Ireland that the number of people who turn up to A&E has dropped dramatically. The number of people needing rehabilitation and treatment has also dropped. Those are all cost negatives.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Minister makes an important point on the costs, which are borne not only by the Home Office and the budgets he is responsible for but across Departments and within local government. He will know that although Public Health England is responsible for some public health functions at a national level, a lot of the budgets have been top-sliced and devolved to local government. What discussions has his Department had with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health to ensure the kinds of education programme he talked about are up and running from day one? That will be a crucial element.

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Health Minister makes an important point. I chair a newly formed inter-ministerial group that includes Ministers from the Departments he alluded to and others, such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as well as Ministers from the devolved Administrations. We are treating this issue not just in England and Wales but in Scotland and Northern Ireland too. He is absolutely right that Public Health England has responsibility for part of this. Most of public health has been devolved, with £830 million going to local government. Obviously, local government has priorities. However, with 30% of its budget being spent on tackling drug and alcohol misuse, it is pretty obvious what those priorities should be. As chair of the inter-ministerial group, I will be pushing on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I was about to come on to how we have looked at other parts of the world and how such changes occur.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I want to press the Minister a little on the issue of consultation and make sure that we get the Bill’s wording absolutely watertight. I fully accept his point of view that the way in which these things work is a two-way process, and that Home Office Ministers are open to receiving advice that perhaps they did not ask for from various regulatory bodies. However, the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has tabled would make it absolutely watertight in the Bill that it is a two-way process. My reading of subsection (3) is that the Secretary of State must consult the ACMD and other such persons as she considers appropriate before making regulations. However, there is nothing to say that the ACMD or others could come to the Home Secretary first and request that regulations are made. Our amendment would make that watertight.

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Minister would have a point if not for section 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which allows the council—or ACMD—to issue advice to Ministers when it considers it expedient to do so. That provision is in the Act. A protocol between the Home Secretary and the ACMD allows the council to consider drug issues without any advice from us at all. That is in the Act.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

I understand exactly where the shadow Minister is coming from. I have seen some of the representations, particularly on Chinese and Asian herbal remedies, and I do not think there is a real concern. The key to this is trying to get everybody to see the new way we are looking at these products within the blanket ban. Everyone seems to want a list of products, but we tried that, and we had to amend it 500 times. Frankly, it does not work. We are very confident about this, and I assure the Committee that we are satisfied the revised definition firms the legislation up. The definition includes investigational medical products, homoeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicines. That is quite specific. I will look at it again between now and Report, but I am very happy that the drafting experts, who we all rely on, have firmed this up. I queried it myself, but I am happy today.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

If it came to light in the review of the Bill’s measures that homeopathic medicines with certain psychoactive qualities were being abused and misused outwith the Bill’s functions, would the Minister look, maybe on Report, to change the regulations to ensure that those medicines are covered by the blanket ban?

[Mike Penning]

The Home Secretary’s powers within the Bill, should it become an Act, will enable us to ensure that sort of thing happens. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a close eye will be kept on all types of medicine. If what he mentioned was felt to be happening between now and Report, which I doubt, or as we go forward, there are powers within the Bill to make sure that those medicines are covered. I hope that alleviates his concerns.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment made: 4, page 38, in schedule 1, line 13, leave out paragraphs 3 to 5—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3. It removes the entries in paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 1 in respect of investigational medicinal products, homoeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicinal products, as these products fall within the revised definition of medicinal product inserted by that amendment.

[Lyn Brown]

The amendment would specifically exempt poppers from the controls contained within the Bill. I am aware that the Home Affairs Committee, as the hon. Member for Midlothian stated, received plenty of evidence on the issue. It concluded that poppers ought to be excluded from the scope of the ban in the Bill. Organisations including the National AIDS Trust and the Gay Men’s Health Collective argued that harm from poppers was low due to the effective regulation of the compounds amyl nitrate and butyl nitrate. Not exempting poppers from the list of psychoactive substances would take the use of alkyl nitrates outside of any regulation.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the health of gay men in particular. Is she as concerned as I am that one of the unintended consequences of banning poppers could be the use of harder drugs and the risk from that not only in potential mental health problems of those that are using them but also sexual health because of the heightened risk of unprotected sex and sexually transmitted infections?

[Lyn Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. One of the arguments against poppers is also that it could adversely impact on the sexual health of those imbibing. That argument can be used both ways. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Home Affairs Committee is quite clear that if we do not exempt poppers that could lead to increased health harms.

Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, a consultant psychiatrist and lead clinician for the Club Drug Clinic at the North West London NHS Foundation Trust, stated:

“As far as I can speak as a clinician, I do not think I have ever seen anybody come through”—

our clinic

“with harms related to poppers”.

Professor Iversen of the ACMD also stated that the ACMD had not seen

“sufficient scientific evidence”

that would prove harm in the case of poppers

“to justify a recommendation under the Misuse of Drugs Act.”

He was also not aware of any growth in the use of poppers.

I had supper last night with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who told me that the long medical history of the former Member and Labour Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin meant he took poppers around the Cabinet table quite regularly. Apparently, that was because his doctor told him he had no sound organ left in his 18-stone body apart from his feet, and the poppers kept him going.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

May I touch quickly on the comment made by the shadow Minister in her intervention on my hon. Friend? Possession in a club would not be an offence; indeed, possession is not an offence under any part of the legislation, unless in a secure facility. It is important to send that message out.

The Bill is in no way intended to pick on or cause problems for any individual group in society, but we are looking at a blanket ban identical, or as near as damn it, to what was done in the Republic of Ireland, where poppers were also banned. I looked carefully at the evidence to the Select Committee, particularly the comments of Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, who said—I believe that the shadow Minister touched on this—that there are harms associated with poppers.

I think that the situation is the reverse of what my hon. Friend has said. There are new types of products and poppers coming into the market in this particular nitrite area, which is starting to cause problems. We can look at, for instance, death certificates on which alkyl nitrites have been named, and we see that from 1993 until the latest data were released, there were more than 20 deaths. How people take poppers—a trade name that we all seem to have adopted—is interesting. We have had instances of people with burns who have drunk or ingested them, and there is evidence around damage and deaths. That is a debatable thing, because there are lots of experts out there, but the principle of what we are trying to do is not to have exceptions. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, what we can do is to review the situation in 30 months. At this stage, we are looking at a blanket ban without exceptions. I am only quoting from the pieces of paper in front of me, and I know that there was much more detailed evidence given to the Select Committee.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Surely the Minister would accept the words of the Home Affairs Committee report, which are quite clear; it says that poppers were

“‘not seen to be capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a societal problem’ and therefore we recommend they should not be banned.”

That could not be clearer.

[Mike Penning]

I accept the point. I know exactly what it says. I beg to differ with the report and the work that was done by colleagues because of the principle of the blanket ban. If we have exemptions, what other types will be brought forward by others at other times? The principle of the blanket ban would be affected if we accepted the amendment, so I ask the hon. Member for Midlothian not to move it, or to withdraw it. Other Members may of course pursue that.

I have one final point to make. I am conscious that presumably—although we will wait for the business managers—we are not going to have a huge amount of time on Report. If we leave too much to Report, I am conscious that we might not have the time to debate the issues that we have already agreed to in the length of time available.

[Mike Penning]

I assure the shadow Minister that in the evidence I send back to the Select Committee on that report, I most certainly will indicate the concerns that we have around harm to do with poppers.

The blanket ban is not targeted, because it is a blanket ban. It is obviously for trading standards, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make the decisions. When we come to the review, data will be available to ensure that we understand how the new Act is being implemented.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I have two points. First, I wonder whether the timescale for the Minister’s responding to the Home Affairs Committee will coincide with further debates we may have on the issue on Report. It would be convenient to have the Minister’s response in time for such debate.

My second point is about unintended consequences. Does the Minister not accept that if people cannot buy poppers in shops, in a legal format, there is a risk that they will go underground and purchase them from drug dealers, which might be a gateway into harder drugs, because the dealers will want to push more than just poppers?

[Mike Penning]

I will answer some of those points if I can at this stage. Yes, I will respond to the Select Committee before Report. I am not part of the business management system, but it does not look like we will have reached that stage by next week, so we will have some time. The Committee knows that I have been wanting to expedite the process.

On the second point, the evidence from Ireland, where poppers are banned, shows that that is not the case, and I am sure that the gay community is the same in Ireland as it is here. Interestingly enough, I raised the matter with the Irish Minister when I was with him in the Republic, and he said that it had not been an issue for them or caused major problems. In fact, he was surprised that I raised the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

I hear what the Minister is saying. However, it is one thing to say that there is reassurance for individuals who may take poppers, but how do they actually get them if we do not have an exemption for poppers? If we cover poppers in the ban that we are proposing in the Bill, they will become illegal and then those who would not be criminalised by using them cannot actually get them through any legal means. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister saying regularly that there is a blanket ban, but it is a blanket ban with the exception of controlled drugs, with the exception of medical products, with the exception of alcohol, with the exception of nicotine and tobacco, with the exception of caffeine, with the exception of food—

[Andrew Gwynne]

I appreciate that it is not proper form to respond to a Minister’s comment through a Member who is intervening on him, but if I were to do so I would point out that the Minister said from a sedentary position that that is not the experience in Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman suspect that what might actually be happening in the Republic of Ireland is that people are going to Northern Ireland to purchase poppers legally, which they can then use themselves in the Republic of Ireland, and that might be why this has not been much of an issue south of the border?

[Owen Thompson]

I would suggest that there are probably a number of ways in which any individual could acquire substances; indeed, that is part of what we will come on to next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

But there are other things that are moving us away from that, too. The Bill does not talk about criminalising possession, so its focus is clearly on the dangerous, nasty stuff sold in glitzy, pretty packets in head shops, which are targeted at teenagers and young adults in our communities. We might not be mirroring the 1971 Act, but we are genuinely attempting to tackle the real problem of the nasty stuff on our doorsteps. We want to get to the suppliers and get this stuff out of our communities, but we should not criminalise young people who may be completely unaware that the “legal highs” that they have been taking are in fact illegal.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She makes an important point about personal gain, because there could be a scenario in which prosecutors would still be able to make a clear distinction for somebody who is clearly profiting from the sale of a currently legal high, even if they happen to know the person to whom they are selling on a social basis. That is an important distinction that prosecutors ought to be able to make.

[Lyn Brown]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

If the Minister cannot accept our amendments, I ask him at least to provide strong assurances that sentencing guidelines will be drawn up in a way that makes a distinction between social suppliers and suppliers for financial profit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I understand that we will come to that later in the Bill with an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, who has been testing my thoughts on the legislation. I look forward to hearing from him on that.

As I have stated, a similar notion to the one I have been expounding already exists in the guidelines for sentencing under the 1971 Act. I would like to be assured that the Minister will work with the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that prosecutions are brought only when there is a clear public interest, which I would suggest there is not in the case of many social suppliers. I would find some reassurance in knowing that the Government will do what they can to ensure that the Bill is intelligently enforced.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, with whom I agree that amendments 46 and 52 are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable. I very much hope that the Minister will consider adopting them.

I welcome this moment of harmony between Labour Members and our colleagues north of the border. Both amendments make a pertinent point: although it is right that the supply of existing drugs is considered an offence even if the supplier is not supplying them for personal gain, we should be very wary of criminalising those who are simply part of, say, a small group of individuals who have conspired to obtain psychoactive substances. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham.

We are still in the early stages of controlling psychoactive substances. We should start from a presumption of ignorance for those not seeking to profit from the flow of such substances. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I am sure that she does not speak from personal experience; she keeps protesting, so we will take her at her word—that the reality of drug experimentation, I am led to believe, is one of shared experiences. There is a qualitative difference between a group of young people procuring substances for shared use and a profiteer on the high street. The way in which clause 5 is currently drafted makes no distinction between those people and large-scale commercial suppliers; I have to say that that is just wrong. It is true that sometimes friends can be part of a supply chain, but they are right at the end of it. We should not, at this stage at least, impose a criminal record on a young person who gives some of these substances to their friends.

The Labour party is fully supportive of the principle of criminalising those who seek to make money from this pernicious trade. When someone is in the business of selling dangerous substances, we can assume they will be following developments regarding the illegality of their work, so I am firmly behind clause 5 in a general sense. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to consider very carefully the fact that the amendment is intended to adopt a principle included in the 1971 Act: one of “personal gain”. Prosecutors could then still make a distinction regarding somebody who quite clearly profits from this trade, even if, as I said in an intervention, they happen to know the customer in a social capacity.

I note the reasoning behind subsection (3), and I approve of it. It must be made clear that the substance not being of a psychoactive nature is not a defence in itself if the supplier intimated that the substance would have such an effect, notwithstanding the fact that he or she would have no doubt trading standards on their case.

I urge the Minister to think carefully about this. The point made by my hon. Friend and, indeed, echoed by the SNP amendment is that we need to tread very carefully, so that we do not end up criminalising young people for the sake of it. We want to tackle the real issue, which is the supply of the psychoactive substances we want to ban.

[Owen Thompson]

I very much agree with the comments from Labour Members. It is not the intention behind any measures in the Bill to target these small groups of people. The Bill is very much aimed at those who put these substances in the marketplace and on high streets on a larger scale. That is the reasoning behind our amendment. If there are drafting issues, it is surely not beyond expert drafters, of whom I am not one, to come up with a form of wording that encompasses the aims of the three amendments we are discussing, while countering some of the issues raised by Government Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The greatest benefit of the amendment is that it would formally recognise that someone ought not to receive the same sort of punishment for supplying a relatively harmless substance as someone supplying a substance which they ought to know could be very dangerous. It keeps the traditional link between harm and sentencing, which is an important principle, without wrecking the Bill.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on the issue of harm and sentencing. We probably all agree in the Committee that it should be the intention of the law that the more harmful the substance being supplied, the harsher the sentence should be for that supply.

[Lyn Brown]

Absolutely. I think that were this included in the Bill it could have a deterrent effect on those involved in supply and change the nature of the market towards less harmful psychoactive substances. I note that the Scottish National party has an alternative amendment which seeks to achieve a similar end. I will repeat what I said when we found ourselves in the same situation when discussing how to exclude social supply: I am very happy to work with other parties and with the Government in order to ensure that our shared goals are reached. I hope that they take this offer in the serious manner in which it is intended.

I look forward to the Government’s response with interest. They will know that this is an issue which has exercised supporters and opponents of the Bill alike, and that if a way round the problem can be reached, we ought to grasp it. Our amendment has the potential to bring even more consensus to the Bill.

[Mr Burrowes]

I wish to speak to the group of amendments, in particular amendment 55, which provides the opportunity to talk about how the courts would deal with the issue when it comes to sentencing. I accept that the Bill will hopefully help to revolutionise enforcement and provide tools for the police to get out there and deal appropriately and proportionally with getting psychoactive substances off the streets and out of harm’s way for hardworking citizens—all citizens, in fact. That is welcome. The Bill also recognises the civil sanctions and the civil regime regarding the seizure of such items.

When a prosecution comes before the courts—in Ireland there have not been many prosecutions and there may not be a huge number here—we want to ensure that the penalties are just and commensurate with the offence. We therefore have a problem, because the substances are different from controlled drugs, and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contains a classification system that enables relative harm to be attached to a controlled drug, and that is then relevant to the sentence. Because of the blanket ban we do not have that, but I do not want to rehearse our previous debates on the matter.

It is important, nevertheless, not least for the courts because of proportionality, to be able to distinguish between psychoactive substances. No doubt the courts will take account of statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors—we will debate those factors later—and will consider the amount of drugs, the circumstances and the degree of sophistication, but they will also need to reach a judgment on the relative harm of the substance. I draw the Committee’s attention to page 13 of the Home Affairs Committee report, a report I know the Minister read avidly over the weekend—he could not put it down.

Chapter 5, on the concept of harm, draws reference to the evidence of Rudi Fortson, QC, who highlights the position, which the Minister reiterated to the Committee, that the Government do not wish to be disproportionate with sentencing—far be it from them to want to be disproportionate; they certainly do not. There is also wider consideration in case law, principles and conventions that would ensure that every penalty would be considered proportionally.

How, therefore, will the sentencing courts get that assistance? Rudi Fortson states that,

“in the absence of drug classification, or an expert’s opinion (if accepted) as to harm, the courts will have little option but to assume that all psychoactive substances are equally harmful”.

That is the problem we have, and it is why the debate on amendment 55 is welcome.

The Minster has already said that as soon as the Bill has completed its stages he will write to the Sentencing Council encouraging it to take action. The problem with that is that I know from experience that the council is not the quickest vehicle where taking action is concerned. On the desecration of war memorials, there was a commitment from a Justice Minister to write to the Sentencing Council, but it could be considered only when the council was to meet to consider amending its guidelines. I therefore encourage the Minister to make it clear that the process will be expedited.

The Minister and the Government have rightly taken an expedited view in relation to getting on the statute book the legislation regarding the enforcement tools, but we also need it to be fit for purpose for the courts. That is why I would like the Minster to communicate with the Sentencing Council and seek assurance that it will consider the matter in an expedited form so that we will get an answer quickly.

I also take comfort from the recent letter from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to the Home Secretary, which now provides a clear scientific framework to establish that this issue can be proved in the lab in vitro. That will also provide an opportunity, with the benefit of evidence that I think is going to be resourced, whether that is from the forensic strategy or the Centre for Applied Science and Technology. That material will all come together to provide the body of evidence for the Sentencing Council to come to an informed judgment. However, that will all need to happen at quite a rapid pace. That is my first point.

The second point is that there will need to be some flexibility, because there are new psychoactive substances coming on stream. How quickly will the Sentencing Council be able to provide appropriate guidance to the sentencing courts for these new substances? I would have thought that there will be a whole new regime for the Sentencing Council to deal with this, given the way that it has taken its time before.

It is absolutely vital for public confidence and the interests of justice that this particular chapter in the Committee’s deliberations is taken to heart. We made a recommendation here that the Sentencing Council be requested to produce appropriate sentencing guidelines, taking account of relative harms. That was a specific recommendation; I think the Minister is intimating that he is on the same page on that one. It is very important that we have something that is fit for purpose, not just for the police but for the courts.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham on amendments 47 and 48, which she has tabled. I do not wish to detain the Committee for too long, because there seems to be a degree of consensus breaking out. When we were last in discussion, about the previous clause, the consensus was between the Labour and Scottish National party Members; now it seems to be among Labour, SNP and Conservative Members that there is a degree of consensus.

I urge the Minister to consider very carefully the points that were put forward by my hon. Friend when she moved amendments 47 and 48. I agree with the Minister that all of the aggravating factors set out in the Bill so far are fair and proportionate. However, we need to go that little bit further, as my hon. Friend has said, and I would argue, as she did, that her amendments are an eminently sensible solution to disproportionate sentencing.

As it stands, the Bill makes no distinction between classes of NPS. We should be introducing the concept of harm into clause 6. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate made some very pertinent points, which were addressed in the report by the Home Affairs Committee, and I will briefly quote from a couple of passages from page 13 of that report on the concept of harm, because they should help us to form our opinions as we discuss these amendments.

The report starts off by saying that,

“one of the principal purposes of the Bill is to ‘protect hard-working citizens from the risks posed by untested, unknown and potential harmful drugs’”.

We all agree with that. That message was reiterated by Lord Bates—Minister of State in the House of Lords—who said that,

“success would mean reducing the harms caused by new psychoactive substances”.

It is interesting that Lord Bates is referring specifically to the “harms caused”. That is why we argue that we should tighten up on the issue of harm in the Bill.

As the HAC report goes on to admit:

“This bill does not calibrate for harm, and indeed exempts known harmful substances whilst banning substances which are not harmful simply because they are psychoactive”.

I do not wish to regurgitate the debate on poppers, but they are a case in point. That is why harm has to be considered.

I think we all agree that somebody supplying very harmful substances should receive a harsher sentence than somebody supplying a relatively harmless substance. The link between harm and sentencing is an objectively just one, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate have both made very clear. It would also produce a situation where there is a greater disincentive to sell the more harmful substances.

I urge the Minister to think carefully about including the definition of harm in the Bill. It seems as though his noble Friend Lord Bates in the other place has considered that, as referred to in the Home Affairs Committee report. It does not make sense that we ban substances that are not harmful simply because they are psychoactive, at the same time as we do not calibrate for harm, and known harmful substances, as part of the Bill.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

First, let me thank right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this good debate. I wish to thank the hon. Members for Winchester (Steve Brine), for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for their contributions.

Before I start my contribution, I wish to echo the Minister’s words in opening by congratulating the work of my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip, who has long championed this campaign. I am pleased to see her in her place. May I also admit that I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance on the issue of incense? As someone who has served as a thurifer, I do like the odd whiff of incense, so I am quite happy with what I heard in that regard.

I am not a member of the shadow Home Office team, but I am a member of the shadow Health team. As a number of Members have said, this Bill is as much to do with public health as it is to do with home affairs. I commend my own party for recognising the importance of the public health element of the Bill, as we do not want the Bill to remain the sole preserve of the Home Secretary. It is regrettable that we have to resort to criminal sanctions to control the flow of these substances, but a Government must do many things that perhaps might be considered regrettable.

With my public health hat on, I will begin by raising the point that local government is just not getting enough support from the Home Office. Local authorities spend about a quarter of their health budget on drugs and alcohol misuse. I was very concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester talk about how the tendering of the service under the previous administration in Cheshire West and Chester has led to a worsening service for those involved in drug and alcohol misuse. Across England, about £760 million a year is spent on drug and alcohol misuse.

I was disappointed that the Government rejected Labour’s amendments to this Bill in the other place. The amendments would have put a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to help schools educate children about the dangers of these substances. Some very powerful points were made by Members across the House, and across the various parties, on the importance of education and of raising awareness among young people. This legislation will have a profound effect on public attitudes towards these substances, but only with the appropriate education and public information strategies.

What has not been fully understood by those Members who are not as supportive of this Bill as I would wish is that it is as much about the messages that are sent out that these drugs will not be legal and that they are not safe as it is about the actual enforcement of the law. In many ways, to use the same logic, it is similar to the recent legislation on smoking in cars with children. Many critics of that legislation say that it is incredibly difficult to enforce, but it is as much about the public health messages that are sent out that that behaviour is no longer acceptable. That aspect of this Bill should not be misunderstood. It is as much about the message that is sent out that these products are no longer legal and they are not safe. That is what is important. Young people think that these substances are legitimate and safe simply because they can buy them on the high street. If only the supply side of these substances is to be tackled, it would be appropriate for there to be an obligation on the part of the Government to provide public education on the nature of these drugs.

Briefly, let me discuss the issue of medical research, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned. The current legal framework impedes legitimate research due to the requirement of a schedule 1 drug licence, which is very expensive. That type of licence also takes a considerable amount of time to set up, which undoubtedly deters scientists and manufacturers from getting involved. It also massively hikes up the price of the drugs, and simple market forces will dictate that other areas of research will be more profitable, and even possible.

Forty eight years after the prohibition of LSD, psychedelic drugs remain more legally restricted than heroin and cocaine, which are schedule 2, class A. That puts a stop to all research. I am concerned that the vague definition of psychoactive substances, with several common sense exemptions, will impede legitimate research. Would it not be a tragedy if the United Kingdom, one of the leading research nations in the world, avoided finding a cure for some awful psychiatric disorder due to our failure to include the appropriate exemptions for scientists?

I also want to raise the issue of stop and search. I wonder what would constitute reasonable suspicion for the possession of legal highs with intent to supply. Likewise, how is a police officer to identify the source of somebody’s ecstatic state? Is it from real ecstasy, or caused by an artificial substitute with similar psychoactive effects? Is the person to be taken into custody whilst a full chemical analysis is performed? Some clarity on these points will be needed in Committee.

Despite the unanswered questions, the Opposition will support the principles of the Bill. We committed to banning legal highs before the last election, and we maintain that commitment. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it will be effective in reducing the usage of psychoactive substances and we need only to look to the Republic of Ireland to see the effect it can have. That point was well made in the opening speeches and in contributions from other Members, but most powerfully by the hon. Member for Belfast East, who spoke about his experience visiting Dublin and seeing the difference that the law change has made south of the border. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of hospital admissions as a result of the use of the newly outlawed psychoactive substances, and the near elimination of the dodgy shops that sell them.

I also think that a blanket ban is the only way to deal with the problem. As I mentioned earlier, the main issue we face with psychoactive substances is their legitimisation, whether their legality is real or merely purported. The nuance in the four-decade-old law controlling psychoactive substances is clearly insufficient for its modern purpose, and I think we all agree on that.

There are some who argue that the criminalisation of supply will simply move the trade to the unregulated black market, but I do not accept that. These substances are entirely unregulated already. There is no incentive for suppliers to attempt to subject their products to regulation for the very reason that it would alert the forensic early warning system to the presence of a new drug on the street, leading to an expedited prohibition.

We therefore lend our qualified support to the Bill. We recognise the need to control the production and supply of these substances, but we also recognise the need to educate young people on the real nature of such drugs. We want to improve the Bill. We will not oppose it tonight, as we support its aims and it is Labour party policy, but in Committee we will make serious amendments on some of the points we have raised tonight.