Illegal Drug Use and Organised Crime

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

Indeed, in Northern Ireland the Paramilitary Crime Task Force and the Organised Crime Task Force are bodies that should concentrate on this issue. I know they have had some success in recent years, but there needs to be an escalation of awareness among the relevant statutory authorities about the increasing scale of the problem.

Sometimes we hear people on television or on the radio talking about drugs as if they are a casual thing and not really addictive. There may well be a few people who fall into that category and think they are using drugs casually on a night out or a social evening, but as the problem escalates—after 10, 12 or 15 years of constant use—the addiction gets worse and worse, and it often results in hospitalisation or admission to an addiction treatment unit if there is one. In some areas people are yearning for addiction treatment units because the problem is increasing.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Unfortunately, all our constituencies are impacted on a daily basis by those who peddle illegal drugs. I have no time for them; they ruin lives and communities, and they should face the full force of the law.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a particular difficulty in Northern Ireland because our police resourcing and recruitment levels are at an all-time low? I trust the Minister will refer to the fact that we are running a major deficit in our police forces, so the Government need to step up with regard to police recruitment so we can get a grip of the problem.

[Mr Campbell]

I am glad my hon. Friend got to her feet, because I was just about to come to the inadequacy of the police resources in Northern Ireland. She makes an accurate assessment: we need an increased police presence.

There is an increasing concern that as the drug cartels and gangs become more sophisticated, they will look at ways of channelling their resources into other semi-legitimate businesses. We all know about the businesses in our constituencies that use cash—I am a great supporter of retaining the use of cash—in order to launder ill-gotten gains. We need to concentrate on that. Whenever new businesses spring up with marvellous, state-of-the-art items and the source of the funds is questionable, that has to be examined. If it is as questionable as it appears to be on some occasions, the full rigour of the law should be used to bring those people to justice.

I hope the Minister will respond positively and give not just Members here but the wider community an assurance that the authorities—the NCA and local organisations in Northern Ireland—will have a greater awareness of these individuals and organised gangs and greater diligence in pursuing them. I hope she will assure us that that will be raised on a national and international level so that we restrict the flow from the source and address the distribution methods.

Young Drivers: Government Support

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. We experience the same difficulties in Northern Ireland with the availability of testing. We find that people are ready for their test but no tests are available, and they then have to continue with lessons, or stop lessons and go back to them later. It is a dreadful situation. This is about ensuring manpower and resources are available in rural areas, as the hon. Member outlined.

What has prompted so many people to get in touch with me is specifically the exorbitant cost of insurance, particularly in the context of the cost of living crisis, where household budgets are already strained. Where once the bank of mum and dad stepped in, many parents just cannot do that to help to meet the cost of insurance. That leaves young people unable to benefit from the freedom that driving brings, which many of us enjoyed. That barrier to the road impedes access to employment, socialising, broadening their life experience and even travelling to study. The effect is particularly acute in rural areas, such as my constituency and, indeed, vast swathes of Northern Ireland, where public transport linkages are lacking in choice and frequency. Evening and weekend services are often reduced or withdrawn altogether, making the ability to travel via public transport non-existent.

The importance of driving and access to a vehicle is acute in these areas for the whole community, including our young people. I have no doubt that Members present from similar constituencies across the United Kingdom will reflect the same challenges faced by their constituents. In that context, we must look to the Government to support young drivers—to support them to get on to the road and to be safe on the road—which, in turn, will impact insurance premiums in the future.

These issues are interlinked. If we look at insurance costs, Confused.com—the price comparison firm—said that, on average, 17 to 20-year-olds had seen insurance rise by more than £1,000 compared with the same time last year.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On insurance premiums, does she agree that it is important that not only we, but insurance companies make a significant distinction between young drivers who are careful—who take their time and learn to drive safely on the road—and those whom they punish? They punish not just those careless drivers with the higher premiums, but all young drivers, and that needs changing.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend is pre-empting my speech, and I agree with everything he said. For 17-year-olds, premiums surged by an average £1,423, to £2,877. For 18-year-old drivers, the average policy price reached £3,162. Constituents have contacted me after having had quotes of between £5,000 and £7,000 for a vehicle worth half the price.

Since securing this debate, I have had positive discussions with the Association of British Insurers and local insurance brokers across Upper Bann, who are at the mercy of insurance companies across the United Kingdom. I thank Alastair Ross from ABI for his constructive engagement on this matter. The insurance industry cites a range of factors for the increase in premium costs, and it is worth highlighting those to enable us to explore how Government might help on this matter.

By way of background, insurance is based on pricing the risk of claims being made and the cost of those claims. ABI data shows that, for drivers aged 18 to 20 and 86 to 90, the frequency of claims and average cost of claims is higher, which can impact premiums for those age groups.

One of the largest elements that the pool of motor insurance premiums pays for is bodily injury to other drivers, passengers, pedestrians or the driver themselves. That is because serious collisions can mean life-changing injuries, with compensation sometimes running into millions of pounds.

The insurance industry states that young drivers are also more likely to be involved in crashes with multiple injuries and which involve a greater number of people. Insurers’ costs of dealing with associated claims can be very high. The industry view appears to be supported by data, so we are not coming to this debate without data, because we know that according to the statistics, young people, and particularly older people, are much more likely to be involved in an accident.

This is supported by statistics from the Department for Infrastructure and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, which show that young drivers are over-represented in Northern Ireland’s collision statistics. In 2021, 17 to 23-year-old drivers were responsible for 23% of all fatal or serious collisions, yet they accounted for just 7% of car-driving licence holders. They also show that young drivers were responsible for 73% of the casualties in collisions involving drivers aged between 17 and 23. The over-representation in fatal or serious collision statistics is also represented in the Department for Transport’s road safety accident statistics and Great Britain driving licence data, which was used in a House inquiry on this issue that reported in March 2021.

We must also factor in the inflationary pressures on motor repairs and claims. While like-for-like quarter 4 figures for claim costs are yet to be finalised, previous quarterly and annual claims data have shown a clear picture of spiking costs for insurers. Payouts for vehicle thefts rose 35% in quarter 3 2023 versus 2022, longer repair times drove up the costs of providing replacement vehicles by 47% in the same period, and the cost to replace written-off vehicles has increased as the average cost of new cars has risen 43% over a five-year period. However, the largest single factor is repair costs, which jumped 32% in quarter 3 to £1.6 billion of the total £2.54 billion. That reflects a mixture of labour costs, rising energy costs, which we are all too aware of, and the fact that vehicles are becoming more sophisticated, with the likes of electric vehicles requiring even more specialist expertise to repair.

I have written to the Treasury suggesting that the Government, in their engagement with the Financial Conduct Authority, press for closer scrutiny of the industry to determine whether the basis for price increases cited by the ABI and facing drivers is a fair reflection of the pressures on the insurance industry. Many insurance companies known to us have merged and have left the market as a result, exiting from even insuring in the United Kingdom because of the high claims culture and the issues that I have raised. We therefore need to create an environment for these people to come back. They must know that the Government are implementing safety measures that help to drive insurance premiums down.

I note the Government’s response to a petition on this matter, which emphatically ruled out a Government commission. The Government have ruled out any investigation or interference in the market. Although I am realistic about the prospect of a Government U-turn, I believe that other steps can and should be taken to get young drivers on to the road, and importantly, to do so safely for themselves and other road users.

Faced with an industry that provides this basis for the increase in premiums, how can the Government help young drivers towards the rite of passage that is driving? The direction taken by Government must be to support better, safer driving. Let me be clear: most young people drive responsibly and safely, but, as with so many aspects of life, the majority suffer because of the actions of the minority, and that is undoubtedly the case here.

The Government could bring forward a number of measures to help reduce the number of accidents involving young people and thereby reduce the premiums for young drivers. Many of them may not be what young drivers want to see explored, as they all bring some form of restriction on the freedom that they desire. However, given the situation with insurance costs, we must look at all ways for young drivers to force the hand of insurers to reduce those premiums.

A graduated driving licence scheme is one such initiative. A graduated driving licence is the most effective intervention in reducing incidents and fatalities for young drivers. Based on extensive analysis, the scheme could include a minimum 12-month learning period before the driving test can be taken, a ban on intensive driving courses, lowering the age at which young people can learn to drive to 16 and a half, a restriction on the number of young passengers a young driver can carry, a restriction on their driving during nighttime hours, or a lowering of the blood alcohol concentration for drivers aged 17 to 24. All those measures seem fair and compatible with getting young people on the road soon after they turn 17, but more safely. GDL has significant public support. Research shows that the savings, both in terms of lives in road accidents and financial cost, would be significant.

The Government’s 2019 road safety statement indicated a commitment to reviewing GDL in the UK, but that has not been progressed yet. It is my hope that a restored Northern Ireland Executive can progress the agreed policy of GDL in Northern Ireland soon. Indeed, as envisaged by the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that could be a testing ground for the policy’s effectiveness. Can the Minister outline progress towards that becoming a reality in England, so that help can be given to young drivers in relation to both safety and insurance?

The Government could also support young drivers through financial assistance for installing telematics in vehicles. Those devices can monitor driving and driving behaviour, thus helping to encourage safer driving. However, they can be expensive and, in the context of this debate, which covers cost as an inhibitor to driving, it would be good if the Government explored means of supporting the provision of those devices to young drivers.

I am conscious that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and I look forward to hearing other ideas about how we can assist young drivers in our constituencies. In conclusion, I stress the importance of allowing young people the freedom to drive and the necessity for that to be affordable to all. I urge the insurance industry to heed the plight of young drivers and, through transparency and fair pricing, to avoid any accusation of profiteering or unfair practices. I also urge the Government to explore the viability of providing some direct support and to look at how our licensing system can be modernised to help cut both the casualties and the cost of driving for young people.

Energy Support for Farms

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

I think the hon. Member has been reading my speech. A cliff edge certainly is coming for this important industry, which is the backbone of our economy.

Another example is poultry. There has been an increase of approximately £87 a day, which equates to about £32,000 a year. That is a phenomenal amount, and only so much of that can be passed on.

Ahead of the Chancellor’s spring statement last week, our farming unions, alongside Members from across the House, had been lobbying to bring about a change in mindset from the Government in relation to support for farmers with energy costs. The Government must recognise the key role of the agriculture sector in feeding the nation. The industry needs support in the face of energy price pressures.

The current support from the energy bill relief scheme is due to expire at the end of March. It will be replaced by the energy bills discount scheme, which will run for 12 months. That scheme offers far less protection and support to businesses, with the removal of the price cap and its being replaced by a token discount. A pre-defined selection of industries has been identified for additional support under the energy and trade-intensive industries scheme. However, farming sectors have been left off this scheme, leaving them literally out in the cold without support. In the face of that cliff edge, the ask of the Government was straightforward. Our farming unions, on behalf of their members, sought the extension of the energy and trade-intensive industry scheme to include energy-intensive sectors, such as horticulture, poultry and pig production. That was a reasonable ask that the Government should have listened to.

Poultry businesses are reliant on gas and electricity to rear poultry and store fresh produce safely. Without sufficient support, there is no doubt that those farmers will struggle to absorb the huge hikes in energy prices that they will face. The same can be said for pig producers.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As I am sure is the case across the UK, small farm holdings in Northern Ireland have shown great adaptability and diversification over recent years, as times and legislation have changed. Does she agree that the campaign and the pressure she is applying to the Government, to which I hope they will respond positively, needs to get them over the hump of the next 12 months, after which we hope things will improve regarding prices and the war in Ukraine, so that a more normalised structure can return?

[Carla Lockhart]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The point is well made that there needs to be a short-term injection for those farmers, so that they can continue to produce at the same levels. We will see farming families and farms going out of business, which will not help the overall industry or the nation’s requirement for food produced locally.

Horticulture’s exposure is significantly greater not just for gas for glasshouse heating but for electricity used for lighting, chilling and storage. Without sufficient support, that sector will be under huge strain to remain viable. Yet the evidence-based appeal was ignored by the Chancellor. That reasonable ask of the farming community to extend the ETII scheme was ignored. There was no extension of ETII to support energy-intensive farms. A range of other industries continue to receive support. High-level energy relief continues to several sectors, including food processing and manufacturing, but the primary producer is forgotten. The Government once more ask the farmer to do more with less, and that is simply not possible.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Gregory Campbell

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). The issues surrounding this Bill, I suppose, can be traced back to 1994—rather than to 1998, as many people allude to unrepentantly over and again—because that was when paramilitary groups decided, in various ways, to call it a day. Those who had inflicted pain, misery and mayhem on all of us in Northern Ireland said that the game was up and that terror was going to finish. Political negotiations then came about. Four years later, unfortunately, terror was then legitimised. Those were the unfortunate origins of where we are today. We might try to rehearse history or to rewrite it, as others have tried to do, but that is what happened.

We then had a period of diminishing violence. All of us tried to come to terms with what we hoped would be a much better future. I fully understand, accept and share the view that many have on the Conservative Benches: that the problem now is that IRA terrorists, by and large, are not pursued, but there are the soldiers and former police officers caught in very difficult circumstances who, in many instances, had a split second to decide whether their lives were at risk or to take action to try to preserve an innocent life by taking someone else’s—a split second to decide whether a person was a threat to themselves or to their colleagues. Therein lies the difficulty.

Again, I fully understand the views of Conservative Members, especially those who have served, who say that we have to try to draw a line under this, and that this Bill is a way of doing that. Several Conservative Members have alluded to, for example, the late Dennis Hutchings. His case would, I believe, have collapsed, as did those of Soldier F and several others. There are different reasons for each case, but the underlying reason is that the passage of time has meant that even where the Public Prosecution Service thinks there is a possibility of a successful prosecution, it finds that for a variety of reasons it is not able to bring it to a successful conclusion, no matter how much it presses.

The passage of time has occurred and people’s memories are dimmed, and it is almost impossible to get an accurate recollection of what happened on a particular day. For example, I was on the city streets of Londonderry on the very day of Bloody Sunday. I have a reasonably clear recollection of what happened, even though I was a very young teenager at the time, but I could not give a second-by-second, minute-by-minute account of everything that happened on that day. I do remember that three days before two police officers had been gunned down with a machine gun. We will never know whether it was the same machine gun that the Saville inquiry said Martin McGuinness held on Bloody Sunday.

We come to the point now of assessing whether the Bill—even with some of the amendments that we hope, if passed, would make it a less bad Bill—will draw a line under what is happening. My view is that it is unlikely to do so. There are many people in Northern Ireland and a whole range of victims. Some have moved on, while some find it difficult to move on. Some have come to terms with the loss of loved ones, while others continue to grieve. What they all know is that even before this Bill is considered, there is very little likelihood of any successful prosecution.

The problem the Bill presents is that, if it is passed—even in slightly amended form—it slams shut the possibility of any potential prosecution or any justice ever being brought to bear on the cases involving loved ones. For that reason, my colleagues and I will be opposing the Bill.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Like other Northern Irish Members, I live among so many people who, through no fault of their own, are victims of terrorism. Those victims have approached me, while going about their daily business, to express how hurt they are by the Bill and how it extinguishes that glimmer of hope of any form of justice—although they know all too well that justice has already been grossly perverted in Northern Ireland.

We table our amendments in recognition that the Bill is likely to be made law. It will never be good law; it will always be fundamentally flawed and will always represent injustice and pain. However, it can be made to be better law, and we urge hon. Members to give serious consideration to what we believe are measured, constructive and victim-focused amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has eloquently outlined the rationale for the amendments in our names and the names of our colleagues, and I wish to reiterate some of the thinking behind some of the amendments.

Much of the public cynicism, certainly within the victim’s community, is based on the belief that if someone is willing to put a gun to a person’s head and take their life, lying about their actions will not disturb their moral compass. Amendment 97 would offer some form of recourse for lying to the panel. It is also, we believe, appropriate that such cases at the very least be directed to the Public Prosecution Service. If this process is to have any semblance of credibility, surely the Committee will agree that making a mockery of the process should come with an appropriate penalty.

We must also consider the situation of those who have deliberately evaded justice. That is our rationale for amendments 96, 98 and 99. The DUP utterly rejects the idea of immunity for any terrorist, but the Bill needs to offer specific provision for cases where those terrorists fled from justice. Whether they have scuttled off to the safe haven of the Irish Republic, the United States or elsewhere, those subject to active proceedings should not be afforded immunity. The thought of such individuals being welcomed through airport terminals by cheering crowds, to be embraced as heroes by leading figures of Sinn Féin, makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, as did similar images at the release of terrorists following the Belfast agreement. To permit such circumstances through this Bill would be wholly wrong. We therefore ask the Committee to support our amendment that addresses that salient point.

Amendments 100, 101, 102 and 199 relate to the whole issue of immunity. My party has always opposed immunity, for one reason—it is wrong. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave numerous examples of terrorist atrocities in a very personal and moving contribution. His story is the story of so many people in Northern Ireland, and indeed here in Great Britain. How anyone could listen to that account of loss, pain and suffering and believe that immunity for the perpetrator is acceptable is beyond comprehension. Members across the Committee seem to think the situation is justified by saying, “It is not perfect and we don’t like it, but we have no other option.” Yet there is always one option, and that is to do what is right. Victims want this Committee to do what is right.

I cannot close my contribution any more powerfully than by using the words of two victims of IRA terror. I urge Members to give their ear to these voices—to listen to these broken hearts speak. Abbie Graham lost her father, Constable John Graham, and Louie Johnston lost his father, Reserve Constable David Johnston, when they were shot dead while on foot patrol in Lurgan in my constituency of Upper Bann on 16 June 1997. Abbie and Louie were aged seven and in primary school when their much-loved fathers were murdered. I urge Members to listen to these words. Abbie says:

“The way the law works is that if the killers were caught and jailed they could only do two years. That would be a formal recognition of the wrong that was done. But if this law was to come in and then someone came forward with the information, it’s too late.”

Louie Johnston states:

“We’re 25 years on from and there are always new forensic opportunities becoming available and always the chance someone will come forward. But if the government is going to remove that opportunity it leaves us without any hope. This was the murder of two fathers who said goodbye to their children on a normal school day, the same thing that was happening in every decent human being’s house.”

He says:

“We need to look at what is right and wrong and take the politics out of all of this. What is happening now is that we are creating a justice system based on a postcode lottery. You can get justice as long as you don’t live in Northern Ireland. This government is burying justice and Boris Johnson and Secretary of State Brandon Lewis are playing the role of undertaker.”