Drug Consumption Rooms

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ronnie Cowan]

As I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted, we created this situation and we can fix it, but doing so will take a change in attitude at governmental level. Rather than pay lip service to people with an addiction, we need to start listening to what they are asking for. We need to treat addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue, not just in part but in its entirety.

Drug consumption rooms are part of the solution. Supervised drug consumption facilities, where illicit drugs can be used under the supervision of trained staff, have operated in Europe for the past three decades. Those facilities aim primarily to reduce the acute risk of disease transmission through unhygienic injecting, prevent drug-related overdose deaths and connect high-risk drug users with addiction treatment and other health and social services.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the big strengths of DCRs is their ability to reach people with drug addiction problems who are not otherwise known to the services? If we build relationships and trust with such people over time, we are much more likely to get them into services that can begin to address the reason for their addiction.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I completely agree. The first step of the healing process is building a working relationship with someone and earning their trust, so that they come back and do not have the suspicions that we have built among drug users.

Drug consumption rooms also seek to contribute to reductions in drug use in public places, in discarded needles and in public order problems linked with open drug scenes. Typically, they provide drug users with: sterile injecting equipment; counselling services before, during and after drug consumption; emergency care in the event of overdose; and primary medical care and referral to appropriate social healthcare and addiction treatment services.

Currently, people are sharing needles, using a product that may kill them instantly, and living chaotic lifestyles that harm them, their friends and their families. DCRs provide needles, which instantly reduces the spread of HIV and hepatitis C, instantly improves the health of the user and instantly engages users back into society, where they can be signposted to relevant services. Needle exchanges also go some way towards doing that, but the paraphernalia leave the premises and are often discarded in public places or shared with other users. Users may choose to inject themselves in streets, doorways or gardens near to the exchange, which is unsuitable for users and local residents.

The great thing is that we have evidence from 10 other countries that DCRs work. The first supervised room was opened in Berne, Switzerland, in June 1986. Further such facilities were established in subsequent years in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Greece and France. Outside Europe, there are facilities in Australia and Canada. A total of 78 drug consumption facilities currently operate in seven European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction-reporting countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I will give way in a moment. Someone may use a drug consumption room once—they may even use it regularly—but there is no guarantee that they will use it all the time. As long as someone is addicted to these drugs, they cannot be kept safe. They certainly cannot be set on a course towards recovery, and the drug-free life that every human being deserves.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Douglas Ross]

I think we are short of time, so I want to keep going.

Drug consumption rooms could even make things worse. Some drugs, such as heroin, work in such a way that many people build up a tolerance to them, so in order to get the same high and to satisfy their addiction, they end up having to take more and more of the drug. We therefore could be faced with the prospect of the state building a facility to passively watch over someone sinking deeper and deeper into an addition that becomes more and more likely to kill them with each hit. Instead of building drug consumption rooms and trying in vain to make addiction to these drugs safer, we should be redoubling our efforts to help people overcome their addictions altogether.

When it comes down to it, the only safe approach, and the only thing that we should be encouraging, is detox and abstinence. That approach also has the added benefit of being less regionally biased. I for one cannot foresee many drug addicts in Moray, which I represent, making use of a drug consumption room in Glasgow, but drug addiction is not limited to the large cities or the communities close to them. This issue affects all parts of the country, including small and relatively remote rural communities such as my own. There may be fewer addicts in Moray than in other parts of Scotland, but they deserve the same level of support. The issue should not be reduced to a postcode lottery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

Then frankly my hon. Friend is in quite a rare position. The vast majority of people—certainly Members of this House—use a drug perfectly legally, and that drug is called alcohol. It happens to be the drug that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said is probably the most dangerous drug in use in the United Kingdom in terms of its impact. He is a football referee, and having seen football crowds he will know the difficulty of policing crowds under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is a significant and difficult drug.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and that body has recommended that DCRs are a policy that we should pursue. Would he agree that it is the case that not only have DCRs not been a venue where people have died, but they have been one of the most effective interventions at getting people away from addictions? DCRs are not being complacent about addiction; they are being realistic—[Interruption.]

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. We have two more speakers, and they will be able to get in. We will resume immediately once everyone is back from the Division; we will not take the 15 minutes. If there are two Divisions, the same applies. As soon as the second one is done— I think there will be two—I ask everyone to get back quickly, apart from Members who have informed me that they cannot do so.

Drugs Policy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The briefing from Transform states:

“No one has died from an overdose, anywhere in the world, ever, in a supervised drug consumption room”.

If Transform has made a mistake, I apologise.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is making such a powerful case about the importance of evidence-based policy. Is it not the case that drug consumption rooms allow us to reach people who would otherwise be very hard to reach and, over time, build up trust and bring them into recovery? The purpose of drug consumption rooms is not simply to go on handing out drugs to people, day after day. It is to reach those hard-to-reach people and bring them into recovery, over time.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree, and I applaud the hon. Lady for the work she has done in arguing the case for reform. Trials of this type of approach have shown huge reductions in acquisitive crime resulting from illegal drug use and in the small-time dealing indulged in to pay for the habit, but the Government withdrew the funding for these trials in April 2016. How short-sighted! The strategy stresses the importance of listening to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but it recommends the use of rooms where drugs can be taken safely, heroin prescribing and, in effect, the decriminalisation of the use of drugs, and the Government are doing none of those things. If the Government say they should listen to the council, they should please listen to what it is arguing for.

It seems to me there is a dishonesty to this debate. In the foreword to the strategy, the Home Secretary says:

“By working together, we can achieve a society that works for everyone and in which every individual is supported to live a life free from drugs”.

Incidentally, does that mean “free from drugs” other than the most dangerous drug, alcohol, which we of course allow to be sold and take the tax from? The objective or ambition of a world free from drugs is unachievable, as other hon. Members have pointed out, so let us just get rid of this fantasy at the heart of the so-called war on drugs, which has been a stupid and catastrophic failure. Such an international policy approach has had extra- ordinary consequences. It has massively enriched organised crime, to the tune of billions of pounds every year. It has also criminalised young people in particular, and it has had a disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities.

Illegal drug use is actually lower among black and minority ethnic groups than in the white population in this country, but black people are six times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than white people. Our son, who is in the music business, was driving in London in the middle of the night, on his way back from a recording at the BBC, when he was stopped in his car. He happened to have a black artist with him, who said, “This is just a fact of life in London for us. This is what happens to us.” They were all pinned up against a wall as they were searched for illegal drugs. There were no illegal drugs in the car, but this is too often what black people in our inner cities have to cope with week in, week out, and it is not acceptable. Black people in London are five times more likely to be charged for the possession of cannabis than white people. This is extraordinary discrimination.

We criminalise people with mental health problems. We know that there is massive comorbidity: if people are suffering from mental ill health—depression, anxiety or obsessive compulsive disorder—they may well end up taking drugs as an escape from the pain that they are suffering, and then we prosecute them and give them a criminal record. How cruel and stupid! There is hypocrisy in that the former Prime Minister famously took cannabis when he was at Eton and many members of this Government have probably taken drugs in their time, yet they are happy to see the careers of other citizens blighted by criminal convictions for what they did in their younger years. Surely that is intolerable.

The strategy addresses the issue of decriminalisation and refers to the evidence of harm, yet we know that the most dangerous drug for causing harm is alcohol, as I have already said, to which the Government take a completely different approach. They still use the language of having a tough approach to enforcement, yet the Home Office’s own report from a couple of years ago showed that there is no link between the toughness of a regime and the level of drug use in society. The illegal market also causes extreme violence in our communities. To control the market in a particular community, all people can do is resort to extreme violence to protect it; they cannot have resort to the courts, as other capitalists do. It has always been disadvantaged communities that suffer the most.

I recommend to anyone here who is interested in this subject the book by Johann Hari, “Chasing the Scream”, which refers to the extraordinary spikes in violence—particularly in America, where there is ever a legal clampdown on the suppliers of drugs to communities—when new suppliers come into a community and seek to gain control of the market. The only way they do that is by using extreme violence.

As I have said, in Portugal, after initial resistance, there is political unity across the spectrum. In the United States, more and more states are moving towards regulated markets for cannabis. In Canada, a Liberal Government are legislating to introduce a legal regulated market. In the UK, I commissioned an expert panel that included a serving chief constable, Michael Barton from Durham. Its recommendation was that in the interests of public health—not despite public health, which is an important point for the Minister—we should move towards a regulated market where we control potency, who grows it and who sells it. That protects those at risk of psychosis and memory impairment because potency is controlled. If people buy from a criminal, they have no idea what they are buying. The criminal has no interest in people’s welfare; they simply want to make a fast buck from them. If people buy from a regulated seller, there is a chance to avoid the sort of harm that we see so often at the moment.

I make this plea: do not claim that the case for change is irresponsible, but bring about change because it will save lives, it will reduce HIV and hepatitis C infection, it will protect people better, it will end the ludicrous enriching of criminals, it will cut violence in our poorest communities, it will end the self-defeating criminalisation of people who have done exactly the same thing as successful people in government, in business and in all sorts of walks of life, and it will raise vital tax revenues. Follow the evidence. Do not perpetuate the stigma and the fear. End this catastrophic approach to drugs policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the tone in which the hon. Lady has asked the question. If she actually looks at the HMIC report, she will see that it is clear that this is not about levels of funding; the report is very much about how the police use the funding they have. I gently point out to her that, if they are using the precept abilities they have, not only is every single police force in the country, bar one, protected, but indeed, this year overall we are seeing an increase in the resources for police forces. Even in London, the police have seen a £30 million increase in their reserves, which means there has been money that they have not used.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

14. If she will make it her policy to (a) end indefinite detention for immigration purposes and (b) introduce a maximum time limit of 28 days for such detention.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Detention and removal are essential parts of an effective immigration control system, but it is vital that they are carried out with dignity and respect. When people are detained, it is for the minimum time possible. We take the welfare of detainees very seriously, which is why the Government commissioned Stephen Shaw to carry out an independent review of the welfare of vulnerable people in the detention system.

[Caroline Lucas]

Numerous reports suggest that the Government are using indefinite detention. I commend to the Minister a report by Women for Refugee Women that sets out practical alternatives to detention as a routine part of asylum policy. I would like to see the reality for myself, yet my application to visit Yarl’s Wood as a party leader appears to have been blocked. Can he tell me the status of my application, which was first made in November and has, I understand, been referred to his office? When can I expect to get clearance?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are still considering that suggestion. I know that the shadow Home Secretary would like to visit as well.

Calais Jungle

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking any of his constituents, particularly Mr and Mrs O’Connor, who have been so helpful in supporting vulnerable people in the camp. With regard to the Le Touquet agreement, it is well known that in the French political engagement, there is a certain discussion about it. I believe that it serves us as well as it serves France, and I confidently expect it to stay in place.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I echo the deep concerns about the condition of children in the camps. More generally, will the Home Secretary acknowledge that the Government’s approach is leading to a toxic, two-tier system focused on distinguished between “good” refugees and “bad” economic migrants, even if they are fleeing equally desperate situations? Can she say whether an adult who fled Afghanistan, faced mistreatment in Iran, travelled through Turkey, where he had no chance to work, and is now trapped in Calais, desperately trying to meet his brother in the UK, would be defined as a migrant or a refugee?

[Amber Rudd]

I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that we have legislation and regulations in place to help the people we can help, and they are also there to prevent people thinking that they can come here when they cannot. We must have clear signs about who this country will willingly and enthusiastically protect and look after, because we have strong, proud British values, and about who we cannot. We should not do ourselves damage or in any way downgrade our values by saying that we should do more.

EU Nationals: UK Residence

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. We want to make sure that EU nationals who are already here can stay in Britain, but we also, as I have already stressed, need to guarantee the rights of British nationals living in EU member states. That needs to be a priority of our negotiations.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On exactly that point, can the Minister explain how it can possibly be likely to prejudice the rights of UK nationals in the EU if we do the right thing—if we do the moral thing—and uphold basic human rights by extending the rights of EU nationals here? Does he recognise how out of touch he is on this issue, and will he take that message back to the Home Secretary in no uncertain terms?

[James Brokenshire]

Of course, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes about wanting to act. We need to be careful about the unintended consequences and other implications of things that we do now, up front, to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for British citizens overseas. It is about looking at this in the round to achieve the best outcome. I think she and I both agree on that, but we differ on how we should go about it.

Hate Crime

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady has experienced far more than her share of abuse, particularly online. She is a stalwart for standing up and being there, and for still being on Twitter—I am not quite sure why she is.

I spoke to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General before I made this statement to ensure that he heard exactly that point: that the CPS needs to take this seriously and that we need to see prosecutions and convictions. It is very important that people are punished for those crimes.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement and her clear commitment to doing what she can to crack down on such appalling hate crime. She will be aware that a National Audit Office report showed that real-terms funding for individual police forces was reduced by an average of 18% from 2011 to 2015. That same report noted that the Department does not have good enough information to work out by how much it can reduce funding without degrading services. Does she know how many services to support victims of hate crime are at risk of being lost or have already been lost? What can she do to remedy that?

[Karen Bradley]

The prevalence of hate crime is not on an upward trend. According to the crime survey, prevalence is on a stable if not downward trend, depending on the type of hate crime, but we see more of certain types of hate crime and there is more reporting of it. The reporting of hate crime and prosecutions of hate crime is to be welcomed. We need to ensure that there is more reporting, because I am clear that there is still a very big gap between prevalence and reporting. The hate crime action plan has specific measures on victims, and I hope the hon. Lady comes back to that to discuss it when it is released.

Unaccompanied Children

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burrowes]

There is a proper long-term duty that has a disproportionate impact on Kent County Council. A case has been made in previous debates for how we could find a new way of enabling a fair distribution across the country. We recognise that local authorities have been willing to come forward, along with many community and other organisations. Towards the end of my speech I will mention some organisations that want to share the burden with local authorities. Communities want to come alongside to provide that long-term support.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his commitment to the issue. When unaccompanied children are settled here and a parent is later found, does he agree that they should have the same rights to family reunion as adult refugees? I know that is a controversial subject, but other countries seem to manage it without any fear of abuse. There are fundamental rights to family reunion that should be upheld.

[Mr Burrowes]

Family reunions are currently prevented by the rules on unaccompanied children, which are not in line with the rules for adults. The position that children cannot sponsor their parents or carers to join them means that they do not have the same rights as adults, which is a particular concern. The Government, considering their own and international legal obligations to protect the best interests of children already in this country, should not be in a position where they are effectively denying a child the right to be reunited with their family and to be safe.

It is important that we consider the situation more broadly, such as the issue of dependency in relation to families. Who is the family? There should be a broader understanding of dependency. It might not be the father or the mother; it might be a brother. I have visited Calais, and I have seen the appalling conditions at the Dunkirk camp. I spoke to a young person from Afghanistan who was fleeing a war-torn area, and he was desperate to be with his brother—this was when the French police were dispersing people, and he was at risk of being dispersed into the hands of traffickers. We need to find ways of providing safety for such people, and of recognising that his dependent relationship was with his brother. We need to find practical ways of supporting such people.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

That is a good point. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will know the answer to that question and will be able to enlighten my hon. Friend when we hear from her later in the proceedings. As my hon. Friend noted in his speech, foreign national offenders are from every corner of the globe. It would indeed be an enormous task to ensure that the form sent to each foreign national offender was in a language that that individual could understand. I rather wonder whether all the forms are sent out in English. That might go some way towards accounting for why fewer than half are returned to the Home Office.

There were 1,453 failed removals in 2013-14, and although 36% of the cases in which the Home Office tried to remove a person but could not occurred for reasons that the Home Office considered to be within its control, nearly two thirds of the remaining 930 were classified as being outside its control. If the Home Office has lost control of the process, I think it fair to ask who has that control.

Another issue that arises from the removal of foreign national offenders is the compensation that is payable to those against whom legal proceedings are taken by the Home Office, and who then take proceedings against the Home Office for unlawful detention. That, I think, is another reason why it is so important for the Bill to be passed and the law clarified. The National Audit Office reported that between 2012 and 2015, £6.2 million in compensation was awarded to 229 foreign national offenders. It really is a case of adding insult to injury. On average, about £27,000—approximately the average UK salary—had to be paid out following claims alleging breaches of the processes under the Immigration Act 1971 and the UK Borders Act 2007.

Not much has been said today about prisoner transfers. On 5 November 2014, when asked about transfer agreements, the permanent secretary to the Home Office said in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee:

“Most prison transfer agreements are with the consent of the prisoner, and that is worldwide. That has mostly been because we have tried to get Brits back to serve their sentences within the UK. The big change in the EU...is to make prison transfer compulsory—without the prisoner complying.”

The permanent secretary was referring to a fundamental change from the previously exclusively voluntary approach to international prison transfers. He went on to say:

“There are specific arrangements in place with the Irish Republic. For Poland, there is a stay in implementation while they improve their prison system.”

The Committee noted that over the past few years, the number of British nationals returned to UK prisons through the prison transfer agreements to complete their sentences had been about double the number of foreign national offenders being removed. Noting that imbalance, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) observed during the oral evidence session:

“So we are actually not exporting criminals; we are importing criminals. One of our growth areas is importing foreign criminals. It takes a special genius to put in place a system under which we are net importing foreign criminals into our prison estate.”

There is clearly a real problem here. Surely we ought to be removing more foreign national offenders than we import. The problem is there are relatively few effective prison transfer agreements in place. Poland, which has the highest number of foreign national offenders on the prison estate, has been exempted until the end of this year.

The principle of exclusion or removal of foreign national offenders is at the heart of the Bill, and I think it would be helpful to be clear and simple about that process. I would have hoped that serious offenders would be prevented from entering the country in the first place, but sadly that is not always possible. There are many cases of criminals being allowed into the UK, where, not surprisingly, they commit further crimes. We must improve border checks, but once a foreign national is in the UK, if they commit a crime, the police must check their identity and check whether they have been engaged in any previous criminal activity. Clearly, the administrative process of removal should then be straightforward. If a foreign national is convicted, a caseworker should be attached and should determine as soon as possible whether there are likely to be any barriers to deportation. That could be an appeal based on human rights legislation, a lack of co-operation from the home country, or a lack of co-operation from the offender. If those problems were identified early, the relevant authorities could take action so that when the time for deportation came, it could proceed smoothly.

In his Policy Exchange speech on prison reform only last month, the Prime Minister spoke about action in this area. I agreed with him when he said:

“Of course, there is one group I do want out of prison much more quickly, instead of British taxpayers forking out for their bed and breakfast: and that is foreign national offenders.”

He announced plans to legislate to give the police new powers. In light of those comments, I hope we will hear from the Minister that the Government will support the Bill today.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it within your power to suggest to Government Members that they begin to bring their comments to a close? They have now been debating a two-clause Bill for three and a half hours—a Bill that was debated last year and then withdrawn from the Floor of the House. I think this practice risks bringing the House into disrepute. There are so many people who really want us to get on to the next business about the NHS, which is incredibly important. For these few Conservative Members to be talking for so long is simply not courteous either to the rest of the House or to the people outside the building who want to see what is going on.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

Immigration Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that I do not, on the basis that immigration is a reserved matter. The hon. Lady may be aware that the Migration Advisory Committee analyses differences in this regard between the countries of the UK, as well as regional differences. For example, in Scotland there is a separate shortage occupation list, so there is an ability to reflect variations across the UK in assessing evidence and policy.

New clauses 1 and 11 would widen the scope for refugee family reunion. I am aware of the calls from the Refugee Council and others for that. We recognise that families may become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum often flee their country of origin. Our policy allows the immediate family members of a person with refugee leave or humanitarian protection —for example, a spouse or partner, and children under the age of 18 who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country—to be reunited with them in the UK. The immigration rules allow for the sponsorship of other family members. By contrast, some EU countries require up to two years’ lawful residence before a refugee becomes eligible and impose time restrictions on how quickly family members must apply once their sponsor becomes eligible.

We have granted over 21,000 family reunion visas over the past five years. In our judgment, widening the criteria for inclusion would not be practical or sustainable. It might be a significant additional factor in how the UK is viewed by those choosing where among the different jurisdictions to make their asylum claim, and it would undermine our wider asylum strategy. Some have asked whether we have fully implemented the Dublin regulations. In our judgment, we have. The challenge is to get family members to make claims in EU countries to establish the links that operate under the Dublin regulations. That is often the impediment standing in the way of those who are entitled to this, but who need to start by making their claim in an EU country.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Minister not accept that the definition of a family is drawn incredibly tightly and is very cruel, for example to those with siblings or children over the age of 18? He says that extending the criteria would not be efficient or effective, but it would actually be one of the most effective ways of granting refugee status to more people. Such people will not put great pressure on our services because they will largely be looked after by their families.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the manner in which the hon. Lady advances her point, but our judgment is that the policy strikes the right balance. Our family resettlement policy has rules, but equally, certain circumstances—for example, where there are older relatives, or issues relating to illness or medical need—allow for some greater flexibility within those existing rules. From our standpoint, the steps we are taking on resettlement are about an assessment of vulnerability. That is redolent of the approach we are taking in the camps, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and how we are seeking to deal with resettlement.

Wilson Doctrine

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I start by paying tribute to the many Members who have raised the issue of the Wilson doctrine over many years. There are many of them and it would be invidious to leave any out if I were to try to name them all, but I pay tribute in particular to the indefatigability of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the hon. Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and, of course, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), whom I congratulate on securing this important emergency debate. There has been a strong sense of common cause here. Contributions from all parts of the House have been very much in accord on the kind of principle we want to see in the future, the fact that we are not putting ourselves above the law, and the fact that this is about securing the confidentiality of our constituents—whistleblowers and so on—and is not about making a special case for MPs per se.

The Cabinet Office response to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling was that MPs’ communications were not “improperly intercepted” and that

“all activity has been within the law.”

That is true, but I suggest that it misses the point, which is that the activity that MPs have been repeatedly told was not possible because of the Wilson doctrine has in fact been taking place and constitutes a grave breach of our constituents’ privacy. MPs have been misled about the level of protection afforded by the Wilson doctrine and we need legislation that provides a proper framework for future decisions.

The Home Office has responded to the IPT judgment by reiterating that under RIPA the security agencies must apply for a section 8(1) warrant if they want to target a parliamentarian. This is also true, but it also misses the point. GCHQ and MI5 routinely undertake the generic and indiscriminate trawling of everyone’s data to garner what is called metadata. The Wilson doctrine does not prevent communication between MPs and their constituents, whistleblowers, campaigners or journalists from being captured in this kind of trawl. All it does is stop MPs’ names, for example, being used at the next stage of the process when the security services search that metadata. So they could not search for my name, or indeed the name of any other MP, but that does not prevent them from looking at communications highlighted by a search on another term that could still lead them in exactly the direction they wish to go.

As we now know, while the secret services have guidelines intended to enact the spirit of the Wilson doctrine when they make decisions about accessing analysed data gathered in this way, this is not legally enforceable. The IPT judgment refers to previously unpublished guidance issued to the security and intelligence services on the doctrine. The guidance states that, when considering a warrant application to which the Wilson doctrine would apply, the relevant Secretary of State must consult the Prime Minister, via the Cabinet Secretary. The guidance states, and the IPT agreed, that the doctrine only applies to the direct interception of parliamentarians’ communications under section 8(1) of RIPA, and not indirect or incidental interception under section 8(4) of RIPA. Therefore the guidance as quoted does not provide for a procedure to be followed in the event that an MP’s details came up in relation to a targeted search on something else.

Parliamentarians’ communications are not referenced in RIPA and the IPT judgment seems to assume that this means that the Act therefore overrides the Wilson doctrine. I was not a Member of the Parliament when RIPA was passed but many colleagues here today were and perhaps they, understandably, did not seek to amend the Act to refer to their communications because they believed they were already exempted thanks to Wilson.

The judgment casts serious doubt over repeated assurances from successive Governments that MPs are not being subjected to state surveillance or interception. At best, it appears that the Prime Minister, as recently as 11 September 2015, was unaware of the exact status of the doctrine and ignorant of its application. At worst, he may have been deliberately ambiguous in order to lull MPs into a false sense of security. In this I echo the words of the Government’s own lawyer, who described previous ministerial statements on the Wilson doctrine as

“ambiguity at best whether deliberate or otherwise”.

What is unambiguous is that any change in the doctrine’s scope should have been notified to Parliament, in terms, by the Prime Minister. If the Executive have instead unilaterally rescinded the doctrine without notifying Parliament, that represents what Liberty calls

“a significant, constitutional breach of trust between the Executive and sovereign Parliament to which it must answer”.

Consistent with the absence of any reference to parliamentarians’ communications in RIPA, the interception of communications code of practice, published in 2002, approved by Parliament and in force until earlier this year, is similarly silent on the subject. But its replacement, the draft interception of communications code of practice, published in February 2015, does refer to the potential for parliamentarians’ communications to be intercepted. It has not yet been put before or approved by Parliament, but this change of tack suggests a conscious change of policy and, again, it is unacceptable that MPs have not been properly informed—and, indeed, have actually been issued with ongoing reassurances that the Wilson doctrine protects them. The one exception to this was a comment made by the Home Secretary during the debate on the data retention and investigatory powers last summer, which other Members have already referenced, in which she said:

“Obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians. It does not absolutely exclude the use of these powers against parliamentarians, but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to a parliamentarian. It is not the case that parliamentarians are excluded and nobody else in the country is, but there is a certain set of rules and protocols that have to be met if there is a requirement to use any of these powers against a parliamentarian.—[Official Report, 15 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 713.]

Again, as other Members have said, if there has been a material change, as it appears there has been, it is incumbent on the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister to proactively advise Parliament and detail the implications for our constituents and our wider work. This is not about asking for special privileges for MPs; on the contrary.

I have also been campaigning for nobody to be subjected to mass surveillance. As Amnesty International puts it helpfully: surveillance of communications in any form—from the initial interception itself to access, and further use, whether of content or metadata—is an interference with a range of human rights. Those include the rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

To avoid that interference amounting to an actual violation of rights, it must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. UK law and practice around communications surveillance currently fails not only the lawfulness test, but the necessity and proportionality requirements for non-abusive interference with basic rights. In this instance, it is about members of the public having confidence that their communications with MPs are not being spied upon, and that they can expect representation without their privacy being compromised. It is about trust and about our ability to undertake legitimate parliamentary duties without the security services monitoring us.

I would suggest, as Amnesty has done, that the logical conclusion the Government should be reaching in the wake of the IPT’s judgment is that, in order for surveillance to be both human rights compliant and in line with the Wilson doctrine, those authorising warrants—who should be independent entities—should ensure it is properly targeted at where there is a reasonable suspicion. In other words, there should be no indiscriminate bulk surveillance of anyone’s communications data.

I, too, agree that MPs should not be above the law. If there are grounds to suspect an MP or citizen of any wrongdoing, of course it should be permissible to target their communications for surveillance and interception, provided due process is followed. That is proportionate and appropriate. But it is also quantifiably different from the kind of bulk interceptions to which citizens are routinely being subjected and from which MPs were given the impression that they were exempt.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ongoing willingness to facilitate transparency and accountability in respect of the Wilson doctrine. Last week, in the wake of the IPT judgment on the case brought by myself and Baroness Jenny Jones, I was given the green light to ask two written parliamentary questions that would not have been permissible 24 hours earlier—namely, to ask the Prime Minister what information he holds about MPs having had their communications surveilled and further, to ask him whether the Wilson doctrine has been consistently applied to my communications or whether those communications have also been surveilled. I urge other MPs to ask those same questions, as our constituents and other correspondents have a right to know whether they have been spied on. We also need answers to the following questions. Did the Government realise that the Wilson doctrine was not legally enforceable in advance of this ruling? Will the Prime Minister now come clean about how many MPs and their constituents have been surveilled?

The impending publication of the investigatory powers Bill will offer a key opportunity to ensure that the protections supposedly afforded by the Wilson doctrine are indeed properly enshrined in law. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has indicated that she will look at including a principle of that kind in the Bill, but I would be grateful if she could be even clearer when she speaks again in the debate and if she confirmed—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Lady that I am sure her error is an inadvertent one? I do not think that the Home Secretary intends to speak again in the debate tonight, although the shadow Leader of the House might do so if there is time. Of course the Home Secretary is perfectly welcome to do so if there is time, but I do not think she intends to do so. However, I will leave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to her own devices.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker. I will therefore simply suggest that it would be helpful if the Home Secretary were to intervene on me to clarify that she will definitely include in that Bill the kind of principle that many of us have been describing tonight. I appreciate that she is still thinking about whether this should involve independent judicial approval, as I would suggest, a triple lock or some other mechanism. We would, however, like to hear a firm indication, as a result of this debate, that this issue will be properly addressed and that the hole that has been left as a result of the Wilson doctrine not being properly enforced will be filled by a measure in the new legislation.

All the Members who have spoken in the debate have agreed that this kind of legislation should extend to the devolved legislatures and Assemblies, and to the European Parliament. We do not yet live in a surveillance state, and MPs have a right to expect that their communications, and those of the individuals they have been democratically elected to represent, should not be routinely surveilled or intercepted.