Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The advice we have received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs confirms that cannabis is a significant public health issue. I certainly sympathise with anyone suffering from a debilitating illness, but we do not condone any illicit drug taking, for whatever reason. As I have indicated, GPs may prescribe Sativex in the circumstances mentioned. That is available, and we are dealing with its regulation.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

That is not the most significant medical issue in relation to cannabis. In its higher form in particular, there are significant risks to young people, such as the probable causal link to mental illness, especially psychosis and schizophrenia. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will continue to take a tough line and ensure effective enforcement of the law on possession of cannabis?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend takes these issues incredibly seriously, and has focused on drugs policy for some time. I assure him that our position is that the classification of “illegality” can influence behaviour and be a meaningful factor when people are contemplating taking drugs. That is why we do not have any proposals to change the classification of cannabis, and why we place so much importance on the current legal arrangements in ensuring we reduce supply and deal with these problems. There is no change of policy.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

One of the beliefs that unites Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is that the past 13 years of Labour Government saw a squeeze on civil liberties. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that the Labour Government were

“too draconian on aspects of our civil liberties”.

He is right. That is why the Bill is so welcome, trimming away, as it does, some of the vast undergrowth of legislation that has undermined our traditional liberties. DNA retention, CCTV, wheel clamping, vetting and barring have all become synonyms for the erosion of freedoms, and most people will be glad to see the Bill tackle them head on. However, there is something else that concerns a wide cross-section of the general public and, sadly, has not been addressed in the Bill: the way freedom of speech has been undermined by what we might call over-enthusiastic policing. It is often generated by the pressures of political correctness and causes officers to overreact to situations when no harm is being caused.

To voice one’s opinion without fear of punishment or censorship is a fundamental human right. Without it, political action and resistance to injustice and oppression are impossible. It is a precious right, and we must not allow it to be undermined. Several pieces of legislation have been suggested for amendments to improve free speech, but I want to focus, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), on section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws threatening, abusive or insulting words if they are likely to cause distress.

As we have heard, section 5 has been at the heart of several high-profile cases in recent years. Liberty wisely took up the cause of a 16-year-old protester who was given a court summons by police for holding a placard outside a Scientology centre stating, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”. The boy claims that police told him that he could not use the word “cult”. City of London police gave him the court summons and confiscated his placard after he refused to take it down. They referred to the Crown Prosecution Service an allegation that the sign was “abusive or insulting”. When Liberty took up the issue, there was widespread criticism and the CPS dropped the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has said, the defence of the existing law has been that guidance can be given to the police, but it did not work and has not worked in a number of cases.

Dale Mcalpine, a Christian street preacher, was arrested in Cumbria for answering a question from a police community support officer about his views on sexual ethics. He said that the Bible described homosexual conduct as a sin. He was arrested and detained by police for nearly eight hours. Even the president of the National Secular Society has said that the police response was ridiculous and over the top. I find myself in agreement with the renowned campaigner, Peter Tatchell, who said:

“If offending others is accepted as a basis for prosecution, most of the population of the UK would end up in court.”

He is quite right.

In a similar case, another street preacher, Anthony Rollins, was arrested, handcuffed and kept in a police cell for four hours after a passer-by was offended by him reciting a biblical list of those who would not inherit the kingdom of God. I am a Christian, and personally I might not agree with that method of evangelism, but the idea that someone can be arrested for reading from the Bible in public is very worrying. Once again, the guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers did not work. Mr Rollins got help from a Christian campaign group, the charges against him were dropped and they helped him bring a legal action against the police. The court decided that Mr Rollins’ right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech had been breached, that he had been wrongfully arrested, had suffered assault and battery by being handcuffed and had been unlawfully detained. However, the police are appealing against that ruling. Despite everything, West Midlands police think that section 5 of the 1986 Act allows them to arrest street preachers for reciting the Bible. Clearly, the police have difficulty applying the law and the guidance that the Home Office says should deal with the problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, some cases are just plain ridiculous, and it is astonishing that the police waste time with them. In 2006, demonstrators in Worcester protested against seal culling by using toy seals coloured with red food dye—a harmless way of making a point. They were, however, threatened with arrest and the seizure of their property under section 5. The police told them that the toys were deemed distressing by two members of the public, and they ordered them to move on. Ridiculous.

As the grandson of a police officer, I feel sorry for the police. They have to make extremely tough decisions day in, day out, and often under the most extreme pressure. They are criticised by all sides for being too rough, too soft, insensitive or over-sensitive. They just cannot win, and the media rarely give them a break. I do not want to run down the police. I want to focus on what we as legislators can do to avoid putting them in the situation where they have to decide whether a complaint from someone who feels insulted should result in an arrest.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important and strong case. Is he aware that, before he became a Member, whom we welcome, the House was occupied with debates about public order, particularly when dealing with cases of homophobic hatred? Many examples were cited and many concerns were expressed about application in that case. Such examples illustrate the problem with section 5 and its wide interpretation, and the need for us to take a proper, thorough look at it. This is an important opportunity to do so.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. He makes a powerful point and underscores the fact that this Bill should take account of that anomaly. It is unfortunate that it does not.

We have to ask ourselves, “Should the law really criminalise insulting words?” Surely insult is in the eye of the beholder, so how can the police be expected to regulate that? Abusive behaviour is clear-cut: we all know it when we see it, and it is right that the law addresses it. Threatening behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, and we need laws to tackle it. But “insulting”? What would debate be like in this Chamber if an hon. Member could be silenced by an allegation from another hon. Member that he felt insulted by what was said?

In July last year my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told us that this Bill would

“protect hard-won liberties and repeal unnecessary laws”.

The Government have made a good start, but they should seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to bolster freedom of expression by removing “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Act. There will be freedom from wheel clampers, but no freedom of speech. It does not make sense.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I am well aware what they said, because week after week, I sat in the Chamber at business questions, when the current Deputy Leader of the House rose without fail to say how heinous and unacceptable it would be for the Labour Government to change the law on universal jurisdiction, and how the Liberal Democrats would be totally opposed to any such change. We have an obligation to remind the electors of Oldham East and Saddleworth of the broken Liberal Democrat pledge of 3,000 more police on the streets, and of their broken pledge to oppose any change in the law on universal jurisdiction. Those things will not go by unnoticed.

As I said, an upheaval is taking place in the Jewish community. The attitudes of leading Jews who have been vocal champions of Israel are becoming deeply critical of the current Israeli Government. One of the most active and vocal supporters of Israel has accused them of being in the process of turning Israel into an “apartheid state”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats on universal jurisdiction is unlimited, as on so many matters. Week after week, their spokesman rose and vehemently opposed a change in the law for which he will vote tonight, just as Liberal Democrats voted last week in blatant breach of their election pledges.

Whatever change in the law the Government introduce for the most craven reasons, Tzipi Livni and her ilk will remain unwelcome in this country. What worries me is that without a valid and operable legal sanction—one currently exists, but the Bill will repeal it—and without the legal deterrent that the Bill removes, disapproval of the presence in this country of Livni, Netanyahu and their cronies will take forms that I and many others deplore.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is at the extreme in his views on Israel? Many of us consider them abhorrent, and Front Benchers on both sides of the House have expressed their support for clause 151. It is interesting that he has used the debate on the Bill as a vehicle to display his political views rather than to debate justice. Does he agree that arrest warrants should be issued when there is insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, because that is at the heart of this matter of justice, not his political views?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

The hon. Gentleman may wish to behave like a creep to his Front Benchers—I was elected to Parliament not to creep to my Front Benchers, but to speak on behalf of my constituents. Indeed, I persuaded the previous Prime Minister to abandon his proposal to change the law on universal jurisdiction. I went to see him and persuaded him that the proposal was mistaken, and he did not proceed with it. If my Front Benchers do not want to agree with me, that is their business. I state a view that I have stated consistently in the House for very many years, and I shall continue to do so, because it is the Israelis who are in trouble, the Israelis who are turning Israel into a pariah state, and the Israelis who will be overcome by demographic changes—they will be outnumbered by the Palestinians—and this Government are an accomplice to what they are doing. God forgive them.

Controls on Legal Highs

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I apologise for arriving late at this important debate. It is a pleasure to have my first opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

First, I want to acknowledge—this has probably been acknowledged before in one form or another—what a difference an election makes. In a short time, the Government have shown a firm lead on the issue of legal highs. Not so long ago—back in March—Professor Nutt, the former chairman of the ACMD, said of legal highs that

“it is virtually impossible to police the problem…the crime and justice side of things would get out of control. The police would spend their whole lives just arresting teenagers with mephedrone in their pockets”.

That defeatist attitude has been kicked into touch by a very sensible approach to mephedrone.

[John Woodcock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

In a moment. I concede that the previous Government eventually took action in relation to mephedrone on 17 April, but that was too little, too late.

[John Woodcock]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made some concession after I signalled that I wanted to intervene. If he wants to make partisan points, he needs to do slightly better. I hope that he agrees that this is a really difficult problem. We should welcome the fact that the previous Government acted very quickly in dealing with the difficult advice that it got from the advisory council, just as we welcome the fact that the new Government are taking further action.

[Mr Burrowes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he gives me the opportunity, I will reflect on the fact that it is not straightforward properly to legislate and carry out enforcement in this area. Nevertheless, we must recognise that by the time mephedrone was finally banned on 17 April, it was estimated to be the UK’s fourth most popular club drug and was used quite broadly, rather than by just a stereotypical demographic. It was sold by a new type of dealer. London was the world’s mephedrone capital and host to 53% of worldwide outlets. Mephedrone was implicated in 18 deaths in England and seven in Scotland. Given those figures, I repeat that the ban came too late.

None the less, I welcome the steps taken by the previous Government to ban mephedrone, and I welcome those taken by the coalition Government properly to put in place ways to help us to act quickly to tackle legal high drugs. The issue is that we should be able to move quickly to deal not just with mephedrone, but with the new drugs on the market. These drugs are readily accessible at the press of a mouse button, and they are coming on to the streets of the capital and the country. We need to look at how we can deal with the issue properly, and the Government have proposed ways to do that.

I want briefly to raise another issue. We must look overseas at the models that other countries are using to deal with the issue, which is obviously not just a domestic, but an international one. The context is the fact that when this country got to the point of banning mephedrone on 17 April, other countries, including European countries, did it more promptly. One need not go further than Ireland to see what is being done. I want to raise Ireland as an example, so that the Minister can take the opportunity to respond and consider whether its approach would be a way forward for this country.

On 11 May, Ireland’s Minister for Health and Children announced an immediate criminal ban, publishing a full list of legal high substances that were subject to a Government order and that were to be banned, as well as a criminal ban on a list of head shop products, and the prosecution of head shops themselves. Is there an opportunity to consider that example or any other examples in this country? As well as trying to deal with the substances and the ready access to them, and being able to respond quickly, Ireland dealt with another source of concern—the head shops that were springing up as an industry. That was dealt with on 11 May by the measure I have referred to, which led to the Government approving a crackdown on the operation of head shops.

The Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 will further curb the threats posed by head shops and psychoactive substances. Under the new provisions, the sale or supply of substances that may not be specifically proscribed under Ireland’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, but which have psychoactive effects, would be a criminal offence. That is a much wider use of legislation to deal with new psychoactive substances coming on to the market, and will make it possible in Ireland to avoid the prolonged processes that we may well still be subject to. It would allow flexibility of approach in dealing with, and the mounting of prosecutions in relation to, the new psychoactive substances that are coming on to the market and causing such damage, particularly to young people.

I do not suggest that the Minister will be able to give a full response to that example, but it is worthy of consideration, not least because it comes from near neighbours with issues similar to ours. We may be able to learn from their example.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. He is absolutely correct to raise the health impact of alcohol as well as its impact on crime. The most recent figures show that over the five years to 2008-09, there were 825 more alcohol-related admissions to hospital per day than during the previous five years. This is a very real issue. We are considering a number of actions in relation to the sale of alcohol, the unit cost of alcohol and the powers of licensing authorities. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific proposal, I suggest that he puts it to the Home Office as part of the consultation.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The media often focus attention on celebrities and footballers as poor role models for children, but does the Home Secretary recognise the sad fact that almost 1 million children have an alcohol-dependent parent as a role model? What more can the Government do to prevent so many families from being broken by alcohol abuse?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend also raises an important point about the impact that alcohol can have. He has taken an interest in such issues, particularly the impact on family life, for some time. The first thing for the Government is to give a clear message about alcohol through the action that we take on licensing. Sadly, a message was given by the last Government, with their 24-hour licensing laws that were due to create a café culture in the United Kingdom, but failed to do so. We have seen that leading to more problems with alcohol.