Riot Compensation Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Lammy]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to require that any estimates of the cost of repairs are to be prepared by approved contactors.

The amendment deals with the approved contractors that act on behalf of the Secretary of State, engage with individuals who find themselves having to make a claim under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and estimate the cost of the repairs. It would be remiss of the Committee if we did not put on record the substantial findings in the months after the riots. That comes up time and again in the House, and it will come up in relation to the floods being experienced across the country.

The London Assembly committee chaired by John Biggs did very good work and published a very good report in 2012 on the riots. The committee took evidence from a range of people. The report said:

“Loss adjusters who were involved in assessing insurance claims after the riots faced a complex situation. Nevertheless, some loss adjusters behaved insensitively in handling claims, and lacked the skills needed to deal effectively with some owners of small businesses.”

As I said at the time, there is no point asking someone to provide receipts for their stock if their business has been burned to the ground. There was an inability, frankly, to understand where those small businesses were coming from and what they were facing. There were challenges in such areas as Croydon, Birmingham and Tottenham, where businesses—they are often independent, ethnic minority businesses—were made to feel like they were criminals attempting to defraud the state. I had an Adjournment debate after the riots where I expressed my concerns about the insurance industry and some—not all—loss adjusters.

I tabled the amendment to probe the Minister to say a little more about the nature of those approved contractors and how we might deal with the issue. I pay tribute to the independent review of the Riot (Damages) Act by Kinghan, which laid the foundation for much of the work that led us here. He recommended that a riot claims bureau be developed with the agreement of the Home Office and the insurance industry. He also recommended that a manual be prepared, as soon as is practicable, to provide guidance on the types of claims likely to follow a riot, including how to deal with clients unused to making claims and other issues. That is a part of his report that is pertinent to the issue raised by the amendment.

Members will understand that floods occur more often than riots in the United Kingdom, because of the nature of our geography. In 2011, much of the expertise simply was not there. The country had not seen widespread riots in the 10 years since Bradford and Oldham, and it is easy to lose the expertise, the necessary sensitivity and the understanding that the context in the communities experiencing such events is very different.

Kinghan also recommended that, in their emergency plans, local authorities should be asked to include planning for riot recovery services to provide co-ordinated advice and support. I do not know whether that recommendation relates to all local authorities, but that, too, goes to the point about expertise. It would be wrong if I did not mention loss adjusters at this point. Will the Minister say something more about the approved contractors and how we can avoid the situation that caused real concern in the communities affected?

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

Clause 3(4) is also about trying to prevent fraudulent claims, but I am just trying to understand what the amendment, by making this mandatory, would preclude. With approved contractors on an approved contractors list, it might be hard to identify a local authority or others outwith the approved process of the Secretary of State or local policing bodies. Is there an important flexibility that may help to a degree with timeliness? I know that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, as I was, about the timeliness of compensation for our constituents’ businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

Neither police and crime commissioners nor local police forces are experts in processing claims, which is why it is important to allow those bodies to delegate the functions, particularly to loss adjusters. Provisions in clause 4(3) allow the Secretary of State to specify the persons to whom those functions may be delegated, which will hopefully achieve the objectives that the right hon. Member for Tottenham was trying to achieve through amendment 3.

[Mr Burrowes]

This Bill is particularly important to my constituents in Enfield, who suffered great loss. It is an area that would not have dreamed of being caught up in a riot, but was. I want to draw on situations where, instead of there being huge riots that transcend many regions, there may be an issue as to whether a riot takes place at all and whether what happens comes within the definition of riot.

In Enfield, as elsewhere, even though it was obvious that there had sadly been a riot, there was a concern and nervousness among the authorities about mentioning the word “riot”, because they would then click into a conversation. The Bill has rightly dealt with the antiquated language of the 1886 Act and the definition in the Public Order Act 1986, but there is still the same issue that liabilities follow from definitions; I know that, as a lawyer. We may not have such an obvious situation of riot on the streets of London, Birmingham or elsewhere. As a lawyer I know that when 12 or more people gather together in a public order incident, there is an issue as to whether it comes under the strict definition of a riot or whether it is an affray or another Public Order Act incident.

When a claim is considered, the responsible person or authority is the policing authority, the appropriate decision-making body. We need to look at the process and ensure that there is not an undue conflict and that we do not wait on cases to go to court to see whether anyone mentions the word riot or wait for a determination and court judgment that says that those responsible have been convicted of riot. We do not want our constituents and businesses to have to hang on for that process, which could take a long time and be subject to further appeals and criminal court proceedings before a decision is made.

I ask the Minister whether that has been considered and whether it may be appropriate not necessarily to delegate the matter away from a policing authority, but to get an independent view from a separate prosecutorial authority. That could separate the prosecutorial function of those responsible for a public order incident from the function of determining the claim to ensure that a conflict cannot get in the way of a timely response and compensation.

[Mike Penning]

Obviously, that was looked at extensively. We have to be slightly careful. Unlike my learned Friend I am not legally trained, but the authority is the police—it is the police who decide and no one else. That is the definition. From the police’s point of view, if a criminal offence has taken place, a riot is defined as such by the police, who have the training and expertise to do that.

I fully understand the sensitivities of local authorities and others, but it is not their decision and it must not be. It must be the police’s decision. The wording in the Bill makes it simple as to how we define that. I understand the concerns, but they were looked at extensively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He and I are regular soldiers in the fight for very poor areas. With regard to the £1 million cap, I would say that the 2011 riots were unusual. As a Londoner born and bred, I would never have imagined that on the second day I would see the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton caught up in the riots.

[Mr Burrowes]

Or Enfield.

[Mr Lammy]

The profile of Enfield is changing slightly. Colleagues in Clapham Junction were caught up in the rioting, as of course were those in Enfield, Southgate.

Police Funding Formula

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

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

Amid a number of inconsistencies with the process, what has been consistent is that the Minister has always said that he is listening, and he has continued very much to show that at the Dispatch Box today. I welcome the decision he has made. Will he also be consistent—he has hinted at this—in the recognition that London, as the capital city, needs full access to capital city funding, reflecting the fact that it is a national hub for policing and criminality?

[Mike Penning]

As I said, this great capital that we are all in today needs to have the capital city force that it needs. The funding will reflect that and we will make sure that it continues to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am aware of the scheme, and I discussed it with the Prime Minister only recently. I believe that one of the sobriety bracelets that are being used in Croydon is on the Prime Minister’s desk as we speak. I am encouraging PCCs around the country to push this measure forward, as it has been very successful. I congratulate those who are pushing it forward.

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

In 1998, Livia Galli-Atkinson was killed in Enfield by a dangerous driver. I know the Minister has in the past attended the Livia award, which was set up in her memory. This year’s award will take place this evening. The award commends service by police in relation to justice for victims, and highlights the fact that year by year too many drivers repeatedly flout the law, driving while disqualified and failing to stop. What action can follow on from the review?

[Mike Penning]

This area has been reviewed continually by previous Governments and by this Government. There is a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. It is for judges to ensure they understand what sentences should be for each offence, but we keep a very open mind and continue to look at the review as we go forward.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

I totally agree with the Minister. The Bill is not a silver bullet, but we need a comprehensive education programme if we are to be as effective as possible.

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

I apologise for being late to the Committee. You will appreciate the reason, Sir David, as I think you share my interest in the Westminster dog of the year competition.

The Minister has mentioned the statistics, and we are moving on from the situation when people were using opiates—such people are older or, sadly, dying. However, the challenge that came out of a visit to a drugs clinic by the Home Affairs Committee was for treatment to go beyond the old substitute-based system towards a more holistic approach that is focused on the addict rather than just the substance. The challenge of NPS for specialist drug treatments, not just in hotspots but generally, relates to grappling with a new drug.

[Lyn Brown]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need a holistic approach and education must be a part of that. We therefore need what the Welsh Government have: a 10-year plan. Theirs culminates in 2018. I know that it is too early for us to draw conclusions about what its outcomes will be, but the early signs are good, especially with regard to reducing drug harms. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not just received a note from his Whip suggesting he should shut up, because I have enjoyed his interventions in Committee. I have passed those notes, so I know that that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

Although the Minister will not make the hon. Lady’s day, may I just press him on resource allocation? Plainly, a whole lot of resource and attention is going on the Bill’s implementation and on proving psychoactivity in the lab and getting the right test in place with the ACMD and all the scientists. Is that same attention also being seen within the education sphere to ensure that prevention is up to speed, as well as the proveability?

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly what is No. 1 on the agenda with the Schools Minister next week. We need to share information. As the scientists and the ACMD develop the knowledge base, we need to share that knowledge base. It is not something we want to hold in, and that is why we have made the review as open as possible. If we do not share that knowledge, we will have people out there trying generally to help people, but probably not sending the message out and doing the work that needs to be done.

If I not only write to everyone on the Committee but develop extensively what we are going to do based on what I have said today—admittedly, most of this particular area is devolved—I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. If I update everyone as we develop that, she can see what we are doing as we move forward and we can give her as much help as possible, as we have all the way through the Bill. However, if she does press the proposals to a vote, I will sadly oppose both the new clause and the amendment.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

I take your advice, Mr Howarth.

Given the evidence published by the Home Affairs Committee on Friday, I am sympathetic to the SNP’s amendment, and I wonder what the Minister makes of the evidence. If the ACMD, through Professor Iversen’s evidence, is suggesting that poppers have a low risk of harm, it would be within the scope of the Bill to place poppers on the exemption list.

I repeat: it is quite clear that I am not an expert on drug taking or drugs. I hear there has been a change in the formula used for poppers, and that a trickle of new evidence suggests the new formulation causes damage to the centre of the retina. Although reports of visual loss are very rare, this underlines the fact that we need an established mechanism for approving exemptions, whereby representations can be made to the ACMD if it is believed that an exemption should be granted. Experts, not me, need to assess the evidence and decide whether the case for exemption has merit. Poppers ought to be subject to the same evidence-based process as any other drug. This debate and the discussion around poppers underlines the need for the sort of established mechanism that I called for in our debate on clause 3.

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

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on an extremely significant and welcome Bill. I plead guilty to being a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which made these recommendations. I have had a number of conversations about issues around poppers, although I have never been a particular expert or had the benefit of having dinner with the hon. Member for Rhondda to discuss the issue of poppers in any great detail. I have, however, met with a representative from the Clonezone chain of sex shops, who made the case for having poppers properly regulated and in the open, as well as Boyz magazine, which has expressed concerns. Will the Minister indicate what evidence he has received from the gay community on this issue?

I will not repeat the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee heard, as the points have been well made. The issue is recognising the present harm level. I do not want to interfere in this morning’s debate, as I was not there, but the definition in the Bill is a blanket ban. One has to weigh up the impact of an exemption of alkyl nitrates on the blanket nature of the ban and the precedent that would set.

The case that was made to the Home Affairs Committee and that has been made to me is that we are now in a position where poppers are properly regulated and controlled, not least by the gay community itself. Previous concerns about harm and abuse in relation to poppers were relevant when poppers were compounds, and there were some tragic incidents involving other drugs being combined with poppers. The gay community makes the case that as far as its activities are concerned, poppers are best in the open and not banned.

The wider issue, which has not been mentioned before, is proportionality and where the focus of the Bill is. I think we all agree that those who consume poppers for personal use—we will come on to importing and exporting in a subsequent debate—are not the main target of the Bill. At the very least, we need to look at the focus of enforcement regarding the psychoactive substances that are on the market, and we all agree that it should be on the bad people who shift their evil trade around. Even if the Bill is enacted in its present form, I suggest that those who consume poppers in their private domain will not be a particular target of enforcement activities.

[Lyn Brown]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—I think he does, because he has said that people who consume poppers are not the target of the legislation —that we are looking at targeting drugs that do a lot of harm? I am anxious that we will spend resources going into clubs and arresting people who have poppers on them, which will look good on the stats but will not take off the streets the drugs and the people that we want to target through the legislation?

[Mr Burrowes]

We will have the benefit of a 30-month review, where we will be able to look at the impact of the legislation. We need to ensure that it gets on to the statute book so that it can arm the police to get out there and find the people whom we really want to focus on. I cannot believe that those with poppers will be the main focus. We can ask that question in 30 months’ time to, I hope, reassure ourselves. This debate will help with that, and perhaps the Minister will give us some reassurance as well.

How will this be dealt with practically and properly? I hasten to say that those who consume poppers have not so much to fear; it is the people who shift the new psychoactive substances around in bulk who are causing menace. I look forward to the Minister’s response, in which I hope he will outline the evidence that the Home Office has received about the harm caused by poppers, because he has expressed real concern to the Committee about such harm.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mike Penning]

May I just finish responding to a couple of the other points? My brain will not work well enough to remember them all.

We will, of course, look at the issue of harm. Interestingly, we are all quoting different people. I have quotes from some professors. In addition to Ireland, other countries, including America, Canada and France, are also attempting to put some kind of ban in place. I am conscious that we do not want to be seen to be picking on any individual group in any shape or form. I fully understand that. But if we are trying to protect the public it is difficult to start to have physical exemptions in the way that has been described.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the Minister tell us what level of concern has been expressed to him by the gay community?

[Mike Penning]

I was just coming on to that. When the Bill was going through the Lords I expected that the matter would be debated and extensively lobbied, but it was not. I understand that it was not raised at all. I also expected my door to be bursting open following requests for meetings from the different lobby groups, but I have not received any delegations. I am slightly surprised. One of the Justice Ministers raised the matter when a group was seeing them on a separate issue. I am well aware that colleagues were lobbied when they were named as members of the Committee. However, if the matter was of such concern, I would have expected representations, but I have not had any, and I am not the shyest person if people want to see me.

That is not a criticism. It is just that the question was asked and the answer is that I have not had any representations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

One of the original recommendations of the ACMD was that the Home Office should redraft clause 5 to exclude social supply, and that is what our amendments are designed to do. I note that the NPS expert group, which recommended a blanket ban, also stated that social supply could be excluded from that ban. The reason for this—we were heading in this direction in the last debate—is that I am told that it is not unusual for a number of young people to club together, and for one person to buy the substances and distribute them among their friends. The crime survey for England and Wales 2014-15 found that around a third—34%—of those using NPS got them from a friend. The reality of drug experimentation, particularly with young people, is that it is social behaviour in a group. It is common for one individual to acquire the substances to be taken by the group. I am of the view that the difference between a young adult purchasing drugs on behalf of a group for an experimental night out, and a professional drug dealer peddling potentially dangerous drugs for profit, is enormous.

[Mr Burrowes]

I hear the point that the hon. Lady is making, but how does she make that distinction? No one has the label: “I am a professional drug dealer” on their head. I have represented a number of drug dealers, and they may well be quite young and look very innocent, but they can be guilty of supply, whether social or commercial. Either way, they are plying their evil trade.

[Lyn Brown]

I accept that. I am not a learned person, and I have never defended a drug pusher, so I am quite new to this. My guess is that the way we would do this is to look at quantities—to consider the amount of drugs that somebody had on them and the group of people that they were clubbing with. If I had five poppers with me and I was clubbing with another four friends, I think that that would suggest that there was social supply going on, rather than a drug dealer making a huge profit.

[Mr Burrowes]

Is not the point that it is about enforcement and the police being able to take a view about what they find, so that they can decide whether the evidence amounts to supply and whether they want to take prosecution further? When they are dealing with the scenario you are describing of a bunch of friends passing round laughing gas, they would have to take a view on how far they would take it. We need to have that discretion in enforcement rather than putting it in the Bill, which could have unintended consequences.

[Lyn Brown]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I think he was in the cannabis debate we had in Westminster Hall two weeks ago—[Interruption.] He was not; I am sorry. In that debate, I raised the issue of equity: somebody might be done for cannabis possession in West Ham but not in West Norwood, because police forces up and down the country take very different views about enforcement in their patch. It is about the way in which they enforce these matters. For me, the law is the law. I want equity across the country in the way in which things are dealt with; I do not see why there should not be equity across the country. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.

The clause as drafted makes no distinction between social suppliers and large-scale commercial suppliers. The ACMD is worried that that is disproportionate, and I probably agree. I know there is an argument that social supply is an important part of the supply chain of those drugs, and therefore it ought to be included within the reach of the Bill. Although Home Office research shows that a third of NPS were obtained through a friend or colleague, other surveys of young adults who are clubbers, such as the Global Drug Survey, have different findings that show a much higher level of internet buying of psychoactive substances.

Social suppliers are at the very end of the supply chain. I hope that this legislation, which I know we are going to pass, will enable us to disrupt and break up the immoral organisations that sell drugs to social suppliers: the head shops, the internet sites and, ultimately, the drug producers. We can reduce the social supply without criminalising young people who may not even be aware that they are breaking the law. A criminal record is one of the most harmful and life-limiting penalties we can levy on a young adult. A conviction for drug possession is not well regarded by educational institutions or potential employers. A conviction for drug supply has potentially far worse consequences, as it is rightly regarded as a much more serious offence.

Without a well-funded, comprehensive education and communication programme, there will be plenty of confusion about the legal status of NPS. It will take years to completely remove the dangerous marketing misnomer of “legal highs” from ordinary language. There is bound to be confusion about drugs that are legal to possess but not to supply, import or export, if only because they are new and unfamiliar to our legal framework. The same ignorance cannot be claimed for the drug pushers, professional drug dealers and producers who are the people we really ought to be going after.

Our amendment would add “for personal gain” to the end of the clause. That is similar to the way financial gain is considered an important factor in the sentencing guidelines for drugs controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Those guidelines suggest that those who make substantial gains ought to be considered, for the purpose of sentencing, to have played a leading role in supply. With that careful wording, prosecutors would still be able to prosecute individuals for selling to people they happen to know for the sake of personal profit. Small-scale, local criminals could still be punished for bringing harm to their communities, but genuine social suppliers, who are ultimately the users of the drugs, rather than the people pushing them, would be excluded.

We tabled amendment 49 to clause 7 to have the same intended legal effect as our amendment to clause 5. The same principles that govern the prohibition of supply, which is set out in clause 5, should also apply to possession with intent to supply, which is set out in clause 7. I note that the Scottish National party tabled a similar amendment, which also has the intended effect of excluding social supply from the scope of the Bill. I am quite happy to work with the SNP and the Government to work out which formulation would most effectively exclude social supply without creating easily exploitable loopholes. I firmly believe that we should be working on this problem together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I think the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to be clear in this Committee about who we want to target most. If we can make that clear, we might stand a chance of the legislation producing more than just five prosecutions and making a real impact on the “legal highs” that are out there. We should be going after those who are flooding our communities with invidious substances and tackling the real cause of the problems on our streets.

[Mr Burrowes]

On personal gain, do we not also want to proportionately tackle people who supply laughing gas to friends at school? They may not be the big people who earn lots of money, but they may gain by being able to get themselves an extra bit of laughing gas or by feeding a habit. They are all part of this supply chain. I would not want my children to be exposed to suppliers, whether professional drug dealers or just people who shift out this bad stuff in schools.

[Lyn Brown]

I accept that. Had I been lucky enough to be a mother, I would be saying exactly the same thing. Nevertheless, the kids in school who are supplying the laughing gas are getting it from somewhere, often from someone who is also giving them other stuff that they want to have pushed in the playground and in the streets. I am glad to see that the Bill will tackle offences in schools that affect children. We have also heard that there will be a good and effective education programme that will help children to say no to whatever substances are being pushed. I am genuinely pleased to hear that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

Apologies for my slightly delayed return; I had to act as a Teller for the vote that has just happened. Our amendment 55 is an amendment to clause 9 not clause 6, although it does fit nicely with those that are here. Our approach is to look to ensure that there is a genuine protection in the concept of relative harm, as the shadow Minister mentioned prior to our suspension, and that the associated psychoactive substance is the subject matter of the offence, so that we do take account and any sentence handed down is relative to the offence. I accept that different sentencing regimes are in place within Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and I appreciate the points that the Minister will, I am sure, be making about that.

Our amendment is a probing one, but the fact that it mirrors those tabled by the Opposition suggests that the intent behind the amendments is consistent, regardless of which part of this island we happen to be presenting them from—[Interruption.] These islands. I apologise. I suggest that, as the Bill progresses, due consideration is given to the intent behind the relative harm aspects mentioned in the amendments.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he agrees with the principle behind the amendments and that he will write to the Sentencing Council to urge it to take note of what the Committee and the Home Affairs Committee have said. That is very welcome, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Burrowes]

I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 6, page 3, line 20, leave out “or C” and insert “, C, D or E”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 41, in clause 6, page 3, line 43, at end insert—

‘(8A) Condition D is that the offence was committed on or in the vicinity of any premises intended to locate any vulnerable child;

(8B) In this section “vulnerable child” means any person aged under 18 who is not living with their family and is—

(a) accommodated in regulated residential care or unregulated accommodation under section 17, 20, 25 or 31 of The Children Act 1989, or,

(b) accommodated in accommodation under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

(8C) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify the circumstances in which paragraph (a) and/or (b) of subsection (7B) apply.

(8D) Condition E is that the offender supplies a psychoactive substance to any persons under the age 18.’

Amendment 42, in schedule 4, page 48, line 16, at end insert—

“Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

(1) The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is amended as follows—

(2) In section 4A (Aggravation of offence of supply of controlled drug) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) The third condition is that the offence was committed on any premises intended to locate any vulnerable child or in the vicinity of said premises;

(4B) in this section “vulnerable child” means any person aged under 18 who is not living with their parents or carers and is

(a) accommodated in residential care under section 17, section 20, section 25 or section 31 of The Children Act 1989, or,

(b) accommodated in a multi-occupant dwelling under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

(4C) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify the circumstances in which a court must take into account Condition C;

(4D) The fourth condition is that the offender supplies a controlled drug to any persons under the age of 18.’”

[Mr Burrowes]

The amendments particularly focus on sentencing, on the aggravating factors when someone is convicted under the Bill and on whether there should be a particular focus on those who supply psychoactive substances to children outside accommodation for vulnerable children. They seek to put those factors on the same footing as supplying in the vicinity of a school.

If one thinks about the purpose of including a statutory aggravating factor applying to those who supply drugs in the vicinity of a school, which is in this Bill and in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, although we are dealing with new types of drugs, the principle is the same whether it relates to a controlled drug or a psychoactive substance. If someone is plying their trade outside a school, Parliament takes the view that that is a statutory aggravating factor that does not need to be left to non-statutory guidance from the Sentencing Council. We make it clear that that is an aggravating factor that will lead to an increased sentence.

The amendments seek to tease out from the Minister why there should be a distinction. We are considering psychoactive substances, so we have to look at where they are being pushed and where they are subject to wider abuse and exploitation. That is why the amendments particularly focus on extending the statutory aggravating factor to supplying outside residential children’s homes and supported accommodation such as hostels, foyers or night stops. When dealing with such accommodation, Committee members will know from their constituencies and wider knowledge that they often house vulnerable people who can be prone to other forms of exploitation. Substance misuse, particularly of psychoactive substances, can often form part of that.

The amendments refer to accommodation for vulnerable children in order to capture both residential children’s homes and supported accommodation in which local authorities place children under the age of 18. Evidence that has come before all-party groups and no doubt Ministers suggests that such children in such accommodation are more at risk of exploitation than others. It could be argued that they are more at risk of harm than those affected by the supply outside schools, because of the other types of exploitation and abuse that go on in these types of accommodation.

References are also made in the amendments to different aspects of residential care and why children are at particular risk. The Children’s Commissioner has found that a disproportionate number of children who are sexually exploited are living in residential care. Children at a high risk of sexual exploitation also run the risk of exploitation relating to drugs. The all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults’ inquiry highlighted the targeting of children’s homes by perpetrators due to the abuse and high vulnerability of such children, which is why the amendments seek an additional statutory aggravating factor. Children in care often lack the shield of a family to protect them from risks, so 16 and 17-year-olds and others are at particular risk of abuse, whether related to drink, drugs or psychoactive substances.

In addition to children in care, vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds may find themselves homeless or at risk of homelessness but do not become looked-after children. In that zone, they are prone to having complex needs, whether in relation to housing, substance misuse, including drugs, mental health issues, contact with the criminal justice system or wider exploitation. That is why the amendment seeks a statutory aggravating factor. Why not leave it to the Sentencing Council guidelines, which include the

“targeting of any premises intended to locate vulnerable individuals or supply to such individuals and/or supply to those under 18”?

Non-statutory aggravating factors are already in the guidance.

We have to ask whether supplying to children outside a school is worthy of a statutory aggravating factor. The amendment would amend both the Bill and the Misuse of Drugs Act so that they are consistent with each other. Parliament needs to take the lead, as we did with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which looked at many areas of exploitation, particularly the exploitation of children. Now is the time to look at the body of evidence and see that the particular vulnerability for children is not so much in schools, where there is more of a protective shield and statutory agencies are trying to prevent things from happening, but away from the eyes of many people. In an area that is sadly subject to exploitation, there may well be a need for Parliament to get on the front foot and ensure that there is statutory provision. That is my position; I hope the Minister considers it seriously.

[Lyn Brown]

I have enormous sympathy for the motivations that drove the hon. Gentleman to table the amendments. One of my first jobs was working in a children’s home, so I know just how vulnerable children can be. I also know that he has the support of the Children’s Society, which has been helping to make childhood in Britain safer for more than 100 years and is a fine organisation.

The Children’s Society has highlighted the relationship between new psychoactive substances and exploitation. Sometimes, that exploitation is economic, with reports of drug dealers forcing young men to work for them in order to pay off debts they that have accumulated by trying NPS. Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we also face the problem of sexual exploitation. The Children’s Commissioner found that more than a third—35%—of the children most at risk of sexual exploitation were living in residential care.

PACE—Parents against child sexual exploitation—have demonstrated that young girls have been targeted by groomers with NPS to try to get them hooked. We are all shocked by the grooming scandals that have hit many of our cities and towns, and I am in no doubt that the people engaged in such crimes are just the sort of criminals who ought to be hit by the strictest penalties provided by aggravated offences.

I am interested to hear what the Government make of the amendments. If they cannot accept the current drafting, would they be willing to go away, think about it and come back with alternative plans on Report, because this is an important issue? Will the Minister devote special attention to making sure that vulnerable children are given specific and focused education to ensure that they have the resilience to say no to those who want to prey on them with NPS and other drugs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

May I say at the outset, as I did in the previous group of amendments, that I have deep sympathy not only with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate but with the excellent work that charity has been doing in this area? One of the things touched on by my hon. Friend was the anomaly between schools and children’s homes.

Clause 6 in its original form was included in the Bill for consistency’s sake, to replicate an identical provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because that provision was created before the Sentencing Council existed. I looked long and hard at whether it would be right at this stage to try to replicate that, because it would completely go against what we have been trying to do with the Sentencing Council in that area. We will continue to look at this, and it will be part of the submission to the Sentencing Council, which I will probably send to each of the devolved Administrations as well. While I cannot tell them what they should do, they need to know the will of the House.

We need to keep an extremely close eye on what goes on. Section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 specifically says that courts must take into consideration the sentencing guidelines on this. We need to ensure that the sentencing guidelines replicate the will of the House and of 99.9% of the public, who want to see the abhorrent crimes we have discussed—and things that it would perhaps not be appropriate to discuss here but which I know about within my ministerial capacity—are subject to the full force of the law. As I have said about previous amendments, that is a matter for the Sentencing Council on which we can advise, but there must be consistency throughout the Bill.

While I understand that the amendment is a probing one, I hope I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate assurance. The principle behind the previous set of amendments shows my reaction to this. It is something we are keen to keep under review, and it has to be specific within the correspondence I will draft, with help from others, to the Sentencing Council. With that in mind, I hope my hon. Friend will not push the amendment to a vote.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful for the debate and the cross-party agreement on the principle behind the amendment, which is the concern we all share to ensure that those convicted of supplying their evil trade to vulnerable children get the sentence they deserve. I pay tribute to the Children’s Society for championing the cause.

[Mike Penning]

I was discourteous; I did not name the Children’s Society nor refer to that charity in my remarks. A charity of such distinction and with that longevity of service to vulnerable young children deserves acknowledgement by name from a Minister.

[Mr Burrowes]

I thank the Minister for that.

The clause tries to ensure consistency on controlled drugs in relation to supply at school premises, which is understandable, but this is a landmark Bill. Professor Iverson spoke about the Bill being one of the most important and significant pieces of legislation for 40 years. With that comes a need to ensure that sentencing is appropriate to the particular substances and recognises the characteristics of certain substances. It has already been mentioned how, sadly, such substances are used for exploitation, often of children and those in particular types of accommodation and in care. Supply of substances is a characteristic of the abuse, and that is why it is right for Parliament to consider whether it wants to ensure that supply to a vulnerable child is an aggravating factor.

I concede that the Sentencing Council has non-statutory guidelines that seek to address the matter, but it is important to recognise that they are guidelines, not tramlines. As a Parliament, we have a duty to vulnerable people, where there is that power imbalance. The substances that we are seek to criminalise and to set appropriate sentences for increase dependency, create debt, stupefy children and allow them to be exploited. As a Parliament, we should have tramlines, not guidelines, and we should be absolutely clear about that.

We can say too often that we are sending out a message. We should not always send out messages with Bills, but part of this Bill is about sending a message that these substances are illegal and are not good or safe. Part of that message should relate to sentencing so that it is clear that anyone who wants to risk plying their trade to vulnerable people in the type of accommodation specified will face a hefty sentence. Those people will not be looking up the sentencing guidelines that will go to the magistrates court and the Crown court. They will not have a clue about that, but they may well get a clue that the offence has a maximum penalty of seven years or so and that they will be at the upper end of the market for sentencing.

I recognise that the Minister will consider the matter seriously and in good faith. It must be looked at across the piece, along with the relationship between drug sentencing and the Sentencing Council. The Bill is innovative, and we want to ensure that we send out a clear, stark message to those who exploit the most vulnerable. I look forward to the Minister considering the matter further at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 43, leave out “on prison premises.” and insert “in a custodial institution.

‘( ) In this section—

“custodial institution” means any of the following—

(a) a prison;

(b) a young offender institution, secure training centre, secure college, young offenders institution, young offenders centre, juvenile justice centre or remand centre;

(c) a removal centre, a short-term holding facility or pre-departure accommodation;

(d) service custody premises;

“removal centre”, “short-term holding facility” and “pre-departure accommodation” have the meaning given by section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;

“service custody premises” has the meaning given by section 300(7) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment replaces the reference to “prison premises” in clause 6(8) with a reference to a “custodial institution”. It then defines a custodial institution; the definition includes adult and juvenile prisons, immigration detention accommodation and service custody premises.

Ordered,

That subsection (9) of Clause 6 be transferred to the end of line 29 on page 3.—(Mike Penning.)

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Possession of psychoactive substance with intent to supply

Amendment made: 8, in clause 7, page 4, line 18, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 19 and insert “section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 11 and NC3.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 8

Importing or exporting a psychoactive substance

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 8, page 4, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (i).

This means it would not be an offence to import a new psychoactive substance for personal consumption.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

We want such places to close down before this Bill is passed. I want this House to send a message to those who are selling these products—head shops or any other premises, or those selling in other ways—that on the day this Bill gets Royal Assent, such selling will become an offence. In saying that, these people have been selling these products perfectly legally for many, many years, so we need to give them an opportunity. This is only part of a process. We are talking about educating the public as well as helping people who are addicted to these substances. At the end of the day, these sellers have to know that, from the day this Bill gets Royal Assent, selling these products is illegal and attracts a seven-year sentence.

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

I very much commend this Bill. I have been calling for it for many years. The Sentencing Council has an important role to play. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, sentencing is linked to harm and is commensurate with the offence. At present, there is inequality in sentencing between all types of new psychoactive substances. We need to be clear and link the harm level to the sentence, and that is the important role that the Sentencing Council will have to play.

[Mike Penning]

That important matter was put to me when I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. The difference between what we are doing here and what we are doing with other illegal substances is that this is a blanket ban. If we try to indicate the level of harm on every single one of these substances we will be here forever, which is why we have gone for the blanket ban, and why the Republic of Ireland did the same. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), we will continue to look at this matter, but the guidance to the Sentencing Council is very strong. I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said that he had been calling for this ban for some time, because I shared an office with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for five years and I know exactly what his views are. I can genuinely say that apart from a few nuances here and there, most people want to see this Bill on the Statute Book.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I very much welcome the Bill.

I am tempted to detain the House for many minutes to respond at length to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who repeated the same lines that he has for many years. I respect the fact that he is consistent in his liberalising argument. He is now joined by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has gone against what his colleagues did in government when they helped prepare the way for this Bill. They both talk about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs when they choose to. They both talk about relying on the evidence, but they do not do so when it goes against their argument, which is made of straw. They should listen to the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee. Professor Iversen, the chairman of the ACMD, said that this is the most significant piece of drugs legislation in 40 years, and he and the Committee broadly welcomed it.

There is a consensus in the House that this Bill is not going to prevent everyone from taking NPSs—we all accept that—but it will restrict supply. The Bill is focused on the suppliers of this evil trade. The hon. Member for Newport West talks about a deception. I will tell him what a deception is—it is in any way suggesting that NPSs are legal and safe. That is a deception that has harmed people and led to lost lives, and we are going to tackle it. We are not just going to hold up our hands and make the liberalising arguments saying “Let’s try and do something different.” We need to focus on the supply. This Bill does that, and I welcome it.

Five years ago, on 9 September, I urged the then responsible Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), to follow the route that has already been trodden by the Irish, recognising that what we have been trying to do in this House, which has been pretty much a useless deception, is to catch up. We have been trying to react to the latest NPS on the market with the temporary class orders that followed on from the advice given by the ACMD, and then we eventually get to the point of having a statutory instrument that is far too late for young people, particularly, in our country. This Bill will at last try to be proactive and respond quickly and expeditiously. What happened in Ireland will happen here.

The Bill says loud and clear that it is calling time on head shops in Bassetlaw and elsewhere and saying very clearly, “Give up, go away—the police are going to come after you and get rid of you. Make sure that you don’t carry on the deception where you are selling these substances used for research on fertilisers, air fresheners and herbal incenses.” That is what I call garbage—not safe garbage but garbage that harms young lives. This approach is worthwhile, but it is not going to solve the problem. There are problems with the internet and with importation and exportation, and we need to do a lot more.

The Bill is not perfect. It needs improvement and scrutiny, particularly in relation to the definition. I declare an interest as a criminal defence lawyer. I want to make sure that my colleagues who are still practising will not be faced with extra loopholes and unintended defences because they are unable to look at the definition as they can now and say, “We are going to have to instruct experts to measure the issue of psychoactivity to assess the behavioural aspects.”

We recognise the example in Ireland, where the Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau has said of the problems with the current definition:

“We are relying on scientists to assist us with these prosecutions and, unfortunately, they haven’t been able to provide the evidence to us.”

We have also listened to the ACMD, which said:

“The only definitive way of determining psychoactivity is via human experience, which is usually not documented.”

I remember my days dealing with the issue of cannabis and its impact on fitness to drive—

--- Later in debate ---

Question again proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.

[Mr Burrowes]

Attempting to prove the behavioural impact of cannabis on fitness to drive is subjective and can cause problems. It can result in prosecutions failing and can defeat lawyers and experts. We need to consider the ACMD’s additional recommendation to link the definition of psychoactive to the public health threat. That, together with certain tests included in the Bill, will provide objectivity and clarity.

We need to work on sentences as well as definitions. As I said in an earlier intervention, it is important that someone who is convicted in court is dealt with in a way that is commensurate with their offence. They must be dealt with justly, which means that cases involving controlled drugs should be linked to harm. We need to look carefully at that. The Sentencing Council will have its work cut out, but we should ensure that it is able to play a leading role in ensuring that people are sentenced appropriately. The maximum sentence is seven years, but plainly not everyone who supplies NPSs will face that penalty. In such cases, one usually considers purity as well as the links to harm.

We all agree on education and treatment. Between 2013 and 2015, £180,556 has been spent on NPS education. We need to do better than that. This Bill should spark off further educational investment. Prison education is also important. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has responsibility for prisons, is present. I understand that in the past year, 30 ambulances have attended north-west prisons because of NPSs. That is an issue of education as well as of restricting supply. Something is clearly going wrong and it is impacting on our prisons.

On treatment, we visited the drug clinic in Chelsea and Westminster. It is run by the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust. Its specialist, bespoke work does a great job of addressing why someone takes a particular drug as well as treating them. That provides a lesson not just for specialist clinics, but for our treatment system, which is behind the times. Gone are the days when we just doled out a substitute drug to treat those addicted to opiates, crack and other controlled drugs. We are talking about the new drug on the market and it is causing harm. We must ensure that the drug treatment system across the country wakes up to the fact that we should deal not just with the substance, but with the addict and provide all the therapeutic support they need and deserve. I hope the Bill will spark off that approach.

I have waited many years for this Bill, as have others. I will not take up any more time. Colleagues who are waiting to go home have been very patient, but I hope they feel that this Bill is worth the wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I will be as quick as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like my colleagues, I support the Second Reading of this Bill, but not without a degree of hesitation and of sympathy for the arguments contained in the reasoned amendment. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I would like to thank all those who submitted written evidence or gave oral evidence to our short inquiry, and the staff and the former patient of the Club Drug clinic we visited for their constructive and thoughtful criticisms of the Bill. It is fair to say that there was broad, but not unanimous, support for the overarching aims and approach of the legislation.

As the Minister said at the outset, the strategy proposed also had backing from a Scottish Government expert review group and from a report by the Welsh Assembly Health and Social Care Committee. Given that consensus, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) that it is surprising and a little frustrating—

[Mr Burrowes]

I believe the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee wanted to make it clear that we know people are waiting for our report and it will be out on Friday in all good shops—and, no doubt, in the Vote Office.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. I do not intend to give away any of our conclusions or the recommendations we are going to be making in that report. I am merely referring to evidence that was given in oral sessions or in the written evidence which is freely available.

It is frustrating that we are so far into the legislative process and yet some fundamental questions are still to be resolved. Of course, nothing could be more fundamental than the definition of “psychoactive substance” itself. Addressing that will be the first and most important task of the Public Bill Committee, and it will have to assess whether the definition currently proposed is preferable to that put forward by the ACMD.

A second fundamental problem was highlighted by the evidence provided by both Police Scotland and the Scottish Government on how the current definition of a “psychoactive substance” will require evidence from qualified experts with experience of working with NPSs in order to be able to identify the substance and prove its psychoactivity. Establishing that knowledge base against the background of the fast-paced evolution of psychoactive substances would be difficult, and a constant requirement for expert evidence in court would be very costly. Some of the contradictory reports from Ireland suggest similar problems, and again serious scrutiny of these issues is still required.

Perhaps the most important thing to say about this legislation—we have appreciated this during our inquiry—is, as another hon. Member said, that we cannot see this Bill as a silver bullet. Of far more significance will be the strategies that must be put in place to prevent harm through education and awareness raising, and to intervene where individuals are at risk—that includes the risk that some, but far from all, psychoactive substance users will move to controlled substances or to unregulated dealers. We also need to reduce harm. It is only fair to say that there is a huge distance to travel before we can say that this is being done as well as it must be done. Perhaps in Committee we will be able to consider making information on these matters an express part of the review requirement under clause 57.

In short, this Bill is not a silver bullet—indeed, we could shoot ourselves in the foot if we are not careful to get this right. If the Bill is scrutinised carefully and amended in the light of the evidence, it could be a useful first step in tackling the dangers that many Members have spoken about and that are posed by new psychoactive substances, but the Government need to address the legitimate questions that have been asked tonight. They include questions about the definition, the problems with clause 8, the issue of purchasing for friends, the contradictory evidence from Ireland and the potential for displacement. I wish the Bill Committee well in sorting it all out.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (NO. 2) order 2015

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No.2) Order 2015.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The document that we are considering is short, but it is very important. Its object is to protect people from the drugs that it mentions. I apologise for not having been able to bring the order sooner; both the shadow Minister and I would have liked that to have happened, but this has been the earliest opportunity. We want orders such as this to come forward as early as possible—in fact, to ensure that they become unnecessary as a result of the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which has already gone through the other place.

I place on the record my thanks to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its continuous support and advice, particularly on this order and the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The order controls seven methylphenidate-based compounds and relates to section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Perhaps it will be useful if I tell the Committee in layman’s terms about the “legal high” we are discussing. It is often used as a substitute for cocaine and is injected directly into a vein or artery. I found out yesterday that, in a documentary that is being produced, a gentleman was filmed injecting the drug directly into the artery in his groin as a substitute for cocaine. The product is very dangerous. Initially, five compounds within this bracket were to be placed under the order, but since that time—when the previous Minister was in post—two others have been added. We now want to ban seven compounds.

The methylphenidate-based compounds are highly potent stimulants. One is marketed online as an alternative to cocaine. Harms include anxiety, paranoia, visible disturbance of the veins and arteries, chest pain and a strong urge to reuse—the compounds are highly addictive. They have become a dangerous problem in parts of the United Kingdom. Police in Scotland particularly asked for the order to be made as they had seen the use of and damage caused by the compounds increase hugely.

Since the temporary order has been in place, attendances at A and E in Scotland as a result of infections and overdoses from the compounds have dropped dramatically. We can see where the expert advice is telling us to go, and that is why the order needs to be agreed today.

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

I welcome the order as well as the upcoming Psychoactive Substances Bill. There is no evidence of the Government’s family impact test in the impact assessment. In future, it would be good to include that test in such assessments. People will recognise that the issues the order raises have a significant impact on the family.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. I was not aware that the family impact test was not in the assessment, but we should make sure that it is in all these assessments. We always assume that the impact is only on the individual, but the effect on families and loved ones is absolutely huge. My hon. Friend also mentioned the Psychoactive Substances Bill; we hope that that will receive its Second Reading before Christmas, after which this sort of statutory instrument will no longer be required. With that in mind, I hope the Committee will approve the order.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

We are very mindful of any potential impact of our reform on the Good Friday agreement and the wider settlement. We will pursue our reform of the Human Rights Act with those considerations in mind.

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

A key value of Tottenham magistrates court, which is earmarked for closure, has been the delivery of local, visible justice. Will the Department seriously consider Enfield’s civic centre, or other community buildings, so that young people in particular can see it as a place where first hearing youth courts can take place and deliver effective local justice?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. Yes, I am more than happy to consider other venues. I very much hope he will submit that suggestion, as well as any other venues that he may deem appropriate, formally to the consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

A pilot project to get rid of cautions and defer prosecutions took place in three constituencies during the last Parliament, and it is doing really well at the moment. This is exactly the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. People will know how the offences they have committed affect the community. We can keep them out of prison for low-level offences, but put them in prison for high-level offences.

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

Mandatory sentencing with “two strikes and you’re out” has had its impact on burglary. When is the Minister going to get on and implement this mandatory “two strikes and you’re out” policy for knife crime? It was introduced in January, but now we need to ensure that we set a clear implementation date rather than have the latest “as soon as possible” response from the Department.

[Mike Penning]

It is right and proper to pay tribute to Nick de Bois, whose work on knife crime from the Government Benches led to legislation being put on the statute book. My hon. Friend, who knows me well, will know that I intend to implement it as soon as I possibly can.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent. We were all horrified and shocked by the terrible events that led to his loss. I extend my condolences, my gratitude to him, and indeed my gratitude to all the families of murder victims who have turned a terrible experience into positive work to help support the victims of crime, and to try to prevent these terrible events happening in future. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. It is clearly not our intention to allow the Labour party an opportunity to introduce a victims law, but it will be the intention of a Conservative Government to do just that and to continue the work we have been doing in this Parliament to extend the support provided to victims.

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

At the Justice Secretary’s first Question Time, he spoke of the importance of ensuring that victims get timely information. As this is the last Justice Question Time of this Parliament, will he update the House on what progress has been made in using technology to ensure that victims are put first when it comes to information about their cases?

[Chris Grayling]

We are making good progress towards the introduction of the victims information service, which will signpost victims to services available locally. We intend to mesh that with the current system for tracking crimes, so that we have a single point where victims can find out the situation with the case they are going through. It is really important that we do the right thing for victims, and we have done as much as any previous Government to step forward and provide that support.