Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

A number of steps have been taken. There has been real leadership in a number of quarters in British Muslim society, which is very welcome. The right hon. Gentleman highlights the issue of the internet. I draw to the House’s attention the fact that the counter-terrorism internet referral unit has now taken down 40,000 items from the web that are illegal or promote terrorism. It is important that we retain that focus.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On this day, it is absolutely right that we remember those killed or injured on 7/7. On counter-terrorism work today, allegations are being reported that AY —previously on a control order and then a terrorism prevention and investigation measure order that lapsed—is now freely recruiting and radicalising young men to go to Iraq and Syria to fight for ISIS. Given the potential security threat of those men returning to the United Kingdom, does the Minister still believe that the TPIM orders that he introduced are fit for purpose?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, I do. We have some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with terrorist suspects, and we will not hesitate in using every power at our disposal to protect the security of this country. Clearly, if there is evidence that people are engaged in terrorist-related activity, the police will investigate and take action.

Legal Highs

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Chope, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) on securing this debate on a very important issue. In his opening remarks, he set out the situation that we find ourselves in today and the specific problems that he has identified in his own constituency. I listened to his account of what is going on in and around the Reefer store, and it sounds absolutely dreadful. Also, his account of the effects of the substance called Clockwork Orange was particularly concerning. I had a quick look in my own local paper, the Hull Daily Mail, which recently ran a story about Clockwork Orange. The headline was:

“How £10 clockwork orange ‘legal high’ turned caring mum into deranged Longhill attacker.”

Clearly, that kind of substance is available all around the country and are causing problems for all sorts of communities.

I was also very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is not in his place at the moment, was able to contribute to the debate, because I know that he is particularly interested in the issue. He hit the nail on the head about the importance of cross-Government working. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) spoke with great passion about the action that is needed now. He made two interesting suggestions: one was about the seizures that could take place at the ports, and the other was about putting the onus on sellers to show that what they are purporting to be bath salts really are bath salts and are not to be consumed.

Many Members across the country have seen a proliferation in the number of head shops opening in the high streets in their constituencies, and we know that those shops are selling dangerous drugs. Obviously, the correct term is “new psychoactive substances”. However, I take the point that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made that that term is a bit of a mouthful. His idea of calling them “chemical highs” has some merit, because the problem with them being called “legal highs” is that it causes young people, in particular, to view them as being absolutely fine and safe to take.

We know that there is widespread concern among parents and communities about legal highs. Many Members have spoken today about particular cases in their own constituencies. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) spoke about what was happening in her area, and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about their areas. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the important issue of legal highs being used at festivals, which at this time of year is quite an important issue to try to address.

All this activity has been going on for some time, but the Government have been very slow in coming to the table to sort it out. There is now genuinely a call for action from all parties in the House, and the Government need to do something. It was not until December last year that the Minister accepted that the situation was no longer under control, and he instigated the review that has been mentioned. The Opposition have been raising the matter with the former Minister with responsibility for drugs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), and the current Minister for the past three years. During that time, the UK has become Europe’s largest market for legal highs. We now have more than 500 internet sellers and at least 100 high street shops selling hundreds of substances. We have also heard that more than 650,000 young people in the UK are thought to have taken these substances, on some occasions with tragic consequences.

We know that the problem has been growing exponentially since 2009. In that year, 24 new psychoactive substances were identified in the UK and were linked with 10 deaths, but by 2012 73 drugs had emerged, which were linked to 68 deaths. We know that last year 81 new drugs emerged. I am glad that the Government have now recognised that they can no longer ignore the problem, and although the review is three years too late, I still welcome it. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when it will be published, so that we can see what the Government’s plans are.

There are four issues about legal highs that I want to raise with the Minister. I want to highlight them and seek assurances from him that they will be addressed in the review and its findings.

The first issue is about information. It is difficult to address a problem when we do not understand or know the full scale of it, but at present we do not have a clear recording system to identify the spread of legal highs. There is no record of those presenting at A and E with complications resulting from legal highs. We do not know how often legal highs are implicated in mental health referrals or in adolescent mental health figures. There is even confusion about the drugs that have been identified as being available in the UK, with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is informed by the NHS’s National Poisons Information Service, consistently publishing a much more comprehensive list of substances than the list that the Home Office has on its forensic early warning system. There is a discrepancy in the numbers. Why does the Home Office not use the National Poisons Information Service as its source of information, since its list is more comprehensive? We need a co-ordinated Government strategy. It appears that at the moment one half of Government does not know what information the other half is publishing online. That would be the first step in establishing the baseline of the problem.

Secondly, the Opposition supported the Government in introducing temporary banning orders for new psychoactive substances, but in three years that power has been used just five times, while hundreds of drugs have emerged on the market. The ACMD has been clear that it is not able to assess more than three or four drugs a year. The Minister will say that he has used generic bans to outlaw whole classes—families—of drugs, but I am not convinced that that has worked, as hon. Members have highlighted. We need a new approach to tackling these substances.

Thirdly, it is not just about banning the substances; we now need to tackle an entire industry that has grown up to distribute them. We have heard how head shops behave, particularly the bad example in Chesterfield. Many are deliberately targeting young people, and drugs may be marketed as bath salts or plant food, but that is a thin veneer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness indicated, people will soon recognise that mislabelling when they seek a description of the drug and information about it from those selling it.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will comment on online purchasing of legal drugs, which I mentioned. Although they are available in shops, as we all know, they are also available online and people can buy them without anyone—their parents or their family— knowing. I regard that as a matter of greater concern.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Online sale of these substances is worrying. Just this morning I read a description of a drug on pills4party.com:

“DEX powder–new generation of legal high”

produces a

“pure dose of euphoric energy and keeps you charged for all night long. DEX powder is perfect alternative to cocaine that gives you more than the Snowman Experience without any hassles.”

I am sure, Mr Chope, that you are fully aware of what the snowman experience is, although many of us find that rather baffling. That shows how these substances are being marketed for consumption by young people. Nobody can be under any illusion that they are not being marketed as recreational drugs. I have heard of internet sellers sending out free samples of new drugs that have emerged on the market. It seems to me that they are treating our children as guinea pigs.

Until a little while ago, Amazon was selling legal highs on its site, but due to work by the Angelus Foundation I think that it has removed them. Many local authorities have attempted to use trading standards legislation to close head shops down where there is a problem, but such attempts are rarely successful. Indeed, last year a prosecution was thrown out by the judge, who, although sympathetic to the need to close such shops down, said that the legislation simply was not fit for purpose.

One idea, which was used in Leeds, involved solvent legislation, but of course that applies only to selling solvents to someone who is under 18. By extending the solvents legislation, as has been done successfully in Ireland, we could give local authorities the powers they need to close head shops down. I should be grateful if the Minister said what he thought of that idea, which was proposed in an amendment tabled by the Opposition to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The Government saw fit not to support that amendment.

I was struck by the menu of ways to tackle the problem that the hon. Member for South Swindon proposed. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of those ideas.

My final point, which I have raised in many debates, is that there should be a proper drugs prevention strategy. The lack of one is the Government’s biggest failure. Legal highs have emerged as a new phenomenon, and the Government have done little to tackle the myths that have allowed those substances to take hold in the past few years. Even after a number of deaths, and the horror stories that we have read about and heard about today, some people still think that “legal” means “safe”. That misconception needs to be tackled head-on.

The Minister will claim to have invested in relaunching the Frank website and even to have launched a public awareness campaign last year, but it was too little, too late. In four years, just £67,000 has been spent on a one-off, limited campaign that generated just 75,000 web page views. That is feeble, when we consider that more than 650,000 young people have tried these substances.

Mr Chope, can I just check that the time for this debate has been extended to 4.15 pm?

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

For the avoidance of doubt, it continues until 4.14 pm.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful, Mr Chope. I did not want to eat into the time available to the Minister.

I pay tribute to the Angelus Foundation, which has done its best to get educational materials into schools and communities. It feels frustrated that the Government have not taken up the mantle on education in schools, in particular, which I think most hon. Members would think is important. Will the Minister talk to Public Health England, which also has a job to do in getting a message out?

A two-pronged approach is needed on prevention and education in schools, giving children the life skills they need. I know that it has been a long-standing commitment of the Liberal Democrats to have compulsory personal, social and health education in schools and, as a Liberal Democrat Minister in the coalition, I hope the Minister might be able to persuade the Education Secretary that that is a good idea.

Those are the four points that I want the Minister to address. I look forward to the review being published shortly, so that we can finally have a policy that gets to grips with this dreadful problem, which is growing and developing in all our constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I will come to the steps that are being taken, but I want to stress at this point, since the hon. Gentleman has raised it, that a process is in place. We have appointed an expert panel based on the best brains in the country from various disciplines: law enforcement, those who have knowledge of drugs, those from the health regimes, those who understand the psychiatry of those who might use drugs and so on. The panel has been charged by me with finding the best way forward to minimise harms from those substances. That is its objective. It is therefore not for me to second-guess what the panel will come up with. The clear objective is to minimise harm, and I look to the panel for recommendations. I will come to the process in a moment. It would be wrong for me to rule anything in or out until the panel has had an opportunity to reflect and take professional advice as it is doing so. No doubt the hon. Gentleman’s points will be considered by the panel, along with everything else.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister give us a time scale for when the review will report, because time is pressing in this Parliament?

[Norman Baker]

Time is pressing. I have been in post since October or thereabouts. The review panel was appointed in December and has almost concluded its work. I expect to have its final report on my desk in a couple of weeks’ time. The Government will reflect on the conclusions and we will publish our intentions shortly thereafter. That is our intention. I want to get a move on. There is no intention to delay matters. However, there is also no wish to end up with bad legislation that is rushed and might have unforeseen consequences. I stress that no country in the world has cracked the issue successfully. We have to look across the world at different practices to see what might apply best to our own situation.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his speech and his usual courtesy.

National security is the foremost responsibility of any Government and, I am pleased to say, is always taken seriously by the House. Proscription is a vital part of our national security powers. Proscription orders enable us to tackle and disrupt terror groups that are co-operating around the world. That makes proscription a very serious matter. Proscription makes it illegal to belong to or support in any way a listed organisation. Any proscription order should therefore be taken very seriously.

For that reason, successive Governments have attempted to ensure that there is cross-party parliamentary support for proscription orders. As a matter of courtesy, the shadow Home Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee are written to as soon as an order is laid in Parliament. However, on this occasion, the shadow Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee were not the first people to be briefed.

It appears that journalists were briefed before the order was even laid in Parliament. The political editor of The Sun newspaper, Tom Newton Dunn, was tweeting about the content of the order two hours before it appeared in the Vote Office and long before the shadow Home Secretary was written to. I raised that issue in the House on Monday. I am grateful that the Minister looked into it and wrote to me on 17 June. I am happy to accept his assurance that he did not authorise the disclosure, and I hope that it will not happen again. However, that raises the question of who did authorise it.

Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary lost her most senior political adviser after an investigation into her conduct by the Cabinet Secretary. It now appears that somebody else in the Home Secretary’s Department is disclosing national security information to The Sun. I hope that the Minister will update the House on what steps have been taken to identify who was behind the disclosure, and how the Home Secretary is getting a grip on what is happening in her Department.

[Keith Vaz]

The worst part of this issue is that the organisations themselves had notice of the orders before the House. That is a serious matter when we are dealing with issues of national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He makes the point clearly that these are important matters that need to be treated properly by the Government in the way they behave.

To move on to the substance of the order, the situation in Syria and Iraq is a tragedy that poses a clear threat close to home. Today, we are discussing five groups that pose a threat to British interests at home and abroad. The scale of the national security threat that is posed to the UK by ISIS fighters was highlighted in the last annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I would like to put on the record my thanks for the work that it does to keep the House informed of such issues.

The Opposition do not have access to the same intelligence as the Home Secretary and the Minister. However, on the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given the House and the information that he has set out clearly today, the Opposition are happy to give the motion our full support.

Rarely can a proscription order have been laid about such a high-profile group as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is commonly referred to as ISIS or ISIL. It is now regarded as the world’s largest and most powerful terrorist group. As we have heard in interventions today, it is not a new group. I am sure I speak for everyone in the House and outside when I say how horrified I was to see the mass executions that ISIS claimed credit for just this week. The proscription of ISIS is unusual, because it is rare for an organisation to get so large and well funded before a proscription order is imposed. The US State Department proscribed ISIS in 2004, when ISIS was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. Will the Minister confirm whether it was regarded as a proscribed group at that time because it was an affiliate of al-Qaeda? In 2013, ISIS attempted to merge with the al-Nusra Front, another affiliate of al-Qaeda. That merger seemed to prompt the United Kingdom Government to list the al-Nusra Front as an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and therefore as a proscribed organisation. Will the Minister be clear about the status of ISIS at that time and why it was not specifically listed?

I turn to financial support for the organisation. What measures are being taken to ensure that our financial regulations are used to prevent the money that ISIS now has from being transferred, and, if possible, to seize any funds? We know that a number of large banks have been guilty of serious errors in compliance in the past few years, and I would be grateful if the Minister said what extra steps the Financial Conduct Authority will take to ensure that terrorists’ funds are not being moved between countries through international organisations.

The other four groups that we are discussing are less high profile than ISIS but appear equally dangerous. All are fighting in Syria, which, as the Minister said, is destabilising a larger area and posing a threat to the UK and our allies, including Turkey. The first, Kateeba al-Kawthar, is an Islamist terrorist organisation with links to al-Qaeda, which has grown in Syria and is part of the movement to establish an Islamist Syrian state. The Abdallah Azzam Brigades is another Islamist terror group operating in Syria. As the Minister said, it originated in Pakistan and demonstrates how Syria has become the centre for Islamist campaigns across the world.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command started life as a group committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said, it has been around for many years. In the past, it has blown up aircraft and used bombs. After a period of little activity over the past 20 years, the group has resurfaced in the Syrian conflict, supporting Assad, and has been active in refugee camps. Again, that demonstrates the ability of groups in Syria to destabilise the wider region.

The Turkish People’s Liberation Party-Front, or THKP-C, is another pro-Assad group that has been linked to a range of attacks in Syria and Turkey. Again, it is not a new group. It has grown out of a left-wing radical group but is now committing terrorist atrocities and poses an international threat.

All the groups that we are discussing are operating in Syria, but as I have said, British jihadists are joining them and thus posing a huge threat to the UK when they return. The scale of the problem is shocking. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister suggested that there are likely to be several hundred British fighters in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs that Committee, referred to that point earlier. The Prime Minister’s office revealed yesterday that there had been 65 Syria-related arrests since the start of 2013, of which 40 were between January and March this year. There have also been 15 passport seizures in the past year. What efforts are being made to identify the recruiters of those individuals, and are any of the groups listed suspected of actively recruiting in the United Kingdom? If they are, why were they not proscribed earlier?

The Prevent agenda has its limitations, and in recent weeks it has been shown to have some failures within it is as well. What changes to it have been introduced to address the rise of Syrian-related jihad, and what is being done to target those most likely to be recruited, and indeed the recruiters?

The Government are introducing new offences of participating in terrorism abroad in their Serious Crime Bill, and the Opposition—of course—support the principle behind that. As it is already an offence to support a proscribed group, will that cover those who leave the UK to join organisations such as ISIL or al-Qaeda now?

Finally, may I ask about TPIM orders—terrorism prevention and investigation measures? Of course we all want to see more prosecutions, and we support the new offences to try to obtain them. However, the Government have a pretty poor record of getting such convictions. None of the former TPIM suspects was convicted. That is because—I am sure the Minister will agree—the Government face the same problem as the previous Government: little of the available evidence against those suspects is admissible in open court. How do the Government intend to gather admissible evidence from Syria in order to take action against returning fighters? That is why we occasionally need to have TPIMs, control orders, or an equivalent. The independent reviewer of terrorism recognised that in his annual report, and suggested some changes to TPIMs, including reintroducing the relocation power. He also found that the TPIM regime was “withering”. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s position towards such orders, which may well be necessary in coming months when we have to deal with those who are returning from Syria?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am grateful to him for the work that he has done on the particular issue of modern slavery and human trafficking. We will follow a twin-track approach: the legislation will obviously enable us to strengthen our law enforcement ability, particularly to deal with those perpetrating this crime, and it will also of course set up the anti-slavery commissioner. The action plan that I intend to publish will focus very clearly on the support that we can give victims. We want to ensure that victims are supported and we want people to give evidence against the perpetrators, because if we can reduce the number of perpetrators, we will reduce the number of victims.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary refers to having limited voluntary pilots, which is all very well, but numerous charities, the cross-party Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill and the other place all support having independent guardians or advocates to protect trafficked children and support putting this on a full statutory basis. Will she say whether she will attempt to overturn the new clause—clause 65 of the Immigration Bill—and if so, why?

[Mrs May]

We, of course, want to ensure that we provide that support for child victims and, as I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), that is why we have brought forward the trials of independent advocates. They align almost entirely with the role of child trafficking guardians, but with some exceptions: our advocates support all child victims of trafficking, whether trafficked into the UK or within the UK, and obviously focus on the needs of children, not on those of adults. We are trialling them because the support currently given is inconsistent—some local authority areas give better support than others—and we want to ensure that the system introduced is the one that will work and provide the best level of support.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the letter from the Home Secretary to the shadow Home Secretary, laying out the rationale for the proscription of the three groups.

There is a long tradition of cross-party co-operation on issues of national security, and the Opposition will support the Government in their motion today. As the Minister has laid out, section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 sets out the grounds on which a group can be proscribed.

Proscription is a vital tool against terrorism, and it enables us to tackle and disrupt terror groups co-operating around the world. Of course that makes proscription a serious matter. It makes it illegal to belong to, or support in any way, a listed organisation. This is a draconian measure, so we should use the power only when we know that it is appropriate.

In this case, the Opposition are happy to accept the Minister, and the Home Secretary’s assurances on the basis that all three groups seem to have been involved in terrorism at the highest end of seriousness, including some directed at our citizens and allies.

Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis came to prominence during the Arab spring. It aims to establish sharia law in Egypt. The group, which appears to be al-Qaeda-inspired if not linked, has been responsible for a string of terror attacks, which the Minister outlined. In 2010, the group was linked with an attack on a Jordanian and Israeli pipeline. In 2013, it was thought to be responsible for rocket attacks into southern Israel as well as the murder of three South Koreans and an Egyptian. In January this year, as the Minister set out, the group was linked with a suicide attack that killed 16 people, including 14 police officers.

Al Murabitun has an even closer al-Qaeda link, having emerged out of al-Qaeda in the Land of Islamic Maghreb and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa. The group has been linked to jihadists across north Africa and to terror attacks in Algeria and Niger, both killing scores of people. In particular, I should mention the January 2013 attack on the In Amenas gas facility, which killed 30 people including Britons and Americans.

Finally we have Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia, whose founder is known to have ties to al-Qaeda. The State Department says that that organisation

“is ideologically aligned with al-Qaeda and tied to its affiliates, including AQIM”.

The group has been involved in a number of attacks on western targets in Libya and Tunisia.

The Opposition are always limited in what we can say in these cases, because we do not have access to the same intelligence as the Minister and the Home Secretary. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment in general terms on why the United Kingdom has decided to act now, as many of the groups have committed attacks on our allies or have resulted in the deaths of Britons over the past two years.

Last time a proscription order was discussed in the House, I raised the effect of proscription on content relating to terror groups appearing on social media. That content is hosted outside the United Kingdom but is readily accessible in the United Kingdom. The Minister helpfully laid out the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit. Will he confirm what progress the group has made on removing material in the past year and how many pages it has managed to take down? Last year, the Minister told the House how the counter terrorism internet referral unit took referrals and passed them on to ISPs. What measures are in place proactively to seek out such sites and to get the hosting companies, whether they are Google, Facebook or other companies, to seek out and remove such content?

I was pleased this morning that the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, announced additional industry support for the Internet Watch Foundation to tackle online child abuse. What similar measures have been discussed in relation to counter-terrorism?

As I said earlier, the Opposition are always limited in what we can say about proscription, because it is up to the Home Secretary to analyse the evidence and make a decision. However, that did not stop the Government using proscription to score political points when they were in opposition. The present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said in this House that he would ban the group Hizb ut-Tahrir. I hope the Minister will comment on why the Prime Minister made that rash promise. If the Prime Minister was right to make that promise, why has not the Home Secretary acted on it?

[Keith Vaz]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of Hizb ut-Tahrir. I was in the House when the Prime Minister made that pledge and I think he meant it genuinely and thinks that the group ought to be banned because of its violent activity. Is she therefore as surprised as I am that even though the Prime Minister feels that a group is a terrorist organisation, it carries on with its activities and the Government appear to be unable to do anything about it?

[Diana Johnson]

The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee makes an important point. I hope that the Minister will respond to our concerns and will be able to reassure the House that he is continuing to watch and consider the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Last year, I raised in the House my concerns about the activity of Hizb ut-Tahrir on university campuses. Hizb ut-Tahrir was singled out by the Prevent strategy review as a group that was active on university campuses radicalising students. It would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on what has happened to deal with that issue.

Finally, I want to raise the issue mentioned by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It concerns de-proscription and time limits. The Minister is well aware from the comments and interventions that have been made as the House has considered several such motions that the Home Affairs Committee and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have long been asking the Government how a group can be de-proscribed. The only group ever to be de-proscribed obtained that through judicial review. The Select Committee has been pushing the Government for some time to get a proper structure in place to make these decisions.

According to the independent reviewer of terrorism, the Home Office was at one point considering an annual review of the proscribed list to see which groups still met the criteria. Of course, we should encourage any group to renounce terrorism. The Home Office clearly needs to justify the continued proscription of terror groups, on some of which we know that the independent reviewer of terrorism suggests there is no current evidence of terrorist involvement even in this century. According to the independent reviewer’s website last summer, the Home Office had compiled a list of up to 14 groups that no longer met the criteria for proscription. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct?

The independent reviewer had been calling for that annual review of proscribed groups, but the Home Office seems now to have ignored that suggestion and instead instigated this procedure, which the Minister set out in response to interventions, whereby an individual who is directly affected by a proscription order can apply for the order to be lifted. Owing to the level of concern, does the Minister consider it appropriate to set out in detail how that procedure takes place, so that hon. Members can fully understand how an individual, who might put themselves in difficulty by coming forward, might access it and take it forward? It would be helpful if the Minister were to put a letter or note in the Library setting that out in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I touched on that issue a few moments ago. He will know that I mentioned it in my evidence to his Select Committee, which has recently had a session with Google. I recognise the Select Committee’s work to support community groups to harness social media and other technologies more effectively to ensure that there is a full and informed debate on the internet, not one simple narrative.

I have highlighted the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit, as well as our more general work and ongoing dialogue with the industry about what further steps can be taken. The CTIRU has reach in this country, but much of the material is hosted overseas. Some of the steps taken in and consideration given to combating child sexual exploitation imagery—ensuring that it is more effectively filtered and blocked—is learning that can be taken forward and applied in this area. That theme very much underpinned the recommendations of the extremism taskforce. We are continuing to do that work.

[Diana Johnson]

To return to the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir, was the Prime Minister rash to promise that he would ban it?

[James Brokenshire]

The Prime Minister was very clear in underlining the concern about that group. As I have said, we continue to be concerned about that organisation, which is why we continue to monitor its activities. I have already told the House that the Government obviously have to be cognisant of the statutory tests in looking at all the evidence and deciding whether tests are satisfied. We do not comment on which organisations continue to be under review for proscription, so I will not be led down that path, but we have to be satisfied on the clear statutory tests in introducing an order in this House.

Another issue relates to groups changing their name. Section 3(6) of the 2000 Act allows the Home Secretary, by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure, to specify an alternative name for a proscribed organisation. We keep under close review whether organisations are seeking to use an alias. We have used that mechanism to introduce orders to add other names of proscribed organisations. I underline that the use of an alternative name that is not listed does not prevent the police and the Crown Prosecution Service from taking action against an individual for proscription offences. Such action is based on an assessment made by the police and the CPS.

I have commented on de-proscription. The right hon. Member for Leicester East has highlighted the LTTE—the Tamil Tigers—in the past. He congratulated me on my current role and the work in which I am engaged, and now that he is back in his place I want to recognise the many jobs that he does as an MP and Chair of the Select Committee—it does a broad spread of work in my areas of responsibility and other areas—and he is involved in other activities. I certainly congratulate him on the many jobs that he holds. He has raised the issue of de-proscription as Chair of the Select Committee, as well as in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. We judge that the responsibility for it is as I explained in relation to the de-proscription process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Last year, after Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed absconded from his TPIM, the Home Secretary told this House that he no longer posed a threat to the UK.

Turning to AM, another terrorist subject, Lord Justice Mitting concluded that AM was involved in

“a viable plot to commit mass murder by bringing down transatlantic passenger airlines by suicide bombings, which was disrupted by the arrest and prosecution of a number of individuals in the United Kingdom”,

and that

“there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people”.

With AM’s TPIM order arbitrarily ending this month, will the Minister now confirm to the House that AM no longer presents a threat to the United Kingdom?

[James Brokenshire]

It would be wrong to comment on the detailed operational issues surrounding TPIM subjects, as that could undermine the very work of the police and security services. The police and security services have been clear that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk from such individuals, and they have tailored plans in place to manage them. If any individual engages in any further terrorist-related activity after the expiry of their TPIM, the police will not hesitate to prosecute.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Today the House is debating the Government’s first responsibility, which is to keep their citizens safe, in this case from acts of terror, and the expiry of the six TPIM orders on individuals who have been identified as posing a terrorist threat, but who will all have restrictions removed from them, regardless of the security assessment, because of the two-year limit on the life of the orders brought in by the coalition Government.

Different views have been expressed, but one thing unites the House: we would all prefer not to need TPIMs or control orders. We would all prefer to see terrorist suspects prosecuted. That would be fairer, more effective and cheaper, but it is not always possible. We are debating how to deal most effectively and fairly with the small number of exceptional cases that cannot be prosecuted. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has said, those on TPIMs are accused of

“terrorist activities at the highest end of seriousness, even by standards of international terrorism.”

For the past decade, Labour and the Conservatives have agreed on the need to have terrorism orders that are restrictive but viewed by successive Home Secretaries and the High Court to be necessary and proportionate. The current Home Secretary decided to weaken those powers, first by removing the power to relocate, and secondly by introducing an automatic ending of such orders after two years. That leaves a series of questions about her judgment.

As six of the individuals subject to TPIMs will have all restrictions ended this month, owing to the legislation that the Home Secretary introduced, the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary still need addressing: what risk does each man pose, and what action has the Home Secretary taken to reduce the risk? Parliament needs to know whether TPIMs are still fit for purpose and whether reforms are now needed in the interests of public safety. It is important that she recognises that these are genuine concerns.

We heard many excellent contributions in this high-quality debate, including from two former Home Secretaries, my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson); from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee; from the former shadow Minister who led for Labour when the TPIMs Bill went through Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe); and from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). We also heard three contributions from the Government Benches.

Given the number of points that have been made, I will limit my remarks to the issues that I think the Government still need to respond to. First, the TPIMs regime was supposed to allow more prosecutions at the same time as providing protection for the public. Will the Minister confirm whether any of the individuals subject to TPIMs have actually been prosecuted for terrorist-related activity?

Secondly, we know that two of the people subject to TPIMs have absconded. The fact that the power of relocation is no longer available to the Home Secretary might have something to do with that. Will the Minister agree to reflect on whether it was wise to ignore the advice of the former Conservative Home Secretary, the noble Lord Howard, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the noble Lord Carlile, and the police when removing the power of relocation?

When TPIMs replaced control orders, Parliament was promised that the introduction of those weaker powers would be accompanied by extra surveillance capacity. The Public Bill Committee was promised an elaborate web of 24-hour surveillance provided by specially trained officers. The cost was predicted to rise from £1.8 million a year for a control order to £18 million a year for a TPIM, but Ibrahim Magag disappeared by getting into a taxi and Mohamed did the same by donning a burqa and removing his tag. Will the Minister set out whether the TPIMs regime provided the direct surveillance of suspects that Parliament was promised? For example, was either of those suspects under direct surveillance when they disappeared?

The Home Secretary pointed out that individuals had in the past been taken off control orders. Indeed they were, but the difference is that in those cases the individuals were no longer deemed to pose a high risk. Now the decision has been taken away from the Government with the automatic ending of a TPIM after a maximum of two years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, when pressing the Home Secretary on her personal view on when individuals should come off TPIMs, asked whether she thought that they posed a risk. She refused to answer.

The Home Secretary was also asked whether she thought that the person known as CD still posed a risk. As she was previously able to tell us what the risk assessment was for Magag and Mohamed, it is rather unfortunate that she was unable to be as candid on the Floor of the House in this important debate about these individuals.

Let me say clearly to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that nobody wants people to remain on TPIM orders indefinitely, but we do want a proper risk assessment as to when a person should come off a TPIM order, not an arbitrary two-year time limit. That is our position, and I hope he will reflect on that.

Control orders and TPIMs have had some parliamentary oversight from the Intelligence and Security Committee, and that vital form of accountability needs to continue. The Opposition would like an assurance that the ISC will be given the individual risk assessments for each person who is currently subject to a TPIM order and the individual plans for them once they are no longer subject to it.

It would be helpful if the Minister said a little more about what is going to happen after these orders come to an end. He has referred to specially tailored packages, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked for more information about exactly what that would mean. I understand the constraints that the Minister is under, but a more general comment would be welcome.

When TPIMs replaced control orders, the extra cost continued to be borne by the Home Office. Will the Minister say where any extra funding will come from and clarify whether Ministers will remain responsible for the oversight of these individuals once the TPIM orders have been lifted?

I want to ask the Minister about any additional powers that might be required. The Opposition have offered assistance and co-operation to bring in necessary but proportionate measures on a cross-party basis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) referred to the issue that David Anderson raised about the possibility of a provision akin to a licence condition being imposed when someone comes off a TPIM order. The Opposition would be willing to consider that with the Minister if he were willing to engage in such discussions.

Will the Minister comment on the restriction on foreign travel? When someone is placed on a TPIM order, their passport should be confiscated, although that did not happen in the case of Mohamed, and we have not got to the bottom of where the passport is or whether it is still in existence. Seven of the current TPIM suspects are thought to have travelled abroad to Pakistan, Syria or Somalia to attend terrorist training camps, where they develop the expertise and skills that make them so dangerous. I heard what the Home Secretary said about the use of the royal prerogative, but will the Minister confirm whether any additional powers are needed to stop these individuals travelling abroad once they are no longer restricted by TPIM orders?

We hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we have used an Opposition day debate to raise an important matter, to offer co-operation on an issue of national security, and to work together on a cross-party basis to make sure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

We would like to do that and we will consult on it.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

We recently launched our £100 million super-connected cities broadband voucher scheme, providing qualifying small and medium-sized enterprises with up to £3,000 of funding to access superfast broadband. As part of the autumn statement, further support measures were announced for the film industry, sport, and regional arts and culture, and there was an announcement of a new £10 million competitive fund to market test innovative solutions to deliver superfast broadband to reach some of the UK’s most remote communities.

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the Secretary of State for announcing Hull as the city of culture for 2017 on 20 November, and for immediately getting on a train to visit the city—we very much appreciated that. In line with the original thinking on the city of culture status, will she help the city by making sure that some of our great cultural prizes, such as the Turner prize, the Booker prize and the Brit awards, come to Hull in 2017?

[Maria Miller]

The city of culture programme is a great way to showcase our great cultural assets outside London and around the country. I was delighted to meet so many of the people who were crucial in putting Hull’s bid together. I would also like to commiserate with those that did not make it to that final accolade, as the semi-finalists were also extremely strong. I will do all I can to make sure that being city of culture in 2017 is as successful for Hull as being city of culture has been for Derry/Londonderry.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

This Government are committed to reducing the gender pay gap. Women have had the legal right to equal pay for nearly 40 years, but there is still a long way to go before we achieve equality in the workplace. The Government’s focus is on driving the necessary culture change in business, in particular through improving transparency.

[Diana Johnson]

Forty-three years on from Barbara Castle’s landmark Equal Pay Act 1970, will the right hon. Lady be pleased to be remembered as the Minister who brought in a fee of £1,200 for a pregnant sacked woman to take a case to an employment tribunal on grounds of discrimination and her right to equal pay?

[Maria Miller]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady continues to follow this line of questioning, as she is at risk of scaremongering with her reference to the £1,200. She will know that the vast majority of individuals who want to bring a tribunal claim will pay a far lower fee and that our remissions scheme will protect those who cannot pay. I hope she will ensure that she is not scaremongering in this regard because pregnant women will want to know the facts about the support available to them.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and explanation, and for taking the time to talk to me about the order earlier today. There is a long tradition of cross-party co-operation on issues of national security, and the Opposition will support the Government’s motion.

Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a group can be proscribed if the Home Secretary is persuaded that it

“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, (b) prepares for terrorism, (c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or (d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

In addition to the Minister’s speech, a wealth of publicly available evidence links Imarat Kavkaz to acts of terror.

Indeed, the United Kingdom is two years behind the United States in proscribing the organisation. The United States acted in 2011, after Imarat Kavkaz was linked to two deadly attacks in Moscow. In January 2011, the group was linked to an attack at Moscow international airport, in which 35 people were killed and scores were wounded. The group was also linked to an attack carried out by two female bombers in March 2010, which killed 39 people in the Moscow metro.

The State Department helpfully gave us background information on Imarat Kavkaz or the Caucasus Emirate, as it is otherwise known. The group was founded in late 2007 by the Chechen extremist Doku Umarov. It is an Islamic militant organisation based in Russia’s north Caucasus. Its stated goal is the liberation of what it considers Muslim lands from the control of Moscow. It regularly conducts attacks against Russian security forces in the north Caucasus. As the Minister said, Imarat Kavkaz is linked to al-Qaeda through its leader, Doku Umarov, who I understand is one of the world’s most wanted terrorists.

Terrorist organisations originating in that part of the world have been in the spotlight because of last year’s attacks in Boston in the United States. In the light of those attacks, it is appropriate for the Government to review the activity of related groups in the United Kingdom.

The Opposition are always limited in what they can say in such cases, because we do not of course have access to the same intelligence as the Home Secretary. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister commented generally on why the United Kingdom has decided to act now.

I also want to ask the Minister about the effects of proscription on social media. Imarat Kavkaz has a number of Facebook pages and a range of fan pages are directed towards Doku Umarov. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether Facebook will be prohibited from hosting such fan pages and allowing people in the United Kingdom to access them once the group is proscribed.

[James Brokenshire]

The Government take the misuse of social media and the internet extremely seriously. The group’s Facebook page has been referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, which has responsibility for assessing such issues. If the site is assessed to be illegal, the CTIRU will flag that up with Facebook directly and have it taken down.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for responding on that point.

As I said earlier, the Opposition are always limited in what they can say about proscription because it is up to the Home Secretary to analyse the evidence and make a decision. However, that did not stop the previous Opposition calling for proscription. The former Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, said to the House that he wanted Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned. I hope that the Minister will say what progress has been made in banning Hizb ut-Tahrir and that he will assure the House that he continues to keep the activities of that group under review.

Earlier this year, I raised in the House my concerns about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir on university campuses. It was singled out by the Prevent strategy review as a group that was active in radicalising students on university campuses. That concern is particularly pertinent given the current trial of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who were radicalised at the university of Greenwich.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of de-proscription and time limits. The Minister is well aware that the Home Affairs Committee has long asked the Government how a group can be de-proscribed. The only group ever to be de-proscribed sought de-proscription through judicial review proceedings. The Select Committee has been pushing the Government for some time to put a proper structure in place for making such decisions. Time-limiting proscription was recommended by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. He felt that a proscription order should be subject to a review after a fixed period, following which it could be renewed or it would lapse. The Minister has been pressed on that issue on previous occasions. I hope that he will update the House tonight on the Government’s position or at least give an indication of the steps the Government are taking towards reaching a conclusion on how to de-proscribe.

Modern-day Slavery

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the excellent chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern day slavery, made a powerful and well-informed speech. She did so in an inclusive way, and paid tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), after what was obviously a hard-fought election for the position of chair. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) also talked about the need to put victims at the heart of the Bill and for us to lead the world with a modern slavery Bill. I also pay tribute to Anthony Steen, who did so much to raise this issue in the last Parliament, and to Baroness Butler-Sloss, who takes a keen interest in this matter in the other place.

Given that we are debating slavery, it gives me special pride to speak from the Front Bench as a Hull MP. We have heard many mentions this afternoon of William Wilberforce, who was also a Hull MP and one of the leaders of a 20-year campaign to bring about the abolition of the slave trade. In a Back-Bench debate, it is important to note that he did that entirely from the Back Benches. The full horror of the slave trade is remembered at the excellent William Wilberforce museum in Hull, which I would encourage all hon. Members to visit when they visit our city as the city of culture in 2017 or before. We are also fortunate to have the Wilberforce institute for the study of slavery and emancipation, which is attached to the university of Hull and provides great information. I am sure that it will also offer support to hon. Members looking at the draft Bill.

It is worth reminding the House that when the slave trade was abolished, through William Wilberforce’s Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, it was felt appropriate to compensate the slave owners, not the victims. It is shocking now, but the family of the Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone received £93,526 in compensation for losing their 2,039 slaves after abolition. Several hon. Members have made the point that we hope that any proceeds that are available will go to the victims of this dreadful crime, and perhaps also to the police and the Human Trafficking Foundation.

I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to this excellent debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) spoke knowledgeably, as ever, about the needs of trafficked children, and about the need for multi-agency safeguarding hubs to be extended to every area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) talked in some harrowing detail about child abuse and slavery in India, and shocked all hon. Members when he talked about children as young as three being used as prostitutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) talked knowledgeably about the EU dimension as well as the Scottish experience, and the need for the auditing of supply chains.

The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) paid tribute to the NGOs—very important—and also raised the issue of supply chains. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked harrowingly about his constituency experience of 23 British slaves who had been slaves for up to 15 years, and about the vital work that needs to be done to raise public awareness of the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the global sex trade and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) talked about the need to make sure that people understand it happens anywhere—down our own streets and roads. The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) talked about the particular issues of electronic payments and civil penalties that could be used. He made some very interesting points and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). As a former Home Office Minister and chair of the all-party group on Nigeria, she spoke knowledgeably on issues related to her experience in those roles.

We know, and we have heard again today, that modern-day slavery exists. We think that there are around 27 million people enslaved around the world. The UK Human Trafficking Centre estimates that at least 2,200 human beings were trafficked into the UK in 2012. In 2009, the Home Affairs Committee held an investigation into human trafficking and it estimated that the number is likely to be nearer 5,000. Just two weeks ago in Lambeth we saw three women escape from what appears to have been 30 years of enslavement. Few people can understand how that could happen on an ordinary street in south London, but although that is an extreme case, it is far from isolated.

Modern-day slavery is on the rise. Human beings, mainly women and children, are being trafficked into and within the UK to work as labourers, domestic servants, prostitutes, cannabis farmers, forced beggars and to do a whole range of other jobs. We have had a number of excellent suggestions this afternoon on what can be done to tackle this practice, and I know that the Minister will have been listening carefully.

I put it on record that the Opposition support the principle of such an important Bill on modern-day slavery. We will work constructively with the Government to ensure the Bill passes within the limited parliamentary time available, and we will press for a Bill that does all that is needed to address this horrendous practice. I stress that the Opposition will be looking for a Bill that puts victims at its centre and the first step is to recognise who the victims are. The situations into which people are trafficked either from outside or within the UK are disparate and we need a system that recognises that. It is not just neighbours, such as those in the Lambeth case, who fail to recognise victims in their midst. Too many cases are missed by the police, social workers, health workers and immigration staff.

We need front-line professionals across a range of sectors to be trained to recognise trafficking in all its forms. There has to be an understanding that enslavement does not have to mean chains or cellars. Once we have identified victims, we need to give them protection and support, and that is where we think the current system is left wanting. There is a national referral mechanism to collate information on victims, but it is currently not fit for purpose. As I mentioned, the UK Human Trafficking Centre, in collaboration with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, identified 2,255 human trafficking victims, whereas the NRM identified 1,186. The failure is equally pronounced for children: the UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 549 child victims in 2012, while the NRM identified 349. We think the true figure is probably much higher. Given that there are 23 bodies authorised to refer to the NRM, the Government need to address urgently the multiple deficiencies in the system that are stopping referrals. One measure the Opposition support fully is the introduction of a commissioner to oversee the proper collection and use of information.

Once we have identified victims, we have to ensure that the support is there to look after them. The support required will depend on the circumstances in which people have been trafficked. We must not criminalise human trafficking victims. We have to move away from a situation where the first instinct of the authorities is to treat people as an immigration problem rather than as victims. If we are to get more prosecutions, the first stage has to be to identify and protect the victims. They will then be more willing to come forward as witnesses.

We know that support for child victims is a particular weakness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, a horrifying 60% of child victims taken into care go missing. One local authority admitted to losing 90% of children. This happens because the strength of the bond between child victim and trafficker is not diminished when the child is taken into care. Factors that made the child vulnerable in the first place remain and often the trafficker will retain a psychological hold. Without special provision, the child will often return to the trafficker. This is especially true if the child is repatriated. I welcome the vital cross-border work being done to minimise the risks to children when they are returned home.

Trafficked children in the UK require specialist care that is tailored to their individual circumstances. That kind of tailored care will only be provided if trafficked children are given specialist and independent guardians. That system has worked elsewhere in Europe, and, as the Minister will know, was set out in the EU directive on human trafficking. The Government have so far decided not to introduce a system of guardians, but I hope they will look at that again. The Government’s own review “Still at Risk”, which was commissioned by the Home Office, was unequivocal about the need for guardians.

Domestic workers were mentioned, as was the need for a review of the changes introduced to the domestic workers visa. Statistics presented by hon. Members make the case for a reconsideration their unintended consequences.

On prosecutions, the Opposition will certainly support the Government in increasing the penalties for convictions for offences relating to human trafficking, but will look to the Government to introduce aggravated offences for such cases as well. We would also support the inclusion of the specific offence of child trafficking and exploitation, which currently does not exist. I pay tribute to ECPAT for highlighting that particular issue.

In conclusion, I commend the Government for their commitment to introducing a modern slavery Bill, but I urge them not to waste the opportunity before us. There would be many more prosecutions if we could identify more victims and give them the support and protection they need to become witnesses and then help them to rebuild their lives. Unless the Bill recognises that, we will waste a great opportunity. I want to finish by quoting William Wilberforce’s words to the House of Commons on 12 May 1789, which I think sum up the position today:

“The nature and all the circumstances of this trade are now laid open to us; we can no longer plead ignorance, we cannot evade it”.—[Official Report, 12 May 1789; Vol. 28, c. 63.]