Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make verbally the amendment I made in Hansard. In my statement to the House about Mr Mohamed, I told the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that I thought the police had his passport. I wrote to him afterwards explaining that that information was incorrect. The police did not have his passport, because when he returned to the UK, he was not in possession of a passport and therefore it was not possible to remove it from him.

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

The Home Secretary’s weak TPIMs regime reaches a milestone on 26 January 2014, when seven out of the eight TPIM orders expire and cannot be renewed. This includes the TPIM governing AY, who is believed to be a key member of the group behind attempts to blow up transatlantic flights with liquid bombs and who travelled to Pakistan to learn bomb making, and AM, who was involved in the same plot. Lord Justice Wilkie concluded that he was “highly intelligent” and

“prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives.”

Will she explain why these individuals will be freed from all restrictions by the end of January 2014?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is aware of the legislation, as is everybody else, but I take issue with her description of TPIMs. As she will have heard me say in answer to her hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation stated:

“In terms of security, the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against untriable and undeportable persons who are judged on substantial grounds to be dangerous terrorists,”.

The hon. Lady talks about people coming off TPIMs as if no one had ever come off a control order. In fact, 43 people came off control orders because the previous Government revoked them because they were quashed in court, or in six cases because people absconded and were never seen again.

Psychoactive Substances

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Minister to his post. The Opposition were particularly pleased about his appointment to the Home Office. I thank him for his explanation of the Government’s position on this proposal.

The European Commission’s proposals are technical but important. We should be thankful for the work undertaken by members of the European Scrutiny Committee to assist our deliberations. As the Minister explained, the measures are an attempt to take an EU-wide approach to the problem of legal highs. No one in this House should underestimate the scale of the problem. The UN estimates that the UK has the largest legal highs market in the world. It is estimated that 670,000 young Britons aged 16 to 24 have taken legal highs.

Many of the figures on the scale of the problem already come from the EU through the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. That agency found 73 new synthetic drugs in 2012, which is up from 49 in 2011. The rate of proliferation is increasing. At times this year, about two new substances have been arriving in the UK market every week. Hundreds have been catalogued in the marketplace. There are more than 500 internet shops that supply the substances to the UK market. There are also an unknown but increasing number of head shops on the high street.

It is therefore clear that there is some truth in the Commission’s assessment that member states have not been able effectively to respond to the threat posed by legal highs and that collective action is needed. The Commission is perhaps being unfair on several other member states that have taken action. Countries such as Ireland have been more proactive in responding to the rapid proliferation of the new drugs. The UK Government have been singularly ineffective in tackling this problem. That is why the UK market is now the largest in Europe.

[Norman Baker]

I just want to put the record straight. The hon. Lady mentioned that there were 49 new drugs in 2011. Only 17 of those crossed the channel to the UK and 14 of them were already controlled by the UK Government. Of the 73 in 2012, only 18 have been seen in the UK and eight had already been controlled.

[Diana Johnson]

I will come on to the discrepancies between the Home Office figures and the figures of other bodies. The Home Office does not have access to the figures on all the new legal highs that are available on the internet and in head shops.

I want to return to the EU proposal to introduce a cross-European response. The Commission proposes to strengthen the existing monitoring centre, the EMCDDA, to enable it to undertake assessments of new substances and determine how dangerous they are. That determination will inform a classification that is decided on by the Commission with some input from member states.

The Commission wants to address two problems through the proposals. The first and, going by the Commission’s documents, possibly the foremost, is the impediment to the legitimate trade in new psychoactive substances caused by restrictions imposed by individual member states. Secondly, the Commission recognises the public health need. From the drafting of the proposals, it could be construed that the Commission is giving that secondary status.

I agree with the evidence of the Minister for Immigration to the European Scrutiny Committee in which he said that it was not entirely clear what “mischief” the Commission was attempting to tackle. In the regulations, free trade appears to be afforded equal status to prevention of harm. The Opposition share the Government’s surprise that the regulation is justified under the legal auspices of protecting free trade, rather than article 5 concerns relating to justice and home affairs. That focus is surprising given that even the Commission recognises that only a small, unquantifiable percentage of new psychoactive substances have a legitimate use.

The European Scrutiny Committee states that the

“trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate purposes is difficult to quantify”.

I agree with its conclusion:

“Given that uncertainty, as well as the known risks associated with their recreational use, we do not consider that new psychoactive substances should necessarily be treated in the same way as other tradable commodities… Divergent national rules cited by the Commission as an obstacle to legitimate trade, in our view, often reflect differing cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs”.

Although the Opposition have some reservations about the Commission’s motivations, we are willing to engage in addressing the health harms posed by legal highs. We also give the Commission some credit for recognising that harm.

Reading the Commission’s proposal, however, it is not clear how it would determine harm. Article 7 lays out the procedure for risk assessment connected with the substance, and article 10 states the conditions for the determination of levels of health, social and safety risks, following the risk assessment. Article 9 deals with urgent public health requirements, while articles 11, 12 and 13 lay out three levels of control, depending on the level of risk identified. It is important to note for article 11 and substances deemed a low risk that that would mean no restrictions at all.

That does not give an entirely satisfactory account of how the EMCDDA would determine the level of harm associated with each drug. The articles I have mentioned lay out a process, but it is not entirely clear that the EMCDDA will have the evidence available to make classifications that correspond to the level of harm outlined. EMCDDA assessments would not extend to clinical trials, and it is therefore not clear how it would be in a position to rule out addictiveness, long-term psychological harm, or the effect of combining the drugs with alcohol.

It is important to remember that most deaths associated with legal highs come about accidentally, and I am not convinced that the Commission’s proposals adequately explain how the EMCDDA would account for such dangers. Perhaps the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that point, and say what representations the UK Government have made to the Commission. It is also not clear how such proposals will impact on the UK’s capacity to determine our own classification system—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question that we are seeking to pass this measure today to demonstrate our expertise in and judgment on these various substances, those that are emerging and those that are well known such as khat—I have seen the devastation that causes right across north, west and east Africa—which is finding its way to these shores? Precisely for those reasons we want to rely on our expertise and judgment and get a system in place in time, rather than relying on the lowest common denominator from Europe.

[Diana Johnson]

If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know I was making the case for why I am questioning whether the procedure in this proposal would actually work. I want the Minister to respond to the Government’s advice on the point about the effect that such a proposal would have on any determination this country could make about its own classification.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The hon. Lady rightly raises the question of our making our own determinations, which I hope she will agree should be evidence based. Has she seen the advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that khat should not be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and will the official Opposition follow that evidence-based line when it comes to a vote in the Statutory Instrument Committee?

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman should perhaps look to his own coalition Government, who decided not to follow the advice of the ACMD. As a Member of one of the two ruling coalition parties, perhaps he should question his own Ministers on that point.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

I am going to move on because I do not want to get sidetracked into a debate on khat as that is not the purpose of this debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could ask his Ministers about their position as they are part of the Government who are not using—[Interruption.] Well, I have made my position clear. He should look to his own Ministers. The Liberal Democrats cannot have it all ways—I know they try, but perhaps on this they should look to their Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office.

It would be helpful if the Minister set out clearly his position on classification. EU co-operation on drugs is not new, but previously the agreement was that drugs, as recognised by the UN agreement on narcotics, needed to be controlled and the trafficking of drugs tackled. The proposals we are discussing go far further than that. Drugs that would be deemed low risk will not be restricted; those deemed a moderate risk will be prohibited from the consumer market; and the most dangerous drugs will be prohibited altogether, with a possible exception for medical use. I should make it clear that the Opposition do not want to cede powers on drug classification to the EU, and I press the Minister on the Government’s legal advice on how the adoption of the directive could affect the UK Government’s position. The Home Office explanatory memorandum states:

“we do not consider that the measure complies with the principle of proportionality. In particular, the effect of Article 4 of the draft Regulation fetters the UK from adopting more stringent measures to control NPS. In our view, it is vital for the UK, guided as necessary by EU expertise in NPS but not bound by it, to have the final say when deciding whether to exceed any minimum standards mandated by the EU.”

Although the Opposition concur generally with that, it would be helpful if the Minister explained exactly what the Government mean by “fetters”. Do the Government believe that article 4 would prevent them from placing strong prohibitions on a substance?

When we turn to articles 3 and 4, we see that the Commission has placed a strong emphasis on free trade, as I have said. Article 3, on free movement, states:

“New psychoactive substances and mixtures shall move freely in the Union for commercial and industrial use”.

Article 4, on the prevention of barriers to free movement, states that, in so far as

“the Union has not adopted measures to subject a new psychoactive substance to market restriction under this Regulation, Member States may adopt…regulations”.

Is it the Government’s view that member states could impose restrictions only before the EU has classified a drug? Would the Commission classifying a drug as low risk, and therefore not restricting sale in any way, count as having adopted a measure, therefore precluding further action from member states? For its part, the Commission thinks not—it argues that in its impact assessment.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes a detailed and powerful argument. I am gathering that she supports generally what the Government are doing. Many Government Members would like to know that the Opposition will not vote against the motion tonight.

[Diana Johnson]

I have a few more pages of notes, and then all will be revealed. The hon. Gentleman will have picked up that the Opposition have a number of questions on whether the proposal would be helpful in dealing with the problem of legal highs.

The impact assessment states:

“Member States would be able to apply national measures before the introduction of any EU-level measure in…respect of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, and to go further than what is foreseen by EU measures in full respect of the provisions of Article 114”.

Will the Minister respond to that explanation on that point?

One point made strongly by the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place was that national states are more competent than the EU to make decisions because specific factors might influence the dangers of each drug in different national contexts. The Opposition agree with that assessment. One particular issue is what substances are mixed with—one psychoactive substance could form part of a compound street drug that is far more dangerous. That is a problem for the UK, which, as I have said, has Europe’s largest legal highs market. That draws attention to a failing of the Government’s response to legal highs—the failure to address the emergence of regional drugs, meaning drugs going under a generic street name, but often containing a variety of different substances that become popular in a certain region. Sadly, we have seen repeatedly over a number of years that batches of such drugs can contain a dangerous substance, often with lethal consequences.

Because the Opposition believe that member states are best placed to determine the level of harm posed by a new psychoactive substance, we do not believe that the proposal from the EU Commission is either necessary or proportionate. Therefore, we agree with the reasoned opinion put by the European Scrutiny Committee and supported by the Government. However, even if the House and the other place were to reject the Commission’s proposals—the other place has, I believe, already rejected the proposals—it should not be taken as an excuse by this Eurosceptic Government to opt out of EU co-operation on investigating and assessing new psychoactive substances. The Opposition see a clear need for EU-wide co-operation on a laboratory to research new substances without giving it the power to classify substances.

Currently, hundreds of new substances arrive on the UK market. The Government’s temporary banning orders have been used on only three occasions. I therefore dispute what the Minister has said about taking swift action. There are two reasons for this: a failure by Ministers to refer substances to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the capabilities of the advisory council. It has said that it can assess only two or three substances a year. It is clear that it will never be able to keep up with the number of new drugs on the market, so the UK Drug Policy Commission and others called for a joint EU-wide laboratory to provide advice and information to relevant authorities. We support that. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has long produced lists of new substances that have always been far ahead of the Home Office’s forensic early warning system. I have repeatedly asked Ministers why substances that are identified by the EMCDDA as being on sale in the UK are not automatically added to the forensic early warning system. This goes back to the Minister’s intervention on the numbers. The EMCDDA numbers are far higher than the Home Office numbers, and that needs to be looked at. Perhaps the Minister will finally be able to explain why there is such a disparity between the two lists.

In conclusion, the Opposition are in agreement with both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government that the EU Commission proposal is neither necessary nor desirable. We would like the Government to be more precise about the consequences of adopting the directive on the UK’s current system of drug regulation. We do not want the Government to use tonight’s debate as an excuse to avoid greater EU co-operation to assess the dangers posed by legal highs, particularly to our young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I shall try to be relatively brief and to resist the temptation to discuss the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I think that it was the first speech that I have heard in which someone has objected to the concept of talking to other people to identify good practice, which is surely something that most of us would want to do.

It is clear that a huge problem is posed by new psychoactive substances. As that has been reiterated so many times, I shall not go into it in detail now, but I will say that the rise in the number of such substances is partly our fault, because our prohibition-led policy has made it possible to be sentenced to years in jail for possessing one tablet of known harm, but to receive no penalty for possessing something else of unknown harm, which could be far more serious.

We know that some of the new substances are more harmful than substances that we have already controlled. Our use of the term “legal highs” suggests to the public that it is all right to take such substances, because it implies that they are safer than others. If ecstasy is a class A drug and another substance is legal, that suggests that we have made an assessment of the risk, which is deeply misleading. It flies in the face of any evidence-based policy, but it also flies in the face of what we all want to do, which is to reduce the harms from drug use. All substances of this kind, whether legal or illegal, have harms, and we must try to reduce those harms.

I agree with the Minister that the European proposal is not the right one to adopt, but what is the correct way in which to deal with all these substances? On the general subject, I follow the Portuguese line. I think that decriminalisation has worked very well there. Only those on the far right in politics opposed it originally, and now it is supported by people throughout the political spectrum and by the police themselves. The Home Affairs Committee conducted a detailed study of all the issues, and that was our very clear finding.

What is the solution? What is not the solution is simply to ban everything that is psychoactive. I suspect that that is what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is proposing, and it is certainly what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) proposed in a new clause to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which would have included making the sale of caffeine, including coffee, illegal. I do not think that that was the intention of the new clause, but it illustrates the problems that arise when we try to ban things. Coffee is a psychoactive substance. I will not ask how many Members who are present have consumed some of that psychoactive substance today, but quite a number will have done so. That illustrates the danger of being extremist and banning everything.

What we should do is adopt an alternative to the European proposal, and emulate, for example, what has been done in New Zealand. When the New Zealand Government asked the New Zealand Law Commission to look at their drug laws—the Select Committee report goes into this in much more detail—the commission proposed the establishment of an independent regulatory authority to test substances, so that manufacturers and importers would have to demonstrate their safety. I am pleased to see that other members of the Select Committee are present. We proposed that urgent action should be taken, based on existing trading standards and consumer protection legislation, to deal with the sale of untested substances. The onus should be on the person selling a substance to check that it is safe. That is the right way to tackle the huge number of new psychoactive substances.

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps I could correct the record. The new clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have dealt with exactly the problem that he has raised by building on the work that had already been done in relation to young people who were sniffing glue. I believe that it was a Conservative Government who had previously legislated to put the onus on shopkeepers who sold substances that could be used for that purpose, and the new clause was intended to put the onus on the seller in the same way. I take exception to the way in which he has described its aims.

[Dr Huppert]

New clause 2 stated:

“It is an offence for a person to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance, including but not restricted to…a powder…a pill…a liquid; or…a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be so acting, that the substance is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication.”

That would make it illegal to sell coffee. It is perfectly possible to be intoxicated by caffeine, which is an addictive substance. The hon. Lady is right to say that the new clause deals only with the supply of substances, but, although some of us may have concerns about Starbucks paying taxes or otherwise, I think that making the company illegal would be going too far.

Roughly one in five of the notified new psychoactive substances are used for legitimate purposes in industry or research, or as active substances in medicines. We must be extremely careful about how we proceed, because a global ban would give rise to all sorts of problems.

We have touched on the Home Secretary’s decision to ban khat. She has tabled a statutory instrument to do so. That was her decision; it was not a jointly signed off one, and I was very disappointed by it.

I was also very disappointed and surprised that the shadow Minister had no idea what her own policy was. [Interruption.] If she would like to say what it is, I will be happy to take an intervention. Apparently, she does not wish to do so.

The Government have twice asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs what to do about khat. This is a classic example of a legal high that exists and would be covered by this provision, and where we have to work out what to do. The ACMD said that

“the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”

It also said that

“the evidence shows that khat has no direct causal links to adverse medical effects”.

It went on to say there is no robust evidence of a causal link between khat consumption and any of the social harms indicated, and no evidence of it being connected with organised criminal behaviour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I have already mentioned the websites we have introduced, which have had over 1 million hits since 2010. We are also taking clear action on online abuse and have published documents this year taking forward our strategy. I intend to make it a high priority during my time in office.

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

Despite the commitment that the Prime Minister made in this House that police would be able to retain the DNA of individuals arrested but not charged with rape, we now know that over the summer the police have had to destroy the DNA records of thousands of suspected sex offenders before the appeals process is introduced at the beginning of next month. Has not that shocking incompetence by the Government put more women and girls at risk?

Intelligence and Security Services

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this debate. I read with interest his article in The Guardian this morning, previewing the arguments he would be putting forward. I also congratulate the co-sponsors: the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). They both bring an enormous amount of experience and knowledge to these matters.

Fifteen Members have spoken in this debate, which shows how important it is. It has benefited enormously from the contributions of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee—its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I am sure all hon. Members would want to pay tribute to the hard work that members of the ISC undertake on our behalf.

I pay tribute to the work of the intelligence services. I am sure we all admire and respect the work that they do to keep us safe from harm every day and to protect our freedoms. It is absolutely right that we are having this debate about the oversight of the intelligence and security services.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley hit the nail on the head. We do not have access to all the information, so it is not possible for us to reach conclusions today on a number of points that have been raised. However, we must debate the investigatory procedures that Parliament has put in place and satisfy ourselves that they are fit for purpose.

Parliament has spent much of the past year debating the oversight of the intelligence services through part 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, which redefines the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I will return to that in a moment, but I concede that the part did not perhaps catch the public consciousness—given some of the comments made by hon. Members today, that is true of the House, too—in quite the same way as The Guardian’s revelations. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, given his recent comments to the media, appears to have missed the reforms that strengthened the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is surprising, considering he has 19 special advisers. I would have thought that one of them might have picked up on the reforms. Because of all that, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the subject.

The concept that many people have of the intelligence agencies is James Bond or, perhaps more recently, “Spooks.” The reality is that terrorists and organised criminals have been quick to adopt new technology, which means that the nature of our intelligence agencies has changed over the past few years, too. Electronic surveillance is now the key asset in the battle against terrorism. It is therefore appropriate that today’s debate has mainly focused on electronic surveillance. The key question seems to be whether the intelligence services have exceeded the powers given them under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Surveillance is covered by parts 2 and 3 of RIPA, and intrusive surveillance is described by section 26. An example of intrusive surveillance is placing a device in someone’s property, which requires a warrant from the Home Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary or the Foreign Secretary if conducted abroad. The relevant Secretary of State has to be convinced that the surveillance is necessary and proportionate. That form of surveillance is easily understood.

Part 1 of RIPA covers remote electronic surveillance, which is where things get a bit more complicated. Chapter 1 addresses the interception of an individual’s communications—telephone communications, e-mails and texts—and it is only under that chapter that the contents of such communications may be accessed. There are extensive safeguards on the use of chapter 1 powers. Their use must be necessary, proportionate and in the interests of protecting national security, detecting or preventing serious crime or safeguarding the UK’s economic interest. A warrant must be issued by the Home Secretary for each individual whose data are collected.

Chapter 2 of part 1 addresses the acquisition of communications data more generally, which is more about the who, the where, the what and the when, rather than the contents. The rules on that are not as stringent as for chapter 1.

Generally, I believe that RIPA is poorly understood among the general public and, I think, among Members of Parliament. Only once we understand the framework can we look to the oversight bodies to ensure that the intelligence services are staying within that framework. Probably the most important level of oversight is from Ministers. They are answerable to Parliament and the public for all the actions of the intelligence agencies.

Will the Minister assure me that he has seen no evidence that the intelligence agencies have collected information covered by RIPA part 1, chapter 1 without the necessary warrants being in place?

Of course, oversight requires much more than just a Minister. The Intelligence and Security Committee was formed in 1994 and reformed earlier this year by the Justice and Security Act. The Opposition supported those reforms. Indeed, in some key areas we would have liked to have gone further. We support the long-term aspiration that the ISC should become a Select Committee, which we believe would allow the public a clear understanding of how the Committee works and the processes it operates.

Such reform would also give clear protections to both the Committee and its witnesses. We appreciate that that may be a gradual process, and we support the changes to move the ISC towards becoming a Committee of Parliament with open proceedings. The Labour party has always said that it believes the ISC is the right body to investigate the allegations against Tempora, and we have confidence in its investigation.

I also believe that the ISC, which is composed of very senior and experienced politicians, appreciates the need to restore public confidence. Indeed, I believe that the agencies appreciate that, too. During the passage of the Justice and Security Act, I was struck by comments made in the other place by the noble Baroness Manningham-Buller, who said that public confidence is vital for the agencies because of the degree to which they rely on the public’s co-operation.

We have heard that 7 November will be a momentous day in the Committee’s history, as it will hold its first public session with the heads of the three agencies. Over the past three years, the public have started to understand Parliament a little better through things such as Rupert Murdoch’s appearance before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I hope the public will take a keen interest in the appearance of the heads of the intelligence services before the ISC next month.

[Mr Watson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will carry on because I have very little time and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond.

I hope next week’s Committee hearing will be the start of a process through which the ISC demonstrates its ability to conduct a thorough inquiry and to improve public understanding. I hope the Minister will do everything he can to reassure all hon. Members that the Government will facilitate as many public hearings as possible.

Finally, I was struck that the hon. Member for Cambridge made no comment about the important role of the two commissioners. The intelligence services commissioner oversees the performance of the agencies under parts 2 and 3 of RIPA, focusing on intrusive surveillance. His powers were widened by the Justice and Security Act.

The interception of communications commissioner considers operations under part 1 of RIPA. He produces an annual report that clearly sets out the legal framework for electronic surveillance and the way it is used by various bodies. He has oversight of all surveillance under part 1. In particular, he has access to all warrants issued under chapter 1, as well as overseeing a team of inspectors who consider the use of chapter 2 powers.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said, it would be good to raise the profile of the interception of communications commissioner, as he has had a relatively low profile since the revelations by The Guardian. Indeed, the commissioner wrote in a letter to The Independent:

“I am currently conducting an investigation into the various recent media reports relating to disclosures about interception attributed to Edward Snowden.”

Instead of trying to decipher what the commissioner is doing through references in a letter to a newspaper, both the commissioner and the Government should be emphasising the commissioner’s role and telling Parliament and the public how his office will be responding to the revelations in The Guardian. Will he be compiling a special report? When can we expect to receive that report? A report covering surveillance in 2012 was not published until July 2013, so if we have to wait until July 2014 for the next report, we could probably say that the commissioner is not reporting in the effective and timely manner that we all want.

I also hope the Minister is able to confirm categorically that the commissioner has been given full access to all surveillance undertaken as part of the Tempora programme, as well as, where appropriate, information acquired by the agencies from our allies.

I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to debate the intelligence and security services this afternoon, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my points.

Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for his characteristically thorough and detailed explanation of the motion.

Tonight the House is discussing the two issues of European co-operation on justice and home affairs: Eurojust and the European public prosecutor’s office. If anyone is feeling a sense of déjà-vu, that is because the House discussed the EPPO this time last week. Indeed, there was a rare moment of unity when those on both sides of the House agreed with the Government, the previous Government and the European Scrutiny Committee that the creation of the EPPO did not meet the test of subsidiarity and that the UK should therefore opt out. In government, Labour secured an opt-out from the EPPO and in opposition we support the Government in continuing to use that opt-out. We have also heard that the yellow card has now been issued.

Given the degree of unity in the House and as we debated it at length last week, I do not intend to dwell on the subject of the EPPO. I note what the Minister said about the links between the EPPO and Eurojust, but I think that we should particularly consider Eurojust.

To recap, Eurojust was established in 2002 and in 2001 the EU Commission conceived its role as

“facilitating cooperation between Member States and contributing to proper coordination of prosecutions in the area of serious, and organised, crime.”

Its concern is so-called “annex 1” crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism and financial crimes. Those are serious crimes that constantly evolve and adapt. Increasingly, they cross borders and require co-operation between different jurisdictions. The importance of Eurojust to the UK is underlined by the fact that there have been 1,459 requests from EU member states for co-operation with Britain through Eurojust since 2003, with 190 requests made in 2012 alone. It is therefore a little disconcerting to see the Government playing the hokey cokey—we are in at the moment, but now we are opting out although, in principle, we might be back in again in the future.

The primary functions of Eurojust have been and will continue to be the facilitation of co-operation between member states. Eurojust is required to respond to any request from a member state and to facilitate co-operation. That role means that Eurojust must inform member states of investigations and prosecutions that are occurring in a different member state but affect the member state; assist the competent authorities of the member states in the co-ordination of investigations and prosecutions; provide assistance to improve co-operation between member states; co-operate and consult with the European judicial network in criminal matters; and provide operational, technical and financial support to member states’ cross-border operations and investigations, including joint investigation teams.

The key thing to remember is that Eurojust seeks to support member states in conducting investigations, unlike the EPPO, which seeks to undertake the prosecutions itself. The distinction is vital and the aim of the British Government should be to continue that element of Eurojust.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talked about the hokey cokey of the Government’s position. Can she be clear whether the Opposition advocate that the UK opt in now, based on the draft regulation as it stands, with all the supra-national transfers of power entailed in it?

[Diana Johnson]

I shall come later in my remarks to what I think the Government should have been doing leading up to this point—making sure that the aspects that they were concerned about were discussed. I shall put a series of questions to the Minister about how many conversations and dialogues took place with the EU to try to get the regulation in a form that was more acceptable to the Government.

As Eurojust is based on co-operation, it places obligations on members to co-operate with joint investigations, and these obligations are set to increase. I shall come back to that. If the Government are serious about tackling human trafficking, terrorism or financial crime, for example, they need to be serious about working with European partners, but I am concerned that the Government seem to be sitting on the sidelines. Their current position appears to be that they would like the UK to stay in Eurojust as it is now, but they are content to let everyone else get on with a new Eurojust, which they are not part of, but which they hope they might get back into in the future. What we should do is work with our European partners to get a Eurojust system that works for us.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I find it difficult to take the hon. Lady’s point in respect of what the Government are doing. Is she implying that we should opt in now, without knowing what will be in the regulation, in order to seek to influence it?

[Diana Johnson]

I shall come on to some of the issues that the Government should have been considering in the lead-up to the motion today, but we will not oppose the motion. However, we have questions about how we got to this point and whether there could have been a proper negotiation with Eurojust that we might have supported. We have never supported the EPPO. That was very clear in the debate that we had last week.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady ever tried to have a conversation on these issues with Commissioner Reding? It is very much like talking to a brick wall which, if it is moving at all, is moving away from one’s own position. If she had ever had such a conversation, she would understand the difficulty that the Government might have on occasion.

[Diana Johnson]

Clearly, I am not in government, so I am not in a position to have such conversations, but it is important that the Opposition raise questions about what the Government have been talking to their EU partners about and whether they have been able to form any of the alliances that other hon. Members have mentioned to get the best possible way forward.

[Mr Redwood]

Do the hon. Lady and her party agree that we do not want more transfers of power over our criminal justice system to the EU and that we wish to protect our common law traditions?

[Diana Johnson]

As I just said, we are interested in trying to deal with crimes such as human trafficking, financial fraud and the serious organised crimes that go across borders, which are not about what is happening in the UK but are Europe-wide and global. We should make sure that we have procedures in place to ensure co-operation where it is useful.

The three main aims of the reforms are, as we understand it, to increase democratic accountability to member states’ legislatures; to increase efficiency through more streamlined management structures; and to improve EU member states’ effectiveness in the increasingly globalised fight against organised crime. All are laudable aims with which I am sure we all agree. Equally laudable is the aim of increasing our effectiveness in tackling cross-border crime. The Government’s current objections can be divided into those that need working through, which we recognise, and those that, I suggest, appear to be spurious.

The major change, and the one that we recognise poses the biggest challenge, is the appointment of the national member. Under the proposed reform, member states will second a national member—a prosecutor, judge or police officer—to work full time at Eurojust. Member states will grant national members the power to fulfil the task conferred on them by the Eurojust regulation. That means national members, once appointed, will bear responsibility for ensuring that their member states co-operate with Eurojust, including through legal assistance, information exchanges, liaising with international bodies and assisting in joint investigation teams. National members, working with other competent authorities from member states, will also:

“a) order investigative measures;

b) authorise and coordinate controlled deliveries in the Member State in accordance with national legislation.”

The Opposition accept that the appointment of national members represents a big step up for the role of Eurojust. We fully recognise that it is not acceptable for the national member to be in a position of oversight over the UK criminal justice system. I reiterate that we do not support any move to cede prosecuting powers to the EU, either to the EPPO or through some mechanism of Eurojust. However, we would like to see the Government attempt to reconcile those proposals with the current set-up in our criminal justice system.

The Government appear concerned that, as currently formulated, the proposals could allow Eurojust to order investigations, or even prosecutions, that duplicate efforts already under way in the UK. Prosecutions in the UK of course require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, while investigation of most of the crimes listed in annex 1 are the responsibility of the newly formed National Crime Agency. Perhaps the Minister will explain what work is being done to look at the possibility of drawing the national member from one of those bodies and work on the basis of a memorandum of understanding to ensure that the UK retains sovereignty over our systems while improving cross-border co-operation. As has been mentioned, special arrangements will need to be put in place for Scotland.

[Lady Hermon]

Unfortunately, special arrangements will also have to be considered for Northern Ireland, because the National Crime Agency’s jurisdiction cannot be extended in full to Northern Ireland as a result of opposition from two parties, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party. It is most unfortunate indeed.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady is right that the National Crime Agency does not cover Northern Ireland. I am grateful to her for reminding me.

The Commission envisages a special relationship between the EPPO and Eurojust, as I mentioned at the beginning and as the Minister set out. Of course we need to ensure that countries that are not involved in the EPPO—it is clear that the UK will not be, and others have already declared that they will be opting out—can still enjoy the co-operation of Eurojust without being drawn into the EPPO, which we all agree is a bad idea.

The Opposition have less sympathy for some of the other concerns that the Minister put forward, particularly his concern about the European convention on human rights. It might be helpful if he explained that a little more. Our major concern remains that the Government seem prepared to allow the rest of Europe to go along with these matters without us being at the table.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

With respect, the hon. Lady has still not answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) asked: does she advocate opting in now, and therefore being locked in?

[Diana Johnson]

I think that I made it very clear to the hon. Gentleman that we will not be opposing the motion this evening, but we have questions on what the Government have been doing up to now to ensure that this is not the only avenue open to them, and whether we might have been able to get some agreement before we ended up where we are today. Our major concern remains that the Government seem to have been prepared to allow the rest of Europe to go along without us, and instead of working for reforms that protect the rights of the UK they are allowing the rest of the European Union to set up an agreement that works for it and then saying, “We’ll make a decision later.”

I have a few questions I would like the Minister to respond to, either in his winding-up speech or in writing. What work is being done to look at how a national member could be appointed for the UK? Is there any mileage in that proposal? Will the Minister confirm the timetable? According to the European Scrutiny Committee, the deadline is 21 November, but the Minister has suggested, both in written evidence to the Committee and in the House, that the Government will wait until at least 2014, possibly later. Does the deadline of 21 November still stand?

Will the Minister clearly confirm the Government’s position on the current Eurojust arrangements? It is a little disconcerting that the motion does not contain a commitment to maintain the current arrangements and agreements, even though the Home Secretary indicated to the Home Affairs Committee that that is the Government’s desired outcome. Is that correct?

[James Brokenshire]

I am happy to clarify that the existing Eurojust measure was on the list of 35 measures that we would seek to opt back into following the exercise of our block opt-out. Obviously, they are being analysed by the relevant Select Committees, so we will await their determination before taking further action.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.

When did the Government actually get around to raising concerns about the structure of Eurojust and the EPPO at EU level? Those concerns are set out in a memorandum dated 7 August 2013, but surely the Government’s efforts to secure a better outcome began before that. The Government had various chances to discuss Eurojust’s future with the Commission, so did they raise those concerns?

For example, a strategic seminar entitled, “Eurojust and the Lisbon treaty: Toward more effective action”, was held in Bruges in September 2010. Did the Government raise then any of the concerns that they are raising now? There was another opportunity to discuss Eurojust’s future at an event marking its 10th anniversary at the European Council in February 2012. A Eurojust and Academy of European Law conference called “Ten years of Eurojust: Operational Achievements and Future Challenges” was held at The Hague in November 2012. Were the concerns raised then?

On 18 October 2012, the Commission consulted member state experts and others about a possible reform of Eurojust. According to the Commission:

“The meeting generally supported improving Eurojust’s governance structure and efficiency.”

What did the UK representatives say at that meeting? The Commission then instigated a consultation on the strengthening of Eurojust. What issues did the Government raise?

What improvements to Eurojust have the Government been pushing for? We all support more effective co-operation on cross-border action against serious crime and it would be helpful to know what work the UK Government have been doing to lead that agenda at European level. It would be good to see the UK setting the agenda, as was the case under the previous Government, rather than watching what happens and complaining when it does not reflect the specific interests of the UK.

Finally, on the justice and home affairs opt-out in general, the Government have found time tonight, as they did last week, for a debate on the Floor of the House, which is to be welcomed. On both occasions, the Government have raised the issue of the opt-out, which is widely supported with regard to the EPPO, but other, more controversial areas of it also warrant proper discussion. As the Minister has said, we are waiting for various Select Committees to publish reports. Will he reiterate the Government’s assurances that time will be made available for a full debate on those reports on the Floor of the House?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

In most cases, councils will have no liability to support such people, but they should carry out a human rights assessment. In a limited number of cases they may have to support them, but in most cases they will not. Indeed, by continuing to support those people when they need not do so, all that councils are doing is encouraging them to remain in the United Kingdom when they have no right to be here.

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

Baroness Warsi has said of “Go Home” ad vans:

“I don’t think it was a particularly positive experience and I am glad that we won't be going back to it.”

She also said:

“I think it’s always important for government to be clear when they are speaking to their communities that all people who are part of this nation legally are absolutely welcome.”

Does the Minister agree with that Cabinet Minister, and what steps will he take to reduce the use of dog-whistle politics?

[Mr Harper]

I entirely agree that everyone who is in the United Kingdom legally, obeying our laws and rules, is very welcome indeed. We have always made that clear. As the hon. Lady knows, the campaign was focused squarely on those who were here illegally. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear last week that we had looked at some of the evidence, that we did not think the pilot had been successful enough, and that we would not be rolling it out further.

[Diana Johnson]

Having considered the evidence and decided that the campaign was not successful and should not be repeated, why does the Minister not publish the assessment of that policy, and let us see how many people left the country as a result of it?

[Mr Harper]

During last week’s debate on the Immigration Bill, my right hon. Friend made it clear that we would indeed publish the assessment when we had finished carrying out the evaluation. We are going to do the work properly, and we will publish the information in due course.

European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

This is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your appointment. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this evening.

I start by thanking the Minister for setting out the Government’s approach to the draft regulation. There is considerable history to the idea of an EPPO. Back in 2002, the European Scrutiny Committee scrutinised the 2001 Green Paper in which the European Commission first proposed the idea of establishing the EPPO. It found that the EPPO was unnecessary, particularly given the existence of Eurojust. It also identified a number of concerns, such as the combination of prosecution and investigative functions; the power of the EPPO to commit a person for trial and determine the location of that trial; the creation of differing standards of criminal responsibility for fraud depending on whether it related to the Community’s financial interests; the lack of democratic accountability for the prosecution function; the breach of the subsidiarity principle; and the dilution of member states’ responsibility for the prosecution of fraud.

The prospect of a specialist EU prosecution authority has been raised again since then and was one of a range of initiatives that the Commission considered in 2011. Again, the European Scrutiny Committee investigated those initiatives. In 2011 the Committee echoed its 2002 concerns and cautioned against the “inappropriate and unacceptable” use of national criminal justice systems in acting against crimes against EU finances.

The Opposition believe that this proposal seeks to address a real problem. Chapter 1 of the 15th report of the European Scrutiny Committee, to which the motion refers, makes it clear that the levels of suspected fraud against the EU budget are estimated by the Commission to have been around €500 million, or £425 million, in each of the last three years. That is clearly unacceptable and should be condemned by all Members of the House. We should of course seek new ways to ensure that that fraud, which costs us all as British taxpayers, can be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice.

However, as we repeatedly made clear when we were in government, we do not believe that an EPPO is the solution to these problems. We agree with the European Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation that the EPPO proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle and that a national-level approach, supported by existing EU mechanisms, would be more appropriate.

Although the Labour Government signed the Lisbon treaty, which enables the creation of an EPPO, we argued in government that we were consistently against the formation of the office and put in place measures to “double lock” against its creation. The double lock we secured ensured, first, that the UK would have to opt in; and, secondly, that even if a future Government were to opt in, they would still need unanimity, which is retained for any decision to establish a prosecutor or extend its powers. As the Lord President of the Council at the time, the noble Baroness Ashton of Upholland, made clear in a debate in 2008:

“We have secured legally watertight safeguards in the treaty against any move towards a European public prosecutor or subsequently, and just as important, towards extending that prosecutor’s role. It is what we would call a double lock.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 454.]

Therefore, in government we put in place a system in which an opt-in procedure applies. Parliament could let its views be known and the Government could put forward their proposals. The Government would then, if they so chose—we always believed this to be very unlikely—have the discussions and determine by unanimity if they did not wish to participate.

We agreed with the Minister when he told the European Scrutiny Committee the following: that the creation of an EPPO is not the appropriate response to tackling EU fraud; that for participating member states the proposal will transfer responsibility for tackling fraud against the EU budget away from national-level decision making and towards a supranational authority whose European delegated prosecutors would have to prioritise EU fraud above other crime at a national level; that it is a flawed approach for member states not to be able to determine their national priorities, and the consequent use of resources, in tackling crime; that the EPPO would disrupt the current system for tackling fraud against the EU budget at a time where the Commission has reported two consecutive years of decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget and their estimated financial impact; that the proposed EPPO system would result in a duplication of established national-level efforts, including specific bodies, to protect member states and EU financial interests, including work against organised crime; that the best way to tackle fraud is through prevention, as reflected in the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to all fraud, which it takes “extremely seriously” and which has resulted in low levels of fraud, and by using robust management controls and payment systems and requiring all agencies with responsibility for distributing EU funds to have processes in place to monitor and report fraud; and that creation of the office would cause a shift from prevention to reaction after crimes have been committed, as it would make each member state less responsible for anti-fraud work at a national level

We agree with the Government on the principle that it would be wrong to proceed with an EPPO, and it is refreshing to see them for once getting something right on Europe. For far too long we have had the Government’s laboured decisions on whether they would be part of European co-operation on crime and justice, saying they want to opt out and then opt back in. That has led the Home Secretary to this untried strategy which risks harming effective police action in all our communities.

It has appeared for some time that the Government have been putting internal party management and coalition horse-trading ahead of crime fighting and the interests of victims. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear earlier this year, the Government’s strategy on Europe has not been to sort out the crisis of growth, it has not been to tackle youth unemployment, and it has had nothing to do with the national interest—it has all been about managing the divisions in the Conservative party. This type of party management as our European policy is not good for the country; nor will it keep the Minister’s party quiet. On Europe, the Government should be acting now to deal with the issues that really matter to people rather than navel-gazing to keep the coalition parties happy. The Government should be looking, for example, at how the UK in Europe can stop the exploitation of migrant workers and at reforms at the EU level so that family benefits such as child tax credit and child benefit are not sent abroad.

We agree with the Government on the motion. However, it is crucial that they start to take European issues seriously rather than simply shying away from anything with the word “Europe” in it. They must begin to come forward with genuine options for developing greater integration to stop EU fraud, and they must make it clear how they expect the UK to play its part as an EU member state in co-operating as closely as possible on cross-border crime, particularly drug trafficking, people trafficking and international fraud, rather than pursuing the Home Secretary’s untested and risky approach.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) on bringing this important issue before us today and on setting out so eloquently the aims of his private Member’s Bill. Let me say right from the start that the Opposition support its aims, so the hon. Gentleman has the cross-party support that he was looking for.

If you will allow me to digress slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was intrigued by the question of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) who asked when women were allowed to divorce their husbands for the first time. I found out that it was in 1858 and that the first woman to do so was Caroline Norton, who was apparently married to a hard-line Tory MP. She felt she needed to divorce that man, which was the driving force behind the marriage and divorce legislation that came into force in 1858.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is alone in the Chamber in being able to answer that question successfully, but did she have to use Google to find out?

[Diana Johnson]

I will admit that I did.

To return to the subject of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to our armed forces for the difficult job they do on our behalf. The Labour party campaigned for the armed forces covenant to be properly enshrined in law—the Armed Forces Act 2011. The core principles of the covenant state that no one across the armed forces community should face disadvantage for their decision to serve in the forces. The covenant also states that where appropriate and necessary, the Government look at special treatment to prevent disadvantage for the forces.

I had a little sympathy with the question that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) asked about why this private Member’s Bill is before us today, and why its provisions are not going to be in the immigration Bill on which the Minister for Immigration is currently working. Unlike this private Member’s Bill, the Government’s immigration Bill would provide an opportunity for Members to table amendments on other categories of people who deserve special consideration, to which reference has been made today. Will the Minister comment on that?

This Bill implements a commitment that the Government made in the armed forces covenant in 2011 that new legislation would be introduced to enable foreign and Commonwealth service personnel to be exempted from the requirement to be in the UK at the start of the residential period for naturalisation as a British citizen, if in service on that date. As I have said, the Opposition support the Bill’s aims, but, like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I want to ask a number of questions about how the Bill would work in practice.

We heard that 9,000 servicemen and women will potentially be eligible for settlement under the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that that is the correct figure? We also heard that about 200 service personnel might want to take advantage of the change in the law. Will the Minister confirm that that is an accurate estimate? Has the Home Office been able to ascertain the number who would want to take advantage of the change? Will he also comment on the knock-on effect for dependants of armed forces personnel? How many additional people will follow from any claim that is made?

Have the hon. Member for Woking and the Minister given any thought to guidelines that would need to be brought forward to flesh out how the Bill would operate? For instance, will there be a minimum period that members of the armed forces will have to serve to have that counted towards the five years? Will there be a time limit within which such a person could apply to settle? On the retrospective nature of the Bill, we look forward to hearing from the Minister whether there is potential for people who have served previously in the armed forces to use the new provision.

On the issue of reservists that was raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the debate did not make it clear whether people who do not have the right to remain here in the first place are able to join up as reservists. Will the Minister clarify that?

What will happen if a person is injured in service? How will that affect their ability to take advantage of the new provision if, for instance, they could not complete a tour of service and left the armed forces early? I have an example of a soldier from Ghana who arrived in June 2009 on a visitor visa. He joined the armed forces in September 2010. At that point he became exempt from the timings of the visitor visa, but unfortunately he was medically discharged in August 2012 owing to injuries contracted as a result of a military exercise. After leaving the forces, he was unable to work or to claim benefits because he had not completed his infantry training, which was a stipulation of his visa. He was then detained, and removal directions were set in June 2013. I understand that military personnel who have not served in the forces for at least four years are not normally eligible for settlement in the United Kingdom. This soldier applied for a concession because of his circumstances, but his application was rejected.

That is a specific example, but what would happen if other people serving in the armed forces found themselves in a similar position? I know that the Secretary of State has discretion, but would the guidance suggest a presumption that the full length of military service be taken into account, rather than if it is cut short by injury? I should also like to know whether there will be an appeal process. Again, I know that the Secretary of State has discretion, but is there any possibility of a review of the use of that discretion, or would there have to be a judicial review, as often happens in the case of a discretionary measure?

Is any preferential treatment given to Commonwealth citizens because of our long-standing arrangements with the Commonwealth? Do they have a better chance of obtaining settlement than someone from a country outside the Commonwealth? If that is the case, are citizens of countries that are currently suspended from the Commonwealth at a disadvantage?

It has been a pleasure to listen to the contributions to the debate. I think we all recognise the valuable part that the armed forces play in our society.

Sexual Entertainment Licence Exemptions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing this debate and on setting out so clearly the current provisions and the particular problems with them that he has found in his constituency. Like him, I have never visited the establishments we are discussing; it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has.

Lap-dancing clubs are a relatively new phenomenon in the UK, with the first clubs opening in about 1995. It has taken quite some time to refine the regime for controlling their operation. As we have heard in today’s debate, various licensing regimes have not been able to stop the proliferation of lap-dancing clubs, which is now a genuine concern for members of the public.

Although I think we are all agreed that we do not want to ban such establishments, it is quite right that the licensing regime recognises their special nature and the problems that they cause to local communities. It is perfectly understandable that people have concerns about the opening of such establishments in their local areas.

Such establishments are a part of the sex industry, and there are a number of valid reasons why people object to their existence. We have heard today about some of the problems in Newquay. I think all hon. Members would agree that it is vital for communities to have their say if and when applications are made for such clubs to open.

When such clubs first appeared in the UK in about 1995, there was no specialist licensing regime. The opening of sex shops and sex cinemas required specialist licences from the council, which had a range of powers to limit the availability of such establishments. There was also a specialist category of licence for sex encounter establishments, but that legislation applied only to London at the time. In all cases, while councils were responsible for specialist sex licences, magistrates retained powers over alcohol licensing.

That dual licensing approach was ended, as we have heard, by the Licensing Act 2003, which aimed to bring all licences for premises selling alcohol under one regulatory framework, under the direction of the local authority and guided by the four principles of licensing. They are the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm.

While the intentions behind the 2003 Act were good, its application caused problems. There seemed to be widespread confusion as to whether a premises needed to declare adult entertainment as an integral aspect of the application and whether a council could take a position on the opening of such venues in its licensing statement. Several communities found that they could not prevent such premises from opening, and the application of the four basic licensing criteria seemed to vary extensively in relation to the opening of such establishments.

At this point I would particularly like to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and of the campaign group Object. They did fantastic work to raise awareness of the operation of the 2003 Act regarding lap-dancing clubs and suggested a way to control such venues.

In government, Labour listened to those concerns. We realised that the 2003 Act had given rise to unforeseen consequences, and we therefore changed the law. Changes to the control of lap-dancing clubs were introduced under the Policing and Crime Act 2009 by the then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, and we now have the present regime.

Under the powers contained in the 2009 Act, councils could decide to designate strip clubs, lap-dancing clubs and other similar establishments as sexual entertainment venues. Those in turn were controlled under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, in a way similar to that suggested by my hon. Friend and supported by groups such as Object.

However, the new powers are adoptive, meaning that councils may adopt them if they choose to do so. If they choose not to, lap-dancing clubs will continue to be licensed by the 2003 Act. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out how many councils have adopted the new approach. It would be interesting to know, given that the legislation was framed to give councils an option of taking that route, whether the vast majority have chosen to do so.

If councils use their discretion and adopt the new powers, both the council and local residents will have a much greater say over the operation of lap-dancing clubs. It will mean that the operation of such clubs will have to be reviewed annually; allow local people to object to the opening of a club if it is deemed inappropriate for the character of an area; and, even without objections, allow a local authority to reject an application on the basis that it is inappropriate given the nature of an area. The powers also allow a local authority to set a limit on the number of lap-dancing clubs in an area; limit the opening of such clubs to specific areas; and impose a wider set of operating conditions than can be imposed under the 2003 Act.

As I have said, it is down to councils to decide whether they want to use those powers. I am pleased to see that a number of Labour councils have been at the forefront of using the powers to ensure that local residents get a say in controlling such nightclubs. In particular, I commend Swansea’s Labour-controlled council, which has conducted an extensive consultation and decided that the maximum number of lap-dancing clubs in its city should be zero, reflecting the wishes of residents. It was interesting to hear about the situation in Newquay, with the five lap-dancing clubs before the change in legislation reduced to one using those provisions.

On the issue of infrequency and the loophole in the legislation, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay has set out clearly what that means on the ground to local communities. He is not alone in raising those concerns about the exemption. I would like to pay tribute to the Fawcett Society in particular, which has been highlighting that issue over a few months.

I can appreciate hon. Members’ concerns about such venues. Not only is it a concern that such venues can operate outside the normal licensing regime that other establishments have to comply with, and circumvent the controls that councils would place on their operation if they were subject to a licence, but it is understandable that people will have concerns about having lap dancing going on in, say, their local pub. The fact that such premises could be normal pubs for most of the time only makes it even more inappropriate that they are able to host such entertainment once a month.

Labour thinks that the issue needs to be reviewed and would be happy to work with the Government on that. The hon. Gentleman has suggested some positive ways of addressing the problem. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether local authorities are monitoring and keeping a record of the use of the exemption. Do the Government plan to review the issue?

I look forward to what the Minister says about the matter. I know that the Government are keen to reduce regulation and do not want to see bureaucracy placed in the way of businesses; I have heard the Minister talk at length about that. However, in the present case, is he satisfied that there is sufficient regulation? I know that in recent legislation, the Government have reduced the bureaucracy relating to obtaining temporary event licences. Would he like to pursue that route, as suggested by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay?

The Minister, who is responsible for all licensing policy, will recall that one of the central commitments of the alcohol strategy was to rebalance the licensing regime in favour of local communities. It seems that the flouting of provisions related to the licensing of lap-dancing clubs needs to be addressed by tilting the balance back to the local community. Indeed, not only was that general claim about giving the community more power contained in the alcohol strategy, but it was followed up by the launch of a consultation that was supposedly intended to

“introduce stronger powers for local areas to control the density of licensed premises”.

Of course, that was before Lynton Crosby seemed to get involved in the whole alcohol debate, so I have a feeling that we might not be hearing much more about the alcohol strategy that the Government are to pursue, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about whether he is still committed to the aims that were set out just a few months ago.

Any changes that the Government have made seem to fly in the face of the commitment to give more power back to local communities. I want to raise with the Minister the announcement from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which seems to involve local communities losing their right to object to a change of use under planning law and potentially making the opportunity more available to businesses to set up lap-dancing clubs. As I understand it, they could turn a restaurant into a lap-dancing club without having to go through the normal planning applications. Would the Minister like to comment on whether that is really allowing communities to have their say?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend again, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for their work in relation to the “Save our High Streets” campaign, which has been so effective at highlighting the dangers of some of the Government changes, which could make the opening of lap-dancing clubs more likely. Labour is very serious about looking hard at what happened with the Licensing Act 2003 and the changes that were made more recently, and about ensuring that the law actually does what local communities want it to do. As I said, I am very willing to look, with the Minister, at ways in which we could work on a cross-party basis to ensure that that happens.

Could I deal with one other issue? I am referring to the women who work in lap-dancing clubs. Some women choose to become erotic dancers—they make that choice themselves—but, like in the rest of the sex industry, there are many people working in this part of it whose choice is not so free. We know that the sex industry is responsible for a great deal of human trafficking and modern-day slavery. The Government have spent a lot of time over the summer talking about the proposed Bill to deal with modern slavery. Any progress in that area would of course be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but as always the detail is rather sketchy, particularly about the support for victims. Perhaps the Minister can use this opportunity today to explain how that Bill would fit with the licensing regime, what interface there would be with regard to licensed premises that are found to have women working in them who have not made that choice about entering employment in the sex industry, and how that would fit with any provisions in the modern slavery Bill.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

The debate can run until 11 o’clock—that time is available—but in the event that it does not, I will suspend the sitting until 11 o’clock.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

Thank you, Mr Howarth, for that cautionary note of introduction. It is a pleasure to be guided by you.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) for the passionate and well-informed way in which he introduced this important debate. I had the opportunity recently to visit him in his constituency in Newquay and to see all the work that he is doing with people in the local community, volunteers, the police, the council and others on behalf of the residents of that town. It was extremely impressive for me, as a Home Office Minister, to see how hands-on my hon. Friend is in ensuring that the views of Newquay residents are well understood and acted on by the authorities in that town.

The subject that we are considering today is very specific, tightly drawn and important, particularly in areas that attract large numbers of visitors. My hon. Friend made the interesting point that the population of Newquay increases, he estimates, from 20,000 to about 100,000 over the summer. Other places in the country, particularly seaside towns, also experience that surge in visitors, which puts particular pressure on local services, and the demands of those visitors, in terms of the entertainment that they are interested in, can change the nature and character of a town during the peak visitor period compared with other times of the year. That has been a point of particular interest for my hon. Friend and, as I have said, he represents the interests of the people of Newquay extremely effectively, both in the House of Commons and in the immediate community when he is discharging his duties in Cornwall.

I want to take this opportunity to set out the legal framework for the licensing of sexual entertainment venues. My hon. Friend will be aware—indeed, he has spoken about this—of the legal framework for the licensing of such venues, which was most recently considered under the Policing and Crime Act 2009, which amended the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The 2009 Act inserted into the 1982 Act a new category of sex establishment called a “sexual entertainment venue”, which brought the licensing of lap-dancing and pole-dancing clubs and other similar venues under the regime set out in the 1982 Act. A “sexual entertainment venue” is defined as premises at which relevant entertainment is provided, or permitted to be provided, in front of a live audience for the financial gain of the organiser or entertainer. “Relevant entertainment” may take the form of a live performance or live display of nudity and must be

“of such a nature that, ignoring financial gain, it must reasonably be assumed to be provided solely or principally for the purpose of sexually stimulating any member of the audience”.

That is the way in which parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants have sought to define this form of entertainment.

The 2009 Act set out the fact that decisions on licensing applications are best made at local level. We have touched on that during this debate, and I must say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks for the official Opposition, that it is our intention to try to empower local communities. I think that it is a difficult for her to criticise the Government for being insufficiently vigilant when it comes to empowering local communities when, at the same time, she constantly criticises us for not taking a more active role in imposing the will of central Government on those local communities and local councils.

Obviously, if we give local councils room for manoeuvre, some flexibility, and the discretion to make judgments about what is in the interests of the area that they serve, they may come to different conclusions. That is the essence of local democracy. If they were all obliged by central Government to do exactly the same, there would be no point in having local elections or local consultation, because there would be one single blueprint imposed by central Government. That is a reasonable political philosophy. People on the left tend to be in favour of standardisation and centralisation, but if someone is liberally inclined, as I am and I believe the Government are, they tend to take the view that people should be given greater discretion over how they live their life and that individuals and individual communities should enjoy a degree of autonomy to make decisions in their own interest. It is not the intention of central Government to steamroller every local council or to say that in every circumstance we know best. We want elected local councillors to make decisions that they think serve their community, listening closely to the people in that community, who elect them.

Local authorities can consider whether granting a licence for a lap-dancing club would be appropriate, having regard to the character of the area and the use to which other premises in the vicinity are put. We believe that that is the right approach. For example, a local authority may decide that it would be inappropriate to grant a licence for a lap-dancing club in a residential area or next door to a school. That remains the Government’s position: local areas are best suited to decide what is appropriate and manageable for their area, taking into account local characteristics and community concerns.

[Diana Johnson]

I am listening carefully to the Minister. Can he give us any idea of the number of local authorities that have decided to use the enabling provisions to adopt that approach?

Alcohol Strategy Consultation

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I start by thanking the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement? He told us that the Government’s policy on alcohol is on track, and I wondered whether that was why I was sent his statement with the track changes still in place. After several months of speculation, we finally have confirmation to Parliament that the Government have performed a U-turn on their flagship policy, abandoning their intention to bring in minimum unit pricing and a ban on multi-buy deals. However, the Minister appears to have added in his track change—the “at this time”—which did not appear in the original Home Office statement.

As we know, this was the Prime Minister’s personal policy, and it was a policy that the Home Secretary was so keen to introduce that she made minimum unit pricing the first major policy announcement in the House on a Friday for more than a decade. Now she sends her Liberal Democrat deputy to announce the U-turn. The Government may pretend this is not a U-turn, but the evidence is overwhelming. The consultation was never about whether or not to introduce minimum alcohol pricing; it was about what level that should be at, and the Government chose 45p to consult on.

Here is what the Home Secretary said to this House last year:

“We will... introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol…We will consult over the coming months on the level of the minimum unit price and will seek to introduce legislation as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1071-1072.]

The Prime minister said:

“I know this won’t be universally popular. But the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing."

Perhaps the Minister could explain why, if it was the right thing to do then, it is not the right thing to do now. Will he explain what representations Public Health England has made to him about this policy U-turn?

Labour has been calling for a complete package of measures to tackle alcohol problems, including dealing with licensing, education in schools and giving public health a bigger role. Labour has said all along that several issues with minimum alcohol pricing had to be addressed before implementation. We argued that it could result in a windfall to supermarkets, and we were concerned that it may not be compatible with EU law and also that it was not the magic bullet the Government were claiming. But we also clearly offered to work with the Government to overcome those obstacles. They chose to ignore all those concerns and pressed ahead with their flagship policy on minimum unit pricing. So, of course, Lynton Crosby has now ordered a U-turn, to get the barnacles off the boat, and minimum pricing, along with most of the rest of the alcohol strategy and other important public health measures, has been scrapped. MPs have been left to read about it in the press over the weekend, while Cabinet members compete to improve their standing in the Tory party by briefing the press of their opposition.

Instead, we now hear that the Government want to introduce a ban on the sale of alcohol “below cost”. That policy was first announced in a written ministerial statement in January 2011, so we have taken two and a half years to return to exactly where we started. The Minister claims that that proposal will ban cheap supermarket sales, but research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that such a ban would raise the price of less than 1% of the alcohol sold in the off-trade, with most of that sold in discount stores, not supermarkets.

The Government put minimum unit pricing at the heart of their approach and have now abandoned it, and many other policies are just not working. The late-night levy has not worked. Will the Minister confirm that no local authority has actually introduced a late-night levy and that the estimates on how much additional revenue it would raise for cash-strapped police forces will not materialise? Nothing has been done on education in our schools or on advertising. The alcohol strategy was meant to be about changing the culture of excessive consumption, but the level of binge drinking among 15 to 16-year-olds in the UK compares poorly with that in many other European countries. Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity, says that 60% of schools fail to teach drug and alcohol education more than once a year. And why is there no mention here of the role for health and wellbeing boards, set up by this Government, and why is public health not a licensing condition? We are also still waiting for the Government to make up their mind on full cost recovery for licence applications for local authorities, which are struggling with reducing budgets and having to take enforcement action.

Given the measures in the statement on personal licences and temporary events, it seems to envisage that economic growth in this country will now be powered by the late-night drinking economy—is this the Bullingdon plan for growth? After attacking the Licensing Act 2003, it is curious that Ministers now want more late-night drinking. Do I detect traces of lobbying on the Minister’s breath? After a two-year Whitehall farce over the Government’s alcohol strategy we have ended up exactly where we started. On minimum alcohol pricing, the Prime Minister, like the Grand Old Duke of York, has marched us up the hill and back down again. This is a Government who could not organise an alcohol policy in a brewery.

[Mr Browne]

If the people sitting on the Opposition Front Bench suddenly find the conscience to get into apology mode, they might reflect on the fact that they introduced the liberalisation of the alcohol sales sector because they thought it would increase economic growth.

Let me deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Lady. She said that I was trying to conceal something in the text, so let me read out what I said in my statement only a few minutes ago. On minimum unit pricing, I said, “This will remain a policy under consideration but will not be taken forward at this time.” I could not have been more explicit, but no doubt her textual analysis was exciting in some ways.

On the consultation process, she gives the impression that there was an overwhelming response in favour of minimum unit pricing. However, we consulted openly and I can tell the House that 34% of respondents agreed that a 45p minimum unit price was a targeted and proportionate level and would significantly reduce harm, but 56%—substantially more—disagreed with that proposition. So we consulted on it and we heard what people had to say. We are, of course, mindful, in a way that some Opposition Members may not be, that introducing a minimum unit price has significant impacts on people with low incomes. It does not affect the Labour elite in north London, but it does affect some of the people who have traditionally voted for them.

What is Labour’s position on the minimum unit price? I understand that Labour voted against a minimum unit price for alcohol in Scotland, but here in England and Wales the party does not seem to know whether it is for it or against it. I have announced what the Government’s position is, but it would help to hear from the Opposition. We are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ Short money every year on giving them a chance to formulate some sensible policies, but so far they have not been able to come up with any at all.

The hon. Lady talked about the Prime Minister’s position, so let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said. He said that

“we must deal with the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being available in supermarkets.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 307.]

What I said in my statement is that it “will no longer be legal to sell a can of ordinary-strength lager for less than about 40p”, which is higher than the 20p or 25p mentioned by the Prime Minister.

Let me make two final points in response to the hon. Lady. She says that nothing is being done voluntarily, but that simply is not true. The alcohol industry is making a substantial number of changes and taking products off the shelves that it agrees are irresponsible to sell.

I have never met Lynton Crosby and I have no idea of his views on this subject. The only impact that he had on my life was when he tried to stop me from getting elected to Parliament in 2005. I do know, however, that I have set out to the House a strong liberal package that promotes fairer competition, the deregulation of burdens on business and personal freedom.