Proposed Directive (Information Systems)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the proposed European directive on attacks against information systems, which we have decided to opt in to.

Hon. Members will not need me to tell them how much we benefit from the services that are now available online. In 15 years, the number of global web users has jumped from 16 million in 1995 to more than 1.7 billion today. About three quarters of all British households now have an internet connection, and last year nearly two thirds of all adults in Britain bought goods or services online.

We want to build on our cultural and economic success in the online world, but with the growth of the internet has come the growth of a new type of crime and a new risk to our national security. We now face a real, ongoing and persistent threat from other states, terrorists and criminals operating online. They are stealing commercial secrets, they are trying to take sensitive Government information and they are defrauding ordinary people.

Cybercrime, often carried out by organised criminals, is now a major and growing threat to all sectors of our economy, and we should be in no doubt: online attacks can have a significant real-world impact, from people's bank accounts being emptied to industrial plants and critical infrastructure being disrupted. The risks from cyberspace are now so great that the national security strategy placed the threat as one of the top tier of risks to our national security.

Recognising the seriousness of the threat, the Government are already investing heavily in cyber-security. Following the strategic defence and security review, we committed £650 million of new investment over the next four years to transform our protective capabilities in cyberspace. Our response is led by Government, but uses the resources and knowledge of the private sector, including those parts of the private sector that own and operate large elements of our digital infrastructure. The programme explicitly depends on building strong relationships with like-minded countries around the globe, because the problem is an international one and online criminals do not respect international borders.

Here in Britain we have long-standing laws against computer misuse, but we need to be able to take action also against cyber-criminals operating overseas; it is therefore clear that we need to work across national boundaries. That means our law enforcement agencies working with their partners overseas to identify suspects, gather evidence and bring criminals to justice. The European Union directive on attacks against information systems supports those aims. The directive builds on an existing 2005 EU framework decision with which Britain was already compliant. It is also consistent with the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime, which Britain is in the final stages of ratifying. Opting in further demonstrates our commitment to internationally co-ordinated action against online threats.

The directive will ensure that there is a basic set of agreed minimum rules in relation to online crimes and penalties across the EU that member states must build into their legislation. It will also ensure that member states respond quickly to requests from other member states for assistance in cybercrime cases. Those measures will benefit Britain and other countries that have active online economies, because it will mean that cyber-criminals will not be able to hide in European countries that do not have as well-developed laws against cybercrime as we do.

The directive also seeks to address the threat from large-scale attacks on information systems by ensuring that member states have adequate legislation to allow the prosecution and punishment of those organising, committing or supporting large-scale attacks. That is not a hypothetical threat: it is a real, existing problem for the British Government and British business. Finally, the directive sensibly takes into account changes in the threat picture since the framework decision was agreed, such as tackling the creation of malicious software and other innovative tools that criminals have invented to commit offences.

It is for all of these reasons that we have decided to opt in to the directive. It fits with our approach of making Britain a tougher place for online criminals to operate in, and it will mean that the reach of our law enforcement agencies extends outside our borders. By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary.

I pay tribute to the work done by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses. They do much to ensure that European legislation is right for this country. On this specific directive, both Committees agree that there is a case for further EU action in this area.

Cybercrime is a major threat to Britain. The aims of the directive are consistent with the aims of the Government in protecting our country, our economy, our businesses and our citizens from those who seek to misuse the online environment. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Minister for providing the Opposition with a copy of the statement in advance of the announcement to the House.

I have listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s decision to opt in to the draft directive on attacks against information systems. It is clear that there is a growing threat of large-scale simultaneous attacks against information systems and an increased use by criminals of so-called botnets—networks of computers infected by a virus that can be activated remotely. There is clearly a real terrorist threat, as well. It is right to say that there has to be a robust and consistent approach to this problem, not only across the EU but internationally, and we know that a sensible way forward is to build on the framework decision agreed in 2005.

In a report by the Commission in July 2008, the implementation of the framework decision was found to be relatively good, but a number of new threats had been identified; the draft directive has therefore been produced. The matter was before the European Scrutiny Committee on 3 November 2010, at which time the Government still had not decided whether to opt in to the draft directive. I, too, pay tribute to the hard work that the Committees in both Houses do on behalf of us all.

I welcome the decision, but I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, why has the decision been made now to opt in to the draft directive? After the European Scrutiny Committee had considered the matter, the Minster wrote to the Chair of that Committee stating that a decision on whether to opt in had to be made by 23 December 2010, and promising to let the Committee know the decision at that point. I understand that he then wrote to the Chair of the Committee on 31 January confirming that the UK was opting in to the directive. When was the decision actually made? Was it made before 23 December? If the decision was delayed, why?

In his statement, the Minister said, “By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary.” Would it not have been more consistent and logical to have opted in to the draft directive much earlier, to ensure that the British government could influence it and have their say? On such a matter, and given that we are building on the already well- established 2005 framework decision, was it not in our interest to have our say early on? Why wait until the end of the process?

Secondly, we understand that there will have to be changes to domestic legislation on issues such as extraterritorial jurisdiction and including all the offences set out in articles 6 and 7. Will the Minister explain the exact changes that will be required, in particular to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and any other legislation? When will the House be asked to deal with those matters?

Thirdly, the directive sets out the need for a national contact point to provide an initial response to urgent requests for information within eight hours. With the transition from the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the National Crime Agency, what ring-fenced funding will be available for the initial response work, and how will the overall cuts to the Home Office budget affect the ability to provide that response?

Fourthly, under article 15, there is a requirement for the collection of statistical information on offences covered by the draft directive, including details of the number of offences reported, the follow-up and the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions each year. Although the Minister has indicated previously that some of those data are already collected, what further resources will be needed to ensure that the full datasets are collected, and who will do that? What additional resources have been allocated for the purpose from the £650 million he mentioned?

Fifthly, what plans does the Minister have for dealing with the increase in penalties to a maximum term of imprisonment of not less than five years? Does he envisage creating a new offence to deal with aggravating factors, or increasing the length of existing sentences?

Finally, may press the Minister on another matter? Although we welcome the announcement of the opt-in to this directive, it is deeply disappointing that the Government have failed to opt in to the draft directive on human trafficking. We ask them to think again.

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech. I know about his long-standing interest in this particular problem, as well as his concern about wider health matters.

This debate has been interesting. I certainly feel that I have learned a lot about the drinking habits, or not, of a number of hon. and right hon. Members in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) gave an interesting speech about how alcohol is a major issue for his constituency, which is a centre of brewing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is the distinguished Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, talked about the information that he has gleaned from looking at policing and the effect of alcohol. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who is a doughty campaigner for pubs, discussed how we can tackle the problems of alcohol, which we clearly have, and the important community role for pubs. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) talked about her experience in her constituency. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) talked about his experience as a social worker in dealing with clients and about what was happening on the streets of his constituency late at night. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) gave very clear examples of what can be bought for £20, which was fascinating. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) spoke with a great deal of experience and knowledge of the effects of alcohol on health, and her last point about a potential off-trade levy should be considered.

It is clear that, as a country, we have a problem with alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has supplied statistics about the effect of alcohol as it relates to Wales. We need to do something about this issue. Last week, we heard more disturbing statistics about liver disease in young people. The number of young drinkers admitted to hospital with liver problems has risen by more than 50% in the past 10 years.

In government, the Labour party started to address some of the problems relating to alcohol—for example, the Policing and Crime Act 2009 banned irresponsible drinks promotions. We all agree that we need to do more and to go further. From this morning’s debate, it is clear that we need to go further than the coalition Government’s current proposals, announced on 18 January, to ban the below-cost pricing of alcohol. As I understand it, that equates to minimum pricing of approximately 21p a unit for beer and 28p a unit for spirits. Under those plans, the lowest possible price for a can of lager in a supermarket would range from 38p to 78p, depending on its strength. Most drinks would be unaffected by that proposal, as that works out at as little as 47p a pint for lagers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East has pointed out that that means that many soft drinks and mineral waters would still be more expensive than alcohol bought in the supermarket.

The Campaign for Real Ale has pointed out that in banning below-cost prices, the cost of production should be included. That would raise the floor price to 40p per unit, which is almost double the 21p per unit that will be the norm under coalition Government plans. In a quick survey by my office yesterday in the Tesco nearest to Parliament, we found that typical prices were four large 440 ml cans of Stella for £3.30, and four 440 ml cans of Strongbow for £4.25, or two for £7. Clearly, there is an issue with the pricing that will be introduced in the proposals from the Government. Those prices are typical up and down the country. Hon. Members have discussed what is happening in their own constituencies, and I know this from my own constituency in Hull.

We have heard about the proposal from the former chief medical officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, who, in March 2009, proposed a 50p a unit minimum pricing level. That would increase the price of all bottles of wine to at least £4.50 and raise the price of the average six-pack of lager to £6.

A number of concerns have been raised both in this debate and beyond. One concern, as I have just set out, is whether the retail price will make any real difference to influencing the excessive drinking that we have seen in recent years to a move towards greater moderation. There is also the question why responsible drinkers should be penalised by having to pay more, when they are not in any way part of the problem. That is a fair point, which has carried the day in debate for many years. It may be difficult to devise a way of dealing with irresponsible drinking, while leaving those people who just have an occasional glass of wine or pint of beer unaffected.

We need to consider the pricing mechanism, because if we do not do so, we will deny ourselves one of the most potentially useful weapons in reforming destructive behaviour as a result of alcohol. There is much to be gained for the responsible drinker from looking at pricing. Set against higher prices for alcohol, there are costs that can be saved in the areas of policing, cleaning the streets, and repairing vandalism, as well as the benefit to the NHS and the general welfare state. Perhaps the Minister will consider highlighting more clearly the costs incurred by society due to the abuse of alcohol and making the case more strongly for looking at higher prices. Any pricing changes must be seen not only as increasing the Treasury tax take, as the recent VAT change does, but a reform that is firmly for the health of our society and everyone in it.

We have heard much today about how drinking habits have changed over the years. People buy their alcohol cheaply in the supermarket, often in bulk, and consume it at home. That is referred to up north as “getting tanked up”, but I think that the technical word is “pre-loading”. People then go out later in the evening to take advantage of the later licensing hours, and so end up spending less in the pubs and clubs, having spent more with the supermarkets. The hon. Member for Burton has discussed his experience, perhaps when he was slightly younger, of being in a pub or club and having the benefit of that controlled, supervised environment, which means that people can be helped if they have a little too much to drink. That clearly does not happen if one is indulging in excessive drinking at home.

On late night drinking, the Government have introduced the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill and are considering a late night drinking levy, which is about asking pubs, clubs and licensed premises to contribute towards the costs of policing in areas that have late night drinking. While there is an element of the polluter pays, which is an attractive idea, perhaps the Minister will consider again the additional tax that will be charged to many small businesses and the bureaucratic nature of introducing this levy. Perhaps he will comment on that.

I want to discuss building a culture of responsible drinking. There is wide agreement that people need fully to understand the implications of their behaviour, so I hope that the Government will consider bringing back the proposal to introduce personal social and health education into our schools, so that young people in particular fully understand the problems of taking alcohol at an early age—many of them do not understand that. Some schools teach the subject very well, but others do not.

My time is nearly up. The Government have announced the proposal that they wish to take forward, but could the Minister comment on why the Bill, which is currently in Committee, does not include any clear proposals or clauses on this matter? Would he consider bringing forward an amendment to include it, and, finally, would he consider adding a further objective to the licensing conditions and include a health harm objective?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I also commend the Home Affairs Committee for its work in this and a number of other areas. He refers to a minimum price for alcohol, but we are banning below-cost sales of alcohol, and we have set that cost at VAT plus duty. That is slightly different from a minimum per unit price for alcohol, but it is important to recognise that, in relation to cracking down on problem drinking, we have taken not only that step but a number of other measures of the sort that I set out in my earlier response.

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

In reviewing the Licensing Act 2003, is the Secretary of State satisfied that police forces and local authorities throughout the country are using their existing powers as much as they should? Does the late night levy proposal, aimed at reflecting the cost of policing the late-night economy, risk being an additional tax burden on local businesses while the policing that they receive in return still falls as a result of the 20% cuts in police budgets?

[Mrs May]

I refer the hon. Lady to the actions of the Labour Government in introducing alcohol disorder zones. Yes, we are reviewing the Licensing Act 2003 that they brought in, because far from introducing the café-style culture that Tony Blair said it would bring, it did the exact opposite. Sadly, we have yet again seen increases in incidents relating to alcohol, and in admissions to hospital owing to alcohol-related injuries. That is why the coalition Government are taking the steps that are necessary to deal with problem drinking and giving local areas the ability to deal with their licensing problems.

Drugs Policy

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Walker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) on securing the debate. I note his great success in getting his views and comments widely trailed in the media. Despite the fact that it is the Thursday before Christmas and we are on a one-line Whip in the House, the debate this afternoon has had a great deal of attention.

All Members know from our work in our constituencies that drugs cause misery to people and thwart the opportunities and life chances of not only the individual, but family members. They sometimes blight whole communities. However, when looking at drugs in the UK, it is important to remember that we have had some successes. For example, the coalition Government’s strategy refers to the fall of a third in the last decade in young people’s rates of drug use. The importation of cocaine has also been disrupted.

As my right hon. Friend said, there has been a great deal of investment in treatment for people with drug problems. He is a very distinguished Member, with, as he explained, experience as a drugs Minister. It is right that we should all welcome the opportunity for a considered and mature debate on drugs policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) spoke with great passion and knowledge about his experience in European countries. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about her interesting experience looking at the RIOTT trials, and about what we can learn from them. She also addressed the matter of tackling inequality when thinking through drugs policy.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East has set out his approach, but it is not one with which the Opposition agree. There have been headlines and a great deal of newspaper copy today, but the topic has been reported in far too simplistic a way to deal with the complexities of the drugs problem we face. The issue is not straightforward; there are many different—and respected—views on the way forward for drugs policy in this country.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, commented today:

“I am all in favour of fresh thinking on drugs. I don’t agree with him”—

referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East—

“on decriminalisation of drugs. I worry about the effects on young people, the message we would be sending out.”

That is an interesting point. We do need to have fresh thinking, and we need to keep the area under constant review.

This debate is timely due to the recent publication of the coalition’s drugs strategy for 2010. We have also had the Second Reading of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill in the House of Commons this week. That includes clauses specific to drugs policy, which I will address later.

The Opposition share the coalition’s broad approach to drugs strategy, building on the pillars of preventing drug-taking, disrupting supply, strengthening enforcement and promoting treatment. There is a lot on which we can agree. However, the strategy marks a departure, from the previous focus on reducing the harm caused by drugs to a focus on recovery as the most effective route out of dependency. We want to look at that further and examine what that would mean.

It is important to note that the Home Secretary, in her foreword to the drugs strategy, states that during consultation the Government looked at the issue of liberalisation and decriminalisation, but decided that that was not the answer—that it fails to recognise the complexity of the problem and gives insufficient regard to the harms that drugs pose.

I want to explore the drugs strategy a little further and test some of its statements against the reality of the current policies being put forward by the coalition Government in areas such as health, education, benefits and criminal justice. The backdrop to the strategy was the announcement of the comprehensive spending review and the budgets that will be available to the pubic sector over the next few years. I focus particularly on the budget allocations to the police, local authorities, the NHS and the education sectors. They all have a very important role to play in drugs policy.

In line with the coalition’s general thinking, the strategy features a move away from a top-down to a local decision-making approach—the localism agenda. I hope the Minister can reassure me and other hon. Members that good practice, which does exist around the country now, will continue to be spread and that we will not see only pockets of good practice, with the rest of the country left to mediocre practices. I hope the Minister can reassure me about that, based on this new local approach.

There are three areas on which I want to comment. There is the issue of reducing demand. We know from research that people from backgrounds in which they face problems, such as homelessness, unemployment or exclusion from school, are more likely to take drugs.

There are policies in the strategy that include a great deal about early intervention and getting to those groups early on to stop them from taking up drugs. There is mention, for instance, of the 4,200 additional health visitors that the coalition Government will have in place by 2015. That is all well and good, but I am concerned about how we are to train those additional health visitors, and also about where the money is to come from for those additional professionals.

The situation is the same with Sure Start. The strategy mentions Sure Start and the coalition Government recognise the important role that Sure Start and children’s centres play. We all know that the funding of the 3,500 that were opened under the previous Labour Government will now go to local authorities and will no longer be ring-fenced. As local authorities are under huge pressures to balance their budgets, I ask the Minister to look carefully at whether the role of Sure Start and children’s centres will be as effective as the strategy sets out, with reduced resources.

There is also mention of the national programmes of support for families with multiple problems. Again, I hope that that money will be protected. Pilots of those programmes are showing very good results. Will the Minister respond by saying how he will secure the resources to ensure that that category of early-intervention project is as effective as it can be?

I want to mention education. All of us recognise how important drugs education is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East mentioned FRANK, which he was pleased to hear was still going. That is right, and most people accept that the initiative has been a success. However, drugs education has to be more than just a website. We know the important role that schools play in getting messages across to young people. I am concerned about the changes that we are seeing in the education sector—the move to a narrower academic approach in schools, moving away from the Department of Children, Schools and Families’ approach, which was about Every Child Matters and championing the well-being agenda. That seems to have been sidelined within schools with the new approach of the Secretary of State.

Will the Minister reassure me that drugs education will remain an important subject in schools? I was deeply disappointed that at the very end of the previous Parliament, the Conservative party blocked personal social and health education from becoming a statutory, compulsory subject in schools. PSHE is a good vehicle for ensuring that drugs education is present and effective in the educational setting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), a former drugs Minister and schools Minister, made it clear to me that if teachers are expected to provide good drugs education, they need training, resources and the use of external experts to come and talk to children and young people. That all takes resources and I am concerned that those may not be available to schools and head teachers.

I wanted to pick up one other point on education, which is in the section of the strategy dealing with reducing demand, and encouraging young people to stay in education and obtain qualifications to help them get employment. There is one section that deals with educational opportunities and talks about supporting children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in education. I read that and thought it did not fit well with the coalition Government’s current policy to remove educational maintenance allowances. That has a direct effect on some of the disadvantaged communities, where drugs have been a problem. As a number of hon. Members have already said, the removal of the EMA is a real problem when trying to encourage young people to stay on up to 18.

I move on to restricting the supply of drugs. The strategy is building on the good work over the past few years and relies on a number of factors. One is around good neighbourhood policing, and of course we have seen additional police numbers over the past 13 years. We now face a 20% cut to police budgets. PCSOs, who often provide an effective presence on the streets, will have their numbers cut. Again, I seek reassurance from the Minister about how the strategy will deliver, given that reduction in resources. Under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this week, police and crime commissioners are to set out the strategic direction for police forces. When the Bill comes to its Committee stage, we will want to consider the possible conflict between reduced resources and the fact that police and crime commissioners will probably want to play a part, encouraging the police to join them in partnership working. It will be difficult for police commissioners to square that circle of not having the resources needed to provide effective partnership working.

Legal highs are mentioned in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The Minister knows that there is common cause on tackling legal highs, as there have been a number of debates on the subject over the previous few months. There is common cause not only because it is the right thing to do; the previous Government began the journey, and the present Government are continuing on a similar line. What is proposed in the Bill will prevent manufacturers from tweaking compounds to stay ahead of any ban.

The chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says that the Bill permits a systematic approach, which is to be welcomed. Clause 149 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to introduce temporary class drugs orders to deal with the problem of legal highs. Overall, we support the proposal, but we shall want to examine it further in Committee. The matter was raised in a previous debate, but will the Minister give some indication of the cost of legal highs’ being banned for up to 12 months?

I turn to the question of building recovery in communities, the individual tailored approach set out in the document. Although it is recognised as important, I hope that there will be true recognition of the need for different approaches, and that they will be deemed equally valid. For some people, moving on to methadone and remaining stable and able to function as members of the community may be seen as a positive result, whereas for others being entirely drug free will be the right goal.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He seemed to imply that we did not need to have a range of treatments, although he spoke passionately about the Nelson Trust and the excellent work that it does. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) spoke about the Burton addiction centre, and told us about Jamie’s view of the situation. However, I believe that we need a plurality of approaches. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach for something as complex as dealing with drug treatment. Martin Barnes, the chief executive of DrugScope, said:

“The aspiration for treatment and recovery is to be applauded, but the challenge will be ensuring that high level ambition is delivered and sustained locally, not least at a time of policy change, uncertainty and spending cuts.”

The massive reorganisation of the NHS means that PCTs will be going and that GPs will hold 80% of the NHS budget. Along with the creation of the national public health service, and local authorities taking on the public health role, the way in which much of the public sector is to operate will be a constantly moving feast. I understand that public health money is to be ring-fenced, but it is unclear exactly how much money local authorities will have for dealing with public health matters in their areas. I believe that directors of public health will commission services locally. The services will be competitively tendered and rewarded, and there will be transparency about the performance of any drug treatments contracted for.

We heard earlier in the debate about payment by results. I hope that we will be able to explore that question further, and to discover how the pilots, which will be created by 2011, will work. We need more detail about how they are to be judged successful. Will it be if people become drug free, or if they are merely stable and able to function on methadone? We need that information.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady raises a point that is crucial to the success of payment by results. The danger is that certain providers will cherry-pick the easy-to-cure addicts, and that the more difficult and complex cases will be abandoned. Does she agree that we need to ensure that providers that deal with the toughest cases should be properly rewarded?

[Diana Johnson]

We will want to look carefully at the pilots and exactly how such problems might be dealt with. There must be an imaginative way of dealing with that matter, but we need more detail. The strategy sets out in broad terms what the Government want to do, but the hon. Gentleman is right.

There is also the question of prisons and the criminal justice system. Reference has been made to the proposals in the Green Paper published by the Secretary of State for Justice. It is worth pointing out again that resources and funding will be required. For the approaches that the majority of Members want to see put in place, the important question is where the money and resources will come from.

We also need to deal with the social issues set out in the strategy, such as the reintegration of former drug addicts so that they can obtain housing and employment. Such matters sit uneasily with some of the proposals made by the coalition Government on housing, housing benefit and changes, and that may cause problems for people returning to work. Those matters, too, need to be considered.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East said, clause 150 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will remove the requirement for certain appointments to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to have a scientific background. It will remove the requirement set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include those with wide and recent experience of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry and chemistry, and those with experience of the social problems caused by drug abuse. That approach rather undermines the view of the Minister for Universities and Science, who wrote into the ministerial code the principles for respecting independent advice—including scientific advice, obviously and importantly.

The Liberal Democrats seem to be in some difficulty on this question. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised it in an intervention, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has tabled EDM 1148. The problem is that the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto says that drugs policy should always be based on independent scientific advice, including making the ACMD independent of Government. There will be some discussion in the coalition about how to deal with that, as it seems that that pledge is in danger of bring broken.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and particularly to his answer to the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East on evaluating the success of the drugs strategy, and at what point we can have a further debate to consider whether the strategy has worked.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about both the issue of damping and the contribution to police funding made by the precept. I am afraid that I cannot tell him any more about our plans right now, but we will make an announcement to the House very shortly.

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

Perhaps I can help the House by quoting what the Minister said on “The World This Weekend” on Sunday 21 November. He said:

“There is no such link”

between police numbers and levels of crime. Let me ask the Minister, however, about a recent quote by the Home Secretary on special constables, as I do not have the opportunity to ask the right hon. Lady. We know that special constables are a valued extra resource for our police service. It has been reported that the Home Secretary said that she is looking to recruit an additional 50,000 specials, but does the Minister seriously believe that part-time volunteers can properly substitute for the core policing work of trained, full-time police officers and police community support officers whose numbers are being so savagely cut?

[Nick Herbert]

I repeat to the hon. Lady that I said that there was no simple link. She may have noticed that the former police chief of Los Angeles and New York was in this country last week. He wrote a number of pieces, which I think the hon. Lady should read. One thing he said was:

“It’s not so much the number of police you have… but what you do with them… You cannot spend your way to a safer community… Successful policing is not only about making the right investments: it’s about leadership and focus.”

I would suggest that Bill Bratton knows rather more about policing than the hon. Lady does. As to special constables, of course they are valuable and of course we would like to recruit more of them. They are not a substitute for what police officers do, but an important supplement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady asks a very important question: the work of the bureau is of considerable significance. Work relating to young people has already moved to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and we are considering where it is most appropriate that the bureau’s work relating to adults should sit in the new policing landscape.

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

Given the concerns that have been expressed by Sara Payne and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as well as the evidence given by Jim Gamble to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 12 October, will the Secretary of State tell the House what evidence base informed the decision to submerge the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the proposed national crime agency, especially given that previous independent reviews had supported CEOP remaining separate?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Opposition Front Bench. We have considered closely the CEOP issue, but there seems to be a misconception out there that it currently has independent status. It does not: it is part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The proposals that we put in the White Paper, which will be coming forward in the Bill with our final decisions, relate to its becoming part of the national crime agency and being able to benefit from the synergies of being part of that agency.

Human Trafficking

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on securing this important debate and on making a strong opening statement about why she secured it. I also congratulate her on her new role on the Front Bench; I wish her every success with it.

The contributions of hon. Members from all parties have clearly shown that there is cross-party support on the issue and that there is a resolve across all parties to tackle it. I pay tribute to all of this morning’s contributions, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on the role she plays in the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults. She considered the issue of runaway children and how that impacts on the matter.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who mentioned important transnational issues, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who, as usual, made a compelling case for why we should sign up to the EU directive on human trafficking. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made a well informed and strong case for why the issue needs to be high up on the agenda. The hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Upper Bann (David Simpson), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) also spoke eloquently.

This is my first opportunity to speak as a member of the shadow Home Affairs team. I was delighted to be given this debate to answer for the Opposition because I am the Member of Parliament for Kingston upon Hull North. One of Hull’s famous sons is William Wilberforce, who played an important part in starting the debate on the slave trade so many years ago, so I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter today.

I also pay tribute to Anthony Steen, the former Member of Parliament for Totnes. When he contributed to debates on the issue, he would invariably pay tribute to the previous Government’s role in making sure that the matter was properly addressed. Ministers in the previous Labour Government always paid tribute to Anthony Steen and the role he played in ensuring that the issues of slavery and trafficking were considered fully and properly by the House.

I was interested to hear that it was mooted at one point that Anthony Steen should be the adviser on human trafficking to the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. I wondered whether Anthony Steen’s advice had been sought on the EU directive and what he might say to the Prime Minister about the Government’s stated positions on the directive. I use the word “positions” because the Government’s positions are very unclear. The Home Secretary has said that signing up to a particular directive had to be in the interests of the UK and, of course, we would all agree with that. However, she went to say that the UK is already achieving much of what is contained in the draft EU directive. A Home Office statement went further and stated that signing up would make very little difference to the way in which the UK tackles the problem and that there would be no operational benefits. On the other hand, the Prime Minister offered to go away and think again about the directive and said that there would be opportunities to opt in at any time.

The Minister’s first job this afternoon is to clear up the confusion. Is the directive in or is it out? If it is a maybe, how much of a maybe is it, and what will swing the argument either way? The Government say that the UK already complies with most of what is required under the draft EU directive but, as we have heard from various hon. Members today, there are key areas with which we do not comply. For example, paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum extends the definition of trafficking and inherent within that is recognition that exploitation takes many forms and that one form of exploitation, such as labour exploitation, often leads to another, such as sexual exploitation.

A clearer definition would help with the following matter. The debate about human trafficking has been dogged by the absence of clear estimates of the numbers involved, and many hon. Members have raised that this morning. In 2003, the Home Office estimated the number of victims to be more than 4,000 but, in 2008-09, the Select Committee on Home Affairs claimed there were more than 5,000. The Association of Chief Police Officers came up with the figure of 2,600 for the number of trafficked victims, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has expressed strong views about that particular figure.

The absence of a clear estimate of the numbers involved was a concern of the Home Affairs Committee, and the previous Labour Government offered to do some work to get a more reliable figure. I ask the Minister whether that exercise is still under way. Do the Government recognise not only that it would be helpful to have a clear definition, but that, if we knew the numbers involved, that would allow a comparison to be made across the EU ?

Article 14 of the draft directive refers to the protection of children who are victims and calls for judicial authorities to appoint a special representative for child victims. The UK does not comply with that. The hon. Member for Wellingborough raised that issue and if we were to accept the directive and opt in, that would help his position.

Article 9 of the directive concerns extraterritorial jurisdiction. Criminals and victims may be in different countries at the time of the investigation—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned this issue—and article 9 would help British authorities to protect not only their own citizens, but other EU citizens. The position seems to be confused. Do we comply or do we not comply? Even if we reach the bar and do comply, surely the point is to work with other countries—not only to reach the bar but to go beyond it, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough mentioned.

ECPAT—End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes—rightly says

“Without international cooperation the Government will lose the battle with the traffickers. By choosing not to opt in to the directive the Government is failing in its efforts to combat this transnational crime.”

The Government say that they are working to shape the EU directive. We have experience in the United Kingdom of working on projects such as Operation Golf, where we led from the front. Having helped to shape the final document, why would we wish to step back from the directive? Is it because it is European? Is it because there is a hangover from the Lisbon treaty deliberations? Are the Government over-sensitive to criticisms on Conservative websites that they are giving away powers faster than the previous Labour Government? Is it because it would cost money? If that is the case, how much do the Home Office think it will cost? ECPAT says costs would be minimal. Is that true? Has a cost-benefit analysis been done?

The Government are in danger of getting this wrong and of compounding a catalogue of errors of poor judgment. There has been confusion over anonymity for rape victims and over domestic violence protection orders, which were designed to protect victims, not perpetrators. In addition, the multi-agency risk assessment conferences are now under review, as is the use of independent domestic violence advisers. Chillingly, there has also been the fallout that led to the resignation of Jim Gamble as chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, who I understand is giving evidence this morning to the Home Affairs Committee. I want to put on the record the appreciation that I think exists across the House for the invaluable work that he and his team did in protecting children. We support his view that to do its job even more effectively, CEOP needs more, not less independence.

When Sara Payne, Shy Keenan and Fiona Crook say that what has happened is a devastating blow for UK child protection, we ought to listen, because if we do not, the Government will be in danger of throwing away in five months progress that was built up over five years with regard to child victims. The Government need to listen to the concerns rightly raised today about the EU directive on human trafficking. I look forward to hearing the Minister clarify exactly what the Government’s position is on that directive—do we comply or do we not comply?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

4. When she plans to bring into force existing powers to curb the activities of private sector wheel-clampers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

I announced on 17 August the Government’s intention to ban wheel-clamping and towing on private land.  The ban will be included in the freedom Bill, which is due to be introduced this autumn. Sections 42 and 44 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which provide for the regulation of the vehicle immobilisation industry by way of business licensing, will be repealed.

[Diana R. Johnson]

In Hull, we know that the previous Government’s legislation would have stopped overcharging by wheel-clamping companies, and it was widely consulted on. Why cannot the hon. Lady introduce that provision while she waits for the legislation to go through Parliament to introduce the changes that she wishes to see?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Because all the previous Government’s legislation, despite their very good intentions, would have been complex and expensive to introduce. When we looked again at the results of the consultation, we decided that precisely because of the abuses that take place, banning was the best option. That will be brought forward this autumn, which is not that long to wait.