Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Huppert

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I want to hear the comments that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton will make about their new clauses. Time is limited, and on the instructions of Mr Speaker I am trying to keep my comments short. I am pointing out that there may be unintended consequences of how the clauses are currently drafted.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I shall confine my comments to the proposal for journalists to be protected under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, because I think that is very important.

I know that we have to proceed fairly quickly, but it is worth my setting out the facts. There was a great deal of public concern when it became clear that Met police had been using RIPA to look into journalists’ sources during Operation Alice. For instance, they examined the phone records of Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of The Sun. Kent police also obtained records during Operation Solar. According to a report by the interception of communications commissioner, 19 forces made more than 600 requests for information about journalists’ phone records to try to identify their sources., and that has had a very large-scale and worrying effect.

I pay tribute to, in particular, the Press Gazette and the National Union of Journalists, which launched the Save Our Sources campaign. They were right to do so, because this is a fundamental issue. If police and other authorities can gain access to journalists’ records, how can anyone feel safe when contacting a journalist to blow the whistle, in the knowledge that their information may simply be passed on? People would have to feel an immense amount of trust to do that.

I am pleased that we are making some progress on this important matter, but the extent of the progress that has been necessary has been frustrating. My party has had policies to ensure that we get this right since last year, when my Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Strasburger tabled amendments that were rejected by the Conservative Minister Baroness Williams—not Shirley, but Susan. We made a number of other attempts, and Conservative Ministers said that they wanted to act, but unfortunately it was not until we tabled new clause 5 that we forced something to happen. Not until the Deputy Prime Minister spoke out in favour of the new clause and we managed to persuade three Select Committee Chairs to support it—the Chairs of the Home Affairs, Justice and Culture, Media and Sport Committees—did we secure some partial agreement. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the Government have given way on the new clause, although, as is their wont, they have slightly rewritten it.

I welcome what the Minister said about the code of practice, but will she tell us when it will be introduced? Can she give a clear assurance—I did not hear her give one earlier, although there is such an assurance in the letter that has just been passed around—that it will definitely be in place before the end of this Parliament, having been approved by both Houses? I should be grateful if she made it absolutely clear that the code of practice will not be delayed, because we need to act.

Psychoactive Substances

Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Huppert

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- 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.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Huppert

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I find it extremely annoying that when Liberal Democrats get to their feet on child protection issues, when we are making sure that our children have the protection that we all want to see, this is the issue that is pursued. I am asking how best we can protect our children. There is genuinely a question to be asked about the standard that is used in the orders. The Government have chosen to introduce some new orders, which I fully support, but it is worth considering whose side we are on. Given some of the abuse cases that we have heard, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, we need to think long and hard about where our instincts should lie in ensuring that our children are protected.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

I will continue, because I have a feeling that this debate could go on all night with the Liberal Democrats.

I want to ask the Minister and the hon. Lady whether they feel that the threshold might be too high. I accept—the Liberal Democrats will like this bit—that there is a significant cost to the individual on whom an order is placed, reputationally, and particularly if that becomes public. We know that, because of public disgust associated with sex crimes, the effect of a sex offence order being imposed on an individual, whatever it is called, will be devastating to that individual.

It has not helped that the risk of sexual harm orders that were previously in place have been called, I think wrongly, sex offence ASBOs, because the higher standard of proof makes that comparison unhelpful. At the same time, we must accept that there will be many occasions when the police have a well founded, reasonable belief that someone poses a risk to children but are not able to secure a conviction, because, for example, they cannot present in open court the evidence required. In particular, the situation could arise if a vulnerable witness is not in a position to give evidence in court. In such cases, we may want a civil protection order, precisely because we cannot get a conviction at the higher criminal standard. Will the Minister comment on whether the new orders will allow for far more cases to be subject to the orders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who gave a fantastic example of her grasp of the details of this subject and her attitude to it. I served with her on the Committee during its inquiry into child sexual exploitation in response to localised grooming, when we all shared experiences that will stay with me and, I am sure, with her for the rest of our lives. Some of the things we saw and heard about were absolutely horrific. It is to her great credit that she has responded in a very measured way to try to address this. Her speech was exemplary in that regard.

We all think that abuse of children and of any vulnerable adult is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is a heinous crime. Everybody in this House opposes it and wants to see it ended; that is absolutely clear. It is also clear that a crime of this nature is a crime regardless of where it happens. When people go overseas to abuse children, that cannot be okay just because those children happen not to be British. That much is absolutely, completely and utterly clear.

The hon. Lady outlined very well a number of improvements in what the Government are suggesting. For example, it seems odd that a rule was brought in saying that there must be two offences before a breach of something becomes a serious matter. I struggle to think of any other examples where someone would have to do something twice before there was perceived to be a problem. It is absolutely right to get rid of that.

I was very surprised by several of the comments by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). There is a danger that we get trapped in the idea that we must do anything to protect children. It becomes a mantra: “Won’t somebody think of the children?” We do need to protect children but in a way that will work and will not cause us problems. It is an important principle that people do not get jailed based on anything less than the criminal standard of proof. I was genuinely horrified by her suggestion that it would be worth considering something else. I accept that this is a deeply emotional area, and we all want to protect children. I hope that on reflection she will reconsider some of her comments about my perspective on that. We all want that protection to happen, but we must also ensure that we do not break some of the principles of the rule of law.

[Diana Johnson]

In discussing civil orders I merely raised a question about the appropriate standard of proof. I was not suggesting that we should move to a lower standard but merely questioning whether keeping the higher standard was the best thing to do and asking the Minister and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) to reflect on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express that properly when he refers to my views and not try to suggest that I was putting forward any other view.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. My own view is that I would not even want to consider the idea of jailing somebody without going through the criminal process, because that is a fundamental position of our law. She was indeed only questioning it, but I am still surprised that it would even be questioned.

Drugs

Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Huppert

Thursday 6th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson]

The Chair of the Select Committee makes a powerful argument for having data that allow us to understand the number of people affected and therefore how to treat them. I am sure the Opposition would want to consider that, recognising that the issue has been raised by the Committee, which sees it as an important part of tackling some of the problems in prison.

Will the Minister also address an issue that has arisen since the report was published, which is the use of the private sector in the probation services provided to people leaving prison? What thought has been given to ensuring that appropriate drug treatment and support is available through the new providers?

At the start of this Parliament, there was a lot of political rhetoric from Government Members about what constituted recovery, to which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred. The view at first appeared to be based on ideology and not on looking at the individual needs of each person. For some people a life of abstinence would be appropriate; for others, a life supported by methadone or another drug. When people want to move to abstinence, it is important that they have the necessary support to do so, and that a range of programmes are available to support them.

The Committee’s report highlights the large variations in the success of different programmes, which is of concern, because we want to ensure good value for money and that we get the right outcomes. An average success level of 41% could obviously be improved upon. Payment by results should help to improve standards, but I echo the concerns expressed by the Committee, and this afternoon by its Chair, about how that method of funding might hamper small providers. It is also important that support is given to a range of commissioning bodies to enable them to sort through the data on what is effective. Given the multitude of different commissioners, can the Minister explain what role Public Health England will play in guiding commissioners?

Of course, we all want to see fewer people taking drugs in the first place, and I will concentrate for a few moments on the need to have more effort directed at prevention. I agree with the Committee that drugs prevention and education are the strands of the drugs strategy to have had least work and least interest. In the review of the drugs strategy, the Government could identify just two areas of progress: they had relaunched the FRANK website, and they were reviewing the curriculum for schools. Since then, the curriculum review has finished, but my understanding is that there will now be even less drugs education in the science curriculum. That cannot be seen as progress. At the same time, the Government have abandoned Labour’s plans to make personal, social, health and economic education a statutory requirement for schools and have closed the drugs education forum.

Figures from Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity, show that at present 60% of schools deliver drug and alcohol education once a year or less. That education is often poor, incomplete or totally irrelevant; pupils aged 16 seem to get the same lessons as pupils aged 11. An example given was of sixth-form students being required to colour in pictures of ecstasy tablets as part of their drugs education. Earlier this year, Mentor told me:

“Drug and alcohol education should not be disregarded as a trivial add-on. It should be fundamental to pupils’ education. The links between early drug and alcohol use and both short and long term harms are clear, and there is compelling evidence showing longer term public health impacts of evidence based programmes. The cost benefit ratios are significant, ranging from 1:8 to 1:12.”

The Committee’s report is clear:

“The evidence suggests that early intervention should be an integral part of any policy which is to be effective in breaking the cycle of drug dependency. We recommend that the next version of the Drugs Strategy contain a clear commitment to an effective drugs education and prevention programme, including behaviour-based interventions.”

I wholeheartedly support that, and I repeat Labour’s commitment to bringing in statutory PSHE to achieve it, which I tried to do recently myself by introducing a ten-minute rule Bill in the previous Session.

For the interim, the Committee recommends

“that Public Health England commit centralised funding for preventative interventions when pilots are proven to be effective.”

Again, that is something I support. The Department for Education has a set of programmes that have been approved and are listed on the Centre for the Analysis of Youth Transitions database. A wide range of programmes, they are all evidence-based and have been tested and proved to be effective. They are life-skills programmes that not only tell children no, but empower them to resist peer pressure and to make informed decisions about alcohol and drugs. Furthermore, they dispel myths such as those going around suggesting legal highs are safe. What is unfortunately lacking at the moment, however, is the political leadership to get those lessons into schools.

I mentioned earlier my attempts to see the minutes of the inter-ministerial group on drugs. I never managed to get the minutes of the meetings, but I did get the agendas, which showed that in the first 18 months of this Government drugs education and drugs prevention were never discussed. Can the Minister tell us whether he has put either drugs education or drug prevention on the agenda of the group in the nine months that he has been chair? If not, perhaps he can promise to put something on the agenda of the next meeting. Previously, when there was a problem with prioritising drug treatment within the NHS, Ministers came together to form the National Treatment Agency. There now appears to be a problem with prioritising prevention work in schools and education and in public health, so perhaps the Minister can show a similar initiative and work with his colleagues to set up a cross-departmental body to tackle the issue.

Finally, I want to discuss the problem of the new psychoactive substances. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is now monitoring 280 new substances throughout Europe; 73 new substances came on to the British market last year, and they are now freely available from 690 online shops. In addition, the Angelus Foundation, which has already been mentioned, reports that there might be up to 300 “head shops” selling those substances on the UK high street. The figures are truly shocking and will terrify every parent in the country, but even those figures do not quite show how readily available the drugs are through peer-to-peer selling in schools. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee mentioned, even Amazon was recently selling the drugs, and some online sellers are sending out free samples to children once a new compound arrives from China. Our understanding of the dangers of legal highs has been greatly enhanced by the work of the Angelus Foundation, and I pay particular tribute to Maryon Stewart who founded the foundation after tragically losing her daughter, Hester Stewart, a medical student, from the legal high GBL in 2009.

As we heard, the Government have introduced temporary banning orders to make such drugs easier to prohibit. The Home Secretary promised that they would allow for swift and effective action. In two years, however, one temporary banning order has been used, during a period when more than 100 new legal highs have emerged on the market. I understand from the press that two more temporary banning orders are in the pipeline, which I will come on to.

The first thing we need to do to get better understanding of the harms of such drugs is, as the Select Committee said in its report, to improve data collection on drugs. Nowhere is that more pressing than with the new psychoactive substances. First, we need better information about their prevalence. I am very concerned that those drugs are not being properly recorded in the Mixmag drug survey or the British crime survey.

Secondly, we need to understand the harm they cause. I have heard from front-line practitioners in addiction services and A and E that they are encountering more and more people who have taken legal highs, but that is anecdotal and we need proper data collection. If someone presents to A and E having taken a legal high, that should be properly recorded.

Thirdly, we need the major databases to work together. For the last year, I have tried to ascertain how the EMCDDA database liaises with the Home Office’s much-touted early warning system. Last year, I asked why it was monitoring 13 substances when the EMCDDA had 47 on its list, but I have still not received a satisfactory explanation. I would also like to know how the Home Office’s system is informed by the TICTAC database of toxins, which is run by the NHS, and the National Poisons Information Service’s TOXBASE. In the past, work on collecting data was done by the Forensic Science Service, but it has been disbanded. I hope that the Minister will explain who is doing that work now.

This week, the Government announced that they will finally ban Benzo Fury. It is clear from the letter that the Home Secretary received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that there are real concerns that the system that has been set up is failing. The drug has been putting people in hospital since 2009, when it was first reported to TOXBASE, and since then there have been 65 more referrals. Will the Minister explain the point of a temporary banning order if it takes four years from the first hospital admissions to a ban on the sale of the drug on the high street? No deaths from this drug have been reported in the UK, but deaths have been reported in other countries. Professor Les Iversen, chair of the ACMD, said:

“Sooner or later we will get unexpected and serious harm emerging with one of these compounds and then we will blame ourselves for allowing them to be sold without the usual safety data.

That’s why I think this is a serious problem, it's not just a nice set of party drugs that we can let people get on with, it's a set of chemicals that are potentially very dangerous.”

I hope the Minister will respond to that comment.

The Committee’s report recommends that more advice and support be given to allow trading standards to take action against sellers, and that recommendation was also made by the UK Drug Policy Commission. What has the Minister done to investigate implementation of those two recommendations? Several recent attempts to take action through the courts have failed, and trading standards are already exceptionally stretched because of the massive cuts in local government. I hope the Minister will review that, and look at who is responsible for tackling online sellers.

I have highlighted a few of the key issues in the report, but there are many others. I again congratulate the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady has highlighted some issues and talked about a failing system. Will she clarify her position on the suggestion of a royal commission to examine the matter and to try to fix the whole system, and on the concept of decriminalisation? Where does she stand on those two issues?

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps I may correct the record. When I talked about a failing system, I meant the legal highs and the temporary banning orders that have been put in place. I am not sure that they are delivering what the Government intended them to do swiftly and efficiently.

On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, it is certainly important to look at what happened in Portugal, which I am pleased the Minister visited. I am particularly interested in what is happening in New Zealand with legal highs, and I hope the Government will look at the New Zealand Government’s experience. I think that President Santos is doing important work in Colombia. But today I wanted to concentrate on the issues in the report which the Government have an opportunity to respond to and to do something about. I am particularly concerned about the lack of action on education, and that has been my main focus.

I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on a well-reasoned and thoughtful report. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to discuss it this afternoon, albeit with a small number of Members. The quality of debate has been high.

Forensic Science Service

Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Huppert

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I will not make the standard jokes about military intelligence that would normally arise at this point. I entirely understand what my hon. Friend means. That is precisely why I think it essential for all chief scientific advisers to be provided with all the papers. The problem is how they can know what is going on, because some Departments are not as free with their information as others. I will not single out the Home Office in this instance, but I think it right for chief scientific advisers to have the information at an early stage. It is difficult to comment on things that you do not know about until it is too late.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will give way once more, but then I must make some progress.

[Diana Johnson]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was as surprised as I was when I read the evidence from the chief scientific adviser, who had said that he did not think it appropriate for him to be consulted about the decision to close the FSS because he thought that it was merely about finance and the possibility that the service would go into administration. Was that not a rather shocking approach for him to take?

[Dr Huppert]

I think the key point is that chief scientific advisers should be consulted, as a matter of routine, at the beginning of the process. That is much more important than raking through the question of exactly what counts as a commercial and hence legitimately non-scientific issue, and what counts as a genuinely scientific issue. Chief scientific advisers should be given more access, and their roles and seniority should be elevated.

Professor Silverman conducted a review of research and development in forensic science, and the findings were published in June 2011. They make a very interesting read, and raise a number of issues. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government will respond to some of the key points.

The report says that, when it comes to forensic sciences,

“improvement in the degree of linkage and communication would drive forward innovation most effectively”.

Will the Minister consider whether the forensic science regulator should have a duty to improve the linkages that are necessary, in order to fill the role that was formerly occupied largely by the FSS?

The report also recommends that there should be a regular cross-disciplinary forensic science conference, and I hope that that will be possible. Perhaps the regulator should be able to deal with it as well, because there are problems with fragmentation of the field.

Another issue that has not been touched on so far is training, and ensuring that the right people enter the forensic science sector. I had a very interesting time when I visited the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. One of the issues that we discussed was the poor quality of the vast majority of training courses in forensic sciences at universities. If I remember correctly, there were only two courses that the LGC considered to be of a sufficiently high standard. I will not test my memory by attempting to remember which two they were, but it is a problem if the right people are not being employed in the sector.

The LGC believes that it should generally take people who have been trained in chemistry and a range of other subjects, and that people are being misled into taking forensic science courses that are not good enough to secure their employment in the sector. I hope that the Government will think about that, because it would be consistent with Government policy to try to steer people away from courses that will not enable them to achieve the expected goals.

Professor Silverman’s report also argued that

“the interdisciplinary nature and societal importance of forensic science, as well as the opportunities that would be created by better communication, make it an appropriate candidate for particular attention by the Research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board.”

In other words, he recommends that we should be investing in it as part of our general science spend. Although I am, of course, aware that there must be limits on how much the Government can tell the research councils what to do, has the Minister had any conversations about whether that recommendation could be implemented?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Huppert

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, when it comes to licensing, one disappointing aspect of the Bill is the failure to deal with pre-loading and the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. This Bill would have been an opportunity for the Government to legislate to deal with those issues, and there is concern that they seem to have missed it.

I am concerned that businesses that already contribute to voluntary arrangements—they include Pubwatch and Best Bar None, to which hon. Members have referred—may feel penalised if they are then asked to make contributions to the late-night levy as well. There is also concern that because the provision will affect only licensed premises that sell alcohol, it will not deal with, say, problems with late-night takeaways. If the Minister is minded to do so, it would be worth considering whether the late-night licence should include all parts of the late-night economy. That would seem to be the fairest way of dealing with the issue.

[Dr Huppert]

I am delighted to support new clause 2. It would remove sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which were totally ineffective and did not work. I suggest that those provisions were also slightly tokenistic. Indeed, the previous Government fell into the trap of doing a lot of things that were token demonstrations. It is an easy trap to fall into, and I do not think that doing things for tokenistic reasons was unique to the last Government. I hope that this Government will learn the lesson of not doing things because they look good, but will continue to make great efforts to ensure that whoever forms the next Government will not have the same things to say about us.

One of the lessons learned about why those provisions were ineffective is set out in clause 125(4), which deals with the late-night levy requirement. That lesson, which has just been discussed, is how we draw the boundaries of an area. We cannot take the model of the past, which involved drawing boundaries very roughly. Therefore, the Minister decided that an area must be an entire council area, as has been said, although that causes problems in Cornwall, which is a large council area. Perhaps we should learn a slightly different lesson, which is that although we should not have complete flexibility of boundaries, we could have some flexibility. Perhaps the rule should be that we can combine entire ward areas, which would avoid the problems of the provisions that we are getting rid of, but make their replacement work a little better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Licensing Act 2003 sets out the four licensing objectives that must currently be taken into account when a local authority carries out its licensing functions: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The new clause would introduce a fifth objective: to protect and improve public health. We tabled it to deal with three key issues. First, there is the fact that public health is far more prominent and talked about than ever before. Secondly, there is the role of primary care trusts and, in future, local authorities, which is relevant to clause 104. Thirdly, there is the current position in Scotland.

Let me explain first why we think the issue of public health is so important. As an Opposition spokesman, the Secretary of State for Health made clear his strong commitment to it. So committed was he that he planned to rename the Department of Health “the Department of Public Health” if the Conservatives came to power. Obviously that has not happened, but the Secretary of State is very busy with his Health and Social Care Bill, and we know that he is trying to rename the NHS “the HS”—to get rid of the “national”.

The widespread view is that there is a proper role for Government in the promotion of good public health. We know from the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill that one of the few budgets that will be ring-fenced in future is the public health money that will pass from the PCTs to local authorities in 2013. However, the Government have experienced big problems in their approach to public health. This month we have seen the fall-out from their stance on self-regulation by the drinks industry through the responsibility deal. A number of health groups have walked away from the discussions and the agreement, including the British Heart Foundation.

Don Shenker, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, made clear his view that the Government’s approach to public health will not work. He said that the responsibility deal was

“the worst possible deal for everyone who wants to see alcohol harm reduced”,

and that it had no sanctions to impose if the industry failed to fulfil its pledges. He described those pledges as “half-hearted”,

and that the

“government has clearly shown that when it comes to public health its first priority is to side with big business and protect private profit.”

Let us consider what has already been said about this issue, and the action that the Government have taken so far. Yesterday the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) presented a ten-minute rule Bill to restrict the marketing of alcohol to children and young people. She made a telling point in expressing concern about the fact that the Government were putting the fox in charge of the chickens. They have, for instance, set their face against the idea of making personal, social and health education compulsory. That would have provided an excellent opportunity for young people to be taught about the effects of alcohol and the long-term health consequences of drinking too much.

In January, the Minister set out the coalition Government’s plans in relation to minimum pricing. He said that they wanted alcohol to be sold at the level of duty plus VAT. Many people, including representatives of many health organisations, have pointed out that that will have little effect on the price of alcohol in supermarkets, many of which will continue to sell alcohol that is cheaper than bottled water. It also contradicts the view of Liam Donaldson, the former chief medical officer, that there should be a minimum price of 50p per unit.

[Dr Huppert]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me, given that I am a new Member, by reminding me what the minimum price was under the last Government.

[Diana Johnson]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, because he pays close attention to these issues, there has been a continuing debate for some time about the need to reach a conclusion that everyone considers appropriate. The problem with the announcement from the coalition Government is that it is causing most people to think that it will have no effect at all.

I know that the hon. Gentleman sets great store by academic research and evidence. According to research carried out by Sheffield university, pricing measures will only be significantly effective from around the 40p per unit mark. It is feared that the coalition Government’s preferred level will be not 40p but much lower, and that they have missed the opportunity to make significant strides in dealing with the problem of alcohol abuse.

As I pointed out during a previous debate, the Bill contains no provisions dealing with minimum pricing, and I think most people would consider that a great shame. We were looking forward to legislation shortly after the announcement in January. The Government are clearly in some disarray when it comes to public health and alcohol, but the new clause offers them a real opportunity to reassert their commitment to improving public health and dealing with some of the public health problems associated with alcohol. We believe that we are helping them to achieve what I am sure all Members agree is the very proper aim of ensuring that alcohol-related problems are dealt with properly by the House. Therefore, if the Government were to add in health and this further objective in respect of licensing, it would show that they are serious about the problem of public health, and it would also deal with the problems they have faced since taking office last May.