Extradition

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and congratulate her on a victory for the democratic process and for fair play. Can she confirm that a precedent has not been set with regard to the reasons to stop an extradition? What assurance can she give that the two outstanding extradition requests from the US, and indeed any future extradition requests, will not be affected by this decision?

[Mrs May]

My decision is based on the issue of Mr McKinnon’s human rights under article 3 and, as I have just indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), each individual case will be determined on its own merits.

Internet Trolling

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Lady is right. I hope to tease out some of the complexities of the legislation during my contribution, but it is not as easy as us just saying that trolls should be brought to book—I shall try to outline why.

Trolling has become a sick hobby for some and an increasing problem for dedicated police trying to monitor and respond to reported cases. Trolls are individuals intent on upsetting and offending people, often in their hour of grief and mourning, for a kind of pleasure that I must admit is totally alien to me and, I would think, to every person in this Chamber.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the House’s attention. Every Member will have examples of constituents who have been subjected to trolling, whether in the workplace, in schools or on the internet. Young people who write about the good things that have happened to them can find that they are attacked on the websites. The example of Tom Daley comes to mind, because of what happened to him at the Olympics, when a cheerful thing turned into nastiness. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some system in place, whether banning trolls from using the websites, legislation or whatever, to protect young people and those using the internet in an innocent fashion?

[Steve Rotheram]

I agree that the first thing to do is to try to identify those people causing the offence, which is very difficult because they hide behind the anonymity of a computer. The second part, of course, is to try to get the issue out among the general public, so that we can secure a culture change in society. One of the starting points is to highlight some of the celebrity trolling and the great offence it has caused, although it happens to ordinary people too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

Those are two of the most depressing and disgusting instances of trolling. It is not just about having a bit of fun; it can lead to serious consequences. I will return to the case of at least one of those people who, unfortunately, took their own life.

Part of the problem is that a degree of professionalism is associated with some trolls that might be too sophisticated for our laws to combat in their current guise. The relevant legislation on this matter predates the birth of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, which were not launched until 2004 and 2006 respectively. In fact, since becoming actively involved in this issue, I have increasingly come to understand that the law surrounding trolling is a minefield. If only Thomas Jefferson had been right when he said:

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

A whole plethora of associated legislation could potentially be used against trolls, but there is nothing specific to outlaw the practice itself. The Suicide Act 1961 can still be used against those who encourage others to take their own lives, and it was specifically amended, with websites in mind and to simplify the law, by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. We also have the Telecommunications Act 1984; section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986; the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which created precedent by extending the time limit to investigate cases for summary offence; and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, under section 3(2) of which claimants may pursue a civil case for damages. Those are all relevant pieces of legislation, but none specifically identifies trolling as an offence, and every single one was passed before Facebook or Twitter existed. Even section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 predates social media, but it suggests that someone can be found to have broken the law if a message is sent that is

“grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

It goes on to say that the section

“targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

The Crown Prosecution Service clarified this on its website by stating:

“If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place.”

The CPS also confirms:

“A person guilty of an offence under the same section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.”

The crime is dealt with under the fixed penalty scheme. However, there is a degree of subjectivity when we talk about causing offence. Trolls often write that they do not know what might cause offence to a particular individual and so cannot be accused of so doing.

We can already see the pitfalls. There is ambiguity over whether a six-month sentence is long enough in order to send a message to trolls that such behaviour is not to be tolerated and, by extension, to seek fundamentally to change behaviour. There are also questions about whether, given the complexities surrounding false identities, there is enough time for the police fully to investigate complaints and for the CPS to deem whether a successful prosecution is likely. The Guardian recently reported that nearly 8% of Facebook profiles were fake, which equates to approximately 83 million accounts worldwide. This has become not just a national but an international problem.

The other relevant piece of legislation is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1 of which deals with the sending to another of

“any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient”.

The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings.

I believe that the greatest strength of both that Act and the Communications Act 2003 is that for an offence to be deemed to have been committed, the intended recipient of the message never has to receive it. That is pivotal in prosecuting RIP trolls, because more often than not the intended recipient of their bile is deceased. It is therefore right and proper that it is the sending that is an offence, and that proof is not needed that a person has received the communication in question. There still has to be intent to cause offence or distress.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore feel that there is a greater role for the police to play? If the legislation is in place and there is an opportunity to prosecute, should the police do more?

[Steve Rotheram]

It is always difficult to say whether the police should do more, and part of the problem is the complexities of the gaps in legislation which I have just identified. That has to be the starting place for the House to consider seriously whether a Bill should be introduced to close the loopholes that people have been able to wriggle out of.

There have recently been two prosecutions for racially motivated tweets. One was sent to the former footballer Stan Collymore and the other was sent in the wake of the collapse on the pitch of Fabrice Muamba. Both were vile comments, but the sanctions imposed by judges were met with condemnation from certain sections of the public and disdain from others for being too lenient.

We must work harder to raise the issue of trolling so that people know unequivocally that they should not say something online that they would not say face to face. The case of Natasha MacBryde, which was mentioned earlier, is perhaps the most high-profile case of trolling, because an 18-week prison sentence was handed out to Sean Duffy, who admitted that he was hooked on the sick craze. That is far and away the severest sentence that a court has handed out to date.

Many months before the release of the Hillsborough independent panel report, I spoke to Facebook about a page that had been set up on its site called “96 Wasn’t Enough”. It informed me that the content of the page and/or postings on the site did not constitute a breach of its community standards, and that there was no need to remove the page because there was not an implied or explicit threat. I add that I do not condone trolling by anyone. Alan Davies received some horrendous abuse over his ill-judged comments about Hillsborough, and I was quick to condemn hate messages aimed towards him and his family. I think it is better to educate than to abuse.

Trolling is not about normal social discourse, or even about disagreeing vehemently with someone who has a contrary opinion. The test should be quite simple: would someone be happy to put their name to what they have said under a false identity? We are not talking about cases of whistleblowing, in which it would be understandable to anonymise a person’s details. If the answer to that question is that someone would not be happy to be identified, we have to ask why. Why would somebody need to hide their identity under such circumstances?

Having listened carefully to what Facebook had to say when I met it, I have developed a better understanding of what it determines to be acceptable. Although I may disagree with the grey areas within the boundaries that social media sites impose, I understand that they are as much about the sharing of information as they are about people getting a better understanding of local, national, regional and international cultures, events in history and universally famous tragedies. However, I have severe reservations about the ability of social media sites to understand fully the gross offence caused by certain types of message, especially to families and friends of deceased victims. Surely common sense must prevail. All too often, the benefit of the doubt falls in favour of the rights of the troll over those of their innocent target.

Trolling is not about disagreeing with another person’s perspective. It is not about telling somebody straight what they think about them, or that they think that the other person is wrong. Trolling is not even about arguing with somebody online about sensitive issues. It is about setting out, intentionally and deliberately, to cause gross offence to another, or to say something menacing.

I reiterate that I hope that tonight’s debate is just the beginning. I am keen to hear others’ views and to learn new things about trolling. Will the Minister therefore answer the following questions? Do the Government fully appreciate the escalating problem of trolling? What monitoring of activity are they undertaking? Are the Government satisfied with the prosecution rate of trolls, or does the Minister believe, like me, that the number of trolling cases far outweighs that of convictions? Has the Minister met the police and/or the CPS recently to discuss the obstacles to prosecuting trolls? What time frame have the Government scheduled to look at ways in which to address the problem? Could an amendment to legislation be made in this Parliament, if the Minister believes that to be appropriate? What discussions has he had with social media sites about the need to strengthen the community standards that govern best practice on them? Does he agree that they could and should do far more to aid the police with prosecuting trolls?

I believe that the law of the land needs to be constantly updated to reflect social and technological advancements. However, I also appreciate that, in the case of trolling, concerted effort by Parliament to change online culture may well prove to be just as important as an amendment to existing legislation.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I acknowledge the Select Committee’s interest. Indeed, I gave evidence to the Committee, and I remember the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked me during the evidence sessions. The matter is being considered, in relation to the Select Committee’s report and in the context of the recommendation made by the independent reviewer. All I can say is that we will make a further announcement in due course. Unfortunately, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a more specific answer now, but I acknowledge the point that he is making, and we will respond to the points made by the Select Committee and by the independent reviewer shortly.

We recognise that proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. Proscription makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, the proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of the organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that could arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual was a member or supporter of the relevant organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information and evidence on that organisation. Having carefully considered all the evidence, she firmly believes that IM is involved in terrorism. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, but I am able to give them the following information. IM is a terrorist organisation based in India. It emerged in 2007. It uses violence in its attempts to achieve its stated objectives of creating an Islamic state in India and of implementing sharia law there.

The organisation has frequently perpetrated attacks on civilian targets, such as markets, with the intention of maximising casualties. In May 2008, for example, a spate of bomb detonations in the city of Jaipur killed 63, and in September last year an explosion outside the high court in Delhi reportedly killed 12 and injured 65. IM has sought to incite sectarian hatred in India by deliberately targeting Hindu places of worship. An example of that was an attack on a prayer ceremony in Varanasi, which killed a child, in December 2010.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand and wholeheartedly support the reason for proscribing the organisation here, but is it proscribed in India as well?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, the organisation is proscribed in India and in several other countries, including the United States and New Zealand. The proscription here will align the UK with the emerging international consensus.

It is important, in the context of this order, to state that the group is also known to target areas popular with tourists. A shooting incident in Old Delhi wounded two Taiwanese tourists in September 2010, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to detonate an explosive device at the scene. The organisation has also publicly threatened to attack British tourists, so it clearly poses a threat to British nationals in India.

European Convention on Human Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary and Immigration Minister on bringing this matter before the House. I fully understand the reason for the debate, but I hope that the clarification given in the letter that hon. Members have seen will ensure that there is no Division.

Everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, home and correspondence, as many other hon. Members have said. This has been used by many people, however, to claim that anyone has a right to live and settle, with their family, where they choose and so can come to the UK, with or without a visa, to have a private family life. It must never be forgotten, however, that the right is a qualified not an absolute right, and that qualifications are essential in respect of immigration. We must therefore retain the right of the Home Secretary to control immigration through the rules already implemented and what is proposed today.

The Home Secretary’s clarification of the rules for the courts has assured me and, I hope, the House. The Human Rights Act was a good thing in principle, but once lawyers became involved, it changed, as is so often the case. I am reminded of that great and famous Shakespearean quote, “First kill all the lawyers.” That is a bit drastic, I know—I am not saying we should do it—but it is how many people feel when they hear some European judgments. The status of our judiciary has been perpetually challenged by the European Court in cases presided over by people with questionable experience making questionable rulings. As is often the case with Europe, we sign up to something in theory that turns out to be completely different in practice. That is our frustration with Europe and many of its rulings.

The ruling on the Abu Qatada case revealed that seven of the 11 top judges at the European Court of Human Rights had little or no judicial experience; one was 33 when appointed and had no senior judging experience. British judges go through years of training in the law before their application will ever be considered. To have such under-qualified people overruling our own judges is a slight, but worse still, it is dangerous and leaves us with our hands tied on too many occasions. That is the reason for this debate, I believe.

In the past, and even this very day, article 8 issues are being raised in asylum applications or as a basis for standalone applications for leave to remain in the UK. They have also been raised in appeals against deportation or removal. This was not the reason the article was created; it was not meant to be a free pass into the UK and the benefits of living in such a great nation. According to the Courts Service, in 2010, 233 people won their appeal against deportation, and of those 102 were successful on article 8 grounds. According to figures from the independent chief inspector of UKBA, however, in 2010, 425 foreign national prisoners won their appeals against deportation, and these were won primarily on article 8 grounds.

Whichever figures are right, the matter must be addressed, which is what I think the Home Secretary is trying to do through the motion. While our immigration rules should always take note of human rights issues, they must be based on the needs of the country, which must have the right to caretake those very rights. Article 8 is increasingly difficult to impose legally; it is time to get this right, which is what the motion does.

I have received correspondence from groups stating that the removal of paragraph 395C of the immigration rules is tantamount to sacrilege. That paragraph stated that no one could be removed from the UK if it would contravene the UK’s obligations under the Geneva convention on refugees or the European convention on human rights. It set out a range of factors that UKBA had to consider before deciding to remove a person from the UK and reflected the considerations necessary for assessing compatibility with article 8. Those considerations included the person’s length of residence in the UK, the strength of their connections with the UK, their personal history, their character and conduct, their domestic circumstances and, importantly, any previous criminal record.

Other briefings, however, point out that deleting the paragraph has not altered the UK’s obligations under the convention. We are still bound by the rules, but that does not mean that we cannot implement our own rules. In my view, we have not yet given our sovereignty to Europe. The Home Secretary has confirmed that there will be safeguards for those who have been subjected to torture in their homeland—an assurance that many Members have sought and received. I agree with the Home Secretary in asserting her right, and the right of every UK citizen, to have control over immigration in this country.

I am not by nature someone who scaremongers. If I were, I would be reciting the figures, which are screaming out for an immigration policy change. What I will say is that if we deny ourselves the right to allow or disallow people into the country, will there even be a United Kingdom in the future, or will we be like other countries that have put their trust in the European Union only to find themselves on the brink of demise?

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Several times in his speech the hon. Gentleman has referred interchangeably to the European Union and Europe when discussing the European convention on human rights. It is very important that we make the distinction in this House and in public, because the public are making the same association between the European Union and the European Court, and it is very damaging when trying to understand both institutions and separate them in the public mind.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly we want to focus on where the responsibility for this issue lies.

I want to make a quick comment about what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said. We agree on many things. I am a descendant from an Ulster Scot from the lowlands of Scotland, so I have an affinity with the Scottish nation. It is very obvious which papers he does not read in his house, but it is also obvious what his concerns are, and they are rightful concerns. I disagree with him on independence for Scotland, and I also disagree with him on the issue we are discussing, but I am sure that there are many other issues on which we will agree in future.

We have the right to make immigration control rules. As a nation, it is not in our nature to abuse human rights—that is not what this debate is about—and we will certainly not start doing that with these rules, especially when there is an underlying onus to consider the human rights implications in every decision our judiciary makes. I therefore support these rules and the guidance, as well as the clarification that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration have provided. I believe they are necessary and important, and the people I represent want to see them in place.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sandra Osborne]

Yes; that is typical of how staff have been treated in the agency.

The chances of a smooth transition to the referral line and retention of expertise, as the Government claim, are therefore negligible. Given the one third of operators who are disabled, one fifth from BME communities and one fifth who are carers, what equality impact assessment has been made of the changes to the helpline provision? Why the delay with the announcement of the new helpline provider? The announcement was supposed to be made in mid-February, but it is now rumoured to have been pushed back to the middle of May.

The closure of regional offices will exacerbate the problems of advice deserts, where no other advisory services exist, and the commission will lose its vital link to the public and vital access to crucial evidence of emerging issues. Instead of remaining regionally focused, teams have been reassigned to undertake national support work. The loss of those offices and the intelligence-gathering work that they do at grass-roots level, which my hon. Friend mentioned, will have a significant impact on the understanding of equality and human rights across Great Britain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House. Does she agree that in these days of cuts, which we are now shaping up to, there is a danger that we are preventing some people from taking advantage of legal guidance and legal aid? As I suspect that she is aware, we should consider one section of the community in particular: ladies should get legal aid and advice at the time of their life when they need it most.

[Sandra Osborne]

I could not agree more, and I hope to mention that later.

What research has been done to ascertain the impact of the closure of regional offices on the problem of advice deserts and gathering evidence on emerging local issues?

Legal grants—projects providing specialist legal advice and representation in equality and human rights—ended on 31 March, and strategic grants providing guidance, advice and advocacy services, infrastructure development, capacity building and good relations will end in March 2013. Many disability and race groups have benefited from the EHRC grants programme, as they did before the EHRC’s creation. A grant received by a local equality body from the EHRC could, and often did, lead to additional sources of revenue from other funders, such as the lottery, charities and local authorities.

The warnings by experts such as Race on the Agenda in 2007 that the local BME infrastructure would suffer significant funding reductions have been realised, not because of the EHRC’s creation, but because of Government cuts to the EHRC grants programme. The Government have argued that the grants function, among other services, should close because they claim grants have little impact and the service function has not been well managed. Although there is an ongoing complaint about the Government’s statement in this regard, it is perhaps most telling to note that the experts and stakeholders also challenge the Government’s assertion. A survey of providers by the Discrimination Law Association indicated that, without EHRC grants, advice organisations such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres would not be able to sustain their services and that some might have to close down completely. My question to the Minister is, from whom have the Government and/or EHRC received protestations about the withdrawal of the grants programme?

The EHRC’s mediation services have ended. Contrary to the Government’s claims that legal aid will take up the shortfall, once the legal aid reforms are implemented, the only legal aid available for discrimination cases will be for goods, facilities and services cases, which are in the minority and are complex and involve large sums. Employment cases will not be eligible for any legal aid support.

I want to turn now to the loss of independence and United Nations “A” status. In 2009, the commission became one of just 70 United Nations “A” status accredited national human rights institutions. The EHRC is Britain’s first accredited NHRI. The “A” status confers special rights and entitlements to work with the UN Human Rights Council. To determine this status, the UN reviewed the work and structure of the commission at the time and found it to be compliant with the Paris principles. Key Paris principles are that the NHRI must be independent of government and not be subject to financial control that might affect its independence. The commission must also have adequate funding to conduct its activities. The loss of independence, lack of financial control and lack of funding due to 62% cuts mean that this status is in jeopardy.

The commission recently published its framework agreement with the Home Office, which includes details of spending controls and an obligation on the commission to provide a business case for approval to the Home Office’s director of communications for all projects with an element of spend on advertising and marketing. If the project is spending more than £100,000, the business case, once approved by the HO director of communication, should go to the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities. Once HO Ministers have approved it, the EHRC must complete the Cabinet Office’s exemption template and submit the case for approval to the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

The agreement also states that the Home Office should receive near final versions of external EHRC communications 48 hours before issue. I do not know whether that is independence. Many MPs will be surprised that the framework agreement dictates how the commission interacts with Parliament and yet states categorically that the commission must be politically neutral and abide by the Cabinet Office’s rules on lobbying for non-departmental public bodies.

The commission is also instructed to issue guidance to staff, outlining when and how briefings for Parliament are developed, the style of briefings and how briefings should be internally cleared. Does the Minister believe that the framework agreement complies with the Paris principles, particularly relating to independence? Has he assessed the impact of the proposed budget cut to £26 million by the end of this year on the commission’s independence?

The current restructuring at the EHRC repeats many of the mistakes identified in the Public Accounts Committee report of 2010. The report highlighted the problem of staff with valuable skills leaving through an early exit scheme and went on to recommend that the Treasury and the Cabinet Office should ensure that they provide clear guidelines on the need to consider the retention of key skills when devising early exit schemes.

According to an answer to a parliamentary question, the EHRC spent £500,000 a month at one stage on consultancy fees and expenses for interim staff who are leading the work on reforming the commission. That is neither an acceptable use of public money, nor is it in the interests of the taxpayer. These major changes are occurring as questions about the commission’s new chair go unanswered. What assurances can the Minister give that the commission will not lose more skilled and experienced staff through more early exit schemes and that it will not replace staff already lost with costly consultants in the future? Can he say whether the Treasury and the Cabinet Office have produced the guidelines recommended by the PAC to ensure the retention of skilled staff, and has the commission followed that guidance? When will its next chair be announced?

Key stakeholders who responded to the Government consultation on the future of the EHRC, which was called “Building a fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission”, made clear the need to maintain the EHRC’s funding and remit. However, the Government have so far refused to publish the results of the consultation in detail, despite freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions and an official letter to the Home Secretary from the general secretary of the TUC. So I have another question for the Minister. I am asking lots of questions, but that is because there are lots of questions to be answered. Will he publish the responses to the Government consultation on the future of the EHRC and, given the Home Office’s report on its own website that the majority of respondents opposed the changes to the EHRC, will the Minister halt further cuts?

There are many reasons for the EHRC to be proud of its achievements in its first two years. In fact, those achievements are too numerous to mention all of them in the time that I have available today. To mention just a couple of them, the EHRC has ensured protection against discrimination in employment for 6 million carers and exposed exploitation of migrant workers in the meat-processing sector.

There are still many equality challenges facing Britain today that require the presence of an effective EHRC. The annual reports of the Tribunals Service show a substantial increase in the number of claims lodged in employment tribunals since 2008-09. In addition, there are planned cuts to legal aid worth £350 million, and there will be a £1.166 billion reduction in grants to local government. At the same time, confidence in the voluntary sector is at an all-time low, and a voluntary sector in crisis cannot fill the vacuum left by funding cuts to local government grants, legal aid and the EHRC. A Government who take equality seriously would be committed to a future-proofed EHRC.

However, I acknowledge—as do many of the EHRC’s natural allies—that it has not all been plain sailing for the EHRC. Its first three sets of accounts were qualified by the National Audit Office, and obvious tensions between staff, senior management and the commissioners have no doubt had an impact on the EHRC’s ability to achieve its goals. The Government have sought to attack and undermine the work of the EHRC, particularly because of financial management issues. However, responsibility for those issues does not lie with those who work on the helpline, the grants team and the mediation service, or in regional offices. Any such issues should be sorted out, but they should not be used as an excuse to cut essential services to those who are in need and to those who are suffering discrimination.

As I have already said, despite concerns about the EHRC’s performance, non-governmental organisations, unions and others still want to see an effective, robust and independent EHRC, and I agree with them as the chair of the all-party group on equalities. Those bodies want a future in which an outward-looking, integrated and well-resourced commission that is in touch with the grass-roots concerns and needs of ordinary people provides much-needed enforcement powers, advice and support to the people of Britain, as they face the dire economic challenges brought about by this Government’s policies.

Khat

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I am delighted to have secured this debate, and I would like to start by paying tribute to the attempts by successive Governments to deal head on with specific issues encountered by minority communities—as we heard only today with the Prime Minister’s commitment to address forced marriage. I must admit, however, to being slightly disappointed that, as a Member of a party that raised the expectations of my constituents by pledging to ban the drug khat while in opposition—a commitment made by no fewer than three members of the shadow Cabinet on three separate occasions—I stand here yet again calling on the Government finally to fulfil their very clear commitment. This is not a partisan issue. Indeed, as I sense we shall see tonight, it unites the House, and it is time that the Government acted.

I have three main points to make but I shall give first a little background, which I hope will mean that the Minister in his response will not need to dwell on the past, but can focus on the future actions his Department intends to take. The distinctive customs and traits of other cultures constitute the vibrant country that we live in today. East African culture has had a particularly far-reaching effect on our society. The religious dedication and hard-working ethos that colour the characters of east Africans have been something to admire over recent years, with independent businesses and community leaders flourishing across towns and cities in the UK. However, with the highs come the lows. One element of east African culture which has long been disputed is the legality of the native east African drug khat. Given the frequency with which khat has been discussed over the past year, I know that most hon. Members are now familiar with the drug, but for the benefit of those who are not, I shall explain in more detail.

Khat plants are grown in Africa and the middle east, and are chewed primarily among Somali, Ethiopian and Yemeni communities. The effects of khat are varied but as a stimulant it creates euphoria and increased sociability—hence its popularity at social gatherings such as weddings. However, the paranoia, aggression and hallucinogenic effects make it extremely disruptive not just to the individual and their health, but to their family and wider society.

Khat is a barrier to inclusion and integration, and it was my sincere impression—and more importantly that of my constituents—that this Government intended to act. This is the second time I have raised the subject of khat in this Chamber and I was deeply encouraged when the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). confirmed in response to the first debate that in February last year the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was ordered to carry out a full review of the available evidence on khat, and to reconsider the question of controlling it. One year on, and with no report to speak of and none expected anytime soon—indeed, this week the Department confirmed that it will be at least another year—the same amount of limited research is available to us.

From the first mention of khat in Parliament 16 years ago to this very day, Members on both sides of the House have shared their evidence. From Portsmouth to Glasgow, councils and local authorities are standing in isolation, but what we need is a joined-up, united front. My debate today has been sparked by the frustration of my constituents that after 19 months of the coalition Government we appear to be no further forward.

In seeking to progress the matter, I wish to highlight three distinct points. First, I wish to remind my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, of the detrimental impact that khat has on issues ranging from health to crime. This will demonstrate how simply kicking this issue into the long grass with further “monitoring” is simply unacceptable. Secondly, I want to revisit the pledge that we made in opposition to act on khat, and to ask why we now seem to be shying away from this pledge. Lastly, I will suggest that tackling khat fits in with this Government’s recent accomplishments in determinedly facing up to the problems that divide our minority communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined some of the side effects of the drug, which also include insomnia and depression. Does he feel that those two health effects are sufficient reason to ask that the legislation be changed urgently? Does he agree that it is important that any legislative change should affect all the regions, in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, so that it applies UK-wide?

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; indeed, I will come to the health effects in greater detail shortly. However, let me be absolutely clear that I am pressing for this Government to act in the manner that he suggests.

In my constituency, there are more than 6,000 Somali residents. One of the leaders of the Milton Keynes Somali community, Adan Kahin, has shared many alarming stories with me. His biggest concern is that khat is at the root of family breakdown, owing to issues such as unemployment, economic hardship or aggression arising from heavy usage. Adan has expressed explicit concern about the number of teenage boys whose fathers are absent from the home, instead spending all day chewing in a mafrishi, or khat house. If the Government are truly concerned about the antisocial behaviour witnessed last summer, it is vital that we shine a light into those corners of society. Adan has warned of usage spreading to female members of the community—women who are left alone all day with large numbers of children and little escape. What links all users, however, is the common belief that turning to khat will alleviate the destitution and stress that permeate their lives. I am even aware of instances in well-regarded British institutions where khat has been chewed inappropriately during working hours. There have also been complaints about disturbances caused by delivery of the plant and violence outside mafrishis, with one incident even leading to the death of a seller in my constituency.

Our hands-off policy means that there is absolutely zero quality control. One box of khat checked by port health at Heathrow contained such high levels of pesticides that it was unfit for human use, and that is just one box out of the 10 tonnes arriving each week. Because of the lack of information held on hospital admissions, we are still uncertain about the overall long-term health effects. Problems range from the need for substantial dental treatment, owing to the quantity of sugar and cigarettes consumed, to more serious conditions, such as liver failure and psychosis. It is clear that health practitioners are clueless about how to advise users. Those wishing for a fresh start are stranded, with little or no support—no addiction services or pharmacological agents who can treat khat dependence. Essentially, there are few ways out.

The last review of khat surmised that usage is not prevalent. That may be true for the mainstream population, but not for the demographic concerned. It has been put to me that the Government are not interested because this is perceived as a minority issue. I know that this is not the case, but it is in the Minister’s hands to demonstrate to my community that he does care, as actions, as we all know, speak louder than words.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which simply underlines what I said earlier. I know that the Minister is committed to equality, which is why I am sure he will address the issue when he responds to this debate. Khat does easily not fit a pre-existing drugs profile, given that its use is limited to certain ethnic communities. That is precisely why we must give it special attention.

Let me move on to my second point. The Government’s silence on this issue prompted me to re-read our manifesto, to make sense of the khat conundrum, but it holds no evidence of a U-turn, with other evidence actually pointing to the contrary. In a 2008 article in The Guardian, the co-chair of the Conservative party, the noble Baroness Warsi, claimed that khat was

“far from harmless and should be banned”.

Indeed, the title of that article was “Conservatives will ban khat”—not “Conservatives might ban khat”, not “Conservatives will consider banning khat”, not “Conservatives will seek advice from the ACMD and then ban khat”, but “Conservatives will ban khat”. In a 2006 report entitled “The Khat Nexus”, the then shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), claimed that a Tory Government would

“schedule khat as a class B drug.”

Those were watertight pledges, made regardless of an ACMD review. So if nothing else, can the Minister explain to my constituents why we now appear to have had a change of heart?

This Government have, however, made a beeline for new legal highs. It is right that we award legal highs that attention, but we cannot ignore the fact that khat, by its very nature, also fits the description of a legal high. I was shocked to learn that cathine and cathinone, two components of khat, are members of the same group of drugs as mephedrone. As components, cathinone and cathine are illegal, as is mephedrone, yet contradicting all common sense, khat, which contains those same substances, is legal. I would like to know how we can continue to promote the hypocritical message that cathinone is okay in one substance but not in another? Just because a drug is legal does not mean it is safe. Tackling new legal highs cannot be a flag-waving policy; we must not forget the question of khat, which has languished in this Chamber year after year. As we take action on those powerful synthetic drugs, khat users and their families watch from the sidelines as their plea goes unheard yet again.

Another reason for my keen interest in this topic is that it is a cross-party point of concern. Wherever large immigrant groups of Somalis settle, the problem of khat is never far behind. This is an issue that the whole House can support, and we should therefore be working towards an integrated solution. It does not help that councils and local authorities are standing alone on the issue. I commend Hillingdon council’s recent report, produced in 2011, which was forthright enough to make recommendations to the Government on matters ranging from classification to temporary bans.

Unlike the UK, some countries are acting. As of yesterday, even the Netherlands—a country renowned for its liberal drugs policy—has banned khat. The UK is now the only legal point of entry for khat into Europe, and that is an embarrassing position to find ourselves in. The Dutch Government have clearly stated that 10% of users, who are predominantly Somali, develop problems with khat. I want to ask the Minister what is preventing us from safeguarding our citizens in the same fashion. The most disturbing comparison comes from Somalia itself: even that war-torn country has made moves to control khat. Islamist courts there are working to put a stop to the khat scourge, and to promote a more stable and cohesive society. What we need is joined-up thinking, and top-down leadership to reassure councils and communities that they are not alone. This is an ideal opportunity for the Government to prove to our communities that we recognise—and, indeed, will tackle—the problems on their doorstep.

That leads me nicely on to my third and final point, which is the commendable way in which this Government have faced up to issues that traditionally effect ethnic minority communities. We have not shied away from those problems, which are so often left to rot at the core of our society. We have rightly begun to take steps to address forced marriage in this country—an issue that has shocked the nation and that works directly against the values and self-worth that we teach our young women, of every background, in British schools. The work that we are promoting on the subject of domestic violence will have a direct effect on majority and minority ethnic communities.

That is not all. I was encouraged to read in the Conservative manifesto that we would be promoting improved community relations for minority ethnic communities, which action on khat will help to deliver. In my own constituency, good work is being done to address those marginalised, sometimes controversial, issues; acting on khat will not be out of step with the current momentum. We can prove to those who doubt our intentions that when we make promises, we stick to them, which is why I am sure the Minister will agree that it is important, given our previous promises, that we are seen to act on khat.

Finally, I want to bring the debate right up to date. We are standing here today, almost one year on from the report being ordered, with no new evidence from the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs. Since its appearance on the British crime survey of drug misuse, the usage of khat has increased. We are unaware of the percentage of khat imports that are being used to extract cathinone and cathine, and in turn, being illegally re-exported. Also, we have only anecdotal evidence that usage is spreading to the indigenous population. Why have we not commissioned a report to explore that threat?

Today, I want to know why my Government’s previous enthusiasm for acting on khat has waned so suddenly. May I ask the Minister to consider how I should respond when my constituents ask again what the Government are doing to protect future generations from the dangers of khat? And—if I may have the audacity to predict his response—may I ask whether he realises that, in order to get the evidence that his Department repeatedly demands, procedures have to be put in place first, in order to reap that information? Banning khat is unfailingly the end-state that I and the community want from this Government, as previously promised, but I wish to outline other possible interim measures.

[Jim Shannon]

The drug khat is controlled in America, Canada, Norway and Sweden, to mention but four examples. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Government could make contact with those countries to ascertain how they went about criminalising the drug? Might this not provide a way forward on the basis of information that might be helpful for the Government?

[Mark Lancaster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, which underlines the ridiculous point that, following the Dutch move only this week, khat is controlled everywhere in the western world apart from in the United Kingdom.

These are the interim suggestions I would make to the Minister—hopefully to be implemented before we get around to banning khat. Better provisions must be made for addict support. The most effective way of delivering this would be to provide targeted training to those already working within areas affected by khat, to deal with it in a culturally acceptable way. Community mobilisers who already assist with housing, health and education are incredibly well placed to co-ordinate this. Evidence suggests that heavy users are unlikely to seek help, which means that we must do more to reach them.

Secondly, a full health practitioners’ guide to khat and its health effects should be prepared and delivered to GPs and pharmacists nationwide. Thirdly, greater attention must be given to the importation of khat at ports. Finally, the disruption caused by khat houses and mafrishi congregations can be controlled through licensing. A minimum age should be introduced to protect young British citizens from the harm caused by the drug. Checks must be carried out on premises to ensure that they comply with health and safety standards.

After years of talk on khat, if my Government wish to retain the trust of the east African community, the time has come to follow the rest of the western world and act on khat.

Animal Experimentation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Throughout my time in Parliament I have consistently campaigned on animal welfare issues. I do not believe that I have been unreasonable, extreme or silly about those issues, but I have endeavoured to ensure that animals’ interests have been represented in this Chamber. By virtue of a ten-minute rule Bill, together with Lord Houghton of Sowerby and the then Minister, Douglas Hogg, I was fortunate to secure on the statue book the Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988. There are many other animal welfare measures regarding pet shops, exotic and endangered species, puppy farming and the like which I have tried to encourage through legislation. In 1986 I served on the Committee that considered the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill.

In 1876 Parliament passed the first legislation in any country in the world to control live experiments that might cause pain. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 was a response to some horrifying reports about the practice of surgical procedures on live animals without anaesthesia. That Act stood the test of time well, but the 1986 legislation brought it up to date. I well remember the then Minister, David Mellor, doing battle with the former Member of Parliament Harry Cohen. It was a very interesting exchange of views, but I am glad that the measure that ultimately reached the statute book was well appreciated.

The European Union has adopted a new directive on animal testing—Directive 2010/63. I point out to the Minister that the Home Office will be amending the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to comply with the directive. A number of colleagues have already contacted me to say that they are very concerned about this matter. It is true that there will be a public consultation, and I understand that the Home Office is currently analysing responses and putting together a draft proposal that will be sent to Parliament next year. However, my colleagues and I are very concerned about the European directive, simply because we in this country pride ourselves on the way in which we treat animals, and we need to be convinced that all countries in the European Union have the same high standards as we do.

Our country is allegedly a nation of animal lovers. Sadly, words and actions do not always match up. I consider the measure of a civilisation to be how animals are treated. I pay tribute to the many organisations and groups that battle to stop cruelty to animals, helping to generate support and awareness about various issues. As regards the particular matter that I wish to raise with the Minister, I am indebted to Kathy Archibald and Louise Owen, who, among others, have briefed me so well. Indeed, they are probably on the line now, hoping that I can make changes to the speech and get in yet another piece of lobbying.

Writing in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, David Horrobin answered the question:

“Does the use of animal models of disease take us any closer to understanding human disease?”

His response echoes the concerns that I wish to raise in the House tonight:

“With rare exceptions, the answer to this is likely to be negative.”

The process before clinical drugs come to be tested on a human being should be well understood, but I am not sure that it is. Anyone who hopes to get a new drug on to the market must first put it through a series of tests on various animals. It is that reliance on animals as a final safety screen before products go to clinical trials that concerns me, for that “safety screen” is no such thing. Animal models are not a reliable indicator of how a human being will react to a drug.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has just taken her place, will be glad to hear that I have already raised the European directive that she is concerned about, and that the Minister nodded. I am therefore optimistic that Home Office officials will be working on the advice right now.

The safety of medicines is an issue of increasing concern. Every year, 1 million Britons are hospitalised by prescription medicines. That costs the NHS up to £2 billion a year. The Safety of Medicines Bill, which I introduced earlier this year, is intended to safeguard against this growing problem. I believe that the Bill has widespread support—but then I would say that. However, it has been misrepresented, although not intentionally I am sure, and it has certainly been misunderstood. Although my opposition to cruelty to animals is well documented, it is important to make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not call for animal tests to be replaced per se. It is about determining the best means to ensure the safety of medicines and to protect patients against adverse drug reactions.

It could be argued that the use of animals is ethically and morally wrong. Many people would argue that strongly. However, in this debate the criticism of the use of animals focuses not on the suffering of the animal, which can be quite shocking, but on the fact that animal models are not accurate indicators of human responses. That in turn creates risks for volunteers, patients and sufferers during and after human clinical trials. I believe that there is ample evidence to support the argument that animal models do not function properly in their role.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I do not often disagree with the hon. Gentleman or question him. However, there are many examples of medicines that have been perfected by their use on animals and have saved lives. How will he ensure that that continues to happen, given what he has been setting out? My concern is that there is some goodness in this practice. Let us not lose that.

[Mr Amess]

The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree on many things, and it would be a shame if we fell out on this issue. I hope to prove by the end of my contribution that there would certainly not be the adverse impact that he fears.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amess]

I apologise to my hon. Friend in case I was going too far on one side; my argument needs to be balanced.

Mutations that cause genetic disease in humans are the norm in some animals. Johnson et al found in 2001 that out of 39 anti-cancer drugs tested on xenograft mice, only one mimicked the response in humans. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that that cannot be much to rely on.

[Jim Shannon]

We need balance in the debate because we are getting one side of the argument but not the other, which is that drugs have been successful in saving lives. I am not taking away for one second from those who have died as a result of inappropriate drugs but, with respect, we need that balance, but we are not getting it.

[Mr Amess]

Frankly, one life lost is too many, but we could have a big argument—

[Jim Shannon]

One life saved is worth it.

[Mr Amess]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a question of balance, but I hope to prove that animal experimentation is completely unnecessary and that we can achieve the same results through different methods.

There is a variation of response within humans—African Americans are more susceptible to lung cancer than Caucasians—so how can we expect animals to be reliable models?

Using animals as human indicators is also expensive, for it can keep cures off the market, hence the large cost of modern drugs to consumers and the health service generally. In the words of Robert Weinberg, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the use of pre-clinical tests results in

“hundreds of millions of dollars…being wasted every year by drug companies using these [animal] models”,

according to Leaf 2004.

Other areas of valuable research that might help in understanding the impact of drugs in human beings suffer as a result of animal testing. Despite animal models forming a very minor part of research, they receive a large proportion of funding. Society does not need new research methods; it simply needs to fund the ones that we already have. The important point is that it is possible to test these clinical drugs on humans, so that we can have a better indication of how they will react pre and post-clinical trials.

Society needs to make a fundamental change from animal-based research to human-based research. If it is humans whom we are trying to help, then scientists must study disease and drug reactions in humans. New technologies, outlined by the Safer Medicines Trust, are based on monitoring human responses to new drugs in a variety of ways. Those range from combinations of tissues in “body-on-a-chip” devices to safe volunteer studies such as micro-dosing, where tiny amounts of a new drug are administered to human volunteers. Scientists, in turn, evaluate what the drug does to the body and what the body does to the drug. Micro-dosing in particular has shown to be highly predictive of results in the clinic. Astoundingly, these tests are already commercially available from a number of UK companies, and offer a much safer and less risky alternative to using animals in clinical trials.

More than 150 colleagues have signed a motion calling on the Government—it is Christmas and this is not too much to ask—to initiate a small, cheap comparative study to demonstrate whether these new technologies are indeed superior. Sadly, the Government are resisting such a study and insist that human biology-based tests are not better able to predict adverse drug reactions than animal tests, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, but my hon. Friend’s main point seemed to be that the human trials of Vioxx revealed an issue of which no one took any notice.

I think that my hon. Friend went a bit too far in suggesting—if I heard him aright—that animal models could not, or perhaps could only rarely, be used effectively to find treatments for human diseases. I believe that they have contributed hugely to the development of drugs that have saved lives.

[Jim Shannon]

What is sought by Members, and by many outside the House, is an assurance that any potential or suggested changes, or improvements, made by the Minister would not affect experimentation on animals to provide new medication that could save lives. It is clear that the medicines that have been perfected through such experimentation have saved not just hundreds of thousands but millions of lives. Can the Minister assure us that it will continue?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I can assure all Members in all parts of the House that the Government want the development of those medicines to continue, as long as a responsible and careful attitude is adopted to the animals that are used in the quest for better medicines. Those who conduct such experiments must adhere to the stringent standards to which I have referred, and search further and harder for alternative technologies. When I visited University College hospital recently, I saw some of the machinery that it is using instead of animals. The advances that have been made, have almost been made or will be made in the near future are amazing, and I am sure that any institution, whether a university, a scientific research establishment or a commercial venture, will want to provide the best conditions for their animals in order to get the best results.

Immigration (Stranraer/Cairnryan)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Chamber tonight. Obviously Stranraer and Cairnryan are critical, but there also has to be a domino effect. Perhaps it is time to go back to where people come in. Does he feel that the Minister should consider how he can curtail immigration from the Republic through to Northern Ireland and into Scotland?

[Mr Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that there appears to be a weak link, because people can get easy access to Northern Ireland. People can get on a bus in Belfast, and the next stop could well be Birmingham or London. It is as simple as that. The Immigration Minister told me in correspondence that it would be too expensive to find out how many illegal immigrants had absconded on their way to a UKBA office. How on earth can the Government make those cuts and then not monitor the effectiveness of the processes in place?

Dumfries and Galloway police have told me of an alarming case of two illegal immigrants. They were detained in Belfast overnight and told to report to the UKBA the following morning, but instead were detected disembarking at Stranraer after crossing on the ferry. Despite flouting the rules once, the only course of action available to the local police was to release them with instructions to attend the UKBA office in Glasgow. As the police said:

“Do we honestly think, given this course of conduct, that they would have any intention of attending?”

The Minister needs to tell us why he is not doing anything to close this massive loophole in our border security. The Government have turned a blind eye throughout to worries about security at the ports. The Prime Minister told me during Prime Minister’s questions on 24 November last year that he would

“look very carefully…to make sure that the system is working.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 260.]

Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the Prime Minister followed that up, or whether, as I suspect, they were nothing more than empty words.

In a letter to me dated 4 January this year, the Immigration Minister promised personally to review the security arrangements at the end of February. Perhaps he could tell me today what he found, because I can find no record of his review. The only study of the arrangements since the Government’s cut was carried out by the UKBA and published in August this year. The scope was extremely narrow, and Dumfries and Galloway police have confirmed that there was no contact from any Government Minister. Both the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister promised me they would look at this issue personally. To the best of my knowledge, neither has done so. I hope the Minister will today commit to a full independent review of the arrangements in place at the Galloway ports.

The Government’s first duty is to the safety and security of citizens. The removal of financial support for ports police from Galloway ports is putting that at risk simply to save money. The Minister has serious questions to answer today. Will he tell us why he ignored the concerns of Dumfries and Galloway police and pressed ahead with that irresponsible cut? Is he still unable to tell the House how many illegal immigrants disappeared following release after detection at the Galloway ports? Given that we are just scratching the surface of the illegal immigration problems at the ports, will the Government concede that the case for the reversal of the cut in UKBA funding is now overwhelming? I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we have a large expanse of CCTV. In my area, we have them in our town, but there is a demand coming from the general public. The right hon. Gentleman has given one example in which cameras have proved useful. In the town that I represent, the general public want CCTV. It has reduced crime in the town centre by 50%, car theft by 45% and theft of other items by 55%. Clearly, CCTV can deliver and is a sleeping policeman that reduces crime.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—if I can call him that—for his comments. I shall quote from an article last week in the Batley and Birstall News:

“Sgt Chris Hughes from Batley Neighbourhood Policing Team said the cameras were a ‘massive plus’ for the police. He said: ‘CCTV is independent evidence at the end of the day telling us exactly what’s going on and whether someone should be charged with an offence or not. CCTV is a massive, massive investigation tool for the police. We rely on it for everything from street crime to terrorist activity and murder.’”

In supporting the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friends, I simply point out that the coalition agreement states clearly that the Government want to roll back “state intrusion”. That sends a signal about a starting place which is not the starting place I am at.

--- Later in debate ---

It is also worth mentioning the small organisations that do not have access to specialist help and advice on CRB checks, and that are not familiar with the complexity of the system, in which individuals receive different types of CRB checks. Has the Minister given any thought to what she said in Committee on making information on the new system available to voluntary and community groups, and on providing the information required so that people fully understand what the system means? They also need to understand what is happening when someone is trying to hoodwink them, as I have described, by pretending that the CRB certificate is not available for some spurious reason.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government also need to be clearer in their explanation of how the continuous updating of CRB checks will work? Many people are currently unsure.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because how that system will work is unclear. I cannot get my head around the updated procedures. What consent will need to be given? What information about employees or volunteers will be made available to employers or voluntary sector groups? When will barring information be made available? If someone is barred while they are employed, will that information be made available readily to an employer? The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which illustrates the fact that information on how the system will work needs to be made widely available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend puts the case very well, and I hope the Minister will reflect on the issue of barred status information not being made available—which we have just voted on—and on this whole area of supervision, and consider whether to redefine or remove entirely the concept of supervision.

Let me discuss the example of David Lawrence. For many years he was a football coach volunteering for a team in a junior league in the Avon area. In the late 1990s, working with Fair Play for Children, the Football League tightened its safeguarding procedures and uncovered a string of allegations made against Mr Lawrence dating back to the 1970s, but he had no convictions. He was removed from the football club and shortly afterwards was convicted of an offence against a young boy. Shockingly, just two months after release, in the early 2000s, he was once again volunteering at a local football club. It was a club in a league affiliated with the Football Association, but it was not conducting even basic checks on those who volunteered with it. Mr Lawrence was in a series of supervised volunteer positions, but if this Bill is passed in its current form there will be no legal requirement to conduct any checks on his background. The case shows that statutory regulation is needed to force activity providers to conduct background checks on individuals. Because so much of the relevant information is often soft information—we have just debated that at length—these background checks should go through the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

A redefinition of “supervision” is set out in amendments 114 to 116, which seek to deal with the Government’s definition of the term. We discussed that at great length in Committee, including a number of different options for the definition. Using a definition of “day to day” supervision to cover people such as a football coach or an assistant in a school classroom is not sufficient, as it allows individuals to be left unsupervised for long periods. For example, a football coach could take the same group of children to a different part of a playing field regularly—on a weekly basis—and that is of concern. The definition would also allow a volunteer at a drama group to teach mime to a group of children in a different room from the person supposed to be supervising them. Someone with that ability to take part in activities away from where their supervisor is should be subject to background checks.

A survey conducted by the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations suggested that three quarters of parents want background checks to be carried out unless they have personally chosen the person who has access to their child. The brief on which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children led stated:

“We are concerned that the proposed definition of regulated activity does not cover some groups of people who have frequent and close contact with children. This creates risks for children. Those who seek to harm children can be predatory and manipulative. If certain types of work are exempt from vetting and barring, in some sectors or settings, but not in others, dangerous adults are likely to target those organisations with weaker arrangements.”

It continues:

“Our key outstanding concern is about the exclusion of supervised work from regulated activity: The Bill exempts many positions from regulated activity simply by virtue of them being under ‘regular day to day supervision’. However supervised employees and volunteers are still able to develop relationships with children which could be exploited. For example, a volunteer teaching assistant in a classroom of 30 children, with only light-touch supervision by the classroom teacher, has plenty of opportunity to develop inappropriate relationships and groom children.

The definition of ‘regular day to day supervision’ is not sufficient because it could be understood to include individuals who have a ‘supervisor’ on site, but who are able to work with groups of children on their own for significant periods of time, with no one directly supervising their work.”

The first recommendation in the report by the all-party group on child protection was to tighten up the definition of “supervision”. In its response to that report, the Home Office said that it agreed that regulated activity should cover all those positions where individuals have close contact and can develop trusting relationships with children. Unfortunately, the Government have not tabled any amendments to allow us to deal with that.

We welcome Government amendments 22 and 63. We are glad that the Government have heeded the calls made by the Opposition and by leading charities in the area, including the NSPCC, to introduce statutory guidance on the issue of supervision.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the concerns that many people and lots of organisations have about supervision—this has been expressed to me and I suspect to many others in the House—is the level of complexity and the degree of risk involved. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government should reconsider that issue and how they can best address it to everyone’s satisfaction?

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. All members of the Public Bill Committee had real concerns about this issue, and wanted further explanation and statutory guidance to be produced by the Government. We are therefore pleased that these amendments will assist that definition, but we are also concerned that we have not had an opportunity in the House to debate and discuss exactly what “regulated activity” and “supervision” are, how they fit together and whether or not we need to revisit the matter. I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance that the protection set out in the Bill and these Government amendments will be sufficient to deal with the kind of examples that I have given, where people have been able to abuse their position in schools, charities or other voluntary sector groups.

The all-party group’s second recommendation was that the Government should introduce statutory guidance, so again this move is to be welcomed. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those points.

[Diana Johnson]

As I said, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division and I am pleased that the Government have seen the sense in having statutory guidance on supervision. It is unfortunate that the House has not had the opportunity to consider any draft guidance that the Government might wish to introduce, although I assume that we will see that later in the day.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am conscious of the time. Does she feel that this measure is about reducing the number of those being checked? If it is, it is flawed. That is one of my concerns. Most employers will carry out a non-regulated activity that will not require the barred list information or an enhanced disclosure. In other words, things will thereby not be done in the way they should to get full disclosure. I know that we are not going to divide the House on this point, but I am very concerned about what it means.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the amendment?

Human Trafficking

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Field]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which bears witness to what I said earlier about this not simply being a policing matter but one with a focus on justice and social services, housing and the work of local authorities. The most important thing to learn is that solving the problem needs a multidisciplinary approach.

A pernicious trend emerged in my constituency of vans depositing women and children by Knightsbridge tube station in the morning to be picked up in the evening after a lucrative day’s begging. A couple of years ago, police raided properties in the constituency of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) to crack down on Romanian and Bulgarian gangs who had trafficked children to pick the pockets of Londoners in my constituency and beyond.

Tackling adult trafficking is co-ordinated, as the Minister knows, by the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which was set up five years ago to bring together a range of stakeholders—police forces, the UK Border Agency, non-governmental organisations and so on. It acts alongside UKBA as one of the competent authorities for the national referral mechanism.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Government have signed up to the directive on human trafficking, which is good news, but they have refused to appoint an independent rapporteur who would have overseen it and ensured that they fulfilled their obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that should be done as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Field]

I confess that I do. It is important, and I hope that the Minister will specifically pick up that point, because in this shadowy world beyond what one might regard as the normal scrutiny of the political process, it is all the more important that the voiceless are given a distinct voice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has described.

The national referral mechanism is a framework for identifying victims of human trafficking and ensuring that they receive appropriate care. It essentially means that if the police, social services or NGOs believe that they have encountered a trafficking victim, a referral is made for a decision on whether they qualify for a place in a Ministry of Justice safe house for 45 days. The 45-day period is designed to allow the referred person to recover and reflect on whether they wish to co-operate with police inquiries, return to their country of origin or take other action to get their life back on track.

The situation with child trafficking victims is slightly different in having its focal point with the trafficking unit of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Its work is assisted in the London area by Paladin, a dedicated team of Metropolitan police officers and UKBA staff based at Heathrow, who are tasked with stopping child trafficking through the entry points into London. Profiled compellingly by Bridget Freer in April in The Sunday Times magazine, Paladin is an absolutely tiny team with an enormous remit.

There are many deep concerns about the effectiveness of the approach being taken. UKHTC has been absorbed into the Serious Organised Crime Agency, a move criticised on the basis that the sheer size of SOCA dilutes the sense of purpose in dealing with human trafficking. With SOCA due to be replaced by a national crime agency, where do we anticipate UKHTC being placed?