Installation of Telecommunications Infrastructure

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It raises an important question: why can we not get this co-ordinated?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward; she brings many important issues to the House, and this is another one. In Northern Ireland we have a clear planning process that involves the councils—in my case, Ards and North Down Borough Council—and the planning department will look at these things. There is also a role for the telecommunications firms. If they put telegraph poles outside anybody’s house, that person has a right to object, if they block their view or car access; it may even block their sightlines. We have community and council involvement, therefore. Does she agree that, to address these issues to the satisfaction of our constituents, about whom she is very concerned, we need either a change in legislation or clarification from the Minister?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree.

The changes brought in in 2013 were introduced for only five years, but they have now been extended indefinitely, allowing the situation we are all talking about today. I want to concentrate on what this means for my constituents.

Currently, residents in Hull are finding telegraph poles being erected around their properties, and sometimes on their properties, without any consultation process that allows them to raise their concerns. These poles are cheap, cumbersome and impact on the value and aesthetic worth of people’s properties. Poles are often built in close proximity to people’s driveways, in their gardens and outside their windows, often with wires dangling down from house to house in each direction.

One of my constituents has muscular dystrophy and in a few years they may, sadly, need to use a wheelchair. Returning from work one day, she discovered a telegraph pole had been erected outside her front gate, so close that if she ever does need to use a wheelchair to leave her house she will find it very difficult. Another constituent with a disability has had a pole erected in the middle of his driveway, making access to his property more difficult when getting his medication dropped off. An elderly constituent who has lived in their house for 51 years has contacted me, distressed, explaining that they do not want a neighbourhood overrun with telegraph poles. These people do not want to stand in the way of progress or stop people finding broadband that works for them; they just want a say in the place they call home.

It is not just residents who are affected, of course. A business in my community has had a telegraph pole placed on the corner of its commercial property, stopping articulated lorries gaining access to its warehouse, restricting its operations. Understandably, it complained and tried to have the pole moved. However, it was told by the company concerned, Connexin, that it was meeting all its legal requirements and nothing could be done. This is a 20,000 square foot business with a very large loading bay; it is not beyond the wit of man to facilitate an open discussion that would find an adequate position for these telegraph poles, but the company has no legislative obligation to consult so it is not doing so. Instead, it has fallen to my constituent to now have deliveries from around the world brought in on smaller vehicles at an extra cost. The business has been there for 11 years, and Connexin can force the business to change its operations without any consideration completely legally. That is unacceptable.

With no consultation with residents or the local planning authority, there is no consideration of the impact these poles can have on the daily lives of homeowners and the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I will come on to what I think should happen in terms of regulation.

I will talk about telecommunications in Hull, because we are unique and different from the rest of the UK. The Minister may be aware that, historically, we have had only one provider of telephone services and broadband. Since 2007, that company has been known as KCOM, previously Kingston Communications, with the white telephone boxes that we are famous for. For many years, my constituents contacted me because they were concerned that having a monopoly in the city made broadband more expensive compared with having a range of providers. We know how important choice and competition are, even when they are balanced against loyalty to a local company with a long history and lots of local jobs.

Understandably, people in Hull want to welcome new broadband companies. The Government know that, which is why Openreach and BT infrastructure in the rest of the UK has been extended to other service providers in recent years. According to new broadband providers in Hull, however, KCOM has put up barriers that prevent the sharing of the existing network infrastructure with other companies. I recently met Ofcom, which told me that it could not examine the situation with KCOM or even assess whether it was correct unless a formal complaint was received. If access to KCOM’s infrastructure is still a problem for new companies, and Ofcom has next-to-no power to proactively investigate that, we need to look at the regulator’s powers.

At the moment, it appears that there may be problems in getting access to KCOM’s communication network, so individual companies are choosing to put up their own telegraph poles. That means that these outdated infrastructure eyesores seem to be popping up on every street corner, which is upsetting residents who have no power to object or even advise and compromise on their placement. That is happening across Hull, from Kingswood to Endike Lane and Inglemire Lane, which leads to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He represents Cottingham and has said that he also supports local people being consulted.

In Hull North alone, I have heard from multiple constituents on the Queensway, Tollymore Park, Frensham Close, Bradgate Park, Highgrove Way, Sleightholme Close, Gatwick Garth, Digby Garth, Honley Wood Close, Downhill Drive, Heatherwood Court, Callow Hill Drive, Waterdale, Marydene Drive, Catherine McAuley Close, Ella Street and the Avenues. All have had their lives disrupted and disturbed by what is happening. The lack of power and influence over what happens to their own properties and neighbourhoods is unacceptable.

A mother in my constituency has been told—not asked—that a pole will be erected at the end of her driveway. She describes jumping every time the doorbell detects movement and wondering if people have come to

“ruin our driveway and absolutely terrify my young children”,

who say to her,

“this is our home, not theirs”.

Another constituent says:

“For many years we have wanted the choice of internet provider, but never thought that would be at the expense of telegraph poles littering our neighbourhoods with no sensitivity to placement or consultation with residents”,

but they can do absolutely nothing about it. Even residents who have no intention of using the service that will be introduced by the new infrastructure can do nothing about it.

In Birnam Court in my constituency, every single resident has written to oppose the installation of the telegraph poles and cables, but still they are powerless to stop it. As one Hull resident put it:

“Installers are riding roughshod over residents’ wishes and there is no way to protest.”

So people inevitably complain, but they are told by the company that it has not broken its legal obligations, and that is the end of it. So they complain to Ofcom, and they are told that there is nothing Ofcom can do.

Connexin, the company erecting the telegraph poles that are aggravating most of my constituents, set up in the area a few years ago, stating:

“The people of Hull and the East Riding deserve better from their broadband supplier and every aspect of our new network has been designed with customer experience in mind.”

Parliamentary language is very important, so I will just politely say that that is utter tosh. Connexin is notoriously difficult to get a response from, despite me sending it numerous constituents’ complaints, and it has failed to deal with any of them properly. I finally heard from its offices yesterday, ahead of this debate, to offer to meet me to try and resolve the problem—it is very funny what raising an issue in the House of Commons can do to focus the minds of local companies. This avoidance strategy is completely unacceptable, and I urge anyone who has been affected by the erection of Connexin’s poles to write directly to its chief executive officer, Furqan Alamgir, with their complaints. His email is [e-mail].

Under the Government’s own legislation, the only legal requirement on these network operators is that they notify the local planning authority at least 28 days in advance, and then put up a sign to say that the telegraph pole is coming. That is it. The code of practice accompanying this free-for-all states that operators should initially offer to discuss the application of their proposed network deployment programme with relevant planning authorities, but the local planning authority has no power to stop their plans anyway. Customers and residents are not even considered worth mentioning in the code of practice.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very conscious of the time, and I have got a few more things to say.

I should raise at this point that it is, again, quite opaque whether network operators are actually engaging properly with local authorities about their plans, as the code of practice meekly suggests. If Hull City Council has concerns or believes that the code of practice is not being followed, it can, I understand, complain directly to Ofcom, and then and only then will Ofcom investigate. There is not much teeth to the Government’s guidelines or the code of practice anyway, so it is unlikely that anything would change.

My ask of the Government is simple: repeal the 2013 amendment and make it a statutory requirement for communications network operators to apply for permission to the local planning authority on any proposed installation of telegraph poles, with a requirement for consultation with affected residents before any permissions are issued.

Last week I presented my planning permission for telecommunications telegraph pole installation petition to this House, which had a specific request for the Government to make it a statutory requirement, as I have just set out. I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to my private Member’s Bill, which would also reform the law.

All the residents who contact me recognise that a modern telecoms infrastructure is needed for mobiles and fast broadband, especially if they want a choice of service providers. They are not being unreasonable or obstructive; all they are asking for is due consideration and common-sense solutions to the placing of new infrastructure.

I just want to put on record my thanks to the local Labour councillors who have been working with me, as they, too, have been inundated with complaints: Councillor Gary Wareing, Councillor Rosie Nicola, Councillor Steve Wilson, Councillor Abby Singh and Councillor Marjorie Brabazon. Although they are local councillors in Hull North, the issue, as the Minister will have heard tonight, goes right across the country. It has been raised from Hull to Bolton to Lincoln to Ipswich and beyond, and to Northern Ireland and to Scotland. My own petition has had hundreds of signatures, and I know that many other Members have similar petitions active at the moment too.

What these telecom firms often lack is local knowledge and some common sense. Local people, through a requirement for consultation, can provide that common sense for these companies free of charge. In the end, it will never be good business sense for these companies to annoy and aggravate local people and businesses that we assume they would welcome as potential customers. But this place clearly has a role in rectifying the mistakes of 2013 and in setting out some ground rules that require these companies to behave as they should, not just as they are allowed to get away with at the moment, and I hope the Minister will agree.

School Meals: Hull

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, absolutely. What I have been trying to say in my speech is that there is a link between education and public health, and that at the moment it is clear that they are completely separate. I am trying to bring them together to work collaboratively. I am also grateful for being reminded that, because the previous business went down early, we have until 7 o’clock to debate this issue. I notice that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is in his place, and I know that he usually intervenes in Adjournment debates, so I would be happy to give way to him as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on bringing this debate forward. This issue is appropriate to her own area, but it is one that probably applies across all our constituencies. She has referred to subsidy and the provision of school meals. The importance of that for me and my constituency is also very real, because if we did not have that subsidy and help for those families, some of those young children would never have a solid meal in their day. Does she feel, as I do, that when it comes to making provision for those who are at the bottom of the poverty level and who need our help to get at least one square meal a day, the Government need to respond in a very positive way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have a new Government in place, and I think that they want to deal with some of the long-standing issues in this country around the working poor and how those children can be best served in our schools when it comes to access to hot healthy school food. What Hull was trying to do, from a local authority perspective, was to have those progressive policies that have perhaps been lacking at national level for some time. I am not going to detain the House for much longer. I just have a few more questions, unless the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) would like me to give way to him.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

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

rose—

Abortion Act 1967: 50th Anniversary

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, although the House did give my ten-minute rule Bill to decriminalise abortion its First Reading. It will be interesting to see the result if it is debated again in the new Parliament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am very impressed by the hon. Lady, as she knows because I spoke to her before the debate to ask to intervene. She knows my opinion on these matters. I understand that she is going to bring some things forward, which would be a help, but at the same time we are meant to believe that abortion is somehow an expression of women’s rights, but, on the contrary, some of us believe that it is so often the means by which vulnerable young women are themselves destroyed by the sorrow it can naturally engender. Even when abortion itself does not cause the destruction of women, their mistreatment by the industry that provides abortion daily in this country clearly can.

Statutory Sex and Relationships Education

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on presenting her case, and doing so quite well. I will adopt a similar attitude to my colleague, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). Education is an essential part of the life of a child. Education must be a priority, but we must acknowledge that in the educational life of a child priority must also be given to things that are not simply academic. A holistic education is important. There must be space for personal development and I am completely supportive of that.

In fairness to the hon. Lady, she set out her case fairly well, but I need to put on the record my concerns and those of many others. Things of a personal nature, such as matters of morality, are better left to parents than to others. That is why I stand today to stress that any change in standards of teaching must contain the ability for parents to withdraw their children from classes. As the father of three boys, I was happy that the school took the role of teaching the mechanics of the “birds and the bees”, but I was also happy—indeed, very happy—that the role of teaching morality and the ramifications of choices was left to us to determine and discuss as a family. It is important to put that on the record.

Currently, primary schools do not have to teach pupils beyond the basic biological aspects of sex education that are required by the national curriculum. Secondary schools are required to teach 14 to 16-year-olds about sexually transmitted diseases, and they should do so. All schools must have an up-to-date policy that describes the content and organisation of sex and relationship education that is taught outside of the science curriculum. This policy must be made available for parents, including information on parents’ rights to withdraw their child from lessons if they feel that is important to them. I think the hon. Lady herself said that; I believe that was what she was saying.

[Diana Johnson]

indicated assent.

[Jim Shannon]

If that is what the hon. Lady was saying, that is good news—I think we are probably on the same wavelength. To me, this is essential for any family: the right to teach their child the morality and the standards they hope their child will stick to, and the right to withdraw their child from a lesson that they feel will not complement how they teach their child. Again, that is an absolute must for me and the people I represent.

I read a very interesting article by Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern, which warned that making SRE compulsory would remove the freedom of parents to decide how and when their child is educated on this subject. She wrote:

“For many years, sex and relationship education has not provided a godly stance on sexuality or sexual relationships. Instead, it reflects our society’s increasingly liberal sexual norms.”

It is important that we make the distinction—draw the line—between those two. She continued:

“Making SRE mandatory would limit parents’ freedom to withdraw their children from these lessons if so desired and usurp their responsibility in deciding what they should and should not be taught at what age.”

That is a very important comment from a lady who is greatly respected.

I do not believe that making SRE mandatory can or should happen. As parents, the buck stops with us. We do the best we can with our children and we must be allowed to do so in moral teaching. With the spread of social media, more and more of our young people are taking and sending inappropriate photos, and that can lead to unsafe situations. This is something that parents must take on board and discuss with their children; those who do not wish to do so can allow the school to do so. The choice must be available for parents and I stand firmly by that view.

Autism: Diagnosis of Children, Hull

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

First, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting for the Adjournment debate this evening the important subject of the unacceptable length of time families in Hull are having to wait for a diagnosis of autism for their children. It is an issue I have grown increasingly concerned about over the course of the past year.

I was first contacted in spring 2014 by constituents about how long they were having to wait for a diagnosis. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence produced a report in 2011, “Autism: Recognition, referral and diagnosis of children and young people on the autism spectrum”, which states that

“the autism diagnostic assessment”

should start

“within 3 months of the referral”.

The three-month target has since been reinforced by a NICE quality standard on autism, but the service level agreement set by Hull NHS clinical commissioning group is for children to be assessed within 20 weeks of referral, and what is actually happening is very different: families are waiting for well over 12 months, and even for 18 months, to get the diagnosis.

I am particularly concerned about the role of Hull clinical commissioning group, whose job it is to make sure that health services are available and delivered to the local population in a timely manner. I believe the CCG is failing to do that in relation to diagnosing children with autism. It appears not to have a plan on how to tackle the backlog and is also failing to communicate with parents about how long they will really have to wait for a diagnosis. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to reassure me and my constituents that he will take action on the growing problem in Hull—and, I believe, in other parts of the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. She has eloquently outlined the position in Hull. Across Northern Ireland, we have had a 67% increase in the number of individuals with autism and we have 1,300 children waiting to be assessed. The problems in Hull are replicated across the whole United Kingdom. One way in which the issue can be highlighted is, of course, through education in schools and hospitals, but the recognition of Dr Cassidy, chief executive of Autism Northern Ireland, in the new year honours list was another step in raising the profile of those with autism across the whole United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which sets the context very well.

Let me tell the House about the experience of three families in my constituency and what the delays actually mean to families and children in Hull. Jayden was three years old when his family first contacted me. His mum, dad and grandmother were desperate to make sure that Jayden received the help he needed. His parents had tried to arrange an assessment with the autism panel in Hull. Without that diagnosis from the panel, Jayden’s parents could not access the specific local services that he needs. They were told that even if they obtained a private diagnosis from a doctor, it would not be acceptable.

Jayden’s parents have found the whole situation very difficult, and I know that Jayden’s grandmother, Mrs Spivey, has really tried hard to fight for her grandson to get the help he needs. Despite initially being told that it would take 20 weeks for a diagnosis to be made, Jayden’s parents were eventually told that in fact it would take 57 weeks. Jayden is now four years old; he still has no diagnosis and he has no speech. His family wanted him to attend the Early Bird programme, an early intervention scheme, but this is available only to children who have received a diagnosis, and Jayden is still waiting.

Thomas is 11 years old. His parents contacted me in June 2014. They believe that Thomas is on the autistic spectrum and have been trying for several months to obtain support. Thomas is high functioning and the long delay is adding to his anxiety. Thomas was referred to the autism panel in October 2013 and his parents were advised by child and adolescent mental health services that, owing to the severity of his needs, he would be seen within 12 weeks. His parents have now been told that he is on the February 2015 list to start his assessment—15 months since the referral. This is what his parents say:

“Thomas is suffering, he is an intelligent, beautiful little boy whose world is collapsing. He is confused by the behaviours he displays and cannot understand the responses which other people present. He is lonely and desperately in need of support. Likewise we are a family in crisis. We feel that Thomas deserves to know why there is insufficient funding to provide the diagnosis he so desperately needs. A diagnosis would bring him support and access to services which he needs to function.”

Thomas’s parents have had little contact from the CCG. They too were initially told that the waiting time was 20 weeks.

Isaac is three years old, and he suffers from severe social and communication difficulties. His parents requested an assessment for autism/sensory processing disorder He was referred to the autism panel in January 2014. His parents were initially told that he would be assessed within 20 weeks, but they have now been told that it will be Easter 2015 before he is assessed. Isaac’s parents were particularly concerned about applying for schools for him in September without having a formal diagnosis in place.

These families in Hull are clear examples of unacceptable and lengthy delays in a diagnosis of autism causing real stress, hardship and worry to families, as well as to the children themselves who are missing out on services and help.

Legal Highs

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Diana Johnson]

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

“DEX powder–new generation of legal high”

produces a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haemophilia

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve under you today, Mr Weir, and I am pleased to have secured this debate on an issue that I know is of interest to a number of Members from all parties. I pay tribute to the Minister present, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who has taken a keen interest in this area, and with whom I have had a number of meetings. I am a little disappointed that the debate is a short one and that I can give only the headline figures. There are many issues to raise, but I will try to concentrate on just a few.

I pay tribute to my constituent, Glenn Wilkinson, and to his family, who first came to see me in 2010 to tell me their story, and to raise the scandal of how he and thousands of others had received contaminated blood products as part of their treatment as haemophiliacs. There are two main parts to what I want to say today: the first is on the ongoing treatment for haemophiliacs, and the second is on the care, support and treatment offered to people who have contracted viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C through NHS treatment for haemophilia. I also want to pay tribute to the work, over many years, of the Haemophilia Society, and of campaign groups such as TaintedBlood and the Manor House Group, and also to the work of the Newcastle initiative, which was born out of a multidisciplinary workshop on haemophilia care held in the city in autumn 2010.

Turning first to treatment, I want to concentrate on the need to ensure that the care and treatment of people affected by bleeding disorders is addressed in the NHS reforms that are currently before Parliament. The haemophilia community has been the subject of what Lord Winston described in his evidence to the Archer inquiry as the

“worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”.

There has been much progress in haemophilia treatment over the past decade, but it is now under threat, as is much else, from the Health and Social Care Bill, and I will go on to explain why. Standards of care vary considerably around the country, and there is the risk that the new commissioning arrangements for specialist services will result in a levelling down, rather than up, in haemophilia care.

Haemophilia services are currently commissioned by 10 regional specialist commissioning groups, with funds pooled from their constituent primary care trusts. The Department of Health has also injected extra funding for haemophilia care, which rose to £88 million per annum between 2003 and 2006, to finance the provision to all patients of recombinant rather than plasma-derived clotting factors. That money remains important to the quality of care, but has more recently been absorbed into PCTs’ baseline budgets, and I seek reassurance from the Minister that the money will still be available for haemophilia care post the NHS reforms. I understand that from April 2013 specialist services will become the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board rather than of the 10 specialist commissioning groups. That could mean that best practice is spread across England, but equally, there is the danger that under financial pressure standards will be levelled down.

I also want to raise with the Minister the question of where responsibility for haemophilia policy will sit. Because of the contaminated blood scandal, the Department of Health has taken a leading role in the development of that policy, and it is unclear whether after the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill that role will be maintained, or all responsibility will pass to the NHS Commissioning Board. It would help if the Minister could set out her understanding of where that responsibility will sit. Also, will the twice-yearly liaison meetings between the Department and the Haemophilia Society continue? Those meetings were established in direct response to the Archer inquiry’s recommendation that a statutory committee be established to advise the Government on clinical, financial and other provisions for people with haemophilia. There is also a call for a new national policy statement on haemophilia care to replace health service guidance (93) 30, which is now nearly 20 years old and no longer reflects best practice. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen at this stage?

Does the Minister agree with the need to support the development of robust haemophilia networks to combine the best of local care with access to tertiary expertise 24 hours a day? For example, in a recent survey by the Haemophilia Society, only 15% of respondents were aware of having been offered a care plan. In both the report of that survey, entitled “Fit for the Future: Haemophilia Services in the New NHS”, and in the Newcastle initiative’s paper, “Learning from the past to inform the future”, it was found that standards of treatment and care were generally high, which is very encouraging, but that access to the provision of associated services, including dentistry, physiotherapy and psychological support, required significant improvement. The reports also concluded that patients must be given a comprehensive care plan, that they must be able to access home treatment, and that they must be involved in all decisions about all their treatment. Those goals are partially but not consistently met under the current system, and we would, of course, like to see consistency across the whole country.

All Governments have said that lessons about treatment have been learnt from the contaminated blood scandal and that there is a need to maintain the highest standards of care so to avoid any repetition of it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. Is she concerned about the level of support given to haemophiliacs who have received blood contaminated with HIV or hepatitis C? Should an additional level of care and assistance be given to those who suffer through no fault of their own but because of the blood?

[Diana Johnson]

I will come on to deal with the financial support that is available to individuals who have had contaminated blood products and now have HIV or hepatitis C, because that is an important issue.

To finish this first section on the treatment of haemophilia, may I ask the Minister to confirm that there should be continued research, for example into sterilisation in areas with a high risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease contamination, in order to support the need to ensure that a contaminated blood scandal never happens again?

The second part of my speech relates to contaminated blood. In recent months, along with many other Members of Parliament, I have been raising the issue of care and support offered to victims of the NHS contaminated blood scandal, as it has come to be known over the past 30 years. My constituent Glenn Wilkinson has campaigned tirelessly for proper support for those who have received contaminated blood products as part of treatment for haemophilia or via other medical treatments, such as blood transfusion in childbirth.

This week, Glenn and other campaigners established the contaminated blood campaign. The treatment of people who contracted hepatitis C from NHS-administered blood products has been particularly unfair, and many of those people have, unfortunately, died already. The campaign set up by Glenn is also fighting for an independent public inquiry on the same lines as the report in Ireland and the Scottish Penrose inquiry, which I believe is due to conclude shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about trust and the need for us all to work together to ensure that those people do not suffer further, and that they get the compensation and support they are clearly due.

I want to concentrate on hepatitis C sufferers for a minute. I believe that they will be unfairly penalised by the Government’s plans in the Welfare Reform Bill. In a debate in October 2010, I asked the Minister whether it would be possible for people with hepatitis C and HIV to be passported on to the new system. The Haemophilia Society has also asked about people with fluctuating medical conditions, such as bleeding disorders, particularly those with viral infections from contaminated blood products. People suffering from fluctuating medical conditions such as haemophilia, HIV and hepatitis C tend to have good days and bad days.

The Haemophilia Society recommends that the work capability assessment be suspended for people with fluctuating conditions until Professor Harrington has considered the representations of the Disability Benefits Consortium. Many people living with hepatitis C in particular have been placed in the work-related activity group of the new employment and support allowance, rather than in the support group, where benefits will continue indefinitely. That has two consequences: it means that sufferers will have to have annual assessments, and that, after 12 months, their benefits will become means-tested. That is effectively penalising people for prudent behaviour and hard work while they were well enough to be employed.

People diagnosed with hepatitis C know that they are unlikely to be able to continue working until normal retirement age. Furthermore, people must currently wait up to 11 months for a tribunal appeal. It is to be noted that appeals for hepatitis C sufferers have a particularly high success rate. Automatically moving contaminated blood product victims into the support group would save patients stress and the Government money.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way. Many haemophiliacs have suffered from poverty and discrimination because of contaminated blood. Does she not feel for that reason that the Government must urgently address those still suffering from such maladies?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Child Slavery

Debate between Jim Shannon and Diana Johnson

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing a debate on this important issue, on which there is cross-party support, concern and willingness to address the problems that still exist and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to end the evil of child slavery once and for all.

The hon. Gentleman gave a powerful and moving account, with both a global and a focused, national perspective, which was helpful. It was also rich in reports, statistics and research, which is always helpful when dealing with an emotive subject such as this. He talked about the three key issues of forced marriages, sexual exploitation and economic exploitation, and addressed the problem of bonded labour, particularly in India. It was good to hear him quote at the end of his contribution the words of William Wilberforce. I am a Member of Parliament for William Wilberforce’s home city of Hull, and we in that city know that the problems of trafficking and child slavery are still with us today and that there is still much more that we need to do.

The brutal trade in trafficked children and child slavery is the modern-day manifestation of the slavery that William Wilberforce and others campaigned to abolish more than 200 years ago. We are concentrating today on child slavery, but it is so near to international women’s day that it is right to point out the overlapping trade in trafficked women around the world who are also kept in slavery.

We have heard interesting and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members during the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has a strong record in championing children’s rights and has been a strong advocate for standing up for the most vulnerable in our society. Her analysis—at the beginning she focused on the international perspective and she then moved on to the issue of trafficking—was very well thought through. What struck me about what she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said was their comments on the issue of awareness. In many parts of the country, people think that child slavery or trafficking does not happen in their area—people have said that to me in Hull—but when we start to dig down, we realise that there are problems with trafficking all around the country. It was interesting to note the reading habits of the hon. Member for Strangford. He reads The Independent, although he said that he did not buy it.

[Jim Shannon]

Once.

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps just once. The hon. Gentleman talked about the generation of £5 billion through the operation of slavery worldwide. That is a huge figure and we need to bear that in mind, because some very powerful interests will want to make sure that slavery continues. He also talked about Albania, China and the international issues there. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) correctly reminded us about the victims. We need to ensure that we focus on the needs of those victims.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is the chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking. He has done a huge amount of work on the matter and has followed in the footsteps of the former Member for Totnes, Sir Anthony Steen. Thousands of people—children, women and some men—are brought into the UK each year to work in the sex trade. In 2008-09, the Select Committee on Home Affairs claimed that more than 5,000 people were being trafficked. In 2003, the total economic and social cost of human trafficking for sexual exploitation was put at around £1 billion. Many more people, including hundreds of children, are smuggled into the country each year to be exploited as domestic servants, farm hands or drug cultivators. We know that that is a real problem in the Vietnamese community. Vietnam is the most prominent of the 47 countries of origin for trafficked children and there seems to be a particular focus on young boys between the age of 13 to 17, who act as gardeners and cultivate cannabis plants in various settings.

In the remaining time, I shall discuss the EU directive on human trafficking. We have had lots of discussion this afternoon about why the Government have chosen not to sign up to the directive. The Government have said that they are already meeting the requirement set out in the directive. If that is right, which is in dispute, I ask the Minister to explain what would be lost by signing up to it. If we are doing everything anyway, what is the problem? Many hon. Members and organisations think that the Government are not complying with the directive. That was pointed out by many hon. Members in the debate on human trafficking held in Westminster Hall on 12 October and in the anti-slavery debate on the Floor of the House on 14 October.

As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, a report was published by CARE—a Christian charity—on 7 February entitled, “The EU Directive on Human Trafficking: Why the UK Government Should Opt-in.” The report shows areas where the Government are not complying with the EU directive. They include support for child victims; widening the trafficking definition to forced begging; giving jurisdiction over UK citizens engaging in trafficking overseas; assistance to victims of trafficking in health care and accommodation; the investigation and prosecution of trafficking crime; protection of victims in criminal proceedings; and establishing an independent national rapporteur on trafficking. Such a role would be similar in nature to the one that Lord Carlile played in anti-terror policies.

The Government oppose in particular the measure on guardianship for child victims of trafficking—an issue that is referred to in early-day motion 513 tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough and which has been raised by a number of charities. I would be grateful if the Minister shed some light on that subject. The Minister for Immigration told the House that the Government do not want to be bound by measures that “are against our interests”. It would be interesting if the Minister responding to this debate explained what that means. To whose interests is the Minister for Immigration referring?

The coalition agreement states that tackling human trafficking is a priority. I ask the Minister how much of a priority the matter is for the Government. I am concerned that many measures have been introduced that will weaken the protection of children from exploitation and the protection of vulnerable children, trafficked children and children who are held against their will. For example—the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole referred to this—there have been Government grant cuts to children’s services in councils. We already know that there is a lack of awareness about trafficking and child slavery, and I am concerned that those cuts will have even further impact. There have also been cuts to specialist policing in the area of trafficking. Operation Golf has been abandoned, vetting and barring procedures have been weakened—as set out just yesterday in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been closed, and the UK Human Trafficking Centre and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre have been dismantled. In addition, last year, ContactPoint was abandoned.

On the issues of child slavery and trafficking, co-operation is the wisest policy for the Government to follow. The cost of not pursuing such a policy will be terrible for exploited children and other vulnerable people. Many hon. Members have discussed the need to secure convictions, but we need a comprehensive approach to do so. On 27 January, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), justified not taking a decision on whether to opt into the EU Directive, and stated that

“we will make our decision in due course.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 440.]

That is particularly surprising bearing in mind the stance of the Liberal Democrat party on the issue and its long-standing view on the matter, which it has held for many years.

We all want to do everything we can to stop child slavery and trafficking. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government plan to address the issues raised in this afternoon’s debate.