UK Drugs Policy
Debate between Julian Huppert and Diane Abbott(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Huppert
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, as I said in an intervention. Politicians are behind, at least in what they are prepared to say. Another survey two years ago—I cannot remember which paper ran it—showed that 77% of MPs thought we should have reform, as long as they knew they would not be named in the survey and asked to introduce it. Politicians should have the courage of their convictions, and the public’s convictions, and take action.
I shall pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Committee. We have indeed seen a reduction in the raw numbers—she is absolutely right—but I think that is largely because people are taking new psychoactive substances. We are seeing a huge increase in people taking legal alternatives, rather than illegal substances. The perversity of that is that we have pushed people to take substances whose safety we know less about. We know less about the harms and we are probably increasing the risk to those people very substantially. We should also look at the system. Smoking tobacco is more harmful than chewing khat, but why would we make the dangerous one legal and the not-so-dangerous one illegal? It seems like a very strange thing to do.
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I was delighted that the Chair, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is sadly not in his place, agreed when I kept insisting that we should have a look at this issue. We undertook a detailed study and we heard from experts around the world. We concluded, on a cross-party basis, a key objective:
“The principal aim of Government drugs policy should be first and foremost to minimise the damage caused to the victims of drug-related crime, drug users and others.”
That is a call to completely rethink how we do drugs policy: to focus on reducing the harm, not on how many people do things that we badge as illegal.
The Home Secretary of course rejected the report’s findings and just carried on with business as usual, but we had one key victory. We secured agreement for an international comparators study, which has been worked on by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) and, now, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention. That is what has come out today, and although there is a serious gap where some of the conclusions ought to be—one feels that one is being led towards something, only to find a missing paragraph saying what one should do—it is very clear. The fundamental point is that sounding tough does not matter. The rhetoric does not make any difference; it is about outcomes. The study says:
“Looking across different countries, there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country's approach and the prevalence of…drug use.”
That is key. If being tough actually reduced drug use around the world, we would have to look again, but it simply does not work. It creates extra harms, so the argument falls down.
What does work? There have been lots of academic studies. The thing that most reduces drug use is having a more equal society. Solving that may be beyond the scope of this debate, and certainly beyond my scope in the time I have left, but that is what will work—not tough laws, but a more equal society. Yet we continue with the tough approach. Every year we spend millions of pounds jailing something like 1,000 people for no offence other than possession. We are not talking about people who have burgled; we are talking about simple possession offences. They are not dealers; they are not doing worse things. Jailing them does not help them to deal with their addiction; if anything, it makes things worse for them and takes money that we could spend helping them instead of punishing them.
It is therefore really good progress that we now see acceptance from the Government that a tough drugs policy does not reduce usage. Contrary to what the Home Secretary said to the Home Affairs Committee, the Government have finally accepted that in Portugal decriminalisation and a focus on treatment have not led to more drug use.
We have the Minister on board, but we need to get the Home Secretary to agree to go ahead. We spend vast amounts of money on a drugs policy. Estimates vary between £3 billion and £10 billion a year, depending on which costs are included. Times are tight, so we should spend that money effectively. We should use police resources effectively, too. If police are kept busy dealing with simple possession offences, that is time and effort that they cannot use to settle violent or acquisitive crime, or indeed the gang crime that our war on drugs is fuelling. That is why so many police officers have spoken out.
The chief constable of Durham, Mike Barton, has argued for the decriminalisation of class A drugs, highlighting the fact that prohibition has put billions of pounds into the hands of the criminals he is supposed to be fighting. Many others say the same, including Chief Constable Tom Lloyd, my own former chief constable:
“Drug dealers all over the world are laughing at law enforcement…I want the end of prohibition and the start of control and regulation so we don’t have dealers on the street.”
He has also highlighted the harm done to young people, because for a huge proportion of them, their first contact with the law comes from being stopped and searched for drugs offences. When someone is convicted, according to Tom Lloyd:
“It seems hypocritical to saddle a young person with a criminal conviction that could blight their lives”.
Such people often have problems getting jobs and travelling in the future. This causes huge problems. Because of our criminalised system, we have no control over what drugs are cut with—and these cutting agents are often worse than the drugs themselves.
We also have huge problems with discrimination. For black and minority ethnic groups, the use of harder drugs is lower, but arrests are higher and they are twice as likely to proceed to court than white people. That is not right; we should not be doing that. With more than half of stop and searches being for possession, even the Home Secretary has acknowledged the problems that can result from that.
We need a new system, focusing on treatment, education and rehabilitation and dealing with the harms caused by drugs. How we pay for that is a challenge. The answer is to take money from the criminal justice system. We need to divert the money from spending on policing and prison towards spending on helping people to break their addiction. My party has called for exactly that, continuing to spearhead those calls. At our party conference in October this year, we had a new crime policy paper, which picked up on this issue. It called for a transfer of powers from the Home Office to the Department of Health, saying that drug addiction is a health problem and should be seen as such. We should make sure that people are not sent to prison for personal possession; we should move towards decriminalisation. We propose having a royal commission to take an overall view of what we do and to keep an eye on what is happening with cannabis in the US and Uruguay. I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes that it is too early to be certain about the outcomes; we need to keep an eye open.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Debate between Julian Huppert and Diane Abbott
Dr Huppert
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 10. It feels that it has been ages since I initially tabled the first version of that amendment to try to allow humanist weddings. It has been a long struggle, alongside hon. colleagues, and I would particularly like to mention the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), with whom it has been a great pleasure to work, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). It was a choppy passage, which is odd because the premise seems simple enough: humanists should be able to get married under their rules. After all, Christians, Jews, Quakers, Muslims, Sikhs and even spiritualists are allowed to, so why not humanists, particularly since that works in Scotland? We had a somewhat unedifying debate at the end of our considerations in this place, which I think is a testament to the complexity of marriage law, which has caused many problems, but I am delighted that we have got there and that the review will be conducted properly with a view to ensuring that we get this right. I was critical of some officials, but I think that they have now worked very well with the British Humanist Association.
We have also made progress on pension inequality. I must say that I do not think that the cost of equality should matter. Is £1 million too much for equality? What about £10 million, or £20 million? I do not think that is the right argument and hope that we can make progress on that, just as I hope that we can make progress on equal civil partnerships.
The one thing really missing is a lot of issues for those who are transgendered. We have not restored the marriages, and there is much more to do with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and we are still providing pension support only for the cispartners of transpeople, not the transpeople themselves. The trans community is still marginalised and will continue to be after the Bill is passed. Far too often LGBT seems to stop too early. We must look at that. The Bill will not end homophobia, but it will make a lot of people’s lives very much happier.
Ms Abbott
I am glad to speak to this important group of amendments to this important Bill, which is a piece of proposed legislation that rights past wrong. The Bill will ensure that gay and lesbian residents of Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and countrywide, will have the chance to marry the person they love, and for that love to be recognised by the law and the wider community.
Home Affairs
Debate between Julian Huppert and Diane Abbott(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for his detailed clarification and for being so well briefed. The past two Governments removed one set of exit checks each. We need to have them back so that we know who is leaving.
We must ensure that in the drive to correct our systems, we do not bring in measures that stifle our success or international standing. It is fantastic that we attract students from around the world. They come here and pay money, making this a fantastic export business. Some of them stay and contribute to our economy. Others leave and set up businesses or get elected in their own country, and have a good relationship with our country. We should be proud of that. That is a huge factor in my constituency and many others. We must not drive those people out when we correctly try to stop those who are abusing the system and who come here falsely. We need steps that get it right in both ways.
The demise of the Border Agency was somewhat rushed. We must ensure that there is not just a change of name, but a change of practice. The era of decade after decade of backlogs and of people not getting answers promptly must finally end. We all want to see that; no one in any part of the House would like those backlogs to continue to grow or even to exist at all, and we must have a system that will end them. I hope the Government will manage that, but it will be a tough task.
Ms Abbott
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the inordinate delays and backlogs in the immigration system have two malign effects? First, they make it difficult for those with the type of talent, expertise and entrepreneurship that he describes to have their cases dealt with swiftly. Secondly, they encourage abuse, because many third-rate, dodgy immigration advisers end up giving their clients advice just to play for time.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I agree with everything she said. Delays cause huge harm, and she is right to pick on a number of the advisers and immigration lawyers who help out. A huge number of reputable lawyers do a fantastic job, but all of us who deal with a significant amount of immigration casework see shocking cases of people who should not be allowed to practise as they do, and who are extorting the vulnerable in a deeply unfair way. It is a huge problem that is cruel to those involved, and we must take action.
Much of what we need to do can be achieved without legislation. Some areas, however, need legislation and I look forward to proposals in the immigration Bill, which I hope will contain good provisions and send the signal that we can do the right thing. I know the Minister for Policing and Justice agreed with this when he was Immigration Minister, but there are, for example, specific issues about the status of children born outside the UK to unmarried British fathers before 2006, and to married British mothers before 1983. These are slightly odd cases because those people are not entitled to citizenship, although they are if they were born to unmarried British fathers after 2006, or earlier in the case of the mother. I hope that anomaly—I think that was the word the Minister used—will now be corrected. I also hope that a number of other proposals will be included in the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) pointed out that asylum support rates should be looked at each year, and I hope that will find its way into the Bill if legislation is required.
The idea of landlords and employers having a role is interesting. For employers the issue is clear, but we need stronger controls on those who knowingly hire people who are not allowed to work. We also need a system that makes it easier for employers. I have seen cases where the UK Border Agency has given employers unhelpful or inaccurate information about people’s right to work. Employers cannot be expected to understand all the details of the system—I do not think any hon. Member in the Chamber would claim to understand every nuance of it, although I am prepared to be corrected—and we must have a simple, clear system. If landlords are also to have such a responsibility, they too need such a system. I do not mind if a landlord has to enter a passport number and name on a computer and gets an answer—I can live with that—but if they all are expected to become experts in immigration law, we should be aware that that simply will not happen. I look forward to seeing how the system will work.
I am delighted that the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill is ready for consideration, and I am pleased that large parts of it have received pre-legislative scrutiny. That is an excellent pattern, and I hope more Bills will go through such scrutiny, and that future Governments will follow the advice, which is useful to ensure good, rather than rushed, decisions. We must deal with antisocial behaviour, which is a blight on many communities. I do not think that antisocial behaviour orders worked; they felt slow, bureaucratic, ineffective, and we know that many young people treated them almost as a badge of honour. A huge proportion—more than half, I think—were breached. The system simply did not work and was part of an effort to sound tough on antisocial behaviour. I hope that the proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will work, and I will be disappointed if it turns out that they are just another example of people trying to sound tough. However, I am hopeful that the orders and injunctions it contains will be more effective and produce more effective community remedies.
I will not go through the Bill in detail, but I have one concern about the naming and shaming of offenders under 18, which I think should be done only as a very last resort, particularly now that so much information is available on line. The record of a 14-year-old who is publicly named online will be available when they are 18, 24, 34 or 44, and we run the risk of stigmatising for ever young people—who made errors and should not have done what they did—in a way that would not have happened 20 or 30 years ago. That was discussed by the Home Affairs Committee during pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am pleased at the Government’s indication that such a measure should be used only as a last resort. I hope the Minister will clarify that although one section of the law on naming is being disapplied, clear guidance will be given that that should be done only rarely.
I was happy about the criminalisation of forced marriage, which strikes me as absolutely right and was recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, as well as the work on dangerous dogs. In 2011, there were 6,500 hospital admissions in England for dog bites and attacks, not counting those who were treated in A and E and sent home, or the many leaflet deliverers and canvassers who received just a small bite. The new measures will encourage responsible dog ownership, and I am particularly pleased to see the category covering attacks on guide dogs. I spent time with Guide Dogs for the Blind, and I was led blindfolded around my constituency by a guide dog, which was an amazing experience that I recommend to all Members—I see some have had the same experience. There have been a huge number of attacks on guide dogs, which are particularly damaging because of the effect on the person involved and because guide dogs are trained to look after their owner, not turn and fight off the other dog. There are awful cases of a guide dog leading its owner away while being savaged and either killed or seriously harmed, and I am therefore pleased to see protection for assistance dogs included under clause 98, meaning that an attack on a guide dog will count similarly to that on a person.
Rehabilitation has been a long-term Liberal Democrat policy and an issue that we keep discussing. The current jail system simply does not work and there are people who have been in jail but who come out and go back in again, which none of us wants to see. At times, we have seen a bidding war between political parties and areas of the press on who can sound tougher about locking people up for longer. The goal should be to ensure we do not have offences, not to punish people as toughly as we can.
Jail is expensive. It costs £40,000 to put a person in prison for less than 12 months, and many of those will reoffend. The situation is even worse for women offenders, huge numbers of whom are jailed for reoffending. Frankly, there are questions about how many women offenders should be in jail—I think it should be a far smaller number than it currently is. Between 2000 and 2010, the female prison population rose by 27%.
There is firm evidence that measures such as restorative justice and community sentencing are far more effective than costly short-term prison sentences, and that is the right way to go. It is not about being tough on crime but about stopping crimes from happening, and that is what we should see. The continued progress of the rehabilitation revolution will encourage probation services to keep reoffending rates down and shift the focus from being tough on crimes that have already happened to ensuring they do not happen in the first place.
Those are the home affairs and justice Bills in the Queen’s Speech, but I wish to touch on one that I am pleased was not included—the draft Communications Data Bill. This proposed legislation has an interesting history. Last year, the Home Office thought it was ready to be part of a full Bill, but I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, “No, I am not sure that it’s ready. Pre-legislative scrutiny needs to consider it and pull apart the details to see whether it is fit for purpose.” I served for a long time on the Joint Committee that considered that Bill carefully—it was, I think, the most detailed piece of pre-legislative scrutiny ever done in this House—and concluded that it was not ready at all. Although there was a case, as there always is, for stronger measures, it was nowhere near made. The Committee’s report was quite damning and stated that
“the draft Bill pays insufficient attention to the duty to respect the right to privacy, and goes much further than it need or should”.
That was a unanimous, cross-party, cross-House Committee. The report described some of the information coming from the Home Office as being, in one case, “fanciful and misleading”, and said that evidence for the problem it was trying to solve was misleading and unhelpful. The head of MI5 said that evidence presented on the problem relied on “pretty heroic assumptions”. It also highlighted that some of the proposals could reduce the amount of communications data available in the United Kingdom. It is a strongly written report and well worth reading.
I was therefore delighted that, after the report, and after the Home Office did not address the fundamentals—it did not manage to show how the 500,000 pieces of data that have been collected already were used, or to provide evidence of the benefits and other things—my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the proposals would not go ahead. I am delighted with that decision.
I am pleased Her Majesty was clear that most of communications data proposals would not happen. The Home Secretary had a different interpretation, but Her Majesty said that the proposal would address only the problem of matching internet protocol addresses—I am delighted Her Majesty the Queen managed to say that, which I suspect is a first. The Government will not pass legislation allowing a Home Secretary to ensure that records are kept of every website that people visit. They will not take an internal lead forcing internet service providers to monitor and collect information on what everyone does on Facebook, Google, Skype, Twitter or any other platform. We should not set a standard for the world by saying that such information can be collected as it passes through our networks. We will not spend more than £1 billion—£1.8 billion was the original figure, but we suspected that it would increase—snooping on our own citizens. That will not happen under this Government.
I am aware that the Home Secretary would like to implement that proposal, but she will not get her way. We have heard that the Labour party would have liked that, too. A former Labour Home Secretary said on “Daily Politics” that Labour would have gone ahead with the proposal, and the shadow Home Secretary has said that Labour would go ahead with a communications data Bill. She said that Labour would go ahead with collecting web log information and intercepting information on what people do on Facebook and Google. She is not in the Chamber, but if any of the shadow team would like to correct my interpretation of what she said, they are welcome to do so. The Liberal Democrats will stand firm; our position is supported by many Back Benchers and Front Benchers of the other parties in the House.
Safeguards are needed. For example, far too many bodies have access to the information. I was told off for saying in an interview that the egg marketing board was allowed access to communications data information. I had a letter saying that that was inaccurate. I apologise. In fact, the Egg Marketing Inspectorate would be allowed such access.
Evidence will be needed on IP resolution, but I believe legislation will not be needed. We need training on using the huge amount of data available, which is what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said was most useful. When I asked him how he would spend £1.8 billion, he spoke of training, more officers and better equipment.
The Queen’s Speech contains much to be glad of, and I am pleased that many measures are not in it. However, I am sorry that Australian influences seem to have killed off proposals on plain packaging, minimal pricing and the regulation of lobbying. I am sure they are separate issues, but there is very much to be proud of, and I look forward to debating the measures over the coming year.
Cycling
Debate between Julian Huppert and Diane Abbott(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Huppert
I am not sure that the 50% figure is accurate. Several studies have shown that it is smaller than that. The key point is that all road users should behave legally. Drivers should not speed and should not use their mobile phones. Cyclists should not go through red lights. Everybody should stick to the rules and then everybody would be safer. If we can move away from the argument of cyclists versus car users versus taxis or whatever to everybody behaving safely, we would all do much better.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
On safety, at the end of my road in Hackney, there is a ghost bike permanently fixed to the wall, because of a cyclist who was doing his best. He was killed by a lorry trying to turn out of my road. One of the things that we want to do is not just make life convenient for cyclists, but save lives.
Dr Huppert
Absolutely. We need to save lives, and promoting cycling is a good way to do that.
It is important that users of heavy goods vehicles and other road users know how to deal with cyclists. Driving tests could be improved so that how to deal with cyclists becomes part of the test. I hope that the Government will consider that. We can get this modal shift. In my constituency, a quarter of adults cycle to work or education. We can get there.
Finally, as The Times has so powerfully advocated, we must have a cohesive strategy regarding cycle safety. For me, the most sensible way to look at cycle safety is from the bottom up. The work done by Caroline Pidgeon, who chairs the London Assembly Transport Committee, shows the grass-roots local changes that can make a difference. She has worked extremely hard as an advocate for cycle safety in London. Tragically, 16 cyclists died on London’s roads last year. Caroline has met some of the families affected by those tragedies and they are united in calling for better protection for cyclists. We need to see segregated cycle lanes, Trixi mirrors, 20 mph speed limits and the training that we need.
Through local campaigning, such demands are now at the forefront of the London elections, The Times campaign and the national agenda, with immediate changes hopefully happening over the coming months.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Debate between Julian Huppert and Diane Abbott(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be brief.
Our coalition Government agreed to restore the ancient civil liberties that should be synonymous with our country, and it is to Labour’s eternal shame—with a few honourable exceptions, many of whom I am glad to see in their places—that it did so much damage to our country’s name and to our civil liberties. I congratulate the Home Secretary, as I did yesterday, on the review, which represents excellent progress, but my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I pressed her on 28 days, because that is important. Labour’s 90-day efforts, which were resisted, have become one of the party’s totemic issues, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s aims to reduce the period to 14 days. However, I do not agree that we need to wait six months before we get on with it. We should allow the 28 days to lapse and default to 14 days while the review goes ahead.
Let us think about the 28-day period. It means 28 days without being told what someone is accused of. Is that proportionate? How does it interact with the concepts of being innocent until proven guilty and habeas corpus? Then there are the effects on people’s lives afterwards, if, as often happens, they turn out to be innocent.
What about elsewhere? We have talked about the US, where the constitution provides for 48 hours. In Spain, which has faced terrorism, the limit is five days, and in South Africa it is 48 hours, against which I am sure hon. Members campaigned during apartheid. The shadow Home Secretary, whom I am pleased to see in his place, talked about Norway, but I hope that he is aware of how that country, under its Criminal Procedure Act 1981, allows only three days’ detention, with an extension after the police have presented the charge. That is a critical difference, because after the charge has been presented we are into a very different space.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us voted for 28 days only because we saw it as a means of blocking 90 days? There was no consensus on our Benches for 28 days.
Dr Huppert
Indeed I am. I have followed the matter, and the hon. Lady is absolutely correct: 28 days was not the aim, but it was better than 90.
We have heard about those other countries, so are we saying that our police are worse than theirs? Do we think that our prosecutors are less good and our legal system less effective? I do not think so. We have excellent police and prosecutors, and an excellent legal system, so what makes us so different? What message about our attitude to civil liberties does the measure send not only to our citizens, but to those of other countries, who used to look on us as a beacon of civil liberties but have been sadly let down?
Alternatives to Child Detention
Debate between Julian Huppert and Diane Abbott(14 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Huppert
Indeed; I plan to be persistent. I accept the fact that unexpected circumstances sometimes mean that things must be cancelled. One deferral is fine, but if the arrangement keeps being deferred I shall be more concerned, and shall certainly raise the matter here.
To move on to the issue of children, we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Croydon Central about the effects of detention on mental health; we have heard about its effects on physical health and overall well-being, and about the future that we are providing for the children in question. It is hard to see how any of that fits with the UK Border Agency’s statutory duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and the way in which it is supposed to treat children, or with article 37 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which states that detention should be used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. It would be hard to say that that is being carried out.
Another issue is the advice and help that the children and their parents get. I had planned to speak for longer and to discuss legal aid for Refugee and Migrant Justice, but early-day motion 191 on that topic was discussed on the Floor of the House today, so I shall not take up time with it now; nevertheless, it is essential that we provide the right support to people.
The way in which we deal with age-disputed children is also a real issue. With very young children things are clear for all concerned. They are children, and there is no doubt. They should not be detained. We need to provide much more family-friendly and child-friendly solutions. There is a concern about children who claim to be, say, 17; it is hard to tell whether such a claim is honest. We need a clear, fair process to try to establish the age of those people. In many cases it will not be hard. We need a clear routine that appears fair and does not seem—as in so many cases that I have been made aware of—like arbitrary justice, with decisions being made semi-arbitrarily, based on various factors, about whether the truth is being told. It is hard on teenagers who are already in very difficult circumstances to tell them that there is no way for them to interact sensibly with the process.
The question was raised earlier whether we should punish children for the sins of their parents. I do not see seeking sanctuary in this country as a sin or something worthy of punishment. It is worthy of rapid decisions about whether people are genuine sanctuary seekers, who should be coming to this country—and we should open ourselves as we would hope other countries would, to support people in need—or whether there is something false about the story, in which case things are different. In any event, punishment is not the route. Trying to control the people coming to this country by being as nasty as possible to them while they are here is not worthy of this country. There are other issues that must be dealt with, and international development is clearly the right process for that, as has been mentioned.
The UK Border Agency needs to work faster. I am constantly coming across cases that have taken years to process, and that gives rise to questions about how fairly and rapidly the system works. The aim must be to reach a decision quickly and fairly about whether people are genuine sanctuary seekers, so that if they are not they go, and if they are they can stay. At the moment, it takes far too long. Competence is a serious issue in relation to the UKBA in several wider respects, which have even affected people who came to work for me in my former profession, from such places as the USA. There is something fundamentally wrong, in my experience, with the way the agency operates.
We need to end child detention as quickly as possible. I am delighted that that is in the coalition agreement. It is a fantastic aspect of the coalition that we can finally end such an awful thing. We owe the people of this country better than child detention, and I look forward to our fulfilling our aim in that respect.