Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady makes an important and valid point. I had a similar conversation with Sir Mark a couple of weeks ago and I was out with officers in my borough of Croydon the week before last where the emergency response team told a similar story. Sir Stephen House is looking at this topic as part of his review into police productivity, but I also plan to have discussions with colleagues across Government, including in the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, to find out what more we can do. The issue that she raises is certainly real.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

It is vital that our police forces draw on the best talent in our communities, including people who excel outside the classroom. Following our discussions, can the Home Secretary update the House on future plans for entry routes into policing?

[Suella Braverman]

I thank my hon. Friend and other honourable colleagues for their important campaigning to ventilate this issue. He speaks not only with passion, but with a deep understanding of the issue. I very much agree with him. I think that there are people from all walks of life who do not necessarily have a degree or want one who can be very good police officers. That is why I have asked the College of Policing to consider options for a new non-degree entry route to complement the existing framework. The current transitional arrangements will be extended in the meantime, and I am very clear that the police force must be open to those who neither have or want a degree.

Public Order Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Marco Longhi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. In exposing himself, that individual probably made more sense than at any time when I have heard him speaking.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone in the House knows that if we want to get things done, we have to knock on doors, deliver leaflets and persuade people to vote for us, and that short-cutting that by disrupting people’s lives is not acceptable? If those people want to get things done, they need to do what all of us do: go out and earn votes and change ideas and minds.

[Marco Longhi]

My hon. Friend is quite right. If he was also referring to the individual whom we just described, I challenged that very person to come and stand against me in Dudley North. Let us see if he has the courage to do so—or is he just a big loudmouth and a coward as well?

Dudley people want to be able to go about their business without others impinging on their ordinary lives. The Bill brings together a set of common-sense approaches. It is about that no-nonsense common sense that ordinary people want this Conservative Government to deliver. I very much thank both the Home Secretary and the Minister for Crime and Policing, who is doing his best to ensure that police officers in Dudley will deliver on these measures, using the new police station that I know he is working hard to secure for the people of Dudley North.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is important that we always have regard to the scope and scale of the legislation that we introduce. I am really fearful about the scope and scale of the Bill, based on my constituency experience. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) raised the issue of ensuring that we can go through the democratic process. There are times when we have gone through that democratic process and, unfortunately, the elected politicians have let us down.

[Dr Mullan]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me finish this point, so that I can explain. In my constituency, we have gone through the democratic process—often not to the extent or with the result that I wanted. For example, we have been promised time and again that there would be no further expansion at Heathrow. We were told,

“no third…runway, no ifs, no buts”

by the leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, but that was reneged on. We have been through public inquiries that have recommended no further expansion, but they have been reneged on. People therefore feel that they should look for an alternative that complements the balloting route. In my constituency, that in many instances has resulted in direct protest.

[Dr Mullan]

Is that not just the nature of democracy? Ultimately, in the longer term, we win or lose arguments; we do not win every single one, and we do not lose every single one. The right hon. Gentleman might have more credibility on this issue if he did not have a track record of encouraging direct action against Tory MPs and not letting us go about our daily lives without being disrupted and harassed.

[John McDonnell]

Fair enough. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman makes a proper point in the debate, no matter how inaccurate or distorted it is, but never mind. Let me explain—[Interruption.] Does the Bill cover activities in the Chamber? Sorry, I cannot help myself.

In all seriousness, let me explain why the scope and scale of the Bill may mean that it criminalises a large number of my constituents, and why they resort to direct action. They are not what we would describe as typical protesters: they are of a whole range of ages, and in fact Heathrow villages consistently voted for the Conservative party. Many people whom we would classify as normal Conservative voters have engaged in direct action. Why? Because they have endured the noise, the air pollution, the respiratory conditions, the cardiac problems as well as—research now tells us—the increase in cancers in our area as a direct result of pollution from the airport.

If Heathrow expansion goes ahead, 4,000 homes will be demolished, according to the last inquiry, so 10,000 of my constituents would lose their home. That is why people feel so strongly. They are angry because we will lose our gurdwara and three schools, and our church will be isolated from the rest of the community. They have been legitimately angry, because they feel that Governments—of, I must say, all political parties that have been in government—have consistently let them down. At one time, the proposal was for the expansion to go through our cemetery, so there was the prospect of people having to disinter loved ones buried in our constituency.

We can understand why my constituents are angry. What did they do? We held public meetings and tried to hold Ministers to account. All that failed, so my constituents resorted to direct action. They blocked roads, they marched, they demonstrated and they sat down in the road. Climate Camp attached itself to the land; under the Bill, that will become an offence. And yes, there was a gluing-on campaign. Actually, one campaigner tried for six months to glue himself to Gordon Brown. It never worked, but there we are. Can Gordon Brown be defined as national infrastructure? My constituents have gone through an training exercise on locking themselves on—not to infrastructure outside their home, but to things inside their home, so as to prevent demolition. That is the strength of feeling there is. Whole families have been motivated to cause disruption by the threat to their community, livelihood, home, church, gurdwara, community centre and local environment, because, unfortunately, politicians have consistently deceived them.

It is difficult to know what is serious disruption, which is grounds for arrest. The demonstrations we have been on caused a large amount of noise; did that cause serious disruption? They have, of course, caused traffic jams. Is it a question of the length of time that people have to wait in a traffic jam? In all the demonstrations that I have been on, there has been no prevention of the passage of emergency vehicles. We need clarity in clauses 3 and 4 on what serious disruption is.

The other issue is: what is the definition of national infrastructure? In my constituency, is it just anything within the Heathrow airport boundary? Is it the roads feeding into the airport? How far downstream from the airport does “national infrastructure” go? Virtually every road in my constituency somehow leads to the airport, so any demonstration in the constituency could be designated an offence under this legislation.

Strategy for Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Member will know the work that has been done in recent years—indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead—to tackle female genital mutilation and ensure cross-agency working. It is difficult, in that the victims are often very young; they are children, and are facing that criminal behaviour from close family members or friends. Through the mandatory reporting duty, we have set out what we expect of agencies that discover such injuries in the course of their public service. We very much want to support victims—if they feel able to do so—to support prosecutions.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

I had the chance to meet Lauri Swindell, who runs the Hop Pole and Imperial pubs in my constituency. Lauri and her staff are passionate about their venues being safe spaces for women and girls, and their approach includes using the Ask for Angela initiative. Could the funds announced today support the promotion of such initiatives locally, as they make a real difference on the ground for women and girls?

[Victoria Atkins]

It is great to hear about the initiatives in my hon. Friend’s constituency and, indeed, throughout the country. The Ask for Angela scheme is really effective and we took inspiration from it earlier this year when we launched the Ask for ANI codeword scheme in chemists up and down the country for victims of domestic abuse. I am happy to support my hon. Friend and the landlady he mentioned in her work. The fund is open to police and crime commissioners, local authorities, British Transport police and civil society organisations; that will allow for the development of a variety of innovative initiatives and encourage local partnership working. My hon. Friend’s constituency is lucky to have a Member of Parliament who does such a great piece of work with his local landladies.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

Listening to this debate, not for the first time, there has been a real effort to talk down our record and to talk down the generosity of the British taxpayer. Our Syrian refugee resettlement scheme, for example, has protected 25,000 people in the past six years, more than any other European country. That is worth restating. Conservative Governments have done that. Conservative Governments have resettled 25,000 people ahead of the rest of Europe.

I want to take head-on the shallow arguments being made against reform. We need to face reality: right now, it is estimated that 426 million children are living in conflict zones. There is absolutely no way that any country can provide a home and refuge to even a substantial proportion of those children. Millions more live in conditions all over the world that would qualify them for humanitarian relief, and there are tens of millions of refugees. Importantly, there are many, many more people who live in similar circumstances to those already seeking to come here as economic migrants. We cannot help everyone. Labour Members want to pretend that there are no choices to make, and whatever choices we make, it will find some way of saying that those in the Labour party are heroes and that we are the villains because they would have helped just a few more people. It is the same old Labour.

There are millions of people who, if they could get here, would make a contribution and become positive members of our society. A policy is not a failure because an example of that can be found. If Labour got its way entirely, there would still be refugees in camps who would be better off in the UK. It is a vacuous way to attack Government policy on this issue. The question is: are we playing our part? I want to see that we get the most out of the money we spend. For every person who gets here because criminal gangs took their money to get them across the channel, there is someone among the hundreds, thousands, or millions of people who have not done that whom we could offer asylum to instead. For every penny that we spend on housing someone here, we could help many more people in conflict zones.

Who is it that we want to help? We always have to make a choice. Instead of helping the primarily fit, young men of working age who make the channel crossing, we should help the children, the elderly, and the destitute who cannot. I welcome that we will make it absolutely clear that coming here in a boat across the channel is not acceptable. There is only one way to do that, and that is to create a system that takes that into account.

We need to sort this issue out to secure long-term public support for taking in refugees. That is not populism; that is democracy. The public are not stupid. They know that there is a difference between economic migrants and refugees, and they know that boat crossings is a route that favours economic migrants. The public need confidence that the people we help are genuine refugees.

It is important that we do not let our record turn into one of which we cannot be proud. We should keep our decent record, but by using the new system to tip the balance towards those who are the most vulnerable. This shift is a good one. I am someone who cares about vulnerable people and who is proud of our record, and I support these changes.

Misuse of Drugs Act

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the evidence in the UK. There have been some very good diversion schemes in Durham and the west midlands, and there are others. We do not need to look at the evidence abroad; we can look at the evidence in the UK.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, particularly in relation to cannabis, the initial warning and the fixed penalty notice that we use at the moment do not prevent in any way, shape or form people from also being given a diversion scheme and other steps being taken? There is no barrier to that at the moment, for example, in relation to cannabis.

[Jeff Smith]

That is true. My problem with cannabis is that the supply is still in the hands of organised criminal gangs. That, for me, is not a sensible way to approach our drug policy.

We can explore models of decriminalisation, and we know that those are associated with reduced risks of recidivism, a reduced burden on police resources and savings to the public purse related to social costs, or we can look at models of legalised regulation. Whatever happens, we need a wholesale, new approach to this problem. The Government need to be honest that the last 50 years of drug policy have been a failure and have come at a terrible human, societal and economic cost. We need to commit to a public health approach rather than a criminal justice approach to drugs policy—one focused on saving lives and rooted in support and compassion for those who abuse drugs.

Among the MPs who want to speak in today’s debate, there will not be a single view on the way we go forward and what an alternative to the current approach to drugs policy should look like, and there will be different approaches for different substances. I look forward to hearing the views of Members, but I suspect that we probably mostly agree that, on the 50th anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is worth looking honestly at the legacy of that 50-year-old legislation and considering what needs to change to better serve our constituents and our communities. We should take this opportunity for political parties and the media to stop weaponising drugs policy and have a grown-up discussion about how we protect our communities. Today I am calling on the Government to launch a full, open-minded review of this legislation to learn from our mistakes, because we cannot afford another 50 years of failure.

I will leave the final words to Anne-Marie Cockburn, who is a campaigner for Anyone’s Child: Families for Safer Drug Control. Anne-Marie’s daughter Martha, like people through the generations for thousands of years, just wanted to have a bit of fun and get high. She researched on the internet how to get high safely. She was 15 years old when she took an overdose of MDMA that killed her. Anne-Marie says: “As I stand by my daughter’s grave, what more evidence do I need that UK drug policy needs to change?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I wish to associate myself entirely with all of the comments that my two colleagues have just made from either side of this House. I wonder what it says about our ability to function as a body that makes and reviews legislation that such a significant piece of legislation, dealing with such a major social problem, can lie on the statute book for 50 years without review or amendment. That is all the more incredible when we consider that by any conceivable measure it has been an abject failure in trying to achieve what it set out to achieve. As we have heard, back in 1971 just 1% of the British population said that they used the drugs that the Act would go on to criminalise, whereas today the figure is 34%. We are facing the biggest social policy catastrophe of our generation. Thousands of people are dying every year needlessly because they do not know what they are taking and help is not available for them when things go wrong. Tens of thousands of people every year get a criminal record because of the way in which we try to tackle this problem. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, living in communities up and down this land, have their lives blighted, not just by the misery of people dependent on those drugs in those communities, but by the brutal violence used by those involved in organised crime to enforce their regulation and supply of these products.

By any measure, this policy and this legislation ought to be reviewed. It is not just the fact that the legislation has not been able to do what it wanted to do; it is worse than that, because the legislation is now an active cause of the problem, because the entire area is looked at not as one of public health and wellbeing, but as one of criminal activity. The centre of the Act is about criminalising people who use drugs, and that does a number of things. First, it immediately means that the state has no role in the supply and regulation of these products, and that responsibility is given to the private sector and to organised crime within it. That is the first consequence of the Act. The second is that if people are getting into trouble and need medical help because of their substance addiction, many of our health and social care staff working in our public agencies are unable or unwilling to put themselves at risk of criminal prosecution by offering that help.

[Dr Mullan]

If that is true, how does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that we have tens of thousands of heroin users on methadone replacement therapy?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will come on to look at that concept and drug consumption in a minute, but what I am talking about is the fact that people have no ability to come to a health professional and say, “What is this?” They have no ability to ask for clean needles, because these actions are prohibited under the 1971 Act and the schedules to it.

The third thing, which has already been remarked upon, is that the Act stigmatises, big time, those who use drugs and puts them in a position where they are unlikely, because of social opprobrium, to ask for help. We surely need to have a review and a fresh think about a problem that is so manifestly out of control and where the existing legislation is so manifestly unable to provide any assistance.

I always like to try to see the other side of the argument, so I want to ask: why are people resistant to review? Why do they want to hold on to things as they are? I can only conclude that it is because they fear the consequences of decriminalisation or of changing the law. They must somehow think that if we were to do that, we would open the floodgates and unleash supply into communities where there are not already drugs, and that many more millions of people would get caught up in the problem, because we would not have the criminal mechanisms that we have at the minute. I say to any colleagues who think that: wake up and see what is happening on the streets of your constituencies.

Those colleagues should come with me to any medium-sized town in this country, stand in a bar and make their intentions known as to what they would like. Within one hour they will be offered any drug of their choice. If they do not want the personal contact, they could order in advance. If they go on the internet, they will find a mobile phone number on which, through the county lines network, they can order whatever they want and it will be delivered to their door. Sometimes people will even get a customer service message asking for feedback on the supply. That is the extent of what we have at the moment.

It is just fantasy to suggest that there are loads of people out there who are somehow prevented from getting into drugs by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That is not the case, so we surely need to have a grown-up conversation about what we should do given that potentially a third of our citizens could be made criminals by legislation that is so manifestly unfit for purpose.

I hope that the Home Office and Ministers can begin that process of review with an open mind, rather than just defending the status quo. They should be prepared to look at an evidence-based approach, drawing on international comparisons, and to try to work up a better system that is grounded in protecting public health and wellbeing, rather than trying to criminalise behaviour. I and my party would support—I think there would be support in all parts of the House—any bold Minister who wanted to take that initiative and begin that dialogue. I am not saying prescriptively what should be in such a review; I am not saying how it should be done. I simply want to have the dialogue, the discussion and the debate, because too many people are dying for us not to do so.

While we are doing that, there are some things that ought to be done immediately. I want to turn for a moment to the question of drug consumption rooms—probably better called overdose prevention centres. These are medical facilities, and I have been in them and seen them working in Portugal, Germany and Canada. These are medical facilities where someone can use their own drugs under medical supervision. Such places are not going to make the overall problem any better; what they do is drive a focus into the very sharp end of the problem—the point at which people are dying.

At the moment, people do not voluntarily overdose because they are fed up with life and want to commit suicide. That is not the case at all. People are taking substances and they do not even know what is in them. Sometimes these substances contain a lethal concoction which is much, much stronger than they thought it was going to be. Because it is all criminal activity, it has to be done behind closed doors. It is not something that someone does in the open. By the time someone realises they have a problem—by the time they cannot breathe, they have a heart attack or they need medical help—it is too late to call for assistance. For the limited number of people in those circumstances, being able to satisfy their immediate addiction under medical supervision would literally be a lifesaver. That is what happens in other countries.

It is blindingly obvious that we ought to try to consider having such places here, but the law forbids it. Even pending a change in the law, by regulation the Home Office should allow pilot centres to emerge so that we can see for ourselves whether they would work here. After all, what is there to lose? There is nothing to lose and everything to gain—there are lives to gain.

This idea does not stop people using drugs; it does not get rid of the problem; it does not make people get their life back together; it does not get people the medical help or social services help that they might need; it does not get them a job if they have not got one—of course it does not, but it keeps them alive long enough so that those interventions can take place further down the line. We cannot give help to a dead person, and that is why it is so vital that we have a sensible discussion about drug consumption rooms and supervised facilities. The Scottish Government stand ready and have been pressing the Home Office to allow them to go ahead and do that in Glasgow, which brings me to my final point; I know you did not want people to go on too long, Mr Deputy Speaker, so this will be my final point.

We have a bit of a disjuncture in the interrelationship between the devolution of political authority and Administrative action in the United Kingdom and this particular problem, in that the whole criminal framework—the 1971 Act and others—is a reserved matter for Westminster, which sets the problem, if you like, but dealing with the consequences of that, including the health and social care and the economic fall-out from that policy, is a matter for the devolved Administrations. Without getting into the arguments about Scottish independence or whatever, it seems to me a matter of ultimate sense and grown-up policy to have the same part of government responsible for the regulation as is responsible for mopping up the consequences of the problem. That is why, when the time comes, we need to urgently look at devolution of the controls currently in place in the ’71 Act, and whatever replaces it, to the devolved Administrations, and to locate them within a health and social care context, which is already devolved.

In advance of that, I have spoken with the Minister several times on this matter, and I trust that he is thoughtful about it. I think he is prepared to consider other points of view and evidence, but I think he feels himself mightily constrained by tradition, convention and, perhaps, political pressure elsewhere. However, he has now received a letter from the Drugs Policy Minister in Scotland, Angela Constance, asking for a four nations summit to consider, among other things, establishing pilots of these types of medical facilities. I hope very much that he will today confirm that his reaction to that is positive and that, if we cannot change things overnight across the whole UK, he is prepared to let us employ the apparatus of devolution to allow one part of the UK to go beyond where other parts are perhaps willing to go at the minute and to collate the evidence to point a way to the future, which could then lead to best practice being adopted throughout.

We have a responsibility not to continue to stick our heads in the sand on this matter; there has been a collective exercise of ignoring the blindingly obvious for far too long. We are not voting on this today, but I appeal to colleagues to do what they can through the various structures of this place and within their political parties—this matter should not divide us on party grounds—to consider why we need a review after this half-century and why things are so clearly wrong that we must do something. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that things are okay. Now, 50 years after the passage of the Act, is the time to admit that it is not working and to do better. The citizens of this country deserve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

In my time both as a doctor and a volunteer special constable, I have seen up close the harms that drugs do to our society, and I have also seen this in my personal life.

I wish to begin by focusing on areas of agreement with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and others. It is clearly right that the best outcome for an individual addicted to drugs is to be supported to overcome that addiction. It is clearly better for individuals who end up using drugs that they can do so in a way that minimises the risk of harm. It is clearly true that often it is not going to be the best use of police time to pursue individuals who are using drugs on a personal basis. Those are things I think we can all agree on, but some of the other arguments put forward today fail on a number of fronts. They fail to understand the reality of the policing of drug use in society at the moment. They fail to understand the nature of criminality associated with drug production, and they fail to understand the complexity of addiction recovery. As is so often the case with those on the left, they take for granted all the quiet benefits of our current approach to drugs that could potentially be lost in reform. Fundamentally, abstinence-based policies are stopping very many people from taking illicit drugs. The overwhelming majority of people do not take drugs. What Members have done today, without any evidence whatsoever, is to draw association with cause. An enormous number of social ills have exploded over the past 30 years. We cannot say that, because our approach was X, it has been the cause of that. There are many, many factors that drive drug use and we have no idea what drug use would have been had we taken a different approach.

Let me ask a question of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, who I know DJ-ed in nightclubs that I frequented a long time ago in Leeds and Manchester. How many times were his nightclubs raided by police bent on catching everybody who was taking amphetamines? How many times has he seen police with their sniffer dogs outside a festival desperate to catch people taking these types of drugs? As I mentioned earlier, the overwhelming majority of people who are caught with cannabis are charged only with possession if they are an adult. If they are not causing any other problem for the local area, such as smoking it publicly or being involved in criminality, they will end up with a warning notice and a fine. Very few of the people who have been talked about for being in prison for drug offences are there for consumption. Overwhelmingly, they are in there for dealing. If they are there for consumption, it is usually because they have had a string of other interventions—whether it be a suspended sentence, a community order, or other things. Ultimately, it is fair that, if they continue to cause misery in their local communities, they face a prison sentence for that. They are not there because we are sending people away to prison because they smoke cannabis or because they take ecstasy. That is just not the reality of the situation.

The question that we might ask ourselves is why do we not just decriminalise these drugs, especially if people are relatively able to use it in proportion. It goes back to what I said earlier. First, I do not endorse that situation. My strong view is that criminalisation deters an awful lot of people from using drugs. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand that there is all this stigma around drug use, that people cannot get treatment, cannot speak about it, and cannot be freely open with it, and then say that decriminalisation will not increase usage because it is freely available anyway and people can just get it. We cannot have both those scenarios; we must have one or the other. There is either a stigma, which will have a social effect, or there is not; we cannot have it both ways.

Let me turn now to the nature of criminality related to drug dealing. Drug dealing and drugs being illegal do not create criminal gangs. Those gangs exist because sections of our society are willing to step outside the rules and the norms, use violence, be thugs and do things that the rest of us will not do to make a quick buck. They happen to be doing that with drugs, and decriminalising them will not change that. First, they will just do more of other things. There will be more racketeering, more counterfeit money, and more people trafficking. There will always be people who will look to make money and to be violent as a result.

As has been mentioned, whatever limits we put on drugs—unless Members here really think that Boots will be giving out injectable heroin—there will be limits on the drugs that will be decriminalised. The evidence in Amsterdam is that it has one of the biggest problems with potent cannabis. Decriminalising the use of cannabis in Amsterdam has not stopped that, so, whatever we do, there will always be people who want that hit—it is the nature of addiction. The nature of addiction is that people want a bigger hit. They want more than they got the first time, so they will always hit those limits and want someone else to go above what the law will allow, while accepting that there will be some kind of barriers.

Finally, I want to draw on my experience at university. As a doctor, we had former heroin addicts come in to speak to us. There was a lady who had multiple problems with addiction. Her ongoing addiction was not as a result of not being able to get treatment; she had multiple opportunities to seek treatment. She went on some treatment courses, but, actually, it was when she hit rock bottom, having no help from anyone and having exhausted everything that was available to her, that she turned it around. I am afraid that even the very best addiction programmes are not particularly successful unless people go on them multiple times and go on a bit of a journey.

The idea that we will fix this problem by giving people treatment is naive I am afraid. The problem will carry on regardless because of the inherent nature of these substances, which, on balance, should be banned. We have to weigh up the costs to society of even a small increase in the number of people who take these drugs, and, of course we feel sorry for them, but they have ended up taking them anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

In a sense, it is a real pleasure to take part in this debate, as has been said, principally because it has been a terrific one with some fantastic contributions from all parts of the House. I commend the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for securing this debate on an incredibly important topic, and for their persistent pursuit of a policy-based approach to the subject. I could offer the same commendation to lots of Members in the Chamber, including hon. Friends.

In other ways, I very much regret having to take part in this debate. First, because, as other Members have said, I do not think it should be home affairs or policing spokespersons speaking today; it should be health spokespersons and we should be debating this issue absolutely through the prism of public health, not criminal justice. Secondly, like every hon. Member in this debate, I wish that we did not have to be here because drugs had been suppressed or eliminated a long time ago, but clearly we are as far away from that being a reality as we ever have been. That is fundamentally why Members are pushing for reform. There is no sign of significant change under the current regime.

Hon. Members have illustrated eloquently that this is a crisis, in terms of scale and the impact that it is having on individuals. Addressing this crisis will absolutely require the use of the full range of tools at the disposal of Governments: measures to address poverty and inequality; education; prevention; tackling stigma; treatment; harm reduction; recovery; mental health; housing; and, of course, law enforcement and criminal justice too—every arm of government must be involved.

We have debated and will continue to debate all the different policy responses, but today the focus is on the Misuse of Drugs Act at 50, the legislation that underpins and, I am afraid, casts a shadow over everything else we do to combat drugs. I share the analysis of the vast majority of hon. Members who have spoken that, in the 50 years since it was passed, the evolution and, sadly, the growth of the drugs trade has been extraordinary, as has been our understanding of it, but our legislation has tragically failed to move on in response. Indeed, many would argue that it was the wrong response at the outset, as the hon. Member for Reigate eloquently said.

[Dr Mullan]

If the central analysis is that the legislation is the cause of the problem, and the legislation is exactly the same in Scotland as in England, how does that account for the fact that the problem in Scotland, on some metrics, is more than twice as bad?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Two things. Yes, the metrics in Scotland are very bad. The metrics for the whole United Kingdom are terribly bad—[Interruption.] Some metrics; I am not sure which particular metrics the hon. Member is referring to. However, that is not the point. With respect, I also do not think the point is to ask, “What is the cause?” We could say that, in some ways, the Act has caused all sorts of harms, but it is beyond dispute that it has failed to fix the problem. We are all calling for an evidence-based debate on whether we can do better, and whether different legislative approaches can do better. I cannot really see how Government Members can say that this is as good as it gets. Yes, there are other things that both Governments—all Governments—are doing, but if this is as good as it gets, we are a hopeless bunch. I think we should try to provide some hope to our constituents. That is what we are trying to do today. This debate should not really be about whether reform is needed but should rather be an evidence-based debate about the nature of that reform and how far we should go. I think even Government Members think changes can be made. Some of us will want to go much further, which I will come to right now.

There is an abundance of evidence on not only the need for reform but what sort of reforms work, coming from health and medical experts; law enforcement, as we heard; those working on the frontline with those with addiction; and those who have experienced addictions directly. International best practice can be a guide as well. That is why report after report, including reports from cross-party Committees of this House, have all called for reform. I will focus on three brief recommendations that both the Health and Social Care Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee flagged up.

First—as I said, so I do not need to expand on it anymore—this policy area should be led by the Health and Social Care Department, not the Home Office. Secondly, both Committees said that, at the very least, we need to pilot and look at the use of overdose prevention facilities or drug consumption rooms. We heard from numerous hon. Members how these have been shown to save lives and reduce harm. They assist in ensuring that those who most need it can access support and treatment, and they protect the public from antisocial and dangerous public injection.

Thirdly, both of those cross-party Committees said that there should at least be a consultation on decriminalisation of possession. The SNP believes that there is already enough evidence for that, and we acknowledge that international evidence shows that that leads to less problematic drug use and less harm as a result, and less waste of police and justice resources. Let us at least look at it and review that.

I absolutely appreciate that the Government will not announce today that they will rip up the Misuse of Drugs Act and start again. However, knowing that the Government will not do that, and knowing that they are conservative and cautious about the possibility of reform, they surely to goodness must at least trial and research some of these possible new approaches. If they do not want to do that, they should devolve powers so that we can try—to Scotland, but also to other parts of the UK willing to pilot a new approach. As has been said, we will all benefit from what we learn as a result; whether it is a success or a failure, let us try. Instead of being scared of public opinion, test it. Put it to a citizens assembly and build consensus. I believe that the more folk understand about this issue, the more they see the need for reform. If nothing else, people see that it is their brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, sons and daughters who the Government are criminalising rather than helping.

Finally, I have one or two nuts-and-bolts questions that I would be keen for the Minister to answer. First, as has already been asked, will he respond positively to the request for a four nations drugs meeting, which could hopefully include discussion of drugs overdose prevention facilities? Can he update the House on the issue of pill press regulation? What is his latest position on naloxone and widening distribution? Will he also look at drug checking facilities and allowing that approach to be trialled? Let us work constructively, follow the evidence and leave no option unexplored as we seek to tackle this crisis. That should include the possibility of radical reform of drugs legislation.

Safe Streets for All

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I begin by thanking the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary for the work that they do to make our streets safer, the commitment they show to the victims of crime and their determination to start bringing justice back into the justice system. Imprisonment for life for child murderers, keeping the most serious offenders behind bars for longer and the £4 billion extra over the next four years for 18,000 additional prison places are incredibly encouraging steps and signify a direction of travel that we should all welcome.

However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary will forgive me if I use this opportunity again to encourage the Government to go further. Ensuring that we have a justice system that more consistently delivers justice is one of the main reasons I got involved in politics. The harsh reality is that, right now, if any of my friends and family were the victims of a serious crime, even with our planned reforms, I doubt very much that they would get what I would consider to be justice.

I have talked before in this place about the intellectual snobbery that exists towards people who think that those who commit serious offences should spend a very long time in prison. On the Justice Committee, there is an endless supply of well-meaning witnesses, who come to tell us about the reasons why people should not go to prison or should spend less time there. There is a whole swathe of lobbying and campaigning organisations that want prison reform, and they are right that there is more that we can and should do to improve rehabilitation —I know the Justice Secretary speaks very powerfully about his commitment to do that in the upcoming Bill—but failings in one area do not excuse inaction in another.

The absolute priority of the justice system should be to deliver justice for victims. In my experience, first and foremost, people want to see those who have raped, abused, maimed or murdered their family members locked up for a long time, and at the moment our justice system is not delivering that frequently enough. The highest starting point for the sexual assault of a child under 13 is six years, with a range of just four to nine years, and every year dozens of child rapists are sentenced to less than five years in prison. I would ask anybody to look in the eye a parent of a 12-year-old who has been sexually assaulted, and tell them that the perpetrator could be out of prison before their child has even reached adulthood and say that that is justice. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if somebody raped my niece or nephew, traumatising them and potentially robbing them of the joy of intimacy in their personal lives forever, only that person spending most of the rest of their life in prison would satisfy me.

Across the board, I believe that we need—and, importantly, that the public support—a wholesale recalibration of criminal sentencing in this country. I think the term “life sentence” in itself is offensive to victims, implying as it does that in some way being on licence is anything like being in prison, or even close to what it is like living the real life sentence of being traumatised by a serious crime.

The Government are acting decisively. By reducing Labour’s early automatic release, in one simple step we will be delivering a huge increase in the time spent in prison by serious offenders, and I welcome that, but we remain some way off widespread confidence in our justice system, which can only come from increasing the sentences themselves. The Home Secretary and this Justice Secretary have my full support in delivering on this agenda, and I ask them to keep listening to victims and families, who would be criminalised if they sought justice on their own terms. The law requires them to ask the state to provide justice for them, and the state must not let them down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to tackle unauthorised encampments.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to tackle unauthorised encampments.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse) [V]]

We recognise the misery that some unauthorised encampments cause to local communities and businesses. Through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are pleased to be delivering on our manifesto commitment to strengthen the powers of the police to arrest and seize the vehicles of those who set up unauthorised encampments and cause damage, disruption and distress.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; we have to balance the rights of so many Travellers to lead a nomadic life—and the vast majority do, in a legal way—with the rights of those who own property, live in communities, and deserve to live without the distress, aggravation and difficulty that comes from unauthorised encampments. He will know that we are a Government who do not tolerate law breaking of any kind. The measures that we are introducing will ensure that the police have the powers they need to tackle this problem—hopefully, once and for all.

[Dr Mullan [V]]

I recently met a local business that transports food up and down the country from a warehouse in my constituency. It was disrupted by an unauthorised encampment and subjected to harassment and demands for cash payments. Will my hon. Friend confirm that our proposed new laws aim to prevent just that type of behaviour, and that, importantly, the vast majority of the Traveller community, who do not harass or disrupt the local communities they travel through, face no reduction in their rights?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend speaks the truth. I am very sorry to hear about the circumstances that afflicted the business in his community. I know that he works hard to ensure that his part of the world remains a great place for investment, and I hope that business managed to deal with the problem. The country is littered with businesses that have had to put boulders, huge logs or other barriers over their hardstanding or car parks. That is not a situation we can tolerate into the future.

As my hon. Friend says, the vast majority of Travellers go about their lifestyle in a perfectly legal manner, and we should facilitate and help them to do so, but those who do not and who cross the line into illegality need to be dealt with. We believe that the measures in the Bill will allow the police to do that with much greater efficiency.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Some local courts have been brought back into use in response to the pandemic. We have had to use Nightingale courts not because the current court estate is, in itself, inadequate, but because we need to space out a lot more to hold hearings and trials, especially jury trials, in a covid-safe way. Even where particular courts—the Old Bailey is a good example—have quite a large number of courtrooms, we can only use a subset of those in a covid-safe way. We have enough jury courtrooms, but they are sometimes difficult to use in a distanced, covid-safe way, and that is why we have had to open up the Nightingale courts. However, we will see what lessons we can learn, as the hon. Gentleman says. We will keep this under careful review and reflect on it very carefully.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

The Minister will understand the attention that has been paid to this issue, but I welcome the highlighting of the historical trends with regard to the hyperbole coming from the Opposition Benches. Does he agree that with many private events venues unable to operate and claiming taxpayer-funded grants and support, it makes sense for the taxpayer to be paying into those as Nightingale courts instead? May I encourage him to hasten the roll-out of such venues?

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his encouragement. We will certainly do that everywhere that we possibly can. If any Members have ideas for Nightingale courts, then we are happy to talk about them.

Police National Computer

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I say, we are in the middle of phase 2 of our recovery plan, which is assessing precisely the scope of the issue we are facing and then moving into the recoverability of the data, so that we can mitigate exactly the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentions. As to decisions made by the police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire, I hesitate to inject an element of politics into this matter, but it should come as no surprise that the police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire is a Conservative, and it has routinely been rated as a very high-performing force.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

I am grateful for the update that has been provided to the House and the work that is being done to try to recover these records, but does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of condemnation of the Home Secretary from those on the Opposition Benches contrasts with their desire to install as Home Secretary someone who previously said we should not have any of these kinds of records in the first place?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend raises a very pertinent point. Of course, we were trying in this process to do what the law tells us to do, which is to respect people’s privacy and to delete data that we are supposed to delete. It is possibly true that some Members on the Opposition Benches—not, I have to say, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), but others on those Benches—have an interesting relationship with the notion of the police using and interpreting data. This is an issue of technical complexity, which software engineering experts in the Home Office are grappling with day by day. We will bring more information as we have it, but safe to say—I know that my hon. Friend takes a strong interest in policing and the policing family—we are doing our best to ensure that the police are in as good a position as they can be to continue to fight crime.

Protections for Emergency Service Workers

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate. It gives us a chance to bring into the light the real risks that our emergency service workers face.

Police officers are asked to confront violent and dangerous people every day—day in, day out—and other emergency service workers also run towards danger when other people run away. I want to pay tribute to my dad, who served more than 30 years as a policeman. I have yet to meet a braver man than him. While growing up, I listened with fascination to stories from his work. Only as I got older did I understand the risks that he took in taking on criminals on behalf of the public he served. I am equally proud of my sister, who followed in his footsteps. She is blessed with two young children, and I know that it occasionally crosses the mind of everyone in our family how horrific it would be for them if anything happened to her.

I vividly remember hearing on the news, in 2012, that two female police officers had been killed and fearing that my sister was one of those officers. The two police officers who were killed were PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone. They were called to a false burglary report and killed in a gun and grenade attack. They were killed while carrying out their duties as police officers. They were killed while working to keep us all safe.

Every time anyone who has a police officer in their family hears something on the news about harm to or the death of a police officer, we worry it might be our family member. Tragically, 1,600 police officers have paid the ultimate price while serving in uniform. In September, we had the case of Sergeant Matt Ratana, who was killed while serving in the Metropolitan police. Earlier today was Sergeant Matt Ratana’s funeral, and my thoughts and condolences—as I am sure all Members agree—go out to his family and friends on this difficult day.

Eighty-eight per cent. of officers who responded to a national police safety survey said that they had been assaulted at some point during their careers. However, we are all very aware that it is not only the police who experience assault. We all heard the disgusting stories about the abuse and assault that NHS emergency workers faced during the pandemic. Firefighters and prison officers are also assaulted. Many other workers face such abuses, and that cannot be tolerated.

I fully support the proposal in the Government’s sentencing White Paper to increase the maximum penalty for assaulting emergency service workers from 12 months to two years, but that must be a starting point. If we do not see a big drop in the assaults taking place, we need to look at that again. Anyone who harms emergency service workers carrying out their duties must face justice.

That brings me to my concluding remarks, about another area where we should and can go further. The killer of PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone was sentenced to a whole-life tariff, which means that he will never leave prison. That is justice for their families. Too often, I have come across intellectual snobbery about people who want justice—but that is a valid, legitimate and moral perspective. I am afraid, however, that not everyone gets justice.

I am mindful not to make reference to any particular case, but I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South in his campaign to support the widow of PC Andrew Harper, Lissie Harper. As others have mentioned, she is campaigning for life sentences with a minimum term for the killers of emergency service workers, whether an intentional act or not. PC Andrew Harper was killed in the line of duty. I pay tribute to his bravery, in pursuing criminals without thought for his safety and in signing up to be a police officer in the first place. Legal precedents already distinguish between different types of manslaughter, but Lissie has made a strong case for us to put in a new law as supported by her campaign, to ensure that proper protections are in place.