Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code E) Order 2015

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 General Committees

[Mike Penning]

It is an honour to be the police Minister and to work with the shadow Minister, with whom I discussed briefly last night the matters in this delegated legislation. I fully understand the points he made and I will address each in turn.

The shadow Minister was right in saying that there are three pilots for out-of-court disposals. We are trying to move away from cautions and slapped wrists; for people who commit offences and admit them, there are consequences and the current pilots will report back imminently. If those pilots are successful—the anecdotal evidence suggests that they are—we want to roll them out very quickly.

The evidence from the police on the ground indicates that they would like these offences and others—I stress “others”—to be exempted. We have looked carefully at the proposals and at the Bar Council’s concerns and exempted only these four categories of offence. I do not accept that the measure will have a detrimental effect on the public’s view of the police. Actually, the police have worked successfully in this area for many years. We have a very professional police force and we must make sure that we trust them. I looked at the evidence and that is why I brought the provision forward, as I discussed last night.

I fully accept what the shadow Minister said. We are moving to a more digital age. It is not only in the Met where we are piloting body-worn cameras. They have been a huge success and we are considering rolling them out, but we must make sure the evidence is protected within the devices and that will take even more of a leap in the process. We will be back for another change in PACE to allow that evidence to be taken when we come away from the pilots.

There were some concerns and the police asked for more exemptions. I have looked carefully at that and restricted myself to the four. I will continue to look at the matter carefully, especially in the light of the Bar Council’s comments. If there is any evidence of what it is saying, the Government will come back to the Committee to make sure we address that. With that in mind, I hope that these changes to PACE can be accepted this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Security Industry Authority

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

The 2014-15 annual report and accounts for the Security Industry Authority are being laid before the House today and published on https://www.gov.uk/.

Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

[HCWS340]

Surveillance Camera Commissioner: Annual Report

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying a copy of the 2014-15 annual report of the surveillance camera commissioner before the House, as required by section 35 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The report has also been published on the commissioner’s website.

The surveillance camera commissioner is an independent role appointed under section 34 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to encourage compliance with the surveillance camera code of practice, review the operation of the code, and provide advice about the code—including changes to it or breaches of it.

The current commissioner is Tony Porter, whose three-year term of appointment commenced on 10 March 2014.

[HCWS316]

Forensic Archive Ltd

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

I am pleased to announce that the Home Office has begun the first review of the Forensic Archive Limited (FAL). FAL was established in October 2012 to manage and maintain material previously held by the Forensic Science Service.

Reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

I will announce the findings of the review later in this financial year.

[HCWS299]

Police Funding Formula

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the police funding formula calculation errors.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

It is with regret that the Home Secretary cannot be with us today, as she is attending the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels.

The Government believe that police funding must be allocated on the basis of a modern, transparent and fair funding formula that matches the funding demands faced by the police, but I think we all agree that the current arrangements are unclear, out of date and unfair. In recent years, many chief constables have called for a new formula. The National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary have all called for a revised model. The issues with the current formula are well known. In 2009, the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), agreed to review the police funding formula—[Interruption.] Sorry, in 2009, he called for it to be reviewed, but sadly it was not. The Home Affairs Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all argued for a new formula as well.

In the previous Parliament my predecessor announced that the Government would review the formula, and in July we went into consultation. That closed in September, having received 1,700 responses. Since then, we have been working with forces around the country on the principle of how their budgets could go forward. I am sad to say that during this process a statistical error was made in the data used. The data do not change the principles consulted on and the allocation provided to the forces was never indicative, but we recognise that this has caused great concern to police forces around the country. I and the Government regret the mistake, and I apologise to the House and to the 43 authorities I wrote to during the extended consultation period as part of the funding formula review.

For that and other reasons, the Government are minded to delay the funding formula changes for 2016-17 that we had previously intended to make, and we will seek the views of the police and crime commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council before going any further. It is essential that we come to a funding formula that is not only fair, transparent and matched by demand, but supported by the police. I have listened throughout the consultation, and the Government will continue to do so in considering the next steps, in conjunction with police leaders. I will update the House in due course. We should all support the reform of the police funding formula. Police forces and Committees of the House have been calling for it for years. We will bring it forward, but we are delaying the process at the present time.

[Keith Vaz]

Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting the urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his answer. I commend him for being the first Policing Minister in recent years to tackle the problem of police funding, which desperately needed to be addressed.

Last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee took evidence on the funding formula. The testimony we received about the process was damning. Last Wednesday, 34 Members took part in a debate on this subject based on the old criteria, and last Friday in a letter to the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, the Home Office admitted that its proposed funding formula was based on the wrong data. According to the previous formula, two thirds of police forces would have gained from the proposals and a third would have lost funding. Now, 31 forces will lose out. For example, Northumbria in July was first a loser, then a gainer, and now it will lose out again. The Metropolitan police was expecting to lose £184 million, but it appears that it is now set to gain—or possibly lose—a different amount. Leicestershire constabulary was set to lose £700,000 before last week; it is now set to lose £2.4 million.

This entire process has been described by police and crime commissioners and others as unfair, unjust and fundamentally flawed. What started off with good intentions is rapidly descending into farce. To call it a shambles would be charitable. There is now a very real prospect of a number of forces planning to take the Government to court. Given what has happened, will the Minister agree to a number of suggestions?

I warmly thank the Minister for his apology to the House. It was the right thing to do—it is typical of him to come before the House and say that—because police forces and PCCs spend an enormous amount of time and effort on this subject. The Minister has suggested a delay, which I support, but will he go one step further and establish an independent panel of experts who understand the importance of sharing data and, more importantly, are able to count and understand mathematics, unlike some officials in the Home Office?

The Minister will agree with me that this is a defining moment for policing. Last week at the Dispatch Box he said that he was

“proud to be the Minister responsible for the best police force in the world”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 1074.]

Now is his chance to show it by engaging with the police service. This formula will last a long time. If the Penning formula is to last as long as the Barnett formula, it must be seen to be fair, just and workable.

[Mike Penning]

The Barnett formula seems to be very popular in parts of the United Kingdom.

I wanted to ensure that the House was aware of what we are going to do. Many of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for are exactly what we are going to do. The decision I have made today with the Home Secretary is partly based on some of the submissions to the Home Affairs Committee and its recommendations. I listened carefully to that evidence. Not every PCC and chief constable in the country was unhappy—I noticed that not many of them gave evidence; perhaps they are shy. We will listen carefully, get it right and make sure the mathematics are right, so that I am not in this embarrassing situation again.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—my parliamentary neighbour, who initiated this urgent question —my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and I were very kindly met by the Minister not so very long ago, when we discussed this question. How would my right hon. Friend the Minister describe fairness and the time schedule for the new process? It is very important that police and crime commissioners—in particular, the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire—know the context within which they will be setting their budgets in the spring.

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. We had a good meeting and I promised to listen, and I hope that the response I am giving today shows that we have listened. The funding formula for 2016-17 will be based on the existing formula and the announcement, as normal, will be made in December, but there will be a lot of work, a lot of listening and a lot of understanding of what the demands are, within the difficult financial situation that we are in. Not everybody will think it is fair, but we will think it is fair and we will not be in the opaque position of the existing formula.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The first thing the Policing Minister should do is apologise to the police service for an omnishambles process—replacing one opaque and unfair formula with another; withholding vital financial information; publishing that information only under threat of legal action; and then publishing the wrong information.

The Policing Minister was right to apologise to Parliament, but I ask him to go one step further. Last Wednesday he dismissed all concerns about his new funding formula. Forty-eight hours later, it was revealed that he had got it wrong and had published the wrong data. Funding allocations varied by up to £181 million and there were 31 losers. When did he know that? What did he know, and when did he know it?

Tony Hogg, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall has summed it up on behalf of the police service:

“We have now lost all trust in the process.”

The Policing Minister should abandon the discredited process, as he has agreed to do; he should start afresh, as proposed by the police and crime commissioners, which I hope he has agreed to do; and acting in an open, transparent and honest way, he should publish all financial data, which should be concluded as soon as possible and be overseen by an independent third party—perhaps the National Audit Office, because there is no longer confidence in the Home Office.

The third and final apology that the Policing Minister should give is to the public. The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. People expect their Government to act responsibly when it comes to the policing of their communities and the country. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. I say in all sincerity to the Policing Minister and to the Home Secretary: get a grip, and get it right.

[Mike Penning]

The House will be disappointed in the shadow Minister’s tone. I was informed on Friday, and this is the first opportunity I have had to inform the House about the situation—[Interruption.] I hear shouts from the Labour Benches, “You should’ve known.” At the end of the day, I was not told, and the first I knew about this was when I was in the House on Friday. We will make sure that we have a fair process in place as we go forward. That is only fair. I have apologised and I will do so again if necessary, but I am not apologising when it comes to the hon. Gentleman’s tone, because he has got it wrong as usual.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s apology and congratulate Tony Hogg and his team on uncovering this inadvertent error. Will the Minister confirm to my constituents and to those across Devon and Cornwall that in reviewing this situation he will take full account of the impact of rural policing and tourism on policing costs?

[Mike Penning]

I have apologised to the 43 authorities and I apologise in particular to Devon and Cornwall, which highlighted the information that was wrong in the letters I sent out to those 43 authorities. Getting the decisions right about rural and other issues within the formula was exactly what we were trying to do in the first place, as it was mostly the rural constituencies that were most upset with the existing formula, but I can assure Members that we will now get it right.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Late last week, the Derbyshire police commissioner and chief of police informed me that the settlement was very good. Forty-eight hours later, they were told by none other than Devon and Cornwall police—not the Minister—that the whole thing was wrong. Now Derbyshire has lost £13.1 million. Is there any occasion on which Ministers in this Tory Government would consider resigning because of an almighty mess that they have taken part in?

[Mike Penning]

I congratulate Derbyshire on reducing crime by 21% since 2010. Derbyshire has not lost anything, because the proposals were indicative and no money was allocated. As usual, the hon. Gentleman gets it wrong.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

According to the report in The Times, North Wales police, which was due to gain some £2 million under the formula, now stands to lose some £10 million. Does the Minister agree that although the force will appreciate the frank apology that he has given, it now requires some form of reassurance that the settlement will be arrived at with sensitivity to the morale of the officers of that force?

[Mike Penning]

I am always conscious of the morale of police officers. That is why I say again from this Dispatch Box that I am proud to be the Policing Minister with the best police force in the world. I can tell my right hon. Friend that no money has gone missing from north Wales, because the proposal was indicative and no money was likely to go until a decision was made. However, the existing formula will continue for an extra year while we finish the rest of the proposals.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister bear in mind what has been said repeatedly, namely that the west midlands police force has suffered drastically as a result of the cuts that have occurred? Representations have been made and debates have been held about the position. Before the Minister tells us about the crime situation, I should say that in the past he has, I believe, accepted the unfairness of what occurred because of the previous formula. Will he bear all that in mind, and let us hope that there will be a fair settlement, at long last, for the west midlands police force?

[Mike Penning]

I usually disagree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says, but this time I do not. I think that the settlement needs to be fair to the West Midlands authority, and to the other 42 authorities, and we delayed the process so that we could get it right.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting me, and other Lancashire Members of Parliament. Will he confirm that he will continue to meet all the Lancashire MPs to establish a fair funding settlement for the Lancashire constabulary?

[Mike Penning]

I congratulate all the Lancashire Members who took the time, and were considerate enough, to meet me. Members of all parties listened to our proposals, and then presented their own ideas. That, too, helped us to make the decision to delay the process.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner will be taking £1.3 billion out of the Metropolitan Police budget. Will the Minister tell us how much the Met needs to save or keep, and what bearing that has on the announcement that he has made today, in the context of borough amalgamations here in London?

[Mike Penning]

Decisions on front-line operations are a matter for the commissioner. He is an excellent commissioner, and we await his proposals for his force. However, no decision has been made because the comprehensive spending review has not been announced. As I said a few minutes ago, the funding formula will be announced in December.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that the process will be delayed, and I thank him and the Home Secretary for their willingness to engage colleagues on the issue. While there may indeed be problems with the existing formula, it is always going to be difficult to adjust between different forces in an environment in which forces are already having to find ways of reducing their spending, and some forces will have to face double cuts. Is that not an argument for an extended delay while the current situation continues?

[Mike Penning]

I think that, now we have made this decision, we need to sit down and talk to the police authorities, the police commissioners and the police themselves, but it was clear to the Home Secretary and me that we needed to pause so that we could get it right. Surely that is the important thing.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the amount of time and effort that was wasted in Lancashire over the summer in pursuing this matter and trying to get to the bottom of the funding formula? Lancashire was due to lose £24.9 million, a huge amount, which would make it the biggest loser in percentage terms. Is not the reason for this shambles the Minister’s failure to supply the funding formula to the police and crime commissioners—so that they could dissect it and we could debate it—until only a few weeks ago?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

As I said a moment ago, I had what I thought was a very good meeting with Lancashire Members on both sides of the House. We listened, and we listened carefully. The reason for the problem is that data were not transferred in accordance with the new method of calculation. A statistical error was made in the Department. Ministerial responsibility dictates that I am responsible, and that is the way it should be.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for coming to the House and making his apology, which I think will be welcomed. When the Met police met London MPs, they complained about the opaqueness of the previous formula, and also pointed out that the London police undertook nationally significant policing tasks. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the new formula will be more transparent, and that the London settlement will recognise and match the demand for the policing of nationally significant events?

[Mike Penning]

London is one of the greatest capitals in the world, if not the greatest, and it has particular police issues that have to be addressed. One of the reasons we are pausing is to make absolutely sure that all the different funding streams that come into this great capital city are managed correctly, and that it has the resources it needs.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

The director general of policing sent the letter outlining the error on Thursday 5 November. Is the Minister honestly telling us he was not made aware of its contents until Friday?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I entirely understand the rationale behind the hon. Lady’s question, but may I gently say one should not insert the word “honestly” into any question? The working assumption has to be that every Member in this House is always honest. We do not accuse Members of dishonesty or suggest as much; we debate issues. The hon. Lady is a new Member and I understand the purport of her question. I have no desire to get at any individual Member, but I think it is useful for new Members to get to grips with the new procedures—for example, recognising that debate goes through the Chair and that the word “you” is not used, and so on. I hope that is regarded as helpful.

[Mike Penning]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Even those of us who have been here quite a long time get things wrong as well.

The first I knew of the letter was Friday.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, commend my right hon. Friend for halting the process. May I also put in this plea for Dorset police, who have been at the lowest end of the funding for many years, that rurality and tourism in particular will be very much in my right hon. Friend’s mind when eventually we do get to sorting out the formula?

[Mike Penning]

One distinct advantage of being here today and making the statement is that we are starting the process again and everybody will, naturally, put the case for their own parts of the world, which my hon. Friend did really well.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), the Minister said he hoped West Midlands would be treated fairly, but is he not aware that under the existing funding formula, which he is maintaining, West Midlands has been hit abnormally hard with cuts of over £100 million in five years? What is he going to do over the next period while he has the pause to ensure that West Midlands and other forces are not hit again in the comprehensive funding review? What is he going to say to the Chancellor to ensure police forces get treated fairly?

[Mike Penning]

We were changing the funding formula to get a fairer, less opaque system. I have been asked to pause; I have paused it. The formula is in place for another year.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his characteristic honesty and integrity in coming to the House today and responding in the way he has. When he comes to contemplate the future funding for Wiltshire, will he make sure that not only is the absolute amount of money considered carefully, but also the freedoms that exist for small rural forces to work collaboratively with larger forces nearby—for example, Avon and Somerset?

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Alongside the funding formula review was a capability review being run by the chiefs. Some of that can be driven by the chiefs, some of it will be done by the regions and some of it through the National Crime Agency, but, as I always say at the Dispatch Box, we can often do things better if we do them together, and I think forces should listen to that.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s apology today, but how can my constituents and my police and crime commissioner and South Wales police have any confidence that when the Home Office undertakes the formula, which the Minister has described, in 2016-17 he will get it right this time?

[Mike Penning]

One of the things we can ensure is that the calculations and modelling within the formula done by the statisticians are looked at very carefully. One thing we are looking at, which has been a recommendation from the Select Committee, is to get an independent peer review towards the end, but whatever happens this formula needs to change so it is fairer for everybody.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on instigating the police funding formula review, which was promised by the Labour party when in office but never delivered. In pausing this process, which is an inevitability, may I urge him not to wait too long because many authorities, particularly those that deal with sparsely populated communities, feel they have been seen off in a major way for many years and would rather like to see the formula amended in a transparent and open way, and hopefully in a way that will correct the imbalance they perceive in police funding?

[Mike Penning]

One reason that the funding formula was not changed by the previous Administration or any other Administration is that it is so damned difficult. I know that that is not parliamentary language, Mr Speaker, but it is true. I have experienced this in the past couple of months. The fact that it was hard was not an excuse not to do it, however, and we do need to get it right.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement today, but he must realise that the buck stops with him and not with his officials. I find it remarkable that it took 24 hours for him to find out about the problem, and that his officials did not tell him sooner. Does he not realise that the Home Office has now lost all credibility among the police and the police and crime commissioners—the police family—over this process? Is it not about time he took up the suggestion of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and established independent oversight of the process?

[Mike Penning]

I do not accept that the whole police family has no faith in the Home Office or in me. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, to suggest that, so far as ministerial oversight is concerned, I am ultimately responsible. That is why I have not blamed an individual civil servant or any Department. At the end of the day, this is my responsibility, which is why I am standing here now.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach; his apology to the House is characteristic of the transparent way in which he has approached this entire settlement. When he brought that characteristic transparency to the cross-party meeting of Lancashire MPs, we were hoping that Lancashire would see a fairer formula. It cannot be right that some budgets are going up and some budgets are going down. Every police force should be equally miserable across the country. The formula should be fair.

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That was a really good meeting, which we held in the Deputy Speaker’s office. I promised to listen and I will continue to listen. At the end of the day, though, there will be winners and losers with any change to the funding formula. That is why some of the forces that are going to do very well seemed to be quite quiet when they appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, but I understand exactly where they were coming from.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the name check, but this is complicated. The fact is that North Wales police will still receive £10.5 million less than they expected in relation to planning assumptions. Can the Minister give them any confidence that they will be able to deal with their shortfalls?

[Mike Penning]

I have not yet announced the 2016-17 budget; I shall do so in December. As a former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know that he will have to wait until December for the formula decision.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his candour. May I also encourage him to work with the police and crime commissioners to ensure that efficiencies can be made to enable us to change in a different way?

[Mike Penning]

There are more efficiencies that can be done without affecting front-line policing. Actually, some of the technology that is coming through will aid front-line policing, not least the body-worn video cameras. I intend to work with all 43 police and crime commissioners and their chief constables, and with Devon and Cornwall in particular, as they have some very good statisticians.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The residents of Dyfed-Powys already contribute far more per head for their policing than those living in large urban areas in England. Will the Minister ensure that the new formula takes into consideration the extra costs of policing an area such as Dyfed-Powys, which covers two thirds of Wales, especially the extra infrastructure required to secure an effective emergency response?

[Mike Penning]

As I said earlier, one reason that people were calling for a new funding formula was the need to take into account the effects of modern policing in rural communities. That is exactly what we will do.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

I was one of the Lancashire MPs who greatly appreciated the meeting with the Minister a few weeks ago. Can he assure us that, when Lancashire is being considered, we will not be losers in the process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) suggested? Speaking as someone with direct experience of a blue-light service, may I also thank the Minister for the open and—I will use the word— honest way in which he has approached this process with us all?

[Mike Penning]

I sometimes get myself in trouble here for being too honest and too forthright, so I thank my hon. Friend very much for those comments. I cannot promise anything as we start a new process, but I will sit down with people from all the constituencies and all the forces to make sure we get the best we can with the modern formula. As I say, that will be suspended for a year.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Durham was last month ranked the highest-performing force in the country, so it is very worrying that there might be a £10 million cut. Does the delay mean that there will cuts in the autumn statement followed by further cuts in 18 months’ time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

The purpose of my standing here making a statement is to say that the possible losses that Durham would have had with the new formula will not happen because it is going to stick with the original formula. We will have to wait for the autumn statement.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that North Yorkshire is the largest policing area in England, and the force gains approximately £8 million under the current formula because of its rurality. Will he assure me that our police and crime commissioner, who does a fantastic job, will be properly consulted and listened to during this welcome extended process?

[Mike Penning]

I pay tribute to the North Yorkshire force, and I fully understand the pressures on it as a rural force. One reason why I got into this situation was that I was working with the 43 PCCs, writing to them and telling them exactly what was going on. I will continue to do that.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating Durham police on being designated the most outstanding force by Her Majesty’s inspector. Does he realise, however, that his flawed formula means that it will have to face an additional £10 million in cuts? If that happens, it would mean a reduction in police numbers from 1,700 in 2010 to 850 in 2020. How does he expect Durham police to continue policing? May I respectfully say to the Minister that he should go back to the drawing board, recalibrate the formula and come back with something that makes sense to the people and the police in County Durham?

[Mike Penning]

I have tried to be very careful in not responding to people who probably were not listening to my statement. I have suspended the formula. As with the other 42 authorities, we will work with Durham on a new formula.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on re-examining this issue. Will he commit to speaking to Katy Bourne, the excellent PCC for Sussex, where crime has reduced, when the new formula discussions take place?

[Mike Penning]

Not only will I commit to speaking to the excellent PCC in Sussex, Katy Bourne, but I left her 15 minutes ago.

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister commit to give due consideration to low council tax base rate metropolitan districts? Across-the-board cuts have a devastating impact on areas such as Merseyside and other metropolitan districts. To make up the cut that was brought forward before, we would have to have a 24.9% increase in council tax. We collect about £500,00 for 1% council tax, whereas other areas collect about £2.5 million, so there is a different impact because of lower tax base rates. Will he give due consideration to that when reconsidering the formula?

[Mike Penning]

One issue that has been raised consistently by Members from across the House is the precept issue, which I believe is what the hon. Lady is alluding to. Although that is not in my hands, it is part of what we look at when we are doing the formula and as we go forward. In some parts of the country the precept forms a substantial part of the funding, whereas in others it does not. I promise the hon. Lady that I will keep a watch on that.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to the House today. I fully recognise his commitment to tackling crime across the country; it is absolutely clear. Will he confirm to the House that there will be a very clear communication plan that will be sent to all police forces, from Cheshire police right the way through, so that they are aware of the milestones they will be required to pass to finalise, once and for all, this funding formula in the months ahead?

[Mike Penning]

Yes, we have time now to ensure that we consult across the board and that we work closely together. In my statement, I specifically said that we need to get agreement from the chief constables and the police and crime commissioners to ensure that the formula works, and that, I think, is the way forward.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Minister on making an apology, as it underlines the importance of the matter. In Bedfordshire, we have the fourth highest level of gun crime, the fifth highest level of burglary, and the seventh highest level of knife crime. We also face a real threat from extremism. We face urban challenges, but we are funded today as a rural force. Even Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has acknowledged that historic underfunding has been a major issue for the force. Under both the new figures and the old figures, Bedfordshire makes hardly any gain. Does not common sense dictate that there was a flaw with the formula, and will it be corrected?

[Mike Penning]

I say to my parliamentary neighbour that I know his part of the world extremely well. Even though Bedford is not my county, I am very conscious of the pressures it is under, particularly from the Luton policing angle. It is something that we will look at as we go forward.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which he delivered with characteristic clarity and integrity. Does he agree that larger urban forces such as Hampshire police, which serves my Havant constituency, deserve a revised funding formula so that they can be funded on the basis of need as well?

[Mike Penning]

Although I cannot comment on exactly how Hampshire will be funded with the new formula, or what it will get in December, may I congratulate it not only on having excellent MPs who have bent my ear extensively over the past couple of weeks—MPs from across the House have done so as well—but on forward thinking and working with the other emergency services brilliantly well? That is something on which other forces from across the country could think.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s apology and his decision to suspend the formula while the correct figures are being calculated. Given the scale of the error—last week Lancashire was due to lose £25 million and today it is due to gain £16 million—does he now acknowledge that Lancashire constabulary was right to maintain reserves to plan prudently for the future?

[Mike Penning]

I think that I agree with most of what the hon. Lady said, but it is an issue that, in the 43 authorities of England and Wales, there are reserves of £2.1 billion.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Historically, Northamptonshire has been underfunded, but despite that we have seen many innovative new policing models coming forward in the county. Despite this latest delay in the funding formula, will the Minister commit to continue to provide funding for innovative new models to come forward?

[Mike Penning]

Northamptonshire is one of the most forward thinking authorities in the country, and the work it and its PCC are doing alongside the fire service and other blue-light emergency services is really significant. The police innovation fund is exactly what my hon. Friend was alluding to and that is what the money is for.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I heard what the Minister said about suspension, but the fact is that, under this error, South Wales police would have had, at £15.5 million, the fourth highest loss across the UK. That comes on top of the fact that Cardiff already does not receive the same treatment for the particular challenges that it faces as a capital city as London, Belfast and Edinburgh. So when the Minister is reflecting on the funding formula and thinking on this error, will he address that concern, because Cardiff is not getting the support for its policing that other capitals across the UK are getting?

[Mike Penning]

That is part of the review. We will ensure that we look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, at the moment, Cardiff has not lost anything because I have suspended the review and the changes.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I am not sure what was the worst news for Derbyshire. First, there was the news that the proposed new formula was unduly generous to Derbyshire; now there is the news that we are stuck with the outdated, unfair existing formula for at least another year. May I urge the Minister to stick to his guns and press ahead and get a new formula in place as soon as he possibly can?

[Mike Penning]

So many Committees and so many experts outside this House and inside this House—I have met lots of them in the past couple of weeks—believe that we need a new funding formula. There is cross-party agreement on that, so that is what we need to do. I did say that there would be winners and losers, and I apologise to Derbyshire for the delay.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The police and crime commissioners and chief constables have made it clear that budget cuts delivered through any revised formula will fundamentally change policing. What is the vision and strategy of the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister for this fundamentally changed policing landscape, and how will this incorporate the possible loss of between 5,000 and 8,000 police officers in London and the possible loss of 1,000 community support officers?

[Mike Penning]

The assumption of any loss of front-line police officers—of course, that is a decision for the commissioner—was based on the original formula, not on my announcement today. Policing is changing, and so is crime. That is something we all have to understand and address. Any offence taking place against the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be while he is asleep in bed tonight, and it will be on his computer; it will not be a robbery or a burglary at his house.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for responding to the urgent question with an apology. He is right, of course, to say that the buck stops with him, but I have heard from the exchanges today that the error was discovered by one of the police authorities. I am therefore concerned that the error was made by the Department in the first place, and that the Department itself did not uncover the error. This has wider implications for the protocols used by the civil service on all these funding formulae across Government. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the lessons he is learning from this are extended to other Departments, including Education, Health and all the others with local funding formulae?

[Mike Penning]

I am deeply conscious that we must make sure that there is confidence in a Department, particularly the two Departments that I represent. I met the permanent secretary this morning, and the Home Secretary, the permanent secretary and I are meeting tomorrow.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that rapid population growth creates challenges for the police. Violent crime in Slough, which I represent, has increased by 18.5% over the past year. When re-examining the formula, will he work in a transparent way, because that is critical to trust in policing by consent? Will he perhaps adopt the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, and take into account the challenges created in areas of high population growth?

[Mike Penning]

One of the reasons that we need a new formula is the high population growth that has taken place, particularly in Slough. That is why the formula needed to be changed, and because it was so opaque. I rest my case.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) in thanking my right hon. Friend for meeting Lancashire MPs on a cross-party basis to discuss the issue, allowing us to scrutinise in detail the predicted changes, consequences and formula, unlike our police and crime commissioner, who confused this with much wider issues to do with police cuts. My right hon. Friend mentioned the meeting with Lancashire MPs and the ideas that we submitted. Will he confirm that those ideas can now be fully considered and incorporated, following the delay that he has announced?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Fortunately, the ideas from the cross-party group of Lancashire MPs came before the end of the consultation, so they formed part of it. Along with the evidence of the Home Affairs Committee and other things that have come forward, that is part of the reason for the delay. The misuse of the data—clearly in the wrong place—is the catalyst that created the situation, but we were already listening. I think that is the best way to go forward.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that as things stand, West Midlands police could lose £28 million of his indicative budget. Can he give us an assurance today that nothing on that scale will occur? Will anyone be held responsible for the blunder and the delay in informing the Minister, or are officials, like Ministers, increasingly immune from responsibility for their actions?

[Mike Penning]

I am fully responsible for my actions and I take full responsibility for what has taken place under my brief. I cannot comment on what will happen and what will be announced in December, which will be based on the existing funding formula. We will all have to wait for the autumn statement.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The House needed an apology for the statistical errors by the Home Office, and we had one, without reservation, from the Minister. We should welcome that. What matters more to me is that when the results of the spending review are announced in December, forces such as the Gloucestershire constabulary will still have the resources they need to tackle serious crime such as drugs, knife use, and the very sad deaths resulting from both. Will my right hon. Friend give my constituents that reassurance?

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend’s constabulary has done fantastically well. It is a statistical error that has caused me to make this decision with the Home Secretary today. The reason for the change in the formula was to address the anomalies that we have heard about from Members across the House on the unfairness of the existing formula. It still needs to be changed and we need to push on with that with the chief constables and the PCCs.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

We have heard from today’s exchanges that not only was there an error in terms of the formula and the failure of the Home Office to pick it up, but a letter was sent on Thursday that the Minister was not informed about until Friday, which I think we would all agree is unacceptable. Given the damage that this has done to the credibility of the Home Office, will he now respond directly to the suggestion by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and others that some independence needs to be brought to the consultation process? May we have a clear, simple answer?

[Mike Penning]

I have already said that when we do the statistical analysis we will almost certainly be looking for some independent guidance on that. That is important. It will be as open as possible. [Interruption.] If that is not good enough, then why did the Opposition not do it when they were in power for 13 years? We are doing it. They did not.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Amid a number of inconsistencies with the process, what has been consistent is that the Minister has always said that he is listening, and he has continued very much to show that at the Dispatch Box today. I welcome the decision he has made. Will he also be consistent—he has hinted at this—in the recognition that London, as the capital city, needs full access to capital city funding, reflecting the fact that it is a national hub for policing and criminality?

[Mike Penning]

As I said, this great capital that we are all in today needs to have the capital city force that it needs. The funding will reflect that and we will make sure that it continues to do so.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

This episode raises serious concerns regarding the efficacy of the verification and validation process, particularly in relation to the Minister not being aware of it. Further to the statements that have been made, what will he do to ensure that there is some independence, robustness and credibility in the verification and validation process?

[Mike Penning]

As I said, I met the permanent secretary this morning. We will be meeting the Home Secretary when she returns tomorrow to find out exactly what work goes on, and inquiries will continue.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Taking £12.8 million from Gwent police would not be a cut; it would be an act of butchery that would grievously damage the fine work of the Gwent force, which has recently seen an increase in violent crime in the area. I think we all admire the breathtaking chutzpah of the Minister, who seeks to shift the blame to the previous Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). Can the Minister give us a clear account, in language we all understand, of how this foul-up was made so that we can measure the ineptocracy that the Home Office has become?

[Mike Penning]

I would like to have thought that we would have a better question from the hon. Gentleman, but clearly not. I was not passing the blame to anybody; I was simply saying that I am being criticised for not doing something that did not happen in the 13 years of the previous Administration. Gwent has not lost anything; no force has lost anything. These are indicative figures. We need to make sure that we get the figures right as we go forward.

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

With the background of the lowest levels of police officers since 1979 and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary describing the force’s funding as inadequate, Humberside would have been set to get an additional £5.7 million under the right data. Can the Minister assure me and my constituents that under any new formula Humberside will still get that additional sum of money?

[Mike Penning]

No, of course I cannot do that, but I do understand exactly where the hon. Lady is coming from. We are going to pause, look carefully at the funding formula, and make sure we get it right. I am sure she would agree that it has to be fair across the 43 authorities, not just fair for Humberside, although I understand that she wants to push buttons for that region.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Neither the Minister nor the Government are in control of the facts or the policing budget. Standing at the Dispatch Box, he does not seem to understand how incompetent this is. In the case of the Met, the error is of the sum of £180 million. Can we at least have a full written explanation of how this farce occurred, and can we be told the amount of money wasted by the Home Office and the 43 forces in going through the process thus far?

[Mike Penning]

I find it fascinating that, after listening to all the other questions that right hon. and hon. Members have asked, that was the best the hon. Gentleman could do. At the end of the day, when mistakes are made it is right and proper that Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House what is going on. We will make sure that the new process is as open and honest as possible, especially for London.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of sentencing policy for dangerous driving offences.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

The number of road traffic fatalities has fallen dramatically over the past 10 years, but one death is still too many. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, and to the family of James Still in his constituency. I know that they have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. We have toughened up sentencing and we are continuing to look at this area.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the Minister for his answer, and for the real interest that he has shown in this issue. As he knows, we have presented a manifesto for better justice for victims of criminal driving, on behalf of a cross-party group of MPs and other organisations. Could we have a formal, point-by-point response to that from the Department? Will he also meet us again to discuss those points, so that we can get better justice for those people and their families?

[Mike Penning]

We will respond point by point as we develop the review of sentencing in this area, and of course, as the Minister with responsibility for victims, I will meet the hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), will perhaps also be available to meet the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the team, as we respond.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the trends in the length of sentences handed down to those found guilty of causing death by dangerous or careless driving?

[Mike Penning]

We have extended the sentence from two to 10 years for driving without a licence or while suspended, and we continue to look at the sentences. At the end of the day, however, we must convince people to drive sensibly so that the highways are safer for all of us. The figures are dramatically down, but we are continuing to look at the sentencing regime.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

One of the most effective disposals for repeat dangerous driving offences involving alcohol is compulsory sobriety. Following the highly successful pilot in Croydon and the Minister’s very welcome licensing of that disposal across the rest of the country, will he join me in encouraging police and crime commissioners to set up facilities to allow for compulsory sobriety, so that magistrates can make use of them, particularly when dealing with repeat drink-driving offences?

[Mike Penning]

I am aware of the scheme, and I discussed it with the Prime Minister only recently. I believe that one of the sobriety bracelets that are being used in Croydon is on the Prime Minister’s desk as we speak. I am encouraging PCCs around the country to push this measure forward, as it has been very successful. I congratulate those who are pushing it forward.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

In 1998, Livia Galli-Atkinson was killed in Enfield by a dangerous driver. I know the Minister has in the past attended the Livia award, which was set up in her memory. This year’s award will take place this evening. The award commends service by police in relation to justice for victims, and highlights the fact that year by year too many drivers repeatedly flout the law, driving while disqualified and failing to stop. What action can follow on from the review?

[Mike Penning]

This area has been reviewed continually by previous Governments and by this Government. There is a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. It is for judges to ensure they understand what sentences should be for each offence, but we keep a very open mind and continue to look at the review as we go forward.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

When we are considering whether any prisoner should be transferred to open conditions, our overriding concern should be the protection of the public. Transfer to open conditions is not automatic, and should always be subject to risk assessment.

[Caroline Flint]

I am one of 14 Members of Parliament—including you, Mr Speaker—whose constituencies contain open prisons. Some 61 murderers have gone on the run from those prisons in the past five years. The opening of a new open prison unit in Don Valley, which has been given the welcoming name of Hatfield Lakes, has prompted concern about the kind of prisoners who are transferred to such establishments. The governor of an open prison often has little prior knowledge about a transfer, and may even have no say when it comes to the suitability of prisoners who are coming into their care. Will the Minister meet me, and other interested Members, to discuss the criteria for putting people in open establishments?

[Mike Penning]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady, who has campaigned extensively on this issue over the years, but I must say to her that the problem did not suddenly arise five years ago. There were absconders before that, which is a fact that she forgot to mention. However, I am sure that the prisons Minister will be more than happy to meet her.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

HMP Northumberland, like many other prisons, is awash with the legal high, spice. It is creating a really dangerous environment for prison officers and offenders alike. What action is the Minister taking to tackle that very dangerous situation?

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

As the House is aware, we have just come out of the Committee stage on the new psychoactive substances Bill. I amended the provisions in Committee with the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish National party to make it a criminal offence to have spice, or any other NPS, in prison. That was at the request of the governors and the officers’ union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Police and Fire Shared Services

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman makes a viable point, which can and should be discussed if we want a top-class blue-light service, whether it be the ambulance service, the fire service or the police service. That can, and will be I am sure, the topic of much discussion in the future.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

It is unusual for me to intervene, but there are four emergency services in this country. We must not forget Her Majesty’s Coastguard. It would be inappropriate for me, as a former Shipping Minister, not to raise that point.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister. There is actually a fifth emergency service—the Mines Rescue Service.

[Mike Penning]

We could carry on.

[Ian Lavery]

Of course we can. The only problem is that we have only one mine left—but anyway, I am sure we will discuss that. The coastguard is an important service as well.

The issue that has been brought to the House is the greater collaboration and work between the police and the fire service. I think we all agree that we want a top-class service, across all four blue-light services. We want to have the best possible and the safest service we can have—top class, with the best technology and everything that the communities that we represent need. The real cause for concern is that this is not just about having a top-class service or enhancing the blue-light services; it is being approached as a cost-cutting exercise. That is what the general public are concerned about.

Since 2010, there has been a huge reduction in the police service and the fire service and we cannot get enough people in the ambulance service. People are rightly concerned about the cuts in the services, whether front-line or back-office staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Well, that is interesting. That could be put on the table in the consultation with other people up and down the country who work in the services. We need consultation and discussion with those delivering services, such as the gentleman that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned.

There is a huge difference between a firefighter and a police officer. They have completely and utterly different remits. The police are law enforcers—it is as simple as that. The fire and rescue service is basically a humanitarian service. The two services have totally different remits. For example, firefighters need to be neutral in their communities and politically neutral. They cannot be seen as law enforcers or even to be connected in any way to law enforcement. In many areas, they have built up trust that the police probably do not have.

[Mike Penning]

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, and I declare an interest as a former firefighter. The fire service is exactly as he described—part of the community—but its members have been law enforcers since day one. As a fire prevention officer, I used to do that sort of work. We would go to clubs and we would shut them down because we were protecting the public, as the police do in their way. It is wrong to say that members of the fire service are not law enforcers, because they are, they will be and they must be.

[Ian Lavery]

That is something we must disagree on. I think that the two roles have to be completely different. Firefighters are not law enforcers in the name of the law or in statute—[Hon. Members: “Yes, they are.”] I disagree. Perhaps the Minister can send me the information that shows that each firefighter in each community is, as part of their job, a law enforcer.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. We are good friends, so it is right that we debate this matter. As a young fire officer, I used to do FPO inspections in clubs. If that club did not adhere to the recommendations made, in statute that club could be closed and sometimes it was closed. That was the fire authority; it was nothing to do with the police or anybody else.

[Ian Lavery]

I understand the instances to which the Minister refers. In my constituency, fire authorities have checked alarms and different things in buildings, and I understand that, but what I am describing now is the different in terms of law enforcement. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, we will not have fire and rescue service officers detecting crime and clipping young people around the head or doing things of that nature. It will be completely different. I understand that there is a duty and obligation on the fire and rescue services in relation to alarms and things of that nature, and they do an absolutely fantastic job; they have built up a great reputation. The Minister was a member of the fire and rescue service many years ago. I am sure that he was up to the task then and that he will support the issues we are raising today. When he was in the service, I am sure he had the utmost respect of his community, because that is what happens with the fire and rescue service.

There are alternatives that will not compromise the trust in and integrity of the fire and rescue service, and they are what we need to look at. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned joint procurement, which is absolutely on the money. Why should there not be joint procurement? There is no reason not to look at sharing administrative services and, potentially, servicing roles with other public sector bodies where that is appropriate—but not necessarily between the fire and rescue service and the police service. It should be with other public sector services that share the humanitarian remit, rather than the crime remit.

That brings us on to a number of points, such as the difference in the roles and remits. As I have just explained, there is a huge difference between the fire and rescue service and the police, and that needs to be considered. The police and the fire service perform very different roles and consequently have very different command and control structures. If the proposal went ahead, that would limit the opportunities available for any joint working.

Members have mentioned the police and crime commissioners. I am sure we will have a massive disagreement about this, but there is already a lot of concern about the police and crime commissioners’ role, without giving them extra responsibility for the fire and rescue services. After all, they were elected by, on average, only 15% of the electorate. I am not even sure that the commissioners themselves want any additional responsibilities; in fact, commissioners up and down the country have emphatically said, “We don’t want any additional responsibilities. We are police and crime commissioners. What on earth have we got to do with the fire and rescue service?” Again, we have to listen to the people who are actually delivering services on our behalf.

It is obvious that, unlike many public sector organisations, including the police, the fire service lacks common guidance and a natural procurement channel. That is a wasted opportunity. We must improve the procurement channel for fire-specific products.

The hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the ambulance service. I have to be honest: the ambulance service—certainly in my area—is creaking. The North East ambulance service needs 120 recruits—the paramedics we discussed, who cannot suddenly appear because of the training and expertise they require—so I wonder whether the ambulance service should be involved in these proposals.

We have fantastic blue-light services—the four services—and every member of every one of those services deserves lots of credit. They have all suffered massive cuts. They are all working as hard as they can in the most stringent financial circumstances, and that is very difficult for them. It is easy to criticise them, but I am not sure the answer is to bring them all together and plonk them in one place, although I accept that some of the measures I have mentioned should be looked at for the common good.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase said it was time to move to a mandatory position, rather than a voluntary one. Well, call me a dinosaur—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

As usual, Mr Pritchard, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) on securing this debate. What perfect timing, with the consultation having just finished and Her Majesty’s Opposition accepting that Vera Baird and Paddy Tipping were absolutely right that police and crime commissioners should be kept. We agree. Thank goodness that the Conservative party won the election, or Vera and Paddy would not have been happy.

I declare an interest: I am an ex-firefighter and an ex-military paramedic, and I have also worked in counter-terrorism, so, perhaps unusually for a Minister in a debate on this subject, I know what I am talking about a fraction. I apologise to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery): I was in no way saying that firefighters have the same sort of powers as the police. The police are warranted, of course, but it is important to note that fire services have statutory powers as well. At no stage in any part of the debate has it been said from the Government Benches—or anywhere, I think— that front-line operational officers in the police, fire or ambulance services should be amalgamated. I will explain and reiterate what has been said, using anecdotal evidence.

I came out of the military, having done four years as a qualified battlefield medic. I joined the fire service and was told to take a first aid certificate. I attended what used to be called RTAs—road traffic accidents; they are now called road traffic collisions, or RTCs—often with no ambulance in sight, not for minutes but for a considerable length of time. Sometimes, the police were not there. These days, very often the police will not be there, because it will be the Highways Agency traffic officers—they have renamed themselves since I left the Department for Transport—who attend. Having better skills to protect the public is crucial. That is part of what we are trying to do. In my own county, the fantastic chief fire officer, Roy Wilsher, who almost 10 years ago did an amazing job saving half my constituency when the Buncefield oil depot blew to smithereens, is the CEO of the PCC’s office. As well as being the chief fire officer, he actually runs the PCC office. Why? Because it is logical and sensible.

The public often talk about buildings. It is our job to ensure that they talk about not buildings but people. I welcome the shadow Minister to her role. I think we will probably meet fairly often, although I am not the Minister responsible for the fire service—that falls to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Communities and Resilience; I am here because of the connection to PCCs. When she reads Hansard, she will find that she said it is about buildings, not people. I think she meant that the other way around, but I fully respect and understand that. A church is not a building; it is a group of people who come together. Emergency services should not be about buildings, but about how we deliver the best service.

We must learn from the mistakes in the past. The amalgamation of the ambulance service met a fair bit of opposition. I am not a Health Minister, although I was shadowing the public Health Minister responsible for the ambulance service when it happened, and we had real concerns about it, some of which came true. We fundamentally opposed the regionalisation of fire control centres. Thank goodness we stopped that in time, although there are still some very expensive buildings out there, at least one of which is occupied by the coastguard. Actually, this is nothing new. I remember that in the early ’80s—all those years ago when I was a fireman in Essex—there was a tri-service control centre in Warwickshire. They were doing it then, so we have come full circle.

The skills of the people who are there to look after us are rightly interoperable. I hear forces saying, “We are going to lose x amount of front-line people”, “We are going to lose this” or “We are going to lose that,” but have they really looked at where those savings can be made so they can deliver the taxpayer-funded service that the public deserve?

We were talking about procurement a moment ago. I am not one to say that one size fits all and that we should procure everything from one place, but I published on the Home Office website how much each police force spends on the average 20 items. We all want our officers to have body armour, but there is a £300 difference between the price that two forces pay for it. Surely, as we approach the police and crime commissioner elections, that is the sort of thing we should be talking about. The fire service and the police both buy white shirts, so why do they not buy white shirts together? If a local provider can match the average national price, I am sure we would all want to support that local business, but if it cannot we have to question seriously whether that would provide value for money. We have changed the way we procure vehicles. There was some criticism from the Opposition, but for the first time the Government are buying huge amounts of very expensive equipment at e-auctions at the best value we can get it for. That is our responsibility as representatives of taxpayers.

There are myriad other things that can be done. Hampshire is very well represented in the debate this afternoon for a reason: it is one of the most forward-thinking authorities in the country. I went to Winchester fire station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), and met the chief fire officer. The station is shared. I went to the yard, where the fire brigade was carrying out a drill—I am sure they do joint drills with the police in that yard, because that is the sort of thing we need to see—and at the bottom part of the yard is a brand spanking new building for the armed response unit and other police facilities. Nobody would ever know, and, frankly, I do not think the public would care if we explained to them that we want to do this to look after people.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

One of the advantages of what was suggested by our hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) is that it would mean we have the flexibility of having a company, which other authorities can join and move their back-office functions into. Equally, the sort of contracts that he talked about—outsourcing contracts and others of that type—have a flexibility to them. Do the Government support that sort of thing, or are they going to create new institutions through statute?

[Mike Penning]

We do not want to make it mandatory. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. As an illustration of the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) alluded to, the Home Office gave £1.8 million to support H3, and we supplied extensive moneys for the relocation from the police innovation fund. That is the sort of innovation we are looking for.

The only thing I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase about was her point about compulsion. I know exactly where she is coming from, and I have a huge amount of sympathy with it. I was arguing this point long before austerity was even thought of, when we were throwing money at our emergency services—we have sometimes seriously thrown money at our emergency services over the years, not least for kit that is hardly ever used—because it is right that we have a better, joined-up emergency service. We need people who are trained for the 21st century; we cannot look at the fire service, the police service and the ambulance service in a historical way.

Community first responders were never heard of previously. Communities came together for that. People said, “I want to be part of this community. I would like to do this.” We have them in my constituency, and they do really well. My point is that it is always better if the Government can bring people together and say, “This would be better for you,” rather than say, “This would be better for you, now come together and do it.” The consultation specifically looks at some areas where it would be difficult—for example, where forces and fire authorities are not co-located.

Northamptonshire is a good example, because the Northamptonshire PCC is one of the most forward-thinking PCCs in the country. He is already running the fire service management, but he does not interfere in the operational running of the fire service, in exactly the same way as PCCs do not have any effect on the operation of the police force. He is now looking at the ambulance service to see whether, for instance, the clinical commissioning groups would like to commission non-blue- light or blue-light vehicles from him. The vast majority of the ambulance services that are offered in this country, such as patient transport, do not use blue-light vehicles. It is hugely expensive, and it is often very highly qualified people doing those sorts of jobs. Where we are short of paramedics, we have to ensure they are doing front-line jobs, not administrative jobs or ordinary patient transport jobs.

I want to touch on that point in relation to the police forces, too. It is imperative that highly paid, highly skilled, hugely brave people—I was at Liverpool cathedral yesterday with David Phillips’s family and the thousands of people from across these islands and the world who came to pay tribute to him—are in operational positions, not behind a desk. In some forces, 10% of the warranted officers are not available because they are not fit for duty. How can that be right?

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said policemen have been made redundant, but we have not made anybody redundant. They may have been declared medically unfit for duty, but we do not have the power to make officers redundant. We have got to ensure that as many people are in front-line roles as possible in the fire service, the ambulance service and the police service. They should be doing the jobs they trained for and joined the force to do, and they should be serving the community.

When we go in one direction away from danger, those people go in the opposite direction for us. We should pay tribute to them and ensure that they have the right kit and body armour. When I was in the fire service, we had cork helmets and serge jackets from the second world war. Now, they have the proper equipment. We had body armour that it was almost impossible for me to stand up in, and I am pretty hefty—not as big as them, but still pretty heavy. Now, they have lightweight breathing apparatus. We rightly praise their skills, but let us save money in the back offices, the bureaucracy and procurement before we dream of saying that we are not going to provide front-line officers, no matter which of those services it is.

This debate is a massively important part of the consultation. It is brilliant that we agree on most things, which is what this Chamber was designed for.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

It is terrifying. All these clauses have been going by and I have been thinking, “Should I say something?”

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

If you say no to anything now, Sir David will have to stand up again.

[Lyn Brown]

We are keeping our powder dry.

On Second Reading, I made it clear that the blanket ban created by the Bill would only partially tackle the problem of new psychoactive substances. The measures in the Bill are an appropriate way to disrupt supply, but if we really want to protect public health, we must also work to reduce the demand for those dangerous drugs. I firmly believe that that requires a comprehensive drugs education and awareness strategy, which is why I have tabled amendment 57 and new clause 4. Amendment 57 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to update Parliament on the quality and reach of new psychoactive substances education in its statutory report. New clause 4 would amend the Education Act 2002 to make drugs education, including a focus on NPS, part of the personal, social, health and economic education foundation subject in the national curriculum.

I will start by speaking about new clause 4 and comprehensive drug education in our schools. In 2010, the coalition Government launched a new drug strategy, which contained some really sensible approaches to reducing demand for drugs. The Government stated that they wanted to

“provide good quality education and advice so that young people and their parents are provided with credible information to actively resist substance misuse”

and to

“intervene early with young people and young adults”.

A preventive and proactive education policy based on information and resilience training is exactly the sort of approach that the Government ought to be taking.

As we know, however, actions speak louder than words. The Government reversed Labour’s plans to make PSHE a statutory requirement, even though that was recommended by the Macdonald review. They also closed the Drug Education Forum, a source of expertise on drugs education in England that disseminated research on drugs and drugs education to teachers across the country, as part of a drastic 80% cut in drugs education spending. Figures from the Department of Health show that drugs education spending was reduced from £3.9 million in 2009-10 to £500,000 in 2010-2011. The Department for Education revealed that there was a 22% cut in spending on drug and alcohol services for young people between 2011 and 2014.

Statistics provided by Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity, show how disastrous those decisions were. Only 15% of schools teach drugs and alcohol education for one hour or more a term, and 59% of young people say that they cannot even remember having a drugs education lesson in the last year. Media reports on the impact of cuts to drugs education included a 2011 survey of staff at 79 local education authorities. More than a quarter of the staff reported that there had been no specialist drugs education support in the past three months. Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Mentor, told The Guardian:

“We are probably in the worst situation for drug education for decades”.

It would appear that where there is drugs education in our schools, sadly it is often of poor quality, incomplete or totally irrelevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Wales, which I will discuss next, some really excellent work is taking place and we might learn from it; it would be good if we did.

In 2012, Ofsted concluded that,

“the quality of PSHE education is not yet good enough in a sizeable proportion of schools in England. These deficiencies in learning result in part from inadequacies in subject-specific training and support for PSHE education teachers, particularly in the teaching of sensitive and controversial issues.”

And those are issues such as drugs.

Ofsted also found that in 60% of schools PSHE training was not good enough and certainly needed to improve, and the evidence from the Government’s own inspectors suggests that the Government’s approach to PSHE just is not working. And all this is happening while the presence of NPS has begun to grow in our communities.

Figures from Wales show us just what is possible with a different approach. The Labour Administration in Wales has put drugs education at the forefront of its drugs prevention policy, and there is now a core substance misuse education programme in 97% of Welsh primary and secondary schools, ensuring that almost all Welsh children receive accurate, consistent and credible information about the potential harms of drugs, rather than having to rely on myths, part-information and basic guesswork.

That degree of comprehensive drugs education is possible in England but it is not happening at the moment, and I suggest that that is because of a lack of political leadership. That lack of political will is all the more unjustifiable given that parents want these sorts of issues discussed in schools. For example, a survey by Parentline Plus found that 97% of parents believe that drug and alcohol education should be delivered in schools.

There are signs that the comprehensive approach to drug awareness in Wales is working. The school programme is complemented by the Welsh emerging drugs and identification of novel substances project, an NPS-specific information and harm reduction programme, as well as measures designed to help to educate parents. These are all part of a £50 million investment in reducing drug harms, which has coincided with a rapid reduction in drug deaths in Wales; they are down by 30% since 2010. By contrast, drug-related deaths have been creeping up here in England; there was a 17% increase in the last year and the Office for National Statistics says that drug deaths are now at the highest level since records began in 1993. And according to the national records of Scotland, drug-related deaths in Scotland went up by 16% and are also at a record high.

[Mike Penning]

I am sure that members of the Committee are aware of these worrying figures. Although this is not the whole answer, when we look at the figures, we see that we had an epidemic of heroin addicts of a certain generation, and that certain generation is coming to a certain age. If we look carefully—I am doing some analysis as chair of the interministerial group on drugs—we see that it seems that the increase has come from within that age profile. There was an increase in deaths, but that was particularly among a group that had no treatment at all. A lot more research is needed—I know that it is being done across the devolved Administrations—but we must look carefully at the figures to find out the reasons, instead of just taking a block figure, although I know the hon. Lady too well to think that she would do that. There are reasons for the increase, and we need to get to the bottom of them, but clearly part of that was the heroin epidemic of the 1980s.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful for that intervention, but we are considering this Bill because the number of NPS-related drugs deaths has been rising. I am desperately looking for the figure in Hansard, but I think it is three hundred and something in a year. Those are the deaths of people’s loved ones and children, many of whom would have been young people who had no idea that they were taking something harmful. I am thinking about preventing those deaths, as there will be empty seats at tables at Christmas time.

[Mike Penning]

I emphasise that that is absolutely why we are here. Those big figures for deaths will include people affected by the heroin epidemic that I mentioned as well as the people whom we are trying to save through the Bill. I said on Second Reading that the Bill is not a silver bullet, and we must work with other Departments to get out information, health provisions and treatment plans.

[Lyn Brown]

I totally agree with the Minister. The Bill is not a silver bullet, but we need a comprehensive education programme if we are to be as effective as possible.

[Lyn Brown]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need a holistic approach and education must be a part of that. We therefore need what the Welsh Government have: a 10-year plan. Theirs culminates in 2018. I know that it is too early for us to draw conclusions about what its outcomes will be, but the early signs are good, especially with regard to reducing drug harms. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not just received a note from his Whip suggesting he should shut up, because I have enjoyed his interventions in Committee. I have passed those notes, so I know that that happens.

[Mike Penning]

It would usually be a much bigger note.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I totally and utterly agree.

It is clear that there is no evidence that increased knowledge leads to reduced drug use. The EMCDDA came to that conclusion in its 2006 report. Frankly, too much of the drugs education in our schools is focused on providing information. The Department for Education’s review of PHSE found that students find drug education “boring” because what they did in PHSE too closely mirrored what they learned in science lessons. The review found that staff thought that the issue should be addressed from a different direction in PHSE. That point was made to the Home Affairs Committee during its review of UK drug policy in 2012. Paul Tuohy of Mentor, which is a strong advocate of good-quality drug education, stated starkly:

“We are spending the vast majority of the money we do spend on drug education on programmes that don’t work”.

The Home Affairs Committee asked a number of local authorities to survey secondary schools in their area to ask whether they used the life skills programmes it learned about while gathering evidence for its report. None said that they used any of the programmes.

A narrow focus on providing information to students is likely to be holding us back. Evidence suggests that to get drugs education right, information has to be taught alongside a focus on the life skills that empower young people to resist peer pressure and make informed decisions. When young people go into a head shop and see these lovely coloured sachets, it will be good for them to know that they contain illegal substances that are not safe—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position—

[Mike Penning]

rose—

[Lyn Brown]

I will let the Minister make his point.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise for chuntering. Of course, the head shops will not be there. I accept that people may still try to sell these products, but instead of being legal highs, they will be illegal highs. The head shops as such will vanish, as has happened in Ireland.

[Lyn Brown]

I hope that the Minister is right. I fear that the head shops will transmogrify and change what they do. They will still exist, selling bath salts and other things, and it will be up to us and local authorities to prove that the substances they are selling—ostensibly to go into the bath or to feed fish—are in fact being used for nefarious purposes and are illegal highs. Although I genuinely hope that the Minister is right, I fear that these head shops will not necessarily go away. Irrespective, however, drug dealers and pushers are still going to exist, so we need to educate our children and make them resilient to the messages from such people.

Life skills can be taught effectively only by helping children to think about the challenges and dangers that they face, including about how drugs are often followed by bullying, debt and exploitation. We need information, values and context to deliver quality drugs education, which is why that education should be part of a comprehensive personal and social education that can be provided only by PHSE. I have voted to make PHSE a statutory requirement—I am sure that I will do so again—because it is an important tool in our fight against psychoactive drugs and those who push them.

As we know—many Members will be parents—every child is different, so universal drugs education must be complemented by specifically tailored messages and support for those who are most vulnerable to the messages of drugs and drug abuse. Universal drugs education makes it easier to identify those who need early intervention. Schools ask children at an early age to draw pictures of what they understand by common drugs terms. That enables educators to know which children are more familiar with substance abuse than one would expect of a child growing up in a safe environment. There is no trade-off between universal and targeted education; they naturally complement each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I shall be relatively brief and speak largely about the principles of the provisions—particularly amendment 57. I will not pass any comment on new clause 4, which relates to education in England, given that such matters are entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

My one question on amendment 57 would be about how best to accommodate the devolved Administrations of the four nations—how to make sure that the input happens. On Second Reading, I commented on the importance of education. Prevention is far better than any cure that can be come up with—in this context as in many others. We need education processes to ensure that people who consider taking the substances in question have all the information available to them. Whether or not head shops exist, we need such a knowledge base in society.

On 26 September Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, held an event with the Scottish Youth Parliament, with a discussion about the best way to establish a suitable education programme. The Youth Parliament is now preparing a report to Ministers. It is useful, given that we want to target information to young people, to gather younger people’s views about the best way they can equip themselves with that knowledge.

I am confident that the Scottish Government and Education Scotland are already considering how best to equip young people with the knowledge that they need to defend themselves and prevent themselves from coming to harm. The Bill takes account more widely of head shops and illegality of purchase, but we cannot hide from the need to emphasise education, so I support the principles behind amendment 57.

I cannot let the occasion pass without mentioning the welcome fact that only this week the City of Edinburgh Council was the first in Scotland to secure a forfeiture order. Already eight outlets in the city have voluntarily given up supplies of psychoactive substances. We can see that when the processes in question are carried out, head shops are quick to react. I hope that is a marker for the effect that the Bill will have on head shops.

We need to ensure that knowledge is available to young people and more widely in society, so that whether or not there are head shops we can be equipped as well as possible to tackle head-on the supply and use of psychoactive substances.

[Mike Penning]

One thing that I can say about the hon. Member for West Ham is that when she is passionate, she is passionate—and she is, like all of us, passionate about the subject that we are dealing with. I will discuss the amendment and new clause from the point of view of England, and I pay tribute to the work that has been done in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I am particularly pleased about events in Edinburgh. That process has not yet gone all the way, but progress is being made. What has happened proves that action could have been taken before, even before there was legislation, as it was in Belfast and Lincoln, both of which I have visited.

As we have said since day one, legislation is only part of what we need. It is not a silver bullet. We need to educate young people, but also others, including, perhaps, much older people who have used illegal drugs such as cocaine and moved on to synthetic cocaine. We need to give those people help.

Addiction to NPS is a difficult area, where much of the third sector and health service have been trying desperately to catch up, not least because the drugs change so fast. We may ban one, and another will arrive that is almost exactly the same but with its own problems.

The shadow Minister alluded to the £180,000 and how many people that money might employ, but it was a specifically targeted communications campaign that was part of £341 million that was spent overall on drugs prevention, including early intervention, family support and schools work. I am not saying that that is enough, or that it is not enough, but at the end of the day we are in a difficult financial situation.

Since I have had the responsibility, I have been pulling together the other Departments and working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have the best possible picture out there as we bring the legislation forward. That includes working bilaterally next week with the Schools Minister on this specific subject and my chairing of the inter-ministerial group yesterday, where Health, the Cabinet Office and Justice were all represented and saying, “We’re doing this,” and I now need to pull that together.

There are a lot of campaigns, and probably the best thing for me to do is to write to members of the Committee with the full list of work that we are doing as we develop it. There is a resource pack for front-line professionals. We had a campaign over the summer where Ministers wrote to the 50 largest music festivals. Public Health England has launched its online campaign for building resilience. Mentor is still massively part of things, and I pay tribute to it and the Angelus Foundation. Among many others, Angelus is clearly one of the leading charities.

I put my hands up: “Talk to Frank” is not perfect. We will work with everybody to try to ensure that “Talk to Frank” improves. The hon. Lady is right that the way in which it is feeding information is perhaps not as open or as direct as possible. Let us sort that now. That is not about money; it is just bad communication and we need to ensure that that is put right. That is vital as we develop the communications strategy with other Ministers.

The Department for Education is already committed to reporting to the Education Committee, and it must do so by the end of this year. That commitment is already sitting there. On amendment 57, we deliberately put in the review and made it as open as possible. That will ensure that when the review takes place, we will gather as much information as possible, because we need to get things right. If we are getting things wrong at review time, we can sort that. If we need to tweak things in the run-up, that is fine. The legislation specifically allows those powers to move things around.

I am not going to make the hon. Lady’s day today by supporting her new clause and amendment.

[Mr Burrowes]

Although the Minister will not make the hon. Lady’s day, may I just press him on resource allocation? Plainly, a whole lot of resource and attention is going on the Bill’s implementation and on proving psychoactivity in the lab and getting the right test in place with the ACMD and all the scientists. Is that same attention also being seen within the education sphere to ensure that prevention is up to speed, as well as the proveability?

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly what is No. 1 on the agenda with the Schools Minister next week. We need to share information. As the scientists and the ACMD develop the knowledge base, we need to share that knowledge base. It is not something we want to hold in, and that is why we have made the review as open as possible. If we do not share that knowledge, we will have people out there trying generally to help people, but probably not sending the message out and doing the work that needs to be done.

If I not only write to everyone on the Committee but develop extensively what we are going to do based on what I have said today—admittedly, most of this particular area is devolved—I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. If I update everyone as we develop that, she can see what we are doing as we move forward and we can give her as much help as possible, as we have all the way through the Bill. However, if she does press the proposals to a vote, I will sadly oppose both the new clause and the amendment.

[Lyn Brown]

I really am grateful to the Minister for outlining what is going on. It is clear that some activity is happening. Bilaterals with the Schools Minister and action across all Departments are to be welcomed. I also welcome the Minister’s suggestion that he write to us about all the education programmes that are happening, about to happen, or being considered. I am sure that would be really useful to us all.

However, given that the Education Committee will receive a report on the education about these substances and the issues involved in reducing demand for them, it would not be a huge step to include that report within the review and to accept amendment 57. In fact, amendment 57 is very gentle. It is not really asking for very much more than that Parliament be kept informed of the way forward regarding our reducing the demand for these drugs. If the Education Committee can be kept informed, I cannot see why Parliament cannot be.

I ask the Minister to think again and consider accepting amendment 57 if he cannot go all the way and accept new clause 4, although it would also be a great pity if he cannot accept new clause 4. I am sure that the Department for Education would actually thank him for accepting new clause 4, which would alter its curriculum, because the DFE possibly needs a bit of a jolt, and the impact of new clause 4 on PSHE would be to give it an amazing boost to its arm.

The Minister does not look as if he is rising right now to assure me that he will accept new clause 4, so I ask him to spend the weekend and maybe next week—I know he will not have an awful lot on now that consideration of this Bill is coming to a close—thinking about amendment 57 and new clause 4, and perhaps on Report he will make my day. Then I can buy that bottle of champagne for us all to share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Guinness, please.

[Lyn Brown]

Guinness is not a problem.

I will probably come back to this issue on Report, but today I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Interpretation

Amendment made: 38, in clause 58, page 36, line 23, after “Court” insert

“, other than the reference in section 30(1) in relation to a prohibition order made under section 18,”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment disapplies the transitional provision in clause 58(5) in relation to appeals under clause 30(1) about variation and discharge in relation to prohibition orders made under clause 18.

Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Consequential Amendments

Amendment proposed: 39, in schedule 4, page 48, line 16, at end insert—

“Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985

(1) The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 is repealed.

(2) In consequence of the repeal made by sub-paragraph (1), in Schedules 3 and 6 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, omit the entry relating to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment repeals the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Stop now.

[Lyn Brown]

This is my era; I kind of get it.

Even if the issue with selling solvents to adults is resolved, the issue of sentencing remains. The 1985 Act does not provide for sentences longer than six months; as we know, the maximum tariff in the Bill is seven years. Selling to a child is an aggravated offence, so is more likely to lead to harsher penalties. There is an enormous gulf in the sentences provided for in the two pieces of legislation. I wonder whether it is sensible for the Bill to try to control the specific offence of selling solvents to children.

Are we confident that solvents are captured by the definition of psychoactive substances? We do not want to repeal the 1985 Act if it in any way weakens the law. Are we satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the 1985 Act’s provisions on sales to under-18s to everyone? If it is, why has it not been done already? I can imagine there might be unintended consequences. My anxiety is over how, when I walk in tomorrow and buy a solvent, my local newsagent is going to know whether I am going to use it for sniffing. One would assume that someone of my age was not, but that is not necessarily the case.

The change seems to be a significant one to make in an amendment: there is a significant extension of the punishment. Does the Minister think that is justified? There have been very few recent prosecutions under the 1985 Act for the sale of solvents to children. I do not know why the Government expect to enforce the offence more with this Bill than it has been enforced under the 1985 Act. I would be grateful for some help from the Minister.

[Mike Penning]

I can understand the shadow Minister’s concerns—I come from that era as well. The interesting thing is that the existing legislation was targeted at a specific age profile and worked. We keep talking about children, but the Bill is not specifically targeted at them. When the 1985 Act was introduced, the same argument was made about how individual shopkeepers would know, but we have proven that it can work.

[Lyn Brown]

Yes, but there are few prosecutions now.

[Mike Penning]

Fortunately, there are now few prosecutions because people know. That is the principle behind the Bill. The maximum penalty will be seven years, but we would expect the job to be done by trading standards in a non-legislative way, so we would not be penalising anyone. I have obviously taken all the legal advice on this matter, and we feel that the change is needed and that this is the right way to do it. I repeat that we are not trying to protect children only; we are also trying to protect adults, some of whom are also very vulnerable.

[Lyn Brown]

I am still concerned by the issue of sentencing, because the punishment will be extended significantly. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that is justified. Also, there have been so few prosecutions under the 1985 Act. Lastly, I genuinely do not understand how a shopkeeper would know if the Minister or I were walking in to buy our solvent of choice to sniff away tonight in front of the TV. When young children went into a shop to purchase solvents it was often quite obvious that they had in mind some activity other than that for which the solvent was designed, for which they probably would not have had a purpose.

[Mike Penning]

I do not want to detain the Committee any further, but the change has not come as a particular shock to the British Retail Consortium or the Association of Convenience Stores, because we have been working with them. It is designed not to penalise small shopkeepers, but to ensure that they are confident, and we will work with them as the Bill proceeds. We will have considerable time, even after Royal Assent, but I am already working with the relevant bodies, which represent a significant part of the industry.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution

‘(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person is in possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution,

(b) the person knows or suspects that the substance is a psychoactive substance, and

(c) the person intends to consume the psychoactive substance for its psychoactive effects.

(2) In this section “custodial institution” has the same meaning as in section 6.

(3) This section is subject to section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).’.—(Mike Penning.)

This new clause provides for a new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Exceptions to offences

‘(1) It is not an offence under this Act for a person to carry on any activity listed in subsection (3) if, in the circumstances in which it is carried on by that person, the activity is an exempted activity.

(2) In this section “exempted activity” means an activity listed in Schedule (Exempted activities).

(3) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) producing a psychoactive substance;

(b) supplying such a substance;

(c) offering to supply such a substance;

(d) possessing such a substance with intent to supply it;

(e) importing or exporting such a substance;

(f) possessing such a substance in a custodial institution (within the meaning of section (Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution)).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Exempted activities) in order to—

(a) add or vary any description of activity;

(b) remove any description of activity added under paragraph (a).

(5) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.—(Mike Penning.)

The new clause inserted by this amendment (which will replace clause 10) provides that it is not an offence under clauses 4 to 8, or the offence under the new clause inserted by NC2, for a person to carry on an “exempted activity” listed in the new Schedule inserted by NS1. The new clause also provides a power to add or vary any description of activity specified in the new Schedule.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Breach of a premises notice

‘(1) A senior officer or a local authority may issue a notice requiring a premise to cease trading if conditions A, B and C are met.

(2) Condition A is that the premise has been issued a premises notice under section 13 of this Act.

(3) Condition B is that in the view of the senior officer or a local authority that issued the premises notice, the terms of that notice are not being complied with.

(4) Condition C is that the senior officer or local authority has made an application to an appropriate court for a premises order under section 19 of this Act.

(5) A notice issued to a premise under subsection 1 shall cease to have effect when a court has considered an application for a premises order in respect of that premise.

(6) In a case where a court has decided not to issue a premises order to a premise that has been subject to a notice under this section, the court may order the local authority or the senior officer’s organisation to pay compensation to the owner of the premises in respect of income lost due to the suspension in trading.

(7) For the meaning of “senior officer”, see section 12(7).’.—(Lyn Brown.)

This new clause’s intention is to allow a senior officer or local authority to comply a premises to stop trading while it applies for a premises order.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lyn Brown]

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

The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, who has a long-standing interest in the issue. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today, as he is at a funeral, so I am moving the new clause on his behalf. I make it clear that the broad thrust of the Bill is welcome; the new clause is intended to add to, rather than contradict, its provisions.

I want briefly to set out the context in which the new clause sits. My hon. Friend has been campaigning on legal highs for several years following a series of incidents in his constituency involving such drugs. He is, understandably, especially concerned about the drugs’ damaging effects, especially on young people, and the police’s inability to take swift action to deal with the suppliers and distributors of legal highs. He has also been a strong supporter of the successful “Ban Them Now” campaign against legal highs in Cumbria that has been run by the North-West Evening Mail, a fabulous campaigning newspaper that has done a huge amount to raise awareness of the issue in the region.

[Mike Penning]

Is that the press release?

[Lyn Brown]

I am not sure that I am going to get any votes there.

The new clause, which is supported by the Local Government Association, is intended to address the potential delay between the point at which the police believe a premises order has been breached and the point at which a court authorises a closure order. During such a delay, there is a worry that a premises may be able to continue to trade prohibited substances without the police being able to take appropriate action. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has found nefarious tactics when that happens, including NPS sales. Pushers may offer offer two-for-one deals, which encourage binging and stockpiling.

Premises that are found to be trading illicit substances can be dealt with under part 4, chapter 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The closure orders contained within the Act do not apply specifically to psychoactive substances—they are more of a catch-all—but they have nevertheless been used to take action against shops that trade in legal highs. Under the existing power, a court is obligated to hear a case for a closure order within 48 hours of the application being made by the police. That is not necessarily a guarantee of no delays, as the police are advised in the legislation to delay applications to court until they believe that the case can be heard within the 48-hour limit. Nevertheless, that limit provides some assurance that cases will be heard swiftly and that the police will be able to act accordingly.

In the absence of a similar provision in the Bill, there is a concern that delays may occur at that point in the process. In fact, the Bill imposes no time limit between a notice and a court order. We know that our courts are facing mounting pressures due to their case loads, which heightens the fear that the provisions in the Bill will cause further delays.

New clause 1 is a modest proposal that would allow senior police or local authority officers to obtain an order to require a premise to cease trading, provided that certain conditions are met. That action would be taken only when a premises order had already been made; when, in the opinion of the officer, the business was in breach of the order; and when the application to a court had already been made. There is also provision for compensation to be paid to businesses if the power is ever used in error.

Of course, we would hope that the power would have to be used only sparingly. The new clause would be a safeguard to ensure that no offenders slipped through the gaps and to give the police the powers they need to take action as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister agrees that the new clause is limited, proportional and considered. It is very much in the spirit of the Bill, and I hope it will command broad support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness—he is my hon. Friend really, although he probably would not like to admit that to some of his colleagues—for his campaigning. Many members of the Committee have been campaigning for many years on this subject.

Of course, the police and the courts are the end of the process for most cases. We know that powers are already there for local authorities and trading standards, which have been doing a lot of this work, so a problem arises only when there is a breach of a notice. Significantly, the new clause would give local authorities and senior officers the power to require specific premises to cease trading while an application is made. I have seen no evidence from the police that they feel that is necessary. Actually, new clause 1 could weaken judicial oversight, which none of us wants. This is a specific issue for England, of course. I think I am right about that, but it could be England and Wales—[Interruption.] I have got it wrong then; when I get things wrong, I always say so as soon as I can.

I fully understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from in tabling the new clause, but I do not feel that he needs to have such concerns. The measure would be used right at the very end of the process. We would hope, as the hon. Member for West Ham said, that it would be used in very few cases, not least because of the number of civil sanctions in the Bill.

I am absolutely confident—I have been assured by the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General—that we will not have a problem, but the matter will be part of the review, so we can keep our eyes open to see exactly what is going on. Even though I fully understand and respect the reasons why the new clause was tabled. I am afraid I do not see the need for it and I am concerned that it might weaken judicial oversight. Sadly, towards the end of our time in Committee, I must disagree with the hon. Lady.

[Lyn Brown]

Do you know, Sir David, this Minister is just not giving me satisfaction?

Given that we sprung the new clause on the Minister in the last knockings of this Bill Committee, will he take it away and have a quick look at it? Perhaps after talking to the LGA and his fabulous civil servants, he might find that there is a need for it. We love humility, so if he comes back to us on Report and tells us that he has thought again, we will applaud him to the rafters, rather than making any political capital.

[Mike Penning]

Assuming that the new clause is not pressed to a Division, I will take a long look at it, as if I take a quick look at it, I will be criticised for not taking a long look at it. I will seek advice from not only my Department, but the other relevant Departments, as well as my excellent Bill team. We will probably discuss this on Report but, at present, I cannot support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

On a point of order, Sir David. I very much associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk with the comments made by the shadow Minister. This has certainly been an experience for us as well, as it has been our first Bill Committee. The approach that the Committee has taken highlights the importance of the Bill and its potential to help to deliver safer communities. Our resounding agreement on the destination we are trying to reach, if not the specifics of any amendments that we have debated, has been encouraging and shows that the direction of travel is certainly right. Although we might have minor disagreements along the way, what is ultimately delivered will be particularly useful.

I thank you, Sir David, and Mr Howarth for being so gentle with us newer Members. I look forward to the Bill’s next stage in the Chamber.

[Mike Penning]

On a point of order, Sir David. I congratulate you on your lung capacity today and your ability to expedite amendments, most of which were technical and consequential.

It is a shame that the public and the rest of the House cannot see how the Committee has conducted itself and the way in which we have come together, even though at times we have disagreed. I enjoyed a lot of the conversations that took place outside the Committee to make our proceedings work better. I cannot promise the shadow Minister that that will be on every Minister’s agenda; my particular way of working is not shared by everyone, which I fully understand. I remember making some mistakes, to say the least, when I was an Opposition Front Bencher, when I was absolutely crucified by the Minister and the Whip. The shadow Minister said that she was subtle when she was a Whip, which is probably why she no longer holds that post. Subtlety in Whips is a dangerous thing.

I congratulate all Members who have taken part in debating this important Bill. I understand that some Members had to be in other places today. Sadly, I, too, am going to a funeral on Monday. I know how important they are to our constituents and others. In my case, I will be in Merseyside at the funeral of the police officer who was murdered on duty in early October.

I thank my not-so-subtle Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and the hon. Member for Easington, the Opposition Whip. This has been a fantastic Committee—probably the best that I have sat on as Minister, a shadow Minister or a Back Bencher. We have reached where we need to be, which is protecting people—not just young people, although we are talking about predominantly young people—from the perception that if something is legal, that means it is safe. These substances are killing people and destroying people’s lives. If we have done nothing else today, we have had that success. We have been successful because I have such a fantastic Bill team and brilliant Parliamentary Private Secretary.

[The Chair]

Mr Howarth and I have found the Committee an absolute pleasure to chair. It has been a model Committee and Members have acquitted themselves extremely well in scrutinising the Bill. We would like to thank the Doorkeeper for his diligence, the Hansard reporters and, in particular, the Committee Clerk, whose wise counsel has prevailed at all times.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

I understand exactly where the shadow Minister is coming from. I have seen some of the representations, particularly on Chinese and Asian herbal remedies, and I do not think there is a real concern. The key to this is trying to get everybody to see the new way we are looking at these products within the blanket ban. Everyone seems to want a list of products, but we tried that, and we had to amend it 500 times. Frankly, it does not work. We are very confident about this, and I assure the Committee that we are satisfied the revised definition firms the legislation up. The definition includes investigational medical products, homoeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicines. That is quite specific. I will look at it again between now and Report, but I am very happy that the drafting experts, who we all rely on, have firmed this up. I queried it myself, but I am happy today.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

If it came to light in the review of the Bill’s measures that homeopathic medicines with certain psychoactive qualities were being abused and misused outwith the Bill’s functions, would the Minister look, maybe on Report, to change the regulations to ensure that those medicines are covered by the blanket ban?

[Mike Penning]

The Home Secretary’s powers within the Bill, should it become an Act, will enable us to ensure that sort of thing happens. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a close eye will be kept on all types of medicine. If what he mentioned was felt to be happening between now and Report, which I doubt, or as we go forward, there are powers within the Bill to make sure that those medicines are covered. I hope that alleviates his concerns.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment made: 4, page 38, in schedule 1, line 13, leave out paragraphs 3 to 5—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3. It removes the entries in paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 1 in respect of investigational medicinal products, homoeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicinal products, as these products fall within the revised definition of medicinal product inserted by that amendment.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 56, in schedule 1, page 39, line 23, at end insert—

“Miscellaneous

11 —alkyl nitrates”

This amendment seeks to implement a recommendation by the Home Affairs Select Committee that “poppers” should not be banned.

I will try to be succinct. We felt it was important to table this probing amendment following the evidence gathered by the Home Affairs Committee and published in its report last Friday. I am not looking to press the amendment to a vote, but it is something that should be taken into consideration as we move towards Report.

The Home Affairs Committee received evidence from the National AIDS Trust and the Gay Men’s Health Collective that seemed to suggest that there was no medical evidence to suggest that poppers are in any way harmful. I am not an expert so I am open to contrary arguments. In this, as in so many areas of the Bill, the amendment is trying to avoid the unintended consequences of action or inaction that might be taken.

We felt that the inclusion of this miscellaneous exemption under schedule 1 would help to prevent any such unintended consequences, such as driving these substances underground and the increasing reliance on class A and class B drugs and other things that could be far more harmful to individuals who currently use poppers. We would be keen to see further discussion on the inclusion of this very specific exemption under alkyl nitrates; however we would not be looking to press it to a vote at this stage but would look to take it forward on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

We will have the benefit of a 30-month review, where we will be able to look at the impact of the legislation. We need to ensure that it gets on to the statute book so that it can arm the police to get out there and find the people whom we really want to focus on. I cannot believe that those with poppers will be the main focus. We can ask that question in 30 months’ time to, I hope, reassure ourselves. This debate will help with that, and perhaps the Minister will give us some reassurance as well.

How will this be dealt with practically and properly? I hasten to say that those who consume poppers have not so much to fear; it is the people who shift the new psychoactive substances around in bulk who are causing menace. I look forward to the Minister’s response, in which I hope he will outline the evidence that the Home Office has received about the harm caused by poppers, because he has expressed real concern to the Committee about such harm.

[Mike Penning]

May I touch quickly on the comment made by the shadow Minister in her intervention on my hon. Friend? Possession in a club would not be an offence; indeed, possession is not an offence under any part of the legislation, unless in a secure facility. It is important to send that message out.

The Bill is in no way intended to pick on or cause problems for any individual group in society, but we are looking at a blanket ban identical, or as near as damn it, to what was done in the Republic of Ireland, where poppers were also banned. I looked carefully at the evidence to the Select Committee, particularly the comments of Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, who said—I believe that the shadow Minister touched on this—that there are harms associated with poppers.

I think that the situation is the reverse of what my hon. Friend has said. There are new types of products and poppers coming into the market in this particular nitrite area, which is starting to cause problems. We can look at, for instance, death certificates on which alkyl nitrites have been named, and we see that from 1993 until the latest data were released, there were more than 20 deaths. How people take poppers—a trade name that we all seem to have adopted—is interesting. We have had instances of people with burns who have drunk or ingested them, and there is evidence around damage and deaths. That is a debatable thing, because there are lots of experts out there, but the principle of what we are trying to do is not to have exceptions. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, what we can do is to review the situation in 30 months. At this stage, we are looking at a blanket ban without exceptions. I am only quoting from the pieces of paper in front of me, and I know that there was much more detailed evidence given to the Select Committee.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Surely the Minister would accept the words of the Home Affairs Committee report, which are quite clear; it says that poppers were

“‘not seen to be capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a societal problem’ and therefore we recommend they should not be banned.”

That could not be clearer.

[Mike Penning]

I accept the point. I know exactly what it says. I beg to differ with the report and the work that was done by colleagues because of the principle of the blanket ban. If we have exemptions, what other types will be brought forward by others at other times? The principle of the blanket ban would be affected if we accepted the amendment, so I ask the hon. Member for Midlothian not to move it, or to withdraw it. Other Members may of course pursue that.

I have one final point to make. I am conscious that presumably—although we will wait for the business managers—we are not going to have a huge amount of time on Report. If we leave too much to Report, I am conscious that we might not have the time to debate the issues that we have already agreed to in the length of time available.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister says that possession is not an offence. We are going to come to clauses later where I want to probe that. One of the issues around clubbing is that one person out of a group of six may well find themselves getting the poppers for the group and then doling them out to the group when they get to a club. In those circumstances, because there would be an “intent to supply”, the possession of poppers would be an offence. However, again, that is about using resources on something that has not been shown to have a harmful effect or to cause harm.

The Minister said that he wants to review, and in the review we can look at whether poppers have been particularly targeted. Can he confirm that when we get the review it will have a breakdown of which psychoactive substances action has been taken on? The issue is again that of resources. To show that action has been taken on psychoactive substances by any particular police force, it would be quite easy to take action on those who are using poppers. I want the action taken on those who are selling really harmful substances, not on the type of substances where the Select Committee’s report suggests there is no evidence of harm. Can the Minister confirm that in that review we will be able to see the types of substances that police forces have concentrated on when they have been taking action?

The Minister also talks about a blanket ban. We have a blanket ban but we also have an exemptions list. We have an exemptions list that includes incense, and coffee—I am grateful for that as I am not sure how I would have managed to get up this morning without it. When we are talking about a blanket ban, we want that to be on harmful substances—substances that cause harm, not substances that do not harm. Would the Minister consider publishing the evidence he has that poppers have entered a realm where they may well be causing harm? That would be helpful.

I think this will be revisited at Report; if not by either of the Front Benches, my guess is that there will be others who will have been moved by the letters and emails that they will be getting over the next week or so, who have perhaps been part of the Home Affairs Committee and are aware of the Committee’s recommendation that this is placed on the exemption list. Could I ask the Minister to genuinely reconsider on this issue? It is not that we are soft on drugs. We are hard on drugs and we want to be hard on the harmful drugs that could cause massive harm to many within our communities. Will the Minister take that on board?

[Mike Penning]

I assure the shadow Minister that in the evidence I send back to the Select Committee on that report, I most certainly will indicate the concerns that we have around harm to do with poppers.

The blanket ban is not targeted, because it is a blanket ban. It is obviously for trading standards, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make the decisions. When we come to the review, data will be available to ensure that we understand how the new Act is being implemented.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I have two points. First, I wonder whether the timescale for the Minister’s responding to the Home Affairs Committee will coincide with further debates we may have on the issue on Report. It would be convenient to have the Minister’s response in time for such debate.

My second point is about unintended consequences. Does the Minister not accept that if people cannot buy poppers in shops, in a legal format, there is a risk that they will go underground and purchase them from drug dealers, which might be a gateway into harder drugs, because the dealers will want to push more than just poppers?

[Mike Penning]

I will answer some of those points if I can at this stage. Yes, I will respond to the Select Committee before Report. I am not part of the business management system, but it does not look like we will have reached that stage by next week, so we will have some time. The Committee knows that I have been wanting to expedite the process.

On the second point, the evidence from Ireland, where poppers are banned, shows that that is not the case, and I am sure that the gay community is the same in Ireland as it is here. Interestingly enough, I raised the matter with the Irish Minister when I was with him in the Republic, and he said that it had not been an issue for them or caused major problems. In fact, he was surprised that I raised the matter.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mike Penning]

May I just finish responding to a couple of the other points? My brain will not work well enough to remember them all.

We will, of course, look at the issue of harm. Interestingly, we are all quoting different people. I have quotes from some professors. In addition to Ireland, other countries, including America, Canada and France, are also attempting to put some kind of ban in place. I am conscious that we do not want to be seen to be picking on any individual group in any shape or form. I fully understand that. But if we are trying to protect the public it is difficult to start to have physical exemptions in the way that has been described.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the Minister tell us what level of concern has been expressed to him by the gay community?

[Mike Penning]

I was just coming on to that. When the Bill was going through the Lords I expected that the matter would be debated and extensively lobbied, but it was not. I understand that it was not raised at all. I also expected my door to be bursting open following requests for meetings from the different lobby groups, but I have not received any delegations. I am slightly surprised. One of the Justice Ministers raised the matter when a group was seeing them on a separate issue. I am well aware that colleagues were lobbied when they were named as members of the Committee. However, if the matter was of such concern, I would have expected representations, but I have not had any, and I am not the shyest person if people want to see me.

That is not a criticism. It is just that the question was asked and the answer is that I have not had any representations.

[Lyn Brown]

I know that this is not scientific, but my Facebook pages had not included anything about the matter until the end of last week. Perhaps the Minister’s door has not yet been knocked on, but my guess is that it might be knocked on, fairly loudly, by those groups as the issue becomes more apparent and the community becomes more aware of it.

[Mike Penning]

Possibly, not least because of what I have just said.

[Lyn Brown]

Indeed.

[Mike Penning]

I have made a rod for my own back but, as I said, my door is always open.

The news that we were going to have a blanket ban is not new; everybody has known about the ban. Several other organisations, including the Churches, were worried about this issue. It has been debated extensively within the Lords. I accept that there is now a campaign on this issue, which seems to have started quite vigorously, but during the progress of the Bill in the other place and throughout the investigations that I have carried out, it was not raised with me.

[Lyn Brown]

May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think one of the reasons that the issue was not raised with him is that there has been an assumption that the legal highs that we are banning are the bad stuff—the materials that actually cause harm? Therefore, there has perhaps been an assumption that poppers, which do not cause harm or at least have not been considered to cause harm, would not fall within the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

The knowledge about poppers being part of the debate has been out there in the ether; it was actually partly discussed in Scotland, when the Scots carried out their review. It was certainly discussed when the Irish passed their legislation. It has been known, clearly, all the way through.

What I am saying, however, is that in what I am trying to do—I accept that this is a concern for individuals—this issue could be really difficult for this Bill. Of course, the substances that we are banning are not all the really horrible ones, and I am really genuinely worried that I would open up an opportunity for others to ask for exemptions in areas where we do not really want to have them.

I repeat what I said privately to the hon. Member for Midlothian, namely that I hope that people will understand that this process is about my trying to get a piece of legislation on the statute book that does the job we are asking it to do and that is not challenged in the wrong way.

[Owen Thompson]

I hear what the Minister is saying. However, it is one thing to say that there is reassurance for individuals who may take poppers, but how do they actually get them if we do not have an exemption for poppers? If we cover poppers in the ban that we are proposing in the Bill, they will become illegal and then those who would not be criminalised by using them cannot actually get them through any legal means. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister saying regularly that there is a blanket ban, but it is a blanket ban with the exception of controlled drugs, with the exception of medical products, with the exception of alcohol, with the exception of nicotine and tobacco, with the exception of caffeine, with the exception of food—

[Owen Thompson]

I would suggest that there are probably a number of ways in which any individual could acquire substances; indeed, that is part of what we will come on to next.

[Mike Penning]

Perhaps there is a sensible way forward, not least because the Select Committee report is fairly recent and many colleagues in the House have not had an opportunity to read it. Of course, if we do not vote on this measure now, it can then be brought back for the House, rather than this Committee, to decide. I have concerns as a Minister, not in a personal capacity. However, perhaps it would be sensible if we took some time and took some stock to consider the other evidence, and then the House can decide on Report.

[Owen Thompson]

I would certainly welcome that approach. We have talked a lot about how we are building the Bill around the Irish experience, but I do not see any reason why we cannot look to that experience and make it better. I think that that is ultimately what we are all trying to do. I do not seek to press the amendment to a vote at this stage; I merely want us to make the arguments and discuss it, as we are doing. I will take the matter forward to Report, when we can discuss it in more detail. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4

Producing a psychoactive substance

Amendment made: 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 33 and insert “section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).” —(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 11 and NC3.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Supplying, or offering to supply, a psychoactive substance

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I certainly have not taken advice on that and I do not have that information at my fingertips.

[Mike Penning]

May I help the shadow Minister?

[Lyn Brown]

I am always happy to be helped.

[Mike Penning]

The provision in the Bill mirrors the position of substances that are subject to a temporary class drug order. The Bill replicates a piece of legislation that we have been using for some considerable time. The amendment would move us away from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

It largely comes down to another unintended consequence. We are not looking to target those individuals or small groups of friends, whatever the circumstances happen to be, who are not the object of the Bill. It is a question of how we capture that in a way that leads to successful prosecutions where necessary but manages to support people where it is not the mass-scale issues we have been talking about.

The amendment is a probing one. We will not push it to a vote, but I urge the Government to use it as an opportunity to seek an alternative and look at how best we can manage this aspect in a way that meets the genuine concerns raised by Government Members, while protecting young individuals who may find themselves charged with supply when, in fact, it is what anyone else would see as personal use.

[Mike Penning]

I fully understand what colleagues on both sides of the Committee are saying, but I have some real concerns. If we exempt a group—not because they are young; we keep saying that, but we are just old and they are all younger than us—we will open up a significant loophole in the Bill, not least because of what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate spoke about from personal knowledge. What is personal use? We have discussed that in lots of other areas. While I desperately do not want to criminalise young people, there is a whole set of measures in the Bill that will prevent us from getting to that position. That is why they are there.

I advise the Committee that some things that have been said are not quite factually correct. Supply does not need proof of payment under the 1971 Act, but proof of payment is a consideration in sentencing, which is exactly what we would look for in this measure. It is not for me to tell the Sentencing Council exactly what its guidelines should be. We have moved away from politicians doing that—it is now people who are much more expert than I am—but I have already committed to writing to the Sentencing Council once the Bill has completed its passage in order to advise it on the will of the House. We will return to that when we discuss children’s homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

Just as importantly, the Home Office and enforcement agencies would still be able to control substances without having to prove that they are harmful. This amendment would therefore not place the authorities one step behind the market, which is the problem the Bill is designed to solve.

Section 1 of the Drugs Act 2005 included aggravation within its scope. I understand that this is hardly used. Does the Minister know how often it has been used successfully in court? He may seek inspiration on this one, or I am happy for him to write to me with the answer.

[Mike Penning]

I will write to the hon. Lady.

[Lyn Brown]

I am looking forward to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It will be a very long letter.

[The Chair]

I do not think we should be overly detained by the Minister’s billet-doux.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I thank colleagues for their contributions. The last point raised by the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, is probably the most difficult for me, not least because we would be moving away from the blanket ban. That is something that we have tried to introduce for many years. I fully understand the way in which the courts have historically looked at drugs sentencing, but this is new. However, the principle should not be any different. I highlight the fact that I will correspond with the Sentencing Council, as I alluded to earlier on. The situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland is different, but I am sure that they will follow that lead, not least because of the work the Scottish Government have done.

I fully support the principles behind the amendments, and it is clearly right that the courts should take account of the harms and the type of offence, but I feel that this is very much a matter for the independent Sentencing Council. The aggravating factors proposed in the amendments are already broadly covered by the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for drug offences, which we will be replicating. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made about the speed at which the Sentencing Council may need to move, and the speed at which we in Government need to move to give it the facts it needs to make decisions.

The process will be an evolutionary one. We do not want a young person—we keep referring to young people—or a person who had a small amount of a substance and sold it on to someone else because they were broke to be treated exactly the same as a drug dealer who has imported two tonnes of the stuff in a container through one of our ports. Clearly, in sentencing, that would be wrong. I am committed to writing to the Sentencing Council—it already knows that I am going to do this—to say that we expect it to take into consideration not only what the Committee and both Houses decide, but the relevant parts of the Home Affairs Committee report. The part that we have been discussing, in particular, is enormously helpful as we move forward. We do not want people to be treated differently under the law, but we want dealers, as we understand dealers, to be treated differently.

I cannot agree that we should move into the territory of harm, because to do so would completely damage the principle of our thinking. I accept that that thinking is completely new, and it will be quite interesting for the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is important that the Sentencing Council does its job in England and Wales, and that a similar thing happens in Northern Ireland and Wales. I noted the agreement of the hon. Member for Midlothian and the hon. Member for West Ham on that; when the hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be appropriate, there was a nod from Her Majesty’s Opposition. I have taken that on board, and I will write to the Sentencing Council. We could work together on the content of the letter.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he agrees with the principle behind the amendments and that he will write to the Sentencing Council to urge it to take note of what the Committee and the Home Affairs Committee have said. That is very welcome, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

May I say at the outset, as I did in the previous group of amendments, that I have deep sympathy not only with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate but with the excellent work that charity has been doing in this area? One of the things touched on by my hon. Friend was the anomaly between schools and children’s homes.

Clause 6 in its original form was included in the Bill for consistency’s sake, to replicate an identical provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because that provision was created before the Sentencing Council existed. I looked long and hard at whether it would be right at this stage to try to replicate that, because it would completely go against what we have been trying to do with the Sentencing Council in that area. We will continue to look at this, and it will be part of the submission to the Sentencing Council, which I will probably send to each of the devolved Administrations as well. While I cannot tell them what they should do, they need to know the will of the House.

We need to keep an extremely close eye on what goes on. Section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 specifically says that courts must take into consideration the sentencing guidelines on this. We need to ensure that the sentencing guidelines replicate the will of the House and of 99.9% of the public, who want to see the abhorrent crimes we have discussed—and things that it would perhaps not be appropriate to discuss here but which I know about within my ministerial capacity—are subject to the full force of the law. As I have said about previous amendments, that is a matter for the Sentencing Council on which we can advise, but there must be consistency throughout the Bill.

While I understand that the amendment is a probing one, I hope I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate assurance. The principle behind the previous set of amendments shows my reaction to this. It is something we are keen to keep under review, and it has to be specific within the correspondence I will draft, with help from others, to the Sentencing Council. With that in mind, I hope my hon. Friend will not push the amendment to a vote.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful for the debate and the cross-party agreement on the principle behind the amendment, which is the concern we all share to ensure that those convicted of supplying their evil trade to vulnerable children get the sentence they deserve. I pay tribute to the Children’s Society for championing the cause.

[Mike Penning]

I was discourteous; I did not name the Children’s Society nor refer to that charity in my remarks. A charity of such distinction and with that longevity of service to vulnerable young children deserves acknowledgement by name from a Minister.

[Mr Burrowes]

I thank the Minister for that.

The clause tries to ensure consistency on controlled drugs in relation to supply at school premises, which is understandable, but this is a landmark Bill. Professor Iverson spoke about the Bill being one of the most important and significant pieces of legislation for 40 years. With that comes a need to ensure that sentencing is appropriate to the particular substances and recognises the characteristics of certain substances. It has already been mentioned how, sadly, such substances are used for exploitation, often of children and those in particular types of accommodation and in care. Supply of substances is a characteristic of the abuse, and that is why it is right for Parliament to consider whether it wants to ensure that supply to a vulnerable child is an aggravating factor.

I concede that the Sentencing Council has non-statutory guidelines that seek to address the matter, but it is important to recognise that they are guidelines, not tramlines. As a Parliament, we have a duty to vulnerable people, where there is that power imbalance. The substances that we are seek to criminalise and to set appropriate sentences for increase dependency, create debt, stupefy children and allow them to be exploited. As a Parliament, we should have tramlines, not guidelines, and we should be absolutely clear about that.

We can say too often that we are sending out a message. We should not always send out messages with Bills, but part of this Bill is about sending a message that these substances are illegal and are not good or safe. Part of that message should relate to sentencing so that it is clear that anyone who wants to risk plying their trade to vulnerable people in the type of accommodation specified will face a hefty sentence. Those people will not be looking up the sentencing guidelines that will go to the magistrates court and the Crown court. They will not have a clue about that, but they may well get a clue that the offence has a maximum penalty of seven years or so and that they will be at the upper end of the market for sentencing.

I recognise that the Minister will consider the matter seriously and in good faith. It must be looked at across the piece, along with the relationship between drug sentencing and the Sentencing Council. The Bill is innovative, and we want to ensure that we send out a clear, stark message to those who exploit the most vulnerable. I look forward to the Minister considering the matter further at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 43, leave out “on prison premises.” and insert “in a custodial institution.

‘( ) In this section—

“custodial institution” means any of the following—

(a) a prison;

(b) a young offender institution, secure training centre, secure college, young offenders institution, young offenders centre, juvenile justice centre or remand centre;

(c) a removal centre, a short-term holding facility or pre-departure accommodation;

(d) service custody premises;

“removal centre”, “short-term holding facility” and “pre-departure accommodation” have the meaning given by section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;

“service custody premises” has the meaning given by section 300(7) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment replaces the reference to “prison premises” in clause 6(8) with a reference to a “custodial institution”. It then defines a custodial institution; the definition includes adult and juvenile prisons, immigration detention accommodation and service custody premises.

Ordered,

That subsection (9) of Clause 6 be transferred to the end of line 29 on page 3.—(Mike Penning.)

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Possession of psychoactive substance with intent to supply

Amendment made: 8, in clause 7, page 4, line 18, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 19 and insert “section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 11 and NC3.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 8

Importing or exporting a psychoactive substance

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

I will continue in the spirit of harmony and good will that has been a theme this afternoon. Our amendment 53 was identical to amendment 50, so great minds think alike.

The same reasoning lies behind amendments 50 and 54. Amendment 50 would ensure protection for people importing substances ordered online. Exporting is a slightly different situation, but the logic follows through. The spirit of the Bill is about ensuring that individual users are not criminalised; it is about addressing the wider industry and wholesale suppliers and dealers. Society is changing—in the way in which people approach everyday shopping, for example—so we have to take account of the fact that people approach things differently. It is not simply a case of going down the street to a head shop, or whatever it happens to be, to buy a substance. With every other aspect of life increasingly moving online, we must ensure that legislation keeps pace. These amendments would ensure that there is an eye towards that.

We will seek assurances from the Minister if he does not accept the amendment. This is a probing amendment, and we are trying to ensure that these elements are fully thrashed out before Report. As more and more happens online, we need to ensure that our legislation is keeping pace and taking account of changing trends in how people access substances such as NPS.

[Mike Penning]

Again, I thank both the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesman for indicating that these are probing amendments, so my colleagues can relax.

The shadow Minister summed up exactly why I will not accept the amendment. We are not trying to pick on individuals who purchase these products for personal use but, as we close head shops and other avenues, there will clearly be an increase, as the expert panel highlighted. As the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, the National Crime Agency is my responsibility. I have been working with the NCA and other agencies, and I have particularly been working with my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, because obviously Border Force will have a crucial role.

If we accepted the amendment, the debate would be about what is personal use. During this debate we have heard about cigarettes and alcohol. My family was in the pub trade for many, many years, and there has been an issue with Transit vans—I apologise for picking on Ford—and other large vans going across to Calais and coming back full of cigarettes and alcohol. When those vans are stopped by borders, immigration and customs, the driver says, “This is completely for personal use.” That opens up a difficult area.

The amendment would make it difficult for Border Force to do the job we need it to do. As has been highlighted, we absolutely need the expertise in that relevant area. On the point that the hon. Member for Midlothian made about the difficulties that exist online, some of the expertise that we increasingly need is there, but a lot of this is organised crime, and those are the people we are after. I am absolutely determined that the NCA and the other agencies should have the powers and the expertise they need to go after those people, not the little guy who is in possession for personal use.

The difficulty in law—this has been an issue in the courts—is personal use. It is a really difficult area, and that is why I sadly cannot support the amendments. I understand fully their probing nature. I always argue that it is all too easy to build up points as a constable by picking on the little guy, when the others are the guys that we want. I assure the Committee that we have introduced the measures to allow us to get the big guys, not to pick up the little guys. We will keep a close eye on the situation, but I think we have what we need.

[Lyn Brown]

Has the Minister given any thought to how purchasers will know whether they are buying from a UK site? I do not think that they will be able to tell whether they are committing an offence. There will be criminals out there who will trick people into believing that they are buying from a UK site.

[Mike Penning]

If they buy from a UK site, it is illegal under the Bill, because it is selling. If those who run the site try to represent themselves as a UK site to sell the product, that is just as illegal as being a head shop. What we have said all the way through the Bill is that it is not legislation that is the silver bullet but education and understanding. It will be generational for some people, but that is where the proportionality that we talked about earlier in the criminal justice system, in local government and in trading standards comes in. It is important that we discuss this point, but we need to ensure that there are no loopholes and that the agencies that we are asking to look after us and the legislation have the powers that they need.

[Lyn Brown]

We are not prosecuting people who have possession, and we are not going to prosecute somebody who purchases.

[Mike Penning]

I understand that.

[Lyn Brown]

But if somebody purchases from abroad or from a site that is based abroad, we will be prosecuting them. I am worried about somebody who unwittingly purchases from a foreign website.

[Mike Penning]

I understand fully the point that the hon. Lady is making, and it is a difficult area. What I cannot do is to open up the whole Bill because of what will, I hope, be a small group of people. The likelihood of their being prosecuted in that area is very unlikely, because of everything that we have debated. Purchase and possession would be legal—we have discussed that—so there would be no illegality on the part of the individual. It is the seller or the dealer we are after. I think I am right on that point.

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 9, in clause 8, page 5, line 6, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 7 and insert

“section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).”.—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 11 and NC3.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Penalties

Amendment made: 10, in clause 9, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

“( ) A person guilty of an offence under section (Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales—

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), or

(ii) to a fine,

or both;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland—

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or

(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,

or both;

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland—

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or

(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,

or both;

(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine, or both.”.—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on NC2. It provides that the new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution, as inserted by that new clause, attracts a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Power to provide for exceptions to offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mike Penning]

This is a technical thing, but it is important. The clause confers on the Home Secretary the power to specify exceptions to the offences in clauses 4 to 8 by regulations. As we have already debated, new schedule 1 lists certain excepted activities on the face of the Bill, so clause 10 is not required.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 10 accordingly disagreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available in the Committee Room.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or a similar issue. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first, and other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any amendments within the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. I will work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.

Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper—in other words, debates occur according to the selection list and decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I hope that explanation is helpful. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates on individual clauses and schedules following the debate on relevant amendments.

Clause 1

Overview

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after “9”, insert “and (Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution)”

This amendment is consequential on NC2.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 7.

The motion to transfer subsection (9) of clause 6.

Government amendments 10, 17, 18, 26, 30 and 33 to 36.

Government new clause 2—Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution.

[Mike Penning]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I also look forward to serving under Sir David’s chairmanship. Thank you for setting out so concisely how the Committee will proceed.

I thank Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish National party for being so supportive of the principle behind the Bill, on which there was extensive discussion in the other place. One area that was discussed extensively in the other place is the use of psychoactive substances in prisons and other custodial places. The Lords sought to address the issue by amending clause 6 to make the supply of psychoactive substances, and offers to supply psychoactive substances, on prison premises a statutory aggravating factor. On reflection, we are content with the Lords amendment, not least because the governors and the Prison Officers Association support making possession a specific offence.

We also support the Lords amendment following the campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has spoken to me privately about this matter on more than one occasion—I can see the shadow Front-Bench team nodding. He really understands the matter and has been campaigning on it for many years, and it would be inappropriate if we did not acknowledge that.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is a member of the Committee. He knows all too well that the substances are a dangerous and pervasive problem in prisons and other secure estates, not only for prison officers but for other staff and prisoners. Having reflected on the Lords amendment we are content to retain it; Government amendment 7 simply makes some drafting improvement so as to ensure that the measure is tight and, in particular, to provide a definition of a custodial institution.

We have concluded, however, that we need to go further, with new clause 2 introducing a new offence for a person who is in possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution. I think everyone agrees that the use of psychoactive substances needs to be addressed, and it is not about just prisoners; it is about other staff who may, sadly, wish to bring such substances on to the premises, and visitors. The safety of visitors, prisoners and staff is, of course, paramount.

The introduction of a possession offence in prison would enable the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue cases of prisoners, visitors or staff being found with small quantities of psychoactive substances in prison, and would support the stance that psychoactive substances are not to be tolerated in prison. The measure is fully supported across the House, by all the experts and panels, and within the Prison Service and other custodial suites. The measure concerns not just prisons, but any form of custody, particularly immigration detention centres and youth detention centres. I hope that in that way, along with the help we have had from the Lords, a simple case will be made about the possession of a psychoactive substance in prisons and other custodial centres, as opposed to in the community where it is not an offence. That is needed, to make a difference. We have listened carefully, and that is exactly what we will do.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Mr Howarth, I look forward to serving under your chairmanship and receiving your guidance. This is my first outing as a shadow Minister on a Bill, and I know that I am sitting under two experienced Chairs who will make my life so much easier than it might otherwise have been. That is a plea, in case you had not worked it out.

As I made clear during my speech on Second Reading, we support the Bill’s principles and general approach. The 2015 Labour manifesto included a commitment to ban the sale and distribution of dangerous psychoactive substances. A blanket ban with listed exemptions appears to be the most effective means of beginning to tackle the serious public health problems that the drugs have brought about. During the Committee stage, we will look at the weaknesses in the drafting of the Bill, and will table amendments to try to improve it. I hope that the Government take our critique and suggestions in the constructive manner in which they are intended. We want to work with the Government, through the Committee, to make the Bill as effective and robust as possible.

The Government have elected to insert a new clause into the Bill, which will make it an offence to possess a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution. The new clause amends clause 1, which is consequential on the new offence. The Bill already contains offences of supply, and of possession with intent to supply, psychoactive substances, which apply to prisoners and staff as much as to the rest of the public. The new clause makes it an aggravating factor to supply such substances in or around a prison, meaning that the only new power would be the ability to further punish those involved with psychoactive substances. Although I share the Government’s concern about the problem of such substances in our prisons, I am not convinced that we lack enough statutes to bring charges against prisoners, staff and visitors.

I also assume that many of the prisoners in possession of and taking psychoactive substances in our custodial institutions are likely to be addicted and are possibly in prison because they needed to feed their habit. It would perhaps be better to treat such instances as a health issue rather than one of enforcement. As I have said, the Bill already contains offences of supply and possession with intent to supply in or near a prison as an aggravated offence, so I am not convinced that the addition of possession is necessary.

As I said on Second Reading, I am concerned by the findings in the prisons and probation ombudsman’s report of July of this year that new psychoactive substances had been a factor in at least 19 prisoner deaths between 2012 and 2014. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons’ annual report was just as concerning. It found that the availability of new psychoactive drugs has

“had a severe impact and has led to debt and associated violence.”

New psychoactive substances are undoubtedly a real problem for our prisons, which I am sure is what motivated the Minister to table the amendment. However, neither of the reports asked for legislation to help deal with the problem. Indeed, the drugs that the reports mention as causing problems, Black Mamba and Spice, are already controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, meaning that possessing the most problematic substances in our prisons is already a crime. In addition, the Prison Service already has powers to discipline and punish prisoners for possessing psychoactive substances though prison rules.

Both reports stress that better detection mechanisms for new psychoactive substances need to be in place. HMIP stated that many new psychoactive substances do not show up in mandatory drug tests, making it difficult for prison officers to know what they are dealing with and the scale of the problem they face. Too few drugs tests are taking place, due to inadequate staffing. The prisons ombudsman highlighted that the sniffer dogs used by prisons to detect drugs often could not identify new psychoactive substances, and that it was still waiting for X-ray body scanners to detect substances concealed in body cavities.

I understand that the prevalence of Spice in prisons can be high. Will the legislation have a deterrent effect? Is it practically possible to enforce, or will it be like handing out speeding tickets at a grand prix? Will the Minister explain what prompted his desire to introduce criminal sanctions for possessing a psychoactive substance in a prison? Does he genuinely feel that the prison system has enough resources to tackle the direct supply and demand of such substances? It does rather feel that the amendment has been tabled out of a desire to do something about the problem in our prisons because the Minister and the Government have not been able to do the right thing, which is to address the staffing and resources issues raised by HMIP and the prisons and probation ombudsman.

During my Second Reading speech, I stressed that we have to reduce supply and demand for such drugs, meaning that we need to focus on education, including education for prisoners and, I suggest, their families. The Minister’s letter to the Chairs of the Committee states that the new offence provided by this amendment will complement the work of the National Offender Management Service to

“educate prisoners, staff and visitors.”

Will the Minister update us on what changes the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have made to the drug education strategy since July, which is when the prisons and probation ombudsman report recommended that the Prison Service should put in place a specific education programme about the dangers of psychoactive substances?

In conclusion, I am unconvinced that the new offence would provide any useful tools in tackling the problem of novel psychoactive substances in our prisons. It is already against prison rules to possess a psychoactive substance. It is also against the law to possess Black Mamba and Spice—the NPS that currently cause the most damage in our prisons. They are already banned. Custody professionals seem clear that the priority needs to be ensuring that prisons have the resources to deal with these substances and to educate their staff and prisoners. I think that makes sense and I agree with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I, too, appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Committee. This is my first time, so please bear with me. My party has also tabled amendments, and I look forward to discussing them. I welcome, as do others, the fact that there is broad agreement on many aspects of the Bill. We all want to point in the same direction but the issue is how we get there.

I echo much of what the shadow Minister said, in absolutely recognising both the need for action to be taken on prison estates and the challenges that involves, but I am not yet entirely convinced that the measures will achieve the outcomes we want. My party certainly does not oppose the amendments at this stage, but we wish to see further consideration on Report.

In many ways, the issues regarding prison estates are slightly different from the wider issues covered by the Bill. There is an absolute need for a greater education programme, to ensure an awareness of the effects of NPS. In its evidence, the Trading Standards Institute made a point about testing. How can systems be put in place to ensure that substances that enter prisons can be identified as psychoactive and then isolated and taken out of the equation? I again echo the shadow Minister in saying that in the prison estate the need for treatment is even greater than elsewhere. For those who find themselves in a secure estate as a result of an offence caused by NPS addiction, treatment is critical because removing the addiction is the only way to start to take the substances out of the equation—to remove them as today’s currency of choice.

I will be brief at this point, but I again state that we want to see a far greater focus on education and treatment while recognising the need to take action that focuses on prisons in particular.

[Mike Penning]

I fully understand many of the points raised by the shadow Minister and other colleagues. The measures are not a silver bullet; I think we all accept that. Action needs to be taken in the context of better treatment programmes. We are starting to understand that. Addiction to NPS is a particularly difficult matter. The action taken categorically has to be about education, and in the prison estate it also has to be about detection.

The blanket ban helps. We spoke earlier about Spice and Black Mamba. Those are generic terms for a substance that is tweaked by chemists every time we chase the matter. We are here now because we have not been able to get on the front foot, in front of the people who are trying to destroy others’ lives and, frankly, make a small fortune as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, and the shadow Minister, rightly pointed out that there are already sanctions, but they are fairly limited within prisons, to be honest. We need to listen to the experts, to the people who deal with secure estates on a day-to-day basis. If they say that the substances are a major issue not only in that they are a currency in the estates but because of the safety of staff, visitors and prisoners, we need to act. We have tabled the amendment and are making an exemption regarding possession within prisons because that is what we have been asked to do. My Prisons Minister has told me that it is what is being asked for. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has spoken to some prison governors and I have spoken to others. They have asked for the measure. Is it the only answer? No. NHS England in our part of the world, NHS Scotland and NHS Wales need to step up to the plate and do some more work, because they run the treatment programmes within the prisons.

The director general of NOMs is specifically chairing across groups to make sure that we get a better understanding and better education for staff and visitors. The best option here is not actually to convict anybody but to convince people that they should change their behaviour; but we live in the real world and I acknowledge that that is not going to happen. Nevertheless, we have to send a message. That message was sent to me as the Minister from the people on the frontline that they needed this, and it is my job to make sure that they have it, so I hope that we will approve it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

[Mike Penning]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “Section 10” and insert “Section (Exceptions to offences)”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 11 and NC3.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 28, 29 and 37.

Government new clause 3—Exceptions to offences.

Government new schedule 1—Exempted activities.

[Mike Penning]

The Government made a commitment in the other place during the Bill’s passage there to review the existing exemption for research activities and to strengthen it. That commitment was important and we shall push forward with it now, as we would all agree that bona fide research is a vital area. In doing so, we are following the consultation of the Academy of Medical Sciences and others, and we are confident that this exemption is necessary, sufficient and robust.

The new schedule also provides an exemption for healthcare-related activities, which I think we would all support. That is obviously very important. We do not want to make a problem for individuals. We see that this exemption has a complement in the exemption of medical products in schedule 1. In providing the new exemption we are going for a belt and braces approach, and we fully accept that that is what we are doing. I think that is very important.

New clause 3 enables the Home Secretary to add and vary a list of exempted activities in a new schedule. This regulation-making power replaces that in clause 10 of the Bill which covers the same ground, so we will effectively be removing clause 10 and replacing it with new clause 3. In the light of what we have seen in the other place, we felt that that is important. When we get to clause 10, obviously we will not move it. Hopefully we can move on, because I think this is an agreed part of the Bill. It is important that as different substances become available, the Home Secretary has the powers to add to and vary the list.

[Lyn Brown]

Government amendment 2 is consequential on later Government amendments, providing for exceptions for medical and academic research. One of the concerns raised by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was about the impact of this legislation on legitimate scientific work. As the ACMD made clear, in the original drafting there was an exemption for clinical trials but no mention of exemption made for laboratory research in academia or industry.

The Academy of Medical Sciences also wrote to the Home Secretary to raise its concerns. An example picked out by the AMS is that the Bill could criminalise neuroscience researchers using psychoactive substances as experimental tools to help us better understand the causes of some mental illness. Several Members of the House of Lords raised that as an issue prior to Report in that place. Lord Rosser, who led on the Bill for Labour in the House of Lords, highlighted on Second Reading that it is of vital importance that the Bill does not

“inhibit or restrict important medical research that will help us to improve our knowledge of drugs and their impact”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2015; Vol. 762, c. 1964.]

I thank Lord Rosser for highlighting that, and for seeking assurances from the Government that the original clause 10 of the Bill will not inhibit or restrict legitimate research by the terms of the Bill. I also thank him for emphasising the need for procedures relating to medical research to be made exempt under the Bill. Without his diligent work, the Government’s new clause, which deals with many of the inadequacies of the original drafting, may not have been possible.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who spoke passionately on Second Reading about the need for clearer exceptions for medical research. He was absolutely right to raise concerns that the vague definition of psychoactive substances in the Bill will impede legitimate research.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I certainly agree. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend said:

“Would it not be a tragedy if the United Kingdom, one of the leading research nations in the world, avoided finding a cure for some awful psychiatric disorder due to our failure to include the appropriate exemptions for scientists?”—[Official Report, 19 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 779.]

Thanks to pressure exerted on the Government, Lord Bates, who led the Bill through the Lords for the Government, wrote to Lord Rosser and other peers to state that the Government were actively considering the issue and were in discussion with the ACMD. He pledged that the Government would table amendments addressing concerns about medical research during the Commons Committee stage. His colleague, Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen, stated that the Government have no intention of stopping “bona fide research”. I am glad that the Government listened to Labour’s concerns and have delivered on Lord Bates’s promise by introducing a new clause that will specifically exempt academic activities. I absolutely support the amendments.

However, I cannot help but feel that the Government could have avoided the need hastily to draft the amendments and table some significant information if they had properly consulted the ACMD before they produced the first draft of the Bill. This has been a very quick—I would not say rushed—Bill. We had Second Reading in the Commons a week ago and here we are in Committee, and there are still issues that are yet to be completely ironed out in Committee to make the Bill enforceable in our courts of law.

We need to take into consideration organisations such as the ACMD, which consists of leading experts on drugs, many of whom work in academia. If they had been consulted on the original draft of the Bill, they would undoubtedly have spotted the problems with the Government’s original plans. The amendment could have been in the Bill from the beginning, and parliamentary time could have been spent more productively in looking at the goals of the Bill and how well the Bill will help the Government to achieve them.

[Mike Penning]

At the outset, I want to say that legislation is passed in Parliament by introducing a draft Bill, which is then scrutinised. I welcome the scrutiny that took place in the Lords. The reason why the Bill started in the Lords—this is probably above my pay grade—is that there are so many genuine experts there. Perhaps if it had started in this House the same amendments would have been introduced by colleagues on both sides of the House. I do not mind that; colleagues who know me well enough know that I am pragmatic.

I have a couple of points about the shadow Minister’s comments. This should have been done years ago under previous Administrations—I think we all know that. For every day that we do not do this, people are dying. I accept that it is rushed, to a degree—there was a huge gap between the Bill being in the Lords and coming to us—but it is right and proper for this House to expedite the Bill, while doing everything possible about any anomalies that generally concern groups of people, in particular on the research side. If there were any such anomalies in the legislation, I would let no one prevent us from changing things. That is why we have tabled the amendments. Unashamedly, I have already mentioned belt and braces. If we need to amend things further as we go on, we will do so, so that we do not prevent research in such an important area.

I wanted to touch on the scrutiny work done in the other House. I sat in on the debate on Second Reading and Report, on the steps of the Throne—it is a great honour to be able to do such things—and it was fascinating. One group of people was fundamentally opposed, as in our House, but it was a tiny group. We got around bits such as “Will this affect people in churches with incense?” and, once we had got rid of that stuff, we could actually ask, “Does the Bill do what it says on the tin?” and “Does it allow the research to continue to take place?” which is absolutely vital. New clause 3 would improve the Bill, and that is why we can take out clause 10. That is because we were listening, and this is the way forward.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

The Committee has the benefit of a two-for-one offer from the official Opposition: we have not one shadow Minister, but two. We feel strongly that we are dealing not only with a home affairs issue but a public health one. As Labour’s shadow public health Minister, I think it is important for us to have a health voice in Committee.

I will not test your patience, Mr Howarth, by going over what we discussed in detail on Second Reading, but I want to make it clear in the clause stand part debate that we support the general aims of the Bill. The Labour party committed to banning legal highs before the last election, and we do not shy away from that commitment today. On Second Reading we pointed to evidence from the Republic of Ireland and it is true that the only way to draft an effective Bill is to include a blanket ban. Most if not all Members of the House of Commons—

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

We felt that there was a weakness in the Bill around the definition of a psychoactive substance. This is a fundamental aspect of how we move the proposals forward. As the Minister has mentioned, often when substances are brought on to the market, efforts are taken to make them illegal. The chemists go back to the drawing board, try to tweak the formula and the same thing comes out with the same effect but with a different formula, so it is not covered. We need to make sure that the definition is as strong as possible, so that action can be taken where required.

Our amendment moves forward some of the issues on definition that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs raised at the Home Affairs Committee. We accept that the Opposition Front Bench also has amendments on similar lines which do likewise. However, questions remain on how action can be taken because, even with a stronger definition, how can prosecutors prove that something is capable of having a psychoactive effect? This point was commented on in relation to prisoner status. How are tests done? What are the tests, and who carries them out? Would expert evidence be required in every instance where a substance is being looked at? Would that be considered under the definition and who would carry out that function?

I will be brief, because I simply want to make sure that we can have as strong a position as possible around a definition. I am not seeking to press the amendment to a vote, but to raise the matter with Ministers to make sure that on Report, these comments can be taken into account to make sure that the definition is as strong as it can be.

[Mike Penning]

Like all things in this House, events are often superseded. I looked carefully at the ACMD’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and colleagues now have copies of letters from that very expert panel as to whether it is now confident that we can define “psychoactive”. We will use its expertise as we go forward.

Earlier, we touched on why we had not consulted more with the ACMD when we formulated the Bill. Several colleagues at Second Reading and, I think, the shadow Minister earlier raised that point. Incidentally, the chairman of the ACMD and two members of the Committee were on the expert panel considering the sphere of issues that we needed to bring forward, so we did consult them. Obviously, with the chairman of the ACMD physically present, there was a huge input from the council. The ACMD is working with us. Its letter clearly states that it thinks we can define “psychoactive”. That is very important.

My concern around amendment 44 is the move to “synthesis”. Initially, the ACMD was in that position, but it has moved away from it. We are absolutely adamant that a definition cannot be arrived at through “synthetic”; it has to be a blanket ban. I think everybody is agreed on that. The Irish situation was exactly the same. We have learned from what happened in Ireland. Other countries are now following us. If we were to limit the Bill in the way that the amendments indicate, it would be quite difficult. I will wait to hear the shadow Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that data sharing across police forces is essential to ensure we get the right information and can prosecute cases where possible. Police Scotland has voiced similar concerns, stating that a successful case would require evidence from a qualified expert with experience of working with NPS who could identify the substance and prove its psychoactivity. Furthermore, Police Scotland also states that every case that involved NPS offences would require the suitably qualified medical expert to provide evidence in court, which would also incur a cost.

The critical issue in the Bill—the definition of psychoactivity—still has to be addressed, although I suppose there might be something in the letter that has been submitted to the Committee. The ACMD published further advice on 23 October and is still of the view that

“the current definition on the face of the Bill is too unspecific and does not adequately define a psychoactive substance”.

Essentially, the Home Secretary has rejected any qualification of psychoactive substances—for example, by including only synthetic products. The definition in clause 2 remains as originally drafted, without reference to harm, to which we will come later.

Much of the detail of the Government’s discussions has not been published, so the reasoning behind their position is not entirely clear to me. They have not accepted any suggested amendment to the wording of clause 2. It is unfortunate that there has been no agreement between Ministers and the statutory body of expertise, the ACMD. I fear that that risks destabilising the overall soundness and public perception of the proposals, by which I mean the ability to prosecute successfully. If the definition remains largely unchanged, there will be consequences relating to harm measurement, proportional sentencing and credible messaging. If the criminal sanctions apply equally to substances of widely different harm thresholds, that will remove the possibility that sensible and honest messages about health harms can be created.

We tabled our amendments not to be difficult or party political but to try to secure clarification from the Government on the intended scope of the Bill. We need to know that they are certain that they can legally prove that a substance is psychoactive and secure prosecutions. We want to know what provisions they have made to ensure that the necessary funds and resources are available to conduct extensive and expensive tests for psychoactivity.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the shadow Minister for her detailed and extensive comments, which I take in the context in which they were delivered.

I want to address some of the points that were made. The SNP spokesman mentioned the idea of a toolkit—we do not need to reinvent the wheel every time, do we? In England, local authorities, which have responsibility for public health, spend £830 million a year on tackling drug and alcohol misuse. That is 30% of the national budget, which makes it logical to address the issue.

The explanatory notes set out that the measures will be cost-neutral to the police and local authorities. Let me use some anecdotal evidence to show why. Take, for example, Belfast and Lincoln, two very diverse communities where head shops were banned using local powers. I still do not understand why other local authorities have not used those powers, but there we are. The cost and type of policing in those communities changed dramatically, without the Bill, just by banning head shops. Belfast, which I know all too well from my time as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, was transformed simply by people saying, “We do not want that sort of product sold in shops in our communities because people will think it is legitimate and safe.”

I understand that there are concerns, and I know that there are different views coming back from the Republic of Ireland. I went and met the Irish Minister and his scientific experts. I asked why there had been five prosecutions, and the answer was twofold, and not exactly what we have heard so far today. In Ireland, they felt that they had got the prosecutions they wanted using powers that are also in the Bill. A huge part of the Bill has nothing to do with the CPS and the police prosecuting, but is about local authorities. What happened almost overnight after using those powers was that the head shops and the industry collapsed, because people had been educated correctly. Where the local authorities were using their powers—powers that are also in the Bill—it transformed the communities in the way we would all like to see. The Bill is not designed to pick on people who have been using these products perfectly legally and, they feel, safely; it is designed to get the really bad guys—the dealers and those sorts of people. The seven-year prison sentence is in the Bill as a last resort.

In terms of applied science and technology, the Home Office will identify and bring forward the capability throughout the UK on the forensic requirement. We are going to do that. I accept that we will have to give more detail, perhaps on Report, and we are happy to do so.

I am sorry we disagree so early in the Bill, but I have real concerns about amendment 51, which runs counter to the blanket ban. If we are going to go for a blanket ban, we are going to go for a blanket ban. If we start fiddling around the edges, that blanket ban becomes difficult, so I do not support the amendment. I fully accept the fact that the shadow Minister and other members of the Committee have not had enough time to read the ACMD’s latest correspondence. Perhaps that can be addressed on Report. The ACMD understandably moves with debate, as it moves in different areas. As I said earlier, using “synthetics” in the Bill is wrong. A blanket ban is a blanket ban. We have to get ahead the game, and that is what we have been trying to do.

I fully understand why the amendments have been tabled, and that the one from the hon. Member for Midlothian is probing, but sadly at this stage I cannot support amendments 51, 43 and 44 for the reasons I have given. If more discussion and investigation is needed, the Report stage may be a better time for that. A lot of the concerns are that we will not be able to prosecute, but we will. It happens in other parts of the world and in Ireland. There were concerns about harm, but if a blanket ban happens, we are ahead of harm, rather than waiting for harm to happen and for people to die. On that basis, I hope that colleagues will not press their amendments to a Division.

[Lyn Brown]

I hear entirely what the Minister is saying, and I have some sympathy, but may I push him on a couple of things? The first is the issue of the definition. I did not hear him explain why we cannot use the words “new” or “synthetic”. That would give us a better focus on the things we want to ban. Secondly, I did not hear why we were not able to put the organic substances that we know to be harmful, such as salvia and kratom, within the scope of the 1971 Act. That just seems logical. We know that those substances are harmful and we know what they are. People will not be able to graft new bits on to plants to create new organic substances—certainly not at the rate at which they have managed to create new synthetic substances.

The Minister talked about costs. I used the words “immediately become cost-neutral” in my notes, but I say gently to him that while I accept that there may be savings to the local community and the local police from banning head shops, cutting the supply and getting rid of the demand from our streets, I genuinely do not believe that those savings will be immediate. I gently suggest that one reason why there have not been more prosecutions by local authorities is that they have not had the wherewithal—the finance— to know that what they are taking to court will actually stand up. There is a cost issue that we need to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful, Mr Howarth.

[Mike Penning]

I do not want to go round in circles, as I have made the points that I would almost certainly make again. At this point I would like to make some progress. “New or novel” substances have, according to my legal team, no legal meaning within the law, which is why we are not going with that.

[Lyn Brown]

Okay.

[Mike Penning]

Ireland is a much smaller country and, if we proportionally move the percentage in population up from 5%, we would see substantially more prosecutions. I am really pleased that I went to Ireland as I was amazed at the amount of work done by local government on prevention. One reason why the measure will not come into force until April is to allow what happened in Ireland to happen here. Prosecutions did take place and were not thrown out of court; the evidence base was almost identical to what we have. We are slightly tougher, but only marginally, and perhaps learning from some of the mistakes. They have said they will probably follow us and our legislation going forward, which is exactly what New Zealand and Western Australia are doing as well.

We have to be careful not to pre-empt something that might happen but which has not happened in countries where measures have been taken. I am conscious that the measure needs to be tight and a blanket ban is needed. I am happy and confident that we will have the scientific evidence and the experts out there to make sure that we can do this. Let us hope that, before the legislation comes in, and as they did in Ireland, we get into the schools, we get into local government and talk to communities, and that we get programmes out there that we will all support to make sure, categorically, that everybody is aware not only that the substances are no longer legal, but that they have definitely never been safe and, by the way, there are severe penalties for importing, manufacturing or selling these products.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarification on the words “new or novel”. That is the first time I have heard that they might not have a legal standing as a definition. May I push him, therefore, on the definition and ask if he is confident that the definition in the Bill will be robust enough for us to deal with provability within a court? Secondly, may I ask him to address the issue of cost?

[Mike Penning]

The answer to the first question is yes; I am more than confident about that. As the explanatory notes say, the CPS is responsible for the costs in prosecution terms. We do not think that will be an enormous burden. I am responsible for 43 police authorities, and the costs of policing this type of problem in our communities is huge. Public health is obviously for local authorities. I used to be shadow Minister for public health, and the cost burden is very interesting. We have seen in Ireland that the number of people who turn up to A&E has dropped dramatically. The number of people needing rehabilitation and treatment has also dropped. Those are all cost negatives.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Minister makes an important point on the costs, which are borne not only by the Home Office and the budgets he is responsible for but across Departments and within local government. He will know that although Public Health England is responsible for some public health functions at a national level, a lot of the budgets have been top-sliced and devolved to local government. What discussions has his Department had with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health to ensure the kinds of education programme he talked about are up and running from day one? That will be a crucial element.

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Health Minister makes an important point. I chair a newly formed inter-ministerial group that includes Ministers from the Departments he alluded to and others, such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as well as Ministers from the devolved Administrations. We are treating this issue not just in England and Wales but in Scotland and Northern Ireland too. He is absolutely right that Public Health England has responsibility for part of this. Most of public health has been devolved, with £830 million going to local government. Obviously, local government has priorities. However, with 30% of its budget being spent on tackling drug and alcohol misuse, it is pretty obvious what those priorities should be. As chair of the inter-ministerial group, I will be pushing on that.

[Owen Thompson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Exempted substances

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 3, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Home Secretary must consider making regulations under subsection (2) if she receives a recommendation from the Advisory Council of Misuse of Drugs to bring forward such a regulation in respect of a psychoactive substance.”

This would enable the ACMD to proactively request that the Home Secretary consider regulations.

On Second Reading, I asked whether the Minister had considered providing credible measures for relatively harmless substances to be excluded from the controls introduced by the Bill. That, after all, is something the expert panel envisaged as a potential part of the Bill when it made its recommendation, following the Irish model. Amendment 45 would be one way of providing such measures, as it would allow the ACMD to proactively request that the Home Secretary consider adding a substance to the exempted list.

There is broad support for the Bill across the political spectrum. However, we know one concern is that it may restrict trade in harmless substances. I put it to the Committee that if people knew it was possible to make representations to the ACMD about substances they wish to exempt and for convincing and evidence-based arguments to make their way up to the Home Secretary, the Bill might have even broader support than it currently does.

As we know, the Home Affairs Committee received much written and oral evidence about the issue of poppers. Colleagues in the SNP have tabled an amendment about them and I will have more to say about poppers in that debate.

[Mike Penning]

I think there is a very important debate to be had on poppers. That will be the Chair’s decision when we get to poppers—however, at the present time I did not realise we were talking about poppers.

[The Chair]

To be fair, the hon. Lady has already accepted that that is a subject for further debate.

[Mike Penning]

I was trying to help.

[Lyn Brown]

I like help, so do not stop trying to help.

I admit that I am sympathetic to the SNP’s amendment. If the ACMD, through Professor Iversen’s evidence, is suggesting that poppers pose a low risk of harm, it would be within the scope of the Bill to place poppers on the exemption list—but I am not an expert.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I understand fully the shadow Minister’s concerns, but I hope I can alleviate them.

The Home Office greatly values the work of the ACMD. In my meetings, the chairman has been very helpful. The work has been going on for decades. Although we accept that clause 3 only provides for the ACMD to provide advice when asked, the relationship has always been two-way. The ACMD is not shy, and nor are we. Where the ACMD has had concerns in the past, it has come to us and we have dealt with them, and vice versa. Hon. Members have raised in the House issues to do with constituents, and we have gone to the ACMD. It has an ongoing programme of looking at what is out there and whether we need to move something into a different category. I can assure the Committee that that will not change in any way—far from it.

Recently, drugs that were classified as psychoactive have moved into a completely different regime.

[John Woodcock]

Does the Minister accept that there is a very significant shift in the burden of responsibility? He says the relationship works well at the moment, but the ACMD may now be judging whether something is a food, for example.

[Mike Penning]

I was about to come on to how we have looked at other parts of the world and how such changes occur.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I want to press the Minister a little on the issue of consultation and make sure that we get the Bill’s wording absolutely watertight. I fully accept his point of view that the way in which these things work is a two-way process, and that Home Office Ministers are open to receiving advice that perhaps they did not ask for from various regulatory bodies. However, the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has tabled would make it absolutely watertight in the Bill that it is a two-way process. My reading of subsection (3) is that the Secretary of State must consult the ACMD and other such persons as she considers appropriate before making regulations. However, there is nothing to say that the ACMD or others could come to the Home Secretary first and request that regulations are made. Our amendment would make that watertight.

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Minister would have a point if not for section 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which allows the council—or ACMD—to issue advice to Ministers when it considers it expedient to do so. That provision is in the Act. A protocol between the Home Secretary and the ACMD allows the council to consider drug issues without any advice from us at all. That is in the Act.

[Lyn Brown]

The issue that we are trying to push is on exemptions.

[Mike Penning]

We will come to that.

[Lyn Brown]

Okay, but we have tried to helpfully suggest that there might be a way of making this a cost-neutral thing with the industry, proving that a substance should go on to the exemption list because it is harmless. The Bill and the public’s acceptance of it will be strengthened if harmless substances are put on an exemptions list, as we have done with incense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

That was looked at extensively by the expert panel before the legislation was introduced, and it was rejected. The panel looked particularly at New Zealand, which had already introduced a licence, basically, which is what we are alluding to—to people applying for a licence—for low-harm substances. That has not worked.

[Lyn Brown]

No, it did not work.

[Mike Penning]

No one has applied for a licence and there is basically a blanket ban. The experts, who are much more expert than I am, looked at it extensively. They examined it and rejected it and were happy with the way we are moving forward. With that in mind, I am more than happy—as I suggested earlier to the hon. Member for Midlothian—to look again at that between now and Report to make sure that I am 100% comfortable with the proposals, because I understand the hon. Lady’s passion for this issue.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful.

[Mike Penning]

However, at this stage I am comfortable, unless something comes forward between now and Report.

[John Woodcock]

What if a way of trying to circumvent the ban is similar to what has been practised by some people involved, which is to say, “This is plant food” or “a washing product”? What happens under that scenario?

[Mike Penning]

The Bill is quite specific, in that the seller of a product needs to make sure that the product is being sold legitimately—[Interruption.] Sorry?

[John Woodcock]

I am sorry to chunter from a sedentary position, but those sellers are not the people we are trying to stop. They are nefarious people who will try to get round the rules.

[Mike Penning]

Some of them are. Some of them are genuinely and legitimately people doing business, for example, selling a certain gas that is inappropriately used by other people, such as laughing gas. The Bill is specific in that area to make sure that we protect people. We cannot protect everybody who completely ignores what a label says, but if someone is selling certain products, they will get up to seven years in prison. That is why the harshness is there at that end of the scale, although I fully understand and do not want to penalise people at the other end, who perhaps take the products—in my opinion wrongly, and I am sure that everyone would agree—thinking they are safe. We do not want to criminalise that. I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment. We can look at this carefully again, if necessary, on Report.

[Lyn Brown]

I am really delighted that the Minister has agreed to take this matter away and think again on exemptions and the two-way street with the ACMD. It is really helpful and I am very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

Therefore, Mr Howarth, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Exempted substances

[Mike Penning]

I beg to move amendment 3, in Schedule 1, page 38, line 7, leave out from “products” to end of line 12 and insert—

‘“Medicinal product” has the same meaning as in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916) (see regulation 2 of those Regulations).’

This amendment replaces the definition of “medicinal product” in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The revised definition adopts that in regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which includes, but is wider than, medicinal products for which a marketing authorisation or an Article 126a authorisation is in force.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 4.

[Mike Penning]

Hopefully, we will agree on this group of amendments and schedule. The amendments do not alter the Government’s objective, which has always been to exclude from the scope of the Bill approved medicinal products. I think we would all agree with that. With a belt and braces attitude, the Government listened to comments made during the Bill’s passage in the other place and recognised that our starting definition was incomplete; that is an example of the Government listening. The Home Office has worked extensively with the Department of Health and with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency over the summer to revise the exemption.

Amendment 3 will have the effect of exempting all medicinal products as defined in regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. We are confident, as is the Department of Health, that this well-established definition will exempt medicines from the scope of the Bill.

That is a short comment, but it is a good example of working cross-departmentally and with the other place to address something that we accept was incomplete, which is what Committee stages are for.

[Lyn Brown]

I rise to speak to Government amendments 3 and 4, which would replace the passages on investigational, homeopathic and traditional herbal medicine in the list of exempted substances with a single wide definition of a medicinal product. Will the Government provide further detail on the exempted substances list and the forensic strategy that underpins the Bill? Some representations, including from the ACMD, have described the exemptions list as potentially unworkable, particularly if there is no inclusion list in the definition of psychoactive substances, as recommended by the ACMD. It is possible that adding an inclusion list into the definition of psychoactive substances makes the management of the exclusion list much more manageable. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view.

[Mike Penning]

I am really sorry if I am looking slightly puzzled, but I did not think that we were considering these matters at the moment. I will get some notes passed to me, a service which the hon. Lady does not receive. I am puzzled.

[The Chair]

Order. We need to have a debate about the specific amendments to schedule 1. There is scope for a stand part debate on the schedule, at which point the hon. Lady might find her comments more—

[Mike Penning]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. Would it be possible for the Committee to adjourn for a few minutes so I can powder my nose?

[The Chair]

At the Minister’s request, I suspend the Committee for five minutes.