EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Mike Thornton Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Of course we want law and order and security—that goes without saying. The question that we are faced with at last, despite the shambles of last week, is whether we are effectively bending the knee to European dogma, the charter of fundamental rights and the European Court of Justice.

The reason I shall vote against the motion is simple: I put the issue of miscarriages of justice ahead of the other issues that have been addressed. I ask the Government the following questions. What about fair trials? What about political and judicial corruption in some European countries? What about habeas corpus? What would hon. Members think if they or their families were subjected to the miscarriages of justice that we have heard about today? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for his tenacity and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for what they have said.

As I said earlier, what is so special about the EU in respect of these questions, when Turkey may well become a hotbed of terrorism? What about the rest of the world?

This issue smacks to me of the case of Liversidge v. Anderson in the 1940s, which related to emergency regulation 18B. It became clear that what was really at stake was the question of the state versus the individual. Eventually, after four years of agonising, the courts accepted that there had been a massive miscarriage of justice. I believe that such cases will become increasingly common when we accept the irreversible—other than through the repeal or amendment of the European Communities Act 1972—commitment to these procedures.

If we were confronted with a Bill containing these measures, it would go through all the stages of consideration and could be amended. We are denied that because the measures are contained in European regulations. We are conceding sovereignty over a significant area of criminal law to European institutions. The key role of interpretation will pass from the UK Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice. The Spanish discovered recently in the Melloni case that the European arrest warrant can undermine the human rights protections in their own constitution.

I raised the question of the EU charter of fundamental rights with the Home Secretary. I remind her that the matter has already been adjudicated on by the courts. It is implemented under section 3 of the 1972 Act. That section must be amended to adjust that imposition on the UK, its Parliament and its courts.

There is the question of this being a pan-European system. Law and order and public safety have been the common themes put forward by the Government, as though they should override all other considerations, such as the sovereignty of Parliament and the protection of the rights and civil liberties of the individual. Under the enactments that we have made on behalf of the voters who send us here, we do not send our Members of Parliament to Brussels.

The EAW is a mutual recognition measure. It relies on a parity of standards of justice that does not exist universally. The lack of that parity of standards would become even more pronounced if the EU expanded to include countries such as Albania. The EU itself reported on the unacceptable levels of corruption in the Albanian justice system as part of its pre-candidature due diligence.

The changes that were made to the European arrest warrant in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 have yet to be proven. We do not know what would happen in cases such as those of Turner, Symeou, Dark and Mann, and the case of Ashya King came after the reforms. That was the case I referred to the other day, in which a poor child suffering from a brain tumour was separated from its parents, who were put in handcuffs under this outrageous miscarriage of justice.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I have a great deal of respect for the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, but surely the point about the Ashya King arrest warrant is that it was issued by the British authorities. If my hon. Friend is going to complain about the issuing of an arrest warrant by a British authority, he has to look at the whole British justice system. That mistake surely had little to do with the European arrest warrant and was due to the British authorities.

[Sir William Cash]

I also respect my hon. Friend, who sits on the European Scrutiny Committee, but my point is simple: the British authorities, in line with a continuing stream of human rights consciousness such as the Human Rights Act, the charter and the rest of it, were insufficiently vigilant. The case should have been rejected. That is the problem—the pervasive atmosphere of compliance with those things, and the European arrest warrant is part of that attitude.

I will go further and say that in their handling of this process, the Government have completely failed to honour their repeated undertakings that they would enable Parliament to vote on the entire package of measures that they propose to rejoin. So much has been said so well by so many Members, but I wish finally to say this. Rejoining the measures in question without proper and explicit parliamentary consent would be lawful, just as it would be possible to go to war, for instance, without explicit parliamentary consent. However, the Government should reflect on the fact that we are standing up for the individual who is affected and victimised by this miscarriage of justice. The vote is going to go against us today, we know that, but in taking this course of action the Government will have exercised their prerogative Executive powers by merely sending a letter. As I said to the Home Secretary last week, that undermines the democratic legitimacy of their decision.

UK Drugs Policy

Mike Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

That is an extremely good point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention, which speaks for itself.

If we are to design a better drugs policy that is based on evidence, we need to agree on the objectives of drugs policy. For me, it is about protecting people, particularly the young and vulnerable, as well as reducing crime, improving health, promoting security and development, providing good value for money and protecting human rights. In setting out why that is important, I will say a little more about the impact of the current drugs policy and why I believe it adds to the case for a review; I will talk a little about the growing consensus on rethinking the current approach to drugs policy; and I will say a little about Brighton and Hove, where my constituency is situated, where the approach of following the evidence as far as possible has delivered benefits.

Before doing any of that, I would like to talk about Martha. Martha’s mother, Anne-Marie Cockburn, is in Parliament with us today. Like so many parents, she had always wanted to protect her child. However, on 20 July 2013, she learned that that was not always possible. On that day, Martha swallowed half a gram of MDMA powder—ecstasy—and died. She was 15 years old. Today, 30 October, would have been Martha’s 17th birthday. She is not celebrating that birthday because the Misuse of Drugs Act did not protect her. Making MDMA illegal did not protect Martha. We owe it to her and to Anne-Marie, and to the many other people who have died drug-related deaths and their families and loved ones, to ensure that in future each and every one of us is offered the best possible protection by our drugs laws.

In her incredibly moving blog, “What Martha Did Next”, Anne-Marie writes:

“Had Martha known that what she was about to take was 91% pure, she would probably have taken a lot less, in fact I’d go as far as to say that she might still be alive.”

Anne-Marie argues that, under prohibition, it is impossible fully to educate people such as Martha, because there is no way to tell what drugs contain. Prohibition has not stopped risk-taking, but it has made those risks much more dangerous. Anne-Marie suggests that we are failing to protect children such as Martha—that we are letting them down—and that, alongside deterring young people from taking drugs, we need a regulatory model that reduces the risk if drugs do get into the hands of young people such as Martha.

I agree with Anne-Marie. Perhaps many people in the Chamber will not. However, the fact that Martha is not celebrating her 17th birthday today is surely the first of many good reasons to carry out an impact assessment of our drugs laws. We urgently need to know whether prohibition is an obstacle to education about drugs, and whether our children would be better protected by alternatives, such as strict regulation. Despite all the accusations that are thrown at those who are in favour of drug policy reform, the bottom line is that it is not about being pro-drugs, but about saving lives. The only credible way to do that is to know whether our policies are up to the job.

That is especially important because there is powerful evidence that the so-called war on drugs is making things worse. Far from being neutral, in many instances the current model pushes users towards more harmful products, behaviours and environments. Let me give two examples of what I mean. In doing so, it is crucial to distinguish between the suffering that is caused by drugs and that which is caused by drugs policy.

First, the vast majority of drug-related offending happens not because people take drugs, but because of drugs policy. Users are driven to burglary and theft to buy drugs at vastly inflated prices in an unregulated market. There is enormous potential significantly to reduce such crime and its impact on our communities under a different system.

Secondly, on legal highs, according to research into synthetic drugs by Demos and the UK Drug Policy Commission, 40 new substances emerged on to the market in 2010, compared with 24 in the previous year. By 2014, the figure had grown to 80 different synthetic drugs. Professor Les Iversen, the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, recently admitted that drug control legislation is being forced to play “cat and mouse”. Such substances are routinely banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but that simply spawns more substances that, in turn, are banned. The legal process cannot keep up.

The Government have published a report today that recommends that all novel synthetic psychoactive substances, or legal highs as they are more widely known, be banned. I appreciate what they are trying to do with that policy, but I think that it is misguided. It fails to appreciate that many legal highs are the products of prohibition. Synthetic cannabis, for example, would not exist if there were a legally regulated supply of real cannabis. Nor does the policy recognise our knowledge that prohibition—in other words, banning things—does not stop people taking drugs, but simply increases the risks.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the only people the current policy really benefits are the drug lords and crime lords who sell this disgusting stuff to our children? If her policies were realised, it would put those people out of business for good.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the current—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

That is why I want to see the longer term results from Colorado and Washington state, and whether as a result of that system the harm to young people from cannabis is reduced. Personally, I think it is too early to say what the effects will be, but I will be following the results closely. If I see clear evidence of harm reduction, I will completely change my approach to this issue.

People often write to me and say, “Well look at Portugal where there has been a reduction in drug use”, but the Czech Republic, which has the same approach in not prosecuting people for personal use, has one of the highest levels of cannabis use across Europe. We must be careful about how selectively we quote from the evidence.

[Mike Thornton]

I have great respect for the hon. Lady’s skill and knowledge, which is probably greater than mine. In Portugal they take a great deal of care to look after the people brought to their attention who have problems with drugs, and they treat them properly, which works. Perhaps in the Czech Republic they do not use the same approach. It could be that that is the case.

[Dr Wollaston]

There is certainly a strong case for a much better medical approach to drug use—certainly for hard drug use. My point is about relative uses. People often write to me and say that we would cut cannabis use if we took a different approach to decriminalisation. As I say, I am not dogmatic about the issue, and I would like to see the longer term outcomes from legalisation in Washington state and Colorado.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

There is a splendid book called “Invisible Women” about Holloway prison, which I commend to everyone. It tells the terrible story of what is going on there.

Another point about prison is that one medicine that was given to young women who had been badly treated and were mutilating themselves was largactil. There was a name for them in prison: they were called muppets. This was a drug for those who had serious mental health problems. The whole sorry story of drugs in prison is one of abuse by many medicinal drugs. A blind eye was turned to cannabis use because it kept a lid on things. If prisoners were on alcohol they were aggressive, but if they were on cannabis they would give everyone a hug. That is how the prisons liked it. The prison policies pursued by all parties are completely hypocritical and they illustrate the futility of prohibition.

I received a call before I came to the House from someone talking about the use of medicinal cannabis, which I have supported for a very long time. It is not that I want to use it. I have never used any illegal drug and I have no plans to use cannabis. The point is the irrationality of the Government’s stand. Cannabis in its natural form is one of the oldest drugs in the world. It has been used on all continents for 5,000 years. Now, because we are nervous and it is an illegal drug, we allow people to have only little bits of cannabis. Dronabinol, nabilone or TAC are available, but they contain only a small number of ingredients from the hundreds in any natural substance.

[Mike Thornton]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very strange that a doctor can prescribe heroin in the form of diamorphine, a controlled and very dangerous drug, but not cannabis?

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed, and I would like to get on to that. We have just been involved in a war, which I mentioned at business questions. We went into Helmand province five years after we went into Afghanistan. We had lost only two soldiers by that time, but our main purpose in going in—hon. Members should read the speeches from 2006; I have just put them on the website—was all about stopping heroin being grown and ending the drug crop. In 2006, 90% of our heroin came from Afghanistan; yet here we are, years later, and 90% of our heroin still comes from Afghanistan. There is a difference, however: now it is cheaper because there is more of it. The efforts to control it were utterly futile, yet there is a shortage of morphine throughout the world—another issue that we have not addressed.

I come back to the point that we should look at the chemistry. Nobody knows what the effect of the various ingredients of natural cannabis is. It might well be that ingredient No. 36 neutralises ingredient No. 428. We do not know, and by stopping people having a natural drug that has proved to be beneficial, we are imposing torment on many who have serious problems, such as multiple sclerosis and other diseases that we know can be cured. It is prejudice that has driven our policies for all these years. I am heartened today by the Minister, by his courage and by the report, which is the only report—I repeat: we have waited 43 years for this—that is based on the truth and the evidence. Marvellous things are happening in other countries throughout the world, and there is a recognition that prohibition has been a curse.

Immigration Bill

Mike Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

One of the things that concern me is the definition of “seriously prejudicial.” If we look up “prejudice” in the dictionary, we see that it just means something we have decided before, so “seriously prejudicial” could be anything a Home Secretary liked. I am absolutely convinced that the present Home Secretary would never in any way abuse that power, but how do we know what will happen next week, next month, in two years’ time, or in five years’ time? A Home Secretary will be able to use a term that is so vague and has so little meaning that they could strip someone of any citizenship, leaving them stuck in this country with no ability to work, receive benefits or do anything at all, simply because of a definition that is pretty much meaningless.

[Mrs May]

I think that the concept of something that is seriously prejudicial to the interests of Her Britannic Majesty—to the interests of the United Kingdom—will be understood. There will of course be an opportunity for a review of that through a court process—a judicial review—so the definition would be tested. My hon. Friend might not choose to rely on the abilities or understanding of future Home Secretaries, but I hope that he will see that there is a further safeguard.

I wish to reiterate—this is an important point—that that is the position the United Kingdom had prior to 2003, when the law was changed. It is the position that we are required to have under the United Nations convention. All that we are doing is returning our position to the scope of our declaration under that convention. It goes no further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I must confess that the image of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary being a puppet on a string for Nigel Farage is one that is new to most Members of the House, and one that seems rather far from the truth. I wish to speak to two new clauses: new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and which I have signed; and new clause 18.

May I first say how fortunate it is that the Government and the authorities-that-be have ensured that new clause 15 has come up for debate this afternoon? It is crucial that the House of Commons should get to debate that which the House of Commons wishes to debate, and 105 signatures to a new clause is a clear statement of that desire. The business managers therefore deserve to be commended for their wisdom in allowing that to happen, and those in even higher positions of authority—I am thinking of Mr Speaker, in particular—follow in a fine tradition of Speakers who have ensured that the will of the House has been allowed to be expressed and a view come to. That is good fortune for us all.

I must confess that I disagree fundamentally with the case made by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). It seems to me that part of our system of liberty is the fact that liberty comes with responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is that if a person’s actions are illegal, a punishment will follow, and that punishment is their responsibility and their fault. They cannot get out of it because other people might be indirectly affected by it. That is not what their actions have caused; their actions have caused them to go to prison, for a minimum of a year according to the new clause, and then to be deported because they were foreign criminals and therefore had no automatic right to be here in the first place. That is an important and fair principle.

If the alternative view is taken, which is that there will be knock-on effects on other people and therefore it is unfair and unreasonable to allow a punishment to take place, then no punishment can ever take place and we can have no proper rule of law in this country. Whenever somebody commits a crime and is likely to be sent to prison, they will say that their family cannot cope with that and that it will be unfair, and therefore their sentence must be brought down and they must be free to carry on their life of crime. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Brent Central and think that the provision in the new clause is both proportionate and sensible.

[Mike Thornton]

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. I believe that he has misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), because I know that he would not deliberately misinterpret her comments. She was by no means saying that someone should not be punished because they have children; she was saying that, when considering them for deportation, we should properly weigh in the balance the genuine difficulties and harm that could be done to children. By no means was she suggesting—I hope that I am right—that we should stop punishment. That was no part of her argument whatsoever.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful clarification. The problem is that deportation is part of the punishment. The logic of the argument of the Member for Brent Central is that if someone’s punishment had an effect on their children that led not to “manifest and overwhelming harm” but to either manifest harm or overwhelming harm, it would be fundamentally and in principle unfair on the children, so that part of the punishment should not be carried out. Surely, however, it might equally be said that someone’s imprisonment would have an effect of manifest but not “manifest and overwhelming” harm on the children. If such an argument was accepted, the whole criminal justice concept of punishing people who have committed offences would become extremely difficult. Deportation is therefore simply a reasonable part of the overall punishment for someone who commits a serious offence.

I listened with great interest to the debate about the status of new clause 15 in European and UK law. A principle that we should always state and restate in this House is that, by its very nature, Parliament cannot pass a law that is illegal. We can pass laws that contravene international obligations or that we may decide our diplomatic relations require us to remove or repeal, but Parliament cannot pass an illegal law.

That point is important to remember, because there is a tyranny of lawyers. They give people advice stating that they think x or y, but until it has been judged by a court, that is no more than advice, which may be right or wrong. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been advised by the Home Office lawyer that the new clause does not meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights, that does not question the right of this House to pass it into law: it is our right to do so, and then to consider the judgment that may or may not be made by the European Court of Human Rights. That of course leaves open the question of whether the Home Secretary can sign the declaration that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I am delighted that she is returning to her place as I say that.

My right hon. Friend has the right to go to another lawyer. When given legal advice that they do not like, many people see whether they can find one who gives different advice. Amazingly enough, when they pay a better lawyer, they sometimes get better advice. I hope that even in an era of austerity Her Majesty’s Government may seek out some better lawyers who can give improved advice that is more in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said.

The question is therefore only one of incompatibility, not of legality. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench team will also think about that. Whether the new clause is accepted and passed into law is not fundamentally a legal decision, because the legal position is as yet unproved—it has not been tested in the courts—so it is a political decision or a political statement about what hon. Members on both sides of the House think is the right way to treat people from foreign countries who have committed serious crimes. I would take the political decision that it is right to expel them from this country, and that it would be wrong to do so only if extraordinary factors meant that they ought to have the right to stay.