Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I must first apologise to the Minister and to my colleagues and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, very much indeed for stepping into the breach. I completely misjudged the pace of your Lordships’ progress on the previous amendments.

I shall speak to Amendments 154ZA, 154ZB, 154CA and 154DA. I am encouraged by the fact that, perhaps for the first time, an attempt is being made to form legislation that tries to look across from drugs to alcohol and from alcohol to drugs, and to achieve some sort of reasonable comparison in the response to these drugs in relation to driving. Alcohol is of course one of the most dangerous drugs that people take. I endorse the Government’s commitment to try to find a fair and consistent way to control driving under the influence of drugs. This is overdue and important. There is no question that I would suggest that people can drive while under the influence of drugs; that would be inconceivable on my part.

The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that young people are not criminalised unless any drugs in their system really are causing impairment while they are driving. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has suggested, there are several reasons why a driver may have a drug in their system but be entirely safe behind the driving wheel. One of my main concerns is that a very substantial minority of young people, as we know, take herbal cannabis. That is a relatively harmless thing to do—I emphasise relatively. It is much better that young people do not take cannabis or drink, or smoke, but we know that the great majority of them will do at least one of those. It is possibly better that they take a bit of herbal cannabis on occasions, so long as they do not do it too often, rather than smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. I must emphasise that skunk is a completely different matter.

I understand that the active ingredient, THC, disappears and has a short life in the body, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, whereas the safe and perhaps even positive ingredients of the cannabinoids, which could improve driving, can remain there for some considerable time—perhaps many weeks. This legislation could lead to the criminalising of considerable numbers of young people who took cannabis at a party several weeks before and are then stopped for some minor reason. Traces are then found in their body of the cannabinoid, which have nothing whatever to do with the quality of their driving. I know that the Minister is perfectly well aware of these problems, and I hope that he will take them into account. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance to the House on this matter.

I want to explain my Amendment 154ZA, to leave out the word “controlled” from new Section 5A(1(b) in Clause 27. There are at least two strong arguments for doing this. The distinction between controlled and uncontrolled drugs is not evidence-based. Alcohol and tobacco, as we know, are far more dangerous than some drugs that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Any evidence-based legislation—which I understand this is designed to be—should not reference the outdated and discredited Misuse of Drugs Act. I applaud the Minister for insisting that this is road safety legislation; it is not about controlling drugs, it will be evidence-based, and I know that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to make sure that that is so. However, we do have a problem with cannabis, and we need to hold on to that. In discussing cannabis, I should make it absolutely clear that I support the control of cannabis supply, but I hope that we can reach a point where the method of control—possibly some form of regulation—could be based on the evidence of the relative efficacy of different forms of control.

My second point is that a number of the so-called legal highs, or new psychoactive substances, are the drugs that may prove far more of a risk to drivers. Of course, these are controlled through temporary bans, but as Ministers and everybody else know, as soon as one of these drugs is controlled, the creators of these substances get back into their labs and create some new ones by changing a few molecules, and for a while those substances will be legal. There is, therefore, no rationale for limiting this legislation to controlled drugs, because drugs that are not controlled cause just as many problems, if not more.

I will now turn to Amendment 154ZB, where my objectives are twofold. First, it would ensure that there is a good reason for police involvement, either that the police are responding to a road accident, or that the roadside evidence suggests that the driver is impaired and that this may be due to alcohol or a drug in their system. I understand that as regards any drug where a specified limit within the driver’s blood or urine cannot be identified—above which it would be safe to assume impaired driving capacity—these cases will be dealt with under the existing Road Traffic Act. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House an assurance that under this legislation a driver will not be charged for driving under the influence of drugs unless there has either been a road traffic accident or there is roadside evidence of impairment, that the driver is not taking prescribed medication, and if the level of the drug in the driver’s blood or urine is above the level approved in regulations as presenting no threat to road safety.

I will explain paragraph (c) of Amendment 154ZB. I am concerned that the legislation could cause the inappropriate arrest and charging of patients prescribed medications for chronic pain and other long-term conditions. In particular, patients on a stable dose of opioid and analgesia may—according to Napp Pharmaceuticals—have no impairment of their ability to drive safely compared with other drivers who have taken similar quantities, or perhaps even far less, of that opioid. Apparently, the body simply adjusts to higher and higher levels of opioid, so you could be pretty heavily drugged and yet a perfectly safe driver. Therefore, without some way of dealing with these opioid prescriptions and people on those prescriptions, very unwell people who are suffering a lot of pain could be unnecessarily arrested, charged, taken to a police station, put in a cell and left there to wait for a forensic physician to come in and do a full examination, and so on. It would be a huge distress and greatly upsetting, and would also use a lot of police resources. I hope that the Minister can somehow give an assurance to the House that this issue will be very clearly dealt with.

I will quickly turn to amendment 154CA. My concern here is that new Section 5A(9) of Clause 27 appears to respond to the North report recommendation that:

“If … it should prove beyond scientific reach to set specific levels of deemed impairment, the Government should consider whether a ‘zero tolerance’ offence should be introduced in relation to”—

a list of controlled drugs. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that a zero-tolerance approach will not be introduced in relation to cannabinoids—because this would be the temptation. It will be difficult to establish this limit for these drugs, because of the longevity of the survival of the cannabinoid in the blood. It would be helpful at this stage if the Minister can give us some assurance of that, and also give some indication, if possible, about the drugs that the Government have in mind for zero-tolerance treatment.

Finally, Amendment 154DA is a consequential amendment, and I will not say anything about that. In conclusion, I hope very much that the Minister will accept the principles behind these amendments—although I fully recognise that I put them together myself, and I am certainly no lawyer. If I brought them back on Report I would undoubtedly wish to change the wording therein.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, on this clause the Committee has benefited from the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher. Looking through the clause, I found this issue difficult. It is very easy to identify the problem, and we want to address it and resolve this issue. No one wants to see people driving under the influence, whether of drink or drugs, or in an impaired state or the problems that that can cause, but we have to construct legislation that addresses that issue but at the same time does not penalise unnecessarily strictly or inconvenience those at whom it is not aimed. There is a danger that this legislation could have an impact beyond what is intended. Both noble Baronesses indicated that.

When I looked at this clause, what struck me—and listening to the debate has reinforced that feeling—is that this is work in progress. We fully support what the Minister is trying to achieve. I know that he is not particularly wedded to this wording and would be happy to look at ways of making sure that it achieves its aim. Our amendments are probing amendments, but they deal with significant issues. They provide an opportunity to look at the wider concerns. I was able to let the Minister know of some of my questions, and I apologise that I have others because while I looked at the clause more questions arose—I had more questions than answers when looking at it. I would be very happy to have some responses this evening and some in writing so that when we get to Report, we can give this further consideration.

Clause 27 introduces the new offence of drug-driving above a specified limit. It will sit alongside the offence of being unfit to drive while under the influence of drugs in the Road Traffic Act, as has already been mentioned. The difference is that that offence requires proof of impairment to be guilty, but this new offence does not. It relates only to controlled drugs because we specify those drugs in secondary legislation, not in this legislation. The limits for each drug covered by the new offence have to be specified in the regulations. If I understand subsection (9) of the new section, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hamwee, referred to, the limit could be set as low as zero, which creates some difficulties. The BMA stated:

“Drugs have a variable impact upon the measurable skills needed to drive safely, between individuals and at different blood levels”.

Yet the Explanatory Notes state:

“For some controlled drugs … it may not be technically possible to determine a level which impairs most people’s driving. This may be, for example, because tolerances vary widely in the population, or because the drug is often taken in conjunction with other drugs and is associated with abuse or risk-taking behaviour”.

The Explanatory Notes highlight some of the difficulties in getting this right.

The noble Baronesses spoke about the problem with the zero-tolerance approach—the difficulty of determining the appropriate impairment level risks decoupling the defence from the crime. A blanket ban on certain drugs that can be medicated could also seriously impact the standard of life of people on long-term medication as well as on people’s attitudes towards, and their compliance, with the treatment they require should they be prohibited from driving as a result of it. The difficulty is to look beyond the immediate offence to the impact it would have if somebody was worried that they would not be able to drive if they took certain controlled drugs on prescription. They might, therefore, on occasion not take their medication in order to drive.

In relation to medication classified as a controlled substance, as the legislation stands, individuals would be required to prove that they had a medical or dental prescription and that they took the drug in accordance with the doctor’s and the manufacturer’s or distributor’s directions. In reading the Bill, I was unclear about whether individuals who are unable to prove that they have a prescription for their medication would be required to attend a police station or would have a number of days in which to produce that evidence.

The Government have not been able to indicate how they intend to prove whether an individual has taken a drug in accordance with the medical directions—that is subsection (3) of the new section proposed in Clause 27. Would an individual be guilty of an offence if they have deviated, even only slightly, from the instructions? For example, the prescription may say to take the drug every five hours and on that occasion the patient took them within two hours because they had been out and had dinner or had forgotten. If we have it in legislation that they have to take the drugs according to the manufacturer’s and prescriber’s instructions, any deviation from those instructions could be a criminal offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, if I put the matter in the terms described by the noble Baroness, I should not have done. We want to get it right and we shall try very hard to do so, but we need that expert advice. That is why I hope that we will have the beginnings of the expert advice from the expert panel before Report stage. At this stage, I was trying to make it clear that it was the beginnings of a discussion on a very simple idea, although it does not sound simple. The noble Baroness is right to say that we have had it very easy with alcohol, because it is just one drug and we have just one limit. We are now talking about lots of drugs—controlled, legal or illegal—and where we put the limits. It is going to be very complicated, so we want to listen to the experts and have further discussions.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank the Minister for his response and openness to further discussions. Can he give a commitment that, if at all possible before Report, we could have an opportunity for some feedback from the expert panel and a discussion with it about the implications of its preliminary findings?

[Lord Henley]

I can never give an absolute commitment in relation to an expert panel discussing these things, because I cannot put a gun to its head about how it should proceed. However, I would very much welcome a chance for some sort of informal seminar among noble Lords interested in these things in the early days of October. That might be a useful way in which to take these things forward. I see a nod from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and, no doubt, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I look forward to it. Tea and coffee will be available on that occasion at some time in October.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)]

I understand that the amendment is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved it. Does the noble Baroness wish to speak?

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I am advised that I must withdraw my amendment so I withdraw it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if I may say so, has beaten you to the draw.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise to address two issues: first, the Government’s plans to introduce drug-driving offences in the Crime and Courts Bill. I should perhaps say that I speak as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform.

I welcome the Government’s plans in principle. However, I stress that the policies to deal with drug-driving should be evidence-based and in line with the treatment of driving while under the influence of alcohol. It is of course wrong to drive while unfit to do so, putting other people’s lives at risk. However, it is also wrong for a Government to penalise people unfairly and disproportionately.

Ministers and the rest of us are well aware that the possession and use of many drugs, some of which are far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, carry heavy criminal penalties including prison sentences. Those of us who—very occasionally, of course—enjoy a glass of wine do not suffer any of those risks. Penalties for drug use are unfair and disproportionate. Indeed, they are so disproportionate that they bring the law into disrepute. Even the Association of Chief Police Officers recently made clear that it will not prioritise the arrest of persons using or possessing drugs. If we have a law that even the police are not interested in upholding, we really have a problem.

I am aware of Sir Peter North’s report, commissioned by the Department for Transport, which reviews the drink and drug-driving laws. I welcome the decision of the then Government to consider both drink and drug-driving in the same report, looking at them as a single set of issues. I do not know whether they were the first Government to bring those two issues together, but that has to be the right approach.

We know that drivers under the influence of alcohol remain a blight on our roads. There are still 430 deaths and 1,600 serious injuries every year attributable to drink-driving. We also know that the risks of having an accident increase exponentially as more alcohol is consumed. Despite those high risks, the penalties for drink-driving are relatively modest. When we think of the prison sentences for someone just possessing the drug, we must consider that the drink-driving penalties are in the order of a 12-month mandatory disqualification from driving and a mandatory six penalty points.

Having said that, I do not want to discourage those relatively moderate penalties, but argue that similar penalties should apply to drunk-driving if the risk to the public is in fact the same. That is my principal point. It seems such an obvious one that I hope that the Minister will agree with the principle.

We know far less, of course, about drug-driving than about drink-driving. In part, this is because of the illegality of these drugs and the ethical and practical problems of getting accurate information on their use among drivers. That is not the only issue but it is certainly a major one—surely just one of many reasons why we should be reviewing the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We will come back to that in later debates. It seems right in principle, as Sir Peter North recommends, that every police force should invest in training for officers to conduct field impairment tests—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie—and that there should be really good devices to test for drug inhalation in police stations. That is on condition that these tests are undertaken if there is a prima facie case for the person being under the influence of some substance; in other words, if their behaviour is being affected. We should not be talking about something in someone’s body but about the risk to drivers on the roads. As long as we stick with that, we are on some firm ground.

Another concern is that such tests will pick up cannabinoids in people’s bodies, when these might have been taken seven days before and, even within 24 hours of ingesting that drug, would not have any effect on the person’s behaviour. There are very real risks unless the Government are committed to a policy that focuses on behaviour. Sir Peter North refers to an offence relating only to controlled drugs and talks about zero tolerance if testing is too difficult. Again, it is very important that we look at drugs and alcohol—at all these substances—across the piece in the same way.

I turn briefly to the Government’s plans for social care reform. Their plan is for a draft Bill rather than legislation itself; I am sure that other noble Lords have already referred to this. However, we have already had the Law Commission recommending a single social care statute and the Dilnot commission recommending funding arrangements which should, and could, be introduced without any further delay. When the legislation comes it needs to ensure: that high-quality care is available for all who need it; that people are enabled to live not only safely but in a dignified way and with self-respect; and, above all, that care is funded fairly and transparently. These key principles are as important for carers as for elderly people themselves. At the moment, carers sacrifice their jobs, their social life and their future economic security. This makes absolutely no sense to their family; neither does it to taxpayers. At the end of the day, if these carers have no savings or pensions, who will pay for them in their old age? It is the state—that is, the taxpayer—so at the moment we do not have a sensible programme even for taxpayers.

I share the BMA’s support for the aim to create a more personalised social care system but I also share its concern about the expense, complexity and adverse effects of basing a system of social care commissioning upon the choices and decisions of individuals, rather than those of the population or the community. I strongly urge the Government to pilot this work rather than just roll it out. If the Government pilot these personal accounts, they will probably want to think again when they see that people are literally buried in paper—invoices, reminders and all the rest of it. It is a nightmare of bureaucracy, and my understanding is that this Government want to reduce bureaucracy and paperwork. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response later on and in future debates.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

307ZB: Clause 153, page 102, line 6, after “for” insert “permanent or”

[Baroness Meacher]

I rise to move Amendment 307ZB and to speak to Amendments 307ZC and 307ZE, which together seek to provide some flexibility for the Government in deciding how best to regulate the use and supply of so-called legal highs. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has asked me to inform the House that he had requested the Public Bill Office to add his name to these amendments, and the absence of his name from the Marshalled List is purely an administrative error. These amendments are similar, although not identical, to those tabled in Committee. They now refer to the medicines Acts, consumer protection and advertising standards legislation, all of which provide legislative frameworks within which it would be possible for legal highs to be controlled.

As the Minister knows, I am not seeking to tie the hands of the Government—quite the opposite. A great deal of work needs to be done, and indeed is being done, to explore the best ways to control these substances. What I am seeking is flexibility in this legislation so that when the analysis of the various legislative frameworks and their potential application in this field has been completed, the controls could be put in place without waiting for further legislation. We all know how long that can take.

I am anxious that the Government avoid a repeat of the mistakes of the past. In Committee, I set out briefly the appalling consequences of the war on drugs, which has been pursued by this country and across the world for 50 years. From the Global Commission on Drug Policy report, we know that a rapidly growing number of highly respected world leaders and opinion formers now recognise that we need to end the criminalisation of young people and focus on evidence-based, health-oriented policies. The amendments are consistent with the growing policy consensus across the globe.

On the thrust of my amendments, we know that some of the substances referred to as legal highs are potentially very dangerous to the health of young people. We also suspect that other substances may be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. It would be most unhelpful if these substances were to be dealt with in the same way. It would be particularly unhelpful if they were dealt with under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which, as your Lordships know, criminalises users as well as suppliers. As the Bill stands, that is the assumption, albeit that under the temporary ban in the initial stages users will not be targeted. The assumption is that, if these substances are brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act, users will inevitably be targeted over time, as they are under that Act in respect of other drugs.

I welcome the Government’s focus on treatment of problem drug use. This focus makes it clear that the Government accept that it is a health problem—certainly, drug abuse is. On this assumption, the priority for us all in developing drugs policy is to try to ensure that young people avoid the substances and the associated health problems if at all possible. This means having clear messages about the relative risk of different substances and the provision of health treatment as well as social support for all those who need it.

I welcomed the Minister’s comments on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, where she talked about the importance of a rounded and holistic approach to drug addiction. The Minister referred to different departments being brought together to provide that support. As the Minister knows, I have drawn attention to the Swiss model, which, instead of trying to get a whole lot of different departments to work together, which we know is extraordinarily difficult, brings all those services under a single umbrella, providing an extraordinarily effective service—health and social support, benefits and the rest of it—so that they achieve a two-thirds success rate over 18 months.

As important as all that is the separation of the markets for these legal highs between the markets for the really dangerous substances and those for substances which are much less dangerous. That is the fundamental point of my amendment. If there is a single market and a single set of traffickers, young and vulnerable people move inevitably from one drug to another.

On giving clear messages about the relative risks of different drugs, we know that the classification system of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not work. When cannabis was moved from class B to class C and back again from class C to class B, the trends in the use of cannabis did not change very much—the fact is, young people do not really understand the classification system. By contrast, the tobacco controls have been really rather effective over time. Tobacco and alcohol are just two substances controlled outside the Misuse of Drugs Act. There is no reason why substances should be controlled under that legislation. Solvents are controlled through the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act; medicines legislation has been used in a number of countries for controlling methadrone—for example, in the Netherlands and Finland—and for controlling Spice in Austria.

The controls referred to in my amendments could allow the authorities to direct users towards relatively less harmful substances as substitutes for the much more harmful ones. They also provide an opportunity to introduce controls that are not feasible under the Misuse of Drugs Act, including age restrictions, controls on marketing and packaging and requirements that substances are sold with information on dosage levels and adverse effects. All of that would be extraordinarily helpful for vulnerable young people. Sale could be limited to a relatively small number of establishments, unlike the liberal policy we have for alcohol and tobacco.

Controls are not by any means the whole story; we want prevention, too. The best preventive measures include sensitive support in school, or in other venues where young people congregate, for children who are readily identified as underperforming, alienated and unhappy. These are the children at risk of being enticed into the taking of synthetic drugs and who, once enticed, will be vulnerable to a dependence on those drugs. If they fall into the drug addiction trap, the most destructive response to these vulnerable young children is to criminalise them. As they say, you can recover from drug addiction but you can never recover from a criminal conviction. With a criminal conviction, the child’s life is in pieces; family, friends, education and hope of employment are all in tatters. It is for these reasons that I implore the Minister to do all that she can to ensure that the regulation of legal highs is undertaken in such a way as to avoid criminalising children and young people if at all possible.

If we are now too late to take this action within the Bill, I would be greatly encouraged if the Minister could give the House her assurance that she will be asking her officials to begin work without delay on the necessary legislation to achieve these objectives. I beg to move.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having brought back these amendments on Report. I hope the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic and positive response.

I was impressed by what the Minister said in a previous debate today—there was a great deal of personal conviction behind what she said—and her insistence on the importance of not only treatment but of cure. If that applies as a governing principle in the sphere of alcohol abuse and the much more serious social consequences that that has, why not have the same approach at the centre of the Government’s policy on drugs?

If we are to get the response to drugs right—the noble Baroness was right to emphasise this—two principles are absolutely essential. First, any action which is taken should be based not on emotion, instinct or control concern but on evidence-based outcomes of thorough research. Any moves or legislative arrangements that are not properly researched can do far more harm than good. That is the first point.

The second, absolutely crucial, point is the one made by the noble Baroness about criminalisation. One certain way to make it more difficult to rescue the young from drug addiction is this excessive tendency towards their criminalisation. We have to realise that it is not a soft approach but a hard-headed one. Very often drug addiction is a symptom of victimisation: the drug takers are often victims themselves in one way or another. I am greatly impressed by the increasing amount of research which is now being undertaken which suggests that the most important factor in leading young people and others into drug abuse is the environment, social conditions and so on of which they find themselves a part.

The Minister rightly referred to culture and about wanting to change it. I have a tremendous sense of awe at the responsibilities faced by the Home Office in so many spheres. Many good and dedicated people work in the Home Office but it would be right to adopt a cultural approach there which puts rehabilitation and not only control at the top of the agenda. I am afraid that the proposals in the Bill before us do not make it absolutely clear that the rehabilitation argument, and the resistance to taking action which drives people further into the problem, should prevail.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for ensuring that we keep an open mind and consider all options available to best respond to the threat of new psychoactive substances—sometimes referred to as legal highs—which are specifically designed to get around existing legislation.

As I explained in Committee, the temporary class drug orders will constitute a UK legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses while its nature is still in question. As the noble Baroness is aware, some of these new substances present harms equivalent to those from class A and class B drug use. In these circumstances, the appropriate response is to disrupt the supply chain and protect the public as a priority while giving the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs time to consider evidence of a drug and its harms. The proposals before the House will help us achieve that aim. Of course, our response to both the general issue and individual new substances must be both preventive and proportionate.

These amendments seek to ensure that the Government amend and consider alternative legislation to tackle the threat of new psychoactive substances, alongside control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are keen to see all existing legislation used to curb the availability of these substances, though not as a substitute regime for harmful drugs whose proper place is under control under the 1971 Act. The UK needs a legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses when there is evidence that its harms are commensurate with class A or class B drug use. Temporary class drug orders will provide a preventive and proportionate response to the threat posed by disrupting the supply chain and protecting the public as a priority while giving the ACMD time to assess the drug and its harms.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness will of course be aware that in bringing in these temporary orders while a substance is evaluated, we are not in any way criminalising the user. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to Section 1(2) of the 1971 Act by which the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs already has the remit to provide,

“advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs”.

We will not prejudge the advice that the ACMD is preparing, including its thematic advice on new psychoactive substances.

On government Amendments 307C and 307D, the Government have always been committed to proper scrutiny of our drugs laws. We accept the recommendation of this House’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the affirmative procedure is preferred while still enabling us to take swift action against the threat of a new psychoactive substance throughout the year. The advice sometimes comes forward very quickly and there are periods when the House is in long Recess through the summer. The amendments take account of the concerns of the House’s committee but at the same time ensure that we are not tardy with the harms that we are notified of by the ACMD. To remain in force, a temporary class drug order will need to have been approved in both Houses within 40 sitting days.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments. I would be very concerned that we would potentially deal with psychoactive substances which would ultimately fall within the class A or class B category. Notwithstanding that, it is up to the ACMD to offer the Government alternative advice as to other routes if it felt that was appropriate. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

[Baroness Meacher]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am not at all clear how she envisages the less dangerous substances should be regulated. I am not at all clear that this can be done under current legislation other than through the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the concern reflected in these amendments. I believe that there is no alternative as the Bill stands, so I wonder whether the Minister could respond to that point.

[Baroness Browning]

I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness. As I explained, the ACMD in making its recommendations to the Government is able to indicate any routes that it thinks that the Government should take. I am very happy to explore that with her. We are awaiting a report from the ACMD on these new psychoactive substances, and it may well be that that will inform the Government better as to the range of options available to us.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank the Minister for that response. My understanding is that in fact there will be a need for further legislation and it is my concern that the Government do all they can to take steps to prepare for that so that there is no gap or delay before these substances can be appropriately controlled through regulatory mechanisms other than the Misuse of Drugs Act. But with that point made, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 307ZB withdrawn.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

244AB: Clause 152, page 102, line 7, at beginning insert “Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, enactments on trading standards, and”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, Amendments 244AB and 244CA are probing amendments. My noble friends Lord Low and Lord Walton had hoped to be here but they both have prior engagements elsewhere. They were not expecting to be speaking on this Bill at this time of the evening but have both asked me to impress upon the House their strong support for these two amendments.

The problem of legal highs, many of them produced in China and available on the web, is growing rapidly. The Government understandably want to find an appropriate response to a variety of substances involving very different levels of risk. Understandable too is the idea of temporary banning orders while information about the substances is gathered and analysed, albeit that a full evaluation of those substances will probably take about five years. I am not entirely sure what the Minister will do at the end of the one-year period.

The only question that I hope we can address today, and it is serious, is whether the Minister will consider opening up the possibility, without making any commitment, of controlling the supply of some of these substances through alternative regulatory mechanisms rather than all of them being controlled through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In putting this question I applaud James Brokenshire, the Minister for drugs policy in the other place, for making it clear that the temporary bans will apply only to the supply, sale and distribution of those substances and not to users, thus avoiding the criminalisation of users during the period of the temporary bans. My concern is that at the end of the banning period many of the substances will, I guess, become permanently banned. As the Bill stands, the substances would all fall within the ambit of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

In seeking to find appropriate controls of legal highs, the Government have a wonderful opportunity to explore different methods of control and to evaluate them. It is in the spirit of wishing to work with the Government to find the best way forward that I have tabled these two amendments. Why do I regard the opportunity to evaluate alternative methods of control as so important? There is increasing evidence from across the world that a health-oriented approach to drug use is more effective than criminalisation in reducing levels of addiction. Surely that is our common goal.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy concluded that criminalising drugs users has failed to reduce problem drug use. It recommends, rather precisely, the approach of our two amendments: to encourage experimentation, with alternative methods of control of less harmful drugs, evaluation and the introduction of evidence-based treatment. I know that the Minister would wish to take seriously the recommendations of global commission members, among them Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations— he was ultimately responsible for overseeing the implementation of the UN drugs conventions—Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and George Shultz, former US Secretary of State, all highly regarded world figures, not to mention the raft of ex-Presidents of countries in Europe and Latin America. I am sure that the Minister will want to take most seriously the views of all of those people.

Globally, the use of drugs continues to rise at an alarming rate: opiates by 34.5 per cent, cocaine by 27 per cent and cannabis by 8.5 per cent in the 10 years to 2008. In the UK, as we have focused more upon the treatment of users and as the police increasingly, though not uniformly, turn a blind eye to cannabis use we have seen a flattening out of some drug-use statistics. Any switch from criminalising to evidence-based health policies seems to be helpful and I know that the Government plan to increase access to drug treatments. Our aim today is to ensure that the policy for legal highs discourages problem drug use, rather than driving people into the hands of unscrupulous drug traffickers and on to the most dangerous and contaminated substances.

--- Later in debate ---

We believe that all our drug policies should be kept under review. We have made this commitment in our Drug Strategy, by placing the ACMD’s advice on new psychoactive substances at the heart of enabling the delivery of the strategy. Members of the House will perhaps be aware that there is a draft working protocol between the advisory committee and the Home Secretary. Copies of that have been in the Library for some time. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness and noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I very much welcome the comments of the Minister about the Government’s reliance on the ACMD. I understand that the Government will respond positively to its advice. I also very much welcome her point about improving information to young people, particularly through festivals, and her recognition of the need for a full impact assessment of these bans before taking things further. I was interested to note that the Minister did not counter my figures on mephedrone—in other words, more people seemed to use it after the ban than before it. I look forward to further discussions with Ministers on this very important issue, although it is late in the evening for this discussion. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 244AB withdrawn.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to this House and shall try to find the appropriate words to congratulate her on her incredibly moving speech. We have heard some very fine speeches today. My speech will be extremely quickly forgotten, but I will never forget that speech—it was amazing. Not only has the noble Baroness made a very important contribution today, but I have absolutely no doubt that she will be a very important contributor to the work of this House, representing very effectively the issues of victims and of the social problems in our communities. I cannot say more than to welcome her and thank her for joining us.

I feel like sitting down right now, but I will limit my comments to Part I of the Bill, with a very brief reference to Clauses 152 and 153 on the drugs issue. I want to support concerns already raised about the replacement of police authorities with newly elected police and crime commissioners. For me this is by far the most worrying proposal in the Bill. Indeed, I might be quite happy with one or two other parts of the Bill, but like so many other noble Lords I cannot accept this one.

There are many noble Lords more qualified than I to speak in this debate, as so brilliantly illustrated by the fine speech from the noble Lord, Lord Blair, supported so eloquently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Harris and Lady Hilton, and many others. However, I feel bound to make a brief contribution, having spent eight years with the Police Complaints Authority, working very closely with chief constables and other chief officers across the country. I developed a considerable respect—to my surprise, as I was not expecting to respect these people—for the professionalism, impartiality and deep understanding of humanity of those officers. It seemed to me throughout that period that senior officers paid due respect to their police authorities while holding on very clearly to their strict political impartiality.

I agree with Liberty’s point that,

“policing by consent, and engagement between the police and the community must not be confused with direct community involvement in operational decision-making”.

For me, this is the massive mistake of the Bill.

With so much else to be concerned about in the country today, is there any justification at all for changing the governance arrangements for the police service? It is worth asking what the serious weaknesses are of the present system of police authorities that have led to the development of these ideas. We have had different views about HMIC inspections from the Minister and from other noble Baronesses, but the long and short of it is that no evidence has been presented today that the police authorities have any weaknesses that could not be remediated. If these weaknesses even exist, do they justify the risks involved in introducing overtly political control over chief police officers? Do they justify the inevitable costs involved in the move to PCCs? The evidence suggests not. I understand that the Government's main motivation for the introduction of PCCs is that UK policing has become too far removed from the needs of local communities. I would accept that, but this problem could be tackled very effectively through an overdue reduction in the number of targets, circulars and guidance from the centre to police services and perhaps also some strengthening of the police authorities. Such changes would reduce costs instead of increasing them, avoid unnecessary upheaval, and reduce rather than increase political interference. It would certainly reduce central political interference, and we would all welcome that. Crime, as we know, and as others have said, continues to fall, and the chances of becoming a victim of crime are lower than at any time since 1981. If the system is working, why change it—or, as they say, if the system ain’t broke, why fix it?

The next question is whether the proposals are sensible. Again, the evidence, comments already made in your Lordships' House and common sense suggest not. This matter has been very adequately covered by others, and I shall not repeat their comments. As to the extra costs, the Minister suggests that this matter will be cost-neutral. I have to say that I disagree. Clearly, other noble Lords have made it very clear that there will be costs involved, and the general view seems to be that the PCCs will cost an additional £100 million a year, or about the cost of 600 police officers. I do not have in my head the numbers of police officers to be cut, but I for one would prefer to see a reduction in cuts in front-line policing rather than wasting precious resources on this new governance system.

The Association of Police Authorities points to the pertinent quote from Robert Peel:

“Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law”.

Other speakers have addressed that issue very fully. I simply want to support their remarks.

To introduce a different perspective on the issue, it is perhaps worth noting that the health department has a very different approach to governance from this one. The Minister may find it helpful to consider the approach of her health colleagues. In essence, Health Ministers are seeking to enhance the role of councils of governors with their foundation trusts. These councils are the health equivalent of police authorities, including both elected and nominated individuals representing all sections of the community. Governors are volunteers and the governance system carries a minimal cost. There is no plan in the Health and Social Care Bill to replace these 40 to 50 individuals with a single commissioner.

I want to refer very briefly to the plans for temporary banning orders for legal highs. I welcome the Minister’s reference to listening to the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This is a very pleasant change from the recent past, if I may put it that way. I was glad to hear the Minister’s assurance that there will be no possession offence under the temporary controls. Is the Minister aware that the UK Drug Policy Commission will publish in two weeks or so an interesting report recommending a system of regulatory controls over legal highs? I would welcome an opportunity to have a discussion with the Minister about that report and possibly a constructive way forward.

In conclusion, I hope that the Government will reflect on the profound concerns about the PCC proposals and will also consider alternative approaches to the drug issue.

Drug Use and Possession: Royal Commission

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for initiating this debate. The case for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is of course overwhelming. No one today would seriously argue that the possession of cannabis should be punished with a maximum penalty of two years or an unlimited fine, as in the Act. Likewise, surely no one would argue that seven years in prison should be on the statute book at all as a possible response to the possession of a few ecstasy tablets.

It is important for us to be clear about the meaning of success in the drugs field these days. The big change in the last 40 years has been the universal recognition that the call for a drug-free world was nothing but a pipe dream. The key question is what policies will minimise the level of drug addiction and of personal and societal harm. I applaud the Government’s emphasis on recovery, but that policy would be vastly more effective if it were introduced alongside the decriminalisation of drug users.

Many countries have introduced health-oriented approaches alongside decriminalisation, with positive results. The Portuguese policy, as already mentioned, of decriminalising the possession of up to 10 days’ supply of all drugs, linked to active treatment, has astonished the faint-hearted. Far from leading to a drugs tourist industry—which was well predicted—and soaring levels of drug addiction, the policy is recognised internationally to have been a resounding success. In many ways, the most important finding is that for young people—13 to 15 year-olds and 16 to 18 year-olds—the prevalence rates have declined in Portugal for virtually every substance since decriminalisation. This is the more remarkable because it goes against the trend of the surrounding countries that still have tough criminalising drug laws.

Of course, Portugal is not the only country that has moved away from criminalisation. Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, 13 states in the US and many other countries have liberalised drug policies in a range of ways. In no case have these liberal policies led to a general increase in drug use, more crime or more harm to individuals—quite the opposite. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, we need evidence. Actually, we have it and lots of it. The Czech Republic is particularly interesting. It introduced criminalisation in 1999, undertook a detailed scientific study which showed that criminalisation had been a disaster, and in 2010 reversed the policy and decriminalised drug use. Even the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime concluded in a recent document that,

“punishment is not the appropriate response to persons who are dependent on drugs”.

Surely our Government needs to take account of the UNODC.

We do not impose criminal penalties on patients suffering with cancer or heart disease. Of course, it is self-evident that such a response would be not only unethical but also counterproductive. Exactly the same arguments apply to drug addiction—punishment is unethical and counterproductive. The new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform, which I chair, together with the Beckley Foundation, supports further research on drug policies and the drafting of a new UN convention permitting—not asking—countries to introduce more liberal drug policies.

We are now 50 years on from the single convention of 1961, when it was hoped that drugs could be eliminated through tough, criminalising policies. These policies have failed. A royal commission lasting I hope no more than 12 months would be sufficient to pull together the evidence. If this were followed by sensible drug policy reform, it would do more to generate a safer world, reduce conflict and weaken al-Qaeda and criminal gangs across the world than any other initiative I can think of. The case for change has been made. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for the thoughtful way in which he introduced this debate on a subject of very considerable public import that, precisely because of the harms associated with it, excites very considerable strength of feeling and, I have to say, disagreement. There is a broad consensus on some of the damage that it does; where those who are informed as well as those who are uninformed part company with each other is on what we do about it.

I would like to respond to the points raised and set out the Government’s thinking as it has developed on the drug strategy. Between us and those advocating decriminalisation, which I have to tell noble Lords the Government are not going to engage in, there is common ground on some of the things that we consider need to accompany a policy that continues to classify drugs and criminalise the taking of them. Do we believe in an evidence-based policy? Most certainly. Do we think that the law can do it all by itself? Certainly not. We certainly think that both education and treatment need to be integral parts of policy. Do drugs contribute to global crime at all levels, violent as well as organised? Yes, absolutely they do. Do we need therefore to take action? Clearly, we do.

The example of Portugal has been mentioned, and I shall come to that in a moment, because the conclusions that you draw from the evidence in front of you is going to influence what you say about what should happen next. The picture that emerges from Portugal is somewhat more complex than some noble Lords have allowed.

Let me say something about how the Government’s thinking is developing and then I shall return in the light of that to some of the comments that have been made. As the House will be aware, in December last year the Government launched their new drugs strategy, whose component parts include: reducing demand; restricting supply; building recovery; and supporting people to live a drug-free life. The supporting part is very important.

The strategy has two high-level ambitions, one of which is to reduce illicit and other harmful drug use. I might say that we do take a dim view of alcohol abuse, which we also believe needs to be tackled. Some of the treatments that accompany that are much like those for the abuse of drugs. It is for the reason that alcohol abuse is certainly going up that we are clamping down on below-cost sales of alcohol and restricting their sale to young people, and so on. We do think that that needs tackling—so there is nothing between us on the subject of the evils of alcohol abuse. However, we do not believe that because alcohol abuse is going up, that is somehow reason for not being tough about drugs as well.

Our second ambition is to increase the number of individuals who are able to recover from their dependency on drugs or alcohol. In delivering these ambitions for the next four years, we are committed to an evidence-based approach, and we will undertake evaluation of the policy as we go along. We are not suggesting that we will pursue this policy irrespective of what the evidence shows that its results might be. I assure and promise noble Lords that constant evaluation will be an integral part of the approach that we pursue, and we will take into account the wider evidence available. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that I have asked whether we have any social research on the stocks at the moment. I fear that the answer is no, and I think that is something that we should take away.

High-quality advice on this complex field is obviously of the utmost importance. We value greatly the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the proper consideration of its advice is at the heart of enabling us to deliver this strategy. We are developing with it an evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness and value for money of the drugs strategy. We will redo that on annual basis and from that annual review we will then develop further initiatives and actions as the programme develops. That I hope will give us the necessary flexibility to respond to changes in the drugs scene and the nature of the trade and based on the outcomes that we are managing to achieve.

The Government are also ensuring that our policies complement each other and build the necessary links between the strategy itself and sentencing, welfare and public health reforms so that we optimise the outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of individual policies.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the whole question of impact assessment. I have some sympathy with this notion. It is very hard, however, to know what you are measuring. One reason is that it is extremely difficult to disaggregate the interaction of various phenomena. Two honest people can measure an impact and come out with a different answer. I hope the House would agree that we have to tackle the complexity of the interaction of various factors. I hope if we are able to do that it will give us a better clue as to how to proceed.

I suppose I need to say at this point that, although we are going to go through evaluation, we do not intend to go for a thoroughgoing review. We do not consider that that is warranted. What we want to do is to give the strategy that we are outlining, which contains new components of policy, a good try to see what it delivers. We are not a Government who will take no notice of the results of policy, but we certainly think that the case at the moment is made for proceeding with the policy on the basis of constant review.

As I said, we have decided that we are not going to decriminalise, but we are going to deal with a lot of the features of the scene. The four decades of the Misuse of Drugs Act have provided the UK with a coherent legislative framework. Although some noble Lords seemed to think that we could somehow duck our international obligations, we do not believe that is actually the case. We have to engage in policies which restrict the availability of drugs and their misuse and which protect public health and welfare. We will continue to try to do that.

We will engage in a number of positive features in our policy—I think it is important to do that—but before I come to that issue I want to say something about the relationship between the level of crime and drug use. The findings from the British Crime Survey 2009-10 show that drug use among young people in the 16 to 24 age group has fallen to 20 per cent, from 29.7 per cent when the survey began. That is quite a significant drop. The latest figures from the NHS Information Centre’s annual survey of drug misuse in England, which was published earlier this year, confirmed the downward trend of the past few years. That is why I mentioned the complexity of interaction. That is an encouraging phenomenon and we would like to know exactly why that is happening.

We want to empower young people to steer clear from drugs rather than encourage their consumption. In due course we shall be debating the Government’s proposals in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill for the introduction of temporary banning measures, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. We believe that it is right and proper to have measures in place to be able to ban such substances. The experience of methadrone convinces us it is the right thing to have done. The ban had an impact on attitudes—consumption went down. We are certainly not of the view that it is wise to give the impression that, because a drug is legal, it is therefore safe. Indeed, some of those drugs are extremely damaging.

As part of reducing the demand strand of the drug strategy, we want to help people resist the pressures to take drugs and the encouragement that may come in their lifestyles and we want to make it easier for those who have taken drugs to stop. This is key to reducing the huge cost to society. We will focus in our strategy on early years prevention, particularly for families who have complex needs, and we will provide high-quality drug and alcohol education and information to young families and parents through schools, colleges, universities and the Frank service. Education was stressed by a number of noble Lords. We certainly intend to lay a lot of emphasis on that. We will provide intensive support to vulnerable young people to stop them becoming involved in drug and alcohol misuse.

We also wish to give discretion to the police on whether to prosecute in given circumstances and to the judiciary to take into account all the circumstances of an offence. In practice, the law enforcement element is one that we wish to see used judiciously. It is fair to say that some of the results in Portugal, where it has been said that legalisation has taken place, do the opposite in that they put people into treatment, which is what we want to see happen here. However, some of the picture in Portugal is not so good. It is the country in Europe, I think, that has the second highest level of HIV. There are relationships between these various phenomena.

Very few custodial sentences are imposed for simple possession offences and a fine is the most commonly imposed conviction.

[Baroness Meacher]

Before the Minister sits down, will she explain why she will not have a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? It has obviously now been in place for 40 years. Whatever may be said about Portugal, the reality is it had a very high level of HIV before decriminalisation and now has a very good record. Most importantly, young people there are now less and less likely to go into drug addiction. In view of this evidence, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government will not even look at and evaluate, whether through an impact assessment or a royal commission, their own policies? We have very high levels of drug use in this country, and we are not doing well.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Henig]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the current chair of the Security Industry Authority and president of the Association of Police Authorities. In the speech I made at Second Reading I told the House about the enormous concern with which the Government’s proposal to abolish the organisation and return to self-regulation of the industry was greeted, particularly by people in the industry and also by Scotland and Northern Ireland. Last week the chairman of Security Alliance said how the inclusion of the SIA on the list for abolition came as a great surprise to the industry. He said that since regulation was introduced, there had been a general acceptance in the industry that licensing had been a force for good. So that is clearly understood and agreed across the industry.

We know there has been a lot of criticism recently in the other place by the Public Administration Committee about the handling of the bonfire of the quangos. The committee said it was a rushed, botched job with no clear evidence of savings or concern for value for money or efficiency. More important for the SIA was the lack of consistency in applying the three questions and the issue of whether they were even the right questions to ask. I asked at Second Reading why the SIA was being abolished when the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was being spared—a question which has not yet been satisfactorily answered. The Public Administration Committee’s report asked exactly the same question. The silence in response is deafening.

I asked another question to which there has been no response: why is it that the Government believe the industry is mature enough at this moment in time to regulate itself when the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Administration and even large parts of the industry disagree very strongly. Yet the Minister told us at Second Reading that there had been no major disagreements on the legislation between the Government and the Scottish Government. I do not think that is entirely an accurate description but obviously I defer to others on that.

The most serious issue I had with the Government on this matter was their lack of consultation with the industry. After all it was the BSIA and other bodies and individuals within the private security industry which consistently pressed for regulation of the industry in the 1980s and 1990s and they have supported it and for the most part paid for it. Surely, therefore, the views of the industry should have been sought before the policies were drawn up, not to mention the uncertainty caused to 350,000 individuals working in the industry_, many of whom funded their own licence fee and invested in their training. Surely there should have been consultation with all these people. Certainly the view of the Public Administration Committee was that there should be consultation with all the bodies listed in this Bill, even at this late hour, and who can say that it is wrong?

In the case of the security industry, its leaders sensibly were not prepared to wait that long. Indeed, they made their opposition to the ending of regulation and the abolition of the SIA very clear. They wrote to the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. They organised and they highlighted the tremendous risks inherent in the Government’s proposals, forcing the Government to change their mind. Instead of abolition the Government agreed that there should be a phased transition to a new regulatory regime and that the SIA should no longer be an NDPB.

So there has been a change and therefore this Bill is already out of date in terms of regulation of the private security industry. In the exchange of views that took place between the Government and the industry, industry leaders made it clear that they were already discussing with the Security Industry Authority a blueprint for the evolution of regulation whereby the regulator and the industry would work together to produce smarter, more cost-effective regulation and would press the Government to introduce business registration alongside individual licensing so that we could move to a more efficient, effective and lighter-touch regulatory regime—“better for less”, to use the Government’s own phrase. That was certainly what the industry was working towards with the SIA. As the Public Administration Committee so rightly observed, the major issue at stake in relation to quangos should not be about their status or structure but about effectiveness and delivering value for money. Since last summer the SIA has been in discussion with the industry about precisely these matters.

The issue before us in this discussion on the Security Industry Authority is not a simple should it or should it not be abolished, but how best to facilitate a phased transition from the current regulatory regime to lighter touch, smarter regulation in which industry bodies and leaders play an increasingly active and important role alongside the SIA. There is no disagreement about that. The issue is that it is a process which will take time. It cannot be rushed. It has to include all sections of the industry that are currently regulated. While the recent emergence of the Security Alliance as a unified voice for the industry is to be welcomed as a very positive development, it is by no means fully established across the industry. So there is a lot of work to be done, and along the way the decisions made by the Home Office and the Government in relation to the extent of regulation—for example, that it should not include in-house security, or for the time being private investigators or security consultants—will undoubtedly be queried and challenged by many in the industry. If we are discussing the industry’s future, people working in it want to raise many things.

Then there are the views of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I cannot speak with enormous knowledge about these areas but the licensing of private security has been a huge success both in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It has been in Scotland since 2007 but licensing in Northern Ireland is just a year old. The Northern Ireland Administration are in no rush to change it and we can understand why. They think that it has made a big difference. Both those areas have elections in the spring and we will have to wait to find out the views of the new Administrations and Governments that result. A lot is standing in the way of progress at the moment. As part of the phased transition process, the industry is strongly of the view that the Government should play their part by showing a willingness to bring in business registration in the industry, alongside the licensing of individuals. I hope that the Minister will be able to commit the Government to action in relation to business registration when she replies, as the industry is keen to see that.

We are working to move forward. We in the SIA are consulting a whole range of bodies, including the strategic consultation group, a Security Alliance industry panel, and so on, because it is important to have agreement with the industry and major stakeholders on key principles and milestones for the future, while being conscious, as was said, of the need to proceed cautiously before the Olympics in 2012. There are also the Commonwealth Games in Scotland in 2014 and we must not forget that. It is important to put on the record that many senior figures in the industry are urging caution. They do not believe that the industry is yet ready for self-regulation. I strongly support giving the industry more responsibility in terms of licensing and training, but I share its view that there is no evidence at present that it is sufficiently mature at this point for self-regulation. We have to move very gradually towards that goal. Substantial progress will have been made towards establishing a new regulatory regime by 2014 but there is the big issue of effective intelligence and enforcement operations. It is important that they continue and that the state continues to maintain a strong regulatory regime in respect of criminality; in respect of criminals and their associates; and in respect of those who continue to seek to undermine and weaken the regime. Everyone who works in the industry wants the regime to be effective in driving out and keeping out criminality and in upholding robust standards. That is extremely important because the credibility of the industry requires strong intelligence and enforcement activity, which has to continue in any new regime.

There is a considerable way to travel. Listing the SIA in Schedule 1 to the Bill was a misguided and inappropriate step for the Government to take. We are talking about Schedule 3 and changing the nature of the organisation and moving it to something different. The important thing is that we all want to build on and improve the regulation that has been introduced. It has been a great success and we want to continue it both with the industry and the devolved Administrations. We have to work with them at their pace, which I hope the Government will be supporting so that we can move forward together.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, the current chairman of the SIA. I should mention that I was the first chairman of the Security Industry Authority some years ago and in that capacity I came to respect very highly the considerable number of companies that control the vast majority of companies within the security industry. However, I was introduced to the industry prior to regulation and can certainly endorse the comments already made that the industry does attract a large number of highly unscrupulous individuals who, without very tight controls, are more than willing to take advantage of the unsuspecting, either employers or members of the public.

The two big achievements of the SIA, and a credit to its current chairman, have been the raising of the educational level of the 350,000 or so security officers and also, as others have mentioned, the protection of the public and employers from these unscrupulous security guards. I am sure the Minister would like to recognise the value of its work.

There is of course merit in the proposal to focus in future on the system of business registration, leaving the individual licensing largely in the hands of the industry. However, I too do not accept the Government’s argument that none of the SIA functions needs to be carried out by a public body. In view of the extent of criminality within the industry, and the potential for far greater amounts of criminality, this just does not seem realistic. It is difficult to imagine that all aspects of the SIA can effectively be carried out by the industry itself.

The Government refer to employers in other industries taking responsibility for making appropriate recruitment decisions and suggest that this approach would be appropriate for the private security industry. My understanding is that the industry just is not ready. I do not think the Government have at all taken into account the degree of criminality in the industry. It must be quite alone—in fact I cannot think of any other industry that has comparable problems.

It is certainly most encouraging that Ministers have now agreed to the SIA’s plan for evolution towards a new system based upon business registration. However, Ministers do not seem to be taking account at all of the degree of opposition to these changes both in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It seems the Government will need to move much more slowly if they are to have any hope at all of bringing the devolved Administrations with them. I hope the Minister will take very seriously the points already made by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig.

I want to mention one small but particularly threatening sector of the security industry—the security officers who control parking on private land. The Government are committed to ending the right to clamp vehicles on private land. I applaud this move wholeheartedly. However, there is no move to prevent, as I understand it, these operators charging unsuspecting members of the public extortionate fees for parking on private land. It is in this area that threats are made and extortionate quantities of money are demanded, increasing over time if people do not pay up quickly, that lead to people submitting to the fees charged. I hope the Government will be able to deal with that relatively small but really alarming sector of the security industry in the course of their deliberations about reform.

I was very pleased to note in the Government’s briefing that any proposed changes will be subject to parliamentary approval. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to applaud the Minister, who told us in a meeting recently that he will be eliminating Clause 11 and Schedule 7 from the Bill. This does seem to me an enormous step forward and I imagine I am speaking on behalf of others too in saying that this is extremely welcome. That is at least an excellent piece of good news.

Finally, as others have said, the SIA regulatory system is self funding. There are no public spending implications in this reform. Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain to the House the motivation for a reform which seems to be opposed not only by the devolved Administrations but also by the industry which currently pays the bill for the Security Industry Authority. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

The Minister has repeatedly referred to the industry as though it was some uniform set of organisations. Does she accept that there is a tremendous divide between the reputable end of the industry and these highly dubious individuals and pairs of people who go about taking work in the security industry? You cannot refer to them in the same breath—and certainly not in the same phrase. Does she accept that?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I accept that this industry—I do not know what other term I can use: perhaps “this occupation”—has a wide spectrum of activities and individuals in it. I will come to that in a moment. I want to encourage your Lordships to have more confidence that those in this industry can be relied on and are willing to take further responsibility and be more accountable for their own actions in future. I understand that there is some concern that if the SIA is abolished there will be no effective regulation of the private security industry. I want to offer reassurance on that point. We are not going to do anything immediate. We have been convinced by those who have argued that that would be unwise and that it would not be sensible to do that. The regulation of the private security industry will continue in its present form. The SIA will not be abolished until the new regulatory regime has been fully established and is properly functioning.

Since the outcome of the public bodies review was announced by the Cabinet Office on 14 October, Home Office Ministers and officials have been in close contact with the SIA to discuss how to take this forward. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities and Criminal Information, who is the lead Home Office Minister for the SIA, has met the SIA representatives. The Home Secretary herself has been in correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, about the future.

Ministers have asked the SIA to work with the private security industry and key stakeholders to put together a detailed plan to achieve a phased transition to a new regulatory regime. We do not intend to do this in anything but careful detail. To inform the plan, the SIA started targeted consultations with stakeholders, including industry and law enforcement partners. The police were mentioned, and they are involved in the consultation process. A detail of the phased introduction of the new regulatory regime that will replace regulation by the SIA will be the product. The SIA started this work by hosting an initial meeting with a number of industry stakeholders on 28 October. I understand that this work is progressing well.

In the Second Reading debate on this Bill on 9 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, stated that the SIA had already agreed with the industry,

“a blueprint for the next few years to move to greater industry involvement in the regulatory regime”.—[Official Report, 9/11/10; col. 133]

She also quoted from a letter that she had had from the Home Secretary in which she very kindly said that she was happy to accede to the Home Secretary’s wish to ensure that,

“any transition to a new regulatory regime is phased in smoothly and takes into account the needs of the industry as well as the priorities of the Government including the devolved Administrations”.

To confirm the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the Home Secretary has agreed that there should be no significant change prior to the Olympic Games in 2012. That is in line with a number of measures in other areas in which we are staying any kind of change until after the Olympic Games.

My point in all this is that the SIA itself is involved in the work to move towards something that is described as self-regulation by the private security industry but which is a pretty tough form of self-regulation. I will come back to some of the details in a moment. The SIA plan was presented to Home Office Ministers earlier this month for consideration, and on 16 February there was another meeting with Lynne Featherstone to discuss the plan further. We have now considered and agreed that this will form the basis for moving forward on phased transition. I hope I am reassuring the Committee that this process is being done in careful consultation with the SIA and the industry on the basis of trying to ensure, therefore, that we come out with a regime that offers the same degree of assurance of high standards that has already been established.

As a result of the consultation, we are now in a position to give a few more details of the shape of the new regulatory regime, although the Committee will understand that as we are still in discussion—the whole point of the discussions is to get an agreed format between the parties—not all the details have been decided. So far, the agreed proposals will ensure that responsibility for the private security industry is transferred to a new body for self-regulation as soon as that is sensible after 2012—not before it is sensible and not before the Olympics in 2012. No significant change will happen before that.

Primary legislation will then be needed to set up the new regulatory body that will succeed the SIA. We will ensure that provision is included in a future Home Office Bill. Full transition to the new regime should, we hope, be completed by the end of 2013. Again, this is not a rushed process.

Drugs: Classification

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, on the whole question of drugs classification, there is clearly no consensus about what constitutes evidence. The Government simply do not agree that a system of a sliding scale of harms, such as is suggested in the Nutt report, constitutes a good basis for government policy. We do not believe that structuring drug-harm classifications in the way that the recent report does would be better than the current basis for government policy.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr Fedotov, who is the new executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, is urging Governments to put away their policies that criminalise drug users and to replace those policies with health policies? In the light of that advice from the United Nations, what plans does the Minister have to review the Misuse of Drugs Act?