Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to these points. The Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House had first done so, and it is unsatisfactory that there is so little clarity about the power to vary. We ought always to aim—certainly in this context—for as much legal certainty as it is possible to create.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled amendments in this group that would amend Clause 10. This clause, which provides powers for the Secretary of State to create exceptions to offences, seems to be quite extraordinarily open-ended. I am rather surprised that the Constitution Committee did not draw attention to that as well. It leaves the Secretary of State free to retire from the field—to alter the specification of offences in all kinds of ways, subject only to the need to consult and the need for affirmative regulations. I submit that that is not a satisfactory way for the Government to legislate. Clause 10, if not Clause 3, does seem to create Henry VIII powers.

There is a broader constitutional point, which I think my noble friend Lady Bakewell made at Second Reading, when she noted that our normal constitutional practice—our normal tradition in this country—is to leave citizens free to do things unless they are specifically forbidden. The tenor of the Bill is to make everything forbidden, unless it is accepted in the field of the use of psychoactive substances. The House should be careful in permitting that kind of exception to constitutional tradition and practice. The policy had better work; it needs to be justified in its practice, because it is a somewhat objectionable principle.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to report before exercising these different powers. It would be helpful if the Minister would clear up for us what consultation Ministers and their officials had with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the preparation of this report. It is, after all, the statutory duty of the ACMD to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom in respect of drugs. However, we have been led to understand, possibly erroneously, that the first time that the Home Secretary sought the advice of the ACMD in drawing up this legislation was on 26 May, when she sent a letter asking for its advice on how to achieve better forensic services and to establish a comprehensive scientific approach to psychoactivity for evidential purposes. That was only two days before the Bill was laid before Parliament. It would appear, as the noble Baroness suggested, that the ACMD has been sidelined in the preliminaries to the legislative process.

It is by no means the first time that the advice of the ACMD has been rejected by Ministers of various Governments. Its recommendations in respect of the classification of magic mushrooms, cannabis, MDMA, khat and now of nitrous oxide have all been rejected by the Government. It was not always the case that the recommendations of the ACMD were so routinely ignored. Back in the 1980s, when we faced the crisis of mounting levels of heroin addiction and the spread of HIV and of AIDS, the ACMD’s advice was taken, to the great benefit of improved policy.

When the UK Drug Policy Commission chaired by Dame Ruth Runciman reported in 2000, and again when it published An Analysis of UK Drug Policy in 2007, it warned of the lack of research underpinning policy development, and that policymakers,

“operate partially blind when choosing effective measures”.

It would appear that that may still be the case in 2015. The recommendations of the Runciman commission were dismissed, as were the recommendations of the Global Commission on Drug Policy dismissed by the Home Office in 2011, as were, in 2012, the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee that a royal commission should be established. However, policy should be made not on a basis of political expediency, but in response to evidence. It should be made not on a basis of anxiety about what the tabloids might say but on the basis of the advice of independent experts.

Professor Nutt, the chairman of the ACMD, was sacked essentially for telling the truth about the relative dangers of alcohol and tobacco vis-à-vis cannabis and ecstasy. Mephedrone was classified before the Government had received the advice of the ACMD, but following a huge campaign by the Sun newspaper and an endless series of “meow meow” stories, most of which turned out to be false when the facts were properly established. There were many resignations from the ACMD at that period. People in the front line of enforcement—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, may be able to tell us something about this, if he chooses to do so—found that the vacillations and vicissitudes of policy made life very difficult for police officers in the front line of enforcement in Brixton or elsewhere.

Therefore, what advice does the Minister follow? What does he see as the role of expert advisers, and to what extent has the ACMD been consulted in this context? Certainly, I hope that he will answer the questions articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Norton.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, as we are in Committee, I would like to ask the Minister a question which I told the Bill team I would ask him, but which I forgot to include in my previous remarks. Why do the offences clauses, up to and including Clause 10, not receive a mention in the Home Office’s human rights memorandum, except a reference in the summary at the start of the memorandum? One would have expected that, having created new offences, they would have deserved some attention in that document.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for introducing this amendment. Perhaps I may structure my response by first putting on the record some important comments which might be helpful to the House and then, at the conclusion of those remarks, seeking to address some specific issues and questions which have been raised.

The Constitution Committee drew to the attention of the House the fact that the power to vary Schedule 1 could be exercised so that something which, on the enactment of Schedule 1, is an exempted substance ceases to be exempted. A similar point was raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. The Constitution Committee also commented on the absence of a statement of purpose or purposes for which the Clause 3 power may be exercised. At this point, I would put that in the context of assuring my noble friend that the Constitution Committee has concentrated our minds. I think that the report was published last week, on 18 June, and we will be considering it carefully. We will have a full response to the committee ahead of Report.

As we indicated in our delegated powers memorandum, the list of exempted substances needs to be robust and kept up to date so as not to unintentionally criminalise the production, supply and so on of psychoactive substances that may legitimately be consumed for their psychoactive effect. Following on from one of our debates last week, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the regulation-making power indeed enables substances to be added to Schedule 1. To take an example, alcohol is both a substance and a description of a substance. It may also be necessary to vary an existing entry: for example, if the regulations mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the schedule relating to medicinal products were revoked and replaced with new regulations. While we expect the list in Schedule 1 to remain reasonably stable, the regulation-making power affords the necessary flexibility to make required changes relatively speedily should it be appropriate to do so.

We have deliberately drafted this regulation-making power so that it will not be possible to exercise it to remove any description of a substance that is contained in Schedule 1 on enactment. But I would be wary of further narrowing the scope of the regulation-making power, as Amendment 15 seeks to do. I stress that the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so any regulations would need to be debated and approved by both Houses. I will of course reflect on this debate before responding formally to both the Constitution Committee’s views and the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.

Amendments 20 and 47 would require the Home Secretary to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before making regulations under Clauses 3 and 10. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, spoke in support of these amendments and has added his name to Amendment 20. I begin by saying that the Home Office continues to greatly value the scientific advice provided by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Following its advice over the last few years, we have controlled more than 500 new psychoactive substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The advisory council will continue to have its central role in assessing the harms of specific drugs, including new psychoactive substances, for control under the 1971 Act and in providing advice to Ministers.

In drafting Clauses 3 and 10, the Government included a requirement for the Home Secretary to consult with such persons as she considered appropriate prior to making any regulations: for example, regulatory bodies and relevant experts. This was to account for the fact that the Government may need to consider different types of substances and so wanted to tailor their consultations to organisations with specific expertise. For example, if it was thought necessary to change the description of food, we would want to consult the Food Standards Agency. In this example, the advisory council would not necessarily have much to contribute to any consultation. None the less, as noble Lords will have seen from the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the ACMD was included as an example of the type of consultee the Government had in mind. That being the case, I am happy to take away Amendments 20 and 47 to consider the matter further in advance of Report.

The Government are, again, supportive of the principle behind Amendments 21 and 48, but I question whether we need to specify such a requirement in the Bill. There are many examples on the statute book of requirements to consult before a Minister exercises regulation or order-making powers. It is taken as read that the outcome of any consultation would be published —a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood —alongside the making of the relevant regulations or order. We do not need to clutter the statute book with express duties of this kind. There is a joint working protocol between the advisory council and Home Office, which commits us to open and transparent dealings. The advisory council routinely publishes its advice to the Home Secretary and I fully expect it to continue to do so. We will encourage other bodies responding to any consultation on these regulations to do likewise.

Any regulations made under Clauses 3 and 10 will be made by the affirmative resolution procedure. It is standard practice to publish an explanatory statement alongside draft regulations. Such a statement would, among other things, summarise the outcome of the consultation. Therefore, one way or another, Members of both Houses will be able to consider the consultation responses in conjunction with the draft regulations to be made under Clauses 3 or 10. In the light of this explanation, and on the understanding that I will give a sympathetic consideration to Amendments 20 and 47, I hope that my noble friend Lord Norton would feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I now turn to some of the specific points raised. On Clause 3(3), I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that it is difficult to conceive of circumstances where the Home Secretary would reach the conclusion that there were no appropriate persons to consult. We have had some excellent work by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee on the Bill. Were there not to be an adequate and full demonstration of the experts who had been consulted, that particular measure—which might be before the House on an affirmative basis—would clearly be in for a very difficult ride. In reality of course, the Government would not seek to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point that he was very concerned about whether this was some kind of attempt to downgrade or sideline the ACMD, which I understand. The council does of course have a statutory duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is very important, and it was consulted. It has been looking at the area of psychoactive substances. I cannot remember the exact date of that but I am happy to get details. One of its recommendations was that the Government ought to consider and explore a legislative response to this. I do not say this in order to unearth a previous relationship, but it was Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister, who decided to put this out to an expert panel.

To make a serious point, the purpose there was not to deal with a question on the science, which is just one component of this. Another part of it is then to say, “How do we deal with the science?”. Whereas we have an eminent group of scientists on the ACMD, the expert panel is particularly constituted so that it has expertise on enforcement at local authority level; forensics; prosecution, from the Crown Prosecution Service; medical science, of course, with three members of the ACMD on the expert panel; social sciences; an international dimension, with drug addiction; and, very importantly, education and prevention, with representatives from Mentor UK and DrugScope. So it was constituted to address a different stage in the problem, the issue having been identified earlier.

I want to deal with the points that have been made, although I shall provide a fuller response to the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made a particular reference to the term “vary”. It might be helpful if I add some words to the record at this stage on that point. “Vary” is given its natural meaning in the Bill: the ability to amend individual definitions within Schedule 1. It does not stretch to changing the principle of an exemption, nor to removing it. Schedule 1 exempts groups of substances; the ability to vary the definitions is important to future-proof the legislation against regulatory changes, which may change how particular substances are legally defined. It may be that a definition in the Bill is varied in the way in which it narrows its scope. However, this would be the case only if the scope of the underlying regulation was also narrowed. A similar approach has been taken in Ireland—without wanting to reopen that particular canard at this stage. Since the passing of the Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 in Ireland, they have not needed to make any amendments to their exemption list. We therefore anticipate a stable list.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned a point that she had raised with officials and which we had tagged under the Clause 10 stand part debate. These offences are modelled closely on those provided by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which has been in force for 45 years. Although it was enacted before the Human Rights Act 1998, the compatibility of the 1971 Act with the human rights convention has been tried and tested thoroughly in both domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. By following closely the existing law and statute, we have endeavoured to draft offences that we believe are compliant with the ECHR. In view of this, and to avoid restating old arguments in the memorandum that are already well accepted by the courts, the decision was taken that the ECHR compliance of these offences did not require rehearsing in the memorandum. Instead, the memorandum focuses on those issues that may properly be described as new or significant. We look forward to any observations on these and other provisions from the Joint Committee on Human Rights; in the usual way, a full response to the committee’s report will be possible once it has been received.

With those assurances, which I reiterate are on important issues which we undertake to consider very carefully and come back to on Report, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government's consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the subject of psychoactive substances, and I think that I heard him tell the Committee that the ACMD had urged the Government to do something about psychoactive substances. An expert panel, which is not the same as the ACMD, was then set up. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House, in response to the points that I put to him in my contribution, what dealings the Home Office had with the ACMD on this legislation on psychoactive substances, following receipt of the advice from the expert panel, up until the letter that the Home Secretary sent to the ACMD on 26 May. Given that the ACMD has a statutory duty to keep under review the situation of the UK in regard to drugs, surely it would have been appropriate—and I should have thought a statutory requirement—to seek its views as to the wisdom of the policy that the expert panel recommended and on which the Government were proceeding to legislate. What consultations took place on this specific Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, as someone from the highlands of Scotland, I like to be cool as well, but I suspect that it is a slightly different interpretation.

I was not quick enough on my feet to ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, before he sat down. I readily acknowledge his great practical expertise in these matters and I acknowledge my own ignorance. Is there a definition, in statute or in case law, of how much is a “small amount” of drugs for personal use? One needs to know how much a person could get away with by claiming, “This is just for my personal use, guv”. Or is it rather like the cross-channel ferries, where people can come back with 10,000 cases of cigarettes and lots of booze and claim that they are a heavy drinker and smoker, and possibly get away with it?

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quote favourably from the Portuguese experiment, and there are some debatable results there. I would also refer them to the trendiest, most socialist and liberal country in the EU—Sweden. Sweden has a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and, admittedly, a big back-up self-harm programme behind it. Although one can quote Portugal favourably, one can also quote Sweden and its no-tolerance policy favourably. I hope that noble Lords have seen the reports from Sweden, as I have, and if I am wrong, I am happy to be reminded and amended later on.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I too have been impressed and encouraged by the evidence emanating from Portugal. Just before I add a few words on the subject of Portugal, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that if he looks at the incidence of drug-related deaths in Sweden, he will find that they are exceptionally high. People are ignoring these draconian policies that the Swedes do indeed operate, but not with happy consequences. One of the reasons is that criminalisation and the panoply of very severe penalties in operation in Sweden deter people from seeking treatment and help. Personally, I think that that is ill advised.

The Portuguese took another route when they faced a real crisis of drug abuse at the beginning of the century. They consulted an expert panel, which recommended the depenalisation—I think that that is perhaps the term—of small amounts of drugs for personal use. Again I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that under the Portuguese legislation, those “small amounts” of each drug are very precisely defined, so it can be done in legislation. At the same time, they invested very significant resources in treatment, education, programmes of social reintegration and the disruption of supply. It was a coherent strategy that appears to have worked very successfully.

As an aspect of that strategy, dissuasion commissions were set up so that somebody apprehended in possession of an amount of a drug—a psychoactive substance—would have to go before the dissuasion commission. As the noble Baroness said, it consists of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, a social worker and a lawyer; it is a fairly formidable panel to have to face. But if you are brought before that panel, you are not charged with a criminal offence. It does have power to impose administrative sanctions but its main focus is on getting people into treatment.

The central principle of the Portuguese legislation is that drug abuse is a health issue and not a criminal issue. I would suggest to the House that the results have been most impressive. Over five years, the number of people injecting drugs halved; drug-related deaths and new HIV infections more than halved; drug use among the 15 to 24 year-old age group fell; there was no rise in use in the older age groups; very importantly, the rates of continuing use, year-on-year use as opposed to occasional use, fell below the European average; and the numbers seeking treatment doubled, while the costs to the criminal justice system plummeted. All this is documented—there is plenty of evidence to tell us about the success of the Portuguese experiment, which has been going for 15 years. As the noble Baroness noted, the global financial crisis and the extraordinary pressure on the public finances of Portugal made it difficult to persist as fully as they would have wished with the education and treatment dimensions of the strategy. None the less, they have continued with the policy, and as she said, it has become accepted right across the political spectrum. I know that Home Office representatives have visited Portugal to learn at first hand from Dr Goulão and others about how it has worked. It is puzzling and disappointing that more lessons have not been taken on board.

Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would create powers such that,

“a senior officer or a local authority may require the person to attend a drug treatment programme or drug awareness programme”.

“May require” is quite a prudent element in the drafting, only because—and I fully endorse the policy of encouraging people to go to such programmes and benefit from them—the scale of drug-taking is, sadly and very worryingly, large in this country. A survey of Cambridge students found that 63% had taken illicit drugs, half of them before they had reached the age of 16; 45% of them had bought drugs for their friends; and 14% said that they had at one time or another sold drugs for a profit. A survey in 2011 of people in management jobs in London found that one in 10 took illegal drugs at work or at social events associated with their work. Mostly, they used class A drugs—cocaine and ecstasy. Of course, the use of cocaine and other class A drugs can lead to serious addiction, illness and death, so we should congratulate those such as Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, one of the members of the noble Lord’s expert panel, who set up Club Drug Clinic at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital—and other such clinics have been established across the country—which is particularly focused on helping young professionals who become addicted in this kind of way. I am simply describing the scale of the challenge we face if we seek to make drug awareness and drug treatment programmes available universally to people found in possession of drugs. It is estimated that some 350,000 children in this country have a parent who is a drug addict. I understand that one-third to one-half of those entering prison are already problem drug users. In 2010, there were 2,182 drug-related deaths. So it is a colossal challenge whatever strategy is adopted. Helping more drug users find the healthcare treatment they need will be a challenge on a large scale.

This is not a new dilemma. Back in 1924, the Government of the day established the Rolleston committee. Its recommendation to the Government certainly was that penal elements of policy were important, but it also said that addiction should be treated primarily as a disease. I would suggest that the moral imperative is not to stigmatise or to punish but to help those who are sick. We must communicate facts accurately, precisely and honestly if young people are to respond constructively, seriously and respectfully to the policy and the legislation. In 2000, Lady Runciman and her colleagues said that,

“the most dangerous message of all is the message that all drugs are equally dangerous. When young people know from their own experience that part of the message is either exaggerated or untrue, there is a serious risk that they will discount all of the rest”.

One of the difficulties with this legislation is that it fails to discriminate between the harms at different levels of psychoactive substances. I understand the problem that, with the proliferation of psychoactive substances on such a scale and at such a pace, this is a very difficult thing to do, but it remains an important objective of policy.

When the previous Labour Government were being tough on the causes of crime and sought to get more people into treatment, they found that it was not plain sailing. The Home Office identified at one point 320,000 so-called problem drug users and invited them to undergo voluntary testing in the hope that it would offer a route away from the revolving door of crime and addiction and into treatment. If I remember aright, the Home Office reallocated a very large sum of money—some £600 million; it was a PES transfer, if that is the right terminology—from the Home Office to the Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency. The Drugs Act 2005 set up the drugs intervention programme, expanding the drugs treatment and testing orders and making it compulsory to test on arrest or when an ASBO is issued so that a defendant was offered the choice of treatment or jail.

--- Later in debate ---

So that is more or less where we have come to. I am sure that the noble Lord will not come round completely to saying that the Government have arrived at something which is a little closer to his innovations in Brixton, and clearly not on the scale proposed in his amendment. However, given our commitment to hold a meeting for all interested Peers, which will provide an opportunity for ongoing discussion, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Will the Minister help us just a little bit further, because I know the Home Office knows a good deal about what has happened in Portugal? Much earlier in his speech, he was very dismissive of the benefits of decriminalisation on the Portuguese model, as I understood him to say—that is, possession of small amounts of drugs precisely defined for personal use. How, then, does he account for the success of the Portuguese policy?

[Lord Bates]

I did not mean to be dismissive about that. The Drugs: International Comparators report, which was referenced by several noble Lords, is clear that the success in Portugal cannot be attributed to decriminalisation and dissuasion panels alone. While drug use went down and health outcomes went up, there was at the same time a significant investment in treatment, which has already been referred to. That is an important part of it. That report could have looked at some of the—albeit modest—successes which we have had in this country with our approach. What is beyond doubt is that it is not just enforcement or the law but also education and health treatment which are at the heart of our being able to deal with this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we have Amendment 28 in this group. The noble Baroness has covered the issues very thoroughly, particularly with regard to her Amendment 26, so I do not want to take too long. I struggled with the issue of research, in particular as to how Schedule 1 and Clause 10 fitted together, if they fitted at all. The noble Baroness alluded to that. As she said, the reference to the regulations in Schedule 1 raises the issue of non-human use and research for purposes other than those covered in the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations—for instance, understanding neurological processes. The definition seems to link a product with clinical trials. I am no scientist, but I do not know how you get to the point of a trial without a much wider exemption than we have as the Bill stands. Like the noble Baroness, I am concerned as to whether Clause 10 may be used to make research not an offence. I do not think that would be the right way to go about this but, if it is in the Government’s mind, questions would include what is being proposed, when it will happen and what the process of that will be.

On Tuesday last week, on the first day in Committee, I mentioned the problems of undertaking research on cannabis, through my amendment on medicinal cannabis. Those problems were described by Professor Curran and Frank Warburton in the report which I mentioned then. I am not entirely confident that our amendment captures everything that needs to be captured, and although I am glad to see the amendment on the same subject in the name of noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, I am not entirely convinced that theirs captures everything either—but that is why we have Committee.

The correspondence which we received was very helpful in prompting us to focus on this. The Academy of Medical Sciences, in its letter to the Home Secretary, referred to the “important tools” that scientists need. This House has a well-deserved reputation for focusing on research and ensuring that research is assisted and not hampered. It is very clear to me that we need to explore this issue further and to ensure that the Bill does not hamper, but promotes, research.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, very briefly, I would endorse every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said and put a rather practical consideration to the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked for a meeting, and I am sure that Ministers will wish to hold such a meeting. However, time is somewhat against us, as we have Report in a fortnight’s time, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could assure us that that meeting will take place. I am certain the Government will not ignore these very important representations from eminent research bodies in the medical field—they are bound to take account of them. However, just as the Academy of Medical Sciences has shared its letter with noble Lords who are participating in these proceedings, it would be very helpful if the Home Secretary would share her reply with us and if we could have, before Report, an explicit amendment tabled by the Government to remedy the defects that these eminent research bodies, under the umbrella of the Academy of Medical Sciences, have drawn to our attention.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

39: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Possession for personal use
Possession for personal use of any psychoactive substances, including psychoactive substances hitherto controlled under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, is not a criminal offence.”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, this amendment proposes that the possession for personal use of any psychoactive substances, including psychoactive substances hitherto controlled under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, is not a criminal offence. We touched quite extensively on this issue in the debate on Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but his amendment ranged considerably wider. I hope that the Committee will be willing to focus more tightly on the specific issue that is expressed in the proposed new clause.

In recent years, some 25 countries have removed criminal penalties for personal possession of some or all drugs. Now, for the first time, Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom are tiptoeing towards the decriminalisation of possession for personal use because they have omitted, quite deliberately, to criminalise such possession where psychoactive substances are concerned, as defined in the Bill. However, that raises the question of why they are stopping at new psychoactive substances and, of course, the substances that are exempted in Schedule 1. Why do they not now proceed to decriminalise possession for personal use of small amounts of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? The policy is inconsistent and confusing. As such, I fear that it is liable to damage respect for the law, and the law in respect of drugs is already not much respected as it is.

Why does the Home Office judge it appropriate to criminalise young people wholesale? I am advised that in the period 2009 to 2013, 59,742 young people under the age of 20 were criminalised for possession of controlled drugs—something like 29% of young people in that age group who received a criminal record. Such an approach is clumsy, to say the least, and I submit that it is very damaging to those young people: the short-term and long-term effects of having a criminal record weigh heavily on their educational and employment prospects and their prospects of being able to obtain credit. It is also expensive for the Exchequer. The continuation of this criminalisation appears to ignore the findings of the Home Office’s own study, Drugs: International Comparators, which found that the relative toughness of the prohibitionist approach makes no difference to actual consumption.

Like it or not, the recreational use of drugs is widespread in our society. Indeed, I would say that in certain sections of society it is normal. I do not know whether we are welcoming the Minister on his return from a fact-finding mission to Glastonbury at the weekend; he may perhaps have been invited by the organisers in his official ministerial capacity or perhaps he went incognito, possibly not even wearing his suit. I like to think that he was accompanied by Lady Bates and that she may have been bearing in her hand at least a small posy of flowers, because it could be the last time under this legislation that he will have the opportunity to give her flowers—then he will have to default to his position of presenting her with chocolates.

If the Minister was at Glastonbury, no doubt he will have ignored the vapourings coming from left field from such figures as Billy Bragg and Charlotte Church, but he will not have failed to notice that significant numbers of young people there were consuming psychoactive substances. Possibly he regards all of them as lost souls. Still, he may have taken some satisfaction from knowing that this will be the last time that drugs will be consumed at Glastonbury because, through the virtues of this legislation, he will have completed the circle of prohibition: it will be impossible for them legally to obtain psychoactive substances in future. Such will be the zeal for enforcement of the police and other authorities, prioritising this prohibition alongside their duties to deal with illegal immigration and threats of terrorism, he can be confident that next year no drugs will be consumed at Glastonbury—unless, perhaps, psychoactive substances descend like manna from heaven on to the fields of Glastonbury, because that is still a possibility. Miracles do occur, and it is not impossible that psychoactive substances will continue to be consumed at Glastonbury and other festivals.

We need a realistic and constructive approach to this matter. The constructive policy is to decriminalise the possession of all drugs for personal use—to legalise, to regulate and, as we have noted in earlier debates, to have a serious campaign to inform and educate people about the realities and dangers of drugs. How helpful it would be if we could distinguish legally between the recreational use of drugs and problem usage. Through decriminalising, I believe that we could get more people, more quickly into more effective help and treatment. This is the difference between the Swedish approach and the Portuguese approach, which we discussed earlier. Decriminalisation, as recommended in the proposed new clause, would release the police from so much futile activity.

I am told that Her Majesty’s Government are spending something of the order of £1.5 billion a year on drug law enforcement. The impact assessment for the Bill, at paragraph 75, anticipates that the costs of the new measures to the public sector will be only £60,000 in year 1 and £50,000 a year thereafter. This is a joke: all the new offences created and all the enforcement activities legislated for in the Bill will cost a lot of money. We would do better to switch that expenditure and other expenditure into a real drive on information, education, youth work, healthcare through Public Health England and doing very much better about drugs in prisons.

Should we be condemning or should we be helping? In our society, there is no consensus as to whether the use of drugs is a crime, a vice, a weakness, an illness, an adventure, an act of rebellion or a recreation. It is all these things to different people at different times. But if we cease treating it as a crime, we will, as I have said before, greatly reduce the alienation of so many young people from politics and government, and we will be better placed to help people in need.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked me to convey her apologies to the Committee that she is unable to speak to her Amendment 46. She has had to go because she is hosting a reception for Leonard Cheshire Disability, which is being attended by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 39 and to speak to Amendments 45 and 52, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I agree with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. However, I got a touch of déjà vu because I think I made out the case for the decriminalisation of drugs when I spoke to Amendment 23. I will not go over that again.

Amendment 45 clarifies the offence of intentionally importing a psychoactive substance under Clause 7(1)(a) to exclude the importation if it is,

“for the person’s own consumption”.

Amendment 52 makes a similar change to the definition of “prohibited activity”. It would amend Clause 11(1)(d) to read,

“importing such a substance other than for the person’s own consumption”.

As we have heard, the Government do not intend to make possession of psychoactive substances under this Bill a criminal offence. This Bill is targeted at those who supply such substances. While it is therefore reasonable and logical for the importation of such substances for sale or supply to also be an offence, it seems disproportionate to make importation solely for one’s own consumption an offence.

What will happen if this Bill becomes law is what happened in Ireland when similar provisions were enacted. People who currently buy their psychoactive substances from head shops will instead buy them from street drug dealers or, more likely, buy them online. Under this Bill, the police will be able to close down UK-based websites, forcing users to buy their drugs from websites overseas. When they buy their drugs from such websites, they will be guilty of importing psychoactive substances, even if their only intention is to consume the drugs themselves. It seems inconsistent for the Government not to criminalise possession of psychoactive substances under this Bill but still to criminalise people for trying to possess them in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for introducing this amendment. The amendments in this group relate to the personal use of such substances. Let me assure the noble Lord at the outset that the Bill does not make possession of a psychoactive substance for personal use a criminal offence. Similarly, it is not an offence to possess for personal use a drug subject to a temporary class drug order. In that sense, the current process is consistent with the way in which we have tackled such issues in the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that the intention is to catch the suppliers and manufacturers of the products.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, whose apologies we note, have argued that the Bill is internally inconsistent in making it an offence to import a psychoactive substance for personal use but not criminalising personal possession. I hope I can persuade the Committee that this is not the case. The very principle of this Bill, as recommended by the expert panel, is to tackle the supply of these substances. Given that the vast majority of these substances are imported from abroad, clearly, if we are to tackle the supply, we need to ensure that we have in place a robust importation offence and that the Border Force has sufficient powers to effectively stop these substances crossing the border. On that point, I advise the Committee that the Government intend to table further amendments to ensure that the Border Force can access the powers under the Customs and Exercise Management Act 1979 when it intercepts psychoactive substances coming into the UK.

We cannot have a robust importation offence if we permit small quantities of psychoactive substances to be imported for personal use. We want to stop all these dangerous substances entering the country, not facilitate their use. The expert panel was clear that the Bill should focus on the supply of these substances and target all sources, even social supply, which can be a gateway for people into regular drug use. Any supplier of a new psychoactive substance is contributing to the overall drugs problem.

The substances caught in this Bill are deliberately being treated differently from the drugs controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The 1971 Act controls drugs where we have expert evidence of specific harms and therefore apply the full ban on possession and supply for public protection. For those not—or not yet—controlled under the 1971 Act, we are targeting the trade alone. However, allowing possession of a psychoactive substance is one thing; deliberately weakening the controls by creating a loophole that allows the importation of small quantities is something else, both in principle and in practice.

I have already outlined one risk in allowing importation of personal quantities—that of creating the possibility for individuals to import multiple packages of small quantities of psychoactive substances, which on their own are consistent with personal use but could enter the supply chain when combined. There is a raft of practical challenges with this approach: how much would constitute personal use? Would it cover all substances? Would you allow someone to import a year’s worth of substances for their personal use? That could, depending on the substance, be a significant quantity.

Another concern would be the enforcement challenges that this new approach would create. A blanket importation ban simplifies enforcement by the Border Force: any psychoactive substance found at the border and which is evidently intended for human consumption can be seized and destroyed, unless it is an exempted substance or for an exempted activity. Allowing smaller packages for personal use would impose significant demands on the Border Force, requiring it to investigate the importation in each and every case to determine whether the seized substances are for onward supply or personal use. It would simply be unrealistic and an unnecessary burden to put this measure in place.

On the website question, which is a fair point, it should be said that there were two effects of the Irish experience: one was immediately to close down the head shops in the Republic of Ireland; the other was to allow the Government to take down the websites that were supplying these substances, which were on a Republic of Ireland domain. On the offences committed when there is the intention to import, if you can prove that you did not know the website was overseas and that you were importing, you would not have intentionally imported. Is that clear? Perhaps it is just not clear to me. Let me read it again: on the offences committed when it is intentionally imported, if you can prove that you did not know the website was overseas when you were importing, you would not have intentionally imported. Yes, that is very clear.

Finally, I should add that the importation of psychoactive substance offences in both Ireland and Australia also apply to all quantities imported: there is no exemption for personal consumption. Amendment 52 would stand or fall with Amendment 45, as it seeks to make a consequential amendment to the list of prohibited activities to replicate the change in the importation offence.

I hope that I have been able to provide some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I suspect I may have been unable to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. However, having given the issue a good airing, I hope that he and other noble Lords will not feel the need to press their amendments.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the groupings were perhaps not quite right, at least as far as Amendment 39 is concerned. That is probably my fault, but I am grateful to noble Lords for their participation and presence in this short but worthwhile debate.

The Minister’s charm is such that he would almost persuade the Committee to agree to what is palpably bad legislation, and I congratulate him on his manner at the Dispatch Box. In seeking to refute the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, he said that we could not have a partial relaxation of a ban on importation for personal use because it is very important that the Border Force has powers—those powers will be further supplemented in amendments to come—to ensure that, in the phrase I think he used, all these dangerous substances do not get through. He went on to say that there is also the Misuse of Drugs Act, which would allow the proscription of individual substances where there is evidence that they are dangerous. There is quite a tension, if not an inconsistency, between those points. We can think about that a little further.

As to the practicalities for the Border Force, I hope that at some point in proceedings the Minister will be able to give us some statistics about the number of packages that enter this country. We all know that there has been an enormous increase in mail order, online retailing. He mentioned that the Irish-based websites had been closed down by their legislation, but we know that the Irish have become big consumers of new psychoactive substances, even more than they were before the prohibition legislation was brought in. How are they getting them? Where are they coming in? What means are there to prevent the entry of all these packages, which Postman Pat then takes up the garden path and pops through the front door? I cannot see how the Border Force will inspect all these packages. I understand that a few years ago, it was able to inspect only some 2% of shipping containers. The Minister is landing the Border Force with a completely impossible task.

[Lord Bates]

That is one of the reasons why the Republic of Ireland Government are pleased that we are following their lead in this regard. Naturally, when you make a blanket ban, as they have done, people find it very easy simply to cross the border—which, of course, is not really there—to obtain these supplies in the north of Ireland. I can give the noble Lord some quick statistics. More than three and a half tonnes of new psychoactive substances were seized by Border Force officers in 2014-15—a 75% increase on the previous year. Officers undertake targeted physical checks, supported by technology such as X-ray and new portable FirstDefender devices, to intercept suspected packages out of the 250,000 parcels that come through the UK’s depots.

[Lord Bates]

We can, but the whole purpose of the legislation is to try to close the loopholes. As I explained, if there was a loophole that meant you could import for personal use, how do you actually track that? Whether it is one packet or multiple packets, what is an appropriate amount for personal use? That makes it very difficult for Border Force officials. We are taking a blanket approach, as we have with other substances, because it gives clarity to the purpose of the policy.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Lord has provided us with some helpful information. I am still left puzzled as to how he thinks people will obtain these psychoactive substances, which it will not be a criminal offence to possess for personal use. Either they will have chemistry sets and synthesise them themselves, or his system of border controls and so forth will fail to work. Anyway, I am grateful for the thoughts that have been offered and the information that has been provided, and I beg leave to withdraw the proposed new clause.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 51 stands in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to license people and premises to sell low-risk psychoactive substances after consultation with representatives of the police, local authorities and small businesses.

The Government, in their background briefing to the Bill, acknowledge that some so-called head shops are well run and that the owners or managers of these premises make every effort to remain with the law and to conduct their business responsibly. We maintain that were all head shops to disappear, as happened when similar legislation was enacted in Ireland, users would resort to far more dangerous suppliers, such as street drug dealers and overseas websites. There is a real danger that the complete disappearance of head shops would result in more deaths from new psychoactive substances. Together with other amendments already debated, this amendment would allow low-risk psychoactive substances that have been exempted from the Bill to be sold to adults only, in closely regulated premises, by fit and proper licence holders.

We had a discussion this afternoon about how alcohol is very closely regulated. We are saying that, through this amendment, other low-risk psychoactive substances could be regulated and controlled. The overall effect of these changes would be to keep users from being driven into the hands of criminal suppliers and unregulated websites. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I support this amendment. I think it is going to be very difficult in practice to implement the kind of regime that the noble Lord and his cosignatories call for, but I share his view that it may well be of much more questionable benefit than the Government suppose to close down the existing head shops en masse. I suspect that they vary very much in terms of the responsibility with which they deal with their clients but am pretty sure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, there are head-shop proprietors and staff who take a responsible view of the risks that their clients may run and the desirability of ensuring that they do not come to harm. It is very difficult to know how to prevent anyone coming to harm, not least because it is very difficult to identify the exact nature of the substances sold, even for the head-shop importers and proprietors, and there is not the evidence to tell us about the long-term effects of the use of new psychoactive substances.

However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there is a lesser danger in this than there is in consigning the users of new psychoactive substances to street dealers and to online sources based outside this country operated by people who have no scruples at all. The consultation process that the noble Lord has proposed would be problematic, because people in the neighbourhood of head shops tend not to like them and it would be very difficult to get local public assent to the licensing of head shops, but a responsible local authority ought to undertake that kind of exercise.

I was very interested to note that, in the briefing from the Local Government Association on this amendment that I think we have all received, it makes some very practical points:

“We would oppose councils being made responsible for licensing because of the difficulties in assessing if a product is of low overall risk. Unless there was a full scale testing and risk assessment regime in place covering health and other risks the safety of a product could not be guaranteed”.

It is absolutely right about that, which is one of the reasons why, on another amendment, I have argued for the provision of a network of testing facilities. We ought to aim at that. We should encourage responsible conduct by people who would seek to supply psychoactive substances to the market in this country. There is evidence that many people operating cannabis cafes in the Netherlands for example, particularly because they are under pretty close police and other supervision, take good care to ensure that the products that they offer are relatively safe and that they guide purchasers to buy the products that may be least dangerous and least unsuitable for them. One might even say, for those who favour the taking of cannabis, it is positively suitable for them—but I am neutral on that point. We have all the time to think practically and realistically and, in tabling this amendment, noble Lords are doing just that.

[Lord Blencathra]

I rise briefly in response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, when he mentioned that the closure of the head shops in Ireland had resulted in the whole trade going underground. I am not sure whether my noble friend has had a chance to see it or research it, but my Google alert this morning said that some new report had been published by some doctors or professors in Ireland—maybe it was Dublin university, or something—that suggested that, quite the contrary, use of psychoactive substances overall had declined dramatically with the head shops ban and it had not gone underground, as people had feared. I have not had a chance to Google it and study it all but, if my noble friend is not aware of it, perhaps he and his assistants in his office can swot up on it. I am sure that it is a measure that will be addressed again at Report. We had a big debate last week on the situation in Ireland, so it would be worth while studying this academic research to see whether it is kosher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Well, I have given a couple of examples of things that may have been included by mistake. We know from the European monitoring centre that there are hundreds of new substances and chemical compounds that have been identified in the course of each year. Over 500 substances have already been banned in the past five years alone. Therefore, because of that fast-moving change, we have an enabling power in the Bill to allow us to respond quickly and effectively should a threat or an oversight with an unintended consequence come to light. I would have thought that, in good legislative practice, the fact that the Government would seek to respond in that way would carry a great deal of support.

I am conscious of time, but also of the fact that we dealt with a number of these issues under Amendment 19, when we discussed risk. We had a very good and thoughtful debate on that issue, and it was clear from that why, when the expert panel looked at the New Zealand licensing example, it felt that there were weaknesses in it because of how low risk or low harm would be defined. Therefore, the panel chose not to recommend going down that line but instead chose to follow the example of the Republic of Ireland and a blanket ban.

I come to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who asked whether I had seen the new report produced by Trinity College Dublin, an eminent academic source, on the ban on head shops and how it was actually impacting. One of the authors of the study, Dr Bobby Smyth, claims that,

“the results of the survey show that the kind of drugs being sold in headshops are not being used to the same extent any more”.

That would seem to challenge one of the arguments that has frequently been put forward—that somehow the incidence of usage has increased. That is not what has been found. Dr Smyth also claims that those drugs have not been driven underground, as has been feared, stating that,

“the findings have shown that the implementation of legislation, targeted primarily at the vendors of NPS, did indeed coincide with a fall in NPS use among this high risk group of teenagers who attend a drug and alcohol treatment service … The study found that, among the two groups surveyed, not only did the problematic abuse of headshop drugs fall but that the use of cocaine and amphetamines also fell”.

Consumption of so-called legal highs fell sharply after the Government cracked down on head shops that sold them, according to new research. Researchers studied two groups of young people attending a drug and alcohol treatment centre in Dublin. The first group attended the service immediately before the legal changes designed to drive head shops out of business were introduced, and the second attended a year later, after the ban came into effect. The percentage of problematic users of head shop drugs fell from 34% in the first group to zero in the second. The percentage who had taken any such drugs in the previous three months fell dramatically from 82% pre-ban to 28% after the ban was introduced. The study was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. That clearly produces some evidence, which I know was sought by Members of the Committee earlier when they asked whether the ban was having any effect.

Was the expert panel’s recommendation to take a different approach from New Zealand a sensible way forward? I think it probably is. Just last week, the state of Western Australia passed a blanket ban as well. There is a gathering view that this is having some effect in tackling a very difficult problem, and that licensing, however well-meaning and thoughtfully presented the arguments for it may be, is not as effective in achieving the outcomes that we all want.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Whatever policies are introduced on head shops—whether a wholesale ban, a crackdown, some degree of tolerance, supervision or licensing—we will not end up with the state of affairs that might well be desired by all of us: that there should be no more importation and consumption of new psychoactive substances. The Minister spoke earlier about the difficulties of defining “low harm”. I agree with him that these definitions are very hard to pin down. However, I also put it to him that in this field we are looking for the least bad solution. There is no ideal solution. We are looking for a practical set of measures that will, as far as possible, protect young people and society from the perils of dangerous psychoactive substances. There is a strong case for doing more work to achieve a workable, practical definition of “a low degree of harm”, and the approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in this amendment should not be discarded.

[Lord Bates]

I respect the noble Lord in taking that position but it is a different position from that which the Government have arrived at after taking advice on this. The Local Government Association, which has to wrestle with these problems, has seen numerous examples over recent months of local authorities using a range of powers to shut down head shops in, for example, Lincoln, Portsmouth, Newcastle, Kent and Medway as a result of anti-social behaviour in and around these premises. I am not aware of any local authority or police force that welcomes head shops in its community.

Before I have letters flooding my way from the Australian high commissioner, I should point out that the government of Western Australia introduced legislation last month but it has not yet been passed. I hope that clarifies the position, and I hope that the noble Lord is reassured and feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, talked about having received the LGA briefing on this amendment. Regrettably, we have not received it, which puts us in a slightly difficult position in commenting on it. However, from what I have heard in the Chamber this afternoon, there seems to be some confusion over what the amendment is proposing. It proposes that local authorities license people and premises but the decision on which substances can be sold—that is, whether something is a low-risk substance—would be agreed by the Secretary of State, who would then put that substance on the exempt list. We have debated what “low-risk substance” means or could mean on a previous amendment. Our Amendment 22 offered a definition of “low overall risk” taken precisely from the Misuse of Drugs Act. What a low-risk substance is and how you define it is a separate debate.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for raising this new research. Again, it is difficult to comment without having read it, unlike the Minister. However, it sounds as though the surveys were conducted in a treatment centre for young people. The difficulty, as I have mentioned, is that when substances are made illegal people are very reluctant to come forward to seek treatment because those substances are now illegal, whereas previously they were legal and people had no qualms about coming forward.

Last week we offered the House the chance to have an independent, objective review, not only of the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act but of what is happening in Ireland. It is very difficult for us in Committee to decide which side of the argument we come down on when there appears to be completely conflicting evidence of what the effects of the Irish ban are.

As to one thing I am more certain about, the Minister talked about the rejection of the New Zealand model. I understand that the problem with that model is that the suppliers of new psychoactive substances have not been prepared to put up the money to have their substances tested to the extent that they need to be to be approved. That is why the New Zealand model has run into the ground.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

There have also been difficulties because of objections to testing on animals.

[Lord Paddick]

I accept that testing anything on animals is another very contentious issue. However, it is not right to say that the New Zealand model, whereby the door has been left open to allow people to have substances tested to see whether they are low risk, has been rejected, other than on commercial grounds by the people who are producing them.

Having said all that, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, it is indeed time for a fundamental review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It is now almost half a century old and was the product of the prohibitionist orthodoxy that developed during the 1960s. It was the way in which our country implemented the requirements of the UN convention of 1961; subsequently, we doggedly signed up to the 1971 and 1988 conventions. It is through this legislation that the full panoply of prohibition was established, with the criminalisation of supply and possession. It is more than time to look again at the principles underlying this legislation, because there is an abundance of evidence that the legislation has failed in its purpose of protecting society from harm. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that our objective has to be to minimise the damage that drug usage causes in our society.

Since this legislation was introduced, we have seen, generation by generation, very significant increases in the use of drugs. There have been fluctuations in the use of cannabis, but if noble Lords study the latest annual report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, they will see that it sounds alarm bells over the rising problem of cannabis, in particular the increasing potency and purity of herbal cannabis and cannabis resin. The cannabis that is available in the market for consumers in this country is now far higher in THC, the most dangerous component of cannabis, than the cannabis that people were accustomed to using in the 1960s. A far larger proportion of our population now uses cannabis than in those days. Britons are among the largest consumers of controlled drugs in Europe. Therefore, there is evidence that the system is not working.

Prohibition is based on a false analysis of supply and demand. Where supply is interdicted, demand does not consequentially fall. Prices rise and the profits of criminals rise, but demand is displaced to different drugs. One reason we have the problem of new psychoactive substances, which the Bill seeks to address, is the prohibition of other substances, which has displaced demand, and people are looking for new opportunities to find the experience that they seek.

MDMA, better known as ecstasy, is another controlled drug, but the control has simply failed. Statistics indicate that some 300,000 young people each week are using ecstasy. As I mentioned at Second Reading, in universities its use is widespread, as is the use of smart drugs that are supposed to facilitate mental concentration and help people do better in severely competitive situations.

It is more than time for an analysis of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has recommended—an objective expert review of the way that this legislation has worked. It has been a gift to criminals. On the black market, price increases of 100 times between production and retail are not uncommon. In 2013, it was estimated that taxpayers across the world were spending something in the order of $188 billion on the enforcement of prohibition regimes, with the effect of creating an illegal drugs market of some 240 million users, with a turnover of $320 billion. This is a massive illicit business created by the prohibitionist orthodoxy.

At the same time, the Home Office estimated that the social and economic costs of organised drug crime in England and Wales were £10.7 billion a year. The collateral damage of the war on drugs has been immense, with diversion of public spending from health, education, development and other good causes—or, if you prefer, from the lowering of taxes and the reduction of deficits—and from tackling social exclusion and violent crime on estates in this country. That extends to the countries of production and transit: there have been 100,000 deaths in the drug wars in Mexico for which our people, as consumers, have to take serious responsibility. There is corruption of public life in many countries, and the proceeds of the illegal drug trade are used to finance terrorism. There are abuses of human rights, the use of the death sentence in a number of countries across the world, and environmental damage; for example, in Latin America, where the coca bean is produced.

Money laundering is a very significant problem, which is greatly exacerbated by prohibition. Banks in this country—unburdened by any particular sense of civic responsibility or by effective regulation—fund money laundering of drugs money, which is a profitable activity, as do money transfer services. It is not just the financiers, though. Other white collar professionals—accountants and lawyers—do not ask the questions they are required by the law to ask and are happy to facilitate the transfer of the proceeds of the illicit trade into the licit economy. It is ubiquitous across the country. At the other end of the scale, nail bars, taxi firms, car washes and, I am told, even childcare organisations are local small businesses that are used to facilitate the laundering of the proceeds of the drugs trade.

The Chancellor now wishes to make the City of London an offshore centre for trading in the Chinese currency regardless of the fact that the great majority of new psychoactive substances emanate from China. Prohibition is an engine of crime, of international organised crime, of gang-related street crime and of acquisitive crime. It accounts for between one-fifth and one-third of acquisitive crime. More enforcement leads to more violence and more profit. Prohibition drives innovation.

The Misuse of Drugs Act was never effective, but to attempt to overlay a regime that was not effective in the circumstances for which it was designed on today’s world of digital communications is, I believe, doomed to failure. The internet has made it far easier for people to obtain the information they need to know how to synthesise such drugs, to market them and to make them available. Smartphones enable people to tell each other about the arrival of new consignments of drugs—I am told even that invitations to parties contain links to suppliers. To extend the prohibition regime as the Government propose in the Bill seems a project doomed to failure.

Over the years, the Government have lacked conviction in the enforcement of prohibition. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to his immense credit, when faced with the challenge of HIV and AIDS in the 1980s, wisely and humanely decided that to provide clean needles and needle exchanges was the right thing to do and that harm prevention should trump law enforcement. There has been vacillation by successive Home Secretaries about the classification of cannabis. In 2010, when cannabis had once again been moved to a different classification, the Lancet stated:

“Politics has been allowed to contaminate scientific processes and the advice that underpins policy”.

The noble Lord, Lord Bates, may correct me but I understand that in the preparation of this legislation the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, created under the 1971 legislation to be the Government’s statutory adviser in this field, was sidelined. As the noble Lord said in moving this amendment, this seems to be an end to evidence-based policy and the attempt at a rational assessment of harm. Ministers have done this through this legislation and the broader policy. They have further discredited the Misuse of Drugs Act, on which they rely and which they insist is so necessary.

In an interview in the Independent in 2005, David Cameron said:

“Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades”.

I greatly fear that this Bill will be another failure, and I commend to the Minister and the Home Secretary the course of action proposed in this amendment.

[Lord Condon (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot support these amendments, not because I challenge the sincerity of those who wish to encourage wider debate about drugs and the value of criminalising or decriminalising them, but because I think this is the wrong Bill at the wrong time to try to bolt on this wider debate. There is a real mischief that needs to be dealt with now: the mischief of so-called legal highs, which, tragically too often, are lethal highs. Many families are grieving in this country because youngsters, in particular, have taken these substances and died as a result. The mischief that needs remedying as soon as possible is the spread of so-called head shops and other such shops in many of our major cities around the country. We are just getting into the serious music festival season. Many of those festivals will have the equivalent of head shops on open display. There is real confusion among many vulnerable, naive youngsters, who assume that, because there are head shops or stands at music festivals selling these substances, they must be medically safe.

I spoke yesterday to the chief constable of Hertfordshire, Andy Bliss, who leads for the police service on these issues, and the police are adamant that there is a real need for this legislation as soon as possible. So let there be a wider debate around the big issues of evidence, prohibition and legalising or not legalising drugs, but we need to deal now, laser-like, with this real and present mischief. Any attempt to make this Bill into a wider debate will dilute, probably defer and possibly damage our intent to deal with this real and present mischief. Although there is a need for this wider debate, I hope that it will not destroy the laser-like focus of this Bill, which deals with a real and imminent problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

I would like to point out that the Government introduced what I consider to be a very good instrument, the temporary class drug orders. These could be sped up. You can, or should be able to, put an order in place quickly for a 12-month period while an assessment is undertaken. If the drug is not deemed to be safe, it is placed under the Misuse of Drugs Act. There is an instrument in place.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

From all his experience, does the noble and learned Lord anticipate that there may be problems in the criminal justice system over definition and establishing that a substance is indeed psychoactive; and that in the case of individuals it is their intention to supply illegally? Also, does he have any anxieties about the practicalities of enforcement? In the interests of the courts and of wider society, it is important that legislation that lays impossible burdens on the police, HMRC and other enforcement authorities is not enacted. They are going to have a large, complex and difficult additional set of tasks under this legislation, at a time of diminishing resources.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The impact assessment to some extent deals with that. It is plain that the difficulty has arisen in relation to the emergence of new substances whenever a particular prohibition is enacted. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, says about this. The problem is that by the time the enactment takes place, considerable harm may be occurring. The idea of this Bill is to prevent the production of these dangerous substances as a general matter of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

These substances are available. For example, a grandmother told me about the death of her grandchild, although it was not directly related to this. She expressed absolute despair that across the road from a school in Canterbury, 100 yards away from it, was a head shop selling “legal highs”. She believes that they are lethal highs. They are allowed to be traded, on the high street, to children way below any age of consent. There are no restrictions, as there are with alcohol and tobacco. Anyone can go in there with cash and come out with a brightly coloured package which actually says “not fit for human consumption” or “plant food”. Are we supposed to stand idly by when the Local Government Association is telling us that and when the police are telling us that they lack the powers to act? The Republic of Ireland has closed these shops down altogether. We need to get a clear and important message to young people that these drugs are not without risk.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

No one is suggesting that we should stand idly by. No one is suggesting that these new psychoactive substances do not carry hideous dangers. No one is suggesting that urgent action is not needed. The question at issue is whether the policies in this legislation are well framed and well designed to address what is undoubtedly a very grave and serious problem.

[Lord Bates]

That is not exactly what the amendment says and we see a risk there to the prospects for the Bill, which carries the support of the Official Opposition and was in their manifesto. It was in the Conservative manifesto that we would bring forward this legislation. Norman Baker, who was the Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office, wrote to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the following terms:

“As our response makes clear, we will explore the feasibility of a UK wide new offence(s) by which the distribution for human consumption of non-controlled NPS is prohibited, based on the approach taken by the Republic of Ireland in 2010. This would give law enforcement greater powers to tackle NPS in general, rather than on a substance by substance basis. The international experience shows that it would have the most impact on the open availability of non-controlled NPS in high street ‘headshops’ and on UK domain websites, placing downward pressure on NPS related harms”.

That was from a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office, not in history but in August 2014. Lynne Featherstone, who was then the Minister at the time, said on 11 March:

“I will be working right up until the dissolution of Parliament to ensure we have done as much as we possibly can to pave the way for a general ban. This will mean the next government can act quickly to clamp down on this reckless trade”.

Those are not the comments of some distant academic but the words of another former Liberal Democrat Minister in Her Majesty’s Government.

Action needs to be taken urgently to tackle new psychoactive substances, but we have not acted in a knee-jerk way, as has been suggested. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looked at this in 2011 and issued a report saying that we should explore legislation to introduce a ban because it was clear that temporary banning orders were not working on an individual case-by-case basis. We then said that we would set up, in addition to that, an expert panel to take a broader range of views, including from law enforcement. That expert panel came to the view that there should be a ban on new psychoactive substances. That view was supported by the Home Affairs Select Committee and by the other committees in Scotland and Wales that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to. It was also of course endorsed by action by the Government in the Republic of Ireland. This is not a knee-jerk response: it has been gathering pace over a period of some three to four years. We have been steadily building up and testing the case, listening to the police and local government, and finding out what is working and what is not working. This is what they have recommended that they want to see.

This is not the end of the matter. In the wider debate, there is no reason there cannot be ongoing exploration of the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The All-Party Drug Misuse Group frequently produces excellent and thorough reports looking at the effectiveness of that overall policy. The Home Affairs Select Committee has the ability to look at this, and has done so. I think that there have even been specific reviews of the Misuse of Drugs Act; for example, in 2001 under the Labour Government. I am going from memory there rather than the official note, so I have to be very careful, but I think it might have been Dame Ruth Runciman who led a review of that nature. This is about timing, and if we need something further, there are many excellent avenues through which that exploration can take place.

The Government’s response is that we have a piece of legislation—the Misuse of Drugs Act—and we have a cross-government policy, which involves health, education and law enforcement. We listened to that advisory committee, took further evidence from the expert panel and recommended the course of action which we are now taking and which this amendment would delay coming into effect. That is why we do not want this amendment to be agreed and why I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it. We have made our case and built the evidence, and we have a mandate from the electorate on the manifesto to act in such a way—as did the noble Lord’s colleagues who served in the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I have no idea whether cannabis is relevant and effective in dealing with nausea or spasms caused by motor neurone disease or other diseases, but I have a wee bit of experience of multiple sclerosis, and I say to the House that I do not want to be used as an excuse to legalise cannabis, because it is not necessary for treating the spasms that come from multiple sclerosis; there is already a fairly large range of drugs on the market that deal with that.

The spasms are difficult to describe and usually happen at night. The main muscles of the body—the torso, the legs and the chest—just spasm, and it is difficult to get a bit of sleep when that happens. In my case, when it started getting bad, my consultant said, “In that case, we must give you a drug that will deal with the spasms”. At the top of the list is baclofen, which is dirt cheap and highly effective. The maximum prescribed dose is 50 milligrams. I take 10 milligrams in the morning and 20 milligrams at night and have had no more body spasms because of it.

Okay, I cannot speak for all multiple sclerosis sufferers. When I was a constituency Member of Parliament, I had constituents come to me who said that they wanted cannabis legalised so that they could deal with their MS. I said that there were clinical trials under way that resulted in the drug Sativex, but they were not so keen to take a pill; they wanted to smoke a joint because it made them feel better in many other ways. Well, it could, but I do not want people who wish to smoke cannabis to get high to use the excuse that it is essential for multiple sclerosis sufferers in order to remove their pain and spasms.

If baclofen does not work—it seems to work for about 95% of people—doctors usually try tizanidine: I will give the Minister the spellings later. Following that, going down the list, is gabapentin. It is not usually prescribed because the other two drugs are usually much more effective. At the bottom of the list is Sativex, which is the cannabis derivative. The problem here, as has been stated already, is that NICE reviewed it and concluded that it was not cost effective. Unfortunately, that is absolutely right, because it costs 10 times as much as baclofen, which I have in my pocket at this precise moment.

I therefore think that the solution is: patients should be prescribed baclofen. If that does not work, they can go on to tizanidine, and if that does not work they can try the next legal drug, gabapentin. If those three do not work, then people can be prescribed Sativex. I suggest that my noble friend the Minister should say to the Department of Health and NICE that in those priority corridors it should be permissible to use it throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Wales overruled NICE and has allowed Sativex to be prescribed. It is not prescribed, except by private prescription, in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think that that is wrong. It should be allowed to be used by doctors but not as the first port of call.

There is merit in rejecting the amendment as far as multiple sclerosis is concerned. It may be beneficial for other illnesses when people suffer spasms but it is not necessary to deal with the problems that occur with multiple sclerosis. I wish to put my liberal credentials—or near liberal credentials—on the table. A part of me takes the view that if people want to smoke a cannabis joint and get high, okay, let them but do not expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for the cancers and other illnesses they may get later. Similarly, a part of me thinks that if people want to eat themselves through gluttony into obesity and sit on their backsides, taking no exercise, let them, provided the NHS does not have to pay for that.

As the taxpayer has to pay for these things and for the dangers which smoking cannabis can cause, the taxpayer and the Government must be in a position to say, “No, I’m sorry. You’re not allowed to smoke that because there are alternatives that can deal with the alleged problem”.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

May I say how welcome it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, on the Front Bench alongside her colleague from the Home Office? I hope that she will report this debate to her colleagues in the Department of Health. It is excellent that the two departments are represented on the Front Bench for this important debate.

The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Ribeiro, spoke with all the authority of their medical expertise, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke with the authority that comes from his own unfortunate experience. I follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher, in commending to the Committee, and very much to the two departments represented on the Front Bench, the report just recently published under the auspices of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform by Professor Val Curran and Mr Frank Warburton, entitled Regulating Cannabis for Medical Use in the UK. Had they heard the presentation of this report by Professor Curran from University College London, they would have been persuaded that the arguments put forward are eminently reasonable.

She talked about the severe constraints applied to the progress of medical research by the Government of the United Kingdom’s persistence in listing cannabis in Schedule 1. She told us that it costs a minimum of some £5,000 to achieve the licence and to pay for the secure conditions to enable the pursuit of research into the medical properties and potential benefits of cannabis. That is a severe discouragement, particularly in the stringent climate of funding for academic research. She estimated that research on cannabis costs some 10 times as much as research on other drugs. It is a serious constraint, yet a significant body of evidence strongly suggests that cannabis-based medications can be beneficial for a whole series of conditions, many of which have been itemised by previous speakers.

The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, drew attention to the tentative evidence that may be emerging of benefits in relation to post-traumatic stress disorder. That is certainly a pressing and important issue for us in this country, as well as in America. Professor Curran also told us that there are suggestions that cannabis could be beneficial in the treatment of schizophrenia. It would seem perverse in the extreme to continue to deny ourselves the opportunity effectively to pursue research on the medical benefits of cannabis when patients suffering from such a range of diseases could be assisted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. In some senses, it is a rehearsal of our discussion following the Oral Question she asked in your Lordships’ House last week.

The Government’s position is that we have no plans to reschedule cannabis. There is clear scientific evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people’s mental and physical health, and which can have a pernicious effect on communities.

Let me deal with a couple of the points that were raised in the debate. In responding to these amendments, I remind the Committee that cannabis is a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and listed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. The 1971 Act will continue to regulate the availability of controlled drugs, and Schedule 1 to the Bill specifically excludes drugs controlled under the 1971 Act.

To move herbal cannabis and cannabis resin to Schedule 2 to the 2001 regulations, and thereby enable their prescribing, would amount to a circumvention of the established evidence-based regulatory process that successive Governments have had in place to ensure that products made available in the UK as medicines are as safe and effective as possible. My noble friend Lord Ribeiro made the point about the importance of rigorous clinical trials.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

How, then, does the Minister explain that heroin, which is a far more dangerous drug, is in Schedule 2?

[Lord Bates]

I shall come to that a little further on. The point made by the noble Lord about diamorphine, which is prescribed in this country, is perfectly fair. Interestingly, in some other countries it is not prescribed. There will be a difference of view. That is one reason why, from a government and policy point of view, it is important that we have the best possible scientific advice and give due regard to it. The advisory council is specifically charged with that under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; that categorisation is its view. Should there be derivatives—I shall answer my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s point on that in a minute—we have the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which can offer some advice as well. Beyond that, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence can decide on the deployment.

That is not a case of policymakers passing the buck but of their basing policy on the evidence that comes before them. The Government’s position, based on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, is that cannabis in its raw form is a harmful drug and its use should not be encouraged. The advisory council has reported that there is clear evidence that cannabis has a number of acute and chronic health effects, and that prolonged use can induce dependence. Even occasional use of the drug can pose significant dangers for people with mental health problems.

--- Later in debate ---

I end by referring to the European Commission’s regulation on new psychoactive substances, which was proposed on 17 September 2013 and passed by the European Parliament on 17 April. We need to learn from the work done by the European Commission in producing that regulation. In proposing this new clause, I am not suggesting we should have no legislative response to new psychoactive substances—I would not take that view at all—but we need evidence-based policy designed to reduce the harms caused by the risk-taking behaviour of too many young people. After all, as I say, these young people do not want to kill themselves or harm themselves. If we give them the right environment and the right information, we can keep them a lot safer than we are doing today or than we will do under the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I find it baffling that the Government, presented with the evidence from the two laboratory experiments that have taken place in recent years, in Ireland and in Poland, have none the less persisted in their approach of introducing a blanket ban on the supply of new psychoactive substances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just told the Committee, in the four years since the ban was introduced in Ireland, following an initial dip in the use of psychoactive substances and a rapid disappearance of head shops, consumption of new psychoactive substances actually rose to higher levels than before. The Irish, it is reported, are the largest consumers of new psychoactive substances in Europe. That has followed the implementation of a ban essentially the same as the Government are now proposing to introduce in this country.

Similarly in Poland, three years after the ban was introduced, the number of what the Poles call “poisonings” has risen to above the level before the ban. The evidence is that, in the face of a ban and of the closing down of the sources of supply that users were previously availing themselves of, users have resorted to more obscure and more dangerous suppliers online. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has confirmed that. It also seems highly likely that, with the greater difficulty of obtaining new psychoactive substances, more people taking drugs will have resorted to taking controlled substances and, indeed, may have become poly-drug users.

There seems to be some very significant evidence available from the experiences of bans in these two countries to indicate that the Government’s approach is fundamentally misconceived. The Minister has insisted that the approach of the Home Office is always to base its policy on good science, good evidence and expert advice. How come then that, in the face of this evidence, it is persisting with the policy that it is presenting to the House in this Bill?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I very much support what has been said on this amendment and, indeed, the amendment itself, in particular because we want to avoid driving those human beings who will go on using drugs underground. One small point I want to mention, before I forget about it, is that the impact in Northern Ireland should be looked at, because I wonder what has been happening across the border. The report by Mark Easton yesterday, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred, revealed the difficulty that the police have in proving that a substance has a psychoactive effect. That seems to me to be very much at the heart of this, with only four successful prosecutions in five years.

The expert panel talked about “robust” definitions and the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House reported, I think yesterday, on the need for certainty. The Joint Committee on Human Rights probably does not have its full membership yet, but no doubt it would have taken points on the importance of certainty in legislation—it did so for other legislation, particularly the recent anti-social behaviour Bill. The Constitution Committee said:

“The Bill inevitably exists in tension (at least to some extent) with the principle of legal certainty since its raison d’être is the regulation of activities in respect of substances that may not currently exist and whose nature and composition cannot readily be prescribed in advance with any accuracy”.

I thought that was very honest of it. However, it then went on to comment about not making,

“unacceptably broad inroads into the principle of legal certainty”.

We may come on to some of the detail of that on later amendments, but it seems to me to be very relevant to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has made with this amendment.

A proper, independent assessment would mean that we had advice that was not from those defending their own scheme, which can sometimes happen. I hope that we can hear sympathetically from the Minister on this, because I have absolutely no doubt that the noble Baroness will pursue this matter throughout the passage of the Bill and she will certainly have support from these Benches when—not if—she does that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I will come to that in just a minute because it is a specific point which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised in the earlier debate on the issue of the “Newsnight” report, of which I have read a transcript although I did not actually catch it last night. I want to address some of the points in there. What I am going through is the methodology by which we arrived where we were. Taking the amendment at its word, we are effectively deciding whether we should delay the progress of the UK introducing the new psychoactive substances legislation and the blanket ban in order to undertake an assessment of how effective the 2010 Act has been in the Republic of Ireland. Our view on that is no, because that assessment has already taken place in the expert panel review and—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The Minister invited us to look at page 38 of the expert panel’s report, where it recognised that there were some risks. It said that:

“A precautionary principle would now be used rather than one of acting proportionately in response to evidence of harm”,

and went on to suggest that very significant difficulties would attach to this approach. It was by no means unambiguous in its recommendation of the blanket ban.

[Lord Bates]

Let me try to avoid the ambiguity in it. The expert panel recommended that there should be a blanket ban. A blanket ban in the Republic of Ireland had been operating for three years, so it had had an opportunity to look at that. It looked at New Zealand and what had been happening there as another example. I can also point to the report in March from the Health and Social Care Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, in which recommendation 13 of its inquiry said:

“The Committee welcomes the Home Office’s expert panel’s recommendation of a ban on the supply of NPS in the UK, similar to the approach introduced in Ireland”.

I also have a quote from paragraph 4.23 of the report from the similar expert group set up by the Scottish Government:

“The Group agreed that there are a number of benefits to the Irish model, which could strengthen the tools that are currently available and being used by agencies to tackle NPS supply in Scotland”.

What I am doing here is piecing together the information to show that we did not whistle this out of thin air. Some serious people—whether you agree or disagree with them—looked at what was happening in Ireland, and this was their conclusion on which they based their recommendation.

To the next point, I am very much with the noble Baroness. I happen to think that one of the things with which we got close to this, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was the Modern Slavery Act. It is without doubt the piece of legislation in either place with which I am most proud to be associated. One reason why was because of the process in which it actually engaged. It listened to the people who were on the ground, it talked to people, it talked to the experts, it framed legislation, it had pre-legislative scrutiny and there was an ongoing system of monitoring. Also, the Government committed themselves to proper post-legislative scrutiny; we will need to look at that. Should your Lordships and Parliament determine that the Bill gets on to the statute book, in our plans, although there is no set time for it, in a period of three to five years and certainly within the lifetime of this Parliament there will be some post-legislative scrutiny.

The other point which I make in passing here is that, if our friends in the Republic of Ireland were to undertake an impact assessment of our politicking to tackle this, it might not look so sharp. They would say, “Well, what has the UK been doing popping around with temporary banning orders, and every time they tweak one molecule the perpetrators and the traffickers simply change the packaging and change the molecule? What a ridiculous system that is”. In a sense it can go both ways and we must be conscious of that critique of us.

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to do that. We are in Committee and this is where the Government listen to the arguments—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Should the Irish Government take post-legislative scrutiny of their legislation, will the Minister take that into account?

[Lord Bates]

Of course we will take it into account, but should we necessarily stop taking our own advice and implement what has been recommended to us until that time happens? Of course this is a fast-moving world in which there are very devious forces—“ingenious forces” is the correct term—using their dark methods to perpetrate these drugs, which are blighting the lives of communities. That was a key message that came out of the “Newsnight” documentary. Here was a community that was absolutely blighted. Unless I actually misread the transcript that I saw, the people there certainly were not saying, “Hey, listen, let us just have a free-for-all”. They were saying, “Where are the Gardai? Where are the police? We want them to come down, because these drugs are running rife in our community”.

Of course, there will always be chancers—we will come up with one answer to this, then people will come up with something in response, whether it is on the dark web or elsewhere. One of the wonderful things about this House is that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who is an acknowledged expert in drug policy, mentioned the dark web, while behind her sits the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who can offer her a tutorial on the dark web if required. The point is that we are all moving in the same direction.

I am conscious of the figures that have been put out in the Eurobarometer poll, which talked about the level of usage. This figure should be viewed with caution, because: the sample for each member state is relatively low, at 500 respondents; the questions used have changed over the years, making comparisons over time less reliable; and the Eurobarometer survey tends to overestimate usage when compared to more robust surveys.

As I touched upon earlier, we can say categorically that prior to the introduction of the Irish legislation in 2010, 102 head shops were operating in Ireland. After the legislation came into force, the trade virtually disappeared, and the Garda drugs unit told the BBC just last week that the head-shop trade has gone. Furthermore, no Irish-domain web pages selling NPS are still in operation. Those are examples of concrete progress. They may not address all the points, but I hope that they might demonstrate to the noble Baroness that the Government have considered this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I just wonder whether it would be for the Secretary of State to monitor this. I would have thought that the importance of this topic, particularly in the light of the concerns that the noble Baroness has expressed, would merit post-legislative scrutiny by a committee—usually a Joint Committee of both Houses—rather than by the Secretary of State. There is room for that sort of consideration to be kept in mind. I think that the Minister has given at least some encouragement to that and I certainly think that that would be a good thing to do, rather than have the Secretary of State in a sense being his own monitor in this area. It is better that it should be independent, in the sense of being done by Parliament.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I suggest that post-legislative scrutiny would be assisted if the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government as a whole, were to make an annual report to Parliament along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has suggested. I propose that an annual report from the Government as a whole should cover the three principal strands in the drug strategy introduced by the coalition Government in 2010: reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery.

I hope that the annual report would begin with a presentation of the facts, in so far as they had been ascertained by the Government, and that it would cover developments in the usage of drugs of all sorts: controlled drugs, psychoactive substances under the terms of the Bill, exempted substances under the terms of the Bill, and prescription drugs of which there is abuse. I would also want to see a breakdown by age groups and by regions. We need to know about consumption patterns—whether the consumption of one drug is being displaced by consumption of another; what new drugs are available to consumers in this country; what the most popular ones are, and the ones about which there is the greatest cause for anxiety. We need to know about developments in purity, potency and toxicity.

I hope that the Government would advise Parliament on the development of markets in drugs and tell us what us has happened to the head shops, year by year. Maybe they will all close down quickly, as in Ireland. If so, I hope that the Government would then tell us where people are finding their drugs—perhaps from online sources such as the surface web, but perhaps from the grey net or the dark net. All this is usefully discussed in a preliminary way in the latest annual report from the European monitoring centre. But 18 months ago, the European monitoring centre reported that there were 651 websites selling drugs to Europeans. We need to know what the evolution of this online market is and about the shifting locations. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, told us just now that, following the legislation in Ireland, Irish web-based domains were closed down. But we know that at the same time the consumption of new psychoactive substances has risen in Ireland. Where, then, are Irish consumers obtaining their drugs? We would need to have that equivalent information here. We need to know about patterns of social media use relevant to the drugs trade and what is happening in terms of street markets and gangs.

I hope also that the Home Office would report to Parliament on the drugs situation in prisons, which is an extremely disturbing situation, one understands. Which drugs are most in use in prisons? How have they been obtained? The Home Office should report on any issues there may be about corruption in the National Offender Management Service; on the effectiveness, as it believes it to be, of the means it is using to try to reduce drug consumption in prisons; and on the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Very importantly, the Home Office needs to report on the question of continuity. What happens to prisoners when they leave prison? Do they continue to have the benefit of rehabilitation services? What is the relapse rate? The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, told this House, perhaps a couple of years ago, that the Chief Inspector of Prisons had reported that in Her Majesty’s Prison Oakwood it was easier to obtain drugs than soap. We need to know what progress the Home Office and the Government as a whole are making with regard to prisons.

We should be advised on the Government’s dealings with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—what advice they have sought from the council, what advice they have received from the council, what advice they have accepted from the council and what advice they have rejected from the council. In the case of rejection of the council’s advice, I hope that the Government would offer a reasoned explanation as to why they have declined to accept the advice that the ACMD has given—as has occurred on a number of occasions in recent years.

We should be told what drugs have been newly controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act regime and about how, in practice, the relationship between the various relevant regimes—the MDA regime and the regime created under this legislation in respect of psychoactive substances and exempted substances—relate to each other, and whether it is effective co-ordination or the Government see problems in having at least three different systems of regulation operating concurrently. I hope that we would hear about the dealings of the Government with other consultees and partners: people with academic expertise, the voluntary sector, non-governmental organisations and other expert organisations.

We should be provided with information about the state of forensic services, about which the Home Secretary has recently expressed her own personal anxiety. We will come a little later in our proceedings to talk about the possibility of a network of testing centres. Do the Government think that that is desirable? If so, what progress is there in making testing facilities widely available around the country? We will need a report on progress in education and training, but, again, we will have an opportunity to discuss those issues more extensively a little later.

I hope that we would hear about the impact of drug usage of all kinds—controlled drugs, psychoactive substances and the exempted substances—on health, society and the economy. The European monitoring centre has particularly asked the Government to monitor acute drug-related harms. Again, I would expect to see their response to the EMC reflected in the report. Of course we would want to know about the progress of treatment and engagement strategies with different groups of consumers or people at risk.

We should hear a report on enforcement and the strategies of the NCA, the police and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. If the online trade is thriving, and if that is becoming the principal source of supply, we should be advised what percentage of postal packages, for example, the system is able to check for drugs. We should also know what percentage of shipping containers the Government are able to inspect.

Surveillance will be another important component of the report. What powers are the Government using to ascertain what is going on in the drugs trade, particularly the online trade? We need to know the statistics on the usage of data-search powers and have an assessment of their effectiveness. Perhaps a little later, the Minister will give us some preliminary thoughts on how the enforcement regime that the Government are proposing to create through this legislation will relate to the new surveillance regime, which we understand the Home Office will introduce later in the year. Undoubtedly, these things will need to be understood in conjunction.

The Bill creates powers of prohibition notices and prohibition orders, and we would want to hear about the incidence and effectiveness of the use of those powers. We would want to know the number of seizures and successes, but also about the challenges that the Government identify. The new stop-and-search powers created in the Bill are another appropriate subject for report and we will debate those towards the end of Committee.

We would need to hear about the Government’s progress in dealing with the problems of money laundering and the extent to which the proceeds of the drugs trade are thought to be funding terrorism. We will need to know about the costs of enforcing this regime—not just to the NCA, the police and HMRC but to the Financial Conduct Authority, which I think has lead responsibility for dealing with money laundering; the criminal justice system, which, for example, will incur costs in hearings in the attempt to establish definitions of psychoactive substances; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. At Second Reading, the Minister was kind enough to say that he would follow up the point I made previously, that when mephedrone was banned, the Government did seek to come to an understanding with the Chinese authorities so that they would facilitate the effective interdiction of supply. However, it appears that that did not work very well because production shifted to India. We will want to know what part the Foreign Office is playing in assisting the Home Office to make a success of its strategy.

The local government dimension is hugely important. The Minister has explained that the Government are acting in response to pleas from the Local Government Association, and we all understand how very unpleasant and difficult it is for people if they have head shops in their neighbourhoods and the anti-social behaviour that may be associated with that. But there will be costs for local government in training and maintaining in the field the numbers of trading standards officers that are going to be needed and, I dare say, in prevention, more youth workers. Again, it would be useful to know what is going on there. The Department of Health will have a whole complex story to tell.

I think that the Government would owe it to Parliament to provide in the annual report a cost-benefit analysis of the overall strategy: have they found, with experience, that the policy is working as they hoped? How does it need modification? What do they see as the way forward?

I acknowledge that all this may make for quite a long report, but I think that it would be very interesting and worthwhile and a very useful form of accountability of government to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am not sure whether it is fair to ask the Minister this, but perhaps her noble friend sitting beside her will find an opportunity to comment. While I readily accept that it is unrealistic to expect the Home Office within 12 months to produce a report remotely of the range that I suggested, none the less over time the compass of the report should grow so that it does address itself on behalf of the Government as a whole to that range of issues and concerns.

I wonder whether some of the difficulty that the Government may find in producing an annual report on their policies in relation to drugs and how they are proceeding may be because there have been such extensive reductions in staffing in Whitehall that it is very difficult for departments to get this work done. It would be helpful to have some comment on that and on the structure within government whereby the Home Office works in co-ordination with other government departments in the broader strategy to deal with the problem of drugs, to which I understand that Government are committed.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I thank the noble Lord. I have a lot of sympathy for what he said, and I think that it is right for us to go away and reflect on this and come back at Report. Of course, the Home Office has every intention of reviewing the Bill once it is implemented. We just do not feel we should put such a commitment in primary legislation. It is in our interests to consider the impact of this Bill and how the psychoactive substance market is changing to ensure that both our legislative and non-legislative responses are as effective as possible. Having said that, of course we will go away and think further on this.

--- Later in debate ---

Would the Minister expand a little on that in particular? I think he is aware of this specific question—whether it somehow goes further than, or is different from, what is brought into the Bill by the element of recklessness in the offences clauses. Is allowing something to enter the body different from being reckless as to its consumption?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the definition of a psychoactive substance in the Bill does indeed seem to me rather vague. We should be grateful to both noble Baronesses who have so far spoken in this debate for pressing the Government to tighten the definition and to give us some clarification. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain to the House the basis upon which he was able to give us an assurance—I thought he gave it rather tentatively and with less than full confidence—at Second Reading, that if he were to send a bouquet of flowers for the gratification of Lady Bates, he would not be in breach of the law. I see that it is suggested that incense might be caught under the law. How can he be sure that all kinds of substances and activities that, on a common-sense view, people would regard as innocent may not in fact be caught?

I would also like clarification—if this is not leaping ahead too far—as to what is, in Schedule 1, a traditional herbal remedy. The term is terribly loose. I fancy that it is going to be quite difficult for police officers or courts to be very clear what the term “traditional” in a legally binding context means. How in practice does he foresee psychoactive substances are going to be identified? Will there have to be tests in court? That would seem to be expensive and disproportionate. Will there have to be a large number of placebo-based comparative scientific trials? Again, that would seem expensive, disproportionate and impractical. I think he owes it to us to clarify a little further than the drafting of the Bill does what he means by psychoactive substance.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. She seems to have a fairly good point—to me as an amateur anyway.

I wish to make my remarks mainly about Amendment 9. This may be heretical to noble and learned Lords and parliamentary draftsmen, but why can we not have the Government’s definition and the definition in Amendment 9? Definitions are going to be the big problem with this Bill—everybody recognises that—and I see no merit in brevity of definition if it makes for confusion. On the other hand, we do not want it to be tautological and we do not want too big a definition which is contradictory. I am sure that noble and learned Lords and parliamentary draftsmen will ensure that that does not happen. I ask the Minister to keep an open mind on this and be relaxed about extending the definition or picking up bits of Amendment 9 if it helps to bring more clarity, irrespective of the length of the definition.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 10 seeks to narrow this definition so that the circumstances in which a person allows but does not cause the substance to be consumed are taken out of the scope of the Bill. We are mindful of the need comprehensively to capture all methods of taking a substance into the body and not allow any loopholes which will give the suppliers of these substances a “get-out”. I recognise the concern expressed at Second Reading that, under the definition we are proposing, any number of products may be inadvertently swept up. I recall the example of flowers, although my recollection is that they were flowers for my noble friend Lady Browning, which may have caused even more concern to Lady Bates.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Baroness explained that she was a chocolate addict. However, chocolate is exempted in Schedule 1 and she need not have worried. I am worried that Lady Bates is not going to have the pleasure of floral tributes from her husband.

[Lord Bates]

I will send her chocolates.

I can assure noble Lords that we are dealing here with the trade in new psychoactive substances. In looking at the workings of the Bill it is necessary to consider the definition of a psychoactive substance alongside the elements of the offences in Clauses 4 to 8, which we will come to shortly. It is not correct to equate the effect of a scent wafting through the air with the direct inhalation of fumes, such as from a solvent, and the offences apply only where a substance is likely to be consumed for its psychoactive effect. We may all appreciate the sight and smell of a fine bouquet of flowers, but we are not consuming the flowers or their scent for their psychoactive effect.

The noble Baroness asked whether the reference to “allows” in Clause 2(3) goes further than the recklessness test in the offence clauses. The noble Baroness is, I fear, seeking to compare apples and pears. In Clause 2 we are not dealing with the mental elements of criminal offences. The phraseology in Clause 2 is designed for a wholly separate purpose compared with that used to determine the mens rea of the various offences, so the question whether “allows” is a higher or lower test than recklessness does not arise.

I shall respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The ban will come into effect as soon as the Bill is brought into force. What we are debating here is the quality of evidence required to pursue a successful prosecution. As I have said, we have asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to provide advice on how we can strengthen our forensic capacity to this end. It goes without saying, therefore—given that we are consulting widely on this— that the opinions and views of your Lordships’ House will also be helpful at arriving at that definition of minimal harm.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

11: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance
The Secretary of State must issue guidance, before this Act comes into force and regularly updated thereafter, as to how users, enforcement authorities and others can identify individual psychoactive substances, the degree of the psychoactivity, their safe uses and their relative harms.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the new clause proposed in Amendment 11 follows very closely on the debate which we held just before the dinner break. In their proposals in this Bill the Government are setting a very complex and difficult task for police officers, customs officers and others. The definition of a psychoactive substance is quite deliberately broad and, some would say, vague. Powders and pills look much alike and the question is, how is an officer to know, first, if a substance is indeed a psychoactive one and, secondly, what is in the mind of the person in possession of that substance? How are they to determine the intention? That is essential in the establishment of whether or not a criminal offence is being committed. I would also be grateful if the Minister told us whether he envisages that there will be a de minimis level of psychoactivity and below that level, enforcement officers will not be worrying and will not seek to enforce the regime that the Bill creates. Or, are the Government saying that any substance which is at any level psychoactive is to be controlled, in the sense that this particular legislation will control it?

As we have also acknowledged in earlier debates, there is a shortage of forensic facilities in this country. That is why the Home Secretary belatedly, just before the Bill was tabled in Parliament, wrote to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to ask,

“how best we can establish a comprehensive scientific approach for determining psychoactivity for evidential purposes”.

That suggests that the Home Secretary is rushing into enacting legislation before she has any clear idea as to how it would work. What we know is that significant additional burdens will be laid upon police whose numbers and resources have been diminishing and may well continue to do so. These measures, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has already put to the House, may further inhibit research in important respects and create multiple new possibilities for the criminalisation of people who are in some way involved with new psychoactive substances.

I propose that the Government owe it to consumers, businesses, research institutions and those responsible for enforcement to explain exactly what they intend, and to advise them all on how this legislation would work. The Minister kindly undertook to write to us, the Peers who have been involved in consideration of this Bill, between Committee and Report. I suggest that in due course the Government should write to a much wider range of readers—people who will have responsibilities created under this legislation, who will need to understand the definition of and the practicalities of identifying a psychoactive substance, and what is in the minds of people they apprehend who may be contemplating purposes that the Government wish to discourage and would make a criminal offence. That is the burden of the new clause proposed in Amendment 11. The Secretary of State must issue guidance before this Bill comes into force and keep it regularly updated thereafter as to how users, enforcement authorities and others can identify individual psychoactive substances, the degree of their psychoactivity, their safe uses and their relative harms.

I now move to the new clause proposed in Amendment 12, in the same group. If people are to look after themselves and others—their children, friends and people whose interests they care about—they are going to need full and reliable information about psychoactive substances. We have heard much about how the internet can be a force for bad, but it can also be a force for good in its ability to disseminate information that may be extremely valuable and helpful in enabling people’s safety to be preserved. It is the Government’s responsibility to use the means at their disposal to provide the fullest information they can. The previous Government, I think, relaunched the FRANK website, the earlier version of which was considerably criticised, but I praise them for doing this because it is a genuine effort to provide fairly full and certainly honest information about psychoactive substances.

The difficulty about the Talk to FRANK website is that its official provenance and rather starchy tone mean that it will not be the go-to website for young people who want to find out about drugs. While it is important that the Government maintain a website of this kind and amplify the information that it provides, they should recognise that the work they do in preparing and maintaining such a website is complementary to other, unofficial sites that are created and maintained by experienced people, whose motive is good, because they want to share information about the realities of psychoactive substances and protect people from coming to harm by their use of such substances. I have in mind websites created by organisations such as DrugScope, Bluelight, Urban75, SafeOrScam and PillReports, which are examples of some of the websites to which people can go to learn about psychoactive substances. Those websites are maintained with very good intentions with regard to the public good—public safety and health—and I therefore hope that the Government see their work as complementary.

At all events, we need to capture as much evidence as we can about the substances, so that we better understand the harms we are trying to prevent, the ills we need to cure and the effectiveness of the measures taken to prevent people coming to harm, and to remedy— so far as is possible—the harms that people experience. We should learn as much as we can from collaboration with other countries; the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is an excellent model of international information sharing and co-operation. However, we cannot expect the people of this country habitually to turn to the website of the EMCDDA; they need to have something that is designed for them, and more appropriate and accessible for them.

My second proposal, in subsection (b) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 12, is that the Secretary of State should provide,

“a network of testing centres, readily accessible at no charge to users and others, at which they can be informed about the identity, composition, toxicity and potential harms to human health of any substances brought in by them which there is reason to think may be psychoactive”.

As I understand it, that service is available in the Netherlands. It appears that they have a fuller range of forensic resources and facilities for the identification and testing of substances, and that access to those facilities is freely available to the public at large as well as to officials and enforcement authorities. We should seek to construct such a model in this country, not least because an early alert to a bad consignment of drugs, which is very dangerous, could save lives. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on both those amendments. We talked a lot about legislation earlier on today, but we know, both internationally and from the Home Affairs Select Committee and others, that legislation does not make very much difference at all to the key issues relating to drugs, whether traditional drugs or new psychoactive substances. The important job the Government have concerns information. I have said it before and will say it again: young people do not want to kill themselves, believe it or not, and they do not even want to harm themselves and finish up in hospital. Why do they kill themselves and finish up in hospital? Because they do not have the information they need to keep themselves safe. Why do they not have the information? Because far too many substances are banned in a rather simplistic way. Countries such as the Netherlands, which have coffee shops where people can get cannabis, have very little problem with heroin, for example. There are other ways of keeping people safe. But the most important way, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, says, is information. I agree with his ideas about how this should be done—it cannot be typical government information. It really is important. If we stopped focusing on legislation quite so much and focused on some of these other issues, we might actually make some progress.

I want also to support the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in relation to the testing centres. Testing centres would be a very important adjunct if we were to have a more proportionate system where low-harm substances would be regulated, labelled and so on, as recommended by the European Commission and approved by the European Parliament. If we had a proportionate system like that, and had testing centres, a young person could go into a testing centre and ask whether a substance was low harm and okay to take. With a combination of a proportionate legal system, testing centres and really good information, we would begin to have a really good drugs policy. Would that not be wonderful? We could lead the world with such a policy.

Many Latin American countries talk about these things. They know just how bad the war on drugs can be. They know just how important it is for the demand end of the drugs market to be managed effectively in order to save them from tens of thousands of deaths a year, corruption, government failure and all the rest of it. It is absolutely disastrous across the Atlantic. In my view, we have a responsibility to ourselves and our young people but also to Latin America and central American countries.

I very strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said. I really hope that Ministers will take it very seriously and somehow link it with a proportionate, rational system of drug control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for that. That is probably covered by FRANK, which is an element of our broad approach to prevention. We are investing in a range of programmes that have a positive impact on young people and adults, giving them the confidence, resilience and risk-management skills to resist drug use. It has been a valuable resource for young people, parents and teachers, especially when used for wider resilience-building and behaviour change. It continues to be updated to reflect new and emerging patterns of drug use and to evolve to remain in line with young people’s media habits and to strengthen advice and support. Since its launch it has been visited by more than 35 million people, and millions have called the helpline to speak to specially trained advisers.

I hope that explanation has gone at least some way to satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and that on that basis he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Norton, and particularly my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on the Front Bench. He saw some merit in what I said. This illustrates the virtue of the Committee process. The dialectic helps us all to learn. My noble friend Lady Meacher was right to say that information is at the very least as important as legislation, because we have all this evidence that prohibition has not worked. In that case, it is much better that people should be helped to understand what they do.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was concerned that my recommendation of a network of testing centres would lay impossible demands on the existing resources of laboratories and forensic facilities. Of course, he is right: with our existing resources we could not possibly construct such a network that would be accessible in all regions of the country. My proposition is that we should aim to achieve that. We know that this legislation will in any case require an expansion of forensic facilities. It seems to me that you can achieve both purposes simultaneously: to enable those whose responsibility it is to enforce the law to have speedy access to the information they need, but to also assist vulnerable consumers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his endorsement of the value and importance of providing reliable, trustworthy and up-to-date information to all concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord when he is in full flow, but I think he might be coming to the end. If he is considering bringing this back, I wonder if I could raise one thing that has been troubling me during this debate, concerning the advice as to harm or danger. If it is advice as to whether something is or is or not harmful, perhaps before the next stage, he might think about duties of care and liability and all those things. If it is advice as to whether a substance is dangerous, very dangerous or fatal, does he share my concern? I am not seeking to pick holes; I genuinely want to explore the subject. My concern is that if there are those categories, the lowest category would be interpreted as meaning “not harmful”; in other words, it would be reduced to people thinking, “Well, it’s not fatal and it’s not very dangerous, so it must be okay”. I do not know if there is a way through all this.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, makes a very important point, and I think that it was strongly suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, as well. We have to convey that there is no such thing as a safe dose. We are dealing with relative harms. We are helping individuals who are possibly ignorant, gullible and vulnerable—they may be very knowledgeable—to navigate their way through what is very treacherous territory indeed. The Government, in partnership with other well-intended agencies, NGOs and the voluntary sector, should be quite systematic about trying to ensure that the best information is available to people who are going to take risks and may come to appalling harm. In this policy-making process, we are looking for the least bad solution. We are not dealing with an ideal world—there is not going to be a drugs-free world; some would contend that that is not even an ideal. At any rate, the practical reality is that people will always use drugs, so our responsibility as good citizens and the responsibility of the Front Bench opposite on behalf of the Government is to minimise harm and danger.

Finally, the Minister talked about the value of the European early warning system, which is an important component of the array of policies to try to protect people from harm. But as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, inquired, we need to know how the Government intend to make sure that those early warnings are widely circulated and reach the people who are perhaps most in need of them. Earlier this year there was a spate of stories about people being killed by taking new psychoactive substances, which seem to have arrived somewhere in East Anglia and were spreading quite rapidly across the country. Whether or not there had been an early warning from an official European system, the fact is that people did not get the advice they needed in time. We have to think of all the best practical ways we can in order to help spare people that kind of fate. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

13: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Education
(1) The Secretary of State shall require that all children of secondary school age receive education designed to teach them about the realities of psychoactive substances (whether controlled or otherwise) and develop them as persons who are informed, risk-aware, resilient and responsible in relation to psychoactive substances.
(2) Ofsted and equivalent agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland shall, in the course of their normal inspections of secondary schools of all kinds, inspect the performance of individual schools in drug education and include their findings on this in the reports which they issue on those schools.
(3) Ofsted and equivalent agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland shall publish an annual report on the state of drug education in schools in each nation of the UK, together with recommendations.
(4) The Secretary of State shall monitor the programmes and resources available to schools to support their teaching about psychoactive substances of all sorts (including both controlled and exempted substances).”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I apologise that the Committee has to put up with an inordinate amount of talk from me, but I will be as brief as I can on what is a subject of major importance: how we strengthen education in relation to drugs. In introducing this proposed new clause, I congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench on their excellent new clause set out in Amendment 104, which is grouped with this one.

The coalition’s strategy as enunciated in 2010 included reducing demand, and in that, education is or should be key. I would like to see the Secretaries of State for the Home Office, for Education, for BIS and for Health jointly reporting as proposed in the new clause set out in Amendment 104. My noble friends have called for an annual report on the subject of education, but it should be one that emanates from the Government as a whole, and particularly those departments.

The situation as it stands is that schools are required to provide drug education programmes and information about drugs in the science national curriculum. But not all schools, indeed a diminishing number, are required to deliver the national curriculum, and even in those that are, the evidence is that this fairly minimal requirement does not prove to be particularly effective in educating people about the realities of drugs. After much anguished debate, the last Government decided that PSHE should be a non-statutory subject in the national curriculum. It is fair to say that the last Government provided funding for early intervention to support children at risk, and I assume that the troubled families programme has something to offer in this connection.

I have read that the Government are spending some £7 million annually on drug education as a whole. On the other hand, the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mike Penning, told the House of Commons in a Written Answer on 2 June that the total spend on education and prevention campaigns in relation to new psychoactive substances from 2013 to 2015 had been only £180,556. That seems extraordinarily little. It would be helpful if the Minister provided the House with correct figures so that we know what the Government are spending on various aspects of drug education. Whatever it is, however, I would contend that it is inadequate.

The Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons, in its 2012 report Breaking the Cycle, was scathing about the efforts being made at that time by the Government to promote education about drugs. It quoted the charity Mentor, which complained angrily:

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

The committee found that most schools provide drug education once a year or less. I have no doubt that there are schools that do very well, but the Home Affairs Select Committee was talking about the generality of schools. It reported that the Department for Education, with, one might say, a shrug of its institutional shoulders, had said that it does not monitor the programmes and resources that schools use to support their teaching. That is why, in subsection (4) of new Clause 13, I have proposed that the Secretary of State,

“shall monitor the programmes and resources available to schools to support their teaching”.

It seems to me a dreadful dereliction of responsibility if that is not happening.

Education strategy in the fight against drugs must be transformed. When the public health campaign about tobacco got serious, it worked. The Secretary of State must insist that all secondary schools take seriously their responsibility to educate children about drugs. It may well be argued—and it may well be right—that education should start before children reach the secondary level; certainly it should apply in every secondary school.

Effective techniques exist to teach young people resilience and the capacity to make their own considered decisions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, we must act on the demand at that point—legislation is not going to do it on its own. We must bring about a society in which fewer people want to use these substances. The way to make a very good start on that is to get serious about education.

I have made specific proposals about the role of Ofsted and the equivalent agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. School inspections should routinely examine what is happening with drug education in schools, and Ofsted’s findings should go into its reports on each school. Ofsted should also publish an annual report on the state of drug education in schools in each nation of the United Kingdom and make recommendations about necessary improvements. That way, not only would the message get out to all schools but all schools would be invigilated and monitored on the way they acquit themselves of this responsibility.

More broadly, it is not just specific drug education that matters: it is the quality of education overall. The propensity to use drugs correlates with poor educational standards and is found more widely in communities where, as things stand, the standard of education offered in local schools is not what we would wish. Deficient education is among the pathologies that incubate drug abuse. It is a broader question.

The same vigour needs to be brought to the approach in further and higher education. The funding councils should make it a condition of publicly provided support for the universities that they demonstrate that they have programmes to help people understand the realities of drugs and that they report on what they are doing every year. Universities UK ought to promote best practice, not only in relation to new psychoactive substances but to prescription drugs that are being widely misused by students in universities, as I have mentioned before.

Drug users of all ages need help to become properly informed, properly risk aware and properly capable of taking their own sensible, responsible decisions. I hope that the Minister, in responding, will also tell us how his department, which has lead responsibility in government, plans to work with other government departments, particularly with the Department for Education, and to ensure that we have a coherent strategy that tackles this problem at the roots and does not simply try to patch things up when they have gone wrong. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful as these are important amendments and I pay tribute to the noble Lord for introducing them. When we had our meeting of all interested Peers, he said that it was vital that we spaced our time in Committee to allow in-depth debates on the key themes which run through drug policy. To me one of the key themes, along with enforcement, must be the value and importance of education. The noble Lord has afforded us that opportunity, along with the Official Opposition, and I am grateful for that.

I want to address some specific concerns, but a number of the points that I will raise were touched upon by my noble friend Lady Chisholm. She was good enough to say something about me but, behind the scenes, the great joy which your Lordships cannot see is that when we are having our briefings, because of her distinguished background in nursing and her volunteering within a drug rehabilitation unit, she brings great sensitivity and understanding to this issue. I have drawn on that many times myself and I am grateful for it.

I want to start with the big picture on education. The more that I have looked into it, the more I think that the most difficult thing in winning the battle in education has been the term “legal highs”. The fact that we have seen this sort of heading everywhere—it is pervasive, even on the high streets—saying there is somehow a high which is not age restricted, and which you can walk into a shop to get without being prosecuted for it, has been one of the most dangerous things for the policy of education. One of the groups which came to see me and officials at the Home Office in support of the Bill said that, above all, they wished that we could get the message out to young people that these are often not legal highs but lethal highs. Because of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made at Second Reading about the pharmacology of these drugs, the term used was that people are often playing Russian roulette as to which part of the batch they receive. Added to the fact of their being able to get these substances on the high street through a store, without producing any ID or proof of age whatever, it does immense damage to the education cause to which we are all committed.

As in other parts of the legislation, we have sought to draw upon expert opinion where we can. A number of recommendations were made in the report by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Prevention of Drug and Alcohol Dependence. It highlighted the importance of embedding universal drug prevention actions in wider strategies to support healthy development and well-being in general. It also recognised that targeted, drug-specific prevention interventions remain a valid approach to those individuals considered to be at risk of harm. That came on board along with the expert panel’s report. When the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, spoke at Second Reading, he really tried to put me on the spot by saying that there was a substantial section in the expert panel’s report about education. While that was published under the coalition Government, he wanted to know whether it would remain government policy. I made the point that that was absolutely the case and that we remain committed to it.

I am pretty sure—and I will write on this if I am wrong—that the relatively small amount of £180,000, which was quoted in the Written Answer, will be part of a breakdown of the £7 million. The majority of that is a health lead and we were talking about what the Home Office spends, not on overall drug prevention, but specifically on new psychoactive substances. That is a key element.

I know this may sound strange but the legislative programme has a place in provoking awareness. I know this from my own Twitter account, where I now have a large number of new followers who do not necessarily agree with the policies of HMG in respect of new psychoactive substances. I am also realising that saying that might also get me trending on social media. I welcome this, because it is part of people engaging with the debate and the legislative process. People are asking, “Should they be banned?”, “Should there be a universal ban?”, “Should we be having partial bans or temporary banning orders?” and “Should we be widening the debate?”. The more young people who engage with the type of debate we have in this House the better.

In a similar vein, my noble friend Lord Blencathra talked about people in suits not being taken seriously when they talk in schools about drug prevention. I must be careful what I say here, given her presence in the Chamber, but the Lord Speaker’s schools outreach programme is very effective and I had the privilege to take part in it. People engage with it and talk about legislation and about the fact that legislating is not easy.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, when the Minister takes part in the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme, does he wear a suit?

[Lord Bates]

That is mandatory, is it not, at least for the male Members? I would certainly not dream of turning up in our ceremonial gowns. They would probably think it was Christmas and misunderstand what was coming.

Education is not just for teachers and it is for all of us, including the media, to ensure positive role models. As a parent and grandparent, I think children often respond best to very clear messages. Ambiguous messages which say, “This might be okay or it might not—take it along to a testing station”, or “This might be against the law or it could be legal”, spread confusion which is unhelpful to pupils and teachers.

Drug education is part of the national curriculum for science at key stages 2 and 3. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said that if we made this a key performance indicator then schools would start taking in seriously. It is already, in a way, because to be judged outstanding by Ofsted you must be able to demonstrate with great clarity that pupils are safe and feel safe at all times and that they understand how to keep themselves and others safe in different situations and settings. We need to explore further whether inspectors follow that in every school but the bones of what is necessary are there.

We have had some excellent contributions and discussions. As I flagged up earlier, we have a further meeting on 7 July. We have invited Public Health England to be represented at that, as well as the Department for Education. That will be a useful opportunity to explore these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, and we will look at this. The Bill is primarily a law enforcement measure, setting out definitions et cetera, although it is part of a wider context that includes education. As to whether we should have references to education or treatment programmes in the Bill, I personally favour things that are very clear and focused about what they want to do. What we hope to achieve through education is a very important part of the context. I undertake to reflect on that between now and Report.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the debate produced a very beautiful meeting of minds between the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which once again demonstrates the supreme value of Committee proceedings in your Lordships’ House. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, all of whom have emphasised the fundamental importance of education and the critical need to get it right.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that children do not take kindly to being preached at. I was suggesting not that they should be preached at but that they should be taught, with real professional skill. I would certainly envisage that appropriate role models—the kind of people who can talk to young people in their own language and whom young people will be able to identify imaginatively with—are of course the sorts of people who will be able to play a very valuable part, if schools have the imagination and skill to find them and bring them into the schools programme.

However, there have to be more systematic pressures on schools. I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, when he said that having performance in respect of drug education forming part of the data that go to establish league tables will give a salutary shock to quite a number of schools. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, suggested that that is almost the case, and I drew some encouragement from the quotation that he gave us about the requirements of Ofsted. Yet I have a sense that the prevailing culture in our schools is such that they are not taking that point from Ofsted sufficiently seriously, and if they fail to perform in this regard they may not be able to qualify to be rated “outstanding”. I am not sure that enough of them know about it or that enough of them are being seen to act on it.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point with which I so much agree: that the funding so far provided for the system is—I do not think this was his word—derisory. That is sending a signal from government that this is a second or third-order issue. I know that the Minister does not think it is at all but I hope he will reflect on how he can, tactfully as always, bring more effective pressure to bear on his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education. He undertook that he would talk to them. I also understand that it is very difficult for them to persuade the system as a whole that it has got to take on yet another task in a new way. There are endless pressures on schools. New Ministers and officials are for ever coming up with new policies and asking the people on the front line to implement their bright ideas. I understand all those difficulties, but having acknowledged that, we have all recognised and are all fully persuaded that we have got to do better on education and that that is going to be fundamental to the success of the overall strategy.

I am glad that my noble friend Lord Rosser drew attention to a significant section in the report of the expert panel which should give strength to the Minister’s elbow. I was grateful for the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who survived her education, which is something that everybody has to do. I was grateful to the Minister for a series of thoughtful and helpful points. Of course he is right that the term “legal highs” has been profoundly unhelpful, and I have every sympathy with the Government in their creation of an aggravated offence of supplying psychoactive substances in proximity to schools. I think there is an amendment which adds other institutions where children may be present.

If the Minister would be kind enough to write to us clarifying the figures—what is being spent on what, on public account in this field—that would be very helpful. I was also much encouraged by what he said about wanting young people themselves to be involved in the debate, as it were owning the issue and the problem and to help us all to find better ways to deal with it. I look forward to returning to this broad issue at Report and in the mean time beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 17 and 18, which I have tabled rather impertinently as amendments to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Here I think that the substantial measure of agreement and meeting of minds that we had in the previous debate on education will rapidly dissipate.

I remind the Committee that it is my belief that prohibition has broadly failed and that it is because of that failure that we have the problem of new psychoactive substances. I believe that our objectives should be to protect people, particularly young people but people of all ages, from the dangers of drugs and to minimise the harms that they may cause. In nothing I say do I mean to imply that I would encourage the consumption of drugs—we are looking for the least bad solution to a very intractable and very important problem. My proposal is therefore pragmatic, but I believe that the least bad way to go is selectively and cautiously to legalise certain drugs and very strictly to regulate their availability.

The purveyors of psychoactive substances, after all, seek to create and distribute substances that mimic the effect of controlled drugs, and they do so quite unscrupulously. They do not mind how corrupt, how adulterated, how toxic and how dangerous those substances are, and that is the problem that we are up against. It seems to me therefore that it would be more prudent and more responsible, rather than to have a blanket prohibition or ban, to make legally available one substance in each of the three principal classes of drugs. The first would be a stimulant—it might be MDMA, better known as ecstasy. The second would be a depressant, which might be cannabis—the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke of the significance of the ratio of THC to CBD within any individual variety of cannabis. If you have no THC, you have no “high”, as I understand it, so I guess that there would have to be some element of THC if people were to use the drug. We would seek to provide a version of cannabis that was the safest kind—that does the trick in the sense of making people feel that this is the substance that gives them the experience that they are looking for. Thirdly, there should be a hallucinogen: perhaps magic mushrooms or mescaline. In all those cases, I propose that we legalise and regulate drugs that are of relatively low risk, of which society has long experience, and which in many societies have become socialised and in their use normalised.

The Minister was quite quickly dismissive of the experiment that has been initiated in New Zealand. It is perfectly true that the expert committee, having carefully considered the policy adopted in New Zealand, decided it could not recommend it, and that the policy has run into a number of practical difficulties there. But essentially the New Zealand approach was to find a way, very carefully and selectively, to legalise the use of drugs that have been demonstrated to be of low risk, and I do not actually think that the story of the New Zealand experiment has yet reached an end.

At all events, I emphasise that there would have to be strict regulation and quality control and that these drugs should be introduced only in circumstances of the best security that we can provide to their users. There should be regulation of their composition and their strength; there should be control over how they are transported; manufacturing should be licensed and strictly regulated, as should retailing; there should be no sales to children; I believe that no advertising should be permitted; marketing would certainly have to be very strictly regulated; and so forth. That is the type of regime that we already operate in our society. That is how we deal with alcohol and tobacco—two drugs, as the noble Baroness said, which are, by any reasonable standard of judgment, more dangerous than cannabis—and with medicines. So there are already models. There is already a basis of selective legalisation and regulation on which we can build—and, no doubt, which needs to be improved.

The availability of these drugs should be accompanied by advice as to their safe use, exactly as happens when you collect a prescription for medicine; there should be full information. Of course, as we have already argued, this all needs to be set in a context of education, to help people to make mature and wise decisions.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

I just wanted some clarification. One thing that worries me is whether, in the end, the direction of Amendment 18 will not prove to be a bit confusing. I think it was John Maxwell who said that when people say, “Yes, but”, nobody ever hears the “Yes”. If you say, “No, but”, does anybody hear the “No”?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I hope that I can offer some reassurance to the right reverend Prelate, if he will follow me in the argument that I want briefly to unfold. Let me continue by noting that there would be the advantage, as with alcohol and tobacco, that the Government could tax these substances and use the lever of taxation to influence the preferences of consumers and their behaviour. Of course, the Exchequer would benefit, and I know the great importance that the Minister and, indeed, all of us attach to the reduction of the deficit. A new source of taxation would be not unwelcome, I think, to the Exchequer. What I am recommending is, in effect, a market solution, a kind of reverse Gresham’s law. I believe that relatively good drugs would drive out bad drugs. It works in the Netherlands, where safer varieties of cannabis are made available in licensed shops and there is no demand in that country for the synthetic cannabinoids that are so fashionable and so popular in this country—and so very dangerous to their users.

Of course, there will always be people who are inveterate and irremediable risk-takers, and young people will always be tempted to challenge authority. But I suspect that most consumers would be very happy if they knew that they could obtain legally a psychoactive substance that they could be assured was relatively safe. After all, that has been the attraction—albeit the illusory and deceptive attraction—of so-called legal highs. Why would people go to dodgy dealers to buy white powders about which they knew nothing if they had a safer and legal alternative available to them? There may be a fear that the legal availability of certain drugs would lead to an increase in consumption; but I mentioned in an earlier debate the report by Dr Deborah Hasin of the Department of Epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, in which she found that there is no correlation between the availability of medicinal cannabis and increased consumption by teenagers. Public opinion has allowed the state governments of Colorado, Washington, Oregon and the District of Columbia to legalise and regulate cannabis. The same process has happened although with a very different model in Uruguay. This is a less dangerous approach than the prohibitionist approach, which we have had nearly 50 years of experience to demonstrate does not work. What I am putting forward is by no means perfect, but I believe it would be safer and better than the kind of anarchy that, paradoxically, prohibition creates. I would be grateful if the Minister would, if he does not agree with me, explain why he does not agree with me.

Drugs: Cannabis

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend and other noble Lords are experts in the medical world, and I am realising very quickly that the problem is that there are many different types of medical research and science, some bits of which are contradictory. For example, the Institute of Psychiatry and Cancer Research have taken a different view on this. That is why we need to have a process which clearly and openly evaluates the introduction of these drugs, primarily to ensure that people are kept safe.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, in continuing to list cannabis in Schedule 1, on the basis that it is a drug of extremely limited medicinal value, are the Government not flying in the face of much academic and expert medical opinion, contrary to the principle of basing policy on scientific evidence just enunciated by his noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble? Why should patients who have been prescribed a cannabis-based medication, because nothing else relieves their chronic pain so effectively, be obliged to make repeated trips—at heavy cost in cash, stress and fatigue—to Holland to collect it, when under a sensible and humane regime they would be able to pick it up at a local pharmacy in their own country?

[Lord Bates]

Part of the argument here is that one of the reasons why Sativex is not widely prescribed, although it has been licensed for marketing, is that general practitioners believe that there are other drugs which are more effective in tackling the issues it is meant to deal with. That is a point for debate, but we are acting on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and abiding by the decisions of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. It would be a derogation of duty for the Government to do anything other than that.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, the objective of this Bill is to protect the public. New psychoactive substances are not merely a bit of harmless fun providing an instant buzz. These substances are untested and unknown, with clear evidence of short-term harms and potential long-term adverse consequences. The trade in these substances is quite simply reckless. Those who perpetrate it have no regard for the welfare of the end user. Indeed, the producers of these substances deliberately seek to evade the controls on drugs by manufacturing products that mimic the effect of controlled drugs.

However, in mimicking the effects, these synthetic copies can also replicate the dangers associated with the original drug. It is not just the manufacturers of new psychoactive substances who take this cavalier approach to public safety. Those who sell them are not open and honest about the products that they are marketing. Instead, they seek to absolve themselves of liability by selling the substances in packages labelled “not for human consumption”, “plant food”, or some other fiction.

We should be under no illusion about the harms caused by new psychoactive substances. They have been associated with paranoia, psychosis and seizures, and tragically have led to the death of too many unsuspecting users. Indeed, the number of deaths has been growing at an alarming rate—from 29 in England and Wales in 2011, to 60 in 2013, with a further 60 deaths reported in Scotland in the year before last.

There has also been a sharp rise in new psychoactive substance-related inquiries by health professionals to the National Poisons Information Service. In addition to the health hazards, a number of local authorities have reported instances of anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of retail outlets selling these products, known as head shops.

The open sale of psychoactive substances on the high street and the internet gives the false impression that they are somehow safe to use. Indeed, it is for this reason that they are commonly referred to as legal highs. The very term seeks to reassure the user that they are both legal and safe. I have already sought to debunk the notion that these substances are safe. As for their legality, research has shown that nearly one in five in fact contain controlled drugs.

In short, many new psychoactive substances present a very real hazard to their users in the same way as controlled drugs. As they are untested, there is no way of knowing which, if any, are benign and safe to use.

Over the period of the last Parliament, we sought to deal with this challenge. We set up an early warning system to monitor closely the availability of these substances. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 introduced temporary class drug orders so as to speed up the process of bringing harmful new substances within the tight controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We have used the powers in that Act, as amended, to ban over 500 new psychoactive substances. Although these steps have afforded some protection, we found ourselves sucked into a game of cat and mouse: no sooner do the Government ban one substance than another pops up with a new chemical formulation designed to evade the current controls, with the added concern that these new formulations have greater potency. And so the process continues.

It was against that backdrop that, in December 2013, the Government appointed an expert panel to undertake a review of new psychoactive substances. The membership of the panel included representatives from medical science, social science, law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies, local government and those working in the field of education and prevention. The expert panel was asked to make a clear recommendation for an effective and sustainable legislative response to new psychoactive substances.

In coming to a view on the most appropriate way forward, the panel considered various alternative approaches and looked at how these had been applied in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, Ireland and New Zealand. The panel’s findings in relation to the regulatory approach adopted in New Zealand are instructive, given the interest shown in this approach by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and including, on that inquiry, my noble friend Lord Mancroft, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

In its own 2013 report into new psychoactive substances, the all-party parliamentary group was attracted to the New Zealand model because it afforded the prospect of low-risk substances being licensed for sale. However, the expert panel expressed a number of reservations about a regulatory approach and pointed to the difficulties of defining low risk from a legislative and harms perspective. The panel was also concerned that a regulatory regime would send out confusing messages about the safety of new psychoactive substances. Finally, in relation to New Zealand, it is worth recording that no applications for a licence have been submitted to the regulatory authority. Consequently, in practice, a blanket ban is in operation there.

Having considered the approach in New Zealand and elsewhere, the expert panel recommended that the Government develop proposals for a general prohibition on the supply of non-controlled psychoactive substances. Last October, the then Minister for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, accepted the expert panel’s advice on behalf of the Government. This indeed has been the position of all three parties, reflected in the manifestos on which they stood in the general election.

The Conservative manifesto said:

“We will create a blanket ban on all new psychoactive substances, protecting young people from exposure to so-called ‘legal highs’”.

The Labour manifesto said:

“we will ban the sale and distribution of dangerous psychoactive substances, so called ‘legal highs’”.

The Liberal Democrats said that they would,

“clamp down on those who produce and sell unregulated chemical highs”.

I now turn to the detail of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedule 1 define a psychoactive substance for the purpose of the Bill. The definition is purposefully wide; it encompasses any substance that,

“is capable of producing a psychoactive effect in a person who consumes it”.

In defining what we mean by a psychoactive effect, our definition draws on scientific advice and international precedents, including the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As I have indicated, we make no apologies for the breadth of the definition. If we were to adopt too narrow a definition, we could, in a few months’ or years’ time, find ourselves having to bring forward further legislation because we were faced with a new generation of harmful substances that escaped the controls provided for in this Bill.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

The Minister is arguing for the broad definition that is in the Bill. Will he clarify one point? If the Bill were already on the statute book as presently drafted and he felt moved today to send Lady Bates a bunch of flowers, the perfume of which would make her feel much more benevolent towards him and much happier about his absence on ministerial duties, would he be in breach of the law?

[Lord Bates]

We will come back to this many times in Committee, I am sure, but we are confident that that would not fall into this category. Clauses 2 and 3, as I am sure the noble Lord has read, set out very clearly that this is something that is taken and consumed for the purpose of achieving the psychoactive high to which I referred. So I do not accept his point, although I am sure that we will come back to it many times during the passage of the Bill.

While starting with a wide definition of a psychoactive substance, the Bill then seeks to narrow it, as in the Irish model, so as to exclude certain substances and activities—perhaps the noble Lord was slightly pre-empting my text—that are not the target of this legislation. The Bill does this in two ways. First, it provides for a list of exempted substances. This covers substances that are either already subject to regulation, such as controlled drugs, medicines, alcohol and tobacco, or those where their psychoactive effect is negligible, namely caffeine and foodstuffs. The Bill includes a power to add to or vary this list by regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure.

The second means by which legitimate activities are excluded from the ambit of the controls in the Bill is through the power, in Clause 10, to provide for exemptions to the main offences. Similar provision is included in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and has been used successfully, for example, to ensure that healthcare professionals, when acting in a professional capacity, are not caught by the offences in that Act.

Let me also assure noble Lords that if there is legitimate research into new medicines to tackle any number of the conditions that afflict the human race, the Bill will not be a barrier where such research involves the testing of psychoactive substances.

Having defined a psychoactive substance, Clauses 4 to 9 go on to provide for the key criminal offences. As the expert panel recommended, these focus on the trade in psychoactive substances rather than on the users. The Bill achieves this by making it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import or export a psychoactive substance. The maximum penalty for these offences is seven years’ imprisonment. I should add that the way these criminal offences are constructed excludes psychoactive substances that are not intended for human consumption. So no offence would be committed, for example, where a person produces or supplies a psychoactive substance for veterinary or industrial purposes.

I want to stress that there is no offence of simple possession. This mirrors the position with substances subject to a temporary class drug order. That said, if a new substance comes along where the evidence of harm is such as to warrant it being added to the list of controlled drugs under the 1971 Act, the personal possession offence in that Act would then apply.

As with the legislation in the Irish Republic, we have designed the enforcement framework so that the police, local authorities and other law enforcement agencies can adopt a flexible, proportionate response depending on the particular circumstances of a case. We need a system that is nimble enough to be able to nip problems in the bud before they escalate. In addition to the core criminal offences which I have described, the Bill therefore also provides for four civil sanctions: prohibition notices, premises notices, prohibition orders, and premises orders. Let me be clear that there is no requirement to escalate enforcement action through the civil powers before a criminal prosecution is considered. If the criminality is of such a serious nature as to justify an immediate prosecution, it is right and proper that the relevant enforcement agency should adopt that course.

Where the civil sanctions are an appropriate response, the prohibition notice and the premises notice will act as a final warning to those engaged in the production, supply, importation or exportation of psychoactive substances. A prohibition notice issued by the police, the National Crime Agency, the Border Force or a local authority will require the respondent to desist from undertaking relevant prohibited activities, such as selling psychoactive substances from a particular head shop or through a website. Where the prohibited activity is taking place on particular premises—again, the head-shop example comes to mind—a premises notice could be issued separately to the landlord so that they take reasonable steps to stop the prohibited activity taking place on the premises in question.

If the respondent fails to comply with a notice, the relevant enforcement agency can then move swiftly to apply to a court for a prohibition order or a premises order. Again, I should make it clear that there is no requirement to escalate a case through the civil powers. If the breach of a prohibition notice is so egregious, it is then open to the police or other enforcement agency to pursue a prosecution for one of the main offences in the Bill. A prohibition order or premises order will be made by the court, normally on an application from the police, a local authority or other relevant agency. It will be open to the court to attach such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements to an order as the court considers appropriate. Clause 21 gives some examples of these. This is by no means an exhaustive list and should not be read as such, but the examples given are significant—hence their inclusion in the Bill. A prohibition order could include a requirement on the respondent, perhaps the proprietor of an online business or of a head shop, to hand over any remaining stocks of psychoactive substances.

It would also be possible to attach to either a prohibition order or a premises order an access prohibition. This would operate much like the premises closure powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. An access prohibition could bar all access to premises for an initial period of up to three months, extendable to a maximum of six months. An access prohibition is most likely to be used against commercial premises such as a head shop, but could relate to any relevant premises. Where the premises are used as a dwelling, it would be open to the court to allow limited access for those who habitually reside on the premises, but the decision will be one for the court to take. Breach of a prohibition order or premises order will be a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. The Bill provides for a right of appeal against these orders, and the respondent or other persons significantly affected by the order may apply to the court for the order to be varied or discharged.

Also included in the Bill are bespoke enforcement powers that will enable the police, National Crime Agency officers and customs officers to stop and search persons, vehicles and vessels. The powers to stop and search a person will apply where the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed one of the main offences in the Bill: namely the offence of producing, supplying et cetera a psychoactive substance, or the offence of breaching a prohibition order or premises order. In such a case, the officer may search the person for evidence of such an offence. The powers to search vehicles and vessels will apply where an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that there is evidence of one of these offences in or on the vehicle or vessel.

Additionally, there are powers to search premises for relevant evidence and to seize such evidence. These powers are subject to judicial authorisation and extend to local authorities as well as to the police, National Crime Agency and Border Force officers. The Bill sets out other safeguards, including protecting material subject to legal or journalistic privilege. Further safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including those in the relevant PACE codes of practice, will also be engaged.

Finally, the Bill makes provision for the forfeiture of seized items. Given that the whole premise of the Bill is that psychoactive substances are, or are potentially, harmful, we should not be allowing these substances, once seized, to re-enter the supply chain or to be returned to users. There is, therefore, a clear presumption that any seized psychoactive substances will be destroyed. Where there is evidence of an offence under the Bill, or the seized item is not a psychoactive substance, the Bill provides for a judicially authorised forfeiture process. There is also a fast-track procedure for the disposal of small quantities of a psychoactive substance where, for example, this is consistent with personal use and there is no evidence of an offence being committed under the Bill.

The words of the expert panel were that there was no silver-bullet approach to tackling this issue. The criminal justice response to the trade in psychoactive substances, as provided for in this Bill, must be seen in the context of our wider strategy to tackle the harms they cause. Alongside law enforcement activity to restrict the supply of new psychoactive substances, we are driving forward another key recommendation of the panel that we enhance our efforts to reduce demand, including through effective prevention programmes, and provide the right health-related services supporting individuals to recover from substance misuse. The dangers posed by new psychoactive substances are widely recognised, and there is now a broad consensus that the current approach is failing to provide timely protection where it is clearly needed.

The three main political parties represented in your Lordships’ House differed on many things in the recent election but, as I have indicated, there was welcome agreement on the need for a general ban on new psychoactive substances. That view is widely shared, including by the police, the Local Government Association, the Royal Society for Public Health and others. However, there is one further organisation that I should like to add to the list: the Angelus Foundation. Angelus was founded by Maryon Stewart to campaign on the dangers of new psychoactive substances following the tragic death of her daughter, Hester, in 2009. The Angelus Foundation knows more than most about the potential fatal consequences of these substances, so we should heed its words with care. It said this of the Bill:

“Angelus has led the call for a strong legal response to the easy availability of these legal substances and has long campaigned for fundamental measures to disrupt the supply of these legal drugs”.

The Bill is intended to help prevent further tragedies so that other parents do not have to suffer what Maryon Stewart and her family have had to endure.

During the later stages of the Bill, noble Lords will properly want to scrutinise its detail carefully, but I trust that the House will overwhelmingly be able to join me today in endorsing its core purpose. On that note, I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, we are agreed on all sides of the House that, with new psychoactive substances, we are presented with a seriously dangerous situation. Noble Lords have mentioned the numbers of deaths that have been recorded; we have no statistics—we cannot obtain them—on the amount of long-term damage to mental health and on other health damages that may be caused by the use of those substances. Very frequently, we read stories in the media about tragic outcomes for young people who have taken a new psychoactive substance of one sort or another. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spoke eloquently about the anxieties of parents and the responsibilities that government has to support parents and families, and he was quite right on that point.

It is a simple thing for a moderately competent organic chemist to tweak the molecular structure of an existing, controlled substance to create a new substance which, as the law stands, is uncontrolled. The development of the internet has transformed the marketing and distribution of drugs, so that we face this hideously dangerous combination of the facility with which new substances can be created, distributed and obtained.

The latest annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction talks in some detail about how web sales are developing. It is an unfortunate fact that Britons appear to be exceptionally reckless, prone to bingeing and poly-drug usage and relaxed about buying their drugs from sources about whom they know little or nothing. The new toxicology is terrifying. Mephedrone is effective at a 10th of the dose of ecstasy, and a gram of a new hallucinogen may contain enough to provide 5,000 doses. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, talked about the importance of dosage in this situation. People who consume new psychoactive substances are doing so on the basis of no information about the composition, safety or toxicity of the substances that they are ingesting. It can be only a question of time before a new psychoactive substance that has widely lethal consequences is launched on a market of ignorant and gullible consumers.

Clearly, action is necessary and the Government are right to seek to address this problem. However, there is no clear solution, as I think we all agree. What we certainly need is a rational discussion, and I am very pleased that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform, chaired so ably by my noble friend Lady Meacher—I call her “my noble friend” because I regard her as a great friend—initiated this process. I add to the praise that has been given to Norman Baker for the work that he did as a Minister in the Home Office in the coalition Government, and for the establishment of the expert group, which indeed contains some very real experts—among them people who were witnesses to the all-party group’s inquiry. Similar processes have been undertaken in Scotland and Wales, leading to broadly similar conclusions.

However, I believe that the impulse to slap into manifestos a commitment to ban was all too typical of the way that politics works and that we would have done better to go more slowly. Is it really true that the Government omitted to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as they drafted this legislation—or at least not until the very last stage when the Bill was already written and just before it was tabled in Parliament? Did they ask the council for its advice on the relatively narrow, though very important, aspect of the legislation, which is how on earth people are to discover what is a psychoactive drug and what is not? As my noble friend Lord Patel noted, the ACMD has a statutory duty to act as the Government’s adviser in this field. I hope that if they failed to seek the ACMD’s advice earlier, it was not because Home Office Ministers have all too often not liked the advice that they have received from the ACMD, whether it is about the classification of cannabis or about khat, or indeed about how to deal with nitrous oxide, which it recommended should not be banned but will be caught by the Bill. The ACMD should not be sidelined.

Noble Lords will have seen a very powerful critique of the legislation from Transform and Release, which reached me only yesterday. If noble Lords on the Front Benches have not yet had an opportunity to study that critique, I hope that they will do so. The briefing from Transform and Release raises a whole number of questions about police powers, the legal and scientific complexities associated with the Government’s proposals, the impacts on research and the thinness of the impact assessment. All those matters we can examine more closely in Committee.

The problem that we have to deal with is not that people use psychoactive substances. They always have, whether for stimulus, for insight, for relaxation, for pleasure, for oblivion, for the thrill of risk or for the thrill of challenging authority. The question is not whether we should seek to ban all psychoactive substances; the Government are not proposing to do that. Who are we, as politicians, to tell people what psychoactive substances they may use or what their recreational practices should be? At least I am pleased that the Government have not sought to criminalise use. However, I fear that this decriminalisation is more apparent than real, because they will criminalise social use in the sense that a group of people might share a substance, and they will of course criminalise the importation of psychoactive substances. The problem that we need to address is the risks and dangers that consumers are undergoing. We need to ask how we can protect them as well as we can from the dangers that many noble Lords have described. The object in drugs policy should be to minimise these dangers and the harms that drugs cause.

All the evidence we have about the history of prohibition, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell reminded us, shows not only that it does not work but that it is counterproductive. During our recent era of prohibitionist orthodoxy—since the 1960s with the UN conventions and the passage of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in this country—we have seen, generation by generation, an increase in drug usage. I understand that it is now the case that about one quarter of people in their 50s and 60s have used drugs, one third of those in their 40s have used drugs, and more than half of those in their 20s and 30s have used drugs. Even during the period of prohibition, there has been a cultural normalisation of drug usage. There have been many unfortunate consequences of this—among them, I contend, an alienation from politics. Such large numbers of people as regularly use recreational drugs, and, certainly in their own belief, come to no harm, consider that the politicians who seek to ban their pleasures are authoritarian, ignorant and irrelevant and do not understand them. This is one factor that has tended to undermine people’s respect for the political class.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, reminded us, the costs are absolutely huge. The impact assessment is extraordinarily optimistic. It seems highly likely that one consequence of this legislation will be a misallocation of rapidly declining police resources that need to be harboured and used for top priorities in ways that will really be effective. Prohibition creates a free market in crime—it is a gift to international organised crime—and of course causes immense misery and human waste. I see no reason why this new extension of prohibition will not have the same effects.

The expert panel identified arguments on both sides. It identified merits in the course that the Government are pursuing, but it also identified a number of problems. Among the problems is the confusion that the legislation will cause. For example, there will be inconsistency between the regime created by the Misuse of Drugs Act and the regime created by this legislation. Why decriminalisation under one piece of legislation and for one range of drugs but not another?

Critics of the Bill will be tempted to accuse the Government of hypocrisy and irrationality when they look at Schedule 1, which exempts tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco is so lethal and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, reminded us, the number of deaths caused by alcohol is vastly greater than the number of deaths caused by controlled drugs. However, while the Government ban new psychoactive substances, they refuse to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol. What about sugar? I do not know whether sugar could be a psychoactive substance, but food is exempt and so presumably sugar is exempt. We have all heard of a sugar rush. Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, described the habitual use of such quantities of sugar in the national diet as a “slow burn of poison”, and yet I do not think that any action is being taken on that. People will see the policy as arbitrary and see introducing a blanket ban as evidence that policymaking on the basis of evidence is being abandoned.

The Bill will be impractical. How on earth are people to know what a psychoactive substance is? The definition is very broad. In practice, we are going to be faced with the difficulty that very inadequate resources are available for forensic testing. The ACMD has belatedly been asked what its views are on this. There will be big costs to the criminal justice system as test cases are brought and the attempt is made to establish legally watertight definitions in this field.

Above all, though, the Bill will not work. Yes, head shops will be closed down and that will be pleasing to the Local Government Association—one understands its worries about anti-social behaviour on the part of some numbers of young people gathered round some head shops and the difficulties for overstretched trading standards officers. But the Government are missing the opportunity, if they would choose to take it, to mobilise head shop proprietors as useful advisers—people who might actually seek to help young people. That may seem an improbable notion to some noble Lords, but it would not have been beyond the bounds of possibility.

With the closing of head shops, we will no doubt see, as in Ireland, Poland and perhaps Romania, a temporary fall in the consumption of new psychoactive substances. But the experience, as noble Lords have said, of Ireland and Poland is certainly that subsequently, as consumers turn to online sources, consumption rose. My understanding is that young people in Ireland are now the heaviest consumers of new psychoactive substances in Europe. Those experiments that took place in Ireland and Poland were laboratory experiments from which the Government might have learnt. Evidently, they were an own goal, as my noble friend Lady Meacher told us the President of Poland admits. Instead of seeing that, the Government are copying that legislation.

The culture of this country has changed so far. I understand that it is now widespread in universities, particularly in academically elite universities, to use so-called smart drugs to improve people’s performance. In highly competitive situations such as in universities or the City, modafinil, Ritalin or varieties of amphetamines are routinely bought by significant numbers of people online. We may well see that chemical cognitive enhancement becomes almost as much a familiar practice as cosmetic surgery.

People will turn to buy their drugs online. They may go to China. Have the Government had discussions with the authorities in China about how they might seek to work with them to prevent our fears being realised? When mephedrone was banned, they had discussions with the authorities in China—production was immediately transferred to India, the quality deteriorated and consumption rose. Official corruption is widely pervasive in the countries from which these substances come. It will be impossible to inspect all the packages that come through, and I fear that we shall end up worse off than we have been.

I see that I have talked for too long, as I too often do. I will conclude by saying that I do not think that legislation in one country can work. There will be an opportunity to develop international collaboration on a constructive basis. Next year, the United Nations General Assembly will hold a special session on drugs. There is a tide of change, as other noble Lords have noted, away from criminalisation and towards treating drug abuse as a health issue and social issue rather than a criminal issue. Yet between 2009 and 2013 in the United Kingdom, 60,000 young people aged 20 and under were criminalised for possession of drugs. At the same time, the Home Office’s international comparative study, on which I congratulate it, concluded in 2014:

“Looking across different countries, there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country’s approach and the prevalence of adult drug use”.

The Home Office was tiptoeing towards decriminalisation but then, come an election, the default position was to resort to a ban.

All of us need to think hard about this. The Government need to think again and I hope that in Committee we can assist the Government to think again and find useful ways to advise the elected House by way of amendments to this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, this has been a debate of characteristic quality in your Lordships’ House. Immense expertise from around the House has been brought to bear on this issue—by people who have actually devoted their lives to trying to understand and tackle this issue of drugs. I was very struck by the words of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who talked about the common approach shared by all sides of the argument about seeking to protect our children and the community from the effects of these harmful substances. In that we are united. How we go about that will be a matter of some debate as the Bill moves into Committee, should your Lordships choose to grant it a Second Reading, and the Government will welcome that.

Your Lordships’ expertise has raised some very thoughtful points. I summarise them as falling into two broad categories: those that look at the particular issue of psychoactive substances and those that relate to wider drugs policy. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, touched on that when he said that effectively there were two debates going on here. The all-party group has done some excellent research and taken great evidence—I read its report and recommendations very carefully before this debate, as your Lordships would expect—and I think it is almost quorate in this debate, with the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Howarth, my noble friend Lord Mancroft and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher, all present and all making points.

Another view points to the growing threat of these new psychoactive substances. The early warning system in the European Union—among our European friends, with whom we are working closely on these issues— identified 24 new substances in 2009; in 2010 there were 41; in 2011, 49; in 2012, 74; and in 2013, 81. We are on an exponential rise in the number of these new substances. As my noble friend Lady Browning made clear, this amounts to playing Russian roulette.

I found one of the most telling contributions to be that of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, because he came at it from the perspective of pharmacology. I hope that does not impinge on his street cred among his colleagues. He talked about the challenges of dosage and of manufacturing these compounds. Things are coming into this country and being identified at the moment which people are consuming when they have absolutely no understanding of how they have been produced or what is being put before them. People are looking at that and saying, similarly to my noble friend Lord Farmer, who talked about families, that things must be done. That approach is not lacking in intellect.

There is a growing number of substances so, effectively, we have a choice before us. Do we go down a route where we have base legislation in the Misuse of Drugs Act and then the Government come forward with 500 individual measures and temporary banning orders on banned substances, but their manufacture is unshown? It is almost like a Whac-A-Mole game in the arcade; once one is stopped, another pops up somewhere else. Or do we go down the route of a blanket ban? I know that that is not supported in many of the contributions that were put here, but let me offer some of the places where it is supported.

The Home Affairs Select Committee took a lot of evidence, and a lot of the people who gave evidence to it also gave evidence to the all-party group on the misuse of drugs. The Select Committee said in its summary, first, that:

“We conclude that there is currently an epidemic of psychoactive substances and it is highly likely that the creation of new psychoactive substances will continue to increase in the future unless immediate action is taken”.

It went on to recommend that,

“new legislation, brought in to address the problem of ‘legal highs’, is specific and focused. The law must ensure that the police and law enforcement agencies can take action comprehensively against those who sell new psychoactive substances and remove the reliance on existing legislation which is ill-suited to comprehensively tackling this problem. The legislation needs to allow sellers of new psychoactive substances to be prosecuted for an offence which is equivalent in sanction to that of the Misuse of Drugs Act”.

In addition to the Home Affairs Select Committee, support comes from: the expert panel appointed by Norman Baker, as was mentioned; the similar panel appointed by the Scottish Government to look into this, which came to the same conclusion; the Health and Social Care Committee of the National Assembly for Wales; several countries, including Ireland and New Zealand, which were mentioned; and each of the main political parties in England and Wales at the election. I am simply saying that it is not an inconsequential body of opinion and we are, rightly, trying to follow the evidence in legislation. I suggest that even if it is not compelling in some areas, that is quite a comprehensive body of evidence.

I want to address some of the specific issues raised.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Before the Minister departs from what he has just been discussing, I would be grateful if he would answer one point. He suggested that there is a binary choice: either we carry on attempting to swat these new psychoactive substances as they arrive in our midst or we have a blanket ban. However, there is a third option, which is selectively to legalise and strictly regulate certain drugs of which society has long experience, which are less dangerous and which society on the whole knows how to deal with. Is that not an option that ought to be considered? It is a market solution. People would be interested in and attracted to taking those drugs if they were looking for some psychoactive experience, but if they found that they could get satisfaction from a range of carefully selected, legalised substances, they would be much less interested in buying what the online merchants were offering them. It would be a market way to address the problem.

[Lord Bates]

I hear what the noble Lord says and once again I appreciate the passion that he feels about the topic and his knowledge of it, but in a sense that debate went before this piece of legislation. We looked at that. I do not want to run through the whole list again but other people, including the Home Affairs Select Committee and the expert panel, all looked at that and came to the view that that was not the case. That is a point of wider drug policy. It is perfectly legitimate to continue to have that debate, but not in relation to the Psychoactive Substances Bill now before us, which is seeking to tackle a very specific problem in a way that we believe is in keeping with the expert opinion that we have had.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, and many others—I keep saying this—have an immense level of expertise. I should, in mentioning expertise, say that I am very grateful to be assisted on the Front Bench by my noble friend Lady Chisholm, who also brings immense experience to this, from her understanding both of drugs and of their health effects. The noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Patel, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Rea, asked about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Its 2011 report called on the Government to explore legislation for new psychoactive substances. The Home Office set up a six-month policy review, with a primary focus on looking at how law enforcement powers could be strengthened. Ministers informed the ACMD in October 2014 of the Government’s plans to develop the blanket ban approach. The Home Secretary has written again to the ACMD, and welcomes its views on how we strengthen the UK’s forensic capacity and capability to support the implementation of the legislation in 2016. The ACMD continues to provide expert scientific advice which is greatly valued by the Government. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 will remain the cornerstone of our response to dangerous drugs and the ACMD will continue to have the central statutory role in assessing the harms of specific new psychoactive substances and provide advice to Ministers.

Higher Education: Overseas Students

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is sharp, as ever, in spotting the issue. We will have exit checks in place by the end of this Parliament, as was promised. Of the figure which I gave—about 70,000 people going missing—some of those will have reapplied to go onto the tier 4 system. Some of them will be here and working illegally. The point is that at the moment we do not know. If we counted them in and counted them out and made sure they were on the appropriate visa, we would be able to know.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

In his first Answer the Minister spoke of a policy to attract “the brightest and best” to study in our higher education institutions. Does that mean that the policy is to attract academic high fliers and people of outstanding personal virtue? I do not think that is the limit of the policy, is it? What does he mean by the phrase “the brightest and best”, which Home Office Ministers invariably use when talking about this subject?

[Lord Bates]

It simply reflects that such is the quality of education institutions in this country that they attract some of “the brightest and best” academic and skilled people from around the world. We want to continue to ensure that they do that and, in so doing, contribute to the success of the growing British economy.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said. The issue—if you can call it an issue as it is a series of issues—in relation to cybercrime could scarcely be of greater importance to our society. It is not just an economic crime of the greatest potential but a crime in all dimensions.

The only reservation I have about the amendment is whether it goes far enough. Besides having to deal with the strategy in relation to cybercrime, I would hope for something in the report about the extent of the implementation and enforcement of the laws we are passing and the laws we have already passed. It has become a commonplace in this House to remark upon the fact that we pass laws as if there is no tomorrow but fail again and again to implement the laws we pass. I therefore hope that the report will deal with that crucial aspect of the so-called strategy.

I am not clear as to whether we are in this group also now discussing whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill. We are not? Right.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, when I first studied the Bill and saw that there were clauses relating to cybercrime as well as substantial parts focused on the problems of drugs, I thought that the sections on cybercrime would have something to offer on the development of the Government’s strategy to deal with our immense problems with drugs. However, I cannot see that there is any connection between these different parts of the Bill. That is a disappointment.

Will the Minister share with the House some of the thinking of the Home Office as to how it proposes to address the rapidly developing and immense problem of drugs-related cybercrime? As I noted at Second Reading, the internet has transformed the marketing and distribution of drugs, whether they are proscribed or whether they are new psychoactive substances that are not proscribed. It is now far easier for those who produce these substances and those who sell to be linked up with those who are interested in consuming them. Social networking has intensified this ease of communication. For example, I understand that it is not at all uncommon when party invitations are distributed by means of social networking that the message will contain a link to the point at which particular fashionable, newly arrived substances can be obtained.

This problem presents huge challenges to policing in terms of protecting the safety of all people, particularly young people. The Government and law enforcement agencies must be thinking very hard indeed about this. It would be helpful if the Minister would say, were he to accept my noble friend Lady Smith’s amendment, what he would expect to see in these annual reports on the subject of drugs-related cybercrime. We have social networking, which uses relatively familiar and accessible networks of communication, but there is of course the dark web. The Home Office must again be pondering and working very hard indeed to find ways in which it can even know what is going on on the dark web, let alone to police it. These are hugely important issues, and perhaps the noble Lord would share his thoughts on them with us.

[Lord Swinfen]

I also support the amendment. In doing so, I declare an interest: I run a medical charity that does all its work online, with doctors and nurses in 74 different countries. However, I am not so much worried about that, because I hope that our confidential information is secure. I am thinking of people using cybercrime to find their rivals’ pricing information and new product designs when tendering for various projects; in other words, hacking into other people’s and firms’ computers and getting confidential information for their own pecuniary and business advantage. This is an important amendment and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider it sympathetically.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has created a new parliamentary device. I had long heard of the paving amendment, but today she has moved a door-stop amendment. It has enabled us to discuss an important aspect of the Bill, and I am pleased that we have the chance at least to consider the clauses that are designed to deal with cybercrime.

The Government’s approach and the scale of the investment that we have made across law enforcement agencies to develop and strengthen the operational response are designed to combat that emerging and complex threat. In 2010, the national security strategy named hostile attacks on UK cyberspace by other states and large-scale cybercrime as a tier-one threat to national security. To put these provisions on computer misuse into context, they are principally aimed at that level. That means that for the Government cyber is regarded as on a par with international terrorism as regards the risks to our national security. The Government have responded to that threat by committing £860 million over five years to the national cybersecurity programme. So far, we have invested over £70 million of that funding to strengthen law enforcement’s ability to tackle cybercrime.

We know that a co-ordinated approach is needed to tackle serious and organised crime, including cybercrime. We set out how we plan to achieve that in the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy, and I think that the noble Baroness will find some of the thoughts of the Home Office in that document, which we launched in October last year. At the same time we launched the National Crime Agency, which leads the UK response to serious and organised crime. The National Cyber Crime Unit in the NCA was established to provide the national crime-fighting response to the most technologically sophisticated cybercrime.

The National Cyber Crime Unit therefore provides the focus for our national response to combating cybercriminals. It is using its increased operational resources to arrest those responsible and to prevent and otherwise disrupt their activities. The National Cyber Crime Unit is also investing in state-of-the-art equipment and specialist expertise, keeping pace with the criminals who threaten the public. It also uses the NCA’s enhanced intelligence picture to proactively pursue criminals, targeting them where they are most vulnerable and signposting the public towards advice on how to protect themselves. Approximately half the NCA’s officers are being trained in digital investigation skills. That shows that we recognise the significance of cybercrime in fighting serious crime in this country.

The National Cyber Crime Unit has already had an impact in pursuing those criminals and disrupting their activity. Examples include the recent operation with its international partners to disrupt the communications used by criminals to connect with computers that are infected with malicious software, or “malware”, such as GameOver Zeus and CryptoLocker.

However, the NCA and the National Cyber Crime Unit cannot tackle that threat alone. The policing response to national threats is set out in The Strategic Policing Requirement, which chief constables and police and crime commissioners must have regard to, and which recognises both cybercrime—as a form of organised crime—and a large-scale cyber incident as national threats that require a policing response. While police forces can draw on the support of the National Cyber Crime Unit, it is also vital to build force capability to tackle the cyberthreat locally. We have therefore also provided funding to support the creation of cybercrime units within eight of the regional organised crime units.

The cyberunits will support the National Cyber Crime Unit and also help local forces prosecute and disrupt cybercriminals. They are also building links with institutions such as this to understand better the threat we face and the best tools to use in response. This year we have offered £25 million to support regional organised crime units. With funding from the national cyber security programme, the College of Policing is investing in new courses to build cybercapabilities in local forces. The training will increase knowledge and understanding of cybercrime and how to investigate it. It includes four e-learning packages and classroom courses to train 5,000 officers by 2015.

Lastly, we are also funding Action Fraud and the “Be Cyber Streetwise” campaign so that the public have a clear single point of reporting if they are victims of cybercrime, in particular financially motivated cybercrime, and know how to protect themselves and so reduce the risk of becoming a victim of cybercrime—the identity theft that the noble Baroness mentioned. Turning to Action Fraud first, we have rationalised the reporting arrangement so that Action Fraud is now the national reporting service for fraud and financially motivated cybercrime. The public and businesses can use it to report online or by phone. All reports go through Action Fraud, which then passes the reports to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Both are now run by the City of London Police, the country’s national lead force for fraud. In January the Government launched a “Be Cyber Streetwise” campaign, delivered in partnership with the private sector, to encourage individuals and small businesses to adopt safer online behaviours to help them better protect themselves.

Although we have included Clause 37 in the Bill, I shall say a little about the new offence therein to capture cyberattacks which cause, or create a significant risk of, serious damage. This was referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Improvements in technology have brought many benefits and the use of IT systems has increased exponentially since the Computer Misuse Act was passed in 1990. It is surprising that we are building on that Act of 1990—it was a far-seeing piece of legislation. However, as we rely more and more on computer systems, and as they become increasingly interlinked to deliver maximum benefits, the potential for a cyberattack to cause serious damage also increases.

It is now possible that a major cyberattack on essential systems—for example, those controlling power supply, communications or food distribution—could result in loss of life, serious illness or injury, serious damage to the economy, the environment or national security or severe social disruption. However, the existing offence of impairing a computer, currently the most serious of the Computer Misuse Act offences, carries a maximum sentence of only 10 years’ imprisonment. This does not adequately reflect the level of serious economic or personal harm that a serious cyberattack could now cause.

The new offence will apply where an unauthorised act in relation to a computer—that is “hacking”, in common parlance—results, directly or indirectly, in serious damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security, or creates a significant risk of such damage. The offence will carry a maximum life sentence where the attack results in loss of life, serious illness or injury or serious attacks to national security. Where the attack results in serious economic or environmental damage or social disruption, the maximum sentence will be 14 years’ imprisonment. This offence will ensure that, in the event of serious cyberattack, a suitably serious offence will be available to the prosecution and a suitable sentence available to judges.

A number of other issues have been raised, and it may be helpful to noble Lords if I write a summary covering different aspects. Identity theft was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the drugs issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. We recognise concerns about the whole business of legal highs and their availability on the internet. The Minister for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, is currently reviewing law in this area, and the House will have an opportunity to consider the review’s findings later this year. It would be helpful to use the opportunity of this debate about the particular aspect of cyber misuse that is of serious consequence for me to write to noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lady Hamwee. I would like to be able to reassure them on that point. Indeed, I think that my noble friend Lord Swinfen also raised a point that I would like to address in that way.

I hope that, given the reply that I have been able to make, and including those points in a more general discussion about this area, the noble Baroness will be in a position to withdraw her amendment. We have clauses in the Bill that address cybercrime and we have taken a significant step in recognising the importance of this to our national well-being.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I thank the Minister for what he said about drugs-related cybercrime. Will he also seek to offer the House some reassurance on a very major issue that he touched on? He emphasised the Government’s very proper concern to protect our critical national infrastructure against cybercrime. I believe that it is the case that a good deal of cybercrime emanates from China. The Government have just completed a negotiation with the Chinese whereby it is agreed that they will build our nuclear power stations. What reassurance can he give to us that we are going to be protected in the event of cybercrime coming from a Chinese source, conceivably in unfortunate diplomatic circumstances authorised by the Government in China? I appreciate that this goes beyond a routinely or merely criminal issue, but it seems exceedingly important to me—and something that the Government must have been thinking about. As he has been advising us on the Government’s measures and strategies to deal with cybercrime, perhaps he could also say something about that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I said in my general speech in response to the noble Baroness’s amendment in addressing this area that we recognise that serious damage to national interests and human well-being can be caused by individuals and also by organisations and states. I do not want to give an answer to the noble Lord’s particular suggestions. All I can say is that, obviously, we are anxious to work with China. It is an important nation in the world’s affairs and its assistance is important economically to the prosperity of the world.

If I can add any more to what I have just briefly said, I will write to the noble Lord, but in any case I will be writing to all those who participated in the particular debate on this issue, because I think that could be useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Before the Minister sits down, I should say that I did not speak earlier in the debate because my noble friend Lady Smith said everything I wanted to. Could the Minister develop his response a little to one very important point that she made? It was on the question of due diligence. There is a serious anxiety among professional people that it will be very difficult for them to demonstrate that they performed the due diligence that would clear them from any charge that they knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that their clients were engaged in organised crime. It would be helpful if the Minister gave us some illustration of the kind of due diligence that would be satisfactory and pass that test. Obviously, if people do not have cause to suspect, then proceed to provide the professional service to their client and so participate, how can they be confident that they will not be caught under Clause 41 in this regard?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not want to prolong this. In fact, I still have quite a lot to say on these amendments. I was not about to sit down at all. Indeed, I really ought to carry on or noble Lords will grumble that the Minister is taking too long to reply. However, I think I can address these issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me if I could elaborate a little on things I already said in correspondence to her, for the benefit of noble Lords, so I will just give some description. A person commits a participation offence if they take part in activities where they know or have reasonable cause to suspect that they are criminal activities of an organised crime group or where it would help an organised crime group. That must be firmly grounded. Although it would be for the jury to decide whether the threshold had been met in the circumstances of a particular case, the prosecution would need to prove that, for example, a landlord’s activity—the noble Baroness asked about this—participated in or facilitated criminality in some way. As a further safeguard, the Crown Prosecution Service must be satisfied that it is in the public interest.

Amendments 31L and 31Q seek to make other modifications to the scope of the offence. I understand my noble friend’s intention with these amendments and hope she will agree with me that these amendments would not materially change the effect of the provision. The main issue lies in the threshold—the mens rea, as lawyers would say—for the offence.

I listened carefully to my noble friend’s arguments and those set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that further consideration should be given to ensure that the participation offence does not capture the unwitting or naive. I also acknowledge that many situations look different with hindsight. What to a jury considering a case after the event will be a whole series of red warning signs clearly indicating organised criminal activity might have not appeared to be anything of the kind to the defendant at the time the events actually took place.

I understand the problem of definition of mens rea. However, the threshold or mens rea of belief provided for in Amendment 31P may be said to be the state of mind of a person who says to himself, “I cannot say I know for certain that the circumstances exist but there can be no other reasonable conclusion in the light of all that I have heard and seen”. Quite honestly, this is a very high threshold, which would remove much of the utility of the offence, which we are not in a position to accept.

There are some 36,600 members of organised crime groups involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, organised illegal immigration, firearms offences, fraud, child sexual exploitation and cybercrime, and then there are the professional and non- professional enablers who help organised crime. A threshold of “believe” will set the bar too high and will not change the way these people operate or deter them from helping an organised crime group. However, a balance must be struck and, in the light of this debate, I am persuaded that we should give further consideration to ensuring that the mens rea is such that it does not capture the naive or unwitting.

I also acknowledge the points made in questioning the need for a general defence to the participation offence as well as the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to have defences specific to the regulated sector, which is the nub of Amendment 31R. It is important that there is no anxiety among people, including in the regulated sector, that they might be inadvertently captured by the participation offence. It is therefore right to consider, alongside the level of the mens rea, the need for a defence, but bearing in mind that if one is needed it needs to take into account that the participation offence will apply to professionals and non-professionals alike. We need to have this captured within the mens rea and the defence which should be all-embracing for the regulated and non-regulated sectors.

Amendment 31U seeks to remove the defence in Clause 41(8). This defence is required to protect, for example, undercover police officers who are participating in the activities of an organised crime group for the purposes of frustrating those activities or collecting sufficient evidence to bring the perpetrators to justice. The use of undercover officers will still need senior level authorisation and the police and others will have to demonstrate that the use of the officer is necessary and proportionate. There are a number of precedents for such defences in other statutes, including in respect of the offences in the Bribery Act 2010 and the offences in respect of indecent images of children in the Protection of Children Act 1978.

I will make some points on the particular concern, in Amendment 31T, that someone who has received consent in the submission of a suspicious activity report should not be prosecuted for the participation offence. As it stands, the clause would leave the decision to prosecute the participation offence under these circumstances to the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service. It would be disproportionate to import the suspicious activity reporting regime for the participation offence when it is most unlikely that it would be in the public interest to prosecute someone in these circumstances; such a prosecution might even constitute an abuse of process. There is also the practical reason that the defence under Section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act is only in respect of entering into an arrangement which facilitates money-laundering; if there is evidence of actions constituting part of a wider programme of criminality, this should still be investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked to what extent people must satisfy themselves that there is no wrongdoing. This is part of the question of due diligence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. The offence will address those who have reasonable cause to suspect or know they are assisting organised crime. It does not require people to carry out additional due diligence. It is for this reason that we do not consider that there will be additional costs for business. There is a much closer relationship between people’s actions in a professional, business or commercial occupation carrying out their trade than in some of the more sophisticated checks that have to be undertaken by professionals concerned with other legislation.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

On the other hand, the regime that the Government are creating through this legislation must not be too easygoing because we face extensive problems of money laundering and participation in other offences. It must be the case that across the country there are professional people who are facilitating organised criminals to launder their money and transfer the proceeds of their crime out of the illegal economy into the legal economy. The Minister is walking a tightrope. I asked him earlier not to lay unreasonable burdens on professional people to demonstrate their innocence. On the other hand, the system has to be tough enough to make an impact on the problem that we suffer from as things are.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Right at the beginning of my speech, I talked about balance. I said that I thought we have got the balance in Clause 41 just about right. We do not want to upset the balance. We want to reassure people, particularly the professional groups that have been to see us and the Local Government Association, that that balance can be made to work for them. If it means that we come back on Report with some ideas on that, I am sure the House will welcome them because generally the House understands exactly where the Government are on this issue. Even though probing questions have been asked by my noble friend and the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I understand that underlying them is their support for this participation offence and that they want to make it work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton]

The noble Baroness has put forward a very attractive proposal, at which I hope my noble friend will look carefully. I do not doubt that it will need a lot more work on it before it can be in statute. I hope that the length of the interval between Committee and Report will make that possible.

I have a question for the noble Baroness, having only cursorily looked at the amendment. It seems to me that it depends very much on the quality of the sentence or referral that the panel makes. There should be a requirement that any child or young person who is put into its orbit should not be able to fall out of the system so that they simply have to report at intervals. I would like to see the word “monitor” in there somewhere. A responsible adult or organisation should be required in the statute; otherwise, we will get people fading away, as they have done in the past under probation.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I was extremely happy to add my name to the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady Meacher, and I pay tribute to the work that she does as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform. She is deeply knowledgeable in this field, and I know that the House will always listen with great care to the proposals that she makes. She is right, of course, to make the point that injunctions on their own will achieve nothing, and that people with a drug dependency or who find themselves in the ambit of drug-related gangs are people who need help. She is right to suggest that the help that they need should very likely be help in terms of their health. It is better with these young people to treat their predicament not as a criminal but as a health issue. That is the model that has been established in Portugal since 2001, as my noble friend said, initially amid some considerable controversy—because Portugal faced an appalling crisis of drug trafficking and addiction and a whole generation of young people in very great danger. It was to many people countercultural primarily as a health-related issue rather than as a criminal issue. But the evidence shows that, over the years, the approach has paid off and results have been very good indeed.

I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others the report on the Portuguese experience published by the charity, Transform, and available on its website. It looks very carefully at the evidence of what has happened in Portugal. I add to the highlights that my noble friend Lady Meacher mentioned the facts that drug use has,

“declined among those aged 15-24, the population most at risk of initiating drug use … Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population—which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends—have decreased”,

and that,

“Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased”.

On all these important indicators, the policy has been vindicated. However, it is also important to say that this Portuguese strategy is one of investing very considerably in support services for the young people who are brought before disuassion commissions. The young people come to an agreement with the disuassion commission about a course of action that they will take. Not only will they seek to co-operate willingly with what is recommended in terms of their health, but there are many other courses that the disuassion commission may recommend for them, including job training and all kinds of activities and processes to help them to integrate successfully with society. This strategy came at a time when Portugal was broadening the range and depth of its welfare state and of its support services for vulnerable and fragile young people. Of course, Portugal has been under very serious fiscal pressure in recent years. It may well be that the quality and extent of these services are not what the authors of the strategy would ideally have wished; none the less, the results have been very good.

It will be necessary, if we are to adopt a constructive, positive, humane strategy of the kind that has been pioneered and demonstrated in Portugal, for the Government of the day in this country to be willing to invest in the resources needed to make a full success of that. We all know how very difficult that is going to be for a Government now or in the foreseeable future to do. That is a kind of caveat; but it would not at all invalidate the adoption of a strategy such as the one my noble friend has commended to the Committee. I very much hope that the Committee will favour what she has suggested.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, like my noble friend and other noble Lords, I do not want to comment on the fine detail of the amendment but simply to support the noble Baroness. Her points about avoiding criminalisation and what I might summarise as an active, supportive, constructive response, are immensely important. Under the noble Baroness’s chairmanship, some of us met a number of MPs from Portugal. We were very struck by the agreement across the parties about the benefits of this measure and the lack of contention around it. We actually ran out of questions to ask them on that issue. Clearly, in that country they have succeeded in taking some of the heat out of the drugs issues, which has been a very considerable achievement. I hope that we might learn from that example.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 47 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, before the Committee approves Clause 47, I suggest that we think very carefully about its construction and its drafting. Broadening out our consideration from the specific issues of drugs on which we were focused while examining the last group of amendments, we should look at some wider issues of principle, particularly those of civil liberties. I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but this House prides itself on its willingness to apply line-by-line scrutiny to legislation, and where this clause is concerned some close examination will be appropriate.

The clause would substitute for the existing Section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 a new Section 34. In proposed new Section 34(1), it is made clear that we are considering the question of powers to grant injunctions against people “aged 14 or over”, and therefore against children. We should bear that in mind as we consider what follows in Clause 47 and the new Section 34. Subsection (2) says that the first condition which the court must satisfy is that it thinks,

“on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or has encouraged or assisted … gang-related violence, or … gang-related drug-dealing activity”.

We talked a moment ago about the question of the civil level of proof as against the criminal level—the balance of probabilities as against “beyond reasonable doubt”—and I understand the case that the Minister was making. But under Clause 47, if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that these things have happened and that the person,

“has engaged in or has encouraged … drug-dealing activity”,

then we are told later on, in subsection (7), that “drug- dealing activity” means what it does under the terms,

“of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”.

So the young person is being drawn into the purview of the criminal justice system, at the age of 14 or over, but without the safeguards that the criminal law provides: the statutory defences and the higher standard of proof required.

I am not clear what representation a young person in these circumstances will be entitled to, or whether legal aid will be available to support a young person to make their case against an injunction. It also ought to be borne in mind that in criminal proceedings and in one of the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, proposed—I always want to call her my noble friend—the individual must agree to a drug rehabilitation order. I do not see any requirement in Clause 47 that the young person should agree to a course of action which would be prescribed in an injunction. There are issues here that we ought to reflect on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry, I just felt that the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, when he said that government policy lacked coherence in this area, were belied by the contribution that I had made in the previous debate on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I did not say that the policy lacked coherence; I said that I thought it was wrong to ask the House to legislate before the Government had demonstrated that these new legislative provisions were part of a coherent and decent policy.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

In which case, I am in the process of doing just that. Perhaps we can draw a line under our little spat. Indeed, I was going on to talk about the ways in which the people who are responsible for seeking gang injunctions do bring professional expertise to these matters.

As I was saying when the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, intervened, gang injunctions for adults have been available since January 2011, and gang injunctions for 14 to 17 year-olds have been available since January 2012. I hope it reassures the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that when applying for injunctions against minors, the applicant must consider their duties towards young people in general, including the general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, together with any child protection issues that arise in a particular case. In doing so, the applicant would be expected to seek the views of any social services or children’s services department that is engaged with the child.

The findings of a review of the operation of gang injunctions, published in January 2014, indicated that the definition of a gang used in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 has some limitations for addressing local gang issues. I am sure that noble Lords would expect the Government, having found those limitations, to come forward with amendments to address them.

Section 34(5) of the 2009 Act specifies the circumstances in which gang injunctions may be made. The court must be satisfied that,

“the respondent has engaged in, or has encouraged or assisted, gang-related violence”—

that is the fundamental requirement. “Gang-related violence” is defined as,

“violence or a threat of violence which occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that … consists of at least 3 people … uses a name, emblem or colour or has any other characteristic that enables its members to be identified by others as a group, and … is associated with a particular area”.

We are not talking about stop and search here; we are talking about collective activity. Following consultation with practitioners, we have concluded that this definition is too restrictive and, more importantly, does not reflect the true nature of how gangs operate in England and Wales.

Gangs do not always have a name, emblem or colour or other characteristic which enables their members to be identified as a group. Instead, individuals may operate as a group and engage in criminality with some degree of organisation without these features. Although gangs are traditionally associated with particular territories, they are now increasingly involved in criminality beyond their own areas and can be less associated with a particular area. Gang structures are now seen to change over time—they are morphing—such that it is possible for gangs to disappear from certain locations and reappear in other locations relatively quickly. Gangs may move to other locations as a result of black market forces or being pushed out by rival gangs.

In order to reflect the changes in the way gangs operate, Clause 47 amends the 2009 Act to revise the definition of gang-related violence. Under the new definition, violence will be gang-related,

“if it occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that … consists of at least three people”—

that remains—

“and has one or more characteristics that enable its members to be identified by others as a group”.

It has been suggested that this definition is too wide and that any group of three or more people identified by others as such could be affected by this legislation. I assure the Committee that this is not the case. Being part of a gang as defined by this clause is the first stage of the process but courts will also need to be satisfied that the defendant has been involved in violence and that any such violence is related to the gang. Of course, only courts can impose a gang injunction, after they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so.

In addition, evidence from police and local authorities shows that urban street gangs often engage in street drug-dealing on behalf of organised criminals, and some gangs aspire to and may become organised crime groups in their own right. That is why we are expanding the activity in relation to which gang injunctions can be imposed to involvement in the drugs market. This will allow gang injunctions to be used to prevent individuals from engaging in drug-dealing and to protect people from being further drawn into illegal drug-dealing, which is particularly important for vulnerable people, in particular teenage children, of whom we spoke earlier.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has raised some wider points about the Government’s overall drugs strategy. The noble Lord’s view is that the strategy is not sufficiently focused on tackling the root causes of demand for illegal drugs which drive this market. I agree with the noble Lord that reducing the demand for drugs is essential to successfully tackling this issue. Indeed, it is one of the three strands of the Government’s strategy, which balances action to reduce demand alongside support for individuals to recover from drug dependency and ensuring that law enforcement effectively protects society by restricting the supply of drugs.

We are confident that this approach is working. Drug usage has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1996. Figures on the level of overall drug use among young people in 2012 show that 17% of pupils aged 11 to 15 reported ever taking a drug, compared with 29% in 2001. There is a marked fall in the use of drugs among young people.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The Home Office is fond of quoting certain statistics that are, I am sure, correct, and demonstrate declining use of certain drugs. Can the noble Lord, however, tell us whether the use of class A drugs has fallen? What is his view on the consumption of new psychoactive substances, which are also drugs, even if not proscribed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? Surely the overall picture is far less comforting than he seeks to persuade us it is.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I accept that. I am not at all complacent about the role of drugs in society and I think the noble Lord knows that. However, I am saying that we have, through our strategy, at least reduced consumption over the past few years. It is an important element—we know that 45% of acquisitive crime, for example, is estimated to be carried out by opiate or crack users. It remains a matter of concern. Nobody is complacent about this—I did not want to create that impression. However, I also wanted to reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we are driving this policy hard because we recognise the damage that drugs do in society. We continue to do all we can to prevent people using drugs in the first place, and to intervene early with those who start to develop problems, for example by developing an online alcohol and drug education and prevention information service. This work to reduce demand for illegal drugs is crucial, but I am equally clear that we need to provide the police and local authorities with the tools they require to intervene to prevent the harm caused to communities by gangs who are involved in drug dealing and to divert young people on the periphery of this world away from gangs before their involvement becomes serious.

The whole point of this clause is to improve our response to gang-related violence and involvement in illegal drug dealing by redefining and extending the scope of these injunctions to ensure they better reflect the reality of gang culture in England and Wales. Of the 109 gang injunctions issued, 45% have been breached. Interim injunctions were granted on the authority of the court. It needs to act proportionately when it considers these matters. We never expected large numbers of gang injunctions to be used. They are aimed at preventing gang-related violence, and they are a useful tool for local partners to use in the right circumstances for the right individuals. The changes in this Bill will enable more effective targeting of those not directly involved in violence but who could influence violent activity. I say to the noble Lord that legal aid is available for gang injunctions, including costs incurred for a lawyer to represent a person in court. Legal aid also covers breach and variation hearings.

I have tried to cover most of the points raised by the noble Lord in his intervention. I apologise to the noble Baroness—I did not mean to cut her off from this debate, and if she wants to say a few words on this issue I am happy to do my best to reply to them too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

Amendment 40B will end this part of the work on the Bill with, again, something of a whimper, but nevertheless I shall pursue it very briefly in order to get the Minister’s comment.

Clause 56 deals with the retention or return of substances seized under these new provisions. Subsection (7) provides that where the substance is being retained for a second period, reasonable efforts are made,

“to give … notice to the person who the officer thinks may be entitled to the substance”.

The amendment would simply add that notice should also be given to the person from whom it was seized if that person is different. I may be missing something somewhere else in this clause, but I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I am aware that the Committee is hungry. I am hungry myself, so I shall be extremely brief. This amendment, helpfully tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, provides us with the only opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill that deal with cutting agents used to bulk out illegal drugs. I simply want to draw to the attention of the Committee the law of unintended consequences. Cracking down on relatively harmless cutting agents such as benzocaine runs the risk that you drive criminals to use much more damaging cutting agents. A case was reported in Scotland recently in which six people died. They had used heroin that had been bulked out with a cutting agent contaminated with anthrax. Criminals are entirely unscrupulous. I hope that, when under the terms of this clause, the police, customs and courts are considering whether to return or retain cutting agents that have been seized, they will think very carefully about the consequences of impounding relatively safe cutting agents, thereby providing an incentive for criminals to use much more dangerous cutting agents.

I will also, although this is a painful thing to do, draw to the attention of the Committee the utterly tragic case of Martha Fernback, a 15 year-old girl who died nearly a year ago after consuming ecstasy—MDMA—which was 91% pure compared to the average street-level purity of 58%. Had that MDMA been cut and the purity been what it would normally be when it came into her hands, she would still be alive today. Her mother, Anne-Marie Cockburn, has campaigned with tremendous courage and great wisdom asking that the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary think deeply about whether it would be right to move from the system of prohibition that trapped that girl towards a system of legalisation and strict regulation as well as vastly better education in this field. I will not enlarge on that theme because the Minister and the House know my views well, but as the House determines whether to approve these clauses we ought to bear in mind that legislation with the best of intentions, which the Government have, can lead to horribly counterproductive effects.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, if a court approves the further retention of a suspected drug-cutting agent beyond the initial 30-day detention period, it is only right that the responsible police or customs officer makes reasonable efforts to inform the person who may be entitled to the substances if the person was not present or represented at the court hearing. A person entitled to the substances is defined in Clause 53 as the person the substances were seized from or the owner of the substances. It is important that all those persons who are entitled to receive notice do so. This provides additional protection for the legitimate trade, ensuring people have sufficient time to consider and act upon the notice, if appropriate.

I commend my noble friend Lady Hamwee for ensuring that we continue to minimise the impact on the legitimate trade by setting out in clear terms who should be informed of the court’s decision. I shall therefore give further consideration to extending the provision to ensure that notice is given to the person from whom the suspected drug-cutting agents were seized, if different from the owner. I will reflect on this point and let her know the outcome in advance of Report.

On the two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about switching to more dangerous cutting agents, the proposals include a general seizure power which covers any substance suspected of being intended for use as a drug-cutting agent. Therefore, we do not anticipate that they will lead to drug traffickers using cutting agents that are more dangerous than those currently being used. I have heard of dangerous cutting agents being used currently. Any new substances that traffickers begin to use would be equally subject to seizure under these powers.

On the risk that the powers to seize cutting agents would place drug users in danger because of purity issues, by restricting the ability of drug traffickers to cut drugs we anticipate that the new powers will reduce harm by limiting the availability of drugs on the street. Lower availability should increase prices and therefore reduce use. The powers will also attack the profits of drug traffickers, which they use to fund a range of other harmful criminal activities. Moreover, the most common cutting agents are far from harmless. There has been a move away from inactive cutting agents to more dangerous pharmaceutical agents, such as benzocaine, lidocaine and phenacetin. Toxic doses of benzocaine and lidocaine can decrease the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause convulsions that mimic the acute toxicity of cocaine. Phenacetin, a painkiller, is no longer used in the UK due to its carcinogenic and kidney-damaging properties.

I hope my response has addressed the issues that my noble friend and the noble Lord have raised and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, when I picked up my copy of the Times on Thursday I saw a story headed “Criminal gangs are running swathes of Britain, says May”. The story went on to say that,

“the home secretary is believed to be referring to parts of … cities in which drugs gangs run protection rackets”.

The situation is bad and the Home Secretary does well to acknowledge it. This Bill, which takes new powers to strengthen the capacity of the National Crime Agency and other agencies to deal with a range of serious and organised crime, is conspicuously focused on drugs crime, and it is on that that I should like to focus my remarks.

The Bill is an iteration of the Government’s strategy of prohibition: the criminalisation of production, supply, distribution, possession and consumption of classified substances. Its thrust is logical as an extension of prohibition, which has been the global orthodoxy since the first of the UN conventions in 1961, and which is most significantly expressed in our domestic law in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Bill represents a new offensive in the war on drugs, which was declared on behalf of us all by President Richard Nixon in the 1970s, and our Ministers still march under the flag of that great leader. The Bill is “one more big push”, as the generals in the First World War used to say. The casualties were terrible then; the casualties are terrible now.

If the Bill proceeds to the statute book it will strengthen the arsenal of our law enforcement agencies, with new powers of investigation, the seizure of criminal assets, tougher prison sentences, “enhancements”—as the Minister called them—of serious crime prevention orders and gang injunctions, a new offence of knowingly participating in an organised crime group and new provisions for the seizure of cutting agents used to bulk out illicit drugs.

In our enthusiasm to bring wicked people to justice and to put them behind bars, I hope that we shall, as we scrutinise this Bill, pay very careful attention to the Bill’s potential implications for civil liberties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon have all drawn attention to Clause 41, which would create a new offence of participating in an organised crime group. We will need to be sure that the definitions that are legislated are appropriate and that the due diligence that will be required to enable lawyers, accountants and other professional people to demonstrate that they did not have reasonable cause to suspect that their client was seeking to manipulate ill-gotten gains is proportionate and manageable.

Gang injunctions presume criminality at a civil standard of proof, and we shall have to look carefully at that. As my noble friend on the Front Bench emphasised, we shall certainly need to make inquiries about the resources that the Government will make available to enable these measures to be effective. There is a crisis in our jails. A general election is coming along. Ministers in the Home Office are always particularly keen to be seen to be tough on crime in the run-up to a general election. We shall need to scrutinise to see which parts of the Bill are electoral puffery, which are reasonable and, above all, which might actually be effective. Will these measures help us at long last to turn the tide in the war on drugs? Will they even succeed in slowing the growth of the drugs economy?

In our era of prohibition, consumption of illicit substances in this country has soared. In the 1970s, one in 10 young people had taken cannabis. Now a quarter of 50 to 60 year-olds have used illicit drugs, as have a third of people in their 40s and more than half of people in their 20s and 30s. Ecstasy is enjoyed by 500,000 people a week. Cocaine, of poor quality, is available in towns and villages the length and breadth of the land. A new psychoactive substance arrives in this country at the rate of one a week. Britons are perhaps the biggest consumers of illicit drugs in Europe.

It would be helpful if, before we come to Committee, the Minister were able to let us have the Home Office’s own latest estimates of the scale of the consumption of mind-altering substances in this country, both legal and illegal. How many addicts are there in our society? What is now the size of the drugs economy? What are the costs to society, to the criminal justice system and to public expenditure overall? Some time ago I saw figures from the Home Office which estimated that the social and economic costs of illegal drugs in England and Wales amounted to £10.7 billion a year. Whatever the figure is, it is vast, and it is clear that we have not won the war against drugs.

Part 1 of the Bill, which provides new powers of confiscation and recovery of the proceeds of crime, certainly addresses an enormous problem. Money-laundering is big business in this country. The most notorious instance in recent years was that of HSBC. I believe that the members of the board of HSBC had no idea what their subsidiaries were doing in laundering money between Mexico and New York. Bankers in many institutions in the City of London, unburdened by civic responsibility or by any effective enforcement of regulation, came to the view that laundering drugs money was good business. They needed liquidity; they were addicted to bonuses; they risked, at the worst, fines which were a flea-bite. The Government have made the problem more difficult for themselves by encouraging wealthy people to come to live in this country as non-doms, but without interrogating them as they should about the sources of their wealth. The Chancellor is now enthusiastic about making the City of London a major offshore centre for dealing in the Chinese renminbi, notwithstanding that most new psychoactive substances are imported into this country from China. Let us hope that our new City regulators are less palsied than their predecessors.

We are talking not only of the City of London but of lawyers, accountants and estate agents throughout the country, who find it convenient not to ask the questions that the law already requires them to ask about the sources of their clients’ wealth and are too easily tempted by the high life which the processing of drugs money allows them to have. Less posh businesses on the high street—such as pubs, cafes, nail bars, taxi firms, even childcare organisations—are among the businesses that routinely transfer money out of the illicit economy into the licit one. Drugs would not be as ubiquitous as they are in this country if that were not the case.

How on earth is all this to be policed? Where will the resources come from, and what is the Home Secretary telling the police about their priorities? Of course the police achieve successes, and they should be congratulated and thanked for that. However, their task is impossible. They have to deal with 5,000 drugs cases a week on reduced budgets.

Clause 47, which enhances the injunctions to prevent gang-related violence and drug-dealing activity, is one that we shall want to look at. The Explanatory Notes tell us that the existing definition of a gang,

“is now considered by front line professionals to be unduly restrictive”.

I can well believe that. However, are these the same front-line professionals who have told us that it is their practice from time to time to go out to pick up small user-dealers as low-hanging fruit in order to meet their targets, and who have now been under instruction not even to do that after lunch because of the overtime costs of the bureaucracy, which extends so far into the evening?

The Home Secretary has done very well to challenge the police on practices that have meant that six times as many black people as white people have been stopped and searched on suspicion of carrying drugs. However, should we be worried that the new injunctions will similarly discriminate against young, black, poor men? Where are the Government’s policies to address the pathologies that generate the drugs culture—inequality, lack of mental health services, and a welfare state that fails to help people to turn their lives around?

The perversity of prohibition, which the Bill intensifies, is that it has proved to be an engine of crime. It has driven innovation in the drugs economy. You interdict the supply of a particular drug in one place, and the price of it rises. However, as my noble friend Lady Smith noted, demand does not consequentially fall. Demand for drugs, fed by addiction and peer pressure, is inelastic, so the drug dealers bring the drugs in by new routes, or, increasingly, they bring in new drugs.

The drugs economy and practice in drugs-taking constantly mutate. A drop in quality and availability was the prelude for the introduction of mephedrone into Britain. For a while mephedrone was cheap and legal. It was then banned, but even after it was banned its consumption rose by 20%. Its production was banned in China, but production shifted to India. The energies of the drugs gangs and the people who help them technically are for ever directed towards creating substitute drugs, many of them more dangerous than the drugs that have been proscribed and launched upon a market of ignorant consumers who know nothing about their composition, their toxicology and the dangers associated with them.

Over the past 50 years, prohibition has created and gifted to criminals across the world a vast, lucrative, destructive drugs economy. Governments and law enforcement agencies can try harder and run harder, but they catch very few of the criminals. The resources available to the criminals are often far greater than the resources available to the people enforcing the law and the criminals are utterly determined and ruthless. Globalisation has increased the scale of the problem vastly. Recently I stood on a cliff above the port of Salerno. Before me I could see containers piled high, stretching as far as the eye can see. Not more than some 2% of containers in world trade are inspected by the authorities.

The internet has transformed the marketing and supply of illicit drugs. The street corner is giving way to mail order. Mobile phones and social networking have facilitated communications between members of drugs gangs and between drug dealers and their clients. The European monitoring centre in Lisbon is currently monitoring 280 new psychoactive substances that are circulating in European markets. Moderately competent biochemists can with ease manipulate the molecular structure of one drug to create a new one. The dark web, encryption and bitcoins—which we shall come to at Clause 14(3)—have all made it easier to trade in drugs and harder to detect the trade.

Against that background, I was disappointed when the Home Secretary, in a response to the Home Affairs Select Committee, said that this Government do not think that,

“there is a case for fundamentally re-thinking the UK’s approach to drugs”.

I think it was Einstein who said that insanity consists in doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. I do not believe that it is a sensible strategy to overlay an anachronistic system of drug control that never worked, in a heavier version, on the new digital drugs economy. We need a different strategy. As the President of Guatemala has suggested, we should rid ourselves of this “global self-deceit”.

I challenge the premise on which this Bill is constructed, at least as far as its provisions about drugs are concerned. I do not advocate drug use. I believe that narco-criminals are evil and cause untold misery. Cannabis is certainly damaging to the mental development of young people. I sympathise entirely with parents in their fear of what may happen if their children get into drugs. However, I believe that we should base our policy on evidence. I believe that we should seek to minimise harms. There is no ideal solution available to us, but it will be possible for us to think again and instead adopt a policy, gradually and cautiously, of legalising and regulating the production and supply of selected drugs. At the same time we should give proper attention to education in our schools and to information to ensure that young people are properly informed and risk aware. I believe that it would be possible, using this entirely different strategy, to create a world that is much less bad in this regard than the world we have at the moment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

Of course, these things are all subjective to some extent and perhaps that was an inappropriate word for what I was trying to describe. However, with what is reasonably frightening one is attempting to put objectivity into it; what may be unreasonably frightening would fall into a different category.

Perhaps I may now refer to the preventive nature of the provisions and say that, in considering whether the clause impinges on the fundamental freedoms of individuals—and we are talking here about individuals and not peaceful assembly—the convention rights, including freedom of expression, are protected in any event, as I understand them. The Minister will no doubt explain that the Government have responded to the JCHR’s concerns.

I have been critical about the reliance in the Bill on guidance. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about it not being appropriate to give guidance to the courts—I made that point at the previous stage—but they would not be guided in the way that the potential applicants listed in the Bill would be, and the guidance will now be statutory.

The noble Baroness the Lord Speaker has confirmed that the second amendment—the reasonabless amendment —would fall if this amendment were agreed to. I finish by saying that I will still feel free to annoy people by delivering leaflets and by expressing minority opinions. I fear that, as a child of the 1960s, the musical exhortation has not persuaded me.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was right in this, at least in drawing attention to the scourge of anti-social behaviour. When I represented the constituency of Newport East I was all the time aware that there were households and, indeed, communities whose lives were very seriously blighted by anti-social behaviour. There is enormous political pressure on MPs representing constituents to find ways to crack down more aggressively and more effectively on such behaviour patterns. That pressure is, of course, amplified by the tabloids.

That is precisely why we should be moderate in this matter, why we need to be restrained and why we must try to get the right balance. Therefore, the provision in law that a threshold of “harassment, alarm or distress” must be exceeded seems to me to strike the right balance. I think that it is dangerous and improper to lower the threshold to “nuisance or annoyance”. It is surely unthinkable that we should risk introducing legislation that could impair the rights of people to go on demonstrations, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu offered as an instance, or of kids playing football in the street, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, worried about. There are all manner of other innocent behaviours that are, indeed, annoying, but that in a free society we should not dream of legislating to prevent.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, did not annoy me—he never could annoy me—but he startled me with the arguments he scraped together in his gallant speech in support of the Government’s position. He asked: is it a realistic fear that people would be subject to IPNAs for trivial and inadequate reasons? He offered the thought that the requirement that applications would have to be made through an official public agency should be seen as a filter and a safeguard. The vast majority of public officials handle their responsibilities fairly, properly, scrupulously and reasonably. I hate to say this, but it is also, surely, an observation that all of us have made that if you put a man in uniform, or if you vest official authority in a person, some will find themselves tempted, and succumb to the temptation, to use power overweeningly. We have to be very careful indeed.

The noble Lord says, further, that guidance will be offered to these agencies so, again, we do not really have cause to worry. I am sure that the guidance will be a force in the right direction, but guidance is only guidance; it is flimsy and an insufficient protection. The much better protection would be not to write this risk into law. He offers a much more reassuring protection—that such injunctions could be made only at the discretion of a judge and that we can rely upon the judges to exercise common sense, decency and appropriate restraint and to be animated by a mature and wise sense of justice. In that case, why legislate? We do not need to do this. We can rely on the judges not to order injunctions against people who are merely guilty of causing trivial annoyance. It does not seem sensible, in the present circumstances in which the resources of the courts have been very attenuated, to add this burden to them.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. What are we here for if not to protect civil liberties? Justice and convenience are very often in tension. I suggest that what may be for the convenience of the Government politically, for the convenience of local citizens, whose annoyance threshold is perhaps rather low, or for the convenience of agencies may be very ill assorted with justice. I think that the Government’s position is unwise and I very much hope that the House will support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and his colleagues.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. The arguments for it have been set out so clearly and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, that I will not repeat them, particularly at this late stage of our consideration. I will make three quick points as my contribution.

First, I listened in particular to the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks about MPs on all sides of the House complaining about and explaining the anti-social behaviour that some of their constituents face. As an MP of some 26 years’ standing, I can tell him that that is absolutely right: any MP worth his or her salt could give him numerous examples of anti-social behaviour and of the sense of inadequacy and frustration over the law seeming not to apply in those circumstances. However, one of the strengths of our bicameral arrangement is that this, your Lordships’ House, can consider such matters in a slightly different frame from the pressured one of representing constituents, some of whom are hard done by because of the law of the land. This House has the opportunity to reflect on the broader principles and bigger issues. This House sets the framework that, just occasionally, the House of Commons has not managed to get around to addressing because of the other pressures that Members of Parliament legitimately face. This is an opportunity for us to behave in a way that is in the national good and not just one that may be pleasing to some, or to some vested interest groups.

Secondly, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay illustrated the ability to cause annoyance, and of Ministers causing annoyance to the other side of the Chamber when they blame the previous Government for problems they face today. Incidentally, I know my noble and learned friend would accept that this is a two-way street: it is not just Ministers in this Government who have blamed the previous one; Ministers in the previous Government blamed us as well. The distinction I want to leave in the minds of noble Lords is that we are a sophisticated body. I was interested in the reaction to my noble and learned friend’s point. We all smiled, nodded and were very civilised about it. Out there are people who are not as civilised, tolerant, understanding or forgiving. This legislation may be of interest to them in a way that it would not be to us. We have to bear that in mind when we cast our vote.

Thirdly, as a former chairman of the Conservative Party, I am saddened that the Government have brought forward this particular piece of legislation. It is a matter of record that I—along with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and others—was a signatory to the legislation in December 2012 that amended by an overwhelming majority of your Lordships’ House the Public Order Act and took out the word “insulting”. Now we are offered in its place “annoyance”.

The sad fact is that it is not that surprising. I speak with some knowledge when I say that, internally, Governments occasionally believe that the combined wisdom of both Houses is not really up to scratch when compared to the wisdom of a department of state on a particular issue. I see nods on the other side of the Chamber that encourage me to understand that I am not making a party-political point at my party’s expense. It is one of the realities, and I will say something about departments of state: they have long memories. I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench—who is my friend in the personal sense, as we have known each other for many years—that I am saddened that I judge this to be an example of long memory.

Your Lordships threw out “insulting”—rightly so —and annoyed a lot of people in the process. They pleased a lot of people as well. Today I hope, not out of any sense of vindictiveness, as I have been a fully paid-up member of this party for a long time, that at the end of this vote the only people who will be annoyed are those who thought to bring forward this particular piece of legislation. I hope that, under the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, we will now amend it.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I well understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. For instance, I recognise what I can think of only as collusion between sellers and buyers of substances labelled bath salts, plant food, and so on. The noble Baroness says that this is her only qualification—come on, it is some qualification. We are very lucky to have her explain her point so clearly and, to my mind, so persuasively. As she says, trading standards authorities are as concerned as everybody else and struggling to find a way to deal with this. Has the noble Lord had comments on the proposal from the Trading Standards Institute?

Like the noble Baroness, the points that occurred to me, which I will not repeat but simply support, are: is this risk-based, is it evidence-based, will it bring the law into disrepute, does it recognise the psychology of the consumer? Chemists in China will stay ahead of the game and will use the internet. Of course we have to be smart, but we have to be smart differently, not try to beat them in the way that they are working.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the problems of new psychoactive substances are real and perilous. My noble friend Lord Rosser mentioned the number of recorded deaths. It is simple for an organic chemist to synthesise a new psychoactive substance to mimic the effect of a substance that has been banned. We understand that, across Europe, about 250 new psychoactive substances have been introduced in recent years. The Angelus Foundation, which originally proposed the new clause, has counted at least 250 head shops offering to provide such substances on the shopping streets of this country. There are other outlets, as has been mentioned, all of which succeed at the moment in evading existing regulation.

It follows that the buyers of those substances have no information about the composition, toxicity or purity of what they are buying. It is not only from the head shops that those substances can be obtained. Increasingly, they are being bought over the internet. Social networking spreads the news of the arrival of a new substance, and it is not at all uncommon for party invitations, distributed through social networking, to contain links to the suppliers of such substances.

The situation is very dangerous. The substances are cheap to produce and pretty cheap to buy. Sadly, young people are willing to take extraordinary risks with their own health and safety. A survey by Mixmag of club drug users found that no fewer than 25% of respondents said that they were willing to purchase and consume any white powder, unidentified.

The Angelus Foundation is right to have highlighted this issue and to have dedicated itself to improving the education available to people about new psychoactive substances. I pay tribute to Maryon Stewart, who created the Angelus Foundation following the tragic death of her daughter, who had consumed a new psychoactive substance. Maryon Stewart was impressive when she gave evidence to the inquiry which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, chaired on this issue.

However, with genuine great respect for the Angelus Foundation, and of course for my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Rosser, I believe that this proposed new clause is not the right way to approach the problem. Attacking head shops in the way that it envisages might indeed succeed in driving them out of business, but my worry is that it would drive the people who are purchasing these substances into the arms of nastier criminals—into the danger and squalor of engaging with gang-related street dealers in car parks and alleyways. If they are not already using the internet, and I suspect that most of them will be, it will of course drive them into its seductions and dangers, perhaps particularly those of the dark web. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported in its 2013 annual statement that it has identified 693 different internet outlets offering new psychoactive substances for sales. Actually, what I think will happen is that the internet will drive the head shops out of business, just as it has driven record shops and book shops out of business. This is not a measure that would enable us to police the net.

The Angelus Foundation has been candid that its purpose in proposing this new clause is to ban the sale of new psychoactive substances but all the evidence from 50 years of prohibition is that banning substances does not stop trafficking in drugs or people using drugs. In fact, it drives innovation; as one avenue is closed, another is opened. Prohibition has been an engine of crime. It has been counterproductive and has produced appalling consequences.

There are also civil liberties implications in this proposed new clause. Since an earlier version was debated in another place, it has been revised to require a lower standard of proof. The proposition is now that if a court is satisfied merely on the balance of probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt, it may make an order against a head shop listing products which appear to trading standards officers to be psychoactive and synthetic, and to have been bought for the purpose of intoxication. If the proprietor is unable to demonstrate that that is not the case, he will be liable to a prison sentence of six months or a level 5 fine. It is inconceivable that in this country we should legislate to imprison people because it appears to an official of the state that such and such is the case and the accused is unable to disprove the allegation. We have not seen legislation like this since the days of the Warsaw Pact in eastern Europe. It would be wrong for us to lower our standard of justice.

I am also bemused to note that the expectation, according to the Angelus Foundation briefing, is that consultation should follow once the legislation is on the statute book. That would be Alice in Wonderland legislation. I had not hitherto seen my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon as the Red Queen, or my noble friend Lord Rosser as the Red King.

The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 is, I suggest, a bad model for legislation to deal with the problem that we are addressing. It was designed to ban the sale of glue or lighter fluid for purposes of intoxication, but we know what glue and lighter fluid are. The very difficulty is that we do not know what these new psychoactive substances are, so how would the court establish the balance of probabilities? Would it be on the basis of guesswork or on the say-so of a trading standards officer? Justice, like policy, ought to be based on evidence. One of the great difficulties that we are facing is that the infrastructure for forensic testing in this country is entirely inadequate. We have not invested as we needed to do in it. That is a point that we made in the all-party group’s report. The result is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, temporary class drug orders and the whole apparatus of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs are underresourced and unable to deal with a problem of the scale, complexity and pace of change that we have to deal with in respect of new psychoactive substances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Has the Minister held discussions with his counterpart Ministers in the education department? The evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee was that the majority of schools provide drug education only once a year or less. As far as the national curriculum goes, they are required to provide some sort of drug education within the science curriculum, but that is just about it. PHSE has only a toehold in school education. This is not the right way to help young people develop the resilience and capacity to take their own responsible decisions. A great deal more needs to be done in our schools.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I note the noble Lord’s point. I assure him that communication across government on this is very vigorous. I am sure he will agree that schools are not the only place where you can communicate with young people. We live in an age where there may be other less formal ways of conveying this message. I think the Government are right to see issues such as this also in those terms. I hope he will understand that our strategy is multifaceted; it is not just the single point that he made. The legal high trade is very resilient. It is inventive. There is no silver bullet for dealing with it. We need to ensure that whatever we are doing is equally resilient and effective.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth may have been referring to a meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee last week, at which my colleague Norman Baker, who is the Minister now responsible for drug policy, advised the committee that he is particularly keen that we look at all the options for tackling new psychoactive substances and learn from other countries in that regard—the noble Lord referred to New Zealand, for example—and that is what we are doing. However, even though this area is a cause for concern, caution needs to be exercised before we take any further steps. The possible unintended consequences need to be fully understood. That is why I think that the speeches of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Paddick, along with the excellent speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, demonstrate that they are right to be concerned that the amendment and this new clause are deficient.

With this in mind, the move away from an evidence-based approach to drug harm that Amendment 56NA could imply is not one that the Government can take lightly; I think noble Lords were right to point that out. We are committed—as indeed we should all be committed—to ensuring that our legislative response continues to restrict the supply of harmful new psychoactive substances, both in our communities and online, by providing UK law enforcement with robust and practical powers to tackle this trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I promised to keep Peers informed of the outcome of that campaign, and will do so. However, it is quite clear that with some of those psychoactive drugs—I believe that I debated that issue with the noble Lord in Grand Committee, when we passed that legislation—the truth is that people may be dealing in those chemicals who are unaware of the illegality of their actions. I will keep noble Lords informed and I hope that we can move on.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is it not a great difficulty that neither the police nor trading standards officers have the means to test those substances and find out what they are?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

They have access to the means to test the substances, which is a reasonable enough basis on which to alert the people running those premises that they might be dealing in illegal drugs.