Cannabis
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on raising this issue and on the way in which she has done it. The Question asks whether the Government “plan to invite” a review of the evidence. It is asking not whether the Government will reschedule cannabis but whether they plan to review the evidence, or at least to have the evidence reviewed. That is the crucial point.
It is six and a half years since I tabled a QSD in which I asked what consideration the Government had given,
“to establishing a royal commission on the law governing drug use and possession”.
I argued the case for evidence-based policy. My starting point was that there was a demonstrable problem and that we needed to address it. I was not advocating that the policy should be adopted but making the case for reviewing existing policy. In reply, the Minister said that there was considerable disagreement on the issue—well, not in that debate; every Peer who spoke, bar the Minister, agreed with me.
In this debate the focus is on the rescheduling of cannabis. As we have heard, there is a particularly powerful case for reviewing the use of cannabis under certain conditions for medicinal use. The MS Society has changed its position on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes in the light of reviewing the evidence, and its stance is a measured one.
The arguments that have been deployed against change by the Home Office do not stack up, especially under a Conservative Government. If a law is not working and change is resisted on the grounds of sending the wrong signals, then Ministers have little grasp of the Conservative view of law.
I repeat what I said in 2011:
“My case is that we need to explore whether the present law is necessary and sufficient, whether it is necessary but not sufficient, or whether it is neither necessary nor sufficient”.—[Official Report, 9/3/11; col. 1675.]
Implicitly the Government took, and take, the first of those positions. There was and is no critical reflection. Yesterday my noble friend Lady Williams reiterated that she supported evidence-based policy. Now is the time to consider the evidence. Will my noble friend commit to that?
Drugs Policy
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on raising the question and I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party group. It is five years since I tabled a Question for Short Debate asking what consideration the Government had given to establishing a royal commission on the law governing drug use and possession. The timing was deliberate, coming 40 years after the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was promulgated and the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed.
I made two points by way of introduction. First, I stressed that I believe strongly in having evidence-based policy. As I said then, I am appalled at how much legislation is brought forward more on the basis of hope than evidence. Secondly, the best way to affect attitudes and behaviour is through education and persuasion. I repeat what I said then:
“The law alone cannot achieve change, and indeed it can be dangerous to rest on the law in place of education”.—[Official Report, 9/3/11; col. 1673.]
I drew the distinction between drug use and prohibition. Prohibition can have and has had appalling consequences—a point made powerfully by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I advocated a commission or some other body of inquiry to examine the facts and to undertake an evidence-based inquiry.
The Minister replying to my question on that occasion said that the subject was one that excites disagreement. It may well do, but the only person who disagreed with me in the debate was the Minister. Everyone else who spoke, on all sides of the House, supported the case for review. In effect, what we were arguing for then is encapsulated in the call now by UN officials. It is crucial that the Government should recognise the problem as one of health, that we start from the problem of drug use and evaluate the evidence on the way to tackle the problem.
The danger is that the Government adopt a mindset that is resistant to change and, as a result of that mindset, are reluctant to consider dispassionately the evidence that does exist and are reluctant to commission evidence to help identify what needs to be done. Part of the reluctance appears to be a fear of public opinion. I think that fear is overblown and indeed not necessarily evidence based—but, in any event, what we need is what has been shown by some Governments elsewhere, not least on the American continent, and that is leadership to address what is a very real global and national problem.
I look forward to my noble friend Lady Williams confirming that the Government accept the need for evidence-based policy, for being as transparent as possible in sharing that evidence, and to hearing what the Government plan to do to acquire, evaluate and act on that evidence.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I would not dissent from the points that have been made about what should go into an annual report. I rise very briefly to comment on Amendment 55 and to commend my noble friend Lord Bates for tabling it; it is extremely helpful. He has already touched on it and the reasons for it, and I just reinforce that. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, did not I think disagree with having the review, but suggested that there should be a second one later on. The point I would make is that there will be: most Acts are now subject to review four to five years after enactment, so this measure would come up for review at that point in the normal course of events. What we have here is an early review, which is eminently sensible in the context of this measure, and it is being done on a statutory basis. I have long advocated post-legislative review. I think it is an excellent thing and now, as I say, it has been brought in as a matter of course. But, where necessary, it is very valuable for it to be made on a statutory basis, for it to be included in a measure so that it is a firm provision. It will be reviewed within 30 months, which, in the context of the measure, is an appropriate period. I commend the Government for bringing this amendment forward.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I undertook to reflect on the various amendments that were tabled in Committee. Having reflected, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stated, we have brought forward Amendment 55 in this group.
As I indicated in Committee, post-legislative scrutiny of all primary legislation takes place three to five years after Royal Assent. We accept that there is a case here for special treatment. The Government are bringing forward their post-legislative scrutiny of this particular piece of legislation and will place a review of the operation of the Act on a statutory footing.
We remain firmly of the view that that the duty to undertake a review should be a one-off requirement, rather than a continuing annual requirement with all the costs that that would entail. We are not persuaded of the benefit of undertaking a bespoke review of this legislation year after year. I appreciate that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is not confined to a review of this legislation, but my point about the resource constraints carries ever more weight when one looks down the list of matters to be addressed in the noble Lord’s annual review of the Government’s drugs strategy.
Given these considerations, the Government’s amendment simply requires a review of the operation of the Act and places a duty on the Home Secretary to prepare a report on the review and lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament within 30 months of the Bill coming into force. As noble Lords know, a period of 30 months has been specified in order to allow for the collection of up to two years’ worth of data post implementation.
The need for a review of the Bill was one of the issues raised by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its letter of 2 July to the Home Secretary. In the Home Secretary’s response, published yesterday, she said:
“The Home Office is keen to work with the ACMD and would welcome the opportunity to have an early discussion on both the scale and scope of the review having regard to resource constraints, and how to make best use of existing data and evidence”.
Until we have had those discussions with the advisory council, it would be wrong to commit now to the review taking a particular form. I can say that I would expect the review to cover much of the ground identified in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Turning to Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I agree that many of the issues he raises need to be looked at from time to time. That is why we already produce an annual review of our 2010 drugs strategy. The most recent annual review was published in February and highlighted the progress made across the three strands of the strategy—namely, reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. The report also set out our future commitments, including new initiatives and actions to respond to emerging evidence and the changing nature of the drugs market.
I recognise that substance misuse is not an issue that government can tackle alone. We value contributions made by our key partners to support the delivery of the 2010 strategy, including: our independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; law enforcement agencies, including the National Crime Agency; international partners; and those working within the prevention, treatment and recovery sector. We are also committed to ensuring that, where possible, we assess the effectiveness and value for money of the 2010 strategy. Furthermore, our action to restrict the supply of illicit drugs is complemented by activity through the serious and organised crime strategy, which was launched in 2013 and which has been the subject of its own annual report. Together, the strategies are making significant steps forward in tackling the supply of drugs by organised criminals in the UK and overseas.
We recognise that drugs are a complex and evolving issue, so we will continue to develop the strategy and consider other approaches to help us respond to emerging threats and challenges. We will also continue to report in a proportionate way on progress in tackling these threats and meeting these challenges. I hope that noble Lords will agree that on reflection the approach taken in Amendment 55, coupled with the existing reporting on the 2010 drugs strategy, is the right way forward and, on that basis, that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 3(2)(a) permits the Secretary of State by regulation to amend Schedule 1 in order to add or vary any description of substance, while Clause 3(2)(b) permits the Secretary of State by regulation to remove any description of substance added under paragraph (a). I appreciate that any regulation made under this provision has to be by statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution. I appreciate that paragraph (b), which, on the face of it, appears to be a Henry VIII power, is limited by the fact that the Minister can seek to utilise it only to remove a substance that the Minister has added under paragraph (a). A Minister cannot seek to remove a substance that is exempted under the measure as enacted.
However, I have a concern about the provision under paragraph (a) to vary the description of any substance. This concern is shared by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, and I declare an interest as a member of that committee. In its report published at the beginning of last week, the committee draws attention to the fact that the power to vary any description of substance could presumably be employed to narrow the description of such substances, thereby expanding the range of substances brought within the ambit of the Bill’s provisions.
The power to seek to vary the description of substance is subject to it being exercised by a statutory instrument but, given the breadth of the power and the absence of any definition of what is meant by varying a description of substance, that may be deemed an inadequate safeguard. Exercising the power by statutory instrument may be necessary but it may not be sufficient.
This is compounded by the fact that, as the Constitution Committee notes, the power to add, remove or vary the description of substances is not constrained by any explicit statement of the purpose or purposes for which the power may be exercised. Any constraint would have to be inferred from the scheme of the Bill but that may be difficult given that, as the committee notes,
“the Bill adopts an ostensibly neutral conception of what should constitute a (non-exempted) psychoactive substance”.
There is no notion of harm embodied explicitly in the Bill, so one cannot adumbrate clearly the range of substances upon which its provisions have effect. Given the wide power conferred by paragraph (a) to vary any description of substance, some amendment to the clause to make clear the meaning of vary would seem appropriate, along with a statement of the purpose or purposes for which the power may be exercised; in short, making it clear what it is and when it would be appropriate to use it.
If the Minister were to indicate that the Government would be prepared to consider amending the Bill along those lines, that would allay concerns about the broad and undefined powers given by this clause. Without such an assurance, the prudent course would be to remove altogether the provision to vary any description of substance. That would leave the Minister with the capacity to add by regulation and to remove by regulation anything added. That would offer at least some clarity in a way that we do not have at the moment. One either defines what is meant by varying a description of substance or one removes the term from the Bill. The amendment, by providing for removal, is designed to concentrate the Minister’s mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend and I have Amendments 20, 21, 47 and 48 in this group. First, I welcome the introduction of this issue in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which, as he said, was considered by the Constitution Committee. We are lucky to have committees which manage to just about keep ahead of the game in looking at legislation and helping the rest of the House in raising such issues. It is a very important point.
My amendments are in two pairs and both regard the regulations. One of each pair provides that when the Secretary of State consults before making regulations, as well as consulting those whom she considers to be appropriate, she should specifically consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs both with regard to exempted substances under Clause 3 and excepting certain actions in regard to offences under Clause 10. The second amendment in each pair provides that she must also make a report to Parliament on the consultation. I have added that assuming that that is what would happen but I seek the Minister’s confirmation.
A number of people commenting on this Bill have said that the ACMD seems to have been sidelined when it should be upfront and the centre of what we are doing. I hope that this small point—it is not a small issue, but a small insertion—is something that the Minister and the Secretary of State would be glad to confirm as proper to be in the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I shall look forward to further discussions with him, and I know the Constitution Committee will be very interested in his response to its report.
I listened with great interest to what my noble friend said. On defining the term “to vary” he offered a description but not necessarily a compelling argument for why a description should not be in the Bill. I appreciate that the power to vary will be subject to the affirmative resolution, but that places a burden on the House to establish criteria for assessment when the instrument is brought forward, whereas it may provide better discipline for the criteria to be established in the Bill. We can say no when the instrument is brought forward, but there may be a case for it not to be brought forward in the first place to make it clear to the Government what should and should not be permissible. So I am not necessarily persuaded that the Government should be given the essentially unrestricted power in Clause 3. One can have a little too much flexibility.
However, I look forward to discussing this further with my noble friend and, in the mean time, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, my amendment would remove alcohol from the list of exempted substances in Schedule 1. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to enable the Minister to do that which he did not have time to do at Second Reading: to provide an intellectual justification for the exclusion of alcohol from the provisions of the Bill.
Alcohol has the effects listed in Clause 2(2) and as developed by the Minister in responding in Committee on Amendment 7. Why, then, is it an exempted substance? The logic of the Bill is, on the face of it, unclear. It seeks to prohibit psychoactive substances that are seen to be harmful, but it then exempts the substance that is the most harmful of all in human, social and economic terms. Alcohol misuse kills, it rips families apart, it puts strain on public services—the police and the NHS—and it has enormous economic consequences for public services and for employers in working days lost. There are at least 5,000 alcohol-related deaths a year. If one includes deaths where alcohol is causally implicated, the figure rises to some 20,000, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, at Second Reading.
Alcohol abuse remains the leading risk factor in deaths among men and women aged 15 to 49 in the United Kingdom. In 2012-13, there were more than 1 million hospital admissions related to alcohol consumption, and almost 300,000 were wholly attributable to alcohol consumption or classed as alcohol specific. Alcohol abuse not only harms those who drink but impacts on society as well. Heavy drinking can not only damage one’s physical and mental health but lead to assaults and leave one vulnerable to assault. There were nearly 10,000 casualties of drink-driving the UK in 2012, including 230 killed. In almost half of all violent incidents, the victim believed that the offender was under the influence of alcohol. Perhaps most remarkable of all, according to Alcohol Concern, the NHS estimates that some 9% of men and 4% of women in the UK show signs of alcohol dependence; that the cost of alcohol misuse in England is an estimated £21 billion in healthcare, crime and lost productivity; that the cost to the hard-pressed NHS is £3.5 billion; and that the cost in terms of crime is £11 billion. It is difficult to comprehend the sheer scale of the social and economic cost.
Why do we continue to tolerate heavy drinking and many city centres being awash with drunken youths on Saturday evenings, and why are we willing to excuse clearly inebriated individuals in all sorts of social settings but do not tolerate those who take other psychoactive substances? Why is one type of misuse apparently culturally acceptable, or at least tolerated, but not the other? Should we not adopt the same approach to all psychoactive substances that can produce serious personal, social and economic harm? Why do we seek to ban the manufacture and distribution of one but not the other? My noble friend may say that the answer is purely practical: that we cannot ban the production and sale of alcohol because such a ban would be unenforceable; we would be emulating the USA of the 1920s. If that is the case, let us have that on the record. Is the use of legal highs on such a scale that a ban on their production and distribution can be enforced, or, at least, is that the justification? If so, what is the evidence that such a prohibition is enforceable? What consideration has been given to the alternatives?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is right. We will go back and look again at those Written Answers. We are alert to the risk of powdered alcohol and are actively looking at how best to meet this challenge. However, we are not persuaded by this amendment. We are alert to the problem and are looking at it. I will be happy to meet with the noble Lord, together with officials, if he has new evidence to share with us about how the problem of powdered alcohol is being tackled in other countries and if and how it is being used in this country.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. It has been a useful discussion for getting certain matters on the record. We may have done a public service by finding out what the Opposition’s policy is on this matter.
The Minister’s response—and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, to some extent—made my case for me. The point that we have established is that there is no principled case for the exemption. The Minister basically said that it is difficult to ban it, that we are where we are and that it brings in a lot of money to the Treasury. That has to be set against the damage that alcohol misuse causes, as I have detailed and, indeed, as my noble friend confirmed in the data that he placed before us. My noble friends Lord Blencathra and the Minister made the point that I was making—that in relation to alcohol there is an approach of regulate and educate—so why are we not being consistent? That is the issue that I was raising and it is important that it is borne in mind. If we are going to proceed, we have to be clear about why we are doing this. Where is the consistency? What is the intellectual case? As we have heard—as my noble friend confirmed—there is not one.
I am sure my noble friend will be relieved to know that I do not intend to press the amendment, nor is it something that would lend itself to come back to on Report. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who has raised an important issue which is worth pursuing. I do not intend to pursue the broad issue that I have raised, but I hope that throughout our discussions this will remain the elephant in the room. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and to reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, looking particularly at information—in this instance, under Amendment 11, information directed at users. That struck me as the key point in the amendment because the Bill is concerned primarily—necessarily so—with those who produce the substances. The danger is leaving out those who might then consume them. They are not doing anything illegal, but we should not leave them out of the discussion about them being better informed about the effects of the substances.
We will come on to education in Amendment 13. That might be useful in deterring people who want to take substances in the first place. It might be a bit optimistic, but I think that is eminently sensible. But what about those who are users and making sure they are at least informed as a consequence of what we are talking about? I am a little concerned if we focus solely on production and what we do about that, without thinking about those who are still prone to consume these substances. I am not particularly wedded to the particular amendments the noble Lord proposes, but I am very much at one with him in the intent and in what he is calling attention to: making sure we do not lose sight of that dimension. I will be very keen to hear the Minister’s response. If we are not deterring them—my hope would be that we would—I cannot see what the difficulty would be in having some regime for providing that sort of information.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there are effectively three amendments here. One is Amendment 11, whose essence is guidance. All three may have some merit and we would be very interested in the Minister’s reply. The first one on guidance would seem to be very important for potential users. Also, of course, it would meet a concern which we were lobbied about regarding the retail sector, which clearly is going to have problems given this Bill. It is going to need some guidance and it may have to try and generate its own if the Government do not help. I would be very interested about what the Government have to say on that.
Proposed new paragraph (a) in Amendment 12 and the availability of information on the internet also seems sensible to me. It does not mean we are softening our general position on the Bill. Good information provided by government has to be a good thing. I would be very interested in the Government’s response to the proposal relating to testing centres. At first sight, it looks rather over the top, but on the other hand the Government are committed I believe—and it is very important how carefully this response comes across—to a much more comprehensive approach to testing, to support the Bill. That will give us some tangible evidence that the Bill will work. I hope the Government will take these three areas seriously and, depending on their response, we may take this further with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on Report.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank the noble Lord for that, but there is a well-established system for issuing a national alert. Any intelligence that Public Health England receives alerting it to the identifiable problem of a batch of drugs likely to cause a significant risk in England is acted on. There was an example earlier this year. There was a warning from Madrid that Superman pills sold as ecstasy containing PMMA were found in Spain. This followed the tragic deaths in England over the Christmas period caused by similar Superman pills. PHE took immediate action and issued a warning that these highly dangerous drugs may still be in circulation. Public Health England is working with partners to accelerate the review already under way on how drug alert systems in the UK can be improved, including how they join up with intelligence from Europe.
Lord Norton of Louth
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—you start from the basis that it is harmful and ascend in order of degree of harm. I take what my noble friend said about there being a mechanism for identifying them already and for disseminating that, but could she say a little more about the dissemination? How far does it go? The concern is whether it actually reaches the users or stops at an earlier point in trying to prevent the dissemination of the drugs. How much is there a greater awareness of and sensitivity to those who are in danger of consuming these substances?
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.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I support very strongly the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the importance of education. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that the type of education is absolutely all-important. He said that teenagers do not want someone coming in preaching about drugs. Absolutely—we know from all the research, most of which has been carried out in the US, that lecturing and didactic teaching does not work in the sphere of drugs. We know that. I was going to suggest that we need the words “evidence-based” in the amendment. We know from the evidence that peer involvement—certainly group work with youngsters who have already had or are now having terrible problems with drugs—is the method of education that works. Whether one wants to call it education or whatever, it ideally needs to go on in schools. It does not seem inappropriate therefore to use the word “education”. We all have to be clear what we mean by education but, as for the term “evidence-based”, the evidence points exactly in that direction.
Before you get to that sort of education and imparting —or whatever you call it—of information, there is work already being done in a number of schools up and down the country to improve the resilience of youngsters who are particularly vulnerable to drug addiction. An example is children who are not functioning well at school or have very difficult home lives. There are all sorts of reasons why those children lack resilience. There are very good programmes of resilience-building in schools and for me they are utterly central to the whole business of prevention of drug addiction. This sort of work is far more important even than all the stuff we were talking about earlier about legislation, passionate though I feel about having the right framework in which all these things occur. I would support at least some variant of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, because it is fundamentally important, but let us see if we can come up with something really good for Report. Even better, the Minister could take this away and bring back a well-framed amendment to cover this vital issue.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I have added my name to the amendment because I think the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is spot on in terms of the principle of the amendment, which is about education, because it completely shifts the focus. This Bill is essentially reactive. It is getting at what it wants to ban. The great thing about the amendment is that it is proactive. It explains to people why they should not take drugs in the first place. The route is education because we want to ensure that people are aware of the risks so they do not wish to take them in the first place. Otherwise, what we are doing is downstream once they have started taking the substances.
How then do you deliver the education? I take the point that my noble friend Lord Blencathra made about those who should be informing others, because young people listen to other young people and those who have had the experiences. It is absolutely right. They would be the most appropriate people. If somehow one could link a reduction in drug use to school league tables I can assure you that head teachers would be bringing in those appropriate people like a shot to affect outcomes. However, the crucial point here is that what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is getting at with this amendment is worth while in its own right and would be worth pursuing anyway even if the rest of the Bill were not there.
I think we are all agreed that it does not actually have to be precisely in the form in which the noble Lord has brought it forward but there is a general welcome for the principle involved. I regard it as extraordinarily important because if we can stop people wanting to take synthetic substances in the first place then a lot of what we are discussing becomes unnecessary. We really ought to be thinking in those terms and the noble Lord has done a fantastic service by bringing forward this amendment. I hope it will engage my noble friend’s attention to thinking how we educate people about this in the first place. It might be difficult. We might not achieve it, but it is inherently a desirable goal. It is, if you like, a public good.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
Can I make a short intervention to support Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport? I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that you need reformed addicts and the like to be effective in these circumstances. I have some experience working with the Wise Group in Glasgow, where Routes out of Prison takes reformed prisoners—people who have been on the inside—and meets prisoners coming out. There is no doubt that the vital connection between those who have been in that bad place and traded themselves out of it, and the totality of both phases, is very compelling and captivates young people of secondary school age in particular in a way that nothing else can, so education of that kind is essential in my view. However, there are not enough people with sufficient experience to do it. The voluntary sector is very good in some parts of the country but in others it is patchy. Further, if this is a good idea and there are workable ways of delivering it without men in suits being involved, we need a quantum of money to make it work sensibly. It is astonishing that the last Government fessed up to spending only £180,000 in this area. I think that figure applies only to England. I must check with my Scottish contacts to find out whether they spent a tenth of that, or whatever it was. That really is a de minimis amount of money. Indeed, I think that even £7 million is a de minimis amount of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is absolutely right to say that this proposed new clause stands on its own but if the Government are really taking a blanket-ban approach—I agree with my noble friends on the Front Bench that that is not the appropriate way to go—I would be consoled if there was an important, big, well-funded and properly constructed education package that went with this approach, because I think it would have an impact. However, you cannot do it for £180,000 a year. As we all know and expect, the impact assessment talks about effects on business, and all these things are important. However, if we are going to make this a reality and make it work, we need to be thinking over the period of the rest of the Parliament of seriously increasing the resources devoted to the measures proposed in this amendment.
My final point concerns the troubled families programme—it is a horrible name—about which I know a little and which was mentioned in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. It is also another way into this issue because a lot of the trouble in troubled families comes from youngsters who are out of control. These families contain a lot of single mothers in difficult circumstances and low-income households. These people struggle to access help. They will be the first to identify the problem with their teenage children and will be the first to seek help. Therefore, I think the troubled families programme would be another avenue through which to release resources effectively to confront some of these dangerous substances. If we are thinking about introducing a provision something like what is proposed in the new clause in Amendment 13 at later stages of the Bill, we need to think seriously about how to resource it adequately without being stupid about it. I am not daft; there is obviously an austerity constraint on everyone but we should all think about what constitutes a meaningful annual spend before the later stages of the Bill are completed.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I will assume it is a case of leaving the best till last. I very much agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has just made. I have raised the issue before about people in that very situation.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about the Long Title, the Long Title is that this is a Bill,
“to make provision about the registration of electors and the administration and conduct of elections”.
I would have thought that amendments about the registration of electors fall quite clearly within the subject matter of the Bill—unlike, I think, what is to follow.
I have added my name to Amendment 25, as my noble friend Lord Lexden mentioned, but I also support the amendments that he has brought forward. My noble friend’s amendments raise an important issue of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was raising matters of practice, but there is a fundamental principle. It is perfectly clear that some British citizens live abroad because they wish to do so. Some live abroad because they consider that they have to do so. Most emigrants from these shores move abroad, as my noble friend said, for work-related purposes. Some will be working for British firms; some will be teaching English; some will be paying taxes in the UK.
The important point is that they are and remain British citizens. So long as they remain British citizens, I see no reason why they should be disenfranchised. If they no longer feel any connection with the United Kingdom then it is open to them to seek the citizenship of the nation in which they reside. The fact that they chose to remain British citizens should not be dismissed but rather regarded as an asset for this country. British citizens are often important ambassadors for the United Kingdom. Just as overseas students in this country return home with British degrees and serve arguably as the most important source of British influence abroad, British expatriates are a notable source of British influence around the globe. Rather than discouraging our own citizens, and indeed overseas students, we should be treating them as an important resource in maintaining our influence on a global scale.
The principle is one that appears to be accepted by other EU member states. We are, as my noble friend has said, in a somewhat anomalous position. The largest number of British citizens who live in a non-English-speaking state reside in Spain, with the second largest number in France. Neither of those states disenfranchises its citizens who live abroad in the way that we disenfranchise ours. The link with constituencies is not particularly relevant in terms of the fundamental principle involved. Other nations, such as the United States, do not disenfranchise their citizens either and I see no reason why we should disenfranchise ours.
Like my noble friend, I have been struck by the number of British citizens presently living abroad who have been in contact to make the case for ending this anomaly. The fact that they feel intensely about the subject reflects their commitment to this country. They are not seeking any material benefit through this route—they are clearly proud to be British citizens and wish to retain the intrinsic feature of citizenship in the form of the franchise. At a time when we are having difficulty persuading many of our citizens at home to vote, it seems inappropriate to prevent citizens who do wish to vote from doing so.
My noble friend’s amendments therefore address an important issue, but they do so in a modest and ingenious manner. They are modest in relation to the principle and ingenious in relation to the practical problems involved. The Minister may claim that we need more time to reflect on the principle and that we should not rush to abolish the 15-year limit. My noble friend’s amendments would not abolish the limit but would rather allow the Secretary of State to introduce an order to extend the time period. There is thus time to reflect and build a consensus in order to extend the period.
There are practical problems, as no doubt the Minister will emphasise, in the process of registering British nationals who live abroad. My noble friend’s amendments seek to address those problems. The Minister may argue that they are not adequate, in which case, if the principle is conceded, the onus rests on the Government to come forward with proposals of their own. It is thus incumbent on the Minister to address the principle and explain why British nationals living abroad are treated less favourably than the citizens of other EU nations living abroad, and why we seem unwilling to acknowledge what constitutes a great British resource. We should not be encouraging EU nationals to desert their commitment to the United Kingdom but should rather be acknowledging that commitment. I hope therefore that the House will support my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. I have lived as an expatriate and, unless you happen to have parents resident where you want to register to vote, it is extremely difficult to get registered, particularly if people are busy with whatever their careers are.
My particular point is this: in most places, you are not entitled to vote in national elections wherever it is that you are living abroad. If such individuals cannot vote in the country of their nationality or in the country where they live, which is indeed the case with this country, then effectively you are denying them any major political vote whatever. No one seems to be concerned about that, but it is an unreasonable thing to do.
I was rather proud that in the most recent French elections London was, I think, the seventh largest-voting French city of the French electorate, as a result of so many French citizens living in London. Clearly there would have to be changes in the way that representation deals with expatriates if we were to adopt permanent voting by passport-retaining British expatriates, and the concept of the local constituency where they might have lived 10 or 20 years before does not work particularly well, but I suggest that for once it is worth while looking at how France runs its affairs because it deals rather more fairly with its expatriates than we do.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this amendment—if it was passed— requires the Government to report to Parliament annually, within two months of the end of the financial year, on what money has been made available to local authorities to meet the costs of the transition to the new register which will be under IER, and what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that the money has been spent on the specified task. I do not think it would be properly regarded as ring-fenced money but it would mean that the Government would be identifying the amounts of money that they expected to be seen spent on the transition and then there would be a report back afterwards to indicate what had happened to that money.
This is important because I think everybody in the House, and certainly in the other place, is aware of the importance of IER being made to work. I think most people would accept that whether IER works properly or is introduced in a way that does not leave too many people off the register will depend to some extent on the resources that are made available by central government to local authorities to ensure that happens. We know local authorities are pressed in a whole variety of ways at the moment because of the current economic position. I think it is sensible to try to protect the position that at least there is a requirement to report on both the money envisaged and then what happened to it. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I have a slight problem with the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. I may have missed something, but he said that the amendment provides that the Government shall report to Parliament annually, so there is no limit on the number of years—presumably it is in perpetuity—but they would be reporting on something transitional. Presumably there should be some time limit set in the amendment, otherwise there is redundancy built in to what is being asked in terms of providing material that becomes irrelevant once the transition is complete? Or have I missed something?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
One would hope so. I do not know how long the transition is going to take. It is clear from the way that everybody has spoken that probably in the first publication of the register where IER is compulsory—1 December 2015—it will not be complete. I have no idea how long it will go on after that, therefore at the moment I am not minded to put in a terminus date. At this stage, I cannot see any objection to the principle. This may surprise you as I am not intending to push this to a vote, but if the principle were accepted—which I hope it will be—then I think the right thing to do would be to talk to the Government to work out the best way to craft the detail.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I will make a couple of comments on the amendment. I am a bit wary of it. I rather shared the view of the Electoral Commission in their evidence to us:
“The Commission is clear, however, that any change should only be made if there is firm evidence that it would be of significant benefit to electors. At present, the evidence on weekend voting provides an insufficient basis on which to reach a definitive conclusion”.
Therefore we would need a far stronger evidence base before proceeding. Moving to this for the next election would be rather an experiment, on a bit too grand a scale. We need much better evidence before proceeding.
I raise a more general point that I have variously developed before. I am always concerned that discussing such proposals can amount to a form of displacement activity by politicians. Voter dissatisfaction and apathy have little to do with the process of voting. If people are motivated to vote, they will vote. To motivate people to vote we need to address policies and political behaviour. Politicians cannot say, “It is not us, it is the system”. I fear it is us. We need to be addressing that and doing so in a sustained manner. With amendments of this sort, however well intentioned—clearly they are, and there is a case for discussing it—my worry is that it actually risks masking a much more important debate that we need to have. We need to open it up on a much wider scale. There is the obvious point that if we make a change of the sort proposed by my noble friend this is perhaps not the appropriate time or Bill to do it. We have already messed around this afternoon with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I do not think that we need to be messing about now with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this is always an interesting one; it feels so natural that it must be easier to vote over two days than over one, and at a weekend. On the face of it, the proposal seems very attractive. However, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in all the doorstep work I have done—and I have done a fair amount—it has never been a complaint that I have heard. Although it sounds quite attractive, I have never heard people saying, “Why don’t we vote at the weekend?”. However, perhaps we should look to France. When we were discussing the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, I think noble Lords were saying that we should follow France, which votes on a Sunday. Much more importantly, of course, they voted socialist on a Sunday, so we should definitely follow what France does.
It sounds attractive but we are perhaps in a closer place to the Government in that we await some evidence about whether this merely sounds attractive and easy, or whether it would do what I think all of us want and increase public engagement and accessibility for voters, which we are going to come on to in an important amendment shortly. What we need is evidence and some more thought on this, and we will then happily look at it. If evidence is brought to us that this would increase both turnout and engagement, we would respond quite positively. However, at the moment, we are slightly lacking that evidence.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, it is rather encouraging at this time of night if two Peers rise at the same time. I was on the Constitution Committee when this matter was discussed and I rise to support the amendment as well. I think the case for it is compelling. If an elector has made the effort to be there by 10 o’clock at night they should have the right to vote. Following on from what I was saying earlier, I think the last thing we should be doing is discouraging voters who want to vote from actually voting. I think that it is imperative that we facilitate the opportunity to do so.
Given what has been said I do not want to speak at length. I just want to pick up on one point that has already been referred to, and that is not so much defining a queue as determining who is in it at 10 o’clock. We have had reference to experience elsewhere. We do not actually need to go as far as Scotland or the United States. We can do it in terms of our own House—because of course if there is a queue outside after eight minutes, as I understand it, one of the doorkeepers just stands behind the queue and stops anybody else coming in. It is fairly straightforward. All that needs to be done is straightforward guidance to returning officers as to how to deal with that in a practical way. I do not see any fantastic difficulty involved, but a fundamental principle is engaged by the amendment, and we should facilitate those voters who have made the effort to get to the polling station to vote if they are there by 10 o’clock.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I shall make a few comments on the amendment, to which I added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and other noble Lords have made clear, the need for the change has been questioned on the grounds that at the previous election, problems arose in only a small number of polling stations. As they have said, that surely cannot be a strong argument against the amendment. Everyone who wishes to vote and arrives at a polling station before 10 pm must be accommodated. That is the principle from which we must not deviate. The comparatively few cases of difficulty that occurred in the 2010 election were widely publicised and aroused considerable concern, as they were broadcast on television throughout the country. That does no good for the image and reputation of our electoral system. A repetition simply must be avoided.
It has also been said that all voters should be able to make their way to the polling station well before 10 pm. Who can tell what personal difficulty or domestic problem might arise in the case of particular voters, causing them to arrive at a polling station at the last minute? The country needs the assurance that the official in charge of each polling station will devise clear, practical and sensible arrangements well understood by his or her colleagues running the station to enable all those who arrive before 10 pm to cast their votes. That is why the amendment is to be commended.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not know; I am not a parliamentary draftsman, but I would hesitate to define a queue that stopped existing at 10 pm so that part of the queue was within a queue and another part was in a non-queue.
I am interested in what the noble Lord said. I think that he has misunderstood the point about exit polls. They cannot be published until polls have closed, for fear that they might influence people who have not yet voted. Therefore, voters who are queuing up could be listening to the radio and getting an exit poll, and that could influence the outcome. I am sorry, but that is the very purist view about the publication of exit polls. This shows the importance of defining these matters quite strictly, because one thing about elections is that you do not want people saying, “It is not fair”. That is what noble Lords are saying about people who have been excluded from voting because they were not given the opportunity of getting a ballot paper and casting it. I accept that: it was not acceptable. I suggest, however, that the way to deal with it is to ensure that the resources to process voters are adequate to ensure that queuing is not a problem.
I am delighted that my noble friend thinks I have an openness of mind; I always have an openness of mind and think it is very important in politics to have one. However, that does not necessarily mean that I am going to be able to come back with a response that is more positive than that which I have given previously. Noble Lords should understand that. The definition that lies behind the current arrangements provides clarity for both voters and those responsible for managing electoral processes, without any ambiguity at all. The Government would not wish to put on the statute book a provision which is not only unclear—because, although the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, says that it should be possible to make it clear what a queue is, I think it would be quite difficult—but might also send a message that queues are acceptable; that as long as the resources are adequate, if there happens to be a queue formed, then it is perfectly all right. I do not believe that that is the case; I think that those responsible for organising elections should make adequate provision to process voters so that queues do not form. That is the right way to proceed.
Lord Norton of Louth
I am very interested in the issues for which the Minister is identifying the problems and unintended consequences. Does he have evidence that any of these have occurred in the cases where the practice already exists? I wonder whether the words “holes” and “digging” come to mind.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I was not aware that I was in a hole, but I may be. I do not know what the noble Lord is referring to. Is he referring to the Scottish experience, for example?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There is no experience there to suggest that there is any problem; the numbers involved are very small indeed. The noble Baroness—or possibly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—talked about three voters. The note I have here says that possibly 10 voters may have been issued with a ballot paper after 10 pm under the more liberal regimes. This is nowhere near the scale of the 2010 general election situation here. I should say that in the United States, the majority of queues that form there are the result of mechanical voting and the breakdown of the technology used for voting. That is not the same sort of problem that we are talking about here.
I hope I have given noble Lords a run-down of the difficulties that Parliament would face if it chose to be more flexible in this area. I hope the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth
“Repeal of the edited version of the electoral register
With effect from 1 December 2013, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1871), the Representation of the People Act (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1872), and the Representation of the People Act (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1873) in respect of the edited version of the Electoral Register shall cease to have effect and no further versions of the edited Electoral Register shall be produced.”
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, in moving Amendment 55, I shall speak also to Amendments 56 and 57. As I would hope would be fairly obvious, Amendments 56 and 57 are alternatives should Amendment 55 not find favour. The amendments address the issue of the edited version of the electoral register. My starting point is that the current position in respect of personal data supplied by electors is not sustainable. Some electors find that they are included in the edited version, even though they have no wish to be included. Some find their personal data being made available through organisations selling data taken from the register, on occasion apparently even though they have opted out of being included in the edited version.
By introducing individual electoral registration, the Bill goes some way to addressing the problem. It means that each elector has to make a decision as to whether they wish to opt out of the edited version of the register, whereas at present the head of the household may make that decision, which could mean a decision taken, for instance, by an official on behalf of students residing in college. The Bill, however, does not go far enough. The retention of the edited version raises a fundamental issue of principle. It entails the harvesting and sale of personal data as a by-product of a civic duty imposed on citizens.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, as well as the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators have argued that the edited register should be abolished. As the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has argued:
“Whatever benefit it might bring, we cannot justify the sale to commercial organisations of personal details gathered by the Government for electoral purposes”.
The Electoral Commission has reiterated its support for abolition of the edited version in its briefing notes on this Bill. As it notes, prohibiting the production and sale of the register is particularly important, given the need to maintain people’s confidence in the security of their personal details. In December 2011, the Guardian editorialised that the edited register,
“lingers on, a travesty of the democratic process that sullies the relationship between voter and state, and illustrates just how casually politicians think about democracy”.
There are then objections of principle to having an edited register. There are problems with the mechanism by which the names of electors are included. When the sale of the full electoral register was deemed illegal, the edited version was introduced with an opt-out provision. If one does not opt out of having one’s name included, it is assumed that one wants one’s name included in the edited register. The Government cannot be certain that those whose names appear in the edited version of the register want their names to be included. The extent to which the opt-out provisions are explained to electors appears to differ, but even if it was explained on a consistent and prominent basis, we still cannot be sure that the edited version comprises the names solely of those who wish their names to appear.
There are thus significant problems arising from the generation and publication of an edited register. At the heart of it, however, is an issue of principle. I am familiar with the arguments for its retention which are, essentially, practical arguments and are variously advanced in the magazine Parliamentary Brief and in the other place by Dan Rogerson. They do not engage with the issue of principle. The argument is that the edited version brings economic benefits because of the use made of it by commercial organisations. I understand that the Government were considering abolishing the register but have now been swayed by this argument. One would have thought that it was obvious why commercial organisations bought the edited register but this seems only now to have dawned on the Government.
There is a separate argument—essentially a public good argument—that some bodies use the edited version for altruistic reasons or for purposes that have a public benefit, such as tracing lost family members. I would have thought that the benefit is limited, given the scale of electors opting out of the edited register, and that there is a case for allowing bodies access to the full register where they can meet a public benefit test.
In response to the report of the Constitutional and Political Reform Committee, the Government said the arguments were “finely balanced”. In terms of principle, I am not sure that they are. I think principle trumps any commercial benefit. There is no public benefit in selling the edited register, other than a broad and incidental benefit in that it helps commercial organisations to trade, but that benefit would apply in all sorts of contexts where firms could operate in a way that conflicts with basic principles, be they in relation to the franchise or, say, working practices.
Amendment 55 thus prohibits the production and sale of the edited version of the register prior to the commencement of individual electoral registration in 2014. That is the clear-cut option. It gets rid of the edited register. That is my preferred option. If, however, the Government wish to persevere with an edited register—I would prefer that they did not—then Amendments 56 and 57 modify the existing arrangements. Amendment 56 is designed to get the Government thinking about who should have access to the edited register. It provides that only bodies designated by the Secretary of State as having a legitimate purpose for seeking access should be allowed to purchase it. My preference, as I have indicated, would be to abolish the edited version and introduce a public benefit test to allow bodies, other than presently permitted to do so, to have access to the full register. However, I put the amendment down to encourage reflection on the point.
Of the alternative options, Amendment 57 is the important one. This also engages an important principle. If—I stress if—the edited register is to be maintained, then it is essential that we move from an opt-out provision to an opt-in provision. In other words, electors should be included in the edited register only if they have explicitly given their consent to their inclusion. It is not sufficient to assume that they wish to be included if they do not opt out. Consent must be given rather than assumed.
The Government’s response may be that, although desirable in principle, there are practical difficulties, perhaps insurmountable problems, in introducing an opt-in provision. If that is the argument, then there is a clear alternative: get rid of the edited register. The choice is between Amendments 55 and 57. Either get rid of the edited register or introduce an opt-in provision. Leaving the situation as it is with the edited register is neither acceptable nor sustainable. I invite the Minister to indicate the Government’s preference. If he merely repeats the mantra that the arguments are finely balanced but things will remain as they are, we will be having this debate on further occasions. I beg to move.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is absolutely right to raise this issue in this context because the change to individual electoral registration provides a precise opportunity to think about this matter again. As he properly said, it already improves the situation and it is the right moment to be looking at this issue.
However, I confess that I am somewhat bemused. The most persuasive case for retaining the edited register has come from charities and credit agencies, both of which have a proper and natural interest that we should recognise. Theirs is a proper use of this data. It is rather unusual to hear a Conservative, of all people, apparently decrying that very proper interest of such organisations in accurate data of this sort.
It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is introducing a new idea, as he has done just now, by suggesting that some organisations of that sort should have access to the full register. That brings us to a very difficult problem of definition because under Amendment 56, he is apparently defining what a commercial purpose is. A credit agency would certainly be a commercial purpose. Is seeking to raise money for a charity not also a commercial purpose? I find it slightly bewitching at this time of night that a dedicated Conservative Peer appears to denigrate the idea of having a commercial purpose at all, as if it is somehow a disreputable activity. I therefore have a problem of definition under Amendment 56.
However, I return to my original point. It is perfectly right, proper and appropriate that we should ask the Government at this stage to be thinking about this matter. Amendment 57 is clearly the least objectionable option that the noble Lord has put forward, but I wonder whether, if electors had to opt into an edited register, many would do so and whether the whole exercise would become a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare. The opt-in option would, in that sense, be a red herring.
However, this is obviously the right moment to be asking Ministers to think again, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do just that. If he is unable to make progress in persuading the Committee in one direction or another, perhaps this is a matter that we will have to return to on Report.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed. However, there was one notable absence in the contribution of my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Taylor of Holbeach. That was any reference to principle. I have raised an important principle. Neither of them addressed it, they merely concerned themselves with the practical issues. In response to my noble friend Lord Tyler, the Tories have a good history of at times putting principle above commercial interests dating from the times of Shaftesbury and Disraeli. There is a very important principle involved which has not been addressed.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach glossed over the reason why the change was introduced from the sale of the full register to the edited version. It was not the Government suddenly deciding that it was an important issue, it was forced upon them; they were required to do so. I would not be surprised if, in the fullness of time, there are not challenges requiring a move from opt out to opt in.
I tabled the alternative amendments as a way of generating some thought on how to address what I consider to be a very real problem. They were introduced to prompt ideas and not necessarily to foreclose debate, so I have no intention of pursuing them now. However, they need to be reflected upon. The Government need to think much more seriously about the fundamental issue involved in terms of the use of personal data. This is something to which we most certainly will return. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Drug Use and Possession: Royal Commission
Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to establishing a royal commission on the law governing drug use and possession.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, this is an especially appropriate time, or at least an appropriate year, in which to ask this Question. It is 40 years since the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was promulgated and the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed. Whether I am the most appropriate person to raise the issue is another matter. Other noble Lords taking part in this short debate are far more qualified than I am to speak; I approach as someone totally detached from the subject. I am conscious that, as an academic, this is not my subject, and hence I tread with some trepidation.
However, my background is relevant in two respects. First, as I have said in the House before, I believe strongly that we should have evidence-based policy. I am often appalled at how much legislation is brought forward more on the basis of hope than of evidence. Secondly, I recognise that the best way to affect attitudes and behaviour is through education—I do not just mean formal education—and persuasion. The law alone cannot achieve change, and indeed it can be dangerous to rest on the law in place of education. As a Conservative, I do not believe that the purpose of the law is to send signals. Perhaps it is because I come from a detached position that I am struck by the problems and the contradictions that we now find in our attempts to address the problems generated by drug use. We prohibit certain drugs, but we allow people to purchase and consume substances that may be far more dangerous and account for far more deaths each year.
There are two dimensions to the issue: drug use and drug prohibition. There are clearly appalling costs associated with drug use, not only to those who become addicted and their families but to the community. However, there are clear problems with prohibition. If drugs are illegal, the supply is therefore driven underground and supply becomes in the grip of organised and violent crime. What happened with prohibition in the United States, we see now repeated in respect of drugs and on a massive global scale. This has appalling consequences in some countries in terms of loss of life. The Government’s Drug Strategy 2010 concedes:
“The UK demand for illicit drugs is contributing directly to bloodshed, corruption and instability in source and transit countries, which we have a shared international responsibility to tackle”.
In this country, the problem manifests itself in the crime figures and the sheer amount of police time occupied by combating drug use and supply. The exercise is highly inefficient in that only between 1 per cent and 10 per cent of drugs are believed to be stopped from reaching their target market. Nearly half of all crime is related in some way to drug use and abuse. Heroin and cocaine users are responsible for most burglaries, shoplifting and street prostitution. The economic and social costs are staggering. In the UK, as the Government concede, these costs in respect of class A drugs alone are estimated at more than £15 billion a year. More than half of prison inmates are believed to have serious drugs problems. I am all for incarcerating those who engage in serious crime, but locking up drug addicts generates a vicious, and costly, cycle. To feed their habits, drug users steal, rob and then get locked up, costing the public even more, with recidivism a marked feature once they are released.
My starting point is that there is a demonstrable problem. What, then, do we do about it? A great deal has been written on the subject, though at times we appear to get much more heat than light and a tendency on the part of politicians to wish the problem away. That in itself then becomes part of the problem.
When I knew that I had secured this debate, I invited comments from readers of Lords of the Blog, a collaborative exercise by several Members of your Lordships' House. I received a good number of informed, and sometimes anguished, responses. One comment came from a father who had lost his son to a heroin overdose. He wrote in support of maintaining the present law. His son had been cautioned for cannabis possession, but he and his wife were unaware of this and felt that if their son had been charged then they would have known about it and may have been able to do something to save him. That is a tragic case, but it is clear that the law did not prevent the son taking drugs in the first place.
That is the problem with which we have to wrestle. The law as it stands is not having the intended effect. It may deter some, but it is clearly not preventing a great many people taking drugs, with all the attendant and consequent costs that I have mentioned. The Science and Technology Committee in the other place, in its 2006 report, Drug Classification: Making a Hash of It?, found no solid evidence to support the existence of a deterrent effect. I gather also that there is no evidence that the level of classification within the 1971 Act has any effect on consumption.
One solution may be to move towards decriminalisation. The chairman of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, has said that there is a growing body of comparative evidence that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences. He said:
“It can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health. All of this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug use”.
This year is also the 10th anniversary of the passage of the law in Portugal to depenalise drugs. Drug deaths there decreased as did the prison population, and seizures of large quantities of drugs have increased. Even if we do not go down the road of decriminalisation generally, there may be a case for at least permitting the use of cannabis where there are medical grounds.
That may be the way to go; it may not be. It may be that we should strengthen the existing law or devote more resources to enforcement and to education. Police resources are stretched. Drugs education can and does have an impact but most schools, I understand, choose to provide drugs education once a year or less and all too often develop their own curricula rather than using evidence-based programmes.
My case is that we need to explore whether the present law is necessary and sufficient, whether it is necessary but not sufficient, or whether it is neither necessary nor sufficient. The Government's Drugs Strategy 2010 is silent on the issue. Implicitly, it takes the first of these three positions. There is no critical reflection. Can we improve on the existing law? What are the alternatives? If we are to stick with the existing law, we need to know why and not simply take it as given.
It is these points which motivate this Question. I have put it in terms of a royal commission. Royal commissions have somewhat gone out of fashion, in part because they are seen as time-consuming, cumbersome bodies. They need not be, as the royal commission under my noble friend Lord Wakeham demonstrated. They can enable salient evidence to be placed before an authoritative public tribunal on a transparent basis and the evidence to be weighed.
However, I am not wedded to a royal commission. Another form of inquiry may be equally appropriate or possibly even more so. At the very least, we need to undertake an impact assessment of the 1971 Act. We need a structured means for weighing evidence, not proceeding on the basis of prejudice, with people simply speaking past one another. I would not be averse to a broad-ranging inquiry; drug use, as the Government recognise, can encompass alcohol consumption. There is a case for a holistic examination.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones is to reply. She is too intelligent to fall back on crass or knee-jerk responses that we cannot change because it would send out the wrong signals, or that it is an international problem which means that we cannot do much on our own. Such responses would not in any case be relevant, because I am not making the case for change. I am making the case for a proper, thorough and detached review of the evidence.