Baroness Hamwee
Main Page: Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Hamwee's debates with the Home Office
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is a tiddler of an amendment, which it is embarrassing to move if there are noble Lords waiting for enlightenment about the philosophy and underlying architecture of the Bill. I have succeeded in imprisoning a number of my noble friends up here, because I was unable to find anywhere closer to the front.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords—while my noble friend takes her seat—we are now in the second day in Committee on this Bill. Admittedly a smallish number of Peers are seeking to take part, but that number take the Bill very seriously. I am sure that, like me, they would like to hear from my noble friend Lady Hamwee as she moves her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. This amendment relates to an interpretation provision. In Clause 35, new subsection (6B) provides for what:
“References to property or a pecuniary advantage”,
mean in the context of the proceeds of crime. It seems to me that in that legislation and in the legislation that we are amending, some references to property or advantage would be to the whole of it—for instance, if the property is to be subject to confiscation—while some would be to the extent of what has been obtained by a criminal act, for instance the amount confiscated. My amendment really amounts to a question to the Minister as to whether to take it that we should read what is appropriate in the context. In other words, is what I have said implicit and am I worrying about something quite unnecessarily? The second of these examples—in other words, a limited extent—seems not to be provided for in the clause. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
Perhaps I may help my noble friend and reassure her because Clause 35 deals with a technical amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act, which will expand the types of cases that UK authorities can deal with on behalf of their international counterparts. The Proceeds of Crime Act currently enables, among other things, requests and orders made by courts in other jurisdictions to be given effect in the United Kingdom. One such order is that allowing for the recovery of specified property or money where that property or money is believed to have been obtained as a result of, or in connection with, criminal conduct. The scope of the order is therefore restricted solely to the recovery of specific property or money.
Domestic law, by contrast, recognises that the proceeds of crime can include not just specific money or property but a so-called pecuniary advantage, such as not paying a tax that is lawfully due. The reason that pecuniary advantage was not originally included within the assistance that could be provided to other jurisdictions was due to the scope of international agreements at the time when the Proceeds of Crime Act was enacted. In recent years, however, the international approach has broadened but the law has not kept pace. As a result, law enforcement agencies are unable to assist those in other jurisdictions in recovering from a defendant convicted of crimes such as tax evasion amounts held in the United Kingdom.
I am sure that my noble friend agrees that it is right that we should be able to co-operate as widely as possible in such matters; this clause will help us achieve that. The clause does not affect the position with regard to domestic cases. However, it extends our ability to assist foreign jurisdictions with the recovery of any pecuniary advantage obtained as a result of criminal conduct. I hope that, with that explanation, I have satisfied my noble friend and she will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when one wants to hold back and read the answer, which is not at all to suggest that I doubt my noble friend. Of course, I share the intention and I am grateful to him for that. I will read the answer but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, both my Amendments 31A and 31B would delete wording, but they enable me to ask a question. The Secretary of State, and in the case of Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice, have the power to make an order to substitute a different amount for the maximum amount of the confiscation order which can be made by a magistrates’ court. Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Secretary of State will consult before such an order is made? I appreciate that it is not in his gift to give any assurance on behalf of the Department of Justice, but he might be able to make a comment, because I know that the Government have been in touch with the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as the Proceeds of Crime Act currently operates, a confiscation order may only be made by the Crown Court. As a result, if someone is convicted of an offence in the magistrates’ court and the Bench considers the case is appropriate for a confiscation hearing, the matter must be referred to the Crown Court. This is clearly not the most effective use of resources for handling simple cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, notes, there is already legislation on the statute book that would enable the Home Secretary to modify Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act so as to enable confiscation orders to be made in a magistrates’ court in cases where the criminal benefit did not exceed £10,000. The relevant legislation can be found in Section 97 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
I can fully understand the frustration of the noble Lord, as a sitting magistrate, in having to refer all confiscation cases to the Crown Court when it would be perfectly possible for straightforward cases to be dealt with in the magistrates’ court, subject to that £10,000 threshold. The noble Lord is all the more frustrated given that the legislation to allow magistrates’ courts to make confiscation orders has been on the statute book for almost 10 years, as he pointed out. The provision in Section 97 of the 2005 Act had, of course, already been on the statute book for five years when this Government came to office. Like the previous Administration, we judged that there were other priorities for improving the asset recovery regime and responding to serious and organised crime, including the setting up of the National Crime Agency. However, we are now working towards enabling magistrates’ courts to make confiscation orders, including putting in place the necessary judicial training from spring 2015.
Given that we are now actively working to implement a scheme empowering magistrates to make confiscation orders, I hope the noble Lord will agree that his amendment, which places a duty rather than a power on the Home Secretary to make such a scheme, is unnecessary. I would be happy to update the noble Lord in the autumn on progress in this area. On that note, I hope that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Turning to Amendments 31A and 31B, my noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated that her intention was not to remove the power to vary the £10,000 limit by order but simply to seek an assurance that there would be proper consultation before the order-making power was exercised.
Generally, our approach is that magistrates’ courts should be able to make confiscation orders only in less serious cases. However, there may be situations in which the defendant has been convicted in the magistrates’ court but is potentially liable to an order greater than £10,000. Such a case would still need to be sent to the Crown Court to be dealt with. The order-making power in the clause allows for the £10,000 threshold to be varied if the evidence following implementation shows that the limit is generally too low.
Once we have brought into effect the provisions allowing for confiscation orders to be made in magistrates’ courts, we will keep the arrangements under close review. I assure my noble friend that before any change is made we will consult with the senior judiciary, the Magistrates’ Association and other practitioners as to whether the £10,000 threshold can sensibly be raised.
I also remind my noble friend that this order-making power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so any change would need to be considered and approved by both Houses. I hope that with these comments I have been able to provide my noble friend with the assurance she is seeking.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 31C is a small probing amendment. There is a definition in the clause of “a country or territory”, which provides that references to them include,
“the territorial sea adjacent to a country or territory”.
My amendment would change that to “territorial waters”. I simply ask how extensive is territorial sea that is adjacent? It must be less than territorial waters. The natural meaning of adjacent, I would have thought, is “very close to the land”. Why is there a limit and what is the limit? I would guess that this is relevant in the context of the clause about computer misuse to damage to such things as wind turbines and oil rigs, and perhaps, in a transport context, ferries and maybe fishing. I am sure there is a list of matters. I am fairly unclear as to what the clause means. If my noble friend can help, so much the better. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I hope I can clarify things to my noble friend’s satisfaction. As we know, cybercrime has a global reach; a perpetrator sitting in their bedroom in London could be hacking into a computer system anywhere in the world. The new offence acknowledges this reality and captures serious damage caused in any country. The clause goes on to define a reference to “country” as including a reference to a “territory” and to,
“(i) any place in, or part or region of, a country or territory;
(ii) the territorial sea adjacent to a country or territory”.
It is the last of these three points that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to address, and she raises a very interesting point.
The Territorial Sea Act 1987 specifies that the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK is 12 nautical miles. I can therefore reassure my noble friend that this form of words does not mean, as one might usually expect, the sea very close to the coastline, but captures the full 12 nautical miles of territorial water surrounding the UK.
However, the position will not be the same for all countries. Although the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sets 12 nautical miles as a maximum for territorial waters, some states may have chosen a smaller limit. The boundary line for a country’s territorial waters will be governed by its own laws and by international agreements and conventions. The non-specific language in the Bill reflects this variation. Where the damage is caused in the UK the territorial sea adjacent to the country will be the 12 nautical miles around the UK. Where the damage is in another country we would expect the court to take into account the laws of the country in question, together with any relevant international conventions, such as the UN convention, and any other agreements, in determining the territorial sea’s breadth. I hope that my noble friend has found this explanation helpful and that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My question was very similar—perhaps I will put it in a slightly different way. The explanation as I heard it is that this is about territorial waters. The language used seems to be that which is used to define territorial waters, whichever country one is talking about. However, it seems that there is no difference between the territorial sea adjacent to somewhere and the territorial waters. To give the Minister slightly more breathing space, perhaps I can also ask her to explain what a “territory” is, as distinct from a “country”?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, to answer my noble friend’s question last, and hopefully throw light on my other noble friend’s question: a “territory” is a geographical concept, the land and sea over which a state has jurisdiction. A country’s land mass may be divided into several territories, so the state of a country may also have jurisdiction over far-flung territories. For example, the state of the country of the United Kingdom has jurisdiction over various overseas territories, such as the British Virgin Islands. However, it is a matter for each state to determine, subject to the 12-mile limit. I hope I have not further confused the House.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, after the tutorial that we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, I feel that I should just say that I surrender—but, before I do so, I will comment that it would be easier if the Bill were to refer to each country’s territorial waters as that country has determined, rather than using what appears to be general language without making reference to the technicalities. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who no doubt now knows a great deal more about territorial waters than she really ever wanted to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will speak also to my Amendment 31H. Perhaps I should speak slowly to give the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, an opportunity to work out how to make her points in the debate on this clause.
In Clause 39, Amendment 31D would omit subsection (4) and Amendment 31H would omit subsection (7), both of which refer to a case in which the accused is in one country and the offence is linked to another jurisdiction, which will very often be the case when there is computer misuse. My amendments are probing; I am asking my noble friend whether there is a risk that a person could be prosecuted for the same act in more than one jurisdiction, and how it should be determined which jurisdiction takes precedence. Obviously, this point arises not only in connection with the Bill and the new offences, so I am not raising a novel point, but it would be very helpful to the House to understand how that conflict might be determined—I use the term “conflict” somewhat hesitantly as, technically, it is not a conflict—when more than one jurisdiction is involved. The first of these two amendments refers to the UK and the second to Scotland. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am grateful to my noble friend for the explanation of her amendments. I believe that I can provide the reassurance that she seeks. I know that a number of noble Lords are interested in this issue; indeed, it was raised in the House at Second Reading.
It might help if I briefly explain why we are making the amendments to the Computer Misuse Act in Clause 39 and then set out the safeguards against subjecting a person to double jeopardy. As the Committee is well aware, cybercrime is a serious threat that often crosses international boundaries. The Computer Misuse Act already recognises the transnational nature of cybercrime and provides for the extraterritorial jurisdiction of certain of the offences under the Act where there is a significant link to the United Kingdom.
Clause 37 adds nationality to the categories of significant linkage to the UK. This means that a UK national would be committing a computer misuse offence while outside the UK even where there was no link to the UK other than nationality, provided that the offence was also an offence in the country where it took place. Therefore, in the case of concurrent jurisdiction, a UK national could be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act in the UK subject to the usual extradition arrangements or the accused voluntarily returning to the UK.
Decisions about prosecution rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would be for prosecutors in the affected jurisdictions to negotiate where the prosecution should take place. For example, in the EU, Eurojust was established to deal with criminality that extends over borders, and it has guidelines to help prosecutors decide where a case should best be tried. There is a similar protocol agreed by the Attorneys-General of the US and the UK for cases that in theory could be tried by either jurisdiction. The Crown Prosecution Service has domestic guidelines that its prosecutors are expected to follow to help them decide whether to bring a prosecution in the UK or cede jurisdiction to another state with an interest.
My noble friend is rightly concerned to ensure that an individual cannot be prosecuted in both jurisdictions where there is a concurrent jurisdiction. This is a risk that the existing guidance and agreed processes have been designed to manage. Using the UK and Clause 39 as an example, a UK national could commit a number of Computer Misuse Act offences in country B even if the criminality did not impact on the UK. As I described, the way in which we would expect this to work is that the prosecutors in the UK and country B would decide where to pursue the prosecution. In the absence of country B taking forward a prosecution, the UK could take one forward and would need to go through the extradition process to return the subject to the UK. If the case was prosecuted and the sentence served in country B, and the subject returned to the UK, the UK could not then take forward its own proceedings. Double jeopardy would prevent the subject being prosecuted for the same offence in the UK.
It is important to note that the extraterritorial scope of the offences in question does not place any requirements for the offences to be prosecuted here, especially in cases where the offence has taken place outside the UK and the only link to the UK is the nationality of the subject. Similarly, if the subject was outside the UK, the usual extradition procedures would be followed where prosecutors agreed that the prosecution should be pursued in the UK. I trust that that provides the assurance that my noble friend is seeking and that she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that was very helpful. I may have missed this, in which case I apologise, but I take it that the arrangements to which the Minister referred at the beginning of her reply deal with where the prosecution actually takes place and the decision between two states as to who takes the lead.
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.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, to pick up on the point about drugs, it does not seem to me that they are necessarily excluded. The new section of the Computer Misuse Act deals with an act creating,
“a significant risk of, serious damage of a material kind”,
which includes “damage to human welfare”, which is in turn such as to cause, among other things, “loss to human life” or “human illness or injury”. All that links up very closely with what the noble Lord has been talking about. If what he has described is not covered, we will need to go back to Clause 39—but not today.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. The clause deals with a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group. The various amendments in this quite long group seek to unpack, as it were, what all that means.
Amendment 31L would provide that a person participates in the activities of an organised crime group only if he takes an active part in those activities. How involved does somebody really have to be in order to participate, as spelt out in Clause 41(2)? Does he have merely to facilitate an activity or actually enable it? Those are very different matters. The provision concerns helping an organised crime group to carry on the activities in question. One can make it possible for a group to carry on activities or one can make it easier for it to carry on activities. I do not know whether there is a distinction between those in the new offence.
The offence is committed if,
“the person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect”,
that there are criminal activities or that he is helping an organised crime group to carry on those activities. That is not actually suspecting—it is having reasonable cause to suspect.
I am aware of the Government’s range of concerns and the need to create the new offence in order to contain what is within the frame here. The threshold for the offence concerns me. I think we need to hear a defence of such a relatively low threshold. I am aware of course that the noble Baroness would make it even lower; certainly her position is closer to the Government than that in my amendment.
My Amendment 31S questions—perhaps this goes in the other direction—why an organised crime group for this purpose consists of three or more persons. Is there not a crime group that consists of only two people and would not fall within this?
The last of my amendments, before I come back to some general points on the clause, is rather different. Clause 41(8) provides a defence if the,
“person’s participation was necessary for a purpose related to the prevention or detection of crime”.
I wondered, when I read that, whether this was about undercover policing. If it is, are there some distinctions between this offence and other offences? Or is there something particular about this offence that requires a defence to be spelt out specifically in this way? The question of undercover policing is of course a very topical and concerning one.
I raised at Second Reading, as did others, the concerns of the accountancy and legal professions about what their members—I do not mean dodgy accountants and dodgy solicitors, but ones who are perfectly respectable—have to do to ensure that they do not fall foul of these provisions. I think that the Minister has now met both the professional organisations. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for him to report to the Committee what progress has been made. I am picking up that it is good progress but I have not picked up much detail about it yet.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, of course I will reflect, but I think that I will add a couple of things to my noble friend’s list between now and Report. I am of course pleased to hear what he says about the work with the Local Government Association. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was suggesting that I was a vice-president of the LGA, as she is. Some time ago, I was chucked out on the basis that I had been a vice-president for too long. I do not know quite what that says about anything, but I am not a vice-president. I was, however, practising as a solicitor and am still on the roll; perhaps I should have said that, but I think it has been clear.
My noble friend used a phrase like “giving an incentive to report when one is suspicious”. That has to be seen in the context of a client relationship. That is not easy. My noble friend has talked about balance but it is not a two-way balance; there are a lot of factors in it.
Clause 41(8) provides that it is,
“a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person’s participation was necessary for a purpose related to the prevention or detection of crime”.
It would be helpful if that had been drafted in a way to refer one—with a “subject to”, for instance—to the provisions which make it necessary for authorisation for the undercover policing to take place. I do not know whether I can put that thought into my noble friend’s mind.
Finally, the Minister suggested that the terms “help” and “enable” are synonymous, but I do not think they are. To help means to assist—to make something easier, while to enable means to make it possible. They are not the same, which is one issue within all this that I would like to reflect on further and maybe come back to at the next stage. However, I have no doubt that my noble friend, in his usual generous way, will want to discuss some of that before we get to that stage. It is clearly a matter of considerable concern around the House that we get the clause right. No one is opposing it, but we want to make it workable, and supported by all those who may be affected. I am grateful for the detail of the response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving me a copy of her amendment and a briefing note on it when she tabled it. I was not aware of the Portuguese experience as my noble friend, Lord Howarth described it. It is interesting and bears further consideration. I am not an expert on whether the detail of the amendment is correct. It looks complicated, which might be because it was drafted by a lawyer, but I suspect that it is not so complicated in practice.
These dissuasion panels would sit alongside the injunctions, such as is proposed in the Bill, and a police officer would refer a young person if they were involved in gang-related violence or a drug-related activity. The panel would be tasked with assessing the young person. It would determine whether there was a need to require the young person to undertake some form of action, whether that be treatment or counselling, to prevent them engaging in further activities, to protect them or to address their drug dependency. That seems to be a more holistic approach to tackling the drug culture and drug abuse.
Baroness Hamwee
“Guidance
In section 47 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (guidance), for subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Before issuing or revising any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and representatives of chief police officers, local authorities, health authorities and persons concerned with the care of young people, the Youth Justice Board and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.””
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Section 47 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009—PACA, as my noble friend referred to it a few minutes ago—provides that the Secretary of State must issue guidance relating to gang-related violence injunctions. Under Section 47, the Secretary of State must, before issuing or revising guidance, consult the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. Given the multidisciplinary nature of gang-related violence, it is interesting that the only specific consultee is the Lord Chief Justice—the courts, essentially. My amendment would add consultation of representatives of chief police officers, local authorities, health authorities and persons concerned with the care of young people, the Youth Justice Board and, again, such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
I do not need to persuade the Committee of the interest, in a technical sense, of all those whom I have listed, in the issue of gang-related violence and the formation and operation of gangs. I appreciate that, under PACA, the Secretary of State is able to consult all these people but it would be appropriate to list a wider number of officeholders and interests than is simply caught up in “such other persons”. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for outlining her thinking behind this amendment. I entirely agree that the contents of any statutory guidance should be developed and agreed on by all the relevant parties in advance. I assure her that this is already the case. The statutory guidance on gang injunctions is being revised, as we have already discussed, and will be reissued in the autumn. We are already consulting the Youth Justice Board, the Ministry of Justice, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Judicial College, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing. We also plan to consult police forces and local authorities, through the Local Government Association, as well as the Department of Health and the Department for Education. This will ensure that the welfare of young people is integral to the process. I have emphasised, in my contributions, the importance of this guidance in making gang injunctions effective.
In legal terms, the current requirement to consult the Lord Chief Justice and,
“any other such person as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”,
allows enough flexibility so that relevant parties are involved in the process as judged most appropriate. It is a commonly used form of words to describe this sort of consultation. Although I understand exactly why my noble friend has tabled this amendment, it is not possible to set out in legislation a comprehensive list of all those who should be consulted and I am not persuaded that anything further would be achieved by laying out a list of consultees. For this reason, and in the knowledge that the new guidance involves considerable consultation—though not I hope so much that it would mean it is not available by Report—I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we know the phrase well. When my noble friend started to list those who are currently being consulted, I thought that this was sticking, again, with the court system. However, he widened that, and I was very pleased to hear confirmation that the importance of the welfare of young people, not just a criminal justice response, is being encapsulated in the consultation going on at the moment. I do not intend to pursue this, but I am glad to have that information and to have the recognition articulated in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
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.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister is extremely generous and I consider my wrist to have been slapped. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.