Lord Howarth of Newport
Main Page: Lord Howarth of Newport (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Howarth of Newport's debates with the Home Office
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to these points. The Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House had first done so, and it is unsatisfactory that there is so little clarity about the power to vary. We ought always to aim—certainly in this context—for as much legal certainty as it is possible to create.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled amendments in this group that would amend Clause 10. This clause, which provides powers for the Secretary of State to create exceptions to offences, seems to be quite extraordinarily open-ended. I am rather surprised that the Constitution Committee did not draw attention to that as well. It leaves the Secretary of State free to retire from the field—to alter the specification of offences in all kinds of ways, subject only to the need to consult and the need for affirmative regulations. I submit that that is not a satisfactory way for the Government to legislate. Clause 10, if not Clause 3, does seem to create Henry VIII powers.
There is a broader constitutional point, which I think my noble friend Lady Bakewell made at Second Reading, when she noted that our normal constitutional practice—our normal tradition in this country—is to leave citizens free to do things unless they are specifically forbidden. The tenor of the Bill is to make everything forbidden, unless it is accepted in the field of the use of psychoactive substances. The House should be careful in permitting that kind of exception to constitutional tradition and practice. The policy had better work; it needs to be justified in its practice, because it is a somewhat objectionable principle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to report before exercising these different powers. It would be helpful if the Minister would clear up for us what consultation Ministers and their officials had with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the preparation of this report. It is, after all, the statutory duty of the ACMD to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom in respect of drugs. However, we have been led to understand, possibly erroneously, that the first time that the Home Secretary sought the advice of the ACMD in drawing up this legislation was on 26 May, when she sent a letter asking for its advice on how to achieve better forensic services and to establish a comprehensive scientific approach to psychoactivity for evidential purposes. That was only two days before the Bill was laid before Parliament. It would appear, as the noble Baroness suggested, that the ACMD has been sidelined in the preliminaries to the legislative process.
It is by no means the first time that the advice of the ACMD has been rejected by Ministers of various Governments. Its recommendations in respect of the classification of magic mushrooms, cannabis, MDMA, khat and now of nitrous oxide have all been rejected by the Government. It was not always the case that the recommendations of the ACMD were so routinely ignored. Back in the 1980s, when we faced the crisis of mounting levels of heroin addiction and the spread of HIV and of AIDS, the ACMD’s advice was taken, to the great benefit of improved policy.
When the UK Drug Policy Commission chaired by Dame Ruth Runciman reported in 2000, and again when it published An Analysis of UK Drug Policy in 2007, it warned of the lack of research underpinning policy development, and that policymakers,
“operate partially blind when choosing effective measures”.
It would appear that that may still be the case in 2015. The recommendations of the Runciman commission were dismissed, as were the recommendations of the Global Commission on Drug Policy dismissed by the Home Office in 2011, as were, in 2012, the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee that a royal commission should be established. However, policy should be made not on a basis of political expediency, but in response to evidence. It should be made not on a basis of anxiety about what the tabloids might say but on the basis of the advice of independent experts.
Professor Nutt, the chairman of the ACMD, was sacked essentially for telling the truth about the relative dangers of alcohol and tobacco vis-à-vis cannabis and ecstasy. Mephedrone was classified before the Government had received the advice of the ACMD, but following a huge campaign by the Sun newspaper and an endless series of “meow meow” stories, most of which turned out to be false when the facts were properly established. There were many resignations from the ACMD at that period. People in the front line of enforcement—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, may be able to tell us something about this, if he chooses to do so—found that the vacillations and vicissitudes of policy made life very difficult for police officers in the front line of enforcement in Brixton or elsewhere.
Therefore, what advice does the Minister follow? What does he see as the role of expert advisers, and to what extent has the ACMD been consulted in this context? Certainly, I hope that he will answer the questions articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, as we are in Committee, I would like to ask the Minister a question which I told the Bill team I would ask him, but which I forgot to include in my previous remarks. Why do the offences clauses, up to and including Clause 10, not receive a mention in the Home Office’s human rights memorandum, except a reference in the summary at the start of the memorandum? One would have expected that, having created new offences, they would have deserved some attention in that document.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for introducing this amendment. Perhaps I may structure my response by first putting on the record some important comments which might be helpful to the House and then, at the conclusion of those remarks, seeking to address some specific issues and questions which have been raised.
The Constitution Committee drew to the attention of the House the fact that the power to vary Schedule 1 could be exercised so that something which, on the enactment of Schedule 1, is an exempted substance ceases to be exempted. A similar point was raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. The Constitution Committee also commented on the absence of a statement of purpose or purposes for which the Clause 3 power may be exercised. At this point, I would put that in the context of assuring my noble friend that the Constitution Committee has concentrated our minds. I think that the report was published last week, on 18 June, and we will be considering it carefully. We will have a full response to the committee ahead of Report.
As we indicated in our delegated powers memorandum, the list of exempted substances needs to be robust and kept up to date so as not to unintentionally criminalise the production, supply and so on of psychoactive substances that may legitimately be consumed for their psychoactive effect. Following on from one of our debates last week, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the regulation-making power indeed enables substances to be added to Schedule 1. To take an example, alcohol is both a substance and a description of a substance. It may also be necessary to vary an existing entry: for example, if the regulations mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the schedule relating to medicinal products were revoked and replaced with new regulations. While we expect the list in Schedule 1 to remain reasonably stable, the regulation-making power affords the necessary flexibility to make required changes relatively speedily should it be appropriate to do so.
We have deliberately drafted this regulation-making power so that it will not be possible to exercise it to remove any description of a substance that is contained in Schedule 1 on enactment. But I would be wary of further narrowing the scope of the regulation-making power, as Amendment 15 seeks to do. I stress that the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so any regulations would need to be debated and approved by both Houses. I will of course reflect on this debate before responding formally to both the Constitution Committee’s views and the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.
Amendments 20 and 47 would require the Home Secretary to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before making regulations under Clauses 3 and 10. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, spoke in support of these amendments and has added his name to Amendment 20. I begin by saying that the Home Office continues to greatly value the scientific advice provided by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Following its advice over the last few years, we have controlled more than 500 new psychoactive substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The advisory council will continue to have its central role in assessing the harms of specific drugs, including new psychoactive substances, for control under the 1971 Act and in providing advice to Ministers.
In drafting Clauses 3 and 10, the Government included a requirement for the Home Secretary to consult with such persons as she considered appropriate prior to making any regulations: for example, regulatory bodies and relevant experts. This was to account for the fact that the Government may need to consider different types of substances and so wanted to tailor their consultations to organisations with specific expertise. For example, if it was thought necessary to change the description of food, we would want to consult the Food Standards Agency. In this example, the advisory council would not necessarily have much to contribute to any consultation. None the less, as noble Lords will have seen from the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the ACMD was included as an example of the type of consultee the Government had in mind. That being the case, I am happy to take away Amendments 20 and 47 to consider the matter further in advance of Report.
The Government are, again, supportive of the principle behind Amendments 21 and 48, but I question whether we need to specify such a requirement in the Bill. There are many examples on the statute book of requirements to consult before a Minister exercises regulation or order-making powers. It is taken as read that the outcome of any consultation would be published —a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood —alongside the making of the relevant regulations or order. We do not need to clutter the statute book with express duties of this kind. There is a joint working protocol between the advisory council and Home Office, which commits us to open and transparent dealings. The advisory council routinely publishes its advice to the Home Secretary and I fully expect it to continue to do so. We will encourage other bodies responding to any consultation on these regulations to do likewise.
Any regulations made under Clauses 3 and 10 will be made by the affirmative resolution procedure. It is standard practice to publish an explanatory statement alongside draft regulations. Such a statement would, among other things, summarise the outcome of the consultation. Therefore, one way or another, Members of both Houses will be able to consider the consultation responses in conjunction with the draft regulations to be made under Clauses 3 or 10. In the light of this explanation, and on the understanding that I will give a sympathetic consideration to Amendments 20 and 47, I hope that my noble friend Lord Norton would feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I now turn to some of the specific points raised. On Clause 3(3), I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that it is difficult to conceive of circumstances where the Home Secretary would reach the conclusion that there were no appropriate persons to consult. We have had some excellent work by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee on the Bill. Were there not to be an adequate and full demonstration of the experts who had been consulted, that particular measure—which might be before the House on an affirmative basis—would clearly be in for a very difficult ride. In reality of course, the Government would not seek to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point that he was very concerned about whether this was some kind of attempt to downgrade or sideline the ACMD, which I understand. The council does of course have a statutory duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is very important, and it was consulted. It has been looking at the area of psychoactive substances. I cannot remember the exact date of that but I am happy to get details. One of its recommendations was that the Government ought to consider and explore a legislative response to this. I do not say this in order to unearth a previous relationship, but it was Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister, who decided to put this out to an expert panel.
To make a serious point, the purpose there was not to deal with a question on the science, which is just one component of this. Another part of it is then to say, “How do we deal with the science?”. Whereas we have an eminent group of scientists on the ACMD, the expert panel is particularly constituted so that it has expertise on enforcement at local authority level; forensics; prosecution, from the Crown Prosecution Service; medical science, of course, with three members of the ACMD on the expert panel; social sciences; an international dimension, with drug addiction; and, very importantly, education and prevention, with representatives from Mentor UK and DrugScope. So it was constituted to address a different stage in the problem, the issue having been identified earlier.
I want to deal with the points that have been made, although I shall provide a fuller response to the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made a particular reference to the term “vary”. It might be helpful if I add some words to the record at this stage on that point. “Vary” is given its natural meaning in the Bill: the ability to amend individual definitions within Schedule 1. It does not stretch to changing the principle of an exemption, nor to removing it. Schedule 1 exempts groups of substances; the ability to vary the definitions is important to future-proof the legislation against regulatory changes, which may change how particular substances are legally defined. It may be that a definition in the Bill is varied in the way in which it narrows its scope. However, this would be the case only if the scope of the underlying regulation was also narrowed. A similar approach has been taken in Ireland—without wanting to reopen that particular canard at this stage. Since the passing of the Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 in Ireland, they have not needed to make any amendments to their exemption list. We therefore anticipate a stable list.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned a point that she had raised with officials and which we had tagged under the Clause 10 stand part debate. These offences are modelled closely on those provided by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which has been in force for 45 years. Although it was enacted before the Human Rights Act 1998, the compatibility of the 1971 Act with the human rights convention has been tried and tested thoroughly in both domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. By following closely the existing law and statute, we have endeavoured to draft offences that we believe are compliant with the ECHR. In view of this, and to avoid restating old arguments in the memorandum that are already well accepted by the courts, the decision was taken that the ECHR compliance of these offences did not require rehearsing in the memorandum. Instead, the memorandum focuses on those issues that may properly be described as new or significant. We look forward to any observations on these and other provisions from the Joint Committee on Human Rights; in the usual way, a full response to the committee’s report will be possible once it has been received.
With those assurances, which I reiterate are on important issues which we undertake to consider very carefully and come back to on Report, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government's consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the subject of psychoactive substances, and I think that I heard him tell the Committee that the ACMD had urged the Government to do something about psychoactive substances. An expert panel, which is not the same as the ACMD, was then set up. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House, in response to the points that I put to him in my contribution, what dealings the Home Office had with the ACMD on this legislation on psychoactive substances, following receipt of the advice from the expert panel, up until the letter that the Home Secretary sent to the ACMD on 26 May. Given that the ACMD has a statutory duty to keep under review the situation of the UK in regard to drugs, surely it would have been appropriate—and I should have thought a statutory requirement—to seek its views as to the wisdom of the policy that the expert panel recommended and on which the Government were proceeding to legislate. What consultations took place on this specific Bill?
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, as someone from the highlands of Scotland, I like to be cool as well, but I suspect that it is a slightly different interpretation.
I was not quick enough on my feet to ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, before he sat down. I readily acknowledge his great practical expertise in these matters and I acknowledge my own ignorance. Is there a definition, in statute or in case law, of how much is a “small amount” of drugs for personal use? One needs to know how much a person could get away with by claiming, “This is just for my personal use, guv”. Or is it rather like the cross-channel ferries, where people can come back with 10,000 cases of cigarettes and lots of booze and claim that they are a heavy drinker and smoker, and possibly get away with it?
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quote favourably from the Portuguese experiment, and there are some debatable results there. I would also refer them to the trendiest, most socialist and liberal country in the EU—Sweden. Sweden has a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and, admittedly, a big back-up self-harm programme behind it. Although one can quote Portugal favourably, one can also quote Sweden and its no-tolerance policy favourably. I hope that noble Lords have seen the reports from Sweden, as I have, and if I am wrong, I am happy to be reminded and amended later on.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I too have been impressed and encouraged by the evidence emanating from Portugal. Just before I add a few words on the subject of Portugal, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that if he looks at the incidence of drug-related deaths in Sweden, he will find that they are exceptionally high. People are ignoring these draconian policies that the Swedes do indeed operate, but not with happy consequences. One of the reasons is that criminalisation and the panoply of very severe penalties in operation in Sweden deter people from seeking treatment and help. Personally, I think that that is ill advised.
The Portuguese took another route when they faced a real crisis of drug abuse at the beginning of the century. They consulted an expert panel, which recommended the depenalisation—I think that that is perhaps the term—of small amounts of drugs for personal use. Again I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that under the Portuguese legislation, those “small amounts” of each drug are very precisely defined, so it can be done in legislation. At the same time, they invested very significant resources in treatment, education, programmes of social reintegration and the disruption of supply. It was a coherent strategy that appears to have worked very successfully.
As an aspect of that strategy, dissuasion commissions were set up so that somebody apprehended in possession of an amount of a drug—a psychoactive substance—would have to go before the dissuasion commission. As the noble Baroness said, it consists of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, a social worker and a lawyer; it is a fairly formidable panel to have to face. But if you are brought before that panel, you are not charged with a criminal offence. It does have power to impose administrative sanctions but its main focus is on getting people into treatment.
The central principle of the Portuguese legislation is that drug abuse is a health issue and not a criminal issue. I would suggest to the House that the results have been most impressive. Over five years, the number of people injecting drugs halved; drug-related deaths and new HIV infections more than halved; drug use among the 15 to 24 year-old age group fell; there was no rise in use in the older age groups; very importantly, the rates of continuing use, year-on-year use as opposed to occasional use, fell below the European average; and the numbers seeking treatment doubled, while the costs to the criminal justice system plummeted. All this is documented—there is plenty of evidence to tell us about the success of the Portuguese experiment, which has been going for 15 years. As the noble Baroness noted, the global financial crisis and the extraordinary pressure on the public finances of Portugal made it difficult to persist as fully as they would have wished with the education and treatment dimensions of the strategy. None the less, they have continued with the policy, and as she said, it has become accepted right across the political spectrum. I know that Home Office representatives have visited Portugal to learn at first hand from Dr Goulão and others about how it has worked. It is puzzling and disappointing that more lessons have not been taken on board.
Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would create powers such that,
“a senior officer or a local authority may require the person to attend a drug treatment programme or drug awareness programme”.
“May require” is quite a prudent element in the drafting, only because—and I fully endorse the policy of encouraging people to go to such programmes and benefit from them—the scale of drug-taking is, sadly and very worryingly, large in this country. A survey of Cambridge students found that 63% had taken illicit drugs, half of them before they had reached the age of 16; 45% of them had bought drugs for their friends; and 14% said that they had at one time or another sold drugs for a profit. A survey in 2011 of people in management jobs in London found that one in 10 took illegal drugs at work or at social events associated with their work. Mostly, they used class A drugs—cocaine and ecstasy. Of course, the use of cocaine and other class A drugs can lead to serious addiction, illness and death, so we should congratulate those such as Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, one of the members of the noble Lord’s expert panel, who set up Club Drug Clinic at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital—and other such clinics have been established across the country—which is particularly focused on helping young professionals who become addicted in this kind of way. I am simply describing the scale of the challenge we face if we seek to make drug awareness and drug treatment programmes available universally to people found in possession of drugs. It is estimated that some 350,000 children in this country have a parent who is a drug addict. I understand that one-third to one-half of those entering prison are already problem drug users. In 2010, there were 2,182 drug-related deaths. So it is a colossal challenge whatever strategy is adopted. Helping more drug users find the healthcare treatment they need will be a challenge on a large scale.
This is not a new dilemma. Back in 1924, the Government of the day established the Rolleston committee. Its recommendation to the Government certainly was that penal elements of policy were important, but it also said that addiction should be treated primarily as a disease. I would suggest that the moral imperative is not to stigmatise or to punish but to help those who are sick. We must communicate facts accurately, precisely and honestly if young people are to respond constructively, seriously and respectfully to the policy and the legislation. In 2000, Lady Runciman and her colleagues said that,
“the most dangerous message of all is the message that all drugs are equally dangerous. When young people know from their own experience that part of the message is either exaggerated or untrue, there is a serious risk that they will discount all of the rest”.
One of the difficulties with this legislation is that it fails to discriminate between the harms at different levels of psychoactive substances. I understand the problem that, with the proliferation of psychoactive substances on such a scale and at such a pace, this is a very difficult thing to do, but it remains an important objective of policy.
When the previous Labour Government were being tough on the causes of crime and sought to get more people into treatment, they found that it was not plain sailing. The Home Office identified at one point 320,000 so-called problem drug users and invited them to undergo voluntary testing in the hope that it would offer a route away from the revolving door of crime and addiction and into treatment. If I remember aright, the Home Office reallocated a very large sum of money—some £600 million; it was a PES transfer, if that is the right terminology—from the Home Office to the Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency. The Drugs Act 2005 set up the drugs intervention programme, expanding the drugs treatment and testing orders and making it compulsory to test on arrest or when an ASBO is issued so that a defendant was offered the choice of treatment or jail.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Will the Minister help us just a little bit further, because I know the Home Office knows a good deal about what has happened in Portugal? Much earlier in his speech, he was very dismissive of the benefits of decriminalisation on the Portuguese model, as I understood him to say—that is, possession of small amounts of drugs precisely defined for personal use. How, then, does he account for the success of the Portuguese policy?
Lord Bates
I did not mean to be dismissive about that. The Drugs: International Comparators report, which was referenced by several noble Lords, is clear that the success in Portugal cannot be attributed to decriminalisation and dissuasion panels alone. While drug use went down and health outcomes went up, there was at the same time a significant investment in treatment, which has already been referred to. That is an important part of it. That report could have looked at some of the—albeit modest—successes which we have had in this country with our approach. What is beyond doubt is that it is not just enforcement or the law but also education and health treatment which are at the heart of our being able to deal with this problem.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we have Amendment 28 in this group. The noble Baroness has covered the issues very thoroughly, particularly with regard to her Amendment 26, so I do not want to take too long. I struggled with the issue of research, in particular as to how Schedule 1 and Clause 10 fitted together, if they fitted at all. The noble Baroness alluded to that. As she said, the reference to the regulations in Schedule 1 raises the issue of non-human use and research for purposes other than those covered in the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations—for instance, understanding neurological processes. The definition seems to link a product with clinical trials. I am no scientist, but I do not know how you get to the point of a trial without a much wider exemption than we have as the Bill stands. Like the noble Baroness, I am concerned as to whether Clause 10 may be used to make research not an offence. I do not think that would be the right way to go about this but, if it is in the Government’s mind, questions would include what is being proposed, when it will happen and what the process of that will be.
On Tuesday last week, on the first day in Committee, I mentioned the problems of undertaking research on cannabis, through my amendment on medicinal cannabis. Those problems were described by Professor Curran and Frank Warburton in the report which I mentioned then. I am not entirely confident that our amendment captures everything that needs to be captured, and although I am glad to see the amendment on the same subject in the name of noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, I am not entirely convinced that theirs captures everything either—but that is why we have Committee.
The correspondence which we received was very helpful in prompting us to focus on this. The Academy of Medical Sciences, in its letter to the Home Secretary, referred to the “important tools” that scientists need. This House has a well-deserved reputation for focusing on research and ensuring that research is assisted and not hampered. It is very clear to me that we need to explore this issue further and to ensure that the Bill does not hamper, but promotes, research.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, very briefly, I would endorse every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said and put a rather practical consideration to the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked for a meeting, and I am sure that Ministers will wish to hold such a meeting. However, time is somewhat against us, as we have Report in a fortnight’s time, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could assure us that that meeting will take place. I am certain the Government will not ignore these very important representations from eminent research bodies in the medical field—they are bound to take account of them. However, just as the Academy of Medical Sciences has shared its letter with noble Lords who are participating in these proceedings, it would be very helpful if the Home Secretary would share her reply with us and if we could have, before Report, an explicit amendment tabled by the Government to remedy the defects that these eminent research bodies, under the umbrella of the Academy of Medical Sciences, have drawn to our attention.
“Possession for personal use
Possession for personal use of any psychoactive substances, including psychoactive substances hitherto controlled under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, is not a criminal offence.”
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, this amendment proposes that the possession for personal use of any psychoactive substances, including psychoactive substances hitherto controlled under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, is not a criminal offence. We touched quite extensively on this issue in the debate on Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but his amendment ranged considerably wider. I hope that the Committee will be willing to focus more tightly on the specific issue that is expressed in the proposed new clause.
In recent years, some 25 countries have removed criminal penalties for personal possession of some or all drugs. Now, for the first time, Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom are tiptoeing towards the decriminalisation of possession for personal use because they have omitted, quite deliberately, to criminalise such possession where psychoactive substances are concerned, as defined in the Bill. However, that raises the question of why they are stopping at new psychoactive substances and, of course, the substances that are exempted in Schedule 1. Why do they not now proceed to decriminalise possession for personal use of small amounts of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? The policy is inconsistent and confusing. As such, I fear that it is liable to damage respect for the law, and the law in respect of drugs is already not much respected as it is.
Why does the Home Office judge it appropriate to criminalise young people wholesale? I am advised that in the period 2009 to 2013, 59,742 young people under the age of 20 were criminalised for possession of controlled drugs—something like 29% of young people in that age group who received a criminal record. Such an approach is clumsy, to say the least, and I submit that it is very damaging to those young people: the short-term and long-term effects of having a criminal record weigh heavily on their educational and employment prospects and their prospects of being able to obtain credit. It is also expensive for the Exchequer. The continuation of this criminalisation appears to ignore the findings of the Home Office’s own study, Drugs: International Comparators, which found that the relative toughness of the prohibitionist approach makes no difference to actual consumption.
Like it or not, the recreational use of drugs is widespread in our society. Indeed, I would say that in certain sections of society it is normal. I do not know whether we are welcoming the Minister on his return from a fact-finding mission to Glastonbury at the weekend; he may perhaps have been invited by the organisers in his official ministerial capacity or perhaps he went incognito, possibly not even wearing his suit. I like to think that he was accompanied by Lady Bates and that she may have been bearing in her hand at least a small posy of flowers, because it could be the last time under this legislation that he will have the opportunity to give her flowers—then he will have to default to his position of presenting her with chocolates.
If the Minister was at Glastonbury, no doubt he will have ignored the vapourings coming from left field from such figures as Billy Bragg and Charlotte Church, but he will not have failed to notice that significant numbers of young people there were consuming psychoactive substances. Possibly he regards all of them as lost souls. Still, he may have taken some satisfaction from knowing that this will be the last time that drugs will be consumed at Glastonbury because, through the virtues of this legislation, he will have completed the circle of prohibition: it will be impossible for them legally to obtain psychoactive substances in future. Such will be the zeal for enforcement of the police and other authorities, prioritising this prohibition alongside their duties to deal with illegal immigration and threats of terrorism, he can be confident that next year no drugs will be consumed at Glastonbury—unless, perhaps, psychoactive substances descend like manna from heaven on to the fields of Glastonbury, because that is still a possibility. Miracles do occur, and it is not impossible that psychoactive substances will continue to be consumed at Glastonbury and other festivals.
We need a realistic and constructive approach to this matter. The constructive policy is to decriminalise the possession of all drugs for personal use—to legalise, to regulate and, as we have noted in earlier debates, to have a serious campaign to inform and educate people about the realities and dangers of drugs. How helpful it would be if we could distinguish legally between the recreational use of drugs and problem usage. Through decriminalising, I believe that we could get more people, more quickly into more effective help and treatment. This is the difference between the Swedish approach and the Portuguese approach, which we discussed earlier. Decriminalisation, as recommended in the proposed new clause, would release the police from so much futile activity.
I am told that Her Majesty’s Government are spending something of the order of £1.5 billion a year on drug law enforcement. The impact assessment for the Bill, at paragraph 75, anticipates that the costs of the new measures to the public sector will be only £60,000 in year 1 and £50,000 a year thereafter. This is a joke: all the new offences created and all the enforcement activities legislated for in the Bill will cost a lot of money. We would do better to switch that expenditure and other expenditure into a real drive on information, education, youth work, healthcare through Public Health England and doing very much better about drugs in prisons.
Should we be condemning or should we be helping? In our society, there is no consensus as to whether the use of drugs is a crime, a vice, a weakness, an illness, an adventure, an act of rebellion or a recreation. It is all these things to different people at different times. But if we cease treating it as a crime, we will, as I have said before, greatly reduce the alienation of so many young people from politics and government, and we will be better placed to help people in need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked me to convey her apologies to the Committee that she is unable to speak to her Amendment 46. She has had to go because she is hosting a reception for Leonard Cheshire Disability, which is being attended by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 39 and to speak to Amendments 45 and 52, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I agree with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. However, I got a touch of déjà vu because I think I made out the case for the decriminalisation of drugs when I spoke to Amendment 23. I will not go over that again.
Amendment 45 clarifies the offence of intentionally importing a psychoactive substance under Clause 7(1)(a) to exclude the importation if it is,
“for the person’s own consumption”.
Amendment 52 makes a similar change to the definition of “prohibited activity”. It would amend Clause 11(1)(d) to read,
“importing such a substance other than for the person’s own consumption”.
As we have heard, the Government do not intend to make possession of psychoactive substances under this Bill a criminal offence. This Bill is targeted at those who supply such substances. While it is therefore reasonable and logical for the importation of such substances for sale or supply to also be an offence, it seems disproportionate to make importation solely for one’s own consumption an offence.
What will happen if this Bill becomes law is what happened in Ireland when similar provisions were enacted. People who currently buy their psychoactive substances from head shops will instead buy them from street drug dealers or, more likely, buy them online. Under this Bill, the police will be able to close down UK-based websites, forcing users to buy their drugs from websites overseas. When they buy their drugs from such websites, they will be guilty of importing psychoactive substances, even if their only intention is to consume the drugs themselves. It seems inconsistent for the Government not to criminalise possession of psychoactive substances under this Bill but still to criminalise people for trying to possess them in this way.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for introducing this amendment. The amendments in this group relate to the personal use of such substances. Let me assure the noble Lord at the outset that the Bill does not make possession of a psychoactive substance for personal use a criminal offence. Similarly, it is not an offence to possess for personal use a drug subject to a temporary class drug order. In that sense, the current process is consistent with the way in which we have tackled such issues in the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that the intention is to catch the suppliers and manufacturers of the products.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, whose apologies we note, have argued that the Bill is internally inconsistent in making it an offence to import a psychoactive substance for personal use but not criminalising personal possession. I hope I can persuade the Committee that this is not the case. The very principle of this Bill, as recommended by the expert panel, is to tackle the supply of these substances. Given that the vast majority of these substances are imported from abroad, clearly, if we are to tackle the supply, we need to ensure that we have in place a robust importation offence and that the Border Force has sufficient powers to effectively stop these substances crossing the border. On that point, I advise the Committee that the Government intend to table further amendments to ensure that the Border Force can access the powers under the Customs and Exercise Management Act 1979 when it intercepts psychoactive substances coming into the UK.
We cannot have a robust importation offence if we permit small quantities of psychoactive substances to be imported for personal use. We want to stop all these dangerous substances entering the country, not facilitate their use. The expert panel was clear that the Bill should focus on the supply of these substances and target all sources, even social supply, which can be a gateway for people into regular drug use. Any supplier of a new psychoactive substance is contributing to the overall drugs problem.
The substances caught in this Bill are deliberately being treated differently from the drugs controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The 1971 Act controls drugs where we have expert evidence of specific harms and therefore apply the full ban on possession and supply for public protection. For those not—or not yet—controlled under the 1971 Act, we are targeting the trade alone. However, allowing possession of a psychoactive substance is one thing; deliberately weakening the controls by creating a loophole that allows the importation of small quantities is something else, both in principle and in practice.
I have already outlined one risk in allowing importation of personal quantities—that of creating the possibility for individuals to import multiple packages of small quantities of psychoactive substances, which on their own are consistent with personal use but could enter the supply chain when combined. There is a raft of practical challenges with this approach: how much would constitute personal use? Would it cover all substances? Would you allow someone to import a year’s worth of substances for their personal use? That could, depending on the substance, be a significant quantity.
Another concern would be the enforcement challenges that this new approach would create. A blanket importation ban simplifies enforcement by the Border Force: any psychoactive substance found at the border and which is evidently intended for human consumption can be seized and destroyed, unless it is an exempted substance or for an exempted activity. Allowing smaller packages for personal use would impose significant demands on the Border Force, requiring it to investigate the importation in each and every case to determine whether the seized substances are for onward supply or personal use. It would simply be unrealistic and an unnecessary burden to put this measure in place.
On the website question, which is a fair point, it should be said that there were two effects of the Irish experience: one was immediately to close down the head shops in the Republic of Ireland; the other was to allow the Government to take down the websites that were supplying these substances, which were on a Republic of Ireland domain. On the offences committed when there is the intention to import, if you can prove that you did not know the website was overseas and that you were importing, you would not have intentionally imported. Is that clear? Perhaps it is just not clear to me. Let me read it again: on the offences committed when it is intentionally imported, if you can prove that you did not know the website was overseas when you were importing, you would not have intentionally imported. Yes, that is very clear.
Finally, I should add that the importation of psychoactive substance offences in both Ireland and Australia also apply to all quantities imported: there is no exemption for personal consumption. Amendment 52 would stand or fall with Amendment 45, as it seeks to make a consequential amendment to the list of prohibited activities to replicate the change in the importation offence.
I hope that I have been able to provide some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I suspect I may have been unable to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. However, having given the issue a good airing, I hope that he and other noble Lords will not feel the need to press their amendments.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the groupings were perhaps not quite right, at least as far as Amendment 39 is concerned. That is probably my fault, but I am grateful to noble Lords for their participation and presence in this short but worthwhile debate.
The Minister’s charm is such that he would almost persuade the Committee to agree to what is palpably bad legislation, and I congratulate him on his manner at the Dispatch Box. In seeking to refute the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, he said that we could not have a partial relaxation of a ban on importation for personal use because it is very important that the Border Force has powers—those powers will be further supplemented in amendments to come—to ensure that, in the phrase I think he used, all these dangerous substances do not get through. He went on to say that there is also the Misuse of Drugs Act, which would allow the proscription of individual substances where there is evidence that they are dangerous. There is quite a tension, if not an inconsistency, between those points. We can think about that a little further.
As to the practicalities for the Border Force, I hope that at some point in proceedings the Minister will be able to give us some statistics about the number of packages that enter this country. We all know that there has been an enormous increase in mail order, online retailing. He mentioned that the Irish-based websites had been closed down by their legislation, but we know that the Irish have become big consumers of new psychoactive substances, even more than they were before the prohibition legislation was brought in. How are they getting them? Where are they coming in? What means are there to prevent the entry of all these packages, which Postman Pat then takes up the garden path and pops through the front door? I cannot see how the Border Force will inspect all these packages. I understand that a few years ago, it was able to inspect only some 2% of shipping containers. The Minister is landing the Border Force with a completely impossible task.
Lord Bates
That is one of the reasons why the Republic of Ireland Government are pleased that we are following their lead in this regard. Naturally, when you make a blanket ban, as they have done, people find it very easy simply to cross the border—which, of course, is not really there—to obtain these supplies in the north of Ireland. I can give the noble Lord some quick statistics. More than three and a half tonnes of new psychoactive substances were seized by Border Force officers in 2014-15—a 75% increase on the previous year. Officers undertake targeted physical checks, supported by technology such as X-ray and new portable FirstDefender devices, to intercept suspected packages out of the 250,000 parcels that come through the UK’s depots.
Lord Bates
We can, but the whole purpose of the legislation is to try to close the loopholes. As I explained, if there was a loophole that meant you could import for personal use, how do you actually track that? Whether it is one packet or multiple packets, what is an appropriate amount for personal use? That makes it very difficult for Border Force officials. We are taking a blanket approach, as we have with other substances, because it gives clarity to the purpose of the policy.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The noble Lord has provided us with some helpful information. I am still left puzzled as to how he thinks people will obtain these psychoactive substances, which it will not be a criminal offence to possess for personal use. Either they will have chemistry sets and synthesise them themselves, or his system of border controls and so forth will fail to work. Anyway, I am grateful for the thoughts that have been offered and the information that has been provided, and I beg leave to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendment 51 stands in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to license people and premises to sell low-risk psychoactive substances after consultation with representatives of the police, local authorities and small businesses.
The Government, in their background briefing to the Bill, acknowledge that some so-called head shops are well run and that the owners or managers of these premises make every effort to remain with the law and to conduct their business responsibly. We maintain that were all head shops to disappear, as happened when similar legislation was enacted in Ireland, users would resort to far more dangerous suppliers, such as street drug dealers and overseas websites. There is a real danger that the complete disappearance of head shops would result in more deaths from new psychoactive substances. Together with other amendments already debated, this amendment would allow low-risk psychoactive substances that have been exempted from the Bill to be sold to adults only, in closely regulated premises, by fit and proper licence holders.
We had a discussion this afternoon about how alcohol is very closely regulated. We are saying that, through this amendment, other low-risk psychoactive substances could be regulated and controlled. The overall effect of these changes would be to keep users from being driven into the hands of criminal suppliers and unregulated websites. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I support this amendment. I think it is going to be very difficult in practice to implement the kind of regime that the noble Lord and his cosignatories call for, but I share his view that it may well be of much more questionable benefit than the Government suppose to close down the existing head shops en masse. I suspect that they vary very much in terms of the responsibility with which they deal with their clients but am pretty sure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, there are head-shop proprietors and staff who take a responsible view of the risks that their clients may run and the desirability of ensuring that they do not come to harm. It is very difficult to know how to prevent anyone coming to harm, not least because it is very difficult to identify the exact nature of the substances sold, even for the head-shop importers and proprietors, and there is not the evidence to tell us about the long-term effects of the use of new psychoactive substances.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there is a lesser danger in this than there is in consigning the users of new psychoactive substances to street dealers and to online sources based outside this country operated by people who have no scruples at all. The consultation process that the noble Lord has proposed would be problematic, because people in the neighbourhood of head shops tend not to like them and it would be very difficult to get local public assent to the licensing of head shops, but a responsible local authority ought to undertake that kind of exercise.
I was very interested to note that, in the briefing from the Local Government Association on this amendment that I think we have all received, it makes some very practical points:
“We would oppose councils being made responsible for licensing because of the difficulties in assessing if a product is of low overall risk. Unless there was a full scale testing and risk assessment regime in place covering health and other risks the safety of a product could not be guaranteed”.
It is absolutely right about that, which is one of the reasons why, on another amendment, I have argued for the provision of a network of testing facilities. We ought to aim at that. We should encourage responsible conduct by people who would seek to supply psychoactive substances to the market in this country. There is evidence that many people operating cannabis cafes in the Netherlands for example, particularly because they are under pretty close police and other supervision, take good care to ensure that the products that they offer are relatively safe and that they guide purchasers to buy the products that may be least dangerous and least unsuitable for them. One might even say, for those who favour the taking of cannabis, it is positively suitable for them—but I am neutral on that point. We have all the time to think practically and realistically and, in tabling this amendment, noble Lords are doing just that.
Lord Blencathra
I rise briefly in response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, when he mentioned that the closure of the head shops in Ireland had resulted in the whole trade going underground. I am not sure whether my noble friend has had a chance to see it or research it, but my Google alert this morning said that some new report had been published by some doctors or professors in Ireland—maybe it was Dublin university, or something—that suggested that, quite the contrary, use of psychoactive substances overall had declined dramatically with the head shops ban and it had not gone underground, as people had feared. I have not had a chance to Google it and study it all but, if my noble friend is not aware of it, perhaps he and his assistants in his office can swot up on it. I am sure that it is a measure that will be addressed again at Report. We had a big debate last week on the situation in Ireland, so it would be worth while studying this academic research to see whether it is kosher.
Lord Bates
Well, I have given a couple of examples of things that may have been included by mistake. We know from the European monitoring centre that there are hundreds of new substances and chemical compounds that have been identified in the course of each year. Over 500 substances have already been banned in the past five years alone. Therefore, because of that fast-moving change, we have an enabling power in the Bill to allow us to respond quickly and effectively should a threat or an oversight with an unintended consequence come to light. I would have thought that, in good legislative practice, the fact that the Government would seek to respond in that way would carry a great deal of support.
I am conscious of time, but also of the fact that we dealt with a number of these issues under Amendment 19, when we discussed risk. We had a very good and thoughtful debate on that issue, and it was clear from that why, when the expert panel looked at the New Zealand licensing example, it felt that there were weaknesses in it because of how low risk or low harm would be defined. Therefore, the panel chose not to recommend going down that line but instead chose to follow the example of the Republic of Ireland and a blanket ban.
I come to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who asked whether I had seen the new report produced by Trinity College Dublin, an eminent academic source, on the ban on head shops and how it was actually impacting. One of the authors of the study, Dr Bobby Smyth, claims that,
“the results of the survey show that the kind of drugs being sold in headshops are not being used to the same extent any more”.
That would seem to challenge one of the arguments that has frequently been put forward—that somehow the incidence of usage has increased. That is not what has been found. Dr Smyth also claims that those drugs have not been driven underground, as has been feared, stating that,
“the findings have shown that the implementation of legislation, targeted primarily at the vendors of NPS, did indeed coincide with a fall in NPS use among this high risk group of teenagers who attend a drug and alcohol treatment service … The study found that, among the two groups surveyed, not only did the problematic abuse of headshop drugs fall but that the use of cocaine and amphetamines also fell”.
Consumption of so-called legal highs fell sharply after the Government cracked down on head shops that sold them, according to new research. Researchers studied two groups of young people attending a drug and alcohol treatment centre in Dublin. The first group attended the service immediately before the legal changes designed to drive head shops out of business were introduced, and the second attended a year later, after the ban came into effect. The percentage of problematic users of head shop drugs fell from 34% in the first group to zero in the second. The percentage who had taken any such drugs in the previous three months fell dramatically from 82% pre-ban to 28% after the ban was introduced. The study was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. That clearly produces some evidence, which I know was sought by Members of the Committee earlier when they asked whether the ban was having any effect.
Was the expert panel’s recommendation to take a different approach from New Zealand a sensible way forward? I think it probably is. Just last week, the state of Western Australia passed a blanket ban as well. There is a gathering view that this is having some effect in tackling a very difficult problem, and that licensing, however well-meaning and thoughtfully presented the arguments for it may be, is not as effective in achieving the outcomes that we all want.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Whatever policies are introduced on head shops—whether a wholesale ban, a crackdown, some degree of tolerance, supervision or licensing—we will not end up with the state of affairs that might well be desired by all of us: that there should be no more importation and consumption of new psychoactive substances. The Minister spoke earlier about the difficulties of defining “low harm”. I agree with him that these definitions are very hard to pin down. However, I also put it to him that in this field we are looking for the least bad solution. There is no ideal solution. We are looking for a practical set of measures that will, as far as possible, protect young people and society from the perils of dangerous psychoactive substances. There is a strong case for doing more work to achieve a workable, practical definition of “a low degree of harm”, and the approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in this amendment should not be discarded.
Lord Bates
I respect the noble Lord in taking that position but it is a different position from that which the Government have arrived at after taking advice on this. The Local Government Association, which has to wrestle with these problems, has seen numerous examples over recent months of local authorities using a range of powers to shut down head shops in, for example, Lincoln, Portsmouth, Newcastle, Kent and Medway as a result of anti-social behaviour in and around these premises. I am not aware of any local authority or police force that welcomes head shops in its community.
Before I have letters flooding my way from the Australian high commissioner, I should point out that the government of Western Australia introduced legislation last month but it has not yet been passed. I hope that clarifies the position, and I hope that the noble Lord is reassured and feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, talked about having received the LGA briefing on this amendment. Regrettably, we have not received it, which puts us in a slightly difficult position in commenting on it. However, from what I have heard in the Chamber this afternoon, there seems to be some confusion over what the amendment is proposing. It proposes that local authorities license people and premises but the decision on which substances can be sold—that is, whether something is a low-risk substance—would be agreed by the Secretary of State, who would then put that substance on the exempt list. We have debated what “low-risk substance” means or could mean on a previous amendment. Our Amendment 22 offered a definition of “low overall risk” taken precisely from the Misuse of Drugs Act. What a low-risk substance is and how you define it is a separate debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for raising this new research. Again, it is difficult to comment without having read it, unlike the Minister. However, it sounds as though the surveys were conducted in a treatment centre for young people. The difficulty, as I have mentioned, is that when substances are made illegal people are very reluctant to come forward to seek treatment because those substances are now illegal, whereas previously they were legal and people had no qualms about coming forward.
Last week we offered the House the chance to have an independent, objective review, not only of the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act but of what is happening in Ireland. It is very difficult for us in Committee to decide which side of the argument we come down on when there appears to be completely conflicting evidence of what the effects of the Irish ban are.
As to one thing I am more certain about, the Minister talked about the rejection of the New Zealand model. I understand that the problem with that model is that the suppliers of new psychoactive substances have not been prepared to put up the money to have their substances tested to the extent that they need to be to be approved. That is why the New Zealand model has run into the ground.
Lord Howarth of Newport
There have also been difficulties because of objections to testing on animals.
Lord Paddick
I accept that testing anything on animals is another very contentious issue. However, it is not right to say that the New Zealand model, whereby the door has been left open to allow people to have substances tested to see whether they are low risk, has been rejected, other than on commercial grounds by the people who are producing them.
Having said all that, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.