Lord Paddick
Main Page: Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Paddick's debates with the Home Office
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Paddick Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
“Possession of controlled drugs
(1) The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit section 5(1) and (2).
(3) After section 5 insert—
“5A Measures in respect of possession of controlled drugs for personal use
(1) Where a person is detained on suspicion of having committed an arrestable offence and is found to be in possession of a controlled drug falling within Schedule 2 (Class A drugs) in circumstances which do not constitute an offence under section 3 (restriction of importation and exportation of controlled drugs) or section 4 (restriction of production and supply of controlled drugs), a senior officer or a local authority may require the person to attend a drug treatment programme or drug awareness programme.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations define “drug treatment programme” and “drug awareness programme” for the purposes of this Act.
(3) Regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.””
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 24. These amendments are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
First, there has been a bit of confusion in the editing of the amendment. Subsection (1) of proposed new Section 5A should refer to all drugs falling within Schedule 2, not, as suggested in the brackets, “Class A drugs”. Schedule 2 refers to Class A, Class B and Class C controlled drugs.
Amendment 23 amends the Misuse of Drugs Act by removing Section 5(1), which states that it is illegal to possess a controlled drug, and Section 5(2), which states that it is an offence to possess a controlled drug. It adds a new Section 5A to the Misuse of Drugs Act requiring those arrested for offences to be referred to a drug treatment programme or a drug awareness programme if they are found to be in possession of controlled drugs at the police station. The effect of the amendment is to bring controlled drugs, as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act, into line with substances that are controlled by this Bill, where simple possession of psychoactive substances is not a criminal offence. This amendment would have the effect of decriminalising the possession of psychoactive substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act and is similar to Amendment 39 which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
This amendment also allows that when someone is in police custody for an offence and it becomes apparent that drugs may be behind the criminal behaviour, the person can be referred to an education programme, a drug awareness programme or a drug rehabilitation programme. It allows the Secretary of State by regulation to define a drug treatment programme and a drug awareness programme for the purposes of this Bill. Amendment 24 is simply a consequential amendment to Schedule 1.
At Second Reading, I said that making possession of drugs illegal is not a deterrent, and the Government appear to agree with me to the extent that they are not seeking to make possession of new psychoactive substances illegal under this Bill. It is claimed that proportionality is the reason for not doing so. A proportionality argument can be made for possession of controlled drugs as well. First and foremost, there are millions of people in the UK who continue to take drugs even though they are illegal. Why do they do so? One of the reasons is because the law is in disrepute as far as those it was intended to protect are concerned. Secondly, criminal sanctions do not appear to have any impact on drug use. The Home Office’s 2014 paper Drugs: International Comparators states:
“Looking across different countries, there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country’s approach and the prevalence of adult drug use”.
UK drug laws appear to have failed to impact on the level of national drug use. The UK has the second-highest lifetime amphetamine and ecstasy use, the second-highest cocaine use and the fourth-highest lifetime cannabis use in Europe.
Release examined 21 jurisdictions where possession of all or some drugs had been decriminalised, and there was no increase in drug use. In the most notable example, Portugal, the Home Office notes that there has not been a lasting or significant increase in drug use there since decriminalisation in 2001. Whether simple possession of drugs is a crime or not appears to make very little difference. The Government are content not to criminalise possession of the substances covered by the Bill, some of which are—and some new substances certainly could be—far more harmful than some of the drugs covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act. For the sake of consistency, clarity and credibility, simple possession of any psychoactive substance should not be an offence. Some will be concerned about such a move, and I myself long resisted calls to legalise drugs. However, I have been convinced by the evidence from Portugal.
These amendments go on to suggest that where someone commits an offence, whether it is antisocial behaviour as a result of being intoxicated by drugs or committing an acquisitive crime to feed a drug habit, and it is found that they are in possession of a controlled drug, they may be referred to an education programme if they have been reckless in their use of drugs, or to a drug treatment programme if they are addicted. There are already well-established practices within the police of giving conditional cautions, where someone is not charged with a criminal offence provided that they comply with the conditions imposed on them. That conditional caution mechanism for the substantive offence for which they have been arrested could provide the incentive for those who are willing to change their behaviour. This is, in essence, the Portuguese model, as I understand it—an approach that focuses on dissuasion.
This amendment has significant other benefits. As with substances covered by the Bill, it would deprive police officers of the power to stop and search people they suspect of simple possession of controlled drugs. At Second Reading, I pointed out the impossible position that the police would be put in if the Bill were implemented without a change in the Misuse of Drugs Act. The police could not possibly be able to tell whether the psychoactive substance they suspected the person to be in possession of was covered by the Bill or by the Misuse of Drugs Act, one for which they have a power to stop and search, the other for which they do not. This amendment deals with that difficulty.
Stop and search is a very contentious tool that the police have used disproportionately against black and minority ethnic young men in particular. In 56% of cases of stop and search by the police in London in 2013-14, the reason the officer gave for searching was “for drugs”. Admittedly, some of those stop and searches may have been for suspected drug dealing, but in my own professional experience they would have been very few. Last week there was discussion in the media about the growth of knife crime in the capital, and it has been reported that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has suggested that stop and search may have to increase again as a result. In the same 2013-14 period in London, only 9% of stop and search was targeted on offensive weapons. Freed from the burden of stop and search for simple drugs possession, the police could focus on more serious crime such as drug dealing and knife crime.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, alluded, I have some experience of de facto decriminalisation of cannabis in the London Borough of Lambeth, where I was the police commander. In 2001, for a year, the then Commissioner of Police, now the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, agreed a 12-month pilot scheme where no one would be arrested for simple possession of cannabis, subject to a few exceptions such as possession on or near school premises. The official report by the Metropolitan Police Authority into that scheme is still available on the internet. Some 83% of local people supported the scheme. There was a 19% increase in arrests for dealing in class A drugs. Contrary to press reports, there were fewer drug tourists, fewer incidents of drugs in schools and a saving of police time, which was diverted into tackling more serious crime that was of more concern to local people. The pilot was so successful that the procedure to allow officers to seize and warn for simple possession of cannabis was extended nationally. It also prompted the then Home Secretary to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug—a decision overturned by a new Labour leader a few years later. No wonder the public have no faith in drugs classification.
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.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and wish, if I may, to address a few of the points that were made.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked how much constitutes personal use. If you have even a small amount of a drug but have it all in little bags, that indicates that you might be supplying it, or have possession with the intent to supply it. That is the sort of decision that a police officer has to make on the street. Whether it is to do with cannabis or any controlled drug, the decision on whether it is for personal use or possession with the intent to supply is one that is faced by officers every day.
Mention was made of the Swedish absolutely zero tolerance approach. I was not going to raise this issue again but it goes to the heart of what we are discussing. We are all on the same page as regards a lot of what the Minister has said, and what I have suggested in trying to persuade people to get treatment, or on education and so forth. However, the very big difference between us, of course, is whether or not possession is illegal.
As I say, I was not going to bring this up again, but I mentioned at Second Reading a former partner of mine, who became my best friend, who tragically died as a result of taking drugs. His mother asked me to go to the inquest, which is where I learned what had happened. He realised that he had taken an overdose of a drug called GHB. I honestly believe that, if possession of a small amount of that drug for personal use had not been illegal, he and the people that he was with would have sought medical assistance quicker. In fact, he tried to make himself sick in order to get rid of the overdose and thought that he would be okay. He fell asleep and, by the time he was found by his friends, he had obviously stopped breathing for half an hour or an hour or so. They did not seek medical treatment because his condition was to do with illegal drugs.
I know a nightclub manager in Vauxhall who tells me that in other clubs in Vauxhall partygoers who have collapsed—collapsing is what happens if you overdose on GHB—as a result of taking illegal drugs are carried out on to the street by security before an ambulance is called, which could be the difference between life and death for those people, because the nightclub owners do not want to have a reputation with the police that illegal drugs are being used in their clubs. That is why in Ireland, with the passing of a similar Bill, and in Sweden, there are so many deaths because people are taking illegal substances and therefore do not seek the medical help that they desperately need. So I hope your Lordships will forgive me but this is personal as well as professional for me.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 36 to 38, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Amendment 35 amends the offence of producing a psychoactive substance so that a person commits an offence under Clause 4(1)(b) if he or she,
“knows or thinks that the substance is a psychoactive substance”,
rather than if he or she “suspects” it. Amendments 36 and 37 make a similar change to the offence of supply or offering to supply under Clause 5(1)(c) to read that the person “knows or thinks” or ought to
“know or think, that the substance is a psychoactive substance”.
Amendment 38 is probing in nature to delete Clause 5(3) simply to try to elicit from the Minister an explanation of what on earth the subsection actually means.
Police officers suspect while the rest of us think. I am picturing myself with a person I have just arrested—sometimes I dream that I am still in the police; rather, it is a nightmare—in the tape-recording interview room at the police station, when I ask him, “Did you suspect this to be a psychoactive substance?”. Surely the question is whether the suspect thought that it was a psychoactive substance, not whether he suspected it to be one. “Suspect” is rather value-laden, which usually has negative connotations. “If you suspect it, report it”, is the latest from the Metropolitan Police. To us it seems more sensible to substitute “thinks” for “suspects” in the context of these offences.
On Amendment 38, perhaps the Minister can explain what:
“For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), the reference to a substance’s psychoactive effects includes a reference to the psychoactive effects which the substance would have if it were the substance which P had offered to R”,
means, and why it is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and to get to the heart of it, is that we believe that “knows or suspects” is an established term. It has been used in, for example, Section 21A of the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 2(16) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987—
“Where any person—
(a) knows or suspects that an investigation by the police or the Serious Fraud Office”—
and Section 83ZN(4) of the Banking Act 2009, which states:
“(4) A person who knows or suspects that an investigation is being or is likely to be conducted under section 83ZC”.
I simply cite the examples to show that this is a term which has broad acceptance. However, I shall take up the noble Lord’s invitation to put on the record a few words to expand on what is meant by these clauses.
Amendments 35, 36 and 37 seek to make a slight change to the mental element of the offences in Clauses 4 and 5, which relate to the production and supply of psychoactive substances. In drafting these offences, we consulted the national policing lead for new psychoactive substances and the Crown Prosecution Service. We believe that the current formulation of these offences is proportionate and fair, capturing those individuals who intentionally produce, supply or offer to supply these dangerous substances while not criminalising accidental behaviour.
To satisfy the mental elements of the production offence, the prosecution must show that the production is intentional, that the defendant knew or suspected that the substance is a psychoactive substance, and that the defendant must either intend to consume the psychoactive substance for its psychoactive effects, or know or be reckless as to whether the psychoactive substance is likely to be consumed by another person for its psychoactive effects. The mental elements of the supply offence in Clause 5 are similar; namely, that the prosecution must show that supplying the substance is intentional, that the defendant knew or suspected, or ought to know or suspect, that the substance is a psychoactive substance, and the defendant must know or be reckless as to whether the psychoactive substance is likely to be consumed by the person to whom it is supplied or by another person for its psychoactive effects.
Amendments 35 to 37 seek to remove “suspects” and replace it with “thinks”. Given the two words’ natural meaning, the requirement of each is very similar. However, we believe that the use of “think” raises the bar too high in terms of what must be proved. Thinking something suggests that a person needs to be “satisfied” or “believe” that something is the case—I am having a moment of déjà vu here with the then Serious Crime Bill, because we went through the mens rea discussions then—which is a higher test than that which we propose. The formula “knows or suspects” is commonly used in the criminal law to describe the mental element or mens rea of the offence. It is a phrase that is well understood. “Knows” demonstrates a true belief. Suspicion is a subjective test and need not be based on reasonable grounds, but there must be a possibility which is more than fanciful that the relevant facts exist. The courts have held that a “vague feeling of unease” would not suffice to prove suspicion, but the suspicion need not be “clearly” or “firmly” grounded and targeted on specific facts or based upon reasonable grounds.
The Government considered whether the mental element should extend only as far as “knows”, but we concluded that this could create an inappropriately high bar for prosecutors to overcome, with defendants arguing that they did not know for certain that the substance they were producing or supplying was a psychoactive substance. Given, as I have said, that a “knows or suspects” test is commonly used in the criminal law, I am satisfied that it is well understood by investigators, prosecutors and defence lawyers. I am therefore not persuaded of the case for change.
Under Clause 5(2) there are two limbs to the offer to supply offence. First, person A must offer to supply a psychoactive substance to person B. The second limb requires that person A knows or is reckless as to whether person B, or some other person, would, if a substance was supplied in accordance with the offer, be likely to consume the substance for its psychoactive effects. I realise that these are complex legal terms, but I have to say that they probably fit well with a number of cases that I have personally looked into. I am thinking of head shops selling psychoactive substances in bright packaging. To avoid prosecution, the label states that the substance is plant food or a research chemical that is not for human consumption. Clearly, that is what we are aiming to get at so that there is no loophole. Given the way this second limb operates, no offence would be committed if the substance that was in fact supplied was not a psychoactive substance. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that not all drug dealers are entirely honest. An offer may be made to supply a psychoactive substance, but the person making the offer may intend to defraud the recipient by passing off some benign white powder as the real thing. Indeed the person making the offer may not intend to supply anything, but simply take the money and run. Clause 5(3) is intended to catch those circumstances. What matters here is that the defendant made an offer to supply a psychoactive substance and should not be able to evade prosecution under Clause 5 on the grounds that he or she did not intend to fulfil their side of the deal.
I accept the probing nature of the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will find that these explanations, even if they have not entirely satisfied him, have allowed us to put some additional remarks on the record that may be helpful in understanding the Government’s intent in bringing forward this clause.
Lord Bates
My noble friend is correct in the sense that there are rules that exist relating to solvent abuse, the use of solvents in that regard and protections for retailers. However, we are very clear here as to the target audience for the purpose of this measure: individuals who are seeking to manufacture psychoactive substances for the purposes of being consumed by people for their psychoactive effect, or to supply, import or export. We do not believe that they will come into the categories of what would be appropriate retail activity. My noble friend makes a wider point, though. I will reflect again with officials on his remarks in the Official Report, and if I can expand upon that point to provide some additional guidance I will certainly write to him and copy it to other Members of the Committee.
Lord Paddick
I thank the Minister for his explanation, on the basis that I am not a lawyer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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
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 Paddick
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, can I just say that surely there must be a way to allow all these substances—or as many as are discovered—to be confiscated by the Border Force without making importation for personal use a specific offence? Surely they can be treated as two separate things. No doubt we can discuss that during the Bill’s further stages.
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 Paddick
“Licences for sale of psychoactive substances
(1) The Secretary of State shall within one year after the passing of this Act make regulations for the licensing of—
(a) specified persons;(b) specified premises;to sell psychoactive substances determined to pose low overall risk and exempted under Schedule 1 by regulations made under section 3.(2) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) representatives of chief officers of police, local authorities and small businesses, and(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different purposes, and(b) contain incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision or savings.(4) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6) In this section “specified” means specified in regulations.”
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 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.