Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate15:25 - Division on Amendment 306ZC - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 306ZC disagreed.
16:28 - Division on Amendment 306A - Ayes: 102 / Noes: 129 - Amendment 306A disagreed.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am just trying to be honest. I shall also be honest about the Home Office. The problem here is less that this is a bad scheme, or that these schemes on the whole will not help, but that the idea that the Home Office should sponsor this is a bit silly. At heart this is a public health issue. The idea that the Home Office, which is the home of repression and locking people up—as I characterised it, although perhaps I overstated the case—should be responsible is a little like asking cats to be responsible for the welfare of the mice in their house. You cannot do it. I challenge the Minister, if the Home Office cannot get behind this, at least to remove the obstructions to this scheme getting off the ground. We would support that. The Home Office should give up responsibility for this area and pass it to the Department of Health.
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord poses many challenges to me. It might be appropriate for me to remind the House that responsibility for drug and alcohol abuse is within my ministerial brief at the Home Office. I am conscious that, in addressing this part of the Bill, I have already spoken—perhaps extensively—in Committee about my commitment. While I hear what the noble Lord says about the Department of Health, which is very important and takes the lead on alcohol, this is none the less a matter that will have to be addressed by joined-up government. As has been said by several people, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who moved this amendment, we need to look at a holistic approach.
I put on record that the Ministers in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice would like to see a sobriety scheme. Since we met to discuss this scheme in Committee, there have been extensive discussions at ministerial and official level with Members of this House and the office of the deputy mayor. We have tried very hard to come to some accommodation to find a scheme that works. The principle of the scheme is not in dispute.
I shall outline to the House why I must reject the amendment of—I am tempted to say “my noble friend” because we have worked closely together on so many issues in the past—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She made her case very strongly. She will know that I have great respect for her expertise in this area and her dedication to resolving these problems, particularly that of crime resulting from alcohol. However, I must reject these amendments.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I first reiterate what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and others. Sobriety, in itself, will not always tackle alcohol-related offending. Many offenders will require clinical treatment and support to aid their recovery. I choose those words carefully. Mention has been made of treatment but it is the Government’s intention, on both drugs and alcohol—there is often a combination of the two—that we should move on from treatment into recovery, which has to be the end goal. A lot of valuable work has gone into treatment. Nobody in any way suggests that treatment programmes are not an essential part of the journey. However, the end of the journey must now focus, for both alcohol and drugs, on recovery; it must not just end with treatment. I have to say that it is rather unclear whether the purpose of the amendments before us is punitive or rehabilitative. I see nothing in the amendments that gives us a steer as to how we should view this.
Lord Soley
Surely the purpose of provisions such as these is preventive and educational, particularly for young people. I accept what the Minister is saying but treatment is rather a different ball game.
Baroness Browning
I accept what the noble Lord says on that and do not dispute it at all. I support the principle of a sobriety scheme that seeks to tackle the problems caused by alcohol-related offending—particularly by binge drinking, which can blight communities—but I must still resist these amendments. Contrary to what the noble Baroness has said, an effective and robust sobriety scheme can be implemented using existing powers. Piloting this approach will provide us with firmer evidence on which to consider the need for legislative changes such as those proposed. I believe that a scheme could be started almost immediately.
My noble friend raised a number of concerns about piloting a sobriety scheme using conditional cautions. I wish to take a moment to focus on those. A scheme based on conditional cautions which is already on the statute book is favoured by the Government. Indeed, there is already interest in some parts of the country in looking at a scheme based on conditional cautions. However, I understand that London supports the scheme put forward by the noble Baroness.
It has been suggested that conditional cautions would not allow repeat offenders to be targeted by a sobriety scheme. While serious and persistent offenders should obviously be prosecuted at court, conditional cautions can be considered where an offender has committed previous offences. For example, a pattern of alcohol-related offending which has previously resulted in an offender receiving a penalty notice for disorder, a simple caution or perhaps even being prosecuted for a low-level offence may well be appropriate for a sobriety condition as part of a conditional caution.
It has also been suggested that offenders are unlikely to consent to a sobriety condition, but I believe that many will consent when they are informed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that the alternative is to be prosecuted for their conduct and to face the prospect of the prosecution applying for a drinking banning order on conviction. In these circumstances I believe that very many offenders will consider that accepting a sobriety condition—which can include requirements to undergo testing, and to pay for those tests, and which has clear consequences for non-compliance—is by far the preferable option. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about the educational aspect and the right reverend Prelate talked about a change of culture. As I hope I have already reassured the House, I am adamant that we will pursue a change of culture. I will not go into too much detail because I have probably said this two or three times now, but I find it unacceptable that we have a culture in this country whereby it is acceptable for people to be seriously drunk in public places either as individuals or collectively. That is a significant change of culture that many of us have witnessed in our lifetime. Using the toolkit—that is the terminology—I am looking for every opportunity to change that culture. I do not underestimate how long that will take as the problem has taken decades to present itself as we see it now, but I hope to impact on it as much as possible.
I note the changes that the noble Baroness has made to her amendments since they were previously discussed. I also note that she and the Deputy Mayor of London have received legal advice on the amendments. There were question marks over the differing legal advice that the Home Office and the Deputy Mayor of London had received, particularly around matters to do with offenders’ convention rights. Although I agree that a sobriety scheme as the noble Baroness envisages it could be compatible with an offender’s convention rights, I believe that any primary legislation in this area would require careful consideration about when such a scheme would be proportionate and what safeguards might be needed to ensure that a court does not impose an alcohol monitoring requirement that risks breaching an individual’s human rights. This is a difficult area and one which the results of piloting conditional cautions would help to illuminate, as well as providing us with evidence of the scheme’s effectiveness.
I have touched on the issue of treatment leading to recovery, which is the Government’s aim. As has been mentioned, extremely serious criminal consequences can arise from alcohol abuse. It is important to distinguish between what we might euphemistically describe as binge drinking and those very serious crimes, in which I of course include domestic violence, where the way forward may well be a conviction. Whether it is associated with a conviction or not, it will require a most extensive package to address what are often the complex needs of the offender.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Are the Government contemplating putting into legislation the package that the noble Baroness is talking about, or will it be run on a voluntary basis? If it is the latter, why is it not attached to what is before us now?
Baroness Browning
The sobriety scheme based on conditional cautions has all the legislative power that it needs now. I do not need to put it into this statute; there is sufficient statute to run it now. If we were to move on later to something as described by the noble Baroness, we would, as I indicated, need to pick up the results of those pilots in future legislation.
If we take forward these pilots on the basis that I have outlined to the House, it will allow us to test locally some of the more challenging elements of such a scheme, including its funding, proportionality, enforcement and impact on reoffending. Although I recognise the problem that the amendments seek to tackle and am sympathetic to their objectives, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I am unable to support their adoption. However, I give my full support to testing the principles of the scheme that she proposes and hope to begin a number of pilot schemes before too long.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I thank the Minister for her reply. I must preface my remarks by thanking her for her sincere commitment to tackling the alcohol abuse that we see in this country. None of us who have spoken today are anti-alcohol per se; it is the problem of the outcomes of harms.
I am a clinician, and if I am to evaluate any scheme of any sort, I compare one scheme with another scheme. The conditional caution scheme that the Minister outlined will require police constables to decide whether it is an alcohol-fuelled offence and whether to offer the scheme. That is the problem and is why, as my noble friend Lord Imbert outlined, the matter should be left with the magistrates. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, a magistrate herself, pointed out that it does not change the status quo; it does not stop something happening but simply provides an additional arm. If there is to be a sincere comparison of the different schemes in different parts of the country, I say hooray to that—let us do proper pilots and monitor them properly.
A sunset clause was suggested in the debate but the Minister did not mention it in her reply. She has seen the amount of support around the House today for including a scheme so that it can be piloted. These are people who have committed an offence who will be sentenced anyway; they will be either incarcerated or fined, probably in addition to losing their driving licence and other things. However, if there is a massive fine it will harm the children in the family much more than the offender because of all the things they will not be able to do when the money suddenly goes out of the household. With the proposed scheme the offender will pay directly—financially and, more importantly, with their time and commitment. Recovery is crucial. As I pointed out, recovery would be attached to this. It would be offered to people and they would be supported. We have evidence—I know it is from the US, which is why I am suggesting that the scheme should be piloted here—that long-term recovery is improved when people are put through a court-directed alcohol-monitoring scheme.
Before making a final decision, will the Minister say whether, in the light of today’s debate, she will consider coming back at Third Reading with a sunset clause? That would allow us to do a proper scientific study in the areas which want to use the scheme as outlined in the amendments, which requires primary legislation, in addition to the schemes which use police cautions as the Minister outlined. I need to know her response on inserting a sunset clause before we really decide where we are going.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not pick up on the point about the sunset clause. I am not able to offer the noble Baroness a change in my view on such a clause. The amendments need substantial work to make them workable from a technical and legal point of view.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I was trying to cover myself with a fig leaf of invisibility—and I will do that now.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment. Indeed, it was just two weeks ago that we had a more extensive debate on his Private Member’s Bill on this subject. The Government are committed to restoring rights to non-violent protest. They are also committed to ensuring that everyone can enjoy public spaces and do not consider it acceptable for people to camp on Parliament Square. Therefore, we are taking a new approach to the square. Instead of trying to deal with the problem of encampment by criminalising and targeting protests and protestors, what we have brought forward seeks to prevent the disruptive activities that have caused concern—namely, erecting tents and staying overnight with sleeping equipment. We hope that we have done this in a targeted, proportionate and enforceable way that applies to all, not just to protestors.
I stress that the Government wholly appreciate my noble friend’s intentions behind his amendments. We are in complete agreement with the need for a Parliament Square, clear of tents, that can be enjoyed by all. That of course includes those who wish to come to make their views known and to protest. We believe that that should also open up the possibility for those who may want to demonstrate in a peaceful way through all-night vigils—something that is precluded at the moment.
We wholly agree that we need the different enforcement agencies to work closely together to achieve this. We also agree that the square should be a thriving space that accommodates protests by all groups, not just a few. However, I am afraid that my noble friend’s amendments will not achieve that. They risk leading to a significant escalation in confrontation and disorder, which our proposals are crafted to avoid. I cannot see how my noble friend’s proposals will result in anything other than nightly stand-offs between police and council workers on the one side and on the other groups that will disregard the views of the committee that he proposes to put in place.
This is not just government hysteria or hyperbole; this is based on the experience recorded by the courts of wilful disregard for the law by groups such as Democracy Village and a determination by the present encampment to challenge both legally and confrontationally on the ground any attempt to move them or their equipment. Furthermore, even assuming that they could be moved, the net effect for those who use Parliament Square will be no different. After a nightly battle, the tents and other structures would simply be re-erected at 6 am the next day. The square would be clear only when no one was around to witness it. As I understand my noble friend’s amendments, he suggests—and he repeated it in his opening remarks—that council refuse collectors should simply sweep the square at midnight and clear it of detritus. I would like to put it to my noble friend that there may be people attached to that detritus, and there would almost certainly be people inside the tents.
The Government had originally proposed that the powers to use reasonable force in enforcing our provisions should be available to authorised and trained officers of Westminster Council and the GLA. There was widespread Cross-Bench concern in the House at those enforcement powers. The Government listened and have removed those powers from the Bill. My noble friend’s amendments envisage refuse collectors seizing tents and other structures. We do not think that that is appropriate, proportionate or desirable. If that were indeed their responsibility, it would certainly contribute to the nightly scuffles and punch-ups that I have alluded to.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I understand that the ministry has met the council leader, but in his letter he says that the Government’s proposal will not work. He says that it will not fulfil the objectives set by the Government. I cannot imagine what has happened in the conversation with committees and officers of the council meeting to come to that conclusion. What happens if the Bill is enacted as the noble Baroness would want and it turns out as time passes that Westminster City Council is right and the Government are wrong?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, as I have indicated, no one says that this is an easy matter. We have sought to reform the legislation by giving more opportunity for peaceful protest on the square while seeking to remove the problem of the encampments. I have discussed Westminster City Council’s concerns with it, but it is quite clear that it will fully co-operate as partners in this legislation. We continue to discuss that with it. While I understand that Westminster City Council would perhaps have liked us to go further and extend the area that we are considering, given the proportionality concerns raised in this House and another place we have sought to get the balance right. I am assured, and I have no reason to doubt, that Westminster City Council will play its part with other partners such as the parks authorities and the GLA in endeavouring to make this legislation work. If in three or four years’ time noble Lords come back and say, “Well, that didn’t work”, I will be disappointed. However, this is the best way forward: trying to address the problem while maintaining the space outside the House for democratic protest.
Lord Kilclooney
It is great that the Minister met the leader of the city council. Can she now say whether he has changed his position of opposition to what was happening?
Baroness Browning
I think I am correct in saying that when he wrote that letter he was probably extremely concerned and wanted to have more dialogue with my department. That dialogue has taken place and will be ongoing. We will certainly take seriously any concerns of Westminster City Council and any other enforcement agency that will be required to participate in this new legislation, and will continue to work with them. I have in front of me the words that I have expressed about the council. The House will be unsurprised to learn that those words have been agreed with it. I am not saying this off the top of my head. There is a constructive dialogue, and we will seek between us to overcome any concerns that it might have.
Lord Cormack
As it is quite clear that there is real concern in all parts of the House, and, from what my noble friend has just said, continuing concern in Westminster City Council, can she not adopt my suggestion of a little while ago and have further discussions between now and Third Reading with a view to seeing whether these proposals, which many of us feel are deficient, can be improved? This is a real chance to deal with an eyesore that has been here for far too long. We do not want, in three or four years’ time—or even three or four months’ time—to have to say that it is not working.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I hope I have explained very clearly why the amendments before the House would not address the problem that we are seeking to address. My noble friend asked me to look at this further. We have already made concessions on this legislation to get the balance right, particularly as expressed in this House and another place, and to ensure that it was not overprescriptive for those who want to exercise their democratic right to protest outside this Building. I am not in a position to bring this back at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will examine carefully my concerns about a committee as outlined in the amendments.
Lord Judd
I thought it was possible to seek clarification from a Minister during their wind-up speech. The point on which I seek clarification is whether it would be wise, at some point, to meet those who organise vigils to suggest to them that counterproductivity in campaigning does not help their cause.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I never pretended that this was the last word. I am disappointed that the Government feel that their Bill is the last word. I am delighted to hear that the Minister will discuss these matters in more detail with Westminster City Council. I find it a little strange that the letter from which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, quoted was written as recently as 21 June. After all, the Government have had this Bill in gestation for many months. If I had been on Westminster City Council, I, too, would have been a little miffed if I appeared to have been ignored.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and others, the committee will certainly be all-embracing. Whoever should be on it will be on it. It will not have to sit all the time; it will have a, presumably very small, permanent staff—perhaps someone seconded from the Met, someone from Westminster City Council and someone from here who will keep a watching brief for us. I was surprised when the Minister said that she did not know whether the committee would report to her. My amendment says:
“The Committee shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament”.
I do not say that that is necessarily the right idea, but for her to say that I have made no provision for reporting is simply not true. It is in the amendment. My worry is that the Home Office just does not like ideas from outside. It does not even read them; it just rejects them, which is disappointing. Given the Minister’s answer, and to encourage the Government to think a little more, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I had not intended to speak in this debate and I ought to confess that—how can I best describe it?—I copped out on the previous debate as I found my noble friend Lord Marlesford and all the other speeches very persuasive until I heard my noble friend from the Front Bench who I thought made some significant points that undermined the possible practicality of that amendment.
This amendment is also designed to modify the Government’s proposals. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that it seems to me that we have quite an awkward situation here. Almost no one believes that what the Government have in the Bill will work. Everyone believes that something needs to be done. I was persuaded that my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment was not quite the ticket, so I landed up in the position I have described. Equally, I do not find myself very attracted by the proposition, which my noble friend on the Front Bench implied in her speech, that it might take four years to find out. Well, if it had not worked in four years, she would be disappointed.
The fact is that we are going to know quite soon following the passage of this Bill, if that is what happens, whether it has been effective in achieving the objective we all want, which is a situation in Parliament Square that is consistent with the buildings around it and its world status. I do not seek to persuade my noble friend to concede to the amendment or to put her in a very difficult position, but I would like her to acknowledge that in this debate points have been made by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that need some further consideration. I would welcome an assurance that if what is in the Bill does not work, the Government will continue discussions with a view to coming forward with some other proposition that has a better chance of working in pretty short order.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who, in an earlier debate, suggested that, as far as this part of the Bill relating to Parliament Square is concerned, I said I would reflect and bring things back. That is why government amendments are in this group. I am keeping my word and seeking to make some changes.
Clause 148 empowers the court to make any appropriate order which has the purpose of preventing the defendant engaging in prohibited activities in the controlled area. We want to retain some flexibility for the court to deal with a determined individual who has persistently failed to comply with direction by barring him from the controlled area when it is proportionate and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is seeking to make guidance statutory. The Government are committed to providing the necessary guidance and support but consider that there is nothing to be gained by making the guidance statutory, which could risk interfering in operational capabilities. I will explain why. Statutory guidance is frequently more restricted and concise, lacking the practical examples and case studies that are often present in non-statutory guidance. This means that statutory guidance can end up being less helpful than non-statutory guidance. If action is challenged, the courts will have a look at any type of government-approved guidance, statutory or non-statutory, in considering the lawfulness of the action. The practical impact of making guidance statutory would be limited but the usefulness of the guidance could be reduced. That is probably because we can all envisage a series of scenarios that might apply in this instance. It would be very difficult to capture them all in statutory guidance. In this case, it is believed that non-statutory guidance would be more helpful if these cases were ever tested in the court. However, the noble Lord’s amendment provides a helpful template for the areas and issues which our non-statutory guidance will cover. I thank him for that.
I now turn to the government amendments. As I stated in Committee, we want to ensure that the area in which the new regime applies is as small as possible so that it targets the problem of the unique situation of Parliament Square without extending any further than necessary. We recognise the concerns of some that the controlled area is too small and that the effect of these measures could be to displace disruptive activities to footways beyond the controlled area. That is why we have been working with Westminster City Council and the GLA to ensure that relevant by-laws are strengthened to deal with disruptive activity in the wider area.
In consultation with the House authorities, it has become clear that additional provision is needed for other areas around Parliament Square not covered by Westminster City Council or Greater London Authority by-laws but which are covered by Royal Parks regulations; for example, the lawn area around the statue of George V, and Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, these amendments make provision for a power of seizure to be attached to Royal Parks regulations to support the position we have taken for effective enforcement of GLA and Westminster City Council by-laws. These amendments have the support of the House authorities and are in line with the proportionate and targeted approach we are taking in the Bill to deal with disruption in and around the square.
Lord Cormack
I was at odds with my noble friend in the previous debate. I would like to thank her—on behalf, I am sure, of many Members in all parts of this House—for what she has just said about the area around the statue of George V and the other areas.
Baroness Browning
I am glad to have reassured my noble friend. I will pick up on a couple of points raised in the debate. My noble friend Lady Hamwee talked about powers for parks regulations. These powers will be exercised by the Metropolitan Police as it has a distinct Royal Parks operational command unit.
My noble friend Lady Kramer also asked about other parks that might be affected by these amendments. The amendments are an enabling power only. They enable DCMS, when making Royal Parks regulations, to apply a power of seizure to any, all or some of the Royal Parks regulations. This comes back to the fact that these reforms are very much focused on the power of seizure. In turn, the Royal Parks regulations apply to a specified list of parks which include Hyde Park, Victoria Tower Gardens, Hampton Court Gardens and Richmond Park, to name but a few. It would be open to DCMS to apply a power of seizure to any, all or some of the parks in that list. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend but if she has any particular concerns about the read-across of this to any park she is interested in, I would be very happy to discuss it with her or let her have fuller information in writing.
These amendments are a targeted approach synonymous with what we have set out to achieve in this Bill to deal with disruption in and around the square. Before I move them, I will just touch on the fact that my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree said that in an earlier debate I had mentioned “four years”. I just said that off the top of my head. Perhaps I should stick to the official brief. I always get into trouble when I go off-piste. I could easily have said six months, a year, 18 months, whatever.
What I was really trying to convey to the House is that we believe that we have a proportionate and sensible proposal to go forward to deal with this long-standing problem. I am not going to be daft enough to say, “Problem solved, my Lords”, and have everyone come back to me in two or four years. We think this is our best effort. It has the support of those who are going to enforce it and they will work together to make it happen. We are hopeful that our endeavours will resolve this problem, but it is not realistic to expect me to say what the timescale will be. My noble friend has known me long enough, and indeed I remember the time when he was a Minister and I was on the Back Benches asking him awkward questions. He knows that we will do our best, and I do not think we can be expected to do more.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister has argued for giving the court more flexibility than I think is appropriate in the circumstances. It amounts in effect to precluding a demonstrator in advance. But clearly I am not going to be able to persuade her.
On the government amendments, I should say that I am left with a considerable feeling of unease. I asked who would exercise the powers and the Minister has explained that it would be the Royal Parks Police, so we have yet another player in the mix. But that troubles me much less than what I suspected might be the case, which is that these new provisions could extend powers to any of the Royal Parks. I have to say to my noble friend that it is a great pity—actually, it is quite troubling—that these provisions are being brought before the House under the heading, as it were, of Parliament Square when we have been talking about the environs of Parliament. We are being asked at this stage to agree changes to legislation which clearly could be far more wide-reaching geographically than most noble Lords would have assumed. I wonder whether I can invite my noble friend, either at this stage or through some device at Third Reading, to give assurances that the Government will not use these provisions more extensively than the environs of Parliament. As I say, I think that that is what noble Lords were expecting. I do not know whether she is in a position to respond, but we do have more stages to come.
Baroness Browning
We are on the last day of Report and I cannot commit at this stage to bring this back formally at Third Reading. However, I am happy to engage in discussions with my noble friend on the points she has raised.
Baroness Hamwee
I am grateful to the Minister and I certainly will want to take up that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
“(A1) In section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 (power to make regulations), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision applying (with any necessary modifications) sections 4 to 6 of the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000 (seizure, retention, disposal and forfeiture of property) in relation to offences under that subsection that are not park trading offences for the purposes of that Act.””
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for ensuring that we keep an open mind and consider all options available to best respond to the threat of new psychoactive substances—sometimes referred to as legal highs—which are specifically designed to get around existing legislation.
As I explained in Committee, the temporary class drug orders will constitute a UK legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses while its nature is still in question. As the noble Baroness is aware, some of these new substances present harms equivalent to those from class A and class B drug use. In these circumstances, the appropriate response is to disrupt the supply chain and protect the public as a priority while giving the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs time to consider evidence of a drug and its harms. The proposals before the House will help us achieve that aim. Of course, our response to both the general issue and individual new substances must be both preventive and proportionate.
These amendments seek to ensure that the Government amend and consider alternative legislation to tackle the threat of new psychoactive substances, alongside control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are keen to see all existing legislation used to curb the availability of these substances, though not as a substitute regime for harmful drugs whose proper place is under control under the 1971 Act. The UK needs a legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses when there is evidence that its harms are commensurate with class A or class B drug use. Temporary class drug orders will provide a preventive and proportionate response to the threat posed by disrupting the supply chain and protecting the public as a priority while giving the ACMD time to assess the drug and its harms.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness will of course be aware that in bringing in these temporary orders while a substance is evaluated, we are not in any way criminalising the user. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to Section 1(2) of the 1971 Act by which the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs already has the remit to provide,
“advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs”.
We will not prejudge the advice that the ACMD is preparing, including its thematic advice on new psychoactive substances.
On government Amendments 307C and 307D, the Government have always been committed to proper scrutiny of our drugs laws. We accept the recommendation of this House’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the affirmative procedure is preferred while still enabling us to take swift action against the threat of a new psychoactive substance throughout the year. The advice sometimes comes forward very quickly and there are periods when the House is in long Recess through the summer. The amendments take account of the concerns of the House’s committee but at the same time ensure that we are not tardy with the harms that we are notified of by the ACMD. To remain in force, a temporary class drug order will need to have been approved in both Houses within 40 sitting days.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments. I would be very concerned that we would potentially deal with psychoactive substances which would ultimately fall within the class A or class B category. Notwithstanding that, it is up to the ACMD to offer the Government alternative advice as to other routes if it felt that was appropriate. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Meacher
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am not at all clear how she envisages the less dangerous substances should be regulated. I am not at all clear that this can be done under current legislation other than through the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the concern reflected in these amendments. I believe that there is no alternative as the Bill stands, so I wonder whether the Minister could respond to that point.
Baroness Browning
I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness. As I explained, the ACMD in making its recommendations to the Government is able to indicate any routes that it thinks that the Government should take. I am very happy to explore that with her. We are awaiting a report from the ACMD on these new psychoactive substances, and it may well be that that will inform the Government better as to the range of options available to us.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for that response. My understanding is that in fact there will be a need for further legislation and it is my concern that the Government do all they can to take steps to prepare for that so that there is no gap or delay before these substances can be appropriately controlled through regulatory mechanisms other than the Misuse of Drugs Act. But with that point made, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Browning
(a) is subject to subsection (10), and(b) ”
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being able to be in the Chamber when I could have moved this amendment in Committee. The Explanatory Notes state that the purpose of the two subsections in the clause is to amend Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by removing the requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with wide and recent experience in each of six specified activities—medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry and chemistry—and persons with wide and recent experience of social problems connected with drugs.
I have to admit that to me the proposal to remove this requirement defies common sense and logic. It is hard to think of any better summary of the expertise that should be co-opted on to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs so that it is available to the Secretary of State and Ministers responsible for dealing with a major social problem. That is the immediate and narrow reason for moving my amendment, but there is a wider reason concerning the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 itself, legislation that is now 40 years old and regarded by many who work in the field as being outdated and in need of urgent repair. Much of what I shall say now complements the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Meacher.
The Act was introduced to replace a more liberal legal framework and to reflect United Nations treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the developing US-led war on drugs. The debate on drugs laws has moved on since then, and questions have been raised as to the efficacy of the approach of the war on drugs, so it seems timely to revisit a law that was made in a very different climate.
The 1971 Act established the drug classification system as a basis on which to set levels of offence and punishment for possessing, supplying and using premises in relation to controlled drugs. The advisory council was established to provide scientific evidence of the harm done by each substance to enable Ministers to classify it on a scale of harm. However, the scientific basis of drugs classification has since been challenged and the fact that alcohol and tobacco, which score high on the level of harm that they do to people and society, are not included on the list of controlled drugs has been cited as evidence that social and political considerations influence policy-makers as much as scientific evidence. The proliferation of internet sales has also raised questions about the Government's ability to classify all drugs and the value of doing so when they can easily be adapted.
Criminalising the possession and use of drugs does not bring down crime or offending rates. On the contrary, it feeds them. Drug and alcohol dependency is a health problem, not a crime. Other than taking punitive action against dealers, drug-related crime is better dealt with by supporting recovery and tackling the interconnected problems that have contributed to drug misuse. Treating drugs as a health matter rather than a crime helps to reduce a range of harm to individuals, families and communities. That is at the heart of proposals in the Rehabilitation Revolution—the subject of the Ministry of Justice’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Drug misuse is closely associated with mental health problems and is often a response to other problems in a person's life, for which they cannot be held responsible, such as childhood neglect. To reflect this, there are clauses in the Department of Health’s Health and Social Care Bill and the Department for Work and Pensions’ Welfare Reform Bill on the treatment of misusers.
I mention all these to draw attention to the fact that the misuse of drugs is currently part of four separate Bills tabled by four separate ministries, all based on an out of date Act. It seems to have become a custom that, instead of producing single-issue Bills—such as the admirable one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which we have just debated—ministries now table multi-issue monsters that dabble with a number of issues, rather than tackling one in detail. I submit to the Minister that, acknowledging that the reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is essentially Home Office business, reform might be better done by tabling one Bill to revive that Act rather than via a variety of clauses in a variety of Bills tabled by a variety of ministries.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept my amendment in the spirit in which it is meant—not least in the interests of retaining the best advice, which will be essential in any reform process—and give the House an undertaking that urgent consideration will be given to both the reform of the 1971 Act and membership of the advisory council. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act is not in the Bill as a proposal, and I am not really in a position to be able to respond to him on his amendment today. Clearly, however, if there was a need to reform the Act itself, the Government would always be receptive to hearing the views that are being put forward on that, so while I have noted what he said about overall reform of the Act we would naturally need to have advice from wider quarters as well. I hope he will accept that I have heard and noted what he has said on that.
As for this amendment and its aim to retain the existing statutory nature of specified areas of expertise in the ACMD’s membership under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government take a view that placing one area of expertise on a greater footing than others brings into question the need for the latter. Our proposals therefore place all ACMD members on an equal footing. We want to make the best use of our independent experts, the ACMD, in this challenging area of government policy. The scientific community was consulted about our proposal, which will give the ACMD's membership the flexibility to adapt to the modern challenges of the drug landscape. We have the full support of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, with which we have developed a broader non-statutory list of expertise from which the ACMD’s membership will be predominantly drawn. This list is contained in the draft working protocol that was laid in the House Library on 1 April. It includes all six groups of expertise that are currently statutory.
The working protocol also sets out the future involvement of the ACMD in recruiting new members and the process by which we will secure the relevant expertise that is needed. It may be interest the House to know that we have received broad support for the change and our intent is to have non-statutory lists of expertise from the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the British Society of Criminology, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Pharmacological Society and the Royal Society of Medicine, and the Science and Technology Committees of both Houses were also consulted. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, welcomed the added flexibility to the ACMD’s membership.
The Government and the ACMD are prepared to be held to account on the terms of the protocol, so a final version will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has had an opportunity to study that protocol and its proposals, but I hope that he will have taken reassurance from the wide scientific body that has supported the Government in these measures. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I start by agreeing with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, that it is important that we have an efficient system of prosecution available in this country to deal with cases, when the evidence is available, that relate not only to war crimes but also to many of the other offences listed in this clause in respect of which the United Kingdom has sought to assert universal jurisdiction. My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill made it clear that nothing in this clause seeks to end universal jurisdiction, nor indeed does it end the right of private prosecution for universal jurisdiction cases. Although such grave offences may well seem better suited to prosecution by the state, we think it right that citizens should be able to prosecute them.
Clause 155 allows anyone to apply to a court to initiate a private prosecution for universal jurisdiction offences by using arrest warrants where appropriate. It prevents a warrant being issued in cases where there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. As these are cases where issuing a warrant would achieve nothing, that is surely right. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford in moving his amendment. Indeed, with a singular exception, no one has dissented from the reform and from the purpose of Clause 155, which introduces the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Through this amendment, what we are looking at is the question of whether the criteria applied and approach taken by the DPP in giving consent is something which should be on the face of the Bill. It is certainly the Government’s view, which I think is shared by most noble Lords who contributed to the debate, that it should not.
Those of us who have read the clear and cogent evidence given by the DPP to the Public Bill Committee in the other place will have seen clearly how, if Parliament passes this provision, he intends to exercise the duty of whether or not to give consent. He has also made it clear that he proposes to apply the same code tests to the evidential and public interest tests that are used for prosecutions generally, and he has further indicated, as has been mentioned in this debate, that where necessary he would apply the lesser standard of the threshold test. He indicated to the Public Bill Committee that he intends to publish guidelines so that everyone will know how he would deal with decisions on whether or not to give consent.
I, too, want to endorse the comments of noble Lords that we can have confidence that the DPP will exercise his discretion properly. He has a track record which gives us full confidence that he will do that. I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, that that is a good reason not to inhibit that discretion by putting things into statute. These tests are of general application and it is not clear why they should be set in stone by this amendment. Indeed, in Committee my noble friend Lord Carlile said that the amendment attempts,
“to fix in statutory stone something that is much more evolutionary—and needs to be”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 1011.]
We would not wish to stop that evolution, particularly given the commitment to transparency on the part of the DPP.
A further point was noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in Committee and has been highlighted today, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It relates to the public interest dimension of the threshold test, which is not mentioned in the amendment. I rather thought that my noble friend Lord Thomas was suggesting that it was not necessarily part of the threshold test. However, paragraph 5.12 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors states:
“If both parts of the Threshold Test are satisfied, prosecutors must apply the public interest stage of the Full Code Test based on the information available at that time”.
If we put something in statute, there is a danger of actually missing something out that is in the test as it applies at the moment. Perhaps that underlines why it is not desirable to have this in legislation.
My noble friend has indicated that he is not going to press his amendment, and I think that will meet with the general support of the House. I encourage him to confirm that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, a great deal of heat has been engendered in the course of the debate and I do not propose to add to it, although certain things were said about deconstructing this amendment with which I do not agree. However, I can take them up at a different time. Let me make it clear that there have been discussions between my noble friend Lord Macdonald and Mr Keir Starmer and they have come to a conclusion that is acceptable to both; namely, that the test should be published in guidance. No doubt it will be applied appropriately and in accordance with the traditions of this country, which are that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General should act in the public interest and not for the purposes of any political party. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not agree with the amendment, for the following reasons. Noble Lords will be well aware of my concerns about the Bill, so I say this with a certain force. This legislation seems no different from other legislation that is contentious. It will be on the statute book in some form or other and able to be reviewed, renewed or repealed by a later Government—indeed, by the same Government, who may have second thoughts about it. I hope that it will be reviewed, but as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny, which it is high time Parliament had in place. Even without that post-legislative scrutiny, we have from time to time been reminded by the Leader of the House that there is an arrangement—it seems to me to be fairly loose, but I am assured that it exists—for substantial new legislation to be reviewed by government, which I do not think is the same as Parliament, after it has been in force for three years. Of course, if we had more time, I might tease the noble Lord about why he feels that it is necessary to provide for someone else to do something in four years.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, Amendment 311 would mean that the police and crime commissioner provisions of the Bill cease to have effect after four years unless, following an independent review and report, the House approves an order by the Secretary of State for the arrangements to continue.
Many noble Lords have spoken in the course of these debates of the risk of disruption to the police service, and I have set out as we have gone along how that will be minimised. However, it would be extremely disruptive to the police service if, a few months before the second set of elections, the elected PCC is removed and the unelected police authority is re-established.
I hear what my noble friend Lady Hamwee says about review. I fully support the principle that legislation is reviewed. I say this having served in another place for nearly 20 years. We get very excited about legislation when we are legislating and after a year or two we forget about it. Then things transpire and we think that perhaps we should have looked at it. As a principle that is a very good thing. However, I am unable to accept Amendment 311 as it would be extremely disruptive. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the key phrase in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I think I have written it down correctly—was: “I hope that it will be reviewed … as part of post-legislative scrutiny”.