Assisted Suicide

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for tabling this Question and I express my gratitude to the former Director of Public Prosecutions for doing all that he could, within the constraints of the existing law, to recognise the fundamental principle of autonomy for patients and the right to make the most important decision of their lives: how, when and where they wish to die. Do our opponents really feel comfortable about grieving relatives, immediately after the death of their loved ones, being intrusively investigated as potential murderers?

There is now overwhelming support for legislation to provide for professional help to die well at the end of life. I understand those who believe that the timing of our death is a matter for God. However, a recent YouGov poll showed the majority of people with a religious faith—62%—support the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill adults with mental capacity, with only 18% against. Of course, religious supporters of assisted dying can find endorsement of their position in the words of the Bible and in modern interpretations of the Bible.

Very important, too, are the views of disabled people. The overwhelming majority of disabled people—75%—support reform, as in the Falconer Bill. As the Disabled Activists for Dignity in Dying briefing note says:

“Disabled people are not afraid of a new law to give terminally ill people choice in how and when they die”.

Support from the population at large is also solid. Some 82% of the general public agree that a doctor should probably or definitely be allowed to end the life of a patient with a painful, incurable disease at the patient’s request. The population is in fact far more radical than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Therefore, people with a religious faith, disabled people and the population at large are hoping for government support for this much needed action.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

2: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Enforcement services
(1) The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 125 insert—
“125A Extension of Part 6 to enforcement services
(1) For the purposes of this Part (and sections 1, 21 and 27 as they apply in relation to this Part)—
(a) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as an approved regulator;(b) enforcement services are to be treated as a reserved legal activity;(c) a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act services is to be treated as an authorised person in relation to that activity;(d) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as a relevant authorising body in relation to such a person, and(e) regulations under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the National Standards for Enforcement Agents are to be treated as regulatory arrangements of the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council as an approved regulator.(2) For the purposes of sections 112 and 145 (as extended by this section), a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act is to be treated as a “relevant authorised person” in relation to the Regulator.””

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to provide some protection for vulnerable people who have suffered unacceptably at the hands of a bailiff. The amendment provides complainants with access to the Legal Ombudsman if the internal complaints processes fail to resolve a dispute. I should make it clear that the Legal Ombudsman is able and willing to take on this role, which would be quite compatible with other work that the ombudsman is already doing or is shortly to take on.

On Report, I moved a much more ambitious amendment that would have introduced independent regulation of bailiffs. This amendment is just one small element of such a system, but a very important one. In the health service, which I know, the independent health ombudsman is crucial in ensuring that lessons are learnt from complaints and that the quality of service improves. This is what an independent appeals process is all about—improving the quality of service and stamping out bad practice. Nowhere is this more important than in the debt collection field.

As we know, the job of a bailiff is intensely difficult. Extracting money or goods from a person who, for whatever reason, has fallen into debt is almost inevitably confrontational. Very many of those people will be vulnerable, and that is really my point. They may be disabled or mentally ill, or they may be mothers with young children or elderly people with failing memories or full-scale dementia.

We also know that hundreds of thousands of households could be confronted by bailiffs for the very first time when further cuts and caps are applied to the welfare benefits system at the end of March next year. Households affected by the housing benefit cap, the overall benefits cap and a council tax of 20%, which will be new to them, and who cannot move into smaller accommodation or into a cheaper area may find their income after paying rent very substantially lower than anything that they are used to. If a family cares for a relative nearby or their property has been adapted for a disabled child, it will be impractical to move.

Your Lordships know very well the problems that families will face next year. Many will be unable to eat and to keep warm. I make this point only because these families, with their inevitable debts, will be in a completely new situation. They will not have confronted this situation before, and it will be a deeply shocking experience. The bailiffs who come to their doors demanding payment will inevitably include those who are by nature aggressive and who may have limited communication skills and little, if any, empathy for vulnerable people.

Citizens Advice says that it dealt with 24,700 problems relating to private bailiffs last year, including forcing entry to a home—knocking the door down—seizure of exempt goods that they should not have seized, harassment and intimidation. These numbers will soar next year. To make matters worse, there are particular reasons why bailiffs are more likely to make mistakes than other operatives or professions, including the archaic legislation and case law, going back to the Middle Ages, and the plethora of different legislation applying to different debts. Having made a mistake, bailiffs are much more likely to become aggressive.

The case for oversight of the bailiff industry and for a grievance procedure delivered independently from bailiff firms has been accepted by previous Conservative and Labour Governments. Only an independent complaints ombudsman can deliver redress in a way that is consistent with principles of administrative justice, award financial restitution where appropriate, publish data on good and bad practice and, most importantly, make recommendations for improvements.

The coalition agreement identified that there is a serious problem with bailiffs acting aggressively and that vulnerable debtors need protection from that. I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for a helpful and, in some ways, positive discussion yesterday and for his follow-up letter. In that letter—I hope he will not mind my quoting it—he said:

“We recognise that this is a widespread problem. We understand that the actions taken by many bailiffs can be, at best, deliberately belligerent and, at worst, aggressive or threatening”.

Furthermore, the Minister agrees with us that the people affected,

“will often be the most vulnerable in society”.

He adds:

“We cannot allow them to be subject to bullying behaviour by bailiffs and are committed to taking action to prevent this”.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, also refers to the despicable behaviour that some debtors have had to endure. I myself could not express more strongly the reasons for this amendment.

When we have independent regulators for most, if not all, the professions where practitioners are highly educated, talented and carefully selected to ensure that their personalities are just as they should be for the job, how can any Government reject the proposal for part of a regulatory function—an independent appeal process—for bailiffs? The Minister explained that they need to take more time to decide how best to protect vulnerable people. However, I do not believe that the decision, in principle, that an independent appeals process is justified requires any more time. The proposal has been considered for more than 20 years. The Government themselves have spent seven months looking at these issues and want to pass this legislation while they continue deliberating on how and to what extent they will protect vulnerable people from abuse by bailiffs. The Government should have clarified the minimalist system that I believe they plan to put in place before bringing forward this legislation. I do not think that it is acceptable to bring forward the legislation before we know what the Government plan to do.

I now understand that an independent appeals process could be introduced by regulations, but there is no assurance at all that the Government will introduce an independent appeals process. Without this amendment, nothing in this legislation will ensure that that is done. I regard this as the absolute minimum required to begin a process of improving the quality of service of bailiffs. If the Minister feels unable to agree the detail of this amendment but will make a commitment on the Floor of the House that an independent appeals process will be introduced to cover bailiffs, I shall be content to withdraw the amendment. However, if the Government can tell us only that they will do their best, then I believe we owe it to the many harassed, abused and terrified vulnerable people to seek to pass this amendment. I await the Minister’s reply and beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I cannot go any further than what I have told the noble Baroness. I have spent time with her and I hope she believes my own commitment in this area. I also accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas that the industry itself wants progress in this area. I do not think that we are talking about 33 years or 20 years, but I cannot put a timescale to it. I do, however, give a commitment to return to the department with a very strong message from this House about a sense of urgency and I hope that in those circumstances the House will not accept any invitation from the noble Baroness to pass this amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Cormack, for their comments from the Conservative Benches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for his time in preparing to speak in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I am particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

I was involved in the debate about bailiffs 20 years ago, but I accept that the debate has been going on longer than that. I am assured that this amendment would provide the protection of an independent appeal process and the legal ombudsman recognises this. I therefore do not accept that comment. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me on two occasions and in writing a lengthy letter yesterday, but I have to confess that his comments are deeply disappointing. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

111: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulation of bailiffs
(1) The Secretary of State shall establish arrangements for the regulation of enforcement services and enforcement agents, as defined in Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
(2) In establishing a regulatory system for enforcement services and agents, the Secretary of State shall, by order, make arrangements for the licensing and accreditation of companies whose activities involve judicial or quasi-judicial enforcement of debts, collection of fines and seizure and sale of goods.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by order, designate a person or body (“the Regulator”) to authorise persons to provide enforcement services, and regulate the conduct of such authorised persons and businesses.
(4) In carrying out functions as are conferred on the Regulator by or under this section, the Regulator shall—
(a) carry out inspections as it considers necessary of authorised persons holding licences or accredited under this section;(b) provide for, or procure the provision of, training and accreditation;(c) keep under review generally the activities of bailiffs and enforcement agents;(d) establish an independent complaints system for debtors to use in cases where bailiffs and enforcement agents have abused their powers.”

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, Amendment 111 would introduce a new clause, Clause 22, to establish an independent regulator for enforcement services and enforcement agents—known to most of us as bailiffs.

The importance of this amendment lies in the enormity of the problem. For years, banks have used hard-sell techniques on the doorstep to foist loans onto vulnerable people, many of whom have no prospect at all of repaying that debt. Many others find themselves with debts that they can just about cover on condition that life carries on fairly calmly. But of course if crisis strikes—serious illness, disability or mental breakdown—the debts become unmanageable. And a third issue is now looming. Next year we will see the biggest cuts in welfare spending ever experienced in this country. Evidence from a small survey in Haringey suggests that the cumulative impact of the local housing allowance cap, the overall benefit cap and cuts in council tax benefit—just those three things alone—will cut the income of couples with two children by just over £108 per week, leaving such families with only £150 per week to cover food, fuel, clothes, transport and other necessities. They will not cope; it is quite simple. I am very grateful to the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust for those figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I hesitate to respond to what is clearly a very emotive situation as laid out by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. There is danger in all of these cases—and even the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, fell into it—of using illustrations in an emotive fashion. We are trying to get a balance. I suggest that what you are saying and the assurance that has just been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, come within some assessment of vulnerability which will require further guidance. This is not me laying down the law from the Dispatch Box. I am trying to make a common-sense assessment. I regret that I cannot start responding to various speculations in advance of the publication of the work that we have done.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I have to say that it is deeply distressing that we are having this debate when we do not really know what we are talking about. We do not have even the response to the consultation. We do not know what the Government’s plans really are. We should be having significant amendments debated and completed at Report stage, yet we cannot do that.

Will the Minister make clear whether the consultation response, or indications about the key points in it, could be made available to us before Third Reading? That is one important point. Secondly, I hope to have a meeting with Helen Grant and obtain some information from her. I would like to reserve the right to bring something back at Third Reading, hopefully on the basis of some rather better information than we had today. As Lord Beecham said, I am aware of this matter going on for 20 years. I was involved in the bailiff issue 20 and indeed 30 years ago, when I worked at the CAB. It is not new. It is overdue and we are in grave danger of having too little too late. Will the Minister say whether he can produce some information before Third Reading.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I can only say that I can in due course—in so many different ways, in due course.

[Baroness Meacher]

I have no option but to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 111 withdrawn.

Divorce

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the case for reform so well presented by my noble friend Lady Deech. For the past 20 years or more I, and no doubt pretty much everyone I know, have watched friends, colleagues and relatives go through the divorce process, spending tens of thousands of pounds and more on legal fees and ending up with a settlement that seemed grossly unfair to one side or the other. The law on divorce, now 40 years old, was drafted when women typically remained at home to look after the children for many years and when the male parent had overwhelming power over the financial resources of the family. I ran the campaign for the Child Poverty Action Group in 1971 as part of a national debate that resulted in the establishment of child benefit. At that time I received more than 2,000 letters from women of all social classes, including the wives of doctors and vicars—the most extraordinary people, I have to say; I was very surprised by those letters—and many others who told me that the family allowance, as it was then, was the only money on which they could completely rely. No wonder that the divorce law passed in 1973 was based on the assumption that women were the helpless victims.

The world today is very different. It is now assumed that women work. The welfare benefits legislation passed this year assumes that mothers on benefits begin planning their return to work when their youngest baby reaches the age of one. Work-related interviews, followed by work-related activities, all prepare mothers for the world of work as soon as they can turn around after the birth of a child. I and other noble Lords argued at the time that for all sorts of reasons—the ill health of young children, disability and so on—the legislation expected mothers to return to work too soon. I still hold to that view. From the point of view of this debate, the essential point is that the benefits regime makes clear that our British state no longer expects mothers to remain at home once children are settled even in nursery.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained so well, Europe and Scotland now have divorce laws fit for the 21st century. These laws are based on some very important principles. Probably the most important point is that the principles should be clearly elaborated and established so that both sides in a marriage, right from the start, can anticipate what a divorce would mean for them. The fair point has been made that there are young women today who literally see that the best thing to do is to marry a very rich man. Those women will undoubtedly end up in a divorce court.

In my view, the principles should include the principle that only the property acquired during the marriage should be divided and that inherited wealth should not be included, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said. Future earning streams should not be taken for granted; lifetime awards are unfair and unacceptable and, in my experience, have led to men, fathers, living in tiny bedsits while they fund the home of their ex-wife. This cannot be right. That both men and women have earning power is an essential assumption that should lie behind these laws. This assumption lies behind the case for time-limited awards. As has already been mentioned, Scottish awards are for three years. Any award should support the family at least until a child reaches and is settled in school. However, that is very different from a lifetime award. Both men and women can be assumed to earn when a child is settled in school. I feel very strongly that the conduct of the parties will continue not to be taken into account. This is essential to avoid the evils of allegations and counter-allegations forming the basis of lengthy and sordid court hearings.

I welcome the plans to overhaul family justice and to move to a system where divorce will be substantially resolved through mediation or, in more complex cases, through “court-lite” shorter and simpler hearings. The drive to reduce the £1.6 billion cost of the family justice system will undoubtedly drive reform. I appeal to the Minister to press for a reform of the law on financial provision in divorce at the same time as the reform of divorce proceedings.

Finally, on the matter of prenuptial agreements, which again has already been mentioned, the Appeal Court judges made plain their view that the existing law under which prenuptial agreements are not enforceable is patronising and outdated. This country surely must come into line with Europe in providing for prenuptial agreements to be enforceable. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the need for reform of the law on financial provision in divorce, and on the particular point on prenuptial agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for initiating the debate. The fact that she has done so is fully justified by the quality of the contributions. I start at the end, as it were, by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I am well aware of his work and concern in this area. I do not think that there is any break in the approach as between the two Governments. We shall build on what the noble Lord did under the previous Government. He has already reflected on there being no silver bullets or quick-fix solutions to this matter and said that it has to be thought through, listening carefully to experience and advice on all sides. As he rightly said, we are dealing with extremely complex financial and emotional issues.

As the noble Lord knows, the justice review to which he referred is conducted by an independent panel chaired by David Norgrove. It will publish an interim report in the spring of 2011, when we will get the first impact of its thinking. The Government will await the outcome of the family justice review before making any firm decisions on comprehensive divorce law reform. However, dissatisfaction and complaints have emerged from all sides in this debate, from those who have gone through divorce and from divorce practitioners. I was not shocked by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as I had seen the letter that she had sent to colleagues, in which she outlined her approach to these matters. I certainly do not consider her views idiosyncratic. I would be a brave man to do so in any circumstances, but particularly so as regards the field we are discussing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, we live in an age when there are many divorces. The timely intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, were right. In all but a few cases, we enter marriage in the belief that it is for life. When it sometimes does not end up like that, it is very traumatic. I am not sure that we are all like the girls in a Manchester school who, when asked in a recent television survey, said that their ambition in life was to marry a footballer as a way to fame and fortune. The implication was that a marriage in those circumstances would be fairly short. However, the right reverend Prelate’s speech resonated for most people in terms of a moral approach to marriage—a determination to try and make it work. The law’s job when breakdown occurs is to try and help as much as it can in ensuring a civilised break.

I listened to the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Meacher, and I agree that the independence of women has recently increased enormously. However, I am still not sure that the balance in divorce cases is quite as equal as they imply. As the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, implied, it can often be unequally weighted against the woman in terms of being able to maintain standards or build a career after divorce. As we know too well from some of our crime statistics, far too many women in this country have to manage dysfunctional families long after the male has gone.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I thought that I might have provoked the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I am responding to the noble Lord’s indication that we were implying somehow that the positions of men and women are equal. My concern—and perhaps that of my noble friend Lady Deech, though I should not speak for her—is simply that things have changed a great deal in the past 40 years, and the law was written at a time when the position of women was very different from what it is today. Situations vary. There are occasions when the woman is the all-powerful and rich earner, and others when it is the man. All situations have to be judged on their merits. I did not want the Minister to take that as a suggestion of equality.

[Lord McNally]

I fully understand and accept that. Things have changed a great deal in the past 40 years, but a lot of things have stayed the same. We have to take both realities into account. In terms of divorce, the lower down the social scale—if that is the right description—the less things have changed. I can quite imagine that the qualified professional woman is able to re-establish herself very quickly. The woman who has been holding a family together but is very much dependent on a male breadwinner is in a very much different situation. I just make the point that when we are looking at reform, we have to ensure, as our system does, that judges consider three principles—need, compensation and sharing, shaped by the overarching requirement for fairness. Each party is entitled to an equal share of the assets of the partnership unless there is good reason to the contrary, but the yardstick of equality is to be used as an aid, not as a rule. Any decision will be based on individual circumstances and needs. The court does not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. Consideration will be given to the potential earning capacity of both parties. Spousal maintenance orders can be conditional and time-limited, ending in any case if the recipient marries again. One-third of divorced couples make an application for ancillary relief, but a large majority of them seek simply a consent order.

Mention was made by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of prenups. We await with interest Wednesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court in Granatino v Radmacher. At present, the courts can take into account prenuptial agreements as part of the balancing exercise that judges must undertake in ancillary relief proceedings under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The judges can still apply discretion—

Drugs and Crime

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Tabled By

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime discussion paper Treating Drug Dependence through Healthcare, not Punishment.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise to ask the Minister about the Government’s response to the remarkable draft discussion paper issued on 2 March this year by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime entitled From Coercion to Cohesion: Treating Drug Dependence through Healthcare, not Punishment. For nearly 50 years, ever since the first UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the UNODC has operated as the defender of the punitive approach to drug addiction as well as to drug trafficking. Some 186 countries have signed up to the three UN conventions, all of which promote a criminalising philosophy. Until relatively recently, virtually all of those countries have followed the criminalising approach without question. For those of us who believe that the war on drugs is misguided and destructive both for individuals and communities, this new UNODC document is indeed a major milestone for the UN and hence for the world drug policy regime.

What does the new document say? A quote from the foreword, signed by none other than Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the UNODC, makes clear the radical shift of policy. Mr Costa himself has for years promoted criminalisation. The fact that he now feels it is right to challenge 50 years of UN dogma must be something of a turning point. Mr Costa now says:

“The aim of this draft discussion paper, ‘From Coercion to Cohesion’ is to promote a health-oriented approach to drug dependence”.

The paper quotes the narcotic drug conventions in support of the health-oriented approach. One of the great strengths of the paper is that it argues the scientific case for treatment as an alternative to criminal justice sanctions, suggesting that the health approach,

“is in agreement with a large body of scientific evidence”,

including epidemiological, clinical and neurobiological.

Many across the world have said these things, but not the UNODC. The paper argues that,

“there is increasing evidence that a health-oriented approach is also the most effective in reducing illicit drug use”.

By the same token, imprisonment often worsens the problem in a variety of ways. In my view, no serious policy-maker can ignore this paper.

There are two explanations for the change of heart by the UNODC. First, the sheer cost and level of destruction caused by the war on drugs has become a significant world problem. Secondly, more and more countries have become disenchanted by the UN conventions as interpreted—until now—by the UNODC and they have taken unilateral action. I would add a third explanation—action by 30 Peers from this House. I shall say a little about each of these.

First, as to the cost, the criminals and gangsters involved in the drugs trade are benefiting to the tune of about £320 billion a year, and I know that a lot of people in this House are aware of that. The most severe consequences of course have been in Latin America and Afghanistan. In Mexico, for example, drug trafficking employs some half a million workers and has involved some 5,600 killings a year. The profits to Latin American traffickers have financed 25 years of civil war in Colombia and devastating social disruption in Mexico, Peru and Bolivia. These profits are aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan and, indeed, funding the killing of British soldiers. That is what we are talking about here. The US spends some $40 billion a year trying to eliminate the supply of drugs; it arrests 1.5 million of its citizens each year; it imprisons half a million of them. We in Britain spend £19 billion or so on the criminal justice system responding to drugs and drug-related crime, most of it a consequence of the criminalisation of drug use.

The second explanation for the 180-degree policy shift of the UNODC is the growing disenchantment with the UN conventions. For some years a number of countries have made it clear that they are not happy with the criminalising consequences of the UN conventions—notably Brazil, Mexico and Bolivia in South America, but also Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, Switzerland and others in Europe, and, indeed, a number of states in Australia and the US. They have explored more civil or health-oriented approaches to drug addiction and have in many case removed criminal penalties for the possession of cannabis or, indeed, for the possession of all drugs. These initiatives have not led, as feared, to increased drug addiction. Rather, countries such as the US and UK, with tougher policies on drugs, have levels of narcotic drug use at least as high as those countries with more liberal policies.

On the role of the House, in 2009, 30 Members of this House signed a letter to the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, urging him to establish an inter-governmental panel charged with the task of examining all possible alternative policies for the control of the drugs trade, including an evaluation of the experience of countries that have experimented with alternative policies despite the UN conventions. In his reply, Mr Ban assured us that the commission on narcotic drugs had on its agenda a review of current policies. We responded saying that we were not aware of any resources devoted to any such review, and so the correspondence continued. It seems reasonable to suppose that interest in an area of failure by the top man in the UN may have been helpful in strengthening the arm of the forces of reform within the UNODC.

I was subsequently invited to the UN Commission in Vienna in March this year and met Mr Costa. Certainly he was well aware of the activities of 30 Members of this House. Since then, Mr Gilberto Gerra, a health policy chief at the UNODC, who was involved in my meeting with Mr Costa, has asked us to do what we can to achieve endorsement of the discussion document by as many Governments as possible across the world—a slightly daunting task, I have to say. I am hoping that our coalition Government will be the first formally to endorse From Coercion to Cohesion. There are strong reasons why they may want to do just that.

As I mentioned earlier, this country spends more than £19 billion on the criminal justice system due to the criminalisation of drugs. The Government want to cut all wasteful public expenditure. There is no more obvious public service area of waste than this—waste of resources on prisons, police officers, court officials, judges and the whole paraphernalia of the system. I should assure the Minister that, by endorsing the UNODC document, the Government would be committing themselves neither to any specific policies nor to any change in the treatment of drug traffickers. This is, not surprisingly, a purely pragmatic document where recommendations, if implemented in some form, would lead to major savings in public spending and to benefits for hundreds of thousands of individuals, for communities and for our whole society.

Let us take just one example of a good policy. The UK’s randomised injecting opioid treatment trial programme showed that heroin-injecting addicts reduced their crimes by more than two-thirds as a result of the programme. Taking heroin-injecting addicts substantially out of the criminal justice system would provide enormous savings to the taxpayer, albeit that some of that money would need to be reinvested in health services. Yet even more savings would be achieved through cuts in the benefits bill as users engaged in therapeutic programmes to help them reduce their drug use, organise their lives and in time return to employment. They might remain intermittent drug users, but if drug use were decriminalised, they could become contributing members of society.

On the supply side, the heroin addicts involved in the RIOTT programme reduced their spending on street drugs by £250 per week, from £300 to £50. It is clear that if countries across the world adopted similar programmes, drug traffickers would lose the bulk of their opium sales. This approach would massively dent the billions of pounds currently earned by the gangsters, who rely on addiction and illegality.

This QSD does not pose an idle question. It represents a real plea for the Government’s endorsement of the UNODC’s most important paper in 50 years. Although many would have liked it to go further, I was delighted to see reference to a review of drugs policy on page 23 of the coalition Government’s programme. They now have UNODC support for such a review. We have the biggest opportunity in 50 years to begin to resolve one of the world’s most challenging and destructive problems. I await the Government’s response with interest.