Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
“( ) Condition C is that the offence was committed on prison premises.”
Lord Rosser
“Secretary of State’s duty to increase public awareness of new psychoactive substances
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to promote public awareness of new psychoactive substances, including the dangers these substances may pose.
(2) The duty referred to in subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the requirement to introduce measures to—
(a) increase public awareness of new psychoactive substances; and(b) assist schools in educating pupils about the dangers associated with new psychoactive substances.(3) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a report on the actions undertaken in pursuance of this section, within six months of sections 4 and 5 of this Act coming into effect, and annually thereafter.
(4) The report shall include, but need not be limited to—
(a) measures that have been taken to increase public awareness, including the cost of such measures;(b) measures that have been taken to assist schools in educating their pupils;(c) a subsequent review of the effectiveness of the measures taken; and(d) any further measures that the Secretary of State plans to undertake in the future.”
Lord Rosser
In Committee, we discussed an amendment providing for the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to promote public awareness of new psychoactive substances, including the dangers that these substances may pose, and to provide an annual report to Parliament. Amendment 51, which I am moving, is in a similar vein. In his response in Committee, the Minister referred to a meeting that was to take place with Public Health England and the Department for Education earlier this month. He said:
“The Bill is primarily a law enforcement measure, setting out definitions et cetera, although it is part of a wider context that includes education. As to whether we should have references to education or treatment programmes in the Bill, I personally favour things that are very clear and focused about what they want to do. What we hope to achieve through education is a very important part of the context. I undertake to reflect on that between now and Report”.—[Official Report, 23/6/15; col. 1570.]
Since the discussion in Committee, we have had the letter of 2 July to the Home Secretary from the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which set out the ACMD’s views on the Bill. That letter says:
“The ACMD would like to help the Government in refining the Bill by making recommendations”.
It goes on:
“The ACMD is willing to suggest detailed amendments … helping develop an implementation strategy including information, education, treatment and harm reduction services which may be required for users of Novel Psychoactive Substances”.
The ACMD then includes in its recommendations that the Government should,
“ensure adequate resources are in place to support education, prevention, acute health interventions, treatment and harm reduction services to prevent and to gather evidence of Novel Psychoactive Substance-related harms”.
Therefore, the ACMD was talking with regard to amendments to the Bill on information, education and treatment, and clearly had some doubts about whether adequate resources were available. In her reply, the Home Secretary made no response to the ACMD offer to “suggest detailed amendments”, including on the issues of education, treatment and harm reduction. Perhaps the Minister could fill in that gap when he responds.
On the ACMD recommendation in respect to the provision of adequate resources, the Home Secretary referred to,
“a comprehensive action plan on psychoactive substances to further enhance”,
the Government’s,
“response to prevention, treatment and information sharing”,
and to refreshing the Government’s,
“over-arching approach to reducing the demand for drugs … enabling … a broad approach to prevention”,
to be taken.
I believe the Home Secretary may also have received a letter from a number of organisations involved in this field which expressed concern about the educational and preventive response from the Government about the risks to young people from new psychoactive substances. The organisations said that the current approach to preventing young people coming to harm from NPS is insufficient to meet the scale of the problem and have asked the Government to consider the proposals recommended by the Welsh Government’s Health and Social Care Committee. That committee, of course, recommended a targeted public awareness campaign for young people, as well as one specifically for parents, an evaluation of current education programmes, investment more generally in drugs education in schools, and NPS training for front-line staff. In addition, we have already had the report of the Government’s expert panel, which also included recommendations on education and awareness.
I am not sure what the difficulty was with the amendment in Committee, and I hope that the outcome of the Minister’s reflection since Committee, which he said he would undertake, will prove to have been positive. After all, he said in his recent undated letter to my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport:
“I feel strongly that prevention is at the core of how we tackle the misuse of drugs and keep our young people safe from drug related harms”.
What we do not want is government—any Government —maintaining that it has comprehensive action plans and is refreshing overarching approaches to address the issues arising from the use of new psychoactive substances, as the Home Secretary has done in her reply to the ACMD, when there is no requirement on government to then report to Parliament regularly on what those measures are that have been introduced and implemented and how successful or otherwise they have been in resolving the problems they were designed to address.
I have already referred to the Minister’s comment in Committee:
“What we hope to achieve through education is a very important part of the context”.—[Official Report, 23/6/15; col. 1570.]
That is fine. But what, in detail, do the Government hope to achieve through education, and how and when will they update us on the progress they are or are not making towards whatever it is they have decided they are seeking to achieve through education? Can the Minister give some specific answers to those specific questions I have just posed, or, alternatively, accept this amendment, which provides the framework through which the Government could report regularly to Parliament on their objectives with regard to the use of and public awareness about NPS, and the extent to which the measures they have taken have been effective?
One thing appears clear and that is that any education, treatment and prevention programmes in respect of new psychoactive substances to date have been less than fully effective. If they had been, presumably we would not have felt the need for this Bill. Legislation, law enforcement and criminal sanctions are important but so, too, are education, training and prevention programmes and measures if we are to address fully the use and supply of psychoactive substances. A Bill that deals with only the former aspect and makes no reference to the latter, and which lays no duty on the Secretary of State to report on the measures taken and their effectiveness, is surely incomplete and does not recognise the equal importance of education, information and prevention.
I simply conclude with one further point and question. In his recent—again, undated—letter to me setting out the Government’s amendments for Report, the Minister referred to the fact that the Government already report annually on their drug strategy. If the Minister can confirm that that is a report to Parliament and that it will in future contain information on the matters in respect of new psychoactive substances referred to in my amendment, it may be that my amendment is no longer needed. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser ranges more widely, and very valuably, by comparison to my more limited Amendment 53 in this group, which is confined to the question of education and would require the Secretary of State to,
“require that all secondary schools report annually on their drug education programmes”,
and requires that Ofsted and the equivalent agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
“when reporting on the performance of secondary schools, include an assessment of the extent and quality of drug education provided by the school”.
It goes on to require that:
“The Secretary of State shall request that each further and higher education institution publish annually a report on its programme to reduce harms caused by the use of drugs by its students”.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, with characteristic helpfulness, organised a meeting on the theme of education and prevention which a number of us were able to attend. We met people from Public Health England, and also present was an official from the Department for Education. It was a very interesting and very useful meeting, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for making that possible. I was particularly impressed by the thoughtfulness, energy, commitment and good sense of the representatives from Public Health England. I was also very encouraged by the work that they have in train, which they described. They have been somewhat limited by their lack of resources. Our meeting was on the eve of the Budget. I expressed the hope—in semi-jocular fashion—at the end of the meeting that the next day would see their budget quadrupled. They smiled a little wryly. In fact, the next day the Chancellor announced a £200 million cut to the public health grant to local authorities. That must be highly problematic for other departments—the Home Office, the Department of Health and, I dare say, the Department for Education.
The Home Office’s annual review sketches out—as is its fashion; it does not deal with anything other than sketchily—some of the educational approaches that are being undertaken. It talks about the Rise Above project; it talks about the government-sponsored website Talk to FRANK; it talks about communications campaigns that have been undertaken in 2013 and 2014; and it refers to the New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) Resource Pack for Informal Educators and Practitioners, which I have read and which I admire very much. It is full of good sense and gets the tone exactly right. So, to that extent, there is some modest encouragement.
The annual review also talks about the Government’s:
“Promotion of good practice in demand reduction in NPS at EU and international level, led by the UK”.
I found that assertion to be a trifle unconvincing. If we consider the work that has preceded it in Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, it is difficult to see that the United Kingdom Government are in the lead in this process of developing preventive and educational strategies.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I certainly did not intend to be less than complimentary about the Home Secretary’s reply. I made the comment that the Home Secretary had made no response to the ACMD offer to suggest detailed amendments, including on the issue of education, treatment and harm reduction. I do not think there was a response on that aspect in the Home Secretary’s reply.
The Minister has hit the nail on the head: the issue is not what the programmes are and what the Government have but what it is they wish to achieve. The Minister said that what we hope to achieve through education is a very important part of the context, but I do not know where it is laid down what the Government have decided they want to achieve through education. What is the goal? What is the objective we are aiming for? We have a lot of programmes but I am not sure how we will know whether those programmes have achieved anything if we do not know what goal the programmes are designed to achieve. In any review or examination, which was one of the main purposes of the amendment, we will need to know how effective the measures have been. That is one of the issues raised in the amendment where it refers to,
“a subsequent review of the effectiveness of the measures taken”.
I appreciate that the Minister has moved some way, both with the proposal in his letter to me of a review of,
“the operation of the Act”,
and with what he said this evening about writing to those responsible for the annual report on the Government’s drug strategy and inviting them to consider including information about new psychoactive substances. I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for coming some way towards meeting us on this amendment, albeit that he does not feel able to accept the amendment as it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Annual reporting
(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on new psychoactive substances.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published, and a copy laid before each House of Parliament, within six months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter.
(3) The report under subsection (1) shall include—
(a) the number of prosecutions, and convictions for sentences, for offences under sections 4 to 8 of this Act;(b) the operation of powers created under sections 12, 13 and 32 to 35 of this Act;(c) the number of new psychoactive substances identified in the UK;(d) the number of hospital admissions linked to new psychoactive substances which were—(i) poisonings;(ii) mental health related; and(iii) other;(e) the number of new psychoactive substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and(f) the number of exemptions for psychoactive substances granted under section 3.”
Lord Rosser
We had an amendment in Committee that called for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on new psychoactive substances. We then set out some of the information that should be included in that report. This amendment basically seeks the same. The lack of basic data and information was an issue identified by the Government’s expert panel. These issues included the difficulty for any one agency of keeping abreast of all the new developments. The acknowledgement that the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1971 needs to be supplemented by other legislation has meant that more professional networks, including trading standards, require information. The current time lags between data collection and publication of data obtained by current networks mean that the systems cannot be employed in the service of providing more timely early warning-type information. Finally, there is a need to collect, analyse and distribute information in a more systematic and timely fashion to help inform policy and practice at both a national and local level.
In his recent letter to me on the government amendments for Report, the Minister said that the Government were not persuaded of the need,
“to produce an annual report on the operation of the Act”,
but that they,
“agree that … there is a case for a one-off duty to review the operation of the Act and to lay a report on the review before Parliament”.
Accordingly, government Amendment 55,
“requires such a report to be prepared and laid before Parliament within 30 months of the coming into force of Clauses 4 to 8 of the Bill”.
In his letter, the Minister continued:
“This timetable would allow for the collection of two years’ worth of data on the operation of the Act”,
and that data were,
“of the kind set out in your amendment 105 at Committee stage”,
which would help to inform the review.
Is the noble Baroness able to say a little more about the information that will be provided in the review referred to in government Amendment 55 and the extent to which it will include the kind of issues referred to in my amendment on annual reporting? Surely, after the first review of the operation of the Act, which the government amendment says will be within 30 months of Clauses 4 to 8 coming into force, there should be regular updates since the facts about the effectiveness of the operation of the Act and the measures taken may change.
Alternatively—what I ask comes back to what the Minister said on the previous amendment—will the information that we have called for in our amendment also be covered in the annual report on the Government’s drugs strategy, to which, as I have said, the Minister made reference in relation to the previous amendment on education, training and prevention? I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, my Amendment 54 in this group ranges more widely than that of my noble friend, and might indeed be regarded as somewhat clunky. However, it is intended to be illustrative of the range of issues that I think ought to be covered in a proper annual review or annual report issued by the Home Office.
I have looked at the three annual reviews issued since 2013. The February 2015 review of the progress of the Drug Strategy 2010 consists of all of 28 pages of text. It covers some of the issues indicated in my amendment which I think ought to be covered in an annual review, but far from all of them. I am afraid to say that it seems to me a thin and superficial document which is simply not commensurate with the importance and complexity of the issue and the major social challenge that drug abuse presents. It is also an inadequate form of accountability to Parliament, being as flimsy as it is. It contrasts with the European Drug Report, which is produced annually by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is a much more substantial document, containing tables, graphs, citations and footnotes—an altogether more serious and substantial report. We do not find that kind of material in the Home Office’s annual review.
The Minister said in her foreword to the latest annual review, “We are not complacent”. That is good. However, on page 10, she spoke about:
“Promotion of good practice in demand reduction in NPS at EU and international level, led by the UK”.
That is a fine assertion but, as I said in the previous debate, not to me a convincing one. Regrettably, the annual review does not go on to tell us what this promotion has meant or what the good practice in demand reduction should be.
The expert panel’s report said on page 53 that adequate monitoring of whatever the policy proves to be,
“needs to be in place”.
I think that it was looking for a substantial annual review. It also seems to me that the implication of the letter from Professor Iversen to the Home Secretary of 2 July is that a whole range of issues need to be kept under solid and informative review.
The expert panel report contains a very important section on pages 35 to 36, in which it sets out the key opportunities and the key risks of the policy that the Government have embarked upon in this legislation. Among the key risks are those of supply, demand, enforcement, harms, forensic science, legal issues and communications. Among the opportunities are, again, supply, demand, enforcement, harms, forensic science, legal issues, communications and costs, so, according to the expert panel, there are both opportunities and risks entailed in the Government’s policy. I suggest that certainly the Government’s initial report, which they have promised to issue within 30 months, but also the annual review issued by the Home Office, ought to deal in very substantial measure with all those opportunities and risks that have been found.
The section of the European Monitoring Centre report on prevention tells us that the use of NPSs by young adults ranged from a high of 9.7% in Ireland to a low of 0.2% in Portugal. It also tells us that Sweden, which practises a draconian prohibitionist policy, has the second-highest drug-induced mortality among 15 to 64 year-olds. These are among the sorts of pieces of information that ought also to appear in the Home Office’s annual review.
Page 15 of the last edition of the annual review, in the section discussing restricting supply, referred briefly to liaison with Pakistan, Afghanistan and West Africa, but had nothing whatever to say about liaison with China and India, which are the key countries in terms of NPSs. On page 19, we are told that the UK,
“chaired a G7+ country Expert Meeting … in Berlin in November 2014”,
which led to agreement on a “set of actions”, but we are not told what the actions were. On page 23, we are told that there is a strategy of:
“Transferring the responsibility for developing locally led, integrated, recovery orientated treatment systems to local authorities”,
but there is no discussion of the funding situation for local authorities—the very large cuts there have already been, followed, of course, by the cuts just announced to the funding for Public Health England.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I undertook to reflect on the various amendments that were tabled in Committee. Having reflected, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stated, we have brought forward Amendment 55 in this group.
As I indicated in Committee, post-legislative scrutiny of all primary legislation takes place three to five years after Royal Assent. We accept that there is a case here for special treatment. The Government are bringing forward their post-legislative scrutiny of this particular piece of legislation and will place a review of the operation of the Act on a statutory footing.
We remain firmly of the view that that the duty to undertake a review should be a one-off requirement, rather than a continuing annual requirement with all the costs that that would entail. We are not persuaded of the benefit of undertaking a bespoke review of this legislation year after year. I appreciate that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is not confined to a review of this legislation, but my point about the resource constraints carries ever more weight when one looks down the list of matters to be addressed in the noble Lord’s annual review of the Government’s drugs strategy.
Given these considerations, the Government’s amendment simply requires a review of the operation of the Act and places a duty on the Home Secretary to prepare a report on the review and lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament within 30 months of the Bill coming into force. As noble Lords know, a period of 30 months has been specified in order to allow for the collection of up to two years’ worth of data post implementation.
The need for a review of the Bill was one of the issues raised by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its letter of 2 July to the Home Secretary. In the Home Secretary’s response, published yesterday, she said:
“The Home Office is keen to work with the ACMD and would welcome the opportunity to have an early discussion on both the scale and scope of the review having regard to resource constraints, and how to make best use of existing data and evidence”.
Until we have had those discussions with the advisory council, it would be wrong to commit now to the review taking a particular form. I can say that I would expect the review to cover much of the ground identified in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Turning to Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I agree that many of the issues he raises need to be looked at from time to time. That is why we already produce an annual review of our 2010 drugs strategy. The most recent annual review was published in February and highlighted the progress made across the three strands of the strategy—namely, reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. The report also set out our future commitments, including new initiatives and actions to respond to emerging evidence and the changing nature of the drugs market.
I recognise that substance misuse is not an issue that government can tackle alone. We value contributions made by our key partners to support the delivery of the 2010 strategy, including: our independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; law enforcement agencies, including the National Crime Agency; international partners; and those working within the prevention, treatment and recovery sector. We are also committed to ensuring that, where possible, we assess the effectiveness and value for money of the 2010 strategy. Furthermore, our action to restrict the supply of illicit drugs is complemented by activity through the serious and organised crime strategy, which was launched in 2013 and which has been the subject of its own annual report. Together, the strategies are making significant steps forward in tackling the supply of drugs by organised criminals in the UK and overseas.
We recognise that drugs are a complex and evolving issue, so we will continue to develop the strategy and consider other approaches to help us respond to emerging threats and challenges. We will also continue to report in a proportionate way on progress in tackling these threats and meeting these challenges. I hope that noble Lords will agree that on reflection the approach taken in Amendment 55, coupled with the existing reporting on the 2010 drugs strategy, is the right way forward and, on that basis, that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and the Minister for her response and for addressing government Amendment 55. I am obviously a little disappointed that there is apparently to be a one-off review, with no further review, although I note the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It rather begs the question: if the Government are determined that it will be a one-off review and no more, what happens if the report that comes out is rather negative in respect of the operation of the Act? Surely if that were so, there would be a strong case for a further review within a fairly short time to see whether the situation had improved, and perhaps to set out what had happened in relation to any recommendations there might be in the review of the operation of the Act. There is presumably not much point in having such a review if problems are found and no recommendations are made as to how they might be addressed.
That issue will probably have to be left for another day, but I am not sure that it is necessarily wise for the Government to shut the door on any further review of the operation of the Act when that very review might make a case for one within a short time, particularly if it finds that the situation is not as satisfactory as one might have hoped. However, I appreciate that the Government have made some movement with their Amendment 55. I also note the noble Baroness’s comments that much of the information set out in our Amendment 52 is likely to be covered in the review of the operation of the Act under government Amendment 55. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Investigatory Powers
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, not surprisingly, this has been a well-informed debate between the heavyweights in this field. I am in the same position as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester of not being an expert, although I am not sure that I can follow him and equate that to mean that I might be regarded as a gentleman.
We are potentially considering a number of reports in this debate, including the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on privacy and security, the latest annual reports from the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the report on investigatory powers entitled A Question of Trust by David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Most of my comments will be related to the Anderson report, which is the most recent of the four.
The Anderson report was commissioned on the basis of an opposition amendment when Parliament was asked to legislate quickly to introduce the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. We argued that it was the right time for a thorough review of the existing legal framework to be conducted as we and others no longer felt that the current arrangements were fit for purpose. As has been said on more than one occasion, the report by David Anderson into the use of investigatory powers by public agencies in the UK recommends that the legal framework for the use of such powers should be overhauled, as the current law is fragmented and often obscure in an area of activity where advancements in this digital age have profound and rapid implications. On page 245 of the report, David Anderson says of the present situation:
“The technology is hard to grasp, and the law fragmented and opaque. Intelligence is said to have been harvested and shared in ways that neither Parliament nor public predicted, and that some have found disturbing and even unlawful. Yet this was brought to light not by the commissions, committees and courts of London, but by the unlawful activities of Edward Snowden. Informed discussion is hampered by the fact that both the benefits of the controversial techniques and the damage attributed to their disclosure are deemed too secret to be specified. Politics enters the picture, and for informed debate in the media are substituted the opposing caricatures of ‘unprecedented threats to our security’ and ‘snoopers’ charter’”.
Mr Anderson goes on to say:
“If one thing is certain, it is that the road to a better system must be paved with trust”,
and that:
“Trust in powerful institutions depends not only on those institutions behaving themselves … but on there being mechanisms to verify that they have done so”.
With the need to promote trust in mind, he has formulated his recommendations on the basis of five principles: the minimisation of no-go areas; limits on powers; rights compliance; clarity and transparency; and a unified approach. These principles ought to play a key part in the development of the law and the practice of investigatory powers. Under the fifth principle of a unified approach, Mr Anderson has indicated his disagreement with the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report Privacy and Security: A Modern and Transparent Legal Framework, which states that,
“there should be a clear separation between intelligence and law enforcement functions”.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation feels instead that the seamless and co-operative working relationship between the security and intelligence agencies and the police is a feature of the United Kingdom’s security landscape that is widely admired across the world, but rarely successfully imitated. Part of the secret of that success, Mr Anderson has said, is that the,
“police and agencies … interoperate across significant parts of their work, a process that has accelerated since the London bombings”,
of 10 years ago, which are so much in our minds at present.
In line with the theme of his report, which is entitled A Question of Trust, Mr Anderson states that the investigatory powers available to public authorities must be shown to be necessary, clearly spelt out in law, limited in such a way as to conform to international human rights standards, and subject to appropriate safeguards. Included in other recommendations in his report are that warrants for the interception of communications should require judicial approval rather than the approval of the Secretary of State, as is currently the case. However, an exception would be made in cases where the warrant is required in the interests of national security relating to United Kingdom defence or foreign policy, where the approval of the appropriate Secretary of State would be required.
A further recommendation is that the power to require service providers to retain communications data for a period of time should continue to exist, as currently provided for under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. The capability of the security and intelligence agencies to retain intercepted material in bulk should be maintained with additional strict safeguards. Further, the three existing oversight commissioners should be merged into a single independent surveillance and intelligence commissioner. Finally, the role and jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal should be expanded.
On further issues, the independent reviewer has said in his report that there are possible benefits to requiring communications service providers to retain their records of users’ interactions with the internet—the so-called web logs, to which reference has already been made—as proposed in the draft communications data Bill. He goes on to say that if such proposals were to be brought forward,
“a detailed operational case needs to be made”,
with a full assessment of the implications for retaining such data being carried out.
One of the key objectives set out in the report for the renewal of legislation on investigatory powers is public trust in the use of such powers by government agencies in order that people should not become disenchanted with the whole business of intelligence gathering. Such disenchantment or disillusion would result in a loss of public confidence in law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which is needed if they are to carry out their work to maximum effect.
I do not know what particular occurrences or issues Mr Anderson had in mind when deciding to make the issue of trust such an important theme in his report. However, for example, within the last two or three weeks there has been a newspaper report claiming that at least 20 rogue mobile phone towers capable of eavesdropping on personal calls had been uncovered around London. The equipment, it was said, was used by the police to target criminal activity but it was asserted that it also collected the data of all other phones in the area, meaning that the public’s privacy could be being routinely invaded. Whether the report was true or not, I cannot say, but while I doubt that anyone would feel it inappropriate to use such equipment to track criminal activity, a problem arises if there is any suspicion, justified or not, that it might be being used rather more extensively. It is, as the Anderson report is entitled, a question of trust.
More recently, we appear to have had a case to which the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, referred of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling towards the end of last month that an Egyptian NGO had been subject to surveillance by the UK Government with its email communications being intercepted and access to their information being unlawfully retained for longer than the time limit allowed. At the same time, it is claimed that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal made no determination in favour of Amnesty International’s claim that it had been a victim of unlawful surveillance. However, it seems that last week the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ended its ruling, stating that it was in fact Amnesty International, not the Egyptian NGO, that had been subject to this unlawful surveillance activity—the first time it is being said the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has not ruled in favour of the agencies.
Obviously, this matter could raise two issues: first, why an international human rights organisation has apparently been subject to surveillance in the first place; and, secondly, how the Investigatory Powers Tribunal appears to have made the error of mistaking an Egyptian NGO for Amnesty International, and what that could mean for its ability to provide effective oversight. I say this as a serious comment, not a frivolous one: I am not in a position to comment on the rights and wrongs of the case to which I have referred. I simply make the point that if what I have been given to understand is anywhere near accurate it will inevitably raise questions of trust, which is a key theme of David Anderson’s report.
We agree with the view in the Anderson report that the current legal framework is opaque and unsustainable and that the current commissioner system should be overhauled with the creation of a new single commissioner. We also believe that the Government should consider carefully the recommendation made in the Anderson report for consultation with law enforcement agencies and communication service providers to establish the operational case for the retention of web logs.
Our opposition to the draft Communications Data Bill reflected our concerns that it gave the holder of the post of Home Secretary too much power, including the determination of which categories of data communications service providers should be required to retain. Those concerns were shared by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill which considered that the powers outlined in Clause 1 were too wide ranging.
We also agree with the recommendation in the Anderson report that there should be judicial authorisation for interception warrants introduced into the process. Such judicial approval already applies in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We would want the Home Secretary to retain her or his role in assessing the nature of threats to national security. On the recommendation that authorisation of warrants by the Secretary of State should be replaced by judicial authorisation, Mr Anderson states that the Home Secretary routinely signs thousands of warrants per year. Most are concerned with serious and organised crime—some two-thirds—and the remainder with national security, principally terrorism.
It seems that in 2014, the Home Secretary, as the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said, personally authorised 2,345 interception and property warrants and renewals. My maths is not very good but, as far as I can make out, that amounts to an average of between six and seven a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year: a surprising figure, to put it mildly. No doubt the Minister will tell us how that figure compares with previous years. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has time, with all the other responsibilities of that position as well as those of being an MP, to delve into each warrant authorisation sufficiently deeply to ask any necessary challenging questions or to seek further information or clarification. The Minister has already told us that a Home Secretary does have the time—and not spare time, but core time—to do so. Perhaps the fact that the Minister decided that there was a need to try to get his retaliation in first on this point is, in itself, revealing.
In his report, Mr Anderson makes the point that English law has long recognised the need for a judicial warrant for the search of a person’s home. He goes on to ask why the equivalent should not be required to access the information available about a person based on their communications, which may be very intrusive and informative. The independent reviewer’s recommendations include a mechanism for reconciling judicial authorisation with the special expertise of a Secretary of State where defence of the United Kingdom or foreign policy issues are involved.
The Government have said that they are committed to introducing a Bill on investigatory powers early next year, so that it can receive Royal Assent before the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act comes into effect at the end of 2016. Prior to that, a draft Bill will be brought forward for consideration in the autumn and will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a Joint Committee of both Houses. We want strong powers with proper checks and balances and oversight of how the system is to work and is working. However, it is also crucial that our intelligence agencies can counteract the serious and growing threats that people face. That requires an up-to-date legal framework and the protection of our security and liberty. We have to ensure that the issue of public trust raised in Mr Anderson’s report is addressed. If we do not, the effectiveness of our intelligence gathering will be weakened, with potentially very serious consequences for us all.
I conclude by recognising and paying tribute to the dedication and commitment of those who work so hard and diligently to protect us, whether from acts of terrorism or from those for whom acts of vicious and heartless criminal activity are apparently an acceptable way of life. One day after the 10th anniversary of the 7 July 2005 terrorist bombing atrocities in Central London is an appropriate time to restate that it is not good luck and good fortune that protect us from further mass acts of terrorism in the United Kingdom, but the quality, skill and effectiveness of our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
London Airport: New Runway
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
In 2009, as we know, the Prime Minister said that he would not support a third runway and did so with a certain degree of finality, since he said “no ifs, no buts”. Can the Minister confirm that that still represents the Prime Minister’s and thus the Government’s policy on a third runway at Heathrow? If it does not, could he draw our attention to any statement by the Prime Minister retracting his very clear policy statement that he would not support a third runway at Heathrow?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I suggest to the noble Lord that he might be minded to read the response of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the acting leader of his party during Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, where he gave a commitment that the Government would make a decision by the end of the year. On the noble Lord’s reference to “no ifs, no buts”, as I am sure he is well aware, the Prime Minister ruled out a very different proposition in 2010.
ISIL
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is clearly very experienced in these matters, in the workings of the Civil Service and in giving advice to Ministers. If he will forgive me for saying this, he will be aware that at present we are actively engaged, along with 60 other countries, in the activity in Iraq. We are providing technical support in Syria. That remains our position. If there is any change, clearly the House will want to reflect on how it handles that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We on this side associate ourselves with the Minister’s words about the victims of the atrocity in Tunisia and their families. Will he reassure the House that no requests for additional resources—whether human, equipment or financial, from our intelligence organisations, police or Armed Forces—to address the threat posed by ISIL to this country have been declined or not answered?
Lord Bates
The Government—and, indeed, the previous Government since 2010—are very clear that we have protected the budgets for counterterrorism police work and of the security services. The Prime Minister announced last November, in response to developments in Iraq and Syria and the ISIL threat, that there will be a further £130 million. We continue to keep that under review but let there be no doubt whatever about our commitment to providing the resources that are needed.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will make just a brief point on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I would be surprised and appalled if the advisory committee was not one of the consultees in the Bill. But I am not sure it is necessary to actually mention it. The Secretary of State is under an obligation to consult such persons as appropriate, and clearly, the advisory committee is one of the top ones on the list to be consulted. If the Home Office failed to do so, in my experience we would be in court on a judicial review within minutes and the Secretary of State would lose the case for failing to consult an appropriate body.
It is one thing having a duty to consult, but that is quite different from being under an obligation to carry out all the advice the committee can give. It is perfectly legitimate for the Government to consult the advisory committee but then reject some of its advice after due consideration. If it is not given due consideration, again, that is a case for judicial review. While I agree that the committee must be consulted, I am not sure it is really necessary to put that in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his response.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We very much support the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the Constitution Committee, and we await with interest the Minister’s response to them. I thank the Minister for his letter of 15 June, which followed up on the Second Reading debate, and in particular on questions that I and three of my noble friends had asked about the role of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in relation to the Bill.
We are a party to Amendment 20, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which relates to Clause 3 on “Exempted substances”. Clause 3(3) says that before any regulations to amend Schedule 1 are made,
“the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
The purpose of the amendment is to add the reference to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just made but one could interpret the Bill as saying that there is no statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to consult anyone because it is open to them to conclude that they consider no person appropriate, despite the importance or significance of amending Schedule 1 and getting any such decision right. No doubt the Minister will comment on the point that in reality, under Clause 3(3) the Secretary of State could not get away with consulting nobody at all and that it obliges them to consult at least somebody. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made and I would like to hear a very specific response, on the record, as to exactly what Clause 3(3) means in that regard.
Referring to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, the Minister’s letter of 15 June 2015 states:
“The ACMD is required by statute to be consulted before any amendment by Order in Council is made to Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”.
The principle of the ACMD being required by statute to be consulted is thus not new, and I do not see how it can be argued that somehow it is unnecessary to put it in the Bill, given that the Minister’s own letter refers to that already being a requirement. If the Minister is going to oppose Amendment 20, I hope he will explain the reasons for doing so in some detail. In his letter he says that the Government are,
“ready to consider carefully any recommendations the ACMD may have about other aspects of the Bill”.
Has a response been received from the ACMD? Has it said whether or not it wishes to be consulted as per the terms of Amendment 20, to which we are a party? What difficulties does the Minister believe there would be if the ACMD had to be consulted as per this amendment, and who exactly might the “such persons” referred to actually be?
Finally, to come back to the point I made earlier and which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has already made, does the Minister think it right that the Secretary of State could apparently make a change to Schedule 1 without taking expert advice? That is what Clause 3(3) apparently enables the Secretary of State to do, unless the Minister is going to tell me that I have misunderstood it.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we also have an amendment in this group, Amendment 49, providing for regulations under Clause 10 to give exemptions from an offence under this Bill—and from its ban—for specific medical research activity. Of course, a number of noble Lords raised concerns at Second Reading about the impact of the ban on new psychoactive substances and the creation of an offence on medical research. We do not want the Bill to inhibit or restrict important medical research that will help us to improve our knowledge of drugs and their impact, and I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, we have had the debate on decriminalisation already today. I can only repeat our position that we do not believe that we should be moving to decriminalise possession of a wider range of substances currently controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 through an amendment to the Bill, which is designed to address a specific issue that has developed very quickly over the last few years in respect of new psychoactive substances as defined in the Bill. As the noble Lord said, another amendment in the group seeks to provide that importing new psychoactive substances should not constitute an offence where the substance is for the individual’s own consumption. That issue was raised at Second Reading.
We will listen with interest to the reply from the Minister, since there is a need to have a very clear definition of which activities, if any, that might be involved in achieving personal possession of new psychoactive substances for personal consumption, which is not an offence under the Bill, are or are not also covered by the non-offence provisions in the Bill. To pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will the Minister say whether the reference in Clause 8 to a person committing an offence if they intentionally import a substance for their own consumption is intended to cover the situation where the substance is ordered online from outside the country? What happens if the individual concerned, in ordering the substance online, is not aware of whether it has come from within or outside this country, and it is subsequently proved that it has come from outside this country? Is that person guilty of an offence under the Bill?
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for introducing this amendment. The amendments in this group relate to the personal use of such substances. Let me assure the noble Lord at the outset that the Bill does not make possession of a psychoactive substance for personal use a criminal offence. Similarly, it is not an offence to possess for personal use a drug subject to a temporary class drug order. In that sense, the current process is consistent with the way in which we have tackled such issues in the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that the intention is to catch the suppliers and manufacturers of the products.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, whose apologies we note, have argued that the Bill is internally inconsistent in making it an offence to import a psychoactive substance for personal use but not criminalising personal possession. I hope I can persuade the Committee that this is not the case. The very principle of this Bill, as recommended by the expert panel, is to tackle the supply of these substances. Given that the vast majority of these substances are imported from abroad, clearly, if we are to tackle the supply, we need to ensure that we have in place a robust importation offence and that the Border Force has sufficient powers to effectively stop these substances crossing the border. On that point, I advise the Committee that the Government intend to table further amendments to ensure that the Border Force can access the powers under the Customs and Exercise Management Act 1979 when it intercepts psychoactive substances coming into the UK.
We cannot have a robust importation offence if we permit small quantities of psychoactive substances to be imported for personal use. We want to stop all these dangerous substances entering the country, not facilitate their use. The expert panel was clear that the Bill should focus on the supply of these substances and target all sources, even social supply, which can be a gateway for people into regular drug use. Any supplier of a new psychoactive substance is contributing to the overall drugs problem.
The substances caught in this Bill are deliberately being treated differently from the drugs controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The 1971 Act controls drugs where we have expert evidence of specific harms and therefore apply the full ban on possession and supply for public protection. For those not—or not yet—controlled under the 1971 Act, we are targeting the trade alone. However, allowing possession of a psychoactive substance is one thing; deliberately weakening the controls by creating a loophole that allows the importation of small quantities is something else, both in principle and in practice.
I have already outlined one risk in allowing importation of personal quantities—that of creating the possibility for individuals to import multiple packages of small quantities of psychoactive substances, which on their own are consistent with personal use but could enter the supply chain when combined. There is a raft of practical challenges with this approach: how much would constitute personal use? Would it cover all substances? Would you allow someone to import a year’s worth of substances for their personal use? That could, depending on the substance, be a significant quantity.
Another concern would be the enforcement challenges that this new approach would create. A blanket importation ban simplifies enforcement by the Border Force: any psychoactive substance found at the border and which is evidently intended for human consumption can be seized and destroyed, unless it is an exempted substance or for an exempted activity. Allowing smaller packages for personal use would impose significant demands on the Border Force, requiring it to investigate the importation in each and every case to determine whether the seized substances are for onward supply or personal use. It would simply be unrealistic and an unnecessary burden to put this measure in place.
On the website question, which is a fair point, it should be said that there were two effects of the Irish experience: one was immediately to close down the head shops in the Republic of Ireland; the other was to allow the Government to take down the websites that were supplying these substances, which were on a Republic of Ireland domain. On the offences committed when there is the intention to import, if you can prove that you did not know the website was overseas and that you were importing, you would not have intentionally imported. Is that clear? Perhaps it is just not clear to me. Let me read it again: on the offences committed when it is intentionally imported, if you can prove that you did not know the website was overseas when you were importing, you would not have intentionally imported. Yes, that is very clear.
Finally, I should add that the importation of psychoactive substance offences in both Ireland and Australia also apply to all quantities imported: there is no exemption for personal consumption. Amendment 52 would stand or fall with Amendment 45, as it seeks to make a consequential amendment to the list of prohibited activities to replicate the change in the importation offence.
I hope that I have been able to provide some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I suspect I may have been unable to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. However, having given the issue a good airing, I hope that he and other noble Lords will not feel the need to press their amendments.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, a succession of inspection reports, covering Highpoint, Bristol, Liverpool and Deerbolt prisons among others, have shown high levels of use of synthetic cannabis, known by inmates, as I understand it, as “Spice” or “Black Mamba”. These legal drugs are not identifiable, so I am told, by more than a handful of sniffer dogs, nor through mandatory drug testing. Spice can cause high levels of addiction and there have been reports of debt, bullying and violence associated with its use becoming more widespread in prisons.
The government response to the expert panel report included a commitment to improving information about new psychoactive substances in the prison estate. The Minister referred to this issue in his letter of 15 June. However, the purpose of the two amendments that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and I have tabled in this group is to make supplying, or offering to supply, a psychoactive substance in a prison an aggravating feature of the offence of supplying, or offering to supply. As we know, the Bill already makes it a statutory aggravating factor if the offence took place at, or in the vicinity of, a school. Surely another area of significant concern must be our prisons, where there are certainly some fairly unpleasant individuals, but there are also many potentially vulnerable people. To seek to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance within our prisons—there are different ways in which such substances get inside, whether through visitors, rogue staff, being thrown over the wall or sent in parcels or goods—is clearly making a difficult environment, with significant numbers in a relatively small space, even more awkward for both staff and inmates. I hope the Minister will share the view that supply, or offering to supply, in a prison should be an aggravating feature of such an offence, which is the purpose of our amendments. We await with interest his response to this and the other amendments in this group.
In conclusion, it was stated in the other place:
“Thirty-five per cent of prisoners have a drug addiction and 6% acquire that addiction while in prison”.
The Secretary of State for Justice said in response to that comment that,
“drug addiction is one of the principal factors that lead individuals to commit crime. It is also the case that there is an unacceptable level of drug use, both of illegal drugs and so-called legal highs, in our prisons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/06/15; col. 737.]
If that is the Secretary of State’s view—and I do not think that too many people would be surprised that he has expressed it—surely this is an opportunity to make supplying the new psychoactive substances, or offering to supply them, an aggravating feature of the offence in addition to what is already provided for in the Bill, which covers the situation where the offence takes place at, or in the vicinity of, a school. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, in following the commendably concise remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I wish to speak to Amendments 41, 42 and 108, standing in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. These amendments are self-evident and seek to refine and extend protection for children under Clause 6. The provenance of these amendments is the Children’s Society, which, as a result of the important work that it does protecting children, has made a compelling case that these factors need to be inserted in the Bill as additional aggravating factors.
Basically, I am asking the Committee to amend the Bill to make the supply of psychoactive substances to children under the age of 18, or in the vicinity of premises where vulnerable children reside, an aggravating factor of an offence. The evidence indicates that psychoactive substances are now increasingly being used to groom children who are in vulnerable situations and environments. As the Government have already recognised that the school environment needs to be protected, this established principle would merely be extended a little by accepting the amendments suggested by the Children’s Society. It has provided some, I hope, very helpful definitions of accommodation for vulnerable children, which I think are applicable to England and probably Wales. I do not know whether they are entirely appropriate for Scotland, but I would like the Minister’s advice on that. There are three sets of circumstances where children are particularly exposed to these situations—residential care, as defined by people in supported accommodation, and 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds who find themselves homeless. I would be interested to hear about the experience of the right reverend Prelate in this regard as I know that the church does valuable work in this area. He may be able to expand on some of the background circumstances that caused the Children’s Society to promote these amendments.
Amendment 108 seeks to apply these proposed aggravating circumstances to other controlled drugs under the 1971 legislation. As I understand it, at the moment there are merely non-statutory aggravating factors in the 1971 provisions. If Amendment 108 found favour with the Minister, I think that we would be able to ensure the same protection from the courts, as they would be required to take account of aggravating features in considering any offence.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, if the correct way of dealing with subsection (6) is just to refer to the delivery of a substance, are the Government considering changing Section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act—I do not have the Act with me—to take out the reference to a controlled drug? I do not expect an answer at this point but I am not immediately persuaded that they should be different.
Lord Rosser
Before I respond on what I am doing with the amendment—I shall be withdrawing it; I do not want to appear to suggest that I am going to do something else—can the Minister say whether the Ministry of Justice is interested in seeing this become an aggravating feature in prisons?
Lord Bates
As one would expect, the justice department will have been consulted and was part of the discussions in preparing the Bill. I note the reference that the noble Lord made to the remarks of the Justice Secretary in another place. I will certainly reflect on those and make contact with the Ministry of Justice again to ensure that its views are fully taken into account in the approach which I have outlined. Given that it has lead responsibility for prisons policy, I would expect those to be exactly as I have said.
Lord Bates
In response to those two points, I think I am right in saying that where we came from on this was to try to get consistency with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, where “children” is stated as an aggravating factor. We are therefore continuing that into the present. There will come a point where if you then add in certain types of locations and places, where do you stop? Will the courts then be unsure as to what the Government were trying to tackle in introducing the legislation? There is a duty on sentencing judges to follow sentencing guidelines, so the point can be dealt with through that route. We have certainly tightened up the laws with regard to drug use in prison through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and the Serious Crime Act 2015. As I say, I certainly understand the comments that have been made and I will reflect particularly on the point about children between now and Report, with the assistance of that meeting.
Lord Rosser
The Minister said that he would reflect particularly on the point about children. Is he saying that he will reflect on the prisons point? He worded it in such a way that it cast doubt as to whether he would.
Lord Bates
I am always learning that the problem with legislation is when you mention one factor and have not necessarily mentioned another. I did not particularly mention it. The specific suggestion I made to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was that I would discuss the points which he raised with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. I will share the remarks he has made in Committee on this amendment with them. That was the offer I made in respect to his amendment. It was in respect to the others that I agreed to the meeting.
Lord Rosser
We would like to know where we stand before Report, because if we are drawing a blank, it is something we would certainly wish to consider pursuing on Report. We would not wish to do so if there was some movement on it. I noted the comments about bringing this into line with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. One might say that the Bill is not fully in line with the Misuse of Drugs Act, particularly over the offence of possession, for example. I am not sure that arguing that, on the one hand, you have to bring this in line with the Act but that on the other there is a clear distinction is the most consistent or best argument to use, quite frankly, on this issue.
I will of course read the Minister’s reply in full, since I appreciate he said quite a few things and I am not satisfied that I necessarily took them all on board. I will read Hansard carefully. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. One thing I noticed was that, in his reply, the Minister made reference to action that can be taken against the prisoners involved with these drugs, but of course the issue is about the drugs getting into prisons, which can involve them coming in with parcels or visitors. I appreciate that once the drugs are in the prison they are being distributed by prisoners, which is where the bullying and harassment can come in, but there is also the issue of who is helping to get them into prisons in the first place and whether that should be an aggravating feature. I note that the Minister has said he will raise this with the Ministry of Justice. If he could indicate where we stood ahead of Report, that would be extremely helpful indeed. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
I rise briefly in response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, when he mentioned that the closure of the head shops in Ireland had resulted in the whole trade going underground. I am not sure whether my noble friend has had a chance to see it or research it, but my Google alert this morning said that some new report had been published by some doctors or professors in Ireland—maybe it was Dublin university, or something—that suggested that, quite the contrary, use of psychoactive substances overall had declined dramatically with the head shops ban and it had not gone underground, as people had feared. I have not had a chance to Google it and study it all but, if my noble friend is not aware of it, perhaps he and his assistants in his office can swot up on it. I am sure that it is a measure that will be addressed again at Report. We had a big debate last week on the situation in Ireland, so it would be worth while studying this academic research to see whether it is kosher.
Lord Rosser
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the amendment would introduce a system of licensing to sell psychoactive substances determined to pose low overall risk, which is contrary to the objectives of the Bill as it currently stands, which is to provide for a ban on new psychoactive substances. My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport has already referred to the views of the Local Government Association and its lack of enthusiasm for this amendment, saying that it would oppose councils being made responsible for licensing because of the difficulties of assessing whether a product is a low overall risk. My noble friend Lord Howarth went on to refer to the further comments that the LGA made about the need for a very thorough regime to be in place if we were to go down the road that was being suggested in this amendment. The Government’s expert panel also said that it would be difficult to define low risk from a legislative and harms perspective and, even if it could be done, a mechanism for controlling new psychoactive substances would still be needed, which could lead to confusing messages about new psychoactive substances overall.
How does one decide whether a drug is safe? There are immediate risks that occur and also long-term risks that occur, including long-term psychological issues and dependency, so what does low harm mean in that context? The amendment refers to everything being set out in regulations, but I am not sure whether, under the terms of the amendment, a drug would be presumed safe until evidence came to the contrary or whether the producers of a drug would be expected to prove that the drug was safe. If so, how would you do that, how would you determine all the possible different types of harm, and would it have to involve human trials—because, without trials, how do you determine harm or otherwise?
The amendment refers in a sense to Clause 3, which provides that the,
“Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 1 in order to … add or vary any description of substance”.
We had a discussion earlier today about the significance of the word “vary” but, in the light of the Minister’s response at Second Reading, I am still not clear why that provision in subsection (2)(a) is there, and why the Secretary of State may add a substance to the list. Listening to the Minister’s response at Second Reading, I got the impression that he was making it very clear on behalf of the Government that the Secretary of State would not be adding substances under the terms of Clause 3. Bearing in mind that the Government have put it here in the Bill, I would simply ask: in what circumstances do they envisage the Secretary of State adding to items in Schedule 1?
Lord Bates
I shall take that last point first. From time to time, new and very dangerous chemical compounds come into the market in the UK, as we know from the whole experience of tackling new psychoactive substances. The provision is there to allow the possibility, in extreme circumstances, the likes of which we cannot envisage at this stage, on scientific advice and on advice from the police on a new substance coming into the UK and putting lives at risk, that we can act in a prompt way.
Lord Rosser
The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but I am very much getting the impression that the Government do not actually have any idea at the moment of the circumstance in which they might add an exempted substance to Schedule 1, but have put in the provision just in case something turns up that they cannot think of at the moment and that might lead them to want to do it.
Lord Bates
Well, I have given a couple of examples of things that may have been included by mistake. We know from the European monitoring centre that there are hundreds of new substances and chemical compounds that have been identified in the course of each year. Over 500 substances have already been banned in the past five years alone. Therefore, because of that fast-moving change, we have an enabling power in the Bill to allow us to respond quickly and effectively should a threat or an oversight with an unintended consequence come to light. I would have thought that, in good legislative practice, the fact that the Government would seek to respond in that way would carry a great deal of support.
I am conscious of time, but also of the fact that we dealt with a number of these issues under Amendment 19, when we discussed risk. We had a very good and thoughtful debate on that issue, and it was clear from that why, when the expert panel looked at the New Zealand licensing example, it felt that there were weaknesses in it because of how low risk or low harm would be defined. Therefore, the panel chose not to recommend going down that line but instead chose to follow the example of the Republic of Ireland and a blanket ban.
I come to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who asked whether I had seen the new report produced by Trinity College Dublin, an eminent academic source, on the ban on head shops and how it was actually impacting. One of the authors of the study, Dr Bobby Smyth, claims that,
“the results of the survey show that the kind of drugs being sold in headshops are not being used to the same extent any more”.
That would seem to challenge one of the arguments that has frequently been put forward—that somehow the incidence of usage has increased. That is not what has been found. Dr Smyth also claims that those drugs have not been driven underground, as has been feared, stating that,
“the findings have shown that the implementation of legislation, targeted primarily at the vendors of NPS, did indeed coincide with a fall in NPS use among this high risk group of teenagers who attend a drug and alcohol treatment service … The study found that, among the two groups surveyed, not only did the problematic abuse of headshop drugs fall but that the use of cocaine and amphetamines also fell”.
Consumption of so-called legal highs fell sharply after the Government cracked down on head shops that sold them, according to new research. Researchers studied two groups of young people attending a drug and alcohol treatment centre in Dublin. The first group attended the service immediately before the legal changes designed to drive head shops out of business were introduced, and the second attended a year later, after the ban came into effect. The percentage of problematic users of head shop drugs fell from 34% in the first group to zero in the second. The percentage who had taken any such drugs in the previous three months fell dramatically from 82% pre-ban to 28% after the ban was introduced. The study was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. That clearly produces some evidence, which I know was sought by Members of the Committee earlier when they asked whether the ban was having any effect.
Was the expert panel’s recommendation to take a different approach from New Zealand a sensible way forward? I think it probably is. Just last week, the state of Western Australia passed a blanket ban as well. There is a gathering view that this is having some effect in tackling a very difficult problem, and that licensing, however well-meaning and thoughtfully presented the arguments for it may be, is not as effective in achieving the outcomes that we all want.
Calais: Border Management
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. The situation at Calais has, over time, reflected the humanitarian crisis and the activities of human traffickers, which are both issues that need to be addressed at source. Co-operation between the French and British authorities in their work is to be welcomed, but on the issue of the events of the last day or so, could the Minister say what specific action has been taken to protect British citizens delayed in northern France in the light of reports alleging harassment and threats to car and lorry drivers waiting to travel back to this country—also implied in the Answer—and reports that some hauliers no longer use Calais?
The Answer also referred to the interception of a number of would-be migrants by Border Force and the French authorities. What is the Government’s current estimate of the number of would-be migrants who are likely to reach this country as a result of the recent disruption in northern France, and how does that figure compare with the estimated usual number of would-be migrants thought to reach this country through the ports of Calais and Coquelles over a similar period?
Lord Bates
To answer the first question, the Home Secretary has spoken to Monsieur Cazeneuve about the safety of British and other travellers travelling to the UK. There is a promise to provide extra resources during this time to help secure vehicles. It is a very fast-moving and difficult situation, as has already been mentioned.
As to the effect on the number of people arriving into the UK, the juxtaposed controls, which are at the heart of this and were actually introduced by the previous Labour Government, have worked very well in Calais, Dunkirk and Coquelles. They are staffed by a pool of about 800 Border Force officers based in France. It is estimated that, in the past year, 40,000 people have been stopped travelling into the UK. The message to take from yesterday is very clear: the UK border was not breached. There was significant disruption for travellers and freight vehicles as a result of the action, particularly for those using the tunnel, but we do not anticipate that having a direct effect on the numbers entering the UK.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
I wonder if it might help the Committee if the noble Lord withdrew Amendment 115 simply so that we can debate the need for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act without setting it in the context of a delay to the psychoactive substances ban.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I acknowledge the strength of feeling of many noble Lords on this issue but I hope we can all accept that, whatever our view, we all have the interests and protection of young people in particular in the forefront of our minds when discussing this group of amendments and the Bill as a whole. That is not the prerogative of one particular point of view. The effect of this group of amendments—certainly its intention—is to put back the commencement of most of the Bill’s provisions for, in reality, probably at least 18 months after the Bill has been passed.
The proposals in the Bill for a blanket ban on new psychoactive substances have been supported by the New Psychoactive Substances Review Expert Panel, whose report was called for by one Liberal Democrat Minister and accepted by another. The ban has also been supported by a similar panel in Scotland, the Health and Social Care Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, the Local Government Association, the police and the two largest political groupings in this House, including the Opposition, at the recent general election. The Liberal Democrats said that they would clamp down on those who produce and sell unregulated chemical highs. That all these organisations, committees and parties reached their conclusion in either the face of all the evidence or the absence of any evidence—as has been implied—is unlikely.
We need to start to tackle the issue of legal highs now. The United Kingdom now has the second largest legal highs market in the world, beaten only by America. We are the top country in Europe for emerging new psychoactive substances. Over the past four years, hundreds of new internet sellers have been established in the UK, along with an estimated hundreds of specialist high street head shops. Beyond this, an unknown number of other stores, including late-night garages and takeaways, have started selling these products. In short, an entire industry became fully established under the previous coalition Government, selling and marketing dangerous drugs largely aimed at young people, many of whom would not otherwise have considered experimenting with drugs.
It also appears quite common in the legal highs market for legal high sellers to send out samples of new psychoactive substances to existing customers and use human beings as guinea pigs with no consideration of the consequences. The evidence also shows how far behind the market we currently are.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He says that head shops have no consideration for their customers. In our experience, head shops are the one outlet that do have to have some concern about their customers because, if they kill them or if they finish up in hospital, they will not come back for more and head shops will not make profits, which is what they are there to do. That is the one reason why, unpleasant though head shops are—and they are—if they were properly licensed and controlled, they would be rather better than the alternative: the black market.
Lord Rosser
I think I actually said that it is quite common in the legal highs market for legal high sellers— and there is more than one way of selling it—to send out samples of new psychoactive substances to existing customers and literally use human beings as guinea pigs, with no consideration of the consequences. I do not think that implies that everybody is doing that; it is saying that it is not uncommon for that to be the situation.
The evidence also shows how far behind the market we currently are. Substances were being banned following parliamentary debate earlier this year, when it had been known that sellers were sending out to potential customers samples likely to be toxic three years previously.
I wish to quote the Home Affairs Select Committee report, to which I referred earlier. I realise that some have already challenged this statement but it is set out in the Home Affairs Select Committee report. The report states:
“England and Wales has almost the lowest recorded level of drug use in the adult population since measurement began in 1996. Individuals reporting use of any drug in the last year fell significantly from 11.1% in 1996 to 8.9% in 2011–12. There was also a substantial fall in the use of cannabis from 9.5% in 1996 to 6.9% in 2011–12”.
That does not mean there is not still a problem, but the area where things have been going in the wrong direction, as identified in the report of the expert panel, has been as a result of the emergence of new psychoactive substances. The explosion of new psychoactive substances in the last few years is a unique phenomenon which warrants specific legislation. Some 670,000 young people in the UK were thought to have experimented with new psychoactive substances by 2013, and this is leading to an increase in deaths. To my knowledge, no new psychoactive substance which has been referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been found to be safe.
We are not in agreement with this group of amendments, which will delay the introduction of key parts of this Bill, including the blanket ban, when the need for action to address the growing issue of new psychoactive substances, including through education, prevention and treatment, is now.
Lord Richard
My Lords, for the third time, I ask the same question: if the link between delaying the Bill and the part of the relevant amendment which calls for an independent inquiry is broken, does the Labour Party support an independent inquiry into the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act?
Lord Rosser
I can only say that I am not aware that it is currently Labour Party policy to press for such a review.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is wise to remind ourselves of what has been going on in relation to these substances in the past year or two. The system has been that, once a new substance is discovered, the procedures of the Misuse of Drugs Act have been used to add that substance to the prohibitions under that Act. It seems to me that the trouble with that is that it is very late in the day in relation to the emergence of the new substance. The purpose of this Bill, as I understand it, is to eliminate that particular difficulty and to make the provision operate in a general way so that you do not need to move, as in the past, during the emergence of a new psychoactive substance. So, that is what Parliament has been doing for some time. This seems to me to be a much better way to handle the problem than what has been available in the past.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, as far as I am concerned, the issues that have been raised in this debate are certainly ones that Ministers in the two departments would be well advised to consider. However, I wonder about the procedure that is proposed here for carrying out this amendment.
Amendment 50 states:
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall make regulations to amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001”,
and so on. The procedure for that is already laid down. I doubt whether it is correct for another Act of Parliament, as it were, to overrule the arrangements made in relation to that. That is rather technical but it is perfectly reasonable that the matter should be looked at by the Ministers.
Lord Rosser
As has already been said, one assumes—though life is full of surprises—that the Government’s response will be in line with the Answer that was given in this Chamber on 17 June to an Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
This Bill deals with a particular issue—psychoactive substances—on which there is surely a need for specific separate legislation. The amendment we are discussing appears to be a considerable extension of the Bill, and an extension of the prescription of cannabis, which can be very harmful. One would not have thought that one would want to go down that road without clinical evidence and trials indicating that it was the right road to take and, if so, in what circumstances, for what drugs, and based on whose advice. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that at present the approach suggested in the amendment does not, for example, have the support of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Nevertheless, I await the Government’s response with interest.
Lord Bates
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. In some senses, it is a rehearsal of our discussion following the Oral Question she asked in your Lordships’ House last week.
The Government’s position is that we have no plans to reschedule cannabis. There is clear scientific evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people’s mental and physical health, and which can have a pernicious effect on communities.
Let me deal with a couple of the points that were raised in the debate. In responding to these amendments, I remind the Committee that cannabis is a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and listed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. The 1971 Act will continue to regulate the availability of controlled drugs, and Schedule 1 to the Bill specifically excludes drugs controlled under the 1971 Act.
To move herbal cannabis and cannabis resin to Schedule 2 to the 2001 regulations, and thereby enable their prescribing, would amount to a circumvention of the established evidence-based regulatory process that successive Governments have had in place to ensure that products made available in the UK as medicines are as safe and effective as possible. My noble friend Lord Ribeiro made the point about the importance of rigorous clinical trials.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s amendment. Of course, we need some monitoring information and we need information around effectiveness, but I am just not sure that the Home Office or a government department is the right body to produce such independent information. It may be, but I have my doubts.
My main concern about the noble Baroness’s amendment is the timescale. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I am now very concerned about the timescale if the Government, or anyone else, attempted to report on the wide range of things he has suggested. I am not being facetious, but it struck me that compiling a report of the length that the noble Lord wants would probably end up taking longer than the new sexual abuse review by the distinguished New Zealand judge. I do not mean that as a facetious comment or to diminish the work she is doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and many others in this Chamber have some experience in government. I think we know that if a government department were to produce a report within 12 months, it would have to be approved by the Cabinet at month 11. This is a territorial Bill and would need to go round all the territorial Governments in months 9 to 11 to be checked by them. It would need to go round the UK government departments in Whitehall, probably in month 8 or 9, to be amended by them, which means that the Minister in the Home Office, or wherever, would need the first draft in about month 6, which would mean that civil servants would start writing it in month 3.
I say to the Minister: if the Government have to produce a report, preparing one within 12 months of the Act would not be sensible. It would be impossible—no, it would not be impossible, but it would include only a fraction of the information that one would want. There may be merit in the Government producing a report, but not of the length that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has suggested and certainly not within the 12-month timescale.
Lord Rosser
We have an amendment in this group and it is not about post-legislative scrutiny. It calls for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on new psychoactive substances and sets out some of the information that must be included in the report.
There is currently a real lack of data collected and published on new psychoactive substances and their impact. For example, the first indication of a new drug tends to come from a hospital admission. If this happens in the United Kingdom, the National Poisons Information Service is informed and it then advises the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction. The EMCDDA tells the National Poisons Information Service of drugs detected elsewhere in Europe. However, the Home Office keeps its own lists, the main one being the forensic early warning system, and, to date, successive Ministers have been unable to explain the relationship between the EMCDDA list and the Home Office list, which suggests that data are not being collected and published in a consistent or helpful way. Similar problems arise with monitoring drug-related deaths and overdoses. No proper data are collected on drug deaths as the data we have rely on examining countless records, which is why they are often incomplete and take years to publish.
There is a significant problem, too, with hospital admissions. The National Poisons Information Service collects new drugs but does not collect data on all drug- related overdoes. We do not know how many hospital admissions result from taking these new substances. Nor do we know in how many cases new psychoactive substances were a factor for those needing to access mental health services. Anecdotal evidence suggests that legal highs are a major factor, especially for adolescent mental health services.
In their response to the expert panel, the Government accepted the importance of information on new psychoactive substances and that it should be shared systematically at both a local and national level in a timely manner. However, the Government did not appear to accept the current inadequacies in the information, including those to which I have referred.
The expert panel said that, with the rise in the availability of NPSs, coupled with possibilities for NPS market development via the internet, the UK drug scene had become increasingly complex and fractured, and that a number of information issues arose from this. These included,
“the difficulty for any one agency to keep to keep abreast of all the new developments … the acknowledgement that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 needs to be supplemented by other legislation has meant that more professional networks require information including trading standards … the current time lags involved between data collection and publication of data obtained by current networks mean these systems cannot be employed in the service of providing more timely early-warning-type information; and … the need to collect, analyse and distribute information in a more systematic and timely fashion to help inform policy and practice at both a national and local level”.
Frankly, the Government’s response did not address all these issues since there seems to be a view that the forensic early warning system’s annual report can fit the bill. In its recommendations, the expert panel says:
“There is a need to establish prevalence, evidence and harms associated with NPS”.
It suggests that we should:
“Develop detection and data collection tools across criminal justice and health services, and other relevant settings, for example, schools and universities”.
A recommendation refers to developing,
“internet tools to monitor internet activity around NPS”,
and to the need to:
“Record health and social harms related to NPS by utilising professional networks and other early warning systems … understand local markets, including through headshops, retail outlets, prisons and local police assessment”.
On enhancing the share of information on NPSs, the panel said:
“Sharing information at both local and national levels is essential in helping to achieve a reduction in the demand and supply of drugs and in promoting comprehensive and effective interventions”.
It is fairly clear from the report of the expert panel that it does not think enough is currently being done in the area of the provision of information. The purpose of this amendment, as I said at the beginning, is to provide for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on new psychoactive substances. The amendment sets out, in not quite so extensive a list as that of my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, some of the information that should be included in that report.
I hope the Minister will reflect further on this issue—the importance of information on NPSs—and the adequacy of the current information and the systems and methods by which it is provided. Our amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to do just that and I hope it is an opportunity she will take.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I waited until this moment to speak because it seemed unfair to comment on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, without his having spoken to it first. I have some sympathy with what the Labour Party is proposing, but I prefer Amendments 4 and 6 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for the very reason that she articulated. The market for new psychoactive substances and that for other substances covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be treated as separate. The whole reason for the existence of new psychoactive substances is the controlling of other drugs. There would be no need for people to develop so-called legal highs if they could get the high legally from controlled drugs. It is essential that the annual report includes exactly what the noble Baroness proposes: an assessment of the impact on health and the social harms brought about by the Misuse of Drugs Act and this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, gave a long list of things that could be included in the report. If everything he suggested was included, it might not only put the Government off producing the report but put me off reading it or trying to wade through it. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that post-legislative scrutiny of a Bill such as this by a Joint Committee of both Houses would be appropriate, but it should not mean that there should not also be an annual report, because things are changing so quickly. We have heard from other noble Lords about how different drugs come into mode and out again. We therefore need an annual assessment of whether the legislation is still fit for purpose.
Lord Rosser
Before the noble Baroness tells us what she wishes to do with her amendment, I want to say that I do not think that the issues raised in Amendment 105 will need three years. They are about the collection of basic data, where we appear to have a distinct weakness, which was identified by the expert panel and was the subject of recommendations by that panel. Why do we need to wait so long to address an issue of concern to the expert panel; that is, the lack of data?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The noble Lord is right: I was rather remiss in not saying that I was sympathetic to his views on this issue, and I apologise. We will certainly consider it between now and Report.
Lord Bates
That is a good point. There are a number of ways. Perhaps I may make the point that I have been trying to set out the terms so that a future reader of the Official Report may actually be able to deduce—I will be careful here—what the Government intended when they set out the definition in this particular way. The noble Lord’s intervention is entirely appropriate and I do have an answer which I will give to him, but I want to make sure that we do not lose the flow of what underlies this, which is the rationale behind the definition.
There are a number of ways, and these include data based on a human user’s experience, argument by analogy and in vitro neurochemical profiling. Working with the Centre for Applied Science and Technology at the Home Office, we will identify and build the capability in the UK to meet the demand for this new forensic requirement, as well as working with the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator to ensure that the high standard of quality that forensic evidence meets is maintained.
The Home Secretary has written to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs seeking its views on how we can strengthen the UK’s forensic capacity and capability to support the implementation of the legislation. We remain ready to consider carefully any recommendations the council may have about other aspects of the Bill. We will continue with the forensic early warning system, which has enabled forensic providers more easily to identify new psychoactive substances coming on to the UK market through the provision of reference standards and establishing a new psychoactive substances community. I am sure that that has entirely answered the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Rosser
It seems to me that this is a fairly crucial part of the Bill because the argument, quite rightly under the present procedure, is the length of time it takes to ban a psychoactive substance. I have listened with interest to what the Minister has said, and I suspect he has listened with interest to what he has been reading out—I am not trying to be rude; I mean that. But what is really needed is an indication of how long it is going to take to ban one of these substances as compared with the current procedure. What the Minister has said does not help me form a view on how long it will take to ban such a substance in the future, compared with the current situation, and that surely is the key aim of the Bill: being able to ban these substances with a degree of rapidity.
Lord Bates
That is so, and many a true word is often spoken in jest—such as when the noble Lord talked about my going through the answer which has been provided. I accept that the key point here, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was getting at, is to look at how a police officer would actually start the process of gauging whether a person was being disorderly, search them in the belief that they are in the possession of a new psychoactive substance, and then, if they find something, how it will be determined whether that substance is banned. I am going through the process whereby the substance will have to be sent to the lab, where it will be tested for certain chemical compounds which might be on a list or subject to a temporary banning order.
What we are saying is that a different approach will be taken in the future. We are setting up a very broad definition in order to avoid the constant race to hybrids and changes which officers are facing on the street. We arrive at a definition which is set on one day, but the substance has miraculously morphed into something else the next day and gets through the loophole. What we are dealing with here is a definition of the effect which a substance has or is intended to have on the person who is in receipt of it.
If I make a little more progress on my brief, the position might become clearer. The nature of this point is our experience of the loophole, which I have covered. There are any number of natural products, which takes me to Amendment 9. The amendment seeks to import the definition of a psychoactive substance used by the Republic of Ireland in its Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010. Indeed, we used the same definition as a starting point. As the Committee might imagine, during the drafting of the Bill we discussed the definition with counterparts in Ireland, and in Australia and New Zealand, and with scientific and law enforcement experts. Following this advice, we have retained the core elements of the Irish definition, but have sought to refine it to make it more concise.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
Can I make a short intervention to support Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport? I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that you need reformed addicts and the like to be effective in these circumstances. I have some experience working with the Wise Group in Glasgow, where Routes out of Prison takes reformed prisoners—people who have been on the inside—and meets prisoners coming out. There is no doubt that the vital connection between those who have been in that bad place and traded themselves out of it, and the totality of both phases, is very compelling and captivates young people of secondary school age in particular in a way that nothing else can, so education of that kind is essential in my view. However, there are not enough people with sufficient experience to do it. The voluntary sector is very good in some parts of the country but in others it is patchy. Further, if this is a good idea and there are workable ways of delivering it without men in suits being involved, we need a quantum of money to make it work sensibly. It is astonishing that the last Government fessed up to spending only £180,000 in this area. I think that figure applies only to England. I must check with my Scottish contacts to find out whether they spent a tenth of that, or whatever it was. That really is a de minimis amount of money. Indeed, I think that even £7 million is a de minimis amount of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is absolutely right to say that this proposed new clause stands on its own but if the Government are really taking a blanket-ban approach—I agree with my noble friends on the Front Bench that that is not the appropriate way to go—I would be consoled if there was an important, big, well-funded and properly constructed education package that went with this approach, because I think it would have an impact. However, you cannot do it for £180,000 a year. As we all know and expect, the impact assessment talks about effects on business, and all these things are important. However, if we are going to make this a reality and make it work, we need to be thinking over the period of the rest of the Parliament of seriously increasing the resources devoted to the measures proposed in this amendment.
My final point concerns the troubled families programme—it is a horrible name—about which I know a little and which was mentioned in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. It is also another way into this issue because a lot of the trouble in troubled families comes from youngsters who are out of control. These families contain a lot of single mothers in difficult circumstances and low-income households. These people struggle to access help. They will be the first to identify the problem with their teenage children and will be the first to seek help. Therefore, I think the troubled families programme would be another avenue through which to release resources effectively to confront some of these dangerous substances. If we are thinking about introducing a provision something like what is proposed in the new clause in Amendment 13 at later stages of the Bill, we need to think seriously about how to resource it adequately without being stupid about it. I am not daft; there is obviously an austerity constraint on everyone but we should all think about what constitutes a meaningful annual spend before the later stages of the Bill are completed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and I have tabled the second amendment in this group. The first amendment, which we have been discussing, relates to education in secondary schools. Our amendment provides for the Secretary of State to,
“establish a scheme to promote public awareness of new psychoactive substances, including the dangers these substances may pose”,
and to provide an annual report to Parliament. The amendment lists some of the issues that must be included in the report.
The expert panel report included recommendations on education and awareness. What is needed is a targeted public awareness campaign for young people and one specifically for parents, an evaluation of current education programmes, investment more generally in drugs education in schools and new psychoactive substances training for front-line staff. A comprehensive prevention campaign should include Public Health England, which should run a targeted campaign to alert people to the dangers of these drugs and to counter the myth that “legal” means “safe”. That campaign needs also to include the targeting of young people through social media.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is a very experienced parliamentarian, and tempts me to speak about matters of finance, which is a big challenge. I do not want to dodge the question, but will just put it this way: some clear commitments have been made about what we are doing in the Bill and what we want to achieve through it, and we see education as being a key part of that. Therefore, resources will have to be allocated to ensure that those things happen, and that will be reviewed. That is probably about as far as I can go at present on education, but I am sure we will return to it at later stages of the Bill as it goes through your Lordships’ House and following the meeting I referred to. I certainly undertake to communicate the content of this debate to my colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department of Health.
Lord Rosser
In that response, is the Minister ruling out any reference in the Bill to education, training and prevention and a report on what is actually happening in that field in relation to new psychoactive substances? The Minister has accepted—or rather, I am sure it has always been his view—that legislation alone is not enough and that education, training and prevention are vital too. It would seem quite appropriate to have some reference to that in the Bill.
Lord Bates
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, and we will look at this. The Bill is primarily a law enforcement measure, setting out definitions et cetera, although it is part of a wider context that includes education. As to whether we should have references to education or treatment programmes in the Bill, I personally favour things that are very clear and focused about what they want to do. What we hope to achieve through education is a very important part of the context. I undertake to reflect on that between now and Report.
North of England: Transport
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister, whom I welcome to his first major transport debate, has painted a glowing picture of the transformation of the north of England which it is hoped will occur as a result of extensive projected transport improvements for passenger and freight traffic—primarily, but certainly not exclusively, rail services. A large number of points have been raised and questions asked in a series of fascinating and thoughtful contributions based on considerable first-hand knowledge and experience.
The objective according to the Government’s report some three months ago on the northern transport strategy is to create a single economy across the north, or, to use the words in the report:
“Our strategy is about using transport to aid change in future patterns of land use and economic growth, with the goal of creating a single economy in the North”.
No specific, single definition is given in the report of what a single economy across the north actually means. How, therefore, will anyone know exactly what is being sought and how will it be possible to say, at some stage in the future, whether it has or has not been achieved? Does a single economy across the north have the objective that gross value added will be the same across the different city regions in the north? Does it mean that levels of pay will be the same for similar jobs? Does it mean that levels of investment will be similar across each of the city regions? Does it mean that job opportunities will be the same? Does it mean that social inequalities will be narrowed? What exactly does it mean? No doubt the Minister will tell us in his reply and perhaps also say whether the Government think that, from the point of view of those who live there, London and the south-east, with its many different economic hubs—Croydon, Harrow, Brighton, Stratford, Rochester and Chatham, Reading, for example—is currently a single economy in line with the use of the term in the Government’s 2015 report on the northern transport strategy.
I suspect the phrase is, in reality, a bit of jargon for saying that city regions in the north should be looked at together and as one when it comes to major economic investment, planning and infrastructure decisions and that, as a result of doing this, it is hoped that economic growth will be greater than would otherwise be the case. The Government have come to the conclusion that if the northern economy grows in line with official forecasts for the average across the United Kingdom between now and 2030, its GVA, or gross value added, will be £56 billion higher in nominal terms, or £44 billion higher in real terms, than if it grows at its historic average.
What proportion of this potential increase in value would be dependent on improved transport links of the kind proposed is not clear. Indeed, there is not yet a proper economic or cost-benefit analysis of the differing proposed new or improved transport links in the documentation currently available. No doubt the Minister will tell us the Government’s intentions and what the timetable is for providing this information. The documentation also does not identify, for example, what journeys will be made possible that cannot be made today or what the economic impact of this aspect of improved transport infrastructure will be.
The Government’s report talks about significant improvements in both the speed and frequency of rail services between the city regions and city centre to city centre, and improvements in the east-west road network. However, the report, which implies that London and the south-east is the gold standard, does not make it clear whether, in terms of speed and frequency, rail services in London and the south-east and the main road network are regarded as the level to be aimed for between the northern city regions; or whether rail links and the principal road network in London and the south-east are likewise regarded by the Government as a drag on economic growth in that part of the country as well.
Earlier this week, it was reported that less than 50% of Southern services carrying passengers from south London, Sussex, Kent and Surrey arrived on time in the first three months of this year, albeit that the major works at London Bridge would have had a big impact on this figure. The March 2015 report on the northern transport strategy refers to the importance of:
“Better commuting opportunities to the centres of economic activity”.
Are the commuting opportunities in London and the south-east regarded as the goal which the city regions in the north should seek to achieve, or are we talking about providing rail services which will be significantly better in speed and frequency than those in London and the south-east?
The Government’s report is pretty thin—three pages out of 41—when it comes to improving commuter journeys in the city regions in the north, since it seems geared more to transport links between the city regions than to improving transport journeys for commuting, educational and leisure purposes to and from the suburbs and hinterland of each city region. That omission no doubt explains why the report is largely silent about improvements to bus services, both between and within city regions. Even in the three pages entitled “Our Plan for Local Connectivity”, the word “bus” appears just three times. There are no specific new or improved future local transport developments identified in those three pages for any of the city regions in the north.
It is fine to seek to improve transport links between our northern cities, but encouraging the development of new business and attracting it is not just dependent on the speed and frequency of city centre to city centre journeys. It is dependent on how easily people can move around within those city regions, to and from their places of work or education. What are the Government’s intentions for providing new suburban rail and metro services or new tram links and fast busways, for example, within the city regions? Not much has been said about this key issue, so is it the Government’s view that existing transport links within the different northern city regions are as good as they need to be, and that they will be able to meet the presumably increased demand levels if, and when, the improved transport links between the city regions set out in the Government’s March 2015 document have been delivered?
Neither does the report even touch on the levels of financial support for the construction of the improved transport links or for their operation once constructed. It is no good having improved transport links if the fares have to be set at levels which deter people from making the journeys that would achieve the increased mobility between the different city regions in the north, which appears to be a key objective of the strategy. To do this means that expenditure has to relate to providing the infrastructure for projected levels of travel during the peak, which will impact on costs. To what extent do the Government expect improved transport links to be self-financing, as opposed to financially supported? Is it intended that the level of subsidy will be similar to that in London and the south-east, including in particular that for bus services in London?
While there is clearly much merit in improving rail links between the city regions in the north, one hopes that when it comes to any new high-speed routes, the process will be handled with a little more sensitivity than it has with at least some parts of the HS2 route. The Government’s March 2015 report talks about the option for a new high-speed line between Liverpool and Manchester, with a connection to the proposed HS2 network, a new trans-Pennine road tunnel and an,
“option … of creating a new rail alignment between Manchester and Sheffield”.
It also says that:
“All options for moving towards the 30 minute”,
rail journey between Manchester and Leeds are being considered. We are having this debate during a week when very strong representations are being made to the Commons HS2 Select Committee on the adverse impact on the lives of residents in some parts of the London Borough of Hillingdon—close to where I also have a house—of the construction of HS2 and the continuing likely impact once the line is open on its intended route. It will also result in the almost certain end of a major outdoor activity centre, used mainly by young people, that provides opportunities to experience sailing and rowing, since the HS2 route goes right across the middle of it. Whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is in reality lifting a finger to try to save or, more realistically, relocate this important facility, is far from clear.
The reason for making this point—and it is being made by someone who supports HS2—is that, if you do not work hard to address the concerns of those who feel directly threatened by a major new transport project, you will get legal action, lengthy challenges and delays, and negative publicity for the project as a whole. People faced with upheaval on their doorstep from the construction of a major new transport link that will provide no benefit to them—if it is a high-speed rail link, there is to be no nearby station that will enable them even to use the new line when it is completed; alternatively, if it is a new motorway link, there is no nearby junction giving them access to it—are inevitably going to view it all in a negative light. Serious consideration needs to be given to mitigating significantly the adverse impacts. A perceived attitude, whether fair or unfair, of a lack of concern about the impact on those most affected on the part of the body responsible for the planning of the project and public consultation only makes the situation worse. I hope that such points will be borne in mind in considering major new transport projects as part of the northern transport strategy.
At the moment, the Government’s northern transport strategy is not much further advanced than the proverbial back of a cigarette packet. As the report itself says, it is a vision and, at present, nothing more. The solid, researched analysis to support it is not there; nor is it even a vision for a total transport plan for the city regions of the north, since transport within each city region is effectively ignored, even though it is the part of the transport system that is most used. One assumes that the Government will seek to rectify this somewhat glaring omission, since one of the objectives of the new single body, Transport for the North, is stated as being to ensure that national and local bodies can work together. Can the Minister confirm that the reference in the report to the Government making,
“a multi-year commitment of funds to transport in the North”,
includes funds for improving the transport infrastructure and services within each city region as well as between city regions—or is it the Government’s intention that there will be a demarcation line in financing and decision-making between transport links between city regions in the north and transport links and services within those city regions?
Having said that, we welcome the broad intentions and objectives for improving transport in the north, as set out in the strategy or vision. No one can be opposed to improving transport links, which makes economic and social sense and is also intended to improve the quality of life of all parts and sections of the community. Only time will tell the extent to which the intentions and objectives of the northern transport strategy are achieved. It will be determined by the amount of money made available, and public sector-led investment over each of the next five years by this Government will be not much more than half what it was six years ago under the then Government. It will be determined by the levels of co-operation between the different authorities and bodies involved; the thoroughness with which the economic appraisals and cost-benefit analyses are undertaken, to ensure that future investment is made where it will provide the greatest benefit, whether economic, social, or both; the extent to which people in the northern city regions feel that the proposed improved transport links will be of direct benefit to them, their standard of living and their quality of life; and the extent to which they can actually influence the decisions that are made as opposed to decisions being imposed on them.
If the northern transport strategy can play a part in bringing a better balance to the economy of our nation, it will achieve something worth while. But we need to remember that a “vision”, which is not much further advanced than just that, does not constitute a strategy that has yet been fully thought through or that will definitely be delivered, however desirable that vision may be.
Anderson Report
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place. I certainly endorse the comments that he made at the end about the work of those in the intelligence and law enforcement community, who are there to protect us and whose successes, as he said, often go unrecognised.
We welcome the report by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, into the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers. It is a report which the shadow Home Secretary called for when emergency legislation was being debated last summer, since we believe that the current legislative framework is no longer fit for purpose. While technology has moved on, the same cannot be said for either the law or the oversight arrangements. Reforms are needed, and we need to get them right in order to protect both our liberty and our security when addressing the threats we face.
In media broadcasts the independent reviewer has given today, he said that there are two problems with the law in this area as it stands. The first is that no one can understand it since it is spread over 64 Acts of Parliament, which have also proved variable in their application. The second is that there is a need for stronger safeguards and protections. For example, instead of it being the Home Secretary who decides whether you can tap the telephone of a suspected drug dealer or terrorist, it should be for a judge to do so, in order that it can be seen to be done in a proper and independent fashion. It seems that last year the Home Secretary authorised some 2,345 warrants. According to the report of one interview David Anderson has given, the Home Secretary has, in his view, effectively been doing this in her spare time when not running the department. Whether the Home Secretary shares the concerns of the independent reviewer about the workload imposed on her by having to decide whether to authorise all these warrants is no doubt something on which the Minister will be able to enlighten us, but I have a feeling that Mr Anderson thinks that warrants should be authorised by a judge—full stop—rather than having concerns over the workload it involves for either this Home Secretary or indeed any other Home Secretary.
Proportionate surveillance and interception saves lives and averts and disrupts terror attacks and other major crimes. There is no doubt that these powers are needed and we cannot allow the sunset clause on the existing powers to lapse at the end of next year without having new legislation in place. However, strong powers need strong checks and balances, including effective oversight of the way the system works. Public acceptance of the need for such powers will be diminished if there is a belief that they are being abused for purposes that impinge on our privacy, and for which they were neither intended, nor for which authorisation for their use has been given.
We have to ensure that we put arrangements in place to address the concerns that personal privacy can be invaded without justification and proper prior authorisation. We welcome the proposals in the independent reviewer’s report to strengthen oversight that involve a new and stronger independent surveillance and intelligence commission, merging the existing system of commissioner, and of course introducing judicial authorisation of warrants. Do the Government also welcome these proposals?
The independent reviewer has also concluded that there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third-party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out, which he says it has not been to date. Is that recommendation in line with the thinking of the Home Secretary? We welcome the Government’s decision that a draft investigatory powers Bill—presumably based on David Anderson’s report, although perhaps the Minister can confirm that that will be the case—will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I hope that the Government will also provide time for a full debate on the Anderson report in this House so that all Members have the opportunity to contribute. I hope also that the Government will seek to promote this among the public at large as well, to help ensure that there is the widest possible consent and thus legitimacy for the new framework. Will the Government provide for such a debate?
The digital age is a source of freedom and opportunity but, as we have seen, it brings new challenges from new crimes and new threats to our security that are extensive and go well beyond the horrors of terrorism. We have to ensure that those whose responsibility it is to protect us and keep us safe have the necessary powers to do the job in the changing technological environment in which we live today, while ensuring that those powers are used only for the purposes authorised and intended, and not at the expense of the liberty and privacy of the public at large. We welcome the report by David Anderson, which will help us to do this and ensure that in the key areas of security, privacy and countering the many different threats we face, our very different digital age from that we have known in the past actually serves the interests of the public and our democracy rather than proves to be our master.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As he just said, this is one of a suite of reports commissioned by the previous coalition Government into investigatory powers; it is a very important one by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
On first reading, it appears to be a fair and balanced report. While some may have preferred there to be no state intrusion into people’s privacy, we on these Benches understand that there needs to be a balance between the powers given to the police and to the security services, and the right to privacy and the upholding of individuals’ civil liberties. It is for the police and the security services to argue for more powers, for civil libertarians to argue for fewer, and for us as politicians objectively to decide where the balance properly lies.
The Home Secretary, in her Statement, lists a whole range of potential threats, concluding that,
“we have a duty to ensure that the agencies whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers they need to do the job”.
As a consequence of what the right honourable Member said in the other place, I am concerned that the Government are already biased in favour of the state and against the individual. Thankfully, David Anderson is having none of it and neither should we. Along with consideration of the threats that we face as a country, will the Government consider a digital Bill of Rights to give citizens a clear and unambiguous understanding of where their rights lie and what protections they have against state intrusion? Will the Minister also agree with David Anderson that,
“there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case … has been made”,
for it, and agree with him that this case has not been made to date?
The fact is, the draft communications data Bill, to give it its correct title, is hopelessly out of date and can no longer deliver what the police and the security services need while massively intruding into people’s privacy—all pain and no gain. The right honourable member for Sheffield Hallam when he was Deputy Prime Minister took a lot of flak for blocking legislation that required the retention of third-party data. Would the Minister not agree that David Anderson, in his report, agrees with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrat position on what some have called the “snoopers’ charter”, even if he cannot bring himself to say that he agrees with Nick?
David Anderson recognises that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is no longer fit for purpose, and we welcome the Government’s approach that there should be a pre-legislative committee of both Houses to look at its successor. Will the Minister confirm that such a committee will be given access to all relevant information to enable it to make a proper judgment on the Government’s proposals?
Finally, we strongly support David Anderson’s recommendation that intercept warrants should be judicially authorised by specialist judicial commissioners, rather than by government Ministers. Surely it is for the police and the security services to decide whether applying for such a warrant is necessary in the interest of national security and it should be for judges to decide whether such action is lawful. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, pending a change in the legislation, the Government will operate within the spirit of the independent reviewer’s recommendations by ensuring that the Secretary of State consults the existing surveillance commissioners prior to authorising such warrants?