Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Disabled Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 24th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his splendid Bill. I am embarrassed to stand up at this point, I have to say. I had in mind just to add a few comments right at the end of this debate, just to show another voice of support. But I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his superb presentation of the case; it was truly outstanding, with his usual clarity, intellectual rigour and his delightful sense of humour. I think that we will all want to thank him for the pleasure of listening to him.

It seems obvious to me that those of us who are lucky enough to be able to run up a step into a pub or a shop—including the Minister, who I am sure would have no difficulty running up a step into a shop or pub—have a duty to ensure that those people who are unlucky enough to be locked out of so many of these buildings have the right of access. I have to confess that I had assumed, as a rather ignorant person, that when Alf Morris’s Bill went through Parliament, the discrimination against disabled people due to lack of access had basically been dealt with. I was shocked and very surprised to learn that, for 800,000 wheelchair users, it is still a major problem and that they are locked out of 71,000 shops, pubs and restaurants simply because of a little step. It was not something that I had expected. Quite clearly, the requirement under the 2010 Act for businesses to make “reasonable adjustments” to enable access for disabled people is simply too vague and not working. We need to applaud the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for this very simple proposal to deal with such a massive inhibition for so many people.

Cleverly, the noble Lord includes two clauses, the second of which on first sight appears to cover the first. I had to reread them because I thought, “Hang on, why these two clauses?”. He of course distinguishes between a reform covering steps up to six inches and that covering steps up to 12 inches. He makes very clear the really quite significant difference in cost between these two levels. As he said, one could talk about different levels of step, but these two are quite interesting because the six-inch step can be sorted out with a spend of a mere £100. Thinking of smaller businesses, it seems to me that they really would not have a problem with that, so the big question is: why not?

The briefing makes it clear that if you are talking about 12-inch steps, that is much more significant, which I for one certainly would not have thought about. It would cost something like £3,000 or £5,000, and I can think of small businesses that would really struggle to cover that cost, certainly in one year. There is no question that we need greater access for wheelchair users, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would consider it an appalling diminution of his Bill to limit it to the six-inch step, with its smaller demand.

I was particularly struck by the noble Lord’s personal research—it was rather delightful, I thought—looking at Victoria Street, Horseferry Road and Strutton Ground, and his finding that, in these streets, 87% of steps would be covered by the six-inch rule. He went on to say that all the evidence suggests that that 87% figure probably applies throughout the country. I find that reassuring. Maybe it would be worth implementing that provision to eliminate 87% of the problem. Surely no Government could refuse to do that. Why would they when the cost to a business would be £100? The bigger spend might be an issue, but that would not be the case here. Therefore, there are two possible approaches: one is to exempt small businesses below a certain level of turnover; another is simply to eliminate the provision on the 12-inch step and limit the Bill to the six-inch provision.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be in a position to support the Bill—at least the 87% of it. I hope, as I am sure everybody in this Chamber does, that the whole Bill will be passed, but I implore the Minister to do all she can with her colleagues to support it.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has formed the basis for the order.

The order relates to methiopropamine, commonly known as MPA. The effect of the order is to permanently control MPA as a class B drug under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This will make it an offence to possess, produce, import, export, supply or offer to supply this drug without a Home Office licence.

MPA is a stimulant psychoactive substance similar in structure to methamphetamine. It has similar effects to other stimulants such as MDMA, amphetamine and cocaine. These effects include stimulation, alertness and an increase of energy and focus. Side-effects reported include abnormally fast heart rates, anxiety, panic attacks, perspiration, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating and sexual dysfunction.

The National Programme of Substance Abuse Deaths reported 46 cases where MPA was found in post-mortem toxicology between 2012 and April 2017. In 33 of these, MPA was implicated in the cause of death. In November 2015, the ACMD recommended that MPA be subject to a temporary class drug order. This followed reports that MPA had emerged as a replacement drug for the methylphenidate-based compounds which were subjected to a temporary class drug order at the time. The increasing number in use and the number of associated deaths and harms, together with the potential intravenous use, led to urgent advice from the ACMD to control MPA by way of a temporary class drug order.

In September 2016 the desired effect of the temporary class drug order appeared to have been successful, as the prevalence and problematic use had declined. However, the ACMD recommended that MPA be subject to another temporary class drug order to allow sufficient time to gather further evidence to recommend full control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

On 16 June this year, the ACMD reported that MPA is a drug which is being, or is likely to be, misused and that misuse is having, or is capable of having, harmful effects. As such, the ACMD recommended that MPA be permanently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class B drug. The ACMD also found no evidence that MPA has any recognised medicinal use beyond potential research.

This order, if approved, will provide enforcement agencies the requisite powers to restrict the supply and use of MPA in this country. It will also provide a clear message to the public that the Government consider these substances to be a danger to society. We expect that the permanent control of MPA will continue to offer the notable impact it has provided following its temporary control under a TCDO. It is for these reasons that my honourable friend the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability accepted the ACMD’s advice that MPA should be subject to the order.

It is intended to make two further related statutory instruments to come into force at the same time as the order, to add these substances to the appropriate schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister—I had not anticipated this debate starting quite so early. I well understand the need to control the supply of methiopropamine, or MPA, and I applaud the Government for seeking the professional opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs and for following its recommendations. As we know, Governments have not always consulted the ACMD, nor have they always followed its recommendations, so that is to be commended. It is unfortunate that the ACMD and the Government have decided that the most appropriate instrument for the control of this drug is the outdated Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, rather than the Psychoactive Substances Act. The main consequence of this decision is that the users of MPA will be subject to a criminal record and criminal penalty if found in possession of this drug. Users are likely to be people with severe health problems and in need of help and support.

The Minister will be aware that I and about 100 other MPs and Peers who are members of the APPG for Drug Policy Reform would be grateful for an indication from her, if at all possible, of when the Government will invite the ACMD or another independent body to review the operation of the 1971 Act and, indeed, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and analyse the consequences of these Acts on: the level of addiction to the many banned substances; the substitution of new and perhaps even more dangerous substances for a banned substance immediately following a ban; and the level of use of alcohol and tobacco in response to the bans on these alternative drugs. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the House whether the Government have any plans to evaluate the efficacy of the 1971 and 2016 drugs laws, particularly in the light of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime proposition at the UNGASS in 2016 that evidence-based public health policies are here to stay.

Does the Minister agree that neither of our drugs laws—neither the 1971 Act nor the 2016 Act—were in any way based on evidence that those legislative propositions would actually achieve the objectives that any Government want? For example, we know that the experience in Ireland of an almost identical law to our Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 was an increase in psychoactive substance misuse and drug deaths—anything but the result that the Government would hope, and that we would all hope, would be achieved by a new drugs law.

The Government refer to monitoring the control measures through the regulatory framework at paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether any analysis of the impact of the ban on this drug, and of the bans on other drugs, will be undertaken. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Patten (Con)]

In strongly supporting this statutory instrument I have three points. First, the Government have acted with commendable speed to implement the recommendations on MPA given by the advisory committee about four months ago, as the Minister said. However, I seek confirmation that they will always be as swift as possible in the implementation of such future recommendations of these experts. That is provided, of course, that they agree with them—the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has pointed out that from time to time they have not necessarily agreed with the experts in their recommendations.

I like, respect and need the views of experts, particularly those of my doctor and my dentist. I value expert advice all the way down the line, but in the end, even they may not always be right, whatever “right” turns out to be. In the end, yet again, Ministers have to decide. It is sometimes difficult for Ministers to turn down expert recommendations, but they have to make their decisions not as experts but in the public interest as members of the Government. I support them also in making those difficult decisions.

Secondly, we have many other experts around to help us, such as those in the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. That committee gave its views on this very matter last November. It advised, just like the advisory committee, that there is no known medical, research or therapeutic use for MPA; it is just used to abuse and there is no get-out in saying that it can be medically helpful in any way. It has all the side-effects that the Minister pointed out, as well as one that I think she missed—talkativeness, something that some would claim sometimes affects Members at both ends of the Palace of Westminster. I would not suggest, of course, that this is due to substance abuse; it is just due to genetic problems or lack of self-control.

Of course, the World Health Organization has its own problem with experts. Having given expert and excellent advice on this issue, its experts then concluded that the elected dictator President Mugabe should be hallowed for a while as its goodwill ambassador, rapidly backtracking when it spotted that on that occasion they had made a major mistake.

Thirdly, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who knows much more about this stuff than I ever will, pointed out that you sometimes get substitution. I worry that there are harder substitutes coming in, particularly the ever-stronger strains of cannabis such as Nova OG, produced by cultivation companies in the United States, and described by one marketing organisation in the United States—hard to resist—as,

“extremely potent, top-shelf, designer bud”.

“Queue up and have this” if you cannot get the other stuff that we are trying to make impossible to get. I apologise, because I am a latecomer to this subject and to this debate, that I did not give the Minister earlier notice, but will she be ready and prepared to ask for the advice of the advisory committee on these much stronger strains of cannabis and to act just as quickly if it is thought to be a danger in the United Kingdom? Of course, a letter in the Library of the House would be a very adequate response to that point.

Cannabis

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to invite the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the evidence supporting the rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule 2 or 4.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, chronically sick patients with constant severe pain and other symptoms have suffered for far too long, reliant on prescribed medications that are sometimes ineffective and with intolerable side-effects for many people.

I remind noble Lords, if they will forgive me, of the case of Faye, whose experience was so brilliantly articulated in the Daily Mail on 2 May. At the age of 27, Faye was diagnosed with crippling rheumatoid arthritis. She describes the side-effects of conventional drugs as,

“more disruptive to daily life than the disease itself”,

which is saying something with rheumatoid arthritis. Faye recognised that prescribed drugs are fine for some people, but not for her. Having never used an illegal drug, and rather fearful, she found cannabis, and very slowly came off her prescribed medications. What was the result? She stopped feeling sick all the time—imagine a life of feeling sick all of the time. Now, two and a half years later, taking only cannabis, Faye says that her quality of life is now 98% of what it was before the diagnosis. She works full-time. Not only is this absolutely wonderful for Faye but it is saving the NHS thousands of pounds a year in medications, consultant appointments, GP appointments and so forth.

Under our drug schedules, as all noble Lords in this Room know, cannabis is listed as a dangerous drug with no medicinal value. In reality, of course, cannabis is safer than many prescribed medications and there is growing evidence of its medicinal value for a remarkable list of conditions. Our schedule is simply wrong and should not remain as it is. We need to inject some urgency into the situation. It is unnecessary and in my view cruel for these patients to suffer another two, three or even more years of agonising, sleepless nights and pain-stricken days or risk arrest to get hold of cannabis, which they tell us is the only effective medication with minimal or no side-effects.

For the first time, the UN is on our side and on the side of our Government should they wish to undertake some reform. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime—the UNODC—at the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drug Policy in April last year, made it clear that evidence-based public health policy is here to stay, and that treatment without stigma should be the driver of drug policy. This was a most important statement from the UN body at the centre of international drug policy. After 60 years of drug policy dominated by the notion of a “war on drugs” and the ludicrous aim of creating a drug-free world, the UN is at last asking member states to consider a pragmatic, realistic approach. From now on, countries need clear objectives—how remarkable: let us have some objectives—such as reducing addiction and harm in the consumer countries, and reducing violence and corruption in the producer and transit countries.

If the world is to follow the UNODC lead, countries need to evaluate policies and introduce those for which there is an evidence base. This brings us directly back to medicinal cannabis. We have sufficient evidence worldwide to know that cannabis has very significant medical properties. As I have said, we can no longer justify its Schedule 1 status. At its last meeting, the World Health Organization’s expert group agreed that the widespread acceptance of medicinal cannabis means that the WHO’s insistence on its having no medicinal value appears incongruent, particularly as it relies on 80 year-old data. I believe that is actually progress.

Our own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, determined last October that products containing cannabidiol—CBD, a derivative of cannabis—are indeed medicines and can be prescribed. How can we say under Schedule 1 that cannabis has no medicinal value when, according to our regulatory body, a part of it does? We cannot. We are fortunate to have Ministers in the Home Office who understand the evidence. A blog by the Home Office Minister Sarah Newton in April stated that the Government’s view is that cannabis should be subject to “the same regulatory framework” as other potential medicines, subject to approval from the MHRA.

The big question—this is very important—is whether the MHRA can accept a special status for cannabis, an inexpensive weed with such valuable medical properties. If cannabis is put through five or 10 years of double-blind random controlled trials, it will finish up so expensive that it will be ruled out from the NHS by NICE. Sativex is a good example. My fear is that Epidiolex, for children with specific strains of severe epilepsy, may also be priced out of the NHS market in another three years’ time when the lengthy trials finally come to an end. It is impossible to overestimate the urgency of treatment for these epileptic children, who suffer severe brain damage with hundreds of seizures every single day. Their brains are being destroyed and that damage will not be reversed.

Another tragedy that we really need to think about in relation to Epidiolex is, I understand, that GW Pharmaceuticals, which has spent £20 million on these trials, now realises that another cannabinoid would be more effective for these children with severe epilepsy than the cannabinoid upon which those £20 million-worth of trials were based. It cannot repeat them all, so a suboptimal medicine will be put to the MHRA for approval. There is something terribly wrong here and I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me to talk about the need to consider a safe—it must be safe—but less costly process of trials for cannabis medicines than is required at present.

Columbia Care, a well-respected company providing reliable, dosable cannabis, may provide an answer. Its products are superior to those accepted in the Netherlands and Germany and may provide a model of trials acceptable to the MHRA. There are other reputable companies providing good-quality cannabis products to Israel and elsewhere. Already 28 US states, 11 European countries and the whole of Latin America recognise that cannabis is a medicine. More states and countries join that list every year. The illegal status of cannabis has undoubtedly discouraged research into its medicinal properties. Oxford University, however, will be funded to the tune of £10 million by Kingsley Capital Partners to investigate our own endocannabinoid system. It is our own system that explains the extraordinary powers of cannabis. I will not go into this but in the meantime Professor Mike Barnes’s report, commissioned by our APPG for Drug Policy Reform, has reviewed all the international data and showed beyond doubt that cannabis is indeed an effective medicine for a number of conditions.

In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to request the ACMD, under the leadership of its excellent chair, Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, to review the evidence for the Schedule 1 status of cannabis and to make recommendations as soon as possible. The UK will then be prepared to respond quickly to the WHO review. I hope that the ACMD will consider the regulations we would need to support a revision of the cannabis schedule. Obviously, a good set of regulations would be extremely important. Again, I hope the Minister will respond to the urgency of the need for reform for these patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I noted the noble Lord’s mention of Bedrocan. I had not heard of it and I am very willing to look into that specific drug. There are of course many drugs available in other parts of the world that are not necessarily available here and vice versa. I will write to him on that point. I will also take up the point about Alfie separately.

[Baroness Meacher]

May I thank everybody who has spoken so effectively in this debate? So many powerful points were made and we have managed to avoid duplication, amazingly. It just shows how many points one needs to make in relation to this—

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, there is no right of reply in this debate.

Psychoactive Substances Act 2016

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord about the Psychoactive Substances Act not working because we have managed to close down more than 300 retailers across the UK which sold psychoactive substances. In 2016, there were 28 convictions in England and Wales and seven people were jailed under the new powers. Additionally, coming from Manchester, I would have to disagree with him, having seen some of the sights that I have on the streets of Manchester recently.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the UN changed the basis of global drug policy in April last year at its special session. We now know that banning drugs will never create a drug-free world. The UN therefore wants nations to pursue evidence-based policies, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned, and public health policies to reduce addiction and the harms to our young people. The Psychoactive Substances Act runs counter to the evidence. It does nothing to reduce addiction; it increases the risks to young people. Yes, the head shops were closed but they were the last vestige of any kind of protection for young people, pretty inadequate though that was. I therefore reiterate the point: will the Minister give an assurance to this House that she will give the most serious consideration to instigating an independent review of all our drug policies? What are we doing? We are simply making matters worse. Will she come forward with evidence-based policies?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not disagree, and on previous occasions I have not disagreed, that evidence-based policies are absolutely the right way forward. In fact, WHO is undertaking some work of its own and it will report next year on the various elements of cannabis. We await with interest the results of that work.