Psychoactive Substances

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Norman Baker

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The Government and law enforcement agencies have investigative resources, so we monitor these things very closely, which I hope is what the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

One of the real problems with so-called legal highs is that they are available in shops on our high streets, so young people believe that they will not do them any harm. What action will the Government’s decision enable us to take to crack down on their sale on the high street?

[Norman Baker]

Law enforcement agencies take action against the sale of illegal substances. As I have said, some 19% of so-called legal highs contain controlled substances. Other steps are being taken through other legislation to deal with these matters and I assure my hon. Friend and others that the Government is looking actively at what other steps we can take to deal with this increasing problem.

Let me make some progress. On our reading of article 4 of the proposed regulation, member states would only be able to adopt their own measures—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—in relation to substances that are not the subject of EU restrictions. Where the EU has acted, member states would not be free to impose their own standards. Given that the new regulation provides for a tiered scheme of restrictions, it is entirely possible that the EU may decide that a measure merits a moderate restriction, whereas our own scientific evidence and domestic concerns suggest that it should require a severe restriction, with the ensuing categorisation under domestic drug control legislation. The reverse, of course, equally applies. This scenario further demonstrates our belief that the proposals as they stand are incompatible with subsidiarity, as member states must have the flexibility to impose the appropriate level of controls as circumstances within their borders merit.

Given the experience since 2005, it is difficult to see how enhancing the EU’s prerogative in controlling these substances would meet the second condition of subsidiarity, namely that objectives can be better achieved at EU rather than member state level. Under the current risk assessment and control framework, only 13 risk assessments on such substances have been carried out by the EU since 2005, with nine substances subsequently coming under EU-wide control. Of these, the UK had already controlled eight, and we have since controlled the ninth as well. The control of just nine substances in eight years is woefully insufficient to keep pace with the fast-moving marketplace. Although the current proposals would involve an accelerated risk assessment and control process, that would still be a reactive model in which it would take time for sufficient evidence of harms to emerge to trigger a risk assessment.

Furthermore, the vast majority of these substances seen in Europe in recent years have already been classed as illegal drugs in the UK. With many other member states also being well ahead of the EU-level response to this threat, we simply do not accept that the Commission’s proposals would add any material value at all to the domestic approaches already being taken.

We also believe both the regulation and the directive to be Schengen-building measures, a view which is not to date accepted by the Commission. Although we will be arguing that these proposals build on areas of the Schengen agreement in which the UK participates—and thus is able to opt out of—that does not necessarily mean we would exercise that power. The proposals as they currently stand, and as they develop through negotiation, will be judged on their merits, with the primary considerations being the subsidiarity and proportionality of the measures.

Having said all that, I readily acknowledge that we have benefited greatly from the EU-level monitoring and identification systems put in place for these substances, and support strongly a role for the EU in facilitating the sharing of information and best practice in responding to developments. Indeed, I suggest that an enhanced role for information exchange is where the true value of EU action lies. However, we do not believe that the current proposals for common standards in relation to controls on new psychoactive substances are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, as sanctions in this area are best determined by member states responding flexibly to national circumstances. It is for that reason that I commend this motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Norman Baker

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

10. What consultation he has had with coach operators on the effects of the withdrawal of the coach concessionary travel scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The decision to end Government funding for the half-price coach concession was announced as part of the 2010 spending review. The Government have corresponded with affected operators on the proposed change and my officials have held discussions with National Express—one of the operators affected by the phasing out of the concession. An impact assessment relating to the ending of the coach concession has been submitted to the Reducing Regulation Committee. The final assessment will be published on the Department’s website and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

[Norman Baker]

Of course we assessed the proposal as part of the spending review, and I mentioned the Reducing Regulation Committee assessment a moment ago. May I suggest that the position is not quite as apocalyptic as the hon. Gentleman makes out? A year ago, after the 2010 spending review announcement, National Express said:

“We are already planning for the removal of the coach concessionary fares scheme in October 2011 and will announce new products aimed at the over 60s and disabled travellers in due course. We believe the financial impact of the scheme’s removal is manageable and will be mitigated by our own plans”.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Many elderly and disabled people in my constituency have become reliant on coach travel because of its ease of use and cost-effectiveness. If this decision results in the withdrawal of some routes, what choice does he think those vulnerable groups in my constituency will be left with, given that train travel is acknowledged to be very expensive?

[Norman Baker]

First, we have retained the bus concession in its entirety when many thought that was vulnerable in the current financial circumstances—that has not been chopped in any way. Secondly, the senior citizen railcard continues to exist, and it enables those people to receive a significant discount on rail travel. Thirdly, as I have said, National Express, which is by far and away the largest coach provider, is intending to put its own scheme in place, and I am sure it will do that. I say that, first, because it makes commercial sense for National Express to do so and, secondly, because the profits on its coach division increased by 14% in the last six months.