Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I was Minister for Overseas Development, before moving on to the Foreign Office. I have served both professionally and voluntarily in the development sphere in various non-governmental organisations, including as director of VSO and subsequently Oxfam. To all of us involved in that work, the importance of the Bill, which I very much endorse, and of the amendment that has just been spoken to, cannot be overemphasised. Indeed, I noticed the other day that the Prime Minister, in saying in the Conservatives’ election campaign that they will stand by their commitment on overseas aid, emphasised that what was important was to make sure that the aid was being spent in the most effective way and not wasted.

It is terribly important to recognise that the people of too many developing countries are being robbed by their leaders, and that existing arrangements enable those leaders to get away with it. If we are going to talk about the effective use of aid, it seems to me that where we have the authority to take highly relevant and effective steps, we should do so. Yes, of course, we must put on record that Britain has taken great steps to provide world leadership in this sphere. It is leading the world already. That is why the remaining gaps are very ugly anomalies. I do not like to put it in these crude terms but it always seems to me that people either have some reason for not implementing immediately what is proposed or they do not, and if they do not, let us do it. If they are going to find ways of delaying—having still to work out arrangements and so on—this must raise suspicions that arrangements are going to be made in other respects as well.

From that standpoint, I say simply that, with all my experience in this sphere, this is a crucial matter. I congratulate the noble Baroness and her co-signatories on having stood by their guns. I hope the amendment will be taken seriously because I believe there could be a very important consensus in this House if we are prepared to put ourselves on record.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I wanted to intervene earlier in this debate following the speech of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope because I, too, wish to refer to Mr Cameron and the G8 summit.

First, I shall say that Amendment 8 is unnecessary but harmless, so I shall support it—but Amendment 14 is wrong and misguided for a number of reasons. First, we have no right, neither legal nor moral, to seek to impose our rules on law-abiding, self-governing British Overseas Territories. When I hear some of the NGOs outside this House talking about our overseas territories, I am appalled at their old-style colonial arrogance. One notorious campaigner against so-called tax havens has even suggested in his book that they should be closed down and the natives made to depend on overseas aid once again—and he calls himself moral. He is also one of the architects behind these proposals. I believe that we have no moral right because the United Kingdom creates more dodgy shell companies than some of the tightly regulated overseas territories and Crown dependencies. We need to come up to their standard, not the other way round.

Secondly, we should not impose these public register rules because the rules themselves are rubbish, as I shall attempt to explain. Not a single other country in the OECD is implementing this—and they have made clear that they never will. This public register wheeze was invented by my right honourable friend Mr Cameron in 2013. No other country will touch it with a barge-pole and the only reason that he was so keen then to foist this system on the overseas territories was so that he could point to others being in the same boat as himself and would not look isolated.

I was involved in the background at that time and had a meeting with prominent NGOs prior to the G8 in 2013. I asked them why they were not campaigning against the real tax havens of this world—Luxembourg, Delaware, Mauritius et cetera—but targeting the good guys such as our overseas territories. They responded that they had no chance of influencing policy in those tax havens, but that Mr Cameron was so desperate for a win at the G8 that he and the overseas territories were an easy, soft target.

I should make it clear for the record that at that point I was the director of the Cayman Islands office in London but that I have no connection whatever, either financial or otherwise, with the Cayman Islands Government now. However, I still deeply admire the way the territory is run and the exceptional level of integrity that it brings to financial services, which is greater than in the United Kingdom. I shall attempt to justify that.

Why do I say that our UK policy is farcical? Because it says that the way to get at dodgy persons setting up dodgy shell companies is to have a public register so that nosey parker NGOs can trawl through them and out those people. No—what you must do is stop them setting up dodgy shell companies in the first place. Jersey and Cayman are the top jurisdictions in the world, with by far the tightest regulations and checks on people setting up dodgy shell companies.

A few years ago an Australian professor at Griffith University, Professor Jason Sharman, did a huge experiment with his team on setting up shell companies. They created dozens of email and other addresses at different places around the world, from Islamabad, Nigeria and Moscow to London, New York and elsewhere. Many of the locations were highly reputable; others were places where you should hang on to your wallet if you get an e-mail saying you have £10 million to invest within them. The researchers sent messages to hundreds of corporate service providers around the world, which varied in credibility from, “We wish to establish an export base in your country for our long-established company” to messages from addresses in Pakistan saying, “We have a few million dollars and want to set up some companies in complete secrecy and want some fake bank accounts”. What was astonishing, according to Professor Jason Sharman’s research, is that while the majority of CSPs did not respond to the latter, highly suspicious messages—or told them to get lost—a very large number responded and were willing to help.

Professor Sharman’s team invented a rating system for the responses—and guess who came out top as the most difficult, indeed impossible, places in which to set up fake shell companies without supplying beneficial ownership information? Yes, it was little old Cayman and Jersey. I have Professor Sharman’s chart here, with them achieving 100%. Who was at the bottom of the heap, where you could almost walk in with a suitcase full of terrorist cash and set up a company with no questions asked? It was not Panama but individual states in the United States such as Delaware, Montana and Wyoming. They are way down at the bottom of the chart.

There are 2 million new companies created in the United States every single year. If you want to set up a dodgy shell company, you go to the United States—or rather, you go on to email and do it in under half an hour for less than $300. These states have said quite bluntly that they do not care what the President signs up to at federal level or at the OECD; they are in charge of company registrations in their state and will never in a million years go for public or central registers. They will not go for any more scrutiny before setting up companies.

Where does the United Kingdom come into this? Unfortunately, your Lordships can guess who was 13th from the bottom of the heap—below Vietnam, Panama and Ukraine. Yes, the United Kingdom was 13th from the bottom on creating dodgy shell companies, because we do it with insufficient verification of the beneficial owners. So clobbering Cayman, Bermuda and the BVI with rules which only they, not the other 19 countries of the OECD, would follow is misguided and foolish. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson that we do not make the world a better or a more transparent place by hitting the good guys, encouraging the bad and letting all the Mugabes of this world go to the real tax havens to set up accounts.

Neither does the OECD ask for these public registers. The OECD merely wants all legitimate authorities to get speedy access to the relevant information so that the police, security services and financial regulators can check the legality of owners and their transactions. That is the point of access to beneficial information. I know that the Cayman Islands has been providing that information without any objection whatever for the last 10 years and has now implemented a system to give that information to legitimate authorities within 24 hours, seven days a week. That is a far better system than publishing registers.

It is perfectly legitimate for many individuals to create companies and seek to keep the ownership information private. There is no right for the public, nor for anti-capitalist NGOs, to know who owns private companies. But there is a need for legitimate law enforcement authorities to get speedy access to that information—and the overseas territories are in the forefront of providing it. What is more, I know that the information provided by the Cayman Islands, for example, will be verified by the authorities—as opposed to what will be supplied by Companies House, which does not verify the accuracy of anything. It is left to individuals to say to Companies House, “I promise that I’m telling the truth and I am who I say I am”. The overseas territories do not accept that.

So I ask this: will my noble friend the Minister give me an assurance that, in due course, the UK Government will make an attempt to get our beneficial ownership information in Companies House as up to scratch and as good as that in the best of the OTs? Our overseas territories should be lauded, not criticised, for their work on financial services. For these reasons, I oppose Amendment 14 and believe it should be rejected.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

In many ways, we are starting from similar positions. The noble Lord believes that the people who are accountable to the public for the decision, if it goes right or wrong, should be the ones who sign the paper. However, it was very clear through the process of the reviews, which we have listened to, and the other work that previous committees have done in looking at this matter that the level of public confidence would be strengthened if there was a judicial element to it. If there were an imminent threat, the Home Secretary would retain the right to be able to issue the warrant herself, but it would be subject to a judicial review within five days. That ability is there and the two-pronged approach is probably about the right level, considering where the public mood is at this time.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his kind remarks about the Joint Committee I was privileged to chair four years ago. I think we were the first to point out that RIPA was not longer fit for purpose. It is clear from the Home Secretary’s Statement, from glancing at the section headings in the Bill and from looking at the adoption of the Anderson report and the other independent reports, that this Bill is a far cry from the original Bill that we scrutinised. To me, the crucial thing is that any extraordinary powers we grant to the security services and the police are not wrapped up and hidden in some obscure clause so that we are not quite sure what we are voting for, but are set out clearly so that Members in both Houses have a chance to vote for or against them as the case may be. That transparency should reassure the public that we are giving the security services and the police the appropriate powers, approved by Parliament.

Will the Minister consider a couple of additions I have spotted at the moment? I think we need a technical advisory committee that will look rapidly for new technological or internet gizmos or whatsits and be able to recommend to the commissioners that the Bill needs to be amended. Then we need something, such as the super-affirmative procedure, to amend the Act rapidly. Otherwise we will be in the same position as with RIPA, which gets older and older and is not updated all the time. We need those changes, I suggest.

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is right, but that might not be necessary. I appreciate that the Bill has only just been published and is 300 pages long, but it has been worded as far as possible to allow for future proofing of the legislation. My noble friend Lady Shields plays an important role as a Minister looking at this area with her immense technical knowledge. I personally have benefitted from that knowledge in preparing for the Statement. A final point is that we have a plethora of different powers spread across different bits of legislation and a key driver of the Bill is that it is a great opportunity to bring them into one place so that they can be subject to that kind of scrutiny. I think that that is another element that we will strengthen along the lines of what my noble friend proposed.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in relation to prisoners. In Committee, I was not convinced but what I have learned subsequently has made me very much a supporter of these amendments. Earlier today, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, talk about the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and how it highlights the problems caused by new psychoactive substances in prisons. This morning on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme, a prison governors’ representative put new psychoactive substances at the top of the list in terms of what was causing more deaths and violence in prisons. He put it above overcrowding and lack of staffing.

A friend who is a doctor told me that he has to commit people to mental hospitals because of psychosis caused by new psychoactive substances. When one thinks of the increased dangers for people who have psychotic episodes as a result of taking these substances in a confined space such as a prison, the potential consequences clearly make this a serious issue.

The clincher for me is that prisoners are using these substances because they are not detectable in the routine drug testing of prisoners. A deterrent for prisoners who might want to use controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act is that they would show up under those tests. The fact that prisoners are being pushed into using new psychoactive substances because they do not show up in these tests requires an additional sanction against those who supply these substances in prisons. That is why I very much support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

I turn to the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. The Minister talked about an anomaly when we discussed an earlier group. The anomaly is that selling these substances in the vicinity of schools is covered but that selling in the vicinity of other premises where there are vulnerable young people is not. Supplying these substances to people under the age of 18 again should be an aggravating factor.

I think that in Committee there was a discussion about this amendment not being reflected in the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is why there now is a further amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act in a similar way. I would welcome hearing the Minister’s response as to why it is not an anomaly that schools are covered but other types of premises are not.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I have not been able to be here for the whole debate. I had meetings earlier and I have others tonight. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the amount of information he has supplied. Indeed, I have not had enough hours in the day to read all the PDF attachments in my email inbox. I am sympathetic to one of the amendments; namely, that relating to children’s homes or places which hold vulnerable children, or whatever is the current correct terminology. Clause 6 creates an aggravated offence for selling drugs outside a school. It seems to me an anomaly if we do not include places which hold even more vulnerable children than those in schools.

I think that in Committee my noble friend said that one of the difficulties would be that everyone can see where a school is—there are big signs and lots of children—but that drug dealers might not know when they are selling drugs in the vicinity of a children’s home. I do not think that that will wash. The bad guys selling drugs know every potential outlet better than anyone else. They will know when there is a children’s home and a potential outlet nearby, and they will target it. I would like to hear from my noble friend the practical difficulties about including children’s homes or places which hold vulnerable children. It seems to me that they are even more important than ordinary schools.

For a few reasons, I am not so sympathetic on the point about prisoners. Drugs are a problem in prison but they should not be. There is no excuse for drugs being in prisons but certain excuses are used. We have, in my view, the ridiculous situation of completely free association. Wives and girlfriends can freely mingle with the prisoners, most of whom are male. They can hug, kiss and cuddle, and they have every opportunity to pass on drugs. I have never understood why we do not have a system where there is a glass screen between the visiting friends and relatives, and the prisoners, so that drugs cannot be so easily passed on.

In 1993, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne went to the Home Office. He decided to crack down on drugs and introduced springer spaniel sniffer dogs to some prisons. Two things were immediately noticeable. First, as soon as the relatives saw the dogs, they had to return to their cars to deposit the goodies that they were about to take into the prison. Secondly, there was resistance from a large number of prison officers and governors about the policy. I apologise to that very trendy trade union, the Prison Officers Association, if I misquote it. However, I was told at the time by prison officers that, if you are looking after 700 men in prison, you have to reduce the tension level. The way to reduce the tension level then was to let them have illegal access to drink, drugs and pornography. That reduced the tension levels, they said. Therefore, I do not have much sympathy for prison governors who say that there is a problem with drugs in prisons and the Government should do something about it. They have it in their own hands to tightly control drugs in prisons. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is right that it is impossible to test for some of these psychoactive substances, we need to make sure that visiting relatives are not able to pass them on. I would be amazed if little sniffer dogs were unable to detect them. It may be difficult to do so with a blood test, but we now read in the press about sniffer dogs which can detect almost anything. Some dogs can detect whether you are about to have an epileptic fit and it should be possible to have a tighter control regime.

Finally, why stop at prisons? I consider nightclubs to be an even bigger problem. If we are to have an aggravated offence of selling drugs outside schools, what about an aggravated offence of selling them in nightclubs, or near nightclubs where young people hang out? Again, that is a large captive audience. Perhaps we should have an aggravated offence for people in positions of responsibility who commit this offence. A tiny minority of military officers or police officers may be tempted to commit this offence, but perhaps it could be an aggravated offence. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few areas where I would like to see an aggravated offence introduced, but it may be best to restrict it to schools, with the possible addition of children’s homes.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, whatever I may think about the general principle of the legislation, if we are to have it, I am sure it is right that there should be aggravated offences where the interests and protection of children are concerned. I support the extension of that principle to prisoners. I applaud my noble friends for tabling their amendments and other noble Lords for their amendments, and for supporting the various amendments in this group.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is set fair to close down the whole country, as far as I can see, that I understand that one of the difficulties that prison governors now face is that it has become a not uncommon practice for family members to send letters to prisoners on paper which they have previously soaked in a psychoactive substance. When the prisoner receives the letter, the thing to do is to smoke it. Therefore, this is not as straightforward an issue, as the noble Lord, of course, with his experience, very well knows. However, these are good amendments and should be supported.

Investigatory Powers

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the last time that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I discussed this matter we were in complete agreement, which was rather frightening to us both. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness had to say and today I am only about 25% in agreement with her, which she will probably be relieved about as well.

I give a warm welcome to the Anderson report for two reasons. First, I believe that he has the recipe here for agreement by all sides. He has rejected adding more ingredients to the old RIPA stew and come up with a new recipe which can be palatable to those in the security services and police who want more powers; to the Home Office, which wants to grant those powers; to the groups who are concerned about the invasion of privacy; and to we parliamentarians who want the powers—whatever they may be—to be clearly spelt out and granted by Parliament. The Anderson report does that.

The second reason why I like the report is that it entirely supports the report and conclusions of the Joint Committee on the original snoopers’ charter Bill, which I was privileged to chair. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his typically overgenerous remarks about me as its chairman. I was just the chairman; the real work and thinking behind it were done by the excellent members of the committee from both Houses—from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, along with that venerable Cross-Bencher, the wonderful noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who was not economical with the truth in giving us advice.

I have always felt that some of my noble friends thought that I was a bit offside in not backing the draft Bill and that my behaviour, as a former Conservative Home Office Minister, had let down the forces of law and order. However, my committee rubbished the draft Bill for one reason only: it was rubbish. I am glad that its flawed clauses were not added to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in the last Session by my noble friend Lord King, as it tried to add unacceptably wide catch-all clauses to an out-of-date RIPA. To be fair, the Home Office civil servants, whom I rate immensely, quickly caught on that the draft Bill was wrong and worked quickly to redraft it, so I am afraid I disagree with my noble friend Lord Strasburger—I think there was a sea change in attitude in the Home Office.

However, that draft did not find political favour in the coalition and did not make progress. Instead, we had the Anderson study. I have gone through the report, A Question of Trust, carefully and cannot find a single instance where he has disagreed with the findings of our Joint Select Committee. Indeed, his recommendations exactly match ours. I am not being arrogant and claiming he was guided by us—of course not—but he examined all the issues in detail, as we did, and came to the same conclusions. Of course, we did not deal with interception warnings as those were not in our remit, but I suspect that, if they had been, we might have come to the same conclusions.

What are the key points? Anderson rightly sets out the principles in chapter 13. Difficult though it will be, they will have to be translated into legislation as part of the Bill. It is difficult for UK Acts of Parliament to do this, as opposed to EU law or United Nations conventions, which can prefix the regulations with a million “Whereases”—“Whereas this”, “Whereas that” and “Whereas the other”. But if we want public and parliamentary acceptability, we have to balance the granting of exceptional powers with enshrined rights to privacy in a transparent system.

I warmly welcome recommendations 1 to 12, which call for a completely new and comprehensive RIPA, covering all aspects of communications and written in simple language. It has to set out clearly what powers we are granting the security services and key law enforcement agencies. That can be done without revealing operational techniques, and it is no excuse to say that the law has to be obscure in order to prevent the bad guys knowing what we are doing.

Recommendation 12 is particularly important. It is vital that we have revised definitions of communications data and their subdivisions into traffic data, use data and subscriber data. The contents of some of these categories, especially subscriber data, have changed dramatically since 2000, and so have attitudes to privacy. Young people—and some noble Lords—seem content to put enormous amounts of information about themselves on Facebook and have a more relaxed attitude to invasion of privacy than some of our generation. That is why we need to engage, as recommendation 12 says, with “all interested parties” to attempt to rank, in order of the extent to which privacy is invaded, the information which law enforcement agencies want and the different regimes they would need to comply with in order to get it.

I can give the House the two easy examples for a start. At the bottom end of the privacy scale is the name of the subscriber, and at the top end are the subscriber’s emails. All the stuff in between—the bank account numbers, the location of calls, the websites visited and dozens of other bits of information—needs to be classified into categories, each requiring various conditions to be satisfied before it can be accessed.

I welcome David Anderson’s support, in recommendations 15 to 18, for the Joint Committee’s recommendation on web logs and his call for a discussion with all parties on how to resolve this issue, which is the most difficult we will have to deal with in this legislation. It was the issue which most exercised the Joint Committee and upon which we found it very difficult to agree. The law enforcement authorities and the Home Office say that it is vital; privacy campaigners say there is a great breach of privacy. After much discussion and thought, our committee unanimously concluded that this matter has to be set out clearly in the Bill and both Houses given a chance to vote on it. Provided that the Home Office builds on the other safeguards proposed by Anderson, I will back the collection of web logs, and I think that the measure will get through Parliament as well. However, it will not get through if there is an attempt to sneak it in through some obscure drafting.

Recommendations 24 and 25 on extraterritorial effect are also important, and David Anderson has homed in on the mutual legal assistance treaty—MLAT to its friends. Our Joint Committee liked MLAT as a principle but the Home Office said that it was far too slow. We said that a new treaty should be negotiated “forthwith.” We said,

“the Government should take advantage of the special relationship with the United States to ensure that bilateral arrangements with them are expedited”.

At this point, I will jump to judicial warranting because it is relevant to a point I want to make about MLAT. Mr Anderson recommended replacing the Home Secretary’s warrants with judicial ones. The judges—with all due respect to noble and learned judges—will be no better or worse than the Home Secretary. The submissions will still be drafted by the same highly qualified civil servants, based on the same evidence. On some rare occasions, the decision by the Home Secretary or the judges will be wrong and an incident may occur. That is an inevitable consequence of decisions made by human beings trying to guess the motivations of other human beings. As has been often said, the security services have to be lucky all the time; the terrorists have to be lucky only once. I now support judicial warranting for interception except for those rare cases that may involve national security and the agents of foreign powers. Some have said that the Home Secretary will be blamed if judges make the decision and an incident occurs. I disagree; that is nonsense. Not even our nastiest press or bloggers will get away with trying to blame the Home Secretary for a decision made by independent judges.

While I see no extra insight resulting from judges doing warranting, there are two major advantages. First, it gives a flavour of impartiality to the process and will be seen as a counterbalance to giving the security services and police the extra powers they want. This is quite different from the SPOC process, which we do not want magistrates anywhere near. Secondly—this shows the relevance to extra-territorial jurisdiction—American CSPs are familiar with judicial warrants and will happily hand over information to the FBI and CIA if a judge issues a warrant. However, they do not like handing over information because a British politician asked for it. That is where the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, are absolutely right. This is the pattern in the rest of the world and it is the case with our major ally, the United States, where most of the information is stored. Therefore, coming back to ordinary investigatory powers, we should extend judicial warranting for interception purposes for all requests, however minor, to the USA CSPs. In those cases, our judges should merely rubber-stamp the requests and route them through a newly negotiated MLAT that must take no more than five days, rather than five months, as at present.

There is something else we must do with the United States—stand up to them. Imagine if we had a giant United Kingdom company—a British Apple or Google—that stored vast quantities of information on US citizens. Imagine if the FBI or CIA asked this Brit company for information and it said, “Oh, sorry, can’t do that—need a warrant, you know. You need X, Y and Z and it will take six months”. What would happen? The Americans would round up every Brit in the States, issue international arrest warrants for every other Brit connected to the company and they would get 20 life sentences each. We have seen the Americans impose their Lex Americana on the world and we must do likewise if—a big if—we decide that Google or Apple holds information in California that we must have here. We should also serve the warrant for information on their UK-based executives and have the same sort of penalties for lack of co-operation. We may even very privately tell the USA that the feed they get from GCHQ is not guaranteed or that MUSCULAR will be down for a few weeks for essential maintenance. They play hard ball—whatever that is—with us and we should have the guts to do likewise. I know that my noble friend the Minister cannot even acknowledge those points without the risk of special rendition and waking up in Diego Garcia tomorrow morning, but we must think of playing by American rules if we are in the same game as them.

I have a few final points. The SPOC system works. Our Joint Committee probably started with the prejudice that it was incestuous and not rigorous, with one friendly policeman sitting beside another and rubber-stamping it. We assumed that magistrates would be a better choice. We were surprised to find we were utterly wrong. As operated by the Metropolitan Police, the SPOC system is absolutely first class. The same goes for the other big users which can allocate highly trained specialists to do nothing other than SPOC work. Indeed, we think that all smaller police forces should combine their operations into regional units or let the Met and other big forces competitively bid to do it. This is an example of where being big is good; the more cases they handle, the more professional they are.

The SPOC regimes operated by the other big players, the United Kingdom border agency—or whatever it is called this week—HMRC and the security services are also impeccable. All other smaller non-police users must be compelled to go through a professional process, such as the national anti-fraud network, rather than trying to do their own thing.

There is one issue which Mr Anderson has not picked up, and that is the ability rapidly to amend the law for new technological advances. Some may say that a new RIPA should be future-proof and encompass everything. I say no, absolutely not, not unless it is so widely written that it would lack transparency, like Clause 1 of the original flawed Bill. Our Joint Committee recommended—and I recommend it here—the creation of a new technical sub-committee working under the new ISIC. I should point out that our Joint Select Committee report said:

“Consideration should be given to a new unified Surveillance Commission reporting to parliament with multi-skilled investigators and human rights and computer experts.”

So thank you, Mr Anderson. We are again not just on the same page but are singing the same tune.

The ISIC role, as defined by Mr Anderson, does not focus on emerging technology. We need a sub-committee which can act quickly and recommend to ISIC that a new process, software or gizmo needs to be added to the Act. Then ISIC would recommend to the Home Secretary that an urgent amendment should be made. Then we need the second part of the solution: fast parliamentary approval using the parliamentary super-affirmative procedure, which exists, but is hardly used, and which we recommended in our report.

Finally, we really have to dump all the other hundreds of authorities which can access, even in a limited way, investigatory powers legislation. The Home Secretary rightly says that we need it to catch terrorists, paedophiles and serious criminals. The public will buy into that, but not when they hear that Slough council used it to catch people selling fake trainers or Cambridgeshire County Council used it to catch fraudsters, which is in the Anderson report. We all know that these ancillary organisations have only very limited access to subscriber data, but it prejudices the public against communications data per se. If the crimes are so serious, as in the case studies quoted by Anderson, why in the name of goodness is trading standards dealing with them? They should have been handed over to the police or the National Crime Agency to prosecute. We cannot have vital powers required by the police, security and state agencies tainted because far less important agencies are in the loop as well.

I look forward to seeing the new draft communications data Bill. We need to see it quickly and to pursue it in draft form quickly. Then we can move forward to a proper Bill. If it adopts the recommendations of Mr Anderson and the Joint Committee then it can never be called a snoopers’ charter and it will deserve parliamentary approval.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I make a very short intervention simply to support this group of amendments ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and in particular to support the plea of my noble friend Lady Hamwee for a better explanation vis-a-vis the advisory council—a point made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. When I read the Bill, I was astonished to find that the advisory council had been sidelined to the extent that it had. If it is to be sidelined in future, this is an extremely important change.

Speaking for myself, I will be looking very carefully at what the Minister says in reply to the previous speeches made on Amendment 47 because, if he is not careful, he might find another plethora of amendments being tabled at later stages to restore the advisory council to its rightful role, which it has discharged with distinction in my view since the 1971 Act. This is not an insignificant moment for me. If the Minister can persuade the Committee that these are simply incidental circumstances indicating that the advisory council has been put to one side for the temporary purposes of this Bill, that is one thing. However, if this is a systematic attempt to reduce its significance in future policy-making in this important area, I think noble Lords will want to return to this during later stages of the Bill.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, we will return to the subject of decriminalising possession of all drugs a little later in relation to other amendments, and I will speak then. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for this amendment. This is an incredibly important issue and I want to say a few words about Portugal.

The crucial issue that I think the Government have to consider is whether it is more important to reduce social use. For example, if an alcohol policy results in rather more people having a glass of wine or beer on a Saturday night, does that really matter? I do not think so. What really matters is addiction, and a policy that reduces addiction is, for me, a good policy.

As I understand it from all the research—of which there has been a lot—into the Portuguese decriminalisation of possession and use of all drugs, there has been a bit of an increase in social use in Portugal, but under the scheme fewer young people are addicted to any drug. As I understand it, the right-wing political parties were against decriminalisation when it was introduced, but Dr Goulão, the wonderful doctor who spearheaded this reform—he is terrific; I know him very well and he is splendid—is thrilled that all political parties in Portugal now support the policy. It is true that Portugal is going through terrible economic issues, so I am not sure exactly what is happening to the policy right now, but it has been proved that a policy of decriminalisation wins the support of all political parties once it is seen in action, and it is all about addiction.

My question to the House and to the Minister is: why are fewer young people in Portugal now addicted to all drugs, not just one? I believe that it is to do with the psychology of young people. They like to be cool. When I was at school I used to break the school rules. I thought it was a terrific thing to do, although I do not think that I broke the law. If all young people have to do is get a spliff to break the law, they think that that is cool. In Portugal it is not cool. Why is that? It is because if you are referred to a dissuasion commission, you see a psychiatrist, a social worker or a lawyer who determines whether you are addicted. You are then referred for treatment. That is not cool; it is a mental health treatment, and it is not cool to have a mental health problem.

I believe that Governments of all political persuasions should think about the psychology of young people when they think about drugs policy, because it will only be when we get inside the minds of young people that we might come up with a policy that makes sense and works.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, as someone from the highlands of Scotland, I like to be cool as well, but I suspect that it is a slightly different interpretation.

I was not quick enough on my feet to ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, before he sat down. I readily acknowledge his great practical expertise in these matters and I acknowledge my own ignorance. Is there a definition, in statute or in case law, of how much is a “small amount” of drugs for personal use? One needs to know how much a person could get away with by claiming, “This is just for my personal use, guv”. Or is it rather like the cross-channel ferries, where people can come back with 10,000 cases of cigarettes and lots of booze and claim that they are a heavy drinker and smoker, and possibly get away with it?

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quote favourably from the Portuguese experiment, and there are some debatable results there. I would also refer them to the trendiest, most socialist and liberal country in the EU—Sweden. Sweden has a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and, admittedly, a big back-up self-harm programme behind it. Although one can quote Portugal favourably, one can also quote Sweden and its no-tolerance policy favourably. I hope that noble Lords have seen the reports from Sweden, as I have, and if I am wrong, I am happy to be reminded and amended later on.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I too have been impressed and encouraged by the evidence emanating from Portugal. Just before I add a few words on the subject of Portugal, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that if he looks at the incidence of drug-related deaths in Sweden, he will find that they are exceptionally high. People are ignoring these draconian policies that the Swedes do indeed operate, but not with happy consequences. One of the reasons is that criminalisation and the panoply of very severe penalties in operation in Sweden deter people from seeking treatment and help. Personally, I think that that is ill advised.

The Portuguese took another route when they faced a real crisis of drug abuse at the beginning of the century. They consulted an expert panel, which recommended the depenalisation—I think that that is perhaps the term—of small amounts of drugs for personal use. Again I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that under the Portuguese legislation, those “small amounts” of each drug are very precisely defined, so it can be done in legislation. At the same time, they invested very significant resources in treatment, education, programmes of social reintegration and the disruption of supply. It was a coherent strategy that appears to have worked very successfully.

As an aspect of that strategy, dissuasion commissions were set up so that somebody apprehended in possession of an amount of a drug—a psychoactive substance—would have to go before the dissuasion commission. As the noble Baroness said, it consists of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, a social worker and a lawyer; it is a fairly formidable panel to have to face. But if you are brought before that panel, you are not charged with a criminal offence. It does have power to impose administrative sanctions but its main focus is on getting people into treatment.

The central principle of the Portuguese legislation is that drug abuse is a health issue and not a criminal issue. I would suggest to the House that the results have been most impressive. Over five years, the number of people injecting drugs halved; drug-related deaths and new HIV infections more than halved; drug use among the 15 to 24 year-old age group fell; there was no rise in use in the older age groups; very importantly, the rates of continuing use, year-on-year use as opposed to occasional use, fell below the European average; and the numbers seeking treatment doubled, while the costs to the criminal justice system plummeted. All this is documented—there is plenty of evidence to tell us about the success of the Portuguese experiment, which has been going for 15 years. As the noble Baroness noted, the global financial crisis and the extraordinary pressure on the public finances of Portugal made it difficult to persist as fully as they would have wished with the education and treatment dimensions of the strategy. None the less, they have continued with the policy, and as she said, it has become accepted right across the political spectrum. I know that Home Office representatives have visited Portugal to learn at first hand from Dr Goulão and others about how it has worked. It is puzzling and disappointing that more lessons have not been taken on board.

Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would create powers such that,

“a senior officer or a local authority may require the person to attend a drug treatment programme or drug awareness programme”.

“May require” is quite a prudent element in the drafting, only because—and I fully endorse the policy of encouraging people to go to such programmes and benefit from them—the scale of drug-taking is, sadly and very worryingly, large in this country. A survey of Cambridge students found that 63% had taken illicit drugs, half of them before they had reached the age of 16; 45% of them had bought drugs for their friends; and 14% said that they had at one time or another sold drugs for a profit. A survey in 2011 of people in management jobs in London found that one in 10 took illegal drugs at work or at social events associated with their work. Mostly, they used class A drugs—cocaine and ecstasy. Of course, the use of cocaine and other class A drugs can lead to serious addiction, illness and death, so we should congratulate those such as Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, one of the members of the noble Lord’s expert panel, who set up Club Drug Clinic at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital—and other such clinics have been established across the country—which is particularly focused on helping young professionals who become addicted in this kind of way. I am simply describing the scale of the challenge we face if we seek to make drug awareness and drug treatment programmes available universally to people found in possession of drugs. It is estimated that some 350,000 children in this country have a parent who is a drug addict. I understand that one-third to one-half of those entering prison are already problem drug users. In 2010, there were 2,182 drug-related deaths. So it is a colossal challenge whatever strategy is adopted. Helping more drug users find the healthcare treatment they need will be a challenge on a large scale.

This is not a new dilemma. Back in 1924, the Government of the day established the Rolleston committee. Its recommendation to the Government certainly was that penal elements of policy were important, but it also said that addiction should be treated primarily as a disease. I would suggest that the moral imperative is not to stigmatise or to punish but to help those who are sick. We must communicate facts accurately, precisely and honestly if young people are to respond constructively, seriously and respectfully to the policy and the legislation. In 2000, Lady Runciman and her colleagues said that,

“the most dangerous message of all is the message that all drugs are equally dangerous. When young people know from their own experience that part of the message is either exaggerated or untrue, there is a serious risk that they will discount all of the rest”.

One of the difficulties with this legislation is that it fails to discriminate between the harms at different levels of psychoactive substances. I understand the problem that, with the proliferation of psychoactive substances on such a scale and at such a pace, this is a very difficult thing to do, but it remains an important objective of policy.

When the previous Labour Government were being tough on the causes of crime and sought to get more people into treatment, they found that it was not plain sailing. The Home Office identified at one point 320,000 so-called problem drug users and invited them to undergo voluntary testing in the hope that it would offer a route away from the revolving door of crime and addiction and into treatment. If I remember aright, the Home Office reallocated a very large sum of money—some £600 million; it was a PES transfer, if that is the right terminology—from the Home Office to the Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency. The Drugs Act 2005 set up the drugs intervention programme, expanding the drugs treatment and testing orders and making it compulsory to test on arrest or when an ASBO is issued so that a defendant was offered the choice of treatment or jail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, had I spoken at Second Reading I would have supported the Government’s aims of trying to avoid the harms which arise from legal highs and to prevent them wherever possible. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, I would have gone on to ask why the Government are so inconsistent in their approach. Ethyl alcohol is a psychoactive substance. There is no question whatever about that—the Government cannot disagree. It will be very interesting to hear why they believe it should be treated differently.

When one considers the differing approaches the Government take to alcohol these days, one sees the great sledge-hammer—that is the best way to describe it—that has been brought in to deal with an issue that, although worrying, is a nut compared with the boulder that is alcohol and the problems it creates for our society. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, just described those problems, so I will not repeat them. The Government should think long and hard about moving, fairly quickly, on some of their policies on alcohol if they want to carry the confidence of this House in trying to make changes of this nature. They have a responsibility deal whereby, in partnership with the drinks industry, they seek to reduce the volume of alcohol consumed in this country. They have targets, yet the Chancellor stands up in March and announces a freeze in duty on wine, beer and cider and a reduction in some other areas, including a 2% reduction in the duty on spirits.

The Government will not use pricing as a mechanism to try to discourage drinking, and the drinks industry sees that such pricing effectively discourages people from buying its products, so it lobbies the Government to reduce duties, which the Government, in turn, do. On the one hand we have the responsibility deal, with its targets that seek to reduce the consumption of alcohol, while on the other hand we have the statement made by the Chancellor. As the Government documents produced after the Budget prove, he will in fact increase the volume of alcohol that is sold, which, in turn, will increase the harms that arise for people who abuse it. So, a conflict does arise. I want to persuade the Minister to think ahead about what might be happening with alcohol and alcohol-related substances, and about whether there is a case for making a change to the schedule.

As long ago as last summer, I wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about a powdered white alcohol called Palcohol which is being marketed in the United States. Powdered alcohol has been around in Europe for quite some time. It was produced in Germany and then in Holland about seven or eight years ago but was not marketed. It is now being produced and marketed in the States. I wrote to the noble Earl to find out what the Government were doing in their conversations with the drinks industry at the responsibility deal level. The reply was:

“The Department has not discussed the import, production and sale in the United Kingdom of Palcahol and its European equivalents with partners in the Responsibility Deal”.

I also wrote to the noble Lord in the Home Office to ask,

“what assessment they have made of the decision of five states in the United States to ban the sale of Palcahol”.

He replied:

“The Government is aware of powdered alcohol from media reports and the banning of the product in five states of the United States of America. The Government is not aware of powdered alcohol being marketed or made available to buy in England and Wales”.—[Official Report, 6/1/15; col. WA 107.]

I followed that up with another Question:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the status under the Licensing Act 2003 or the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 of imports from the United States or Europe of alcohol powders”.

The noble Lord, Lord Bates, told me:

“Although the Act refers to liquids and this product is sold in solid form, it is intended to be drunk as a liquid”.

I tell the Minister that he is not quite up to date with what people are doing with this powdered drink. They are not simply taking it as a liquid; it can be snorted. Admittedly it is an uncomfortable experience, I understand, but it can be snorted. More particularly, it can be baked into cakes or go into confectionary and a whole range of products that people are now contemplating using it in. The noble Lord went on to say:

“The Government is not aware of powdered alcohol being marketed or made available to buy in England and Wales, although we are aware of its sale in other countries. In the event that there is a proposal to market powdered alcohol in England and Wales, the Home Office will make a formal assessment of its legal position”.—[Official Report, 7/1/15; col. WA 223.]

I would argue that this is the day when the Government can start to look at the legal position of Palcohol and at whether they are prepared to see it come into the country. If so, how are they going to handle it? It will shortly be available on the internet and imported through the internet, because that is how it will be marketed. It is already spreading on a wide scale within the US and, as night follows day, it will come to the UK.

Therefore, I suggest that the Government go back to the Answers that they sent me. I suggest that they look at what is happening in the United States at the moment, the problems that are arising there and the reasons why some of the states have banned it. If they are not prepared to accept in totality the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which I support—although I suspect that the Government will not—I also suggest that they look at whether they are at least prepared to consider whether this is a borderline area in which they should take some action, which they could do under this legislation. If they are sensible, they will look to the future, lay the ground, put this substance into the schedule and ban it, in the same way as they are banning legal highs. I hope that they are prepared to consider that.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I could never hope to give my noble friend an intellectual answer as to why all alcohol is exempted, but perhaps I can try to give him a legal one and a practical political one.

Most alcohol policy in the United Kingdom is now controlled by the EU and we have a few little bits left. I refer the Committee to the last report conducted by EU Sub-Committee F on the EU alcohol strategy. It was an eye-opener for all of us. Given the parts of alcohol policy we control, if we were to be completely consistent, there would probably be an increase in the price of Scotch whisky. However, that cannot be done for a variety of reasons—not least, it would probably feed into nationalism. With regard to the other parts of the policy, cider is desperately underpriced. No Government have felt it appropriate—no doubt for political reasons—to increase the price and disadvantage manufacturers in the West Country. It may be that with only one Member left in the West Country—I am not meaning to be snide here—a future Labour Government may, in due course, feel it more politically acceptable to put up the price of cider.

The parts that are controlled by the EU mean that, for example, we see on wine and spirit bottles in this country how many units of alcohol are in a glass and how many are in the bottle. That is a purely voluntary system because we are not allowed, under EU rules, to make it compulsory. We also discovered on the committee that some young people—mainly women, although men as well—may be on some form of crash diet and think they can avoid fatty food and sugars and just drink white wine instead. We are not allowed to put the calorific value of a glass of wine on the bottle, except by some voluntary means.

In Scotland, they are trying to conduct an excellent experiment on unit pricing. There may be considerable merit in unit pricing and I think that the Government in England are watching carefully to see how they get on. But of course they have been taken to the European Court, where it may be regarded as a constraint on trade —so Scotland may be prohibited from using unit pricing under EU rules. I could go on, but I will not, because I do not want to be seen to be too mischievous on this. However, there are a lot of other aspects of alcohol policy that we are no longer completely in charge of.

The other, more serious point is that all of us on EU Sub-Committee F, including my colleagues, noble Lords and Baronesses who are much more experienced than I, began the report a year ago thinking that alcohol abuse was out of control in this country, that everyone was drinking more and that we had a terrible problem. We were very surprised to discover that alcohol use is declining, particularly among young people. We cannot have an EU alcohol strategy because every country has a completely different problem. They all have problems with binge drinking, but different age groups are bingeing on different kinds of alcohol. What we discovered is that a small minority are drinking more to excess. I think that I am right in saying that alcohol deaths through cirrhosis of the liver have increased, but it is a smaller minority drinking extraordinary amounts—one or two bottles of vodka or scotch a day, so long as they can afford it. But overall, alcohol reduction policies are working.

In conclusion, I say to my noble friend that if he wants to really have more control over alcohol policy and be able to implement his amendment, he will need to vote no in the referendum when it comes.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I want to make a brief but important point. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will the Minister address his mind to not only the illogicality but the danger of exempting alcohol from the scope of the Bill while banning relatively very safe psychoactive substances? If this ban works at all—the Minister knows that I am pretty sceptical about it—the Government would, in effect, be preventing or discouraging very strongly young people from taking relatively very safe substances while encouraging them, one could argue, to drink alcohol, which we know is a killer drug. Therefore, I ask the Minister, in responding the noble Lord, Lord Norton, to address that particular point about the danger of banning substances while leaving alcohol exempt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

I must say to my noble friend the Minister that I have considerable sympathy with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. This seems to be entirely the same sort of situation as providing drugs outside schools—perhaps even more so. I accept the argument that, per head of population, the people in what I would call a children’s home—I do not know the modern, politically correct term for a children’s home, but those in residential care or whatever—are more vulnerable than the generality of kids in schools. As the right reverend Prelate has just said, some of the children in there will already have had problems of potential criminality or being vulnerable.

I discovered at the Home Office that once you put children together in a residential place like that, they are not locked up at night; in the main, they are free to come and go, and then they are liable to be preyed on by every sort of predator in sight, for sexual abuse and drug use as well. If my noble friend the Minister is going to reject the amendments at this stage, I hope he and his officials will give them very careful consideration because they are an absolutely sensible, logical extension of the policy towards selling drugs outside schools to children. These children are even more vulnerable.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I support both sets of amendments, on prisons and vulnerable children. It strikes me that these are quite clearly aggravating factors and we should do everything we can to prevent these drugs being introduced to prisons and to vulnerable children.

--- Later in debate ---

That said, one challenge presented by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is that while an offender supplying drugs would be in no doubt that he or she was operating near a school, the same could not necessarily be said of a residential children’s home or other premises to which Amendment 42 would apply. Such premises may not be clearly identified as a children’s home and could look like any other house in a residential street. Where that is the case, it would arguably be unjust to impose a higher sentence in circumstances where the offender could have no knowledge that the aggravating factor was engaged.

[Lord Blencathra]

The bad guys know where the children’s homes are, even though they may not be marked on the map or have a sign up. The people we are dealing with are clever drug dealers and if they wish to make drugs available to children in a children’s home, they will be able to do so. I suggest to my noble friend that the lack of knowledge of where the home is is not relevant.

[Lord Bates]

Of course, and I remind my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern that, within the sentencing guidelines, there would be the ability for some of these factors to be spelled out. The awareness would be there and I am very sensitive to that. Having used the case of Canterbury, where one of these head shops was within 100 yards of the King’s School—just across the road from it—that is precisely the type of circumstance we are trying to get to. But in the normal way it would be open to the sentencing court, having regard to the relevant sentencing guidelines, to take any other aggravating factors into consideration. In updating its guidelines, the Sentencing Council in England and Wales may wish to reflect on the points raised in this debate. I might add that any prisoner who commits any offence under the Bill could be subject to additional punishments and restrictions through existing prison disciplinary procedures. For the purpose of the Bill we should be guided by the equivalent provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act, notwithstanding Amendment 108, which seeks to bring the 1971 Act into line with Amendment 42.

There is also one government amendment in this group. Amendment 43 is a technical amendment that seeks to correctly reference the second aggravating offence in Clause 6 with the corresponding offence in Clause 5. Clause 6 creates two aggravating conditions which a court must consider when passing sentence. It states:

“Condition A is that the offence was committed on or in the vicinity of school premises at a relevant time … Condition B is that … the offender used a courier who, at the time the offence was committed, was under the age of 18”.

Amendment 43 relates to condition B.

Clause 6(6)(a) provides that a person uses a courier if the person,

“causes or permits another person … to deliver a psychoactive substance”.

However, and rightly, a person can commit an offence of offering to supply a psychoactive substance in Clause 5(2) without there being any psychoactive substance in existence. The offence would be committed if an offer was made to supply a psychoactive substance but a non-psychoactive substance was in fact supplied. As we discussed in the previous group, it could be a packet of some benign white powder being passed off as a psychoactive substance. In such a case the requirement in Clause 6(6)(a) would not be met. Amendment 43 simply ensures that condition B operates as intended.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Government are actively tackling the issue of new psychoactive substances in prisons and that, on that basis, he will be content to withdraw his amendment. Within that, I extend to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, the same offer which has been extended to other Members: to have that meeting with the Children’s Society to explore this area and, having heard its experiences, to consider whether further action is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I support this amendment. I think it is going to be very difficult in practice to implement the kind of regime that the noble Lord and his cosignatories call for, but I share his view that it may well be of much more questionable benefit than the Government suppose to close down the existing head shops en masse. I suspect that they vary very much in terms of the responsibility with which they deal with their clients but am pretty sure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, there are head-shop proprietors and staff who take a responsible view of the risks that their clients may run and the desirability of ensuring that they do not come to harm. It is very difficult to know how to prevent anyone coming to harm, not least because it is very difficult to identify the exact nature of the substances sold, even for the head-shop importers and proprietors, and there is not the evidence to tell us about the long-term effects of the use of new psychoactive substances.

However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there is a lesser danger in this than there is in consigning the users of new psychoactive substances to street dealers and to online sources based outside this country operated by people who have no scruples at all. The consultation process that the noble Lord has proposed would be problematic, because people in the neighbourhood of head shops tend not to like them and it would be very difficult to get local public assent to the licensing of head shops, but a responsible local authority ought to undertake that kind of exercise.

I was very interested to note that, in the briefing from the Local Government Association on this amendment that I think we have all received, it makes some very practical points:

“We would oppose councils being made responsible for licensing because of the difficulties in assessing if a product is of low overall risk. Unless there was a full scale testing and risk assessment regime in place covering health and other risks the safety of a product could not be guaranteed”.

It is absolutely right about that, which is one of the reasons why, on another amendment, I have argued for the provision of a network of testing facilities. We ought to aim at that. We should encourage responsible conduct by people who would seek to supply psychoactive substances to the market in this country. There is evidence that many people operating cannabis cafes in the Netherlands for example, particularly because they are under pretty close police and other supervision, take good care to ensure that the products that they offer are relatively safe and that they guide purchasers to buy the products that may be least dangerous and least unsuitable for them. One might even say, for those who favour the taking of cannabis, it is positively suitable for them—but I am neutral on that point. We have all the time to think practically and realistically and, in tabling this amendment, noble Lords are doing just that.

[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?

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened to arguments on both sides and I am struck by the point that we somehow think that the introduction of legal highs is a phenomenon we have never come across. We had cheap, smokeable heroin in the early 1980s. There were outbreaks in various cities across England where people were smoking heroin. There was anxiety. We had a knee-jerk reaction and we set up services for heroin users. Then we had amphetamines in the nightclub scene, and in the mid-1980s kids were sniffing solvents and glue. There was huge panic and uproar and we banned children from buying solvents in supermarkets. We thought that thousands of kids were going to die because they were sniffing solvents. Things moved on.

Then we had MDMA, GBH and crack cocaine, and then heroin came back again. These things keep coming. We do not want to have a knee-jerk reaction to yet another drug that young people will take. The evidence, from watching last night’s “Newsnight” report from Ireland, is the opposite of what the noble Lord said his police officers wanted here. Officers there were saying that they could not enforce this law. This is simply imposing a blanket ban on new drugs as they keep coming out—and they will keep coming out. We can ban one thing and I guarantee that in the next five years, there will be another substance that young people are using and we will be panicking again. We cannot continue to do this.

There is a desperate need to review the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We have had all these policies and other Acts dealing with prescription drugs, and we have never looked at the evidence—not just this Government but the Labour Government as well. We have never looked at the evidence because, as my noble friend Lord Howarth said, Ministers look at what the public want and they want hard, strong enforcement tactics on tackling the use of drugs. The evidence is fairly clear and we have a lot of it in this country, so we desperately need a review. Whether we need to tag that on to this Bill I do not know, but my anxiety is that we will be passing a Bill because of a knee-jerk response.

We have not looked at the connections with existing legislation. We are creating legislation that is not looking at harms but simply banning everything in sight under this umbrella body, and it seems to everyone to be unenforceable. We need to take a step back. There has to be an opportunity somewhere along the way to have a review and to look at drugs policy effectively.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. With all due respect, I must say that he is profoundly wrong and also out of date. I say to the Minister that there is no need to do another independent review. A couple of years ago, EU Sub-Committee F, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, conducted a thorough review of drugs legislation. We discovered in that committee that enforcement has worked exceptionally well for all the main hard drugs we have had in this country. Drug use of heroin, crack cocaine and other such drugs has dropped dramatically. Where we are in the lead, unfortunately, is with the use of the new psychoactive substances.

It would seem from the evidence that we took in committee that children today do not want to smoke the same old stuff their hippie fathers did. If it was good enough for dad, the kids today want something different. We see that in a whole range of things, such as children who go off Facebook because their parents have joined. The fads on drugs seem to have the same trends.

Enforcement has worked exceptionally well in driving down the use of heroin, crack cocaine and other serious drugs. Enforcement can work equally well on psychoactive substances, provided that we can get the legislation watertight. The Government have tried enforcement with psychoactive substances by naming certain drugs, and within hours the chemical composition is tweaked slightly and the law is no longer effective.

Enforcement works, provided we have effectively drafted legislation. I entirely support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Condon. We have an urgent problem at the moment with psychoactive drugs. We do not need to review the whole of the drugs Act in this Bill. Maybe a review in a couple of years might be sensible, after we have seen how the legislation proposed in this Bill works. Finally, it is not a matter of enforcement or harm reduction, which are not mutually exclusive. We have been doing both in this country. It is right to have criminalisation and tough enforcement action against drugs and, at the same time, a harm-reduction policy that tackles drug use among first-time users and young kids, who probably do not know any better. Yes, we need education. Yes, we need harm reduction. But for goodness sake, keep the criminal law, which works.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, yes, there may have been a reduction in the use of illegal drugs over the last five years. I know that Ministers have responded by saying, “We do not need to look at this any more, because drug use has plateaued and acquisitive crime has decreased, although drug-related deaths have increased”. Why has that happened? Not because of better enforcement but because, for the last 10 years, the Labour Government piled £800 million per year into drug treatment—and drug treatment that worked. That was a pooled, ring-fenced pot of money. We quadrupled the number of people treated, and it worked. For every £1 invested, within a year you had a £2 return and on a longer-term basis you had an £8 return. Drug treatment works. We do not have the same evidence for education prevention and we do not have the evidence for enforcement, but we do have the evidence that treatment works.

The problem is now that the £800 million a year has gone into Public Health England’s £2.6 billion budget, which goes to the 152 local authorities around the country to spend as they wish. That money is not ring fenced. There is no local authority in the country that has the expertise or the inclination to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on drug treatment. Instead, funds are rapidly being withdrawn and we see the outcome: we see drug services shutting down and we see drug-related deaths going up. I guarantee that within five years we will see acquisitive crime going up and drug use increasing again. This is not to do with enforcement policies; it is clearly to do with how we invested that money properly last time.

[Lord Blencathra]

Again, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Of course, harm reduction is good and of course treatment is essential, but unless we have Customs and Excise and the National Crime Agency and all the others interdicting tonnes and tonnes of drugs, we would need a lot more treatment because we would have a lot more drug addicts in this country. Enforcement has worked. Enforcement is driving down the use of those drugs which were rapidly increasing in the 1980s and the 1990s. There is no suggestion that that trend is wearing off, and there is no suggestion that enforcement is now failing with those drugs. Enforcement is failing in the new psychoactive substances for two reasons. First, the kids find it trendy and sexy to use them because they are not using the same old drugs that dad smoked. Secondly, we do not have legislation tight enough to enable the police and the enforcement authorities to use enforcement properly against those psychoactive substances.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Howarth and Lord Patel, but I have to say that I cannot support the noble Lord who has just spoken. This country has some of the strongest and toughest rules and legislation relating to drugs, yet we have one of the highest levels of use of the dangerous drugs that we try to ban. The reality is that we are not succeeding. Countries with relatively liberal, harm-reduction, health-focused policies do a great deal better than we do.

I want to use this opportunity to try to get across to the Minister and to your Lordships why I feel so strongly that we need a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I worked in secondary mental health for about a quarter of a century on and off, working with severely psychotic patients. I would say that the majority of those patients take cannabis. Why do they take it? They have told me many times, “Because it makes me feel human”. Thankfully, I have never had a psychotic illness, but if you do and you are given antipsychotic medication, the mix of the illness itself and the medication leaves you feeling, if I may put it this way, subhuman. You do not feel that you have any feelings; you feel dead. If you take cannabis, it makes you feel human. That is the word these patients use—“human”. In my view, that is not unreasonable.

If herbal cannabis is illegal, which it is, these patients along with all sorts of young people all over the country—I am slightly less sympathetic about them, but I am very sympathetic about patients—are driven to take skunk, very high THC cannabis, which is bad for their hallucinations and voices and makes them worse. But they still take the cannabis because it is so important to them to feel human. As I say, that is not unreasonable.

While they were within our services, these people were treated as patients because they had severe health problems. However, it always struck me as peculiar that when they left our hospital, day centre or whatever it was, these very sick people could be picked up by the police and charged with a criminal offence. Why? Because of their health problem. When our Convenor, as she was then, said when I came to this House, “Molly, you must put your name down on the ballot for a debate”, I said, “Oh no”, but I did and I won the ballot. I was told to produce a subject within the hour, and it came to my head that it would have to be about drugs. I feel strongly that our laws are illogical, unjust and cruel, and they are doing an enormous amount of damage to very large numbers of children and young people. That is why I cannot say that I am against the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

Of course I understand that this Bill is about psychoactive substances, and we will come to discuss them, but the fact is that we have only one market, and it is the market for illegal drugs. It is not a market for psychoactive substances over here and a market for controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act over there. They are one market, and therefore it makes no sense to look at this market without looking at that market. That is why I believe firmly that the Government would find it very helpful to look seriously at how the market is working and to draw conclusions from other countries.

We will come to the experience of Ireland and psychoactive substances, where a ban has been in place for four years. What does the deputy chief of the drugs and organised crime branch say about the ban? It has not worked. Therefore, Ireland is thinking of going back to its misuse of drugs Acts. I think that we will be in the same position, so it is really important that we get the Misuse of Drugs Act right as well as the Psychoactive Substances Bill. If we do not, we will just go round and round in very unfortunate circles from one bad policy to another.

I have something else that I want to say. The Labour Party is worried about a delay in this Bill. It does not need to worry, because bans do not work. They have not worked in Ireland. A little bit of delay will not make any difference. We now know from scientists that, of the deaths which have been caused by psychoactive substances, maybe every single one of them—certainly 90% of them—has been as the result of young people taking banned substances, not legal highs. I want to make that point very strongly. A ban does not stop people taking a substance, and some of them will die from doing so. If low-level psychoactive substances were regulated and labelled, with the consequences of taking them clearly specified, the risks and side-effects explained and the maximum dose made clear—in the case of ecstasy, you must take water, but you must not take more than 1 litre, or whatever it is—they would be much safer. My only concern is the safety and well-being of our young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rea (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who spoke last week during the supplementaries on the Question for Oral Answer tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on this topic, I served on the Select Committee which looked into the medicinal use of cannabis. One of the central recommendations was exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, has suggested. We need controlled trials. The noble Baroness has just backed up that suggestion as well. But it is very difficult to get these trials going. As she has said, because cannabis is an illegal substance, it is difficult to get people to agree to do the work. One or two trials have been carried out which resulted in the production of Sativex, but only one firm is producing it. As the noble Baroness said, it is terribly expensive and can be prescribed only on a named basis; it is very difficult for doctors to prescribe it to patients who have been shown to benefit from cannabis by getting it illegally.

One of the problems with getting cannabis illegally is that you do not know the ratio of the different cannabinoids in the illegal drug. It has been shown—this was told to us in our committee—that there is a huge range of effects from different cannabinoids. The one that gives the psychoactive effect, tetrahydrocannabinol— THC—is something that people who take cannabis for medicinal purposes do not like. But it is very difficult to find an illegal version of cannabis that contains a good ratio with more cannabidiol—CBD—which is the calming one that reduces spasms. Sometimes people have thought that it does not stimulate psychotic results but prevents them; it is an antipsychotic drug.

So there are real reasons why it should be made legal for researchers to concentrate on doing proper, controlled clinical trials to work out what cannabis can do, and what components or mixtures of cannabis components are most effective. This is crying out to be done, but as things are, it is very difficult to get scientists to agree to do it because of the illegality of the substance.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I have no idea whether cannabis is relevant and effective in dealing with nausea or spasms caused by motor neurone disease or other diseases, but I have a wee bit of experience of multiple sclerosis, and I say to the House that I do not want to be used as an excuse to legalise cannabis, because it is not necessary for treating the spasms that come from multiple sclerosis; there is already a fairly large range of drugs on the market that deal with that.

The spasms are difficult to describe and usually happen at night. The main muscles of the body—the torso, the legs and the chest—just spasm, and it is difficult to get a bit of sleep when that happens. In my case, when it started getting bad, my consultant said, “In that case, we must give you a drug that will deal with the spasms”. At the top of the list is baclofen, which is dirt cheap and highly effective. The maximum prescribed dose is 50 milligrams. I take 10 milligrams in the morning and 20 milligrams at night and have had no more body spasms because of it.

Okay, I cannot speak for all multiple sclerosis sufferers. When I was a constituency Member of Parliament, I had constituents come to me who said that they wanted cannabis legalised so that they could deal with their MS. I said that there were clinical trials under way that resulted in the drug Sativex, but they were not so keen to take a pill; they wanted to smoke a joint because it made them feel better in many other ways. Well, it could, but I do not want people who wish to smoke cannabis to get high to use the excuse that it is essential for multiple sclerosis sufferers in order to remove their pain and spasms.

If baclofen does not work—it seems to work for about 95% of people—doctors usually try tizanidine: I will give the Minister the spellings later. Following that, going down the list, is gabapentin. It is not usually prescribed because the other two drugs are usually much more effective. At the bottom of the list is Sativex, which is the cannabis derivative. The problem here, as has been stated already, is that NICE reviewed it and concluded that it was not cost effective. Unfortunately, that is absolutely right, because it costs 10 times as much as baclofen, which I have in my pocket at this precise moment.

I therefore think that the solution is: patients should be prescribed baclofen. If that does not work, they can go on to tizanidine, and if that does not work they can try the next legal drug, gabapentin. If those three do not work, then people can be prescribed Sativex. I suggest that my noble friend the Minister should say to the Department of Health and NICE that in those priority corridors it should be permissible to use it throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Wales overruled NICE and has allowed Sativex to be prescribed. It is not prescribed, except by private prescription, in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think that that is wrong. It should be allowed to be used by doctors but not as the first port of call.

There is merit in rejecting the amendment as far as multiple sclerosis is concerned. It may be beneficial for other illnesses when people suffer spasms but it is not necessary to deal with the problems that occur with multiple sclerosis. I wish to put my liberal credentials—or near liberal credentials—on the table. A part of me takes the view that if people want to smoke a cannabis joint and get high, okay, let them but do not expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for the cancers and other illnesses they may get later. Similarly, a part of me thinks that if people want to eat themselves through gluttony into obesity and sit on their backsides, taking no exercise, let them, provided the NHS does not have to pay for that.

As the taxpayer has to pay for these things and for the dangers which smoking cannabis can cause, the taxpayer and the Government must be in a position to say, “No, I’m sorry. You’re not allowed to smoke that because there are alternatives that can deal with the alleged problem”.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

May I say how welcome it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, on the Front Bench alongside her colleague from the Home Office? I hope that she will report this debate to her colleagues in the Department of Health. It is excellent that the two departments are represented on the Front Bench for this important debate.

The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Ribeiro, spoke with all the authority of their medical expertise, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke with the authority that comes from his own unfortunate experience. I follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher, in commending to the Committee, and very much to the two departments represented on the Front Bench, the report just recently published under the auspices of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform by Professor Val Curran and Mr Frank Warburton, entitled Regulating Cannabis for Medical Use in the UK. Had they heard the presentation of this report by Professor Curran from University College London, they would have been persuaded that the arguments put forward are eminently reasonable.

She talked about the severe constraints applied to the progress of medical research by the Government of the United Kingdom’s persistence in listing cannabis in Schedule 1. She told us that it costs a minimum of some £5,000 to achieve the licence and to pay for the secure conditions to enable the pursuit of research into the medical properties and potential benefits of cannabis. That is a severe discouragement, particularly in the stringent climate of funding for academic research. She estimated that research on cannabis costs some 10 times as much as research on other drugs. It is a serious constraint, yet a significant body of evidence strongly suggests that cannabis-based medications can be beneficial for a whole series of conditions, many of which have been itemised by previous speakers.

The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, drew attention to the tentative evidence that may be emerging of benefits in relation to post-traumatic stress disorder. That is certainly a pressing and important issue for us in this country, as well as in America. Professor Curran also told us that there are suggestions that cannabis could be beneficial in the treatment of schizophrenia. It would seem perverse in the extreme to continue to deny ourselves the opportunity effectively to pursue research on the medical benefits of cannabis when patients suffering from such a range of diseases could be assisted.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the definition of a psychoactive substance in the Bill does indeed seem to me rather vague. We should be grateful to both noble Baronesses who have so far spoken in this debate for pressing the Government to tighten the definition and to give us some clarification. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain to the House the basis upon which he was able to give us an assurance—I thought he gave it rather tentatively and with less than full confidence—at Second Reading, that if he were to send a bouquet of flowers for the gratification of Lady Bates, he would not be in breach of the law. I see that it is suggested that incense might be caught under the law. How can he be sure that all kinds of substances and activities that, on a common-sense view, people would regard as innocent may not in fact be caught?

I would also like clarification—if this is not leaping ahead too far—as to what is, in Schedule 1, a traditional herbal remedy. The term is terribly loose. I fancy that it is going to be quite difficult for police officers or courts to be very clear what the term “traditional” in a legally binding context means. How in practice does he foresee psychoactive substances are going to be identified? Will there have to be tests in court? That would seem to be expensive and disproportionate. Will there have to be a large number of placebo-based comparative scientific trials? Again, that would seem expensive, disproportionate and impractical. I think he owes it to us to clarify a little further than the drafting of the Bill does what he means by psychoactive substance.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. She seems to have a fairly good point—to me as an amateur anyway.

I wish to make my remarks mainly about Amendment 9. This may be heretical to noble and learned Lords and parliamentary draftsmen, but why can we not have the Government’s definition and the definition in Amendment 9? Definitions are going to be the big problem with this Bill—everybody recognises that—and I see no merit in brevity of definition if it makes for confusion. On the other hand, we do not want it to be tautological and we do not want too big a definition which is contradictory. I am sure that noble and learned Lords and parliamentary draftsmen will ensure that that does not happen. I ask the Minister to keep an open mind on this and be relaxed about extending the definition or picking up bits of Amendment 9 if it helps to bring more clarity, irrespective of the length of the definition.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall comment briefly on this group. I hear the debate on Amendments 7 and 8 and will be interested in the Minister’s response. On Amendment 10, similarly, we will be interested in the Minister’s response.

On Amendment 9, I see this Bill—and I will be grateful if the Minister can flesh out whether he sees it in the same way—as a very narrow Bill. Broadly speaking, everything is illegal except the things that are defined as legal. Bringing in the word “significant” seems to me to be getting into significant bad and not significant good, and therefore we are into the area of legal challenges et cetera. The idea of the Bill, I think, is to be free from legal challenge and that is why it is formed in that way. The Minister will no doubt enlighten me.

The point of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the process—of how the judgment will be made that a substance is psychoactive—is a good one. I would be grateful if either now, or perhaps in writing, the Minister could spell out how the Government envisage determining whether a substance is indeed a psychoactive substance.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am not deliberately trying to oppose every amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has proposed in Committee tonight. Indeed, if his amendment had simply said that all head teachers shall once per annum bring in an appropriate person to talk about the dangers of drugs, I would have supported it. Indeed, I wish I had thought of it myself.

The point that I am seeking to make is: who is an appropriate person? I discovered in the 1990s in the Home Office that there is not a single Member of your Lordships’ House, not a single Member of the other place, not a single policeman—no matter how young or old—and not a single teacher who would be regarded by young people and children as a legitimate person to preach about the dangers of drugs. I discovered rather late on in my term of office at the Home Office—I wish I had had more time or thought of it earlier, before the 1997 election—that the things that seemed to work were when a school got another teenager who would come in and say, “I am a drug addict, or I used to be a drug addict and look at me now. I can’t pick up boys or girls; half my nose has rotted off. I’m as skinny as a rat. I’ve been thrown out of my house by my parents and I have all these problems”. It was only with other teenagers who looked and sounded like them and came from the same area, rather than men or women in suits, that they believed in the dangers of drugs.

I worry that the noble Lord’s amendment is too state-oriented. It is maybe too bureaucratic. I am certain that if it were carried we would be spending more than £7 million on drug education. I am afraid that it would be snapped up by the Ofsteds, quangos and education bureaucrats who have wonderful programmes that sound good. They would be like the adverts that I thought we had prepared at the Home Office, with men in suits lecturing about the evils of drugs. Like those adverts, they will be completely ineffective. I say to the noble Lord and to my noble friend the Minister that I am very sympathetic to education in schools but it has to be kept simple and appropriate. If kids were cynical at my time in the Home Office in 1994 to 1996 they are a dashed sight more cynical now about being lectured by anyone who is older or outside their own cultural circle. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that if he cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support very strongly the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the importance of education. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that the type of education is absolutely all-important. He said that teenagers do not want someone coming in preaching about drugs. Absolutely—we know from all the research, most of which has been carried out in the US, that lecturing and didactic teaching does not work in the sphere of drugs. We know that. I was going to suggest that we need the words “evidence-based” in the amendment. We know from the evidence that peer involvement—certainly group work with youngsters who have already had or are now having terrible problems with drugs—is the method of education that works. Whether one wants to call it education or whatever, it ideally needs to go on in schools. It does not seem inappropriate therefore to use the word “education”. We all have to be clear what we mean by education but, as for the term “evidence-based”, the evidence points exactly in that direction.

Before you get to that sort of education and imparting —or whatever you call it—of information, there is work already being done in a number of schools up and down the country to improve the resilience of youngsters who are particularly vulnerable to drug addiction. An example is children who are not functioning well at school or have very difficult home lives. There are all sorts of reasons why those children lack resilience. There are very good programmes of resilience-building in schools and for me they are utterly central to the whole business of prevention of drug addiction. This sort of work is far more important even than all the stuff we were talking about earlier about legislation, passionate though I feel about having the right framework in which all these things occur. I would support at least some variant of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, because it is fundamentally important, but let us see if we can come up with something really good for Report. Even better, the Minister could take this away and bring back a well-framed amendment to cover this vital issue.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will try to deliver my speech from this position. I am testing a new medication and I want to push it—and myself—to the limit. I pray for your Lordships’ understanding if I have to finish my seven minutes from a sedentary position.

Perhaps I might also add to the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to Charles Kennedy and be the first Conservative in this House to do so. The Prime Minister was right: he was taken from us far too young. In terms of returning a record number of MPs, he was the most successful leader the Liberal Democrats have ever had. I also pay tribute to the fact that he, more than anyone else, laid to rest the myth of the dour Highland Scot. There was nothing dour about Charles Kennedy. Having served with him in the other place, I know we shall all miss him.

I welcome most of the Bills announced in the gracious Speech—if I understand them correctly. In particular, I welcome the investigatory powers Bill if it is a rewrite of RIPA, which is now discredited and not fit for purpose. We need a new RIPA that incorporates the conclusions of the Joint Select Committee I was privileged to chair and the recommendations of David Anderson QC. However, I am concerned that in the big media briefing pack issued by No. 10 last Wednesday, the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which naturally was very supportive of everything the security services wanted, was included as a key background paper—but not my Select Committee report. I am not precious about it but I hope that that does not indicate any backsliding by the Home Office on its excellent redraft of the original, discredited snoopers’ charter.

I remind my noble friend the Minister that our committee had Members from both Houses and all parties and none. We had widely differing views, which we probably still have, but we ended up with a unanimous report. We achieved that because we agreed that we could not have some general, wide-ranging, inexplicable and obscure powers for the security services, which would make it impossible for us in Parliament sensibly to amend and vote on each power requested. That original obscure draft caused the widespread revolt against the Bill, so we concluded that if the key contentious elements, such as the collection of weblogs and third-party data, and new definitions of subscriber and communications data, were set out individually and clearly that would permit Members in both Houses to vote on these powers. They would have the stamp of informed parliamentary authority. Of course, the Government may be afraid that they would lose one of these powers but I honestly believe that if we come clean on exactly what the police and security services want, Parliament will narrowly agree.

What would be utterly unacceptable, I say to my noble friend, would be to pass some obscure powers and then have the Security Service pop up in a year’s time and say, “Aha, we have the power to do this, that and the other. Didn’t you realise it when you passed that vague clause?”. We have recently seen how the Americans have suddenly woken up to the fact that they have been lied to by the NSA. As the Times says today:

“Intelligence services should not be given a free pass, here or in the United States … The intelligence and security services … need to become much more open about their role and intentions. If they do, the public will be reassured”.

I think we would be reassured also. I hope therefore that the Bill will take up our other suggestion for a mechanism for rapid amendment as technology changes and create a standing committee to advise on that.

I turn now to the extremism Bill, and I choose my words very carefully. I support this measure, provided that it specifically targets the real problem of extremism and not all radicals. I consider myself a bit of a radical in some ways, and so do many noble Lords, so radicalism per se is not the problem. Instead the words “radicalisation” and “extremism” are euphemisms for the words we dare not mention: namely, political Islamism—the ideology—or Islamofascism. I do not often agree with Tony Blair, but I agree with what he said in April 2014. He said:

“At the root of the crisis lies a radicalised and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that distorts and warps Islam’s true message. The threat of this radical Islam is not abating. It is growing. It is spreading across the world. It is de-stabilising communities and even nations. It is undermining the possibility of peaceful co-existence in an era of globalisation. And in the face of this threat we seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge it and powerless to counter it effectively”.

In March, the Home Secretary announced a completely new strategy. She said:

“This strategy aims to tackle the whole spectrum of extremism, violent and non-violent, ideological and non-ideological, Islamist and neo-Nazi—hate and fear in all their forms”.

My fear about the Bill, therefore, is that the Home Office will want to appear to be even-handed, catching all extremists, and not target the real problem of politicised Islamism, the ideology. But where do the problems really lie? Do we have Buddhist suicide bombers? Are there Free Presbyterians beheading Roman Catholics in Benbecula? Are there jihadi Jehovah’s Witnesses? Of course not, so who then deserves to be caught in this wide net of extremists?

The other vile ideologies that I can think of are the BNP, neo-Nazis, UK Uncut, various other anarchists, all permutations of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Socialist Workers Party. They would all like to bring down our liberal western democracy but, while we abhor their views and despise their expression of them, are they really a serious problem? As far as I can see from their websites, their active members have not got the guts or the guile, the wit or the wisdom—or a united religious fervour—to organise anything that threatens our liberal democracy. They have no coherent philosophy, except that they seem to hate each other even more than the country they despise. What really threatens our democratic way of life is a desire by political Islamists to impose a theocracy that would replace all the democratic rule of law that we have developed over 500 years in this country. It would impose the same brutality that Christianity imposed when it operated on Old Testament teachings of “an eye for an eye”, rather than loving one’s neighbour as oneself.

The Home Secretary went on to say that,

“the foundation stone of our new strategy is the proud promotion of British values. These values—such as regard for the rule of law, participation in and acceptance of democracy, equality, free speech and respect for minorities—are supported by the overwhelming majority of British people”.

So my worry is that a generalist, catch-all definition of extremism will result in some idiot police forces arresting a couple of ladies from the WI and a traditionalist Church of England vicar who has said something radical —for example, that he actually believes in God. I justify the term “idiot police force” by reminding noble Lords that after the appalling Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, Wiltshire police sprang into action and demanded to know the names of local people in the village of Corsham who had bought the commemorative edition.

We have seen how police forces up and down the country, unfortunately, have ignored reports of thousands of children being raped and raped again because they did not want to offend a section of society. We cannot trust them to use properly any wide, generalist powers we may have in this Bill, and we need to spell out exactly what and who we want them to target.

I believe that, as legislators, we have a duty not just to spell out clearly the philosophy of British values but to give clear and unequivocal guidance to those who will have to enforce our intentions. We cannot afford to get this wrong, not only because we will miss the real extremists we need to catch but because we will then prejudice the British public against our efforts if our police forces persist in failing to take appropriate action against them. I look forward to seeing the text of the Bill in due course.