Domestic Abuse Bill

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

There have been many days recently when I have not been particularly proud to be a Member of this House, but today I am intensely proud, particularly following that wonderful speech, which I will find it difficult to follow, and the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and from the Mother of the House and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. Each and every one of them has made us feel something.

There have been too many times in this place when we have had to be hardened and stoical or put on a brave face. Today I am not going to put on a brave face. Today we have a huge opportunity to make a difference for victims of domestic abuse in our constituencies. We all know them and care for them, and I do not think there is a woman alive in this country who has not experienced some of that behaviour or who knows somebody well who has. Now we have a chance to do something about it. This is a good day.

I will be resisting, though, those who say that we should show some restraint and not try to widen the Bill. This could be a rare opportunity. We might not get another such Bill for some time. We need to look to Departments other than the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, such as the Department for Education, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care, to find out what we can do more broadly to support victims of domestic abuse.

I have seen the journey in my constituency that this field and the women’s organisations that support victims have been on. In 1976 in Darlington, we first had what was then called a refuge for battered wives. Thank God we have come a long way since then. It is now a safe haven for survivors. I want to take the opportunity to celebrate those who worked together to provide that vital service. They were the Rev. John Wright, Harry Cass, Val Portass, Louie Hutchinson, Isobel Hartley, Dot Long and Lillian Elliott. They are heroes, because if they had not done what they did then, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) would not have had the opportunity to make the impact that they have. Those people were pioneers and they deserve that recognition and to be celebrated.

I am very worried that the Bill is limited to abuse experienced by people over the age of 16. I would accept that as appropriate if Ministers could show us where abuse under the age of 16 is sufficiently dealt with in other legislation. If it is dealt with adequately in other Acts of Parliament, fine. I just do not believe that it is at the moment.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I very much agree that children are often massive victims themselves, which can often have lifelong consequences for them. Does the hon. Lady agree with the Children’s Commissioner that the lower age limit of 16 should be removed from the Bill?

[Jenny Chapman]

I do not know whether I agree with that or not, but this issue needs to be examined in great detail as the Bill progresses. This is the first opportunity that we have had to raise it in this place in this way. It needs further thought and consideration, and I am certain that it will get it.

Assisted Dying

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It was a pleasure to join the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) in applying for this debate. I want to use my time to tell the stories of two constituents. The first is Vonnie Daykin, who has come to Parliament today to hear the debate. She has talked about how she witnessed her uncle and her father die of Parkinson’s and her mother die of motor neurone disease. She says that her mother went through living hell, but ultimately had no choice and was forced to suffer “until the bitter end”.

I also want to spend a little time quoting my constituent, Zoe Marley. Her words deserve to be heard in Parliament, so if I may, I will quote from an email that she sent me. She says:

“In January 2018 my mum Judith Marley was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer…She had nursed her own mother with cancer and had seen numerous ‘bad’ deaths. From the outset, she announced that she would not let the cancer do its worst, but would formulate a plan to escape the terror. No matter how marvellous the palliative care, she didn’t want it.”

That is her right, incidentally.

“She was a very private person; her death should have been a private affair instead of the circus that it became. On a warm July afternoon in 2018, she took a framed picture of her mum, a bottle of Drambuie and approximately 70 sleeping pills into the garden and in this most cherished place, she proceeded to attempt to take her life.”

After some considerable time, her daughter found her there; she had not died and then started to come round. Zoe was then placed into an impossibly invidious position, not knowing whether to call an ambulance. Her mother had already given her lasting power of attorney and did not want resuscitation—her legal right. Ultimately, however, because of the impossible situation that her daughter was in, she had to call an ambulance. Zoe says:

“Her wishes to stay at home and not be admitted to hospital were my priority as her LPA. But was I technically assisting her suicide? My lack of action could be considered supporting a suicide. I was terrified of the consequences of my inactivity. We waited but no change, the day was cooling down and I wanted her to be comfortable.”

In the end, an ambulance was called, and a doctor also attended.

Zoe writes:

“The doctor was unsympathetic. He said he had spoken to an on-call psychiatrist and that he was within his rights to call the police so they could take her to hospital. He was threatening and arrogant, telling me if Mum died there would be a police investigation and she would have a full autopsy. It all made me sick to my stomach. All this time my beautiful Mum laid outside while my daughter held her hand. I had somehow found myself embroiled with a medical team that had no understanding of how to interpret the law. The doctor called the police and three officers arrived. I have never had the police come to my door. It was demeaning and frightening. Once again I showed them my Mum’s paperwork and begged them to bring her inside. They seemed unsure of what to do, the expression ‘grey area’ was used a lot.”

To answer the point of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), grey areas cause enormous distress, as in this case. Zoe continues:

“After much confusion they insisted they take Mum to hospital. I was now indignant and focused on what Mum wanted. I made it very clear I would obstruct them. I felt everyone was ‘trying to cover their backs’ which meant disregarding my Mum’s wishes.

Finally sanity prevailed, they contacted the A&E manager at our local hospital who realised even if they brought her in, the LPA would stop them from treating her. So finally at 3 am they brought Mum inside.”

Moving on a month, Zoe writes that the

“symptoms from the brain metastasis made their ugly appearance… The pain in her head was unbearable and the constant vomiting made keeping pain medication down almost impossible…

On Friday the 17th of August, Mum had had enough. She knew only torture lay ahead! That evening she took all the morphine and sleeping pills available to her and by Saturday morning she was dead.

That morning I called an ambulance. My family and I myself felt broken and traumatised. But our ordeal wasn’t over. I was questioned by the police all morning. I was heartbroken, the mental and physical torture I had to witness was now followed by a police interrogation.”

Can we in all conscience put families through this awful trauma? That is the reality of the grey area that currently exists in our law. It is the individual, not the state, who should decide, in a period of terminal illness, whether they want to bring their life to an end. That is why the law should change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was awaiting advice on an important matter, so it was advantageous to have a slightly protracted exchange, but that should not be taken as a precedent for future sessions. Other Members who are standing have already asked a question, but the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has not, so we will have one more question.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is intolerable that employment and support allowance claimants at the Norwich tribunal are waiting 40 weeks—nine months—for their appeal hearing, and that personal independence payment claimants are waiting six months, particularly when 71% of those appeals are successful? What is he doing to change that?

[Mr Gauke]

We work with the Department for Work and Pensions on such matters. If I recall correctly, there has been, over a period, progress in bringing down some of the lengths of time, but I will happily look into the matter and write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mental Health in Prisons

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate. A lot has been said about the prevalence of mental health issues within our prisons, which is even higher among women than among men. Shockingly, we imprison a large number of people essentially because of their mental ill health—people whose offending is linked in some way to mental ill health or distress. It seems to me an enormous failure of public policy over many years, for which no single Government are responsible, that so many people with significant mental ill health, learning disabilities or autism end up in our prisons inappropriately. I want to address what we should be doing instead.

First, we incarcerate far too many people in our country. We put far more people in prison than most other civilised European countries. Compare this country with Finland or Germany: Finland incarcerates people at about half the rate we do, but no one suggests that it is an uncivilised country in which lawlessness prevails. It manages its issues in a different way from us—I would suggest a much more civilised way.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions incarceration rate. I visited Pentonville jail at the weekend, where the cells are 13 feet by 7 feet. Victorians were not known for their generosity, but their cells were built for one prisoner each. Cells of exactly the same size now regularly hold two or four prisoners.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston mentioned that prisoners are often put in cells for 22 hours a day. Just imagine what that does to their mental distress, particularly if they are sharing a cell. It is intolerable and uncivilised.

Some good things have happened. The liaison and diversion service that is being rolled out nationally, which began under the coalition Government and was based on Lord Bradley’s recommendations, is a very good thing. The idea is that, as soon as someone with mental ill health appears in the criminal justice system, either in court or in a police station, they can be identified and referred for diagnosis and treatment. The problem is that if we do not have sufficient mental health services to deal with those referrals, we will not achieve nearly as much as we could with a properly functioning mental health system.

Mental health treatment requirements can be used as an alternative to prison. Addressing the underlying cause of offending behaviour seems to me so much more sensible, yet the Royal College of Psychiatrists notes a 48% reduction over the past 10 years in the use of such mental health treatment requirements—only 1.2% of offenders with mental health issues receive them. Much more use could be made of that option. I met the Minister a few months ago to discuss it in relation to the west midlands, where I chaired a commission on mental health. A couple of local magistrates courts are seeking to make much greater use of mental health treatment requirements—a really interesting initiative that is worth watching.

Our commission also focused on what happens when people leave prison. Too often, there is no link between the support or lack of it that people receive in prison, and what happens when they leave. They are abandoned in the community, often at enormous risk to themselves and sometimes to others. Professor Richard Byng leads the Engager project to enhance the through-the-gate approach and ensure that it is informed by mental health, so that people who work in the through-the-gate system and help the transition from prison back into the community are supported in their mental health needs and linked up to the services they need.

I will end by mentioning a case that is enormously shocking and that I do not think has yet been properly addressed. In March 2013, Phillip Simelane brutally murdered a young girl on a bus in Birmingham. He had not long been released from prison. He was known to have psychosis and a long history of serious mental health problems. His mother, a nurse, had been trying for years to get the authorities to engage with her and provide proper support for her son. She was massively let down by the system, as were Phillip Simelane and the victim who lost her life. Four years on, an independent review considered the lessons to be learned from the case. Its findings, and particularly the comments of its chair Kiran Bhogal, are really shocking:

“it is disheartening and worrying that our review, as with many reviews and investigations before ours, has found that many of the underlying challenges and problems remain despite the commendable effort made by all organisations involved to change practice and procedure…The fact that there remains a risk that these vulnerable prisoners continue to be released from prison without adequate support and supervision leaving them and the general public at risk is of extreme concern.”

I raised this issue in Prime Minister’s questions last year and I raise it again now with the Minister. I would very much like the Minister to meet me and key people from the west midlands to discuss it, because it is vital that we learn lessons to stop similar tragedies from happening in future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Prison Reform and Safety

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

We regularly visit a number of prisons. We are indeed aware of the very good work done at Parc, and we will continue our visits.

Let me explain why we tabled the motion and did so in these terms. We cannot avoid the reality that our prison system has reached a stage at which we have to use the phrase “a crisis”. I do not do so lightly. More than 30 years’ experience of practising criminal law and visiting prisons to advise prisoners, and subsequently, since coming to the House, working with the criminal justice sector, have led me inevitably to the conclusion that the system is under unprecedented strain.

I do not for one second doubt the good intentions of the Minister or his predecessors, the Secretary of State or his predecessors, or the management of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. I also acknowledge the good work that we see carried out by many individual members of that service as we travel around the country. However, the fact is that despite the extra money that has been invested in the system over the past year or so following one of our reports, and despite all that good work, all the indicators were going in the wrong direction at the time of our two reports—one on prison safety and one on governor empowerment and reform, which were produced in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Sessions respectively—and they are still going in the wrong direction.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—

[Robert Neill]

I fear not.

[Hon. Members]

Not yet!

[Norman Lamb]

Not yet, although the hon. Gentleman clearly deserves it. I am grateful to him for giving way.

I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is not the truth that we simply incarcerate too many people, particularly people with mental health problems? A staggering percentage of people in Britain have mental health problems, learning disabilities or autism. Should we not be investing more in keeping people out of prison and ensuring that they receive the treatment that they need to help them to avoid the criminal justice system in the longer run?

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point—I agree with him. Although the two reports that gave rise to the debate do not touch on this directly, he may be pleased to know that our Committee has agreed to embark on an inquiry in which we shall examine projections for the prison population up to 2025. The issue that he raises will prove to be a particularly important aspect of that inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Starting from now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This is a particularly hard-hitting motion; it does not draw back from the challenges the Prison Service faces. It is important that today Select Committee members focus on specific issues and ask the Minister for the Government’s response to the major challenges, and we will do that. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the very good Chair of the Justice Committee, said, the situation is deteriorating; the problems in prisons are getting worse.

While staff are doing an excellent job and trying their best in difficult circumstances, there have been 300 deaths in prison custody in the past 12 months, of which 77 were self-inflicted deaths. Self-harm has reached a record high and increased by 12% over that period, and the number of incidents requiring hospital attendance rose by 9%. Meanwhile, prisoner-on-prisoner assaults have risen to record highs, and the numbers of assaults on staff and of hospital admissions continue to rise, so there is a real challenge in the system.

I contend that there is a challenge because of reductions in resources and staff numbers, but there is also a challenge because of an increase in the amount of psychoactive substances and drugs getting into prison. It is a difficult job and a challenge to tackle, but if we do not get the basics right in our prison system, the aims of reform, rehabilitation and turning positive individuals back into society will be hampered.

[Norman Lamb]

Over the past year, people in prison have taken their own lives at the rate of one every three days. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the prison services should set a zero-suicide ambition, that we should be seeking to save every life and that it is intolerable that so many people are losing their lives in the prison system?

[David Hanson]

Absolutely. The threat assessment and self-harm assessment are extremely important, but this requires staffing, so a watch can be kept on individuals and they can be supported through what are often challenging mental health problems, particularly in the first few days and weeks of incarceration, when people are coming off alcohol and drugs, or are arriving in prison with severe mental health challenges.

We must tackle these issues in a positive way. One of the Minister’s challenges is to ensure that we undertake a review of the strategy, particularly on psychoactive substances and drugs. The Government have said that they have rolled out new tests for psychoactive substances across the estate; can the Minister tell us how many have taken place and their outcome? The Government have said that they have trained more than 300 dogs to detect these substances; does every prison have access to those dogs, and do those dogs ensure we catch substances that are smuggled in? The Government have said they are making smuggling psychoactive substances into prisons and possession of them criminal offences; I want us to monitor how we enforce that legislation.

The Minister must look at introducing planned searches of prisoners in prisons. He must also look at whether there should be searches of prison officers and delivery staff. I spoke this week to prison officers who said they would welcome that because they want to weed out corruption among staff. I want the Minister to tell us how that will be undertaken generally. I also want the Minister to take further steps to ensure that all category C prisons have netting around them, to stop people throwing drugs and other things into prisons.

I want to see the re-establishment of the dog units, not just as the regionalised resource that they are now, but as a resource that can be allocated locally.

We must look at the criminal gangs inside and outside prisons who are making money out of the delivery of drugs into prisons by many means. What I do not get from the Government is what their overall strategy is, and I think that feeling is shared by external agencies such as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. I see a number of individual measures, but I do not get the overall strategy. Will the Minister also tell me what is happening with reform prisons? We had a report this week about Holme House prison, which showed that every indicator was going in the wrong direction. It showed more drug use, more self-harm and more attacks on staff—and that is in a reform prison. We need to know who is accountable for that, and what plans are in place to drive improvements in that prison.

Time is extremely pressing, so I shall just ask the Minister one more question. When the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), appeared before the Justice Committee recently, I asked whether the Oakhill training centre was now performing to a contractual level with which he was satisfied, and he replied, “Currently, they are.” Since that discussion, a report on Oakhill has shown that, yet again, that establishment is not performing to the required standard. Will the Minister tell me what concrete steps are being taken to improve performance at Oakhill? If the improvements that have been set out are not made, will he seek to remove the contract from G4S, as has happened elsewhere?

Policing and Crime Bill

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by agreeing with the Minister that some good progress has been made in the course of our deliberations on the Bill. There have been improvements, which we will discuss later, on tackling child sexual exploitation and on the police bail regime—particularly as it applies to those suspected of being involved in terrorism activity. As he has just indicated, there has also been progress on police misconduct, which I will come to.

However, the Bill presents an opportunity to do much more to improve police accountability, and that is an opportunity that we in the House now need to grab. Today, I want to present a package of proposals that respond to the historic verdict of the Hillsborough inquest, which finally concluded, after 27 years, that, as the families had known from day one, the loss of their loved ones was not an accident and they had been unlawfully killed, but that that fact had been covered up for all those years.

This package seeks to rebalance this country and to make it fairer. It seeks to rebalance it away from the establishment and in favour of ordinary families. It is a package that will stand as a permanent tribute to the dignity and determination of the Hillsborough families. Knowing them as I do, they would want nothing more than that no other family in the future should go through what they have gone through.

Let me take the House briefly through this package of proposals. New clause 63 would give bereaved families equal funding for legal representation at inquests where the police are involved. It seeks to establish the crucial principle that there should be parity between the two sides. The reason that is important is that it says very clearly that the public interest lies in finding the truth. That is how public resources should be directed: they should not be directed towards creating an unbalanced contest at an inquest, with public money used to protect vested interests in the public sector.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am happy to confirm that the Liberal Democrats will support this proposal. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, had it been in place at the time of the first inquest, the truth might have emerged at that stage, and the families would not have had to go through such a dire long wait to get to the truth?

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. He is absolutely right. I will come on to explain precisely how this would have helped to even the playing field and give the families the chance to get truth at the first time of asking. The original inquest catastrophically failed on that account, and that needs to be very clearly understood as we consider this amendment.

Amendment 126 seeks to close the long-standing loophole of retirement being used by police officers as a route to evade misconduct proceedings. New clause 64 seeks to hold the Government to their promise to the victims of press intrusion to hold a second-stage inquiry looking at the culture of relations between police and the press. New clause 66 seeks to legislate for a code of practice with regard to the media relations policy of each police force, and to spell out that attributable briefing by police forces, which was so damaging in the case of Hillsborough, is not permitted unless it is in the most exceptional circumstances. Amendments 127 and 128 seek to strengthen the Independent Police Complaints Commission. New clause 67, which will be considered later, seeks to strengthen the offence of misconduct in public office.

Let me start with the area where there is greatest consensus—police misconduct. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I am grateful for the movement that he indicated to the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), in Committee whereby there should not merely be an arbitrary 12-month period after retirement, because, as we know, police wrongdoing may come to light much later. We are glad that the Government have indicated that they are prepared to move on this matter in the other place and table an amendment to that effect. While I will not press my amendment to a vote, I would still like to press the Minister a little further on this point. He is saying that this should be applied only in the most exceptional circumstances, but that potentially rules out many people who might be guilty of gross misconduct but would not be caught by his “exceptional” test. He needs to reassure the House on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I would not criticise for a moment the shadow Home Secretary for speaking for 45 minutes. He had a lot to say and spoke with great passion. He knows a lot about the bereaved Hillsborough families and all the associated issues, so I do not want to criticise him. If I may, however, before coming on to talk about new clause 23, I would like to say something gently to the right hon. Gentleman.

I do not know the Silk—I have never met him—to whom he twice referred and accused of unattractive conduct. That Silk was speaking on instructions, and I assume that, in line with the traditions and professional standards of the Bar, he did not set out deliberately to attack people. He was acting for the two relevant public authorities on the two separate occasions. It was his duty to put the cases for those clients. The cases might well have been unattractive and might well have come across as deeply upsetting to the people who were cross-examined, but it was his professional duty to act in that way. Another barrister might have done it differently or another client might have given different instructions, but it is a bit mean, if I may say so, to call out a particular barrister here in the House of Commons.

[Norman Lamb]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not want to be distracted when we have so little time. I just wanted to defend the method by which members of the profession have to represent their clients. That aside, there is little on which I wish to criticise the shadow Home Secretary.

In the short time available I want to speak to new clause 23, which removes the requirement for prior authorisation in section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, so that

“Where a constable…reasonably believes that an offence has been, or is being, committed he may…require any person to remove any item”

when it is used

“wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing identity”.

The context in which I tabled the new clause—with about 22 other right hon. and hon. Members—goes back, as I said, to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 60 states:

“If a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes…that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area, and that it is expedient to give an authorisation under this section to prevent their occurrence, or…that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in any locality in his police area without good reason, he may give an authorisation that the powers conferred by this section are to be exercisable at any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours.”

That section gave the police a geographically limited and time-limited power to do certain things. That was extended in 2001 by the addition of section 60AA, which gave the police a power, in that geographical area and for that limited time, to require the removal of disguises. Provided that there was prior authorisation, provided that that authorisation was written, and provided that it was for 24 hours unless extended by another officer for a further 24 hours, within that limited location, the constable in uniform was enabled to

“require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity”

and to

“seize any item which the constable reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose.”

So it was not until 2001 that the 1994 Act was amended to allow the police, in certain limited circumstances, to be authorised to deal with disguises.

As the House will recall, in August 2011 there were widespread riots throughout the country, following which the Government issued a consultation paper to consider whether three things needed to be looked at: the use of the word “insulting” in the 1994 Act, new powers to request the removal of face coverings, and new powers to impose curfews. The Government thought it appropriate to consult about new powers relating to such matters as disguises, saying:

“The…consultation aims to progress the commitment made by the Prime Minister following the recent disorder in respect of new powers to request the removal of face coverings. After the ransacking and arson by looters wearing masks to conceal identification, the Government announced that the police would be given extended powers to demand the removal of face coverings under any circumstances, where there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

Interestingly, the Government did not respond to the consultation other than in relation to “insulting words or behaviour”; the law was amended in that regard. In respect of the power to require the removal of face coverings, the law remains as it was in 2001. As I have said, that power is geographically limited and time-limited, and requires prior authorisation.

I have had the benefit of two meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims, who generously allowed me, and two of my hon. Friends, to try to persuade him that the law needed to be changed. On that occasion there were only eight officials in the room, but he seemed to be unpersuaded, on the basis of the advice that he had been given by officials and police officers, that a change in the law was necessary. Indeed, I think it was suggested to me that our new clause would weaken the powers of the police to remove disguises.

We need to recognise that the people who attend demonstrations wearing balaclavas or other face coverings are not doing that simply to prevent their identities from being discovered. Clearly, if a demonstration involves unlawful activity and the police are able to film it, or it is covered by local authority CCTV cameras, there is no better way for people to avoid detection, or avoid being caught, than disguising their faces. In most, although not all, criminal cases, the identity of the perpetrator is a fairly central part of the prosecution case. I am reasonably sure that in the olden days when robbers used to run into banks with shotguns and hold them up, normally wearing stockings over their faces, they were not wearing silk stockings on their heads because they liked the feeling of silk on their faces; they were wearing those silk stockings—or even tights, in which case it would be nylon on their faces—in order to prevent themselves from being discovered.

The same thing, I suspect, goes for people who are intent on pretty unattractive behaviour in the streets here in London, and in Manchester at last year’s Conservative party conference, where people in masks spat at delegates going into the conference hall, but they also do it to intimidate. There is nothing more intimidating than seeing somebody covered like that coming at you or demonstrating with a view to causing trouble. Yes, of course, there are laws already on the statute book or, no doubt, under common law which make it possible for a police officer to arrest somebody wearing a face mask if they are committing an offence. But in the event that there is a large-scale demonstration and there are not enough police officers to make it safe or practical for the police officer to go in, and therefore the police need to rely upon video evidence or film evidence of the perpetrator, it strikes me as unreal for a police officer to rely upon the existing power, which is geographically limited and time-limited, in order to deal with the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. There may be a role for police and crime commissioners to explore the need to work more closely with the health service and others to provide the capacity for appropriate places of safety such that police officers do not have to make the sorts of decisions implied by new clause 58.

The overall changes to sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act are essential and quite transformative. We have to be very clear about what we mean by the exceptional circumstances in which people are detained, perhaps moving to a system where it becomes inappropriate in all circumstances even for adults to be detained in police cells. I recognise that there may be a need to define the exceptional circumstances in which that might happen. The proposed changes are positive. The new clauses I have discussed raise important questions that the Minister should consider in summing up.

[Norman Lamb]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris). I also welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who does an awful lot of campaigning on this issue.

I have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments. The first issue I want to deal with is whether we should disallow the use of Tasers on psychiatric wards. Before I get into the detail, I, like other speakers, want to acknowledge the inspiring leadership of many police leaders who, through force of strong moral leadership, have managed to change practice in many parts of the country. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

On the issue of Tasers on psychiatric wards, the hon. Gentleman referred to Black Mental Health UK, an important campaigning organisation. As he said, it has drawn attention to the fact that

“in particular Black African Caribbean men”

are

“disproportionately over-represented in S136 detentions compared to the general population.”

That, incidentally, is a conclusion from the joint Home Office and Department of Health review of sections 135 and 136. It has also been reported that the police are more likely to use force against black African-Caribbean men.

I want to challenge the assumption that force is necessary at the level with which it is used at the moment. Black Mental Health UK refers in its briefing for this debate to the United Nations committee against torture, which has stated that Taser X26 weapons provoke extreme pain and constitute a form of torture and that in certain cases they can also cause death. Although they are termed non-lethal, almost 10 known deaths have been associated with the use of Tasers in the past 10 years.

I want to get a debate going on the subject. I am delighted that the Home Secretary herself has said:

“I have been hearing stories, for example, of Tasers having been used in mental health wards and you think, ‘Hang on a minute, what is happening here?’”

That is what we should all be doing: we should be questioning whether that is appropriate, and that is why I tabled new clause 40.

My amendment 124 would, in effect, prohibit the use of police cells as a place of safety for adults. I welcome the fact that the Government are implementing, through this Bill, the joint review’s recommendation to end the use of police cells for children and young people. However, the inspiring leadership of many police officers, working closely with mental health services, means that, in all but the most extreme cases, the use of police cells for such purposes has ended in some parts of the country. In London, for example, hardly any adults go into police cells as a result of section 136, and the same is true about the west midlands over the past two years. If those areas of the country with impressive leadership can do it, we should challenge every part of the country to do so, and the Bill should lead the way.

I welcome the fact that the Minister himself said on Second Reading:

“Unless we actually put a stop to that”—

the use of police cells—

“and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ we will not get the provision we need from other agencies.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 102-103.]

That is absolutely right. We cannot use the fact that the NHS is under pressure as an excuse not to do this. If it is wrong, it is wrong, and it needs to be challenged.

My new clause 45 would ensure that, in every case where there has been evidence of child sexual exploitation, the victims are referred for a mental health assessment. “Future in mind”, the report that I published in March 2015 following a taskforce that we set up to consider children’s mental health services, set out the need for trauma-focused care and for sexually abused and exploited children to receive

“a comprehensive specialist initial assessment, and referral to appropriate services providing evidence-based interventions according to their need.”

The new clause seeks to implement that recommendation.

In its briefing for this debate, the Local Government Association supports the intention, but again raises concern about investment. Are we really saying that the lack of availability of mental health services is a reason not to ensure that every child who has suffered sexual exploitation gets the chance to receive a proper assessment? Surely we have to set what is right in legislation and then ensure that we provide the facilities to make it happen. Anything short of that is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about detention at home, which I raised in Committee? Although it is welcome that this Bill will try to reduce the number of people going into police cells, the de facto position may be to take people home because of the lack of beds elsewhere, even though that might not be the best place for the individual concerned.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fear is that that will become the default position in some localities because of the lack of resources available. That would be a big mistake. In circumstances where section 136 is used, surely the person should be taken to a health-based place of safety. A real effort is under way around the country—it is showing signs of success—through the use of approaches such as the street triage service, to reduce substantially the use of section 136 at all and to deal with issues in a more informal way. However, where it has to be used, we must make sure that the person is taken to the right place.

[James Morris]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that perhaps we need to think about the definition of “health-based place of safety”? The definition is in the control of the national health service, but perhaps it needs to be broader so that it can mean a voluntary organisation or elsewhere. That would be one way of improving our capacity.

[Norman Lamb]

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in his speech a few moments ago and he is absolutely right. A crisis house or a place of safety provided by a particular community for one of its people may well be the best place for them to go. We should be willing to open up the definition in an appropriate way.

New clause 59 centres on the right of those detained under sections 135 and 136 to an appropriate adult. Anyone detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 has a right to an independent mental health advocate, except when the detention is under sections 135 or 136. In such circumstances, the person may be very vulnerable, so surely the Bill should embrace the idea, as Mind has argued, that they should have a right to an appropriate adult.

Finally, I want to address the issue of when the clock should start. I welcome the fact that the Bill reduces to 24 hours the maximum length of time for which someone should be held under section 136 while the assessment takes place. There is a critical question, however, about when the clock starts. If there is pressure on resources and facilities, someone could be kept in a police van and driven around a city—that does happen sometimes. That time, under the Government’s proposed definition, would not count. Some hours could pass before the person arrived at the place of safety. Mind’s argument, which is contained in amendment 125, is that the clock should start when a person is detained rather than when they arrive at a place of safety.

[Mike Penning]

One of my concerns about that is that we set a target of taking the individual who needs that help somewhere quickly, rather than taking them to the right place for their needs.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and I understand that we have to balance all these things. I am trying to ensure that legislation puts pressure on agencies to provide sufficient resource to meet a clear need. That is not the case at the moment.

I conclude by saying that the amendments and new clauses in this group are all designed to improve the rights of people with mental ill health, who are too often let down by the system at the moment.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I wish to address new clause 23 and take the Minister on a very short metaphorical journey with me, although perhaps nowhere near as far as new clause 23 seeks to go. I am sorry if I am trying the patience of the Minister and the House, because the Minister has been exceptionally courteous today, as he has been to me on previous aspects of the Bill.

Let me explain the mischief of face coverings, with which the House is well acquainted. In my intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), I mentioned two events: the Conservative party conference in Manchester, and an incident in my constituency in which, during the badger cull, two people in masks parked outside a farmhouse several evenings in a row as it was getting dark, deliberately intending to intimidate. A similar thing happened at the Blackpool conference. I was there when people, women in particular, were intimidated by people in masks. If only the police had been able to ask those people to take off the masks, I think the intimidation would have stopped almost on the spot. I suspect that in those two incidents, the mere act of the constable on duty asking those people to take off the masks would have stopped the mischief there and then.

That is the journey on which I want to take my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is perhaps not the entirety of new clause 23, but let us simply look at section 60AA of the Public Order Act 1994, which requires a constable on duty to obtain prior written consent before a mask is taken off—[Interruption.] The Minister is going to intervene. May I just explain where I am coming from on this? Very often, a constable will get on the radio and obtain verbal consent, and the written consent is given afterwards. Technically, a crime is being committed because they have not got prior written consent.

Let us do away with the whole issue of written consent. We train our constables to a very high level, and we put a great deal of trust in them. Let us trust them in individual situations. If they think that face masks are a problem, we should give them the power to demand that the face masks be removed immediately. It may even be possible to do this by secondary legislation. Section 60AA—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Minister want me to give way? If he does as I suggest, I think we will achieve what we want to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It is real privilege to sum up the debate on this group of amendments. I thank the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for giving me more time—he could easily have risen to speak to the amendments. I am pleased that I have a bit of time to talk through some of the points that have been raised, and I have already given some indication of what I will say in interventions on right hon. and hon. Members. I have been told off by the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that is understandable. It was not the first time, and it will not be the last time.

I want to say a little about the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on the new inspectorate. At the outset, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was brutally honest when he said he would have liked to have made this change, but was prevented by circumstances when he was the Minister? Perhaps the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse—my predecessor in many different capacities, including as a firefighter—was also prevented from doing so by different circumstances when he was Minister.

We must learn from our mistakes—to be brutally honest, we all make mistakes in life—so the first thing to say is that it is absolutely correct that the inspectorate will not be an old boys’ network. It will be based on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and on police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy reviews. Firefighters will not have weeks to practise their escape drills, which I remember so vividly from when I was in the job. For people of a certain age, such escapes were done on the old ladders, which were on big wheels that could get firefighters to places some of the modern ladders will not reach.

Importantly, the inspector will have the power to bring in the experts he or she thinks fit to do inspections. The inspector should not be an ex-chief fire officer from somewhere, which is similar to the arrangements in Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I know that will ruffle a few feathers within the network, with people saying, “We’re experts, we know best”, but it is important for the inspector to come in and ask, “Why? Why do you do it that way?” and then to bring in other expertise. I think that is the way to do it.

I think the former Fire Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, will find that when we started to talk about this issue—it was raised in Committee by the shadow Fire Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—I had only been in the job for two weeks, because the role of Police and Fire Minister was very new. However, I knew what I wanted to do, as did the Home Secretary, and I freely admit that a little bit of encouragement from the shadow Minister has helped us on our way. There are areas in which we will be able to work much more along the lines of how Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary does its inspections, so that people are not prepared for the day having known about the inspection for weeks in advance, as happened in my time.

I want to speak to some of the Government amendments that I did not have the opportunity to talk about earlier, and I will turn to some of the excellent contributions made during this debate. One of the most important areas of agreement that I have reached, with the Home Secretary’s permission, is in relation to the 12-month rule for officers who have retired or left the force. Since long before I held my current position, it has always struck me as strange that, criminal proceedings apart, an officer of no matter what rank could step down and start their pension almost the day before they became subject to investigations within the police force. In some cases that does not happen. I have the duty of signing documents that revoke police officers’ pensions when they have broken the rules so badly that they lose their pension. I do that quite regularly. It is difficult to sign something that will dramatically change someone’s future, and I do not in any way do so lightly. I often quiz my officials about whether it is the right way to go, not least because a good proportion of the contributions to the pension were that person’s own contributions, not the state’s contributions. However, the rules are quite specific in those cases.

Although we did not want to leave things completely open—I know the shadow Home Secretary will understand that—we thought there was a real opportunity to leave a great legacy on behalf of the Hillsborough victims. The change to the 12-month rule will be for exceptional circumstances. It is difficult to put them into primary legislation, so we will do it by regulations. I hope that the shadow Front-Bench team will work with us on those regulations, along with other parties in the House. They will be one of the biggest legacies of what we are doing.

I am sorry that we do not quite agree with Her Majesty’s Opposition on two issues. On Leveson 2, the Home Secretary has set her position out in front of the Home Affairs Committee, and I have set it out too. I am categorically not saying that it is not going to happen, but no decision will be made until after the criminal investigations. That is the position that the Home Secretary has set out—it is way above my pay grade—and that is how it will stay.

[Norman Lamb]

I do not want to compete with the SNP in offering to be honest broker, but could the Minister not say that when the cases have concluded the Government will reaffirm the commitment to Leveson 2? It would be straightforward to say that now, and it would be widely welcomed.

[Mike Penning]

The point has been made on numerous occasions. The Home Secretary has said, and I have said, that we will wait for the inquiries and proceedings to finish and then announce our position on Leveson 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I was trying to get to exactly that point. That is a role for police and crime commissioners. If we devolve the powers in question, it will give more powers to PCCs, and rightly so. If we believe in and are aiming for localism, PCCs should know what is going on in their part of the world, and that information should be made available to the public and not left opaque. That will take work—I am delegating more work to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench, and to others across the Government, because this is not just a Home Office matter. Someone said earlier that this measure should not be in the Bill, but it is there because it needs to be.

[Norman Lamb]

In monitoring the use of Tasers, will the Minister ensure that we consider the ethnic dimension of who they are used on, and that that information is made publicly available and there is transparency?

[Mike Penning]

That is vital. When I was the Minister responsible for disabilities, one issue under discussion was the disproportionate number of black men who are tasered in mental health facilities. Indeed, there is a disproportionately high proportion of black men in mental health facilities, as we know there is in prisons and throughout the criminal justice system. We cannot just say, “Let’s get on with it”; we must do something about that, including by raising people’s educational standards, aspirations and so on.

The other important issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised concerns people who have been abused, whether it is sexual abuse or other types of abuse. We must ensure that they get the right care early on, and we must not assume that that abuse will show up in someone’s first medical analysis. I know that from friends who suffer from post-traumatic stress—I have friends who served in the Falklands who are only now showing the signs.

[Norman Lamb]

I accept that problems might show up only later on, but if the Minister does not accept that my new clause would provide for an automatic referral, will he accept that the Government should make clear that it should be standard process that a child is referred for an assessment of their mental health needs, as the Children’s Society suggests?

[Mike Penning]

This is probably way beyond my portfolio, but as a father I would ask, if someone is assessing a child who has been abused, how can they not assess them for mental health damage that may have occurred? That is the natural thing to do—I will probably get shot for saying that, but at the end of the day that is probably the moral position. How that is done is for the right hon. Gentleman’s former Department and social services to address.

I turn to facial coverings and new clause 23, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and other colleagues. I think we have reached a consensus. I arranged for Assistant Chief Constable Paul Netherton to lead on the issue for the whole country within the police. Very unusually for a senior police officer, or indeed for any police officer, he said, “Don’t give me any more powers. I am happy with the powers we have,” In our meetings, however—I am happy to share this with the House—it was conceded that the way the current legislation is being interpreted through guidance is an issue. There is also some confusion about the powers under section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which concerns the need for a written authority. In reality, the police get on their radios and say, “This is the situation. I want to remove it. I think that an offence is going to take place.” The request is instantly given, and it is signed later on. That is not breaking any law; that is how the procedure works on a daily basis.

The Home Secretary and I both understand that there are real concerns about whether the measure is being implemented in a way that ensures public confidence as well as that of the police. Rather than change the law against the advice that I am getting from the police, we have proposed a review into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A. That does not happen often, but this autumn a review will take place into stop and search. The powers in the Bill are similar to those stop-and-search powers, and we will ask for them to be included in that code. That significant change will alleviate some of the concerns, but we must ensure that we provide those powers.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

I simply do not understand the logic of banning poppers, then looking at the evidence and subsequently perhaps unbanning them. That would send out mixed messages. If the review comes forward with enough evidence to warrant the banning of poppers, I will support the Minister all the way. However, I am not in the job of banning things for banning’s sake only to unban them later. The Minister should apply some common sense and back our amendment 5, because that is the right approach.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me slightly earlier than I expected.

I speak in support of my amendments. Taken together, they are designed to challenge the Government’s approach to this Bill. I suspect all Members share the same objective in that we are all ultimately concerned about harm and want to reduce for our loved ones and across society the risk that drugs, both legal and illegal, pose.

Speaking as a father, I happen to be rather hostile to drugs. I am hostile to the excessive use of legal drugs because of the damage they do to society, but I challenge the approach taken in this Bill. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) spoke of the risk of making bad law, and I think that, seductive though the Government’s approach may be, we face the risk of legislating for bad law in this instance. As I have said, our objective should be harm reduction, and we should surely base legislation on evidence of what works.

According to the Home Office’s own 2014 report entitled “Drugs: International Comparators”,

“there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country’s approach and the prevalence of adult drug use.”

As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, the great risk is that Members on both sides of the House will assume that adopting the Bill’s approach will reduce the use of what are, in some cases, dangerous substances, although the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

Like others, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who made a fantastic speech and spoke very openly and candidly, made the point that the Bill—in respect of poppers, but, in fact, across the board—would drive users into the hands of criminals. What criminal has people’s interests at heart? None of them, of course. I urge Members to think before they vote for the Bill, because that is precisely what we shall be doing. Moreover, we shall be massively increasing the profits of criminals and criminal networks. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has said that there is a clear link between the profits made from illicit drugs and the funding of terrorism, pointing out that, in Afghanistan, money raised from the sale of cocaine has been fed into the hands of the Taliban.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I will not, because I am conscious that time is very tight, and I do not want to get into trouble with the Chair.

We should think before we act. New clause 5 calls for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 so that we can determine policy on the basis of evidence rather than prejudice. New clause 6 calls for a decriminalisation of the use of drugs, given that evidence from Portugal has shown a reduction in harm as a result of the adoption of that policy. In new clause 3, I happily join my former colleague in the Department of Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), in arguing for the facilitation of research on the potential medicinal value of cannabis. Amendment 24 proposes the legalisation of possession of cannabis for medicinal use. Surely we should not be criminalising people who use cannabis to relieve pain, yet that is what we do in this country. It is madness.

New clause 4 argues that we should ban substances under the Bill only after they have been referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, so that an objective judgment can be made about whether they cause social harm. That, of course, is in line with amendment 5. We are about to commit an act of total madness, banning poppers and then removing the ban just a few months down the track. That makes absolutely no sense, and, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), it brings the law into disrepute.

The Bill’s approach is seductive, and it is understandable, because people are fearful of the effects of these products. Ultimately, however, it is bad law, and it will have precisely the wrong effect.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I rise to express my broad support for what the Government are trying to do. This is a major issue in Plymouth. At the beginning of this week the local paper ran a story about an individual who had drowned in a local harbour in October 2014. A toxicology report showed that among a number of other drugs a legal high was present in his system. Sadly, I need only look back a further five days in the same paper to find another story about these chemicals, which have now become a haunting menace to society.

Over Christmas I did what many of my hon. colleagues will have done, and went and served Christmas lunch to the homeless at the hostels, and they are being plagued outside these hostels by people selling these illegal highs. This is a real problem in Plymouth.

I also go out with the emergency services at least once a month. When doing so, I see the challenge presented to our law enforcement by these substances. I fully support the Minister in his efforts to identify the new psychoactive substances and react more quickly to them.

I ran a campaign briefly prior to Christmas attempting to raise awareness of these substances, and I strongly support other councils on this. I would like Plymouth to lead the way in getting these substances banned locally before this Bill is enacted.

Ultimately, for me this comes down to one key thing. We often talk in this House of how we support those who challenge the most challenging parts of society, such as police officers and prison officers. They strongly support what we are doing here. It is not good enough simply to stand up in the House of Commons and say, “We fully support the police” and “We fully support prison officers” and then not give them the tools to do their job, which is what I think is being done here. That is why I support the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

With devolution, different Governments in different parts of this great nation are delivering programmes. I fully respect that it is very early days. Part of the review that I committed to early on is that we will look very carefully at how we and other parts of the country have done things. Interestingly, we will have better evidence from the Republic of Ireland as well.

When we discussed this matter in Committee, I was aware that the shadow Minister was at times on a very steep learning curve, as indeed was I with regard to part of the Bill. I do think that we can resolve some issues without the statutory requirement in the legislation. The shadow Minister referred to the cost of interventions and education. The latest figure that we have on tackling drug misuse is £341 million, which was, believe it or not, in 2011-12.

Right at the start, I accepted that FRANK is not perfect and that it needs to be improved, but I do not want scrap it and bring in something else with a different name. The scheme very much needs to work with the Angelus Foundation and others, because the third sector—the voluntary sector—often knows much better than the Government, which is why the previous Administration and this Administration have used it extensively.

[Norman Lamb]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

Let me make some progress. If I have time, I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

I know from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that there were concerns that non-psychoactive substances will be pulled in. This Bill is specifically about psychoactive substances. My full understanding is that we will not be including the sort of products to which she has alluded, but we will keep a close eye. Under clause 3, we have the ability to take things out. I must say, though, that that clause is not designed to bring in things, which caused slight confusion during the debate this afternoon. When I come on to poppers, I will explain myself a little better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I am more than happy to write to my right hon. Friend with those assurances, so long as we know exactly what those substances are. We need to communicate about that outside the Chamber.

[Norman Lamb]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I will curtail my comments so that the House can make its decisions and we can move on to the next group of amendments.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the Minister. On the question of not wanting to criminalise young people, and in reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), is it the case that the Bill will criminalise someone who buys online from overseas but will not criminalise someone who buys in an alleyway from a criminal?

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I did not expect to be in confrontation with the hon. Lady so early on, but I think, yet again, that she is wrong. I have been to the Republic of Ireland, as well as to Northern Ireland, and not only seen the damage that these psychoactive substances have done, but met Ministers and their chemists. They think their legislation is working, and I agree with them, and New South Wales has implemented similar legislation within the past five days. The rest of the world may not be right, but in this case I think it is. I have looked extensively at this issue, as has the Select Committee on Home Affairs previously—it is doing so again and we are awaiting its report. In the Republic of Ireland the head shops vanished overnight. There are young and old people who thought these drugs were safe. Whether or not we or the scientists like to call them that, they are classed as and felt in the public domain to be legal, safe highs. That is what young people think they are.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will make a bit of progress before we come back into confrontation.

[Norman Lamb]

No confrontation.

[Mike Penning]

I will give way then.

[Norman Lamb]

I hope that the Minister accepts that those people who have concerns about this legislation have the same purpose in mind: to try to address substances that are causing harm. Does he not have any concern that if the effect of the legislation is to hand the entire industry over to organised crime, we may end up with unintended consequences?

[Mike Penning]

If I thought that was going to happen, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box. It has not happened elsewhere; it did not happen in the Republic of Ireland. What has happened there is that people are alive today who would not have been if the legislation had not been introduced there, which is why this Bill is so important. We will, however, make sure that we learn from the mistakes in the Republic of Ireland, and we are going to accept and work with lots of amendments that were tabled in the other place. I will have to table consequential amendments in Committee to make sure that the Bill is legal in that framework, but we are going to accept these recommendations and changes proposed in the other House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly the point, and it is important that we close any loopholes, but there are no intentions to criminalise the people we have been talking about.

[Norman Lamb]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will give way once more, but then I will wind up, as Members wish to speak in the debate.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the Minister. To follow up the point made by Scottish National party Members, will he explain again why it is illegal to purchase a product that is being imported, but why the Bill does not criminalise the purchase of exactly the same product in this country? We criminalise someone if they happen to buy it overseas, but not if they buy it in this country. What is the logic?

[Mike Penning]

The logic is to try to stop dealers bringing stuff in through websites. That is close to the legislation that is being used in Ireland, where it is working, so we think it is appropriate.

We will make sure that the House protects people without criminalising any individuals for having small amounts of a substance. We are going to do something that should have been done years ago. There will be a blanket ban so that chemists, organised criminals and, in some parts of these islands, paramilitaries do not work together. We will make sure that the legislation is as tight as possible and will at last do something we should have done before by introducing a blanket ban on psychoactive substances. I hope that the Bill completes its Second Reading this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I have only been in this job for two weeks, but if I had been in it for a bit longer and the Public Bill Committee was not next week, I would have nipped over to Ireland to find out. My information is that the ban has closed down the head shops. The second piece of information from Ireland is that the number of people going to hospital with the effects of psychoactive drugs has also declined. I have managed to glean those two pieces of information from Ireland. I promise that I will do more research on Ireland before the Committee next week. Even if I am not allowed to go across to Ireland—can I go?—I will certainly have a look at that. [Interruption.]

[Norman Lamb]

I will not take that groan personally. To follow up on the intervention by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the hon. Lady may be interested to know that in Poland, where the same approach is being applied, the number of poisonings—this is about damage to young people—has gone up dramatically since the ban came in from 562 cases in 2010 to 1,600 in the first 10 months of 2014. Does that not give her cause to pause in supporting the Bill?

[Lyn Brown]

I genuinely think that Ireland is much more comparable to us than Poland. However, I do not think that I will get to Poland in the next week—if I can, I will—but I will certainly look at the evidence cited by the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I should say at the start that I am instinctively hostile to drugs and their excessive use, be they legal or illegal. I make the same admission as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), the spokesperson for the Scottish nationalists: I have never taken any illegal substance. My absolute anxiety about the impact of drugs on society does not lead me to conclude, however, that this Bill is the right way—the best way—to address the problem. I am anxious about the impact of prohibition. As we have seen so often internationally, it brings with it unintended consequences, so we have to proceed carefully.

My plea to those who support the Bill is that they accept the bona fides of those of us who have concerns, as we may have exactly the same interest at heart. I share all the anxieties that the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) expressed, but we reach a different conclusion about the best way of addressing this harm. My whole interest is in reducing harm, particularly to young people. My anxiety is that although this Bill is seductive in its attraction, it is none the less misguided.

[Steve Brine]

I do not mean this unkindly and I realise that the Lib Dems are moving on from the manifesto on which the right hon. Gentleman stood at the last election, but did not that manifesto contain a pledge to implement exactly what his colleague, the former Member for Lewes, laid the groundwork for in government with regard to this Bill?

[Norman Lamb]

I would have to check that. All I want to do is say what I believe, which is ultimately what we should be doing in debate in this place.

First, let me raise a concern about process. The Government have circumvented the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but they are unwise to do so. Its clear legal remit has been ignored. It is there to advise precisely on such issues. It seemed somewhat cynical to consult it after the text of the Bill had been drafted and just two days before the Bill was laid, and then for the Government to ignore its recommendations. Instead, the Home Office convened a separate new expert group. What on earth is the point of that when we have an advisory committee that is legally obliged to advise on such issues? It seems that the duty of the advisory committee has been fettered in a very damaging way.

The definition seems to be flawed. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, is it not extraordinary that at this point of our consideration of a Bill there is such concern about the possible implications of a definition? The view of many is that it is impossible to provide a scientifically or legally meaningful definition of a psychoactive substance. The definition is very broad. At least in principle, it could cover thousands of plants, spices, herbal remedies and over-the-counter medicines. The degree of psychoactivity necessary to establish a criminal offence is also completely unclear, as it is unspoken in the Bill, but that will create a legal and scientific minefield. As the advisory committee warned, there is a risk of serious unintended consequences.

Under the blanket ban, there will be absolutely no distinction between very risky substances and relatively safe ones, as all are treated exactly the same under the Bill. Two of the most dangerous drugs of all—alcohol and tobacco—are exempted. Hon. Members should bear in mind that tobacco kills 100,000 people in our country every year. What is more dangerous than that? Alcohol causes untold damage to society, yet it is exempted from the Bill, and that seems to undermine respect for the law.

Let us look at the international evidence. Since a blanket ban was introduced in Ireland in 2010, usage has increased to the point where it is the highest in Europe. That is under a system that involves a ban, so should not that make us pause for reflection? In Poland, there was initially a drop in use after the introduction of a ban, but there was then a dramatic increase in use. The number of NPS-induced poisonings—we are now talking directly about harm to individuals—has risen dramatically from 562 cases in 2010 to 1,600 cases in the first 10 months of 2014. Does that not cause the Government to stop and think about the implications of passing the Bill? The analysis of the Home Office—the Department promoting the Bill—says:

“Looking across different countries, there is no apparent correlation between the toughness of a country’s approach and the prevalence of adult drug usage.”

Again, should not the Home Office be reflecting on its own analysis?

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman, like a few others, is making a great play about this Lisbon-based European monitoring body and its report. Can he confirm whether it is a report of all 28 member states and whether the United Kingdom is included in the comparisons, or was the UK, along with the Netherlands and many others, excluded from the Lisbon report?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman might be right—I thank him for his intervention—but that does not in any way undermine my concern about what has happened in Poland since the introduction of a ban. The number of poisonings has gone up dramatically.

The effect of the Bill will be to hand the entire supply of these substances to organised crime. What a triumph of Government policy that is, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[John Mann]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Norman Lamb]

Let me make this point, as I am conscious that other people, perhaps including the hon. Gentleman, want to speak.

Does a criminal have any interest in my welfare? Of course they do not. Remarkably, as we were discussing earlier, the Bill manages to criminalise the purchase of a substance imported from overseas, but does not criminalise the purchase of exactly the same product domestically. Is that not just ridiculous? Can anyone in the Chamber possibly justify that distinction?

The Bill does not criminalise possession for personal use because the expert group acknowledged the negative impact on young people. It is good that that is acknowledged, but if the Government accept that criminalising usage has a negative impact on young people, why not apply that approach to drugs covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act? We have managed to come up with three tiers of approach for substances with a broadly equivalent risk. We have one tier that criminalises the use and supply of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Another approach—the one taken in the Bill—criminalises supply but not possession, while the third approach is the legal supply and use of two of the most dangerous drugs of all, tobacco and alcohol. It seems to me that that undermines respect for the law.

We should at least consider regulation rather than prohibition. If lower-risk drugs were subject to a regulated legal framework, the incentive to develop and market new psychoactive substances would diminish. That is exactly what has happened in the Netherlands, where the de facto legalisation of cannabis has removed from the market far more risky synthetic cannabinoids. The Government ought to reflect on that.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman cited Poland, but did not reference his source. He now cites evidence from the Netherlands without referencing his source. Is not his source a badly researched, unquantified report by Transform, which is a pro-drug lobby group, rather than academic research?

[Norman Lamb]

Rather than dealing with the accusation that the hon. Gentleman makes, my concern is to encourage him to reflect on what I said at the start of my speech. We ought to be able to discuss these issues recognising that while those the other side may sometimes have a different point of view, they might be seeking the same objective. The Government have not carried out any risk analysis of what happened in Ireland since it introduced a ban, but surely that is exactly what they ought to have done.

The Bill is flawed and our debate suggests that many Members recognise its flaws. My fear is that it will not work and that it will be brought into disrepute. My preference would be to work on an approach that protects young people, that avoids enriching criminals as well as lawyers, that provides clarity, rather than legal confusion that can be exploited in court by lawyers, and that is based on health and the reduction of harm.

Cannabis

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lilley]

My hon. Friend has not stated a specific study, but certainly that was not the view in the Lancet review of cannabis. I find that there is a searching around for evidence. It is policy-based evidence—evidence that has been looked for to justify a policy, rather than being found and leading to a policy. It is similar to the sort of thing we find in the global warming debate.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I find myself agreeing with everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps with the exception of what he has just said. Does he agree that if a product is potentially dangerous, it is better to purchase it in a regulated market, with controls, rather than purchasing it from a criminal?

[Mr Lilley]

That is absolutely right. The product is most likely to be unhealthy if it is illegally obtained and probably impure—of course that is even more true of hard drugs—and likely therefore to cause side effects that are not necessarily caused directly by the cannabis itself. Obviously, it is usually used in association with tobacco, which is itself undoubtedly harmful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

I certainly agree that the medical arguments are overwhelming. I cannot think of any good reasons for not allowing the use of cannabis and its derivatives for medical purposes, although there clearly are arguments, which I do not find compelling, for prohibiting it generally.

The more I examine the arguments for prohibition, the clearer it is to me that although the pretence is that it is for health reasons, the actual reason is moral disapprobation of drugs. I am probably one of the few people in this room who is prepared to say that I share that moral disapprobation. Of course, the greatest sin that one can commit in this country is to take a moral view on anything; that is the supreme immorality. I do think that it is wrong, however, to get stoned out of one’s mind on anything. It is degrading. God gave us minds to see things clearly, not to befuddle and bemuse. There are greater moral arguments, the traditional one being that it undermines one’s self-control and leads to other, more serious wrongdoing. For all those reasons, I am against using it and I would discourage people from using it.

Those who are motivated by moral disapproval of the abuse of drugs make two mistakes. First, they confuse use and abuse. Occasionally to have a relaxing spliff is one thing. I have never done so, and I would not advocate it, but I occasionally go home and drink a glass of wine to relax after a hard day of looking at 38 Degrees petitions, and I do not see any great difficulty in that. I would, however, discourage people from abusing either alcohol or cannabis.

Secondly, those who are motivated by moral disapproval jump to the conclusion that because something is morally wrong, it should be against the law. Lots of things are morally wrong that are not against the law. Adultery is wrong; one should not betray one’s spouse, but we should not put people in jail if they do. We have to get used to the idea that in a free country, people will have to make many moral decisions themselves without being told by the law what to do. We would be a healthier and better country if we gave people that moral responsibility, without saying that it is something that we approve of. It is a choice that people should make, and those of us who disapprove of certain decisions should make the moral arguments against them, rather than dressing them up as, or hiding behind, largely spurious and bogus health concerns, which are at best greatly exaggerated, and at worst non-existent.

[Norman Lamb]

I want to intervene briefly to say that that was the most perfect explanation of liberalism, and I applaud the right hon. Gentleman for giving it.

[Mr Lilley]

To make the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution into a genuine intervention—I had finished—I will say that there is quite an overlap between conservatism and liberalism, and if he would abandon the wrong bits and keep the right bits, he could join a larger party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. It was good to hear the opening contribution of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who has long campaigned on such issues. He has always been consistent, for which I greatly admire him.

It was also good to hear the contribution of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who is my sister’s MP. I found myself agreeing with much of what he said. He thinks he is alone but, actually, I have never taken cannabis. I am instinctively hostile to the excessive use of any drug, legal or illegal, because of the impact on the individual and, sometimes, on their family and the wider community. It is precisely the potential health risks to which the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) referred that make me conclude that cannabis should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. Surely it is absolutely inappropriate to criminalise people the way we do at the moment.

The global war on drugs has been a catastrophic failure. It dates all the way back to President Nixon. Profits from the global trade in drugs, to the tune of £200 billion, go exclusively to organised crime. It is a remarkable failure of public policy to have enriched criminals so successfully. Despite the efforts of the UK and US military forces in Afghanistan, the production of poppies has increased threefold during the period of their involvement there.

We spend about £65 billion globally a year on enforcement, and it achieves absolutely nothing. Thousands of people lose their lives. We have seen many gruesome beheadings in Mexico of people caught up in drug wars. The trade corrupts Governments in central and south America. Critically—I suspect that Conservatives ought to recognise this—it undermines the rule of law, which is the foundation stone of a civilised society.

Incredibly, the war on drugs leads to the criminalisation of tens of thousands of young people in our country. Last year, 30,000 people were criminalised for the use of cannabis. I am acutely aware of the comorbidity of mental ill health and drug use, but often people who suffer from mental ill health resort to cannabis for relief. Then we choose to criminalise them. It is a remarkable thing to do in a so-called civilised society.

Yet there is extraordinary hypocrisy on the issue. Senior politicians are frequently challenged about their use of cannabis and other drugs in their teenage and early adult years. Those who admit to such drug use laugh it off as a youthful indiscretion, apparently comfortable with the fact that tens of thousands of their fellow countrymen and women—usually people less fortunate than the politicians who reach the top of Government—end up with a criminal record for doing precisely the same thing. We should be uncomfortable about that.

Although the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and I have never taken cannabis, probably at least 50% of the Government have, yet thousands of their fellow citizens end up with a criminal record for doing the same. Incidentally, there is one notable exception. Lord Prior, the Conservative whom I defeated in North Norfolk, bravely admitted while Member of Parliament for North Norfolk to using cannabis as a student and called for reform of our drug laws. I hope that he maintains that view. I think that he does, but he is the exception that proves the rule.

The whole policy is disastrous in public health terms. Many people lose their lives unnecessarily through dangerous drug use. Someone who buys drugs from a criminal has no idea what they are buying, and the criminal has no interest in their welfare. That is catastrophic and must be challenged. At the same time, two of the most dangerous drugs available, tobacco and alcohol, are legal in our country. We talk about the potential risks of cannabis, but tobacco kills about 100,000 people in the United Kingdom every single year. About half of regular smokers end up dying of a smoking-related illness, and it is a legal drug.

Alcohol causes untold damage in our society to families. Thousands of families in my county of Norfolk have a problem alcohol user in the household, damaging children along the way. Violence on our streets and domestic violence are linked to alcohol. It kills 20 times more people in our country than heroin, yet the Government resist introducing even minimum unit pricing on alcohol as a regulatory limit that might reduce the carnage. My own former party leader, Charles Kennedy, lost his life to alcohol, a legal drug in our country.

We need a new approach. As the hon. Member for Newport West said, we need an approach based on evidence, but where national politicians have failed to take the lead, change is happening locally. Many police officers around the country show commendable creativity and openness of mind in challenging how things are done. Tom Lloyd, a former chief constable in Cambridgeshire, was a police officer who lead the way early. Now police and crime commissioners, recognising the pressures on public resources in their area, have moved away from criminalising people for taking cannabis. Ron Hogg in Durham, for example, has effectively decriminalised cannabis in his area. Alan Charles in Derbyshire has done the same. Martyn Underhill, an impressive independent police and crime commissioner from Dorset and an ex-police officer, has spoken of his support for those initiatives.

As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said earlier, decriminalisation is not ultimately the right legislative solution. We need to go further and introduce a regulated market. Internationally, things are changing and the momentum is growing stronger. In the United States, Colorado, Washington and Alaska—yes, the state Sarah Palin comes from, Republican to its core—have voted to legalise cannabis. Oregon, another western state, and Washington D.C. have also done so. Uruguay has decided to introduce a regulated market, which has now been established. California and several other states, including the deeply conservative Ohio, are now looking towards a legalised regulated market.

Some 23 states now allow the medical use of cannabis. As others have said, what possible justification can there be for continuing to criminalise people with multiple sclerosis who choose to relieve their pain? It is unbelievable. This Government could act straight away on that if they had the will to do so, and they would have massive public backing. In Europe, the Czech Republic is now pressing for reform, and there are cannabis social clubs in Spain.

An issue with UN treaties makes it difficult, on the face of it, for states to introduce regulated legal markets, but in October last year, the US assistant Secretary of State, William Brownfield, said that the international community should

“accept flexible interpretation”

of UN conventions,

“tolerate different national drug policies…accept the fact that some countries will have very strict drug approaches; other countries will legalize entire categories of drugs…How could I, a representative of the Government of the United States of America, be intolerant of a Government that permits any experimentation with legalisation of marijuana if two of the 50 states of the United States of America have chosen to walk down that road?”

That is commendable.

Change is happening, and I desperately want the United Kingdom to consider the evidence and not base policy on fear, stigma and prejudice. As the hon. Member for Newport West said in his opening remarks, my party, the Liberal Democrats, has established an expert panel to consider how a regulated legal market for cannabis could work in our country. Professor David Nutt, the former chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, will sit on the panel, along with Tom Lloyd, the ex-chief constable who has been brave enough to speak out. Niamh Eastwood will also sit on the panel, which will be chaired by Steve Rolles of Transform. Let us have an approach that focuses first on health, not criminal justice. People know what they are buying in a regulated market. Let us focus policy on taking money away from criminals, taking control of the market and allowing tax revenues to be used to educate people about the dangers of drugs. Is that not a more rational approach? It is fiscally responsible—something the Government should recognise. It would be a better use of public money, protect young people and end the crazy criminalisation of many young people. That approach ought to be attractive to the Government.

The panel will focus on how to reduce harm and minimise the illicit market. It will look at Colorado and other states that have gone ahead with such work. The early evidence from Colorado is positive. There has been no obvious spike in young people’s use of cannabis, no increase in crime and no increase in road fatalities. As the hon. Member for Newport West said, the majority of the market is now regulated and has been taken away from criminals, thus reducing the profits of criminal networks. The tax revenues are used for a social purpose.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene as he is coming to the end of his contribution. He rightly emphasises looking at the evidence. May I invite him—my right hon. friend from a different party—to revise what he suggested earlier in his contribution? I am not a member of the Government, nor do I wish to be, but he cited a percentage of the Government who he said were users of cannabis, and I do not think that he would want that percentage to stay on the record without correction, without evidence.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course, my suggestion was speculation, but very many young people—about a third—choose to take cannabis at some stage. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said earlier, that percentage of the population choosing to use cannabis starts to undermine the rule of law. Perhaps the percentage is a third and not a half, but one can make a reasonable judgment that a significant proportion of this Government will have used cannabis at some point. That is a reasonable assumption to make, yet the Government appear to be comfortable with other people in this country ending up with a criminal record. That is what I find distasteful and that is what has to be challenged. We need policy based on evidence, which focuses on health and not criminal justice.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I am conscious that other people want to contribute to the debate, so I must remain disciplined or I will be told off by Mr Evans.

The case is overwhelming. I urge the Government to act and listen to the evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on bringing the petition to the House and all those who signed it. That is probably the last time I will remember the name of a constituency; I have not yet got to grips with the constituencies, so I will probably point a lot.

It is clear from the petition that cannabis and its production, use and legislation is an important issue to the people of the United Kingdom. I received an email from a constituent yesterday informing me that more people signed the petition in Scotland than anywhere else, and that Glasgow was the city with the highest number of signatories, with my own constituency having one of the highest rates. For that reason, and because I am the Scottish National party spokesperson on civil liberties, I am pleased to contribute to the debate.

The frustration that the signatories to the petition must feel is that, although the issue evokes strong emotions in different quarters, there is no settled demand for any specific legislative change. Even today, most of the speakers, however they feel about the matter, acknowledged the other side of the debate. I do not envy those who have to make the decision, but I echo everyone else’s calls for much more research, so that we can get to the bottom of the argument.

The debate also reflects some of the idiosyncrasies of the current devolutionary settlement, in that control of drugs is reserved to the UK Parliament under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but the treatment and prevention of drug problems is devolved to the Scottish Government. That is an unhelpful division in a policy area that is too important for there to be a fragmented approach, but it also illustrates that there are a number of facets to the issue: harm reduction and public health on the one hand and legality and criminalisation on the other. There is a strong argument—I have heard this a couple of times today—that public health should be the focus when considering drug and alcohol use and misuse. The right hon. Member for some constituency, which I am sure is wonderful—

[Norman Lamb]

North Norfolk.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The right hon. Gentleman made the strong argument that the Department of Health should consider the issue, not the Ministry of Justice. In Wales they do things differently—health is devolved to Wales. They have centres there where they carry out tests so that those who choose to use illegal substances can find out what is in them. I am interested in hearing more about the impact of those centres.

Taking a multifaceted approach stands in contrast to the often ill-informed populism that, as many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newport West, have said, often decided policy under all Governments in the past. There is a need, therefore, for much more research and more definite conclusions, to remove the debate from the realms of both an ill-informed populism —on both sides of the debate at times—or an abstract legalism.

Many hon. Members will know of the real difficulties that criminal records cause people in the poorest communities. Those communities are also often the ones most heavily blighted by the antisocial use of drugs. At this point, I want to do a “bit of a Jeremy Corbyn” and provide a voice for my constituents because, like most hon. Members , I have had many emails on the issue. I will quote just a couple of them, because they have asked me to be their voice here today, although they have differing views on the matter. Drew from Robroyston says:

“I understand arguments on both sides but it is hypocritical that we freely sell and consume substances such as alcohol and tobacco but prosecute those who choose to ingest less harmful drugs.”

Caroline, however, says:

“My brother was managing his schizophrenia until he started cannabis.”

William asks me:

“If the Misuse of Drugs Act is there to prevent social harm and alcohol and tobacco aren’t illegal, why am I made to be a criminal for smoking cannabis?”

Another constituent says:

“The fact that alcohol is legal is not an argument for also legalising cannabis. If we were considering legalising alcohol today, would we?”

The petitioners may not get all they are campaigning for today—they may; I have no idea what the Minister will say—but they need to know that their arguments are being listened to, and the best way to achieve that is to commit to researching the issues properly. Those opposed to the petition would surely be satisfied by that, because they believe that research will back up their arguments. It is a win-win for the Government, and I urge the Minister to commit to that research today.

One of the clearest things we know from the research that has already been done is how much work remains. The effects of alcohol and tobacco are well documented in our society, and the Scottish Government continue, via their minimum pricing regulation, to stand up for public health in the face of pressure from the industry and, sometimes, the public. However, the health effects of cannabis at a societal level, its relation to other drugs including tobacco and its relationship, causal or otherwise, with mental health problems require further study.

A very close associate of mine has bipolar. She was a regular user of cannabis. She asked two different psychiatrists, “Did that make it worse?”, and one said yes and the other said no. She asked them whether it caused her bipolar, and one said, “Possibly”, and the other said, “You possibly started to use it to cope with the effects of an undiagnosed condition.” That is the problem. I have heard a couple of Members say that there is conclusive evidence, but there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis does not exacerbate pre-existing mental health problems. Anyone with any experience of mental illness would never support anything that would exacerbate or cause psychotic episodes. Another argument that is put is on whether alcohol exacerbates mental health conditions. If research is done and it is found that cannabis has a serious impact on people’s mental health, that would be a strong argument against its legalisation.

On the other hand, we have to look at physical conditions. We have heard much today about medicinal cannabis. I was emailed by Michelle Anne; I think she probably emailed everyone. She was demonstrating outside today, and she is possibly in the Public Gallery. She described the physical symptoms of some of her conditions. I cannot read all the email out, but she talked about waking up and how before she moves, she has to fight spasms, cramps and electric shocks. She described it as like being

“thrown into a bed of nettles”.

She spoke movingly about how, as a result of her using what she referred to as organic, well-grown, cured cannabis, she now feels happy, sleepy and hungry—all welcome benefits.

Although we have heard arguments in favour of legalisation, it is clear that that is not a panacea. The evidence from the US states that have proceeded with decriminalisation indicates a variety of outcomes. All parties would probably benefit from a continued study of those jurisdictions and our European neighbours to inform policy in this country. It is surely a gift to us that we do not have to rely on a debate to come to a conclusion; we have evidence from around the world and other countries willing to share it with us. As the hon. Member for Newport West said, they have done the work for us, so let us use it.

There are clear arguments against legalisation, but the House would do well to heed some of the real problems associated with the policy as it stands. Those from our poorest communities and from black and minority ethnic communities are affected most severely by the criminalisation policy. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) talked about morality, but I would put it another way: there is a snobbish attitude to cannabis as compared with other drugs. As other Members have said, it would appear from various media reports that those of a middle to upper-class background can partake in illicit substances in their university days without ever jeopardising their future careers. However, for many people from a working-class background, a drugs-related conviction, no matter how minor, can have a devastating impact on their life chances in terms of employment.

Let us also consider one group of primarily black and minority ethnic users—Rastafarians. Their use of cannabis is part of their religious and spiritual beliefs. I am probably the only speaker here today—Members can prove me wrong if they like—whose partner is a Rastafarian. I might get shot down in flames for this, but he is probably the only Rastafarian who has never used cannabis. It is not compulsory for Rastafarians to use cannabis, but it is part of their spiritual outlook. He has asked, “If I choose to use cannabis because it is part of my religious beliefs, where are my civil liberties if that criminalises me?”

I end by making one final point. The international context of our drug legislation must be considered. The UN drug conventions are all more than a quarter of a century old, and there is growing anticipation ahead of the international discussions in 2016, which will be informed by a far broader base of evidence accumulated in the interim period. It is noteworthy that some of the countries that requested that the discussions be brought forward are very much at the forefront of what was once called the war on drugs. The Government should ensure that the United Kingdom participates fully in the UN discussions on drugs policy. That will allow us to act responsibly on the international stage, using UK evidence to inform international approaches and utilising the latest international research to influence policy here on these islands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), to her role. I did not get an opportunity to do so at Home Office questions earlier. We are friends, which is a dangerous thing in this place, and we agree on many things. In fact, I agree with most of what she has said in her comments today.

May I start by saying that I am not from the university elite who smoked cannabis when they went to university? I am not cynical and I am not horrible—I hope. I worked very closely with the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) when he and I were shadow Health Ministers and when he was a Health Minister with responsibility for mental health and I was in a different role.

I have every sympathy for my friends and members of my family who have had MS and the terrible pain and anguish that they go through because of an incurable disease. So I start from the premise of having sympathy. Let us see what we can do in the 21st century to take people out of that environment. However, I have real concerns about legalising cannabis. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on his position, which has not changed in 40 years. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). I expected him to be sitting here when I came in to the debate today.

We have had two contributions from people who are medically qualified and who know—not anecdotally—about the medical side and the patient’s point of view. Their contributions have been enormously significant. I believe that the debate would have been more useful if we had talked about the medical side and the help available, rather than the generality.

[Norman Lamb]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

If I can make a little more progress, I promise I will give way shortly. I am always generous in that way.

Although we have had a huge petition from people who are for legalisation, I am sure that colleagues in the House have also had people writing to them saying no to legalisation, as indicated by the SNP shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), a moment ago. There is no petition from those who do not want to change the legislation, but a large petition from those who do. I think a significant minority also need to be considered in this debate.

[Norman Lamb]

I do not think there is any dispute about medical risk. The question is about how one responds to it. Does the Minister really think it is appropriate to give someone who is perhaps suffering from mental ill health a criminal record?

[Mike Penning]

To be fair, that is different from the point I was trying to make. In the modern way in which we police—not just in the past five years, but for many years—the discretion of a police officer to make a decision is an operational matter for them, and not for politicians. Also, it is not for police and crime commissioners to make such decisions. I know what the Durham PCC said, but operational decisions are for the chief constable. PCCs were not set up to make such decisions. We now have cross-party support for PCCs. I am pleased about the Labour party’s conversion since the election. That is not a snipe—yes, it is—but I am really pleased that there has been a change, because there are excellent PCCs out there and they do an excellent job.

I am also conscious that there are devolved Administrations looking at this matter differently. I will come to some of those points later. Let us see what positives can come out of this. I will not stand here and say, “We are going to legalise cannabis.” I am not going to say that from a moral, personal or Government position. However, we could look carefully, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), at the research. We need to look at why the research is not taking place and at the effects of certain parts of the legislation.

Believe it or not, I took a week off the week before last and went to my favourite part of Norfolk: the Norfolk broads. I spent a week fishing while my wife and mother-in-law looked at the other beautiful parts of Norfolk. I used a lot of hemp—we discussed the seeds earlier in the debate. I live in and represent Hemel Hempstead. Some of the bread that some of us buy contains hemp seeds. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich alluded to the problem of the seeds being legal, and the rationale behind that, although that does not mean we should not look carefully at the matter, and we will. There should be nothing in statute that prevents research into improving people’s quality of life. I will go away and work with other relevant Departments to see how we can do that.

My good friend the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) alluded to what would happen with the republican response. As a former Northern Ireland Minister, and having served in Northern Ireland in uniform in a different capacity, I know that the sad thing is that these thugs and organised criminals will find something else with which to raise money and destroy their communities, as they have done with diesel laundering and other things over the years. I do not think that legalisation would make a huge difference to what they do, but it might make a huge difference to the lives of the hon. Lady’s constituents, whether mentally or physically, according to the evidence we have heard today.

Another issue, which I discuss with my constituents, is the diverse views about where we should be on this subject. We are as one in wanting to protect our constituents, but we are perhaps looking at it in different ways. Going back to the point made a moment ago by my former right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, mental health protection for vulnerable people is probably one of the most difficult and important issues we face, which is why I am so pleased that, after the work we did in the past, so many police forces now have mental health professionals with them on the streets and in the custody suites, and use sections 135 and 136 less.

As we have heard, there is conflicting evidence from studies from across the world. The majority of the world has not legalised cannabis. There is movement, but the majority of the world is in roughly the same position as us. The shadow Minister talked extensively and absolutely correctly about Portugal, but they have a completely different strategy for working with people and moving forward, and that is true not only of their health service. Only last month, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy said that it is too early to decide whether what is going in that state is going to work. The evidence I have before me says that the institute thinks it will not be clear until at least 2017.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

From a sedentary position he chunters on. Let us listen to what the royal colleges have said, because they are the experts. The Select Committee took evidence. I have sat on Select Committees and I know exactly what goes on. I think I am due to give evidence to the Select Committee next week. It is crucial that we do not set ourselves in one position but that instead, we ask what research could help take things forward. That is what I have committed to doing and it is very important.

[Norman Lamb]

I am delighted that the Minister visited the Norfolk broads. I wonder whether, when he was there, he enjoyed a pint in one of the many pubs. There is very clear, overwhelming evidence that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. Can the Minister give any explanation of why it makes sense for that more dangerous product to be legal while a less dangerous product is illegal?

[Mike Penning]

Well, I am not actually convinced, on the evidence, that cannabis is less dangerous for certain people. As was said earlier, if we were to start alcohol and tobacco policy again from today, of course we would not be where we are now. I accept that point.

In conclusion, I am committed to working with other Departments and whoever else wants to work with us to ensure that, in the 21st century, where cannabis can be helpful through pharmaceuticals, we will try to make sure that that happens. I am committed to looking at the research and at what work we should be doing. This debate has been enormously useful, but I cannot support the petition.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) for giving us the opportunity to debate this most profound of issues, one that concerns so many people across our country, whichever side of the debate they may be on. I also thank the right hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for expressing the importance of us demonstrating mutual respect in this debate, and for acknowledging the profound importance of this for people on both sides. We should be able to debate it in a decent way that fully respects that.

I have changed my mind on this issue. I used to oppose change, but I am now very clear in my mind that reform is necessary. We are all shaped by the conversations we have and by our own personal experiences, sometimes within our own families. Talking to people who are terminally ill has forced me to think about the principles at stake and led me to change my mind. I came to this view through one man in particular, Douglas Harding, who, for six years, has lived with terminal cancer, and is now very close to the end. When I hear him argue the case to me about his right to decide when to end his life as he faces the closing stages of a terminal illness, I find it impossible to reject that right. When I ask myself what I would want in those circumstances—whether I would want that right—I am very clear in my mind that I would. I do not know whether I would exercise it, but I would absolutely want it for myself. How can I then deny it to others?

I speak as a former Care Minister and I was driven in that job by an absolute determination to improve end-of-life care and to ensure people are treated with absolute dignity in the final stages of their life. One of the issues I had to deal with was the Liverpool Care Pathway and the abuses that sometimes took place under that name. I had many conversations with the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and we found ourselves on the same side of the argument. We both had deep concerns about some of the things that had happened under the Liverpool Care Pathway and, as a result of the review that I called, the Liverpool Care Pathway is no longer used. The approach taken is that it is the individual’s own priorities that are paramount. Are we really saying that that principle, which applies to issues such as resuscitation where one wants to die, suddenly does not apply when we get to the most profound of questions? At that point, the individual has no right and is left at the mercy of the state’s decision. As the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, this is a matter of personal freedom. For me, that is very clear.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I would prefer to make my case, because I want to ensure that others can make their case, too.

Questions have been raised about whether implementing this proposed legislation would have a negative impact on palliative care. For goodness’ sake, it is up to this House and the Governments we elect to ensure that there is decent palliative care in our country. It is up to us to make that decision. It is a dishonest argument to suggest that it would undermine palliative care. In the United States, Oregon is one of the best States for access to specialist palliative care. It is totally consistent with the principle I expressed earlier that in those last stages of life it is the individual’s priorities and wishes that should be paramount.

I just want to say a word about the current law, which puts families in the most invidious position. I applaud the former Director of Public Prosecutions for the guidelines that advanced the position very considerably. However, if someone acts out of absolute compassion, they are still left with their home being declared a crime scene and with a police investigation. As the guidelines point out, the person is referred to as a “suspect”. Someone who has acted out of compassion for a loved one is treated as a suspect, waiting perhaps months to know their fate—whether they will be prosecuted—while they are experiencing bereavement. That is surely an intolerable position. We then have the grotesque situation where those people who have money are able to go to Dignitas, an alien clinic in another country. Someone who is dying is expected to travel to another country to exercise their right. Those who do not have money are left with the invidious choice of struggling on regardless, perhaps in the face of impossible pain, or committing suicide in very difficult circumstances. I find that absolutely intolerable.

J.S. Mill said:

“The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

We should respect that sovereignty and pass the Bill.