argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-08
Topic: Government Operations
Peter Snape (Labour, Centre-left): Well in that case, I will half forgive the noble Lord The only major worry I have about the proposed legislation is of course the vexed question of money. When legislation such as this is greeted with such enthusiasm by the Treasury, and the Chancellor tours the country telling everyone how anxious he is to devolve all these powers, I am inclined, perhaps due to my experience as an ex-Whip in the other place, to start counting the spoons. It worries me a great deal that these powers will be devolved without the necessary financial backing to meet them. Again, at Question Time earlier today, the Minister said—if I may say so, somewhat airily—that there will be a mayoral precept. There will have to be a whacking great mayoral precept to take care of all the powers envisaged in this particular Bill The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, quite rightly said that these devolved authorities should surely be able to retain the 100% business rates in their areas. But those two combined will not finance all the matters that are to be devolved. The Government have a duty and responsibility to say exactly where the money will come from. The worst of all worlds would be for some future Government to face questions either in your Lordships’ House or the other place about deficiencies in these matters in a local authority area and for the Minister to say, "That’s nothing to do with me: these matters have been devolved", due to the Bill that we are discussing today I finally turn to the question of what to call these authorities. Again, my noble friend Lady Donaghy, in her very able speech, talked about the "freedom for Birmingham" Bill. One thing you could not call it in the West Midlands is Birmingham, whether greater or otherwise. The great cities of Wolverhampton and Coventry, to name but two, would have something to say about being absorbed into anything called "greater Birmingham", let alone the boroughs of Sandwell, Dudley and Walsall, to name another three likely objectors. Of course the Minister might say that the leafy suburbs of Trafford and Sale in Greater Manchester, and perhaps my home town of Stockport, would be more prepared to vote for an elected mayor than the city of Manchester, although she will have a job persuading many of us that that is the case, if that is her argument. But while the name of Greater Manchester seems to be acceptable in the north-west, "greater Birmingham" would certainly not be acceptable to those of us in the West Midlands With those few provisos and reservations about the Bill, I await the more detailed legislation after your Lordships’ House and the other place have given these matters the scrutiny they want and deserve.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-08
Topic: Government Operations
John Lawrence Whitty (Labour, Centre-left): Pretty well anywhere, but not quite anywhere. However, I have my doubts whether the concept of a directly elected mayor at a combined-authority level will prove any more popular. One of the problems with the rhetoric on the Bill, particularly from the Chancellor and those who are briefing on his behalf, is that it is suggested that the full range of powers will go only to those combined authorities opting for a directly elected mayor. Some of the comments that the Minister made in a briefing meeting and today suggest a bit more flexibility in that regard. As we go through the Bill, I should like to ask how much flexibility we have area by area It will be important for us to recognise the different requirements and priorities area by area, but also to recognise the different existing structures area by area. As my noble friend Lord Snape said, it is not just a question of whether you call the relevant area "Greater Birmingham", to everybody else’s offence, but rather of looking for a combined authority and a directly elected mayor to cover the cities of the East Midlands. We have an elected mayor in Leicester. That is fine. However, Nottingham very firmly rejected the elected-mayor principle. If we were to bring those together with the counties surrounding them, we would experience some difficulty if we were seen to be imposing a particular structure as distinct from particular powers, responsibilities and resourcing Questions will be raised on the Bill as we go through Committee but I think the central one is: in what context will it operate? Will it operate in a context in which we free up the financial flexibility and availability of funds for local authorities, or one in which we try to compensate in some way for ever-squeezed formal public expenditure commitments, but not by allowing local authorities to raise their own resources to deliver the economic development we are looking for through innovative partnerships with the private sector and the financial sector London does not seem to be covered by the Bill. The London councils say that they could do with some of the powers in the Bill. Will the Minister indicate, either now or in Committee, what powers could be devolved to a combination of London boroughs and the GLA My last, and perhaps flippant point, concerns Wales. This is called an England and Wales Bill yet virtually none of it applies to Wales because local authority structures are a devolved matter for Wales. However, as I say, it is called an England and Wales Bill in the appendix. When we discuss English votes for English laws, I would like to know whether this is indeed an English Bill or an England and Wales Bill. That is a minor point in some ways but probably not considered so in Wales. The bigger point is: will the powers and resources really match the rhetoric that surrounds this Bill?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Thomas Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government's consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the subject of psychoactive substances, and I think that I heard him tell the Committee that the ACMD had urged the Government to do something about psychoactive substances. An expert panel, which is not the same as the ACMD, was then set up. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House, in response to the points that I put to him in my contribution, what dealings the Home Office had with the ACMD on this legislation on psychoactive substances, following receipt of the advice from the expert panel, up until the letter that the Home Secretary sent to the ACMD on 26 May. Given that the ACMD has a statutory duty to keep under review the situation of the UK in regard to drugs, surely it would have been appropriate—and I should have thought a statutory requirement—to seek its views as to the wisdom of the policy that the expert panel recommended and on which the Government were proceeding to legislate. What consultations took place on this specific Bill?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Thomas Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister help us just a little bit further, because I know the Home Office knows a good deal about what has happened in Portugal? Much earlier in his speech, he was very dismissive of the benefits of decriminalisation on the Portuguese model, as I understood him to say—that is, possession of small amounts of drugs precisely defined for personal use. How, then, does he account for the success of the Portuguese policy?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, we have had the debate on decriminalisation already today. I can only repeat our position that we do not believe that we should be moving to decriminalise possession of a wider range of substances currently controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 through an amendment to the Bill, which is designed to address a specific issue that has developed very quickly over the last few years in respect of new psychoactive substances as defined in the Bill. As the noble Lord said, another amendment in the group seeks to provide that importing new psychoactive substances should not constitute an offence where the substance is for the individual’s own consumption. That issue was raised at Second Reading We will listen with interest to the reply from the Minister, since there is a need to have a very clear definition of which activities, if any, that might be involved in achieving personal possession of new psychoactive substances for personal consumption, which is not an offence under the Bill, are or are not also covered by the non-offence provisions in the Bill. To pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will the Minister say whether the reference in Clause 8 to a person committing an offence if they intentionally import a substance for their own consumption is intended to cover the situation where the substance is ordered online from outside the country? What happens if the individual concerned, in ordering the substance online, is not aware of whether it has come from within or outside this country, and it is subsequently proved that it has come from outside this country? Is that person guilty of an offence under the Bill?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Thomas Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the groupings were perhaps not quite right, at least as far as Amendment 39 is concerned. That is probably my fault, but I am grateful to noble Lords for their participation and presence in this short but worthwhile debate The Minister’s charm is such that he would almost persuade the Committee to agree to what is palpably bad legislation, and I congratulate him on his manner at the Dispatch Box. In seeking to refute the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, he said that we could not have a partial relaxation of a ban on importation for personal use because it is very important that the Border Force has powers—those powers will be further supplemented in amendments to come—to ensure that, in the phrase I think he used, all these dangerous substances do not get through. He went on to say that there is also the Misuse of Drugs Act, which would allow the proscription of individual substances where there is evidence that they are dangerous. There is quite a tension, if not an inconsistency, between those points. We can think about that a little further As to the practicalities for the Border Force, I hope that at some point in proceedings the Minister will be able to give us some statistics about the number of packages that enter this country. We all know that there has been an enormous increase in mail order, online retailing. He mentioned that the Irish-based websites had been closed down by their legislation, but we know that the Irish have become big consumers of new psychoactive substances, even more than they were before the prohibition legislation was brought in. How are they getting them? Where are they coming in? What means are there to prevent the entry of all these packages, which Postman Pat then takes up the garden path and pops through the front door? I cannot see how the Border Force will inspect all these packages. I understand that a few years ago, it was able to inspect only some 2% of shipping containers. The Minister is landing the Border Force with a completely impossible task.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Thomas Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Lord has provided us with some helpful information. I am still left puzzled as to how he thinks people will obtain these psychoactive substances, which it will not be a criminal offence to possess for personal use. Either they will have chemistry sets and synthesise them themselves, or his system of border controls and so forth will fail to work. Anyway, I am grateful for the thoughts that have been offered and the information that has been provided, and I beg leave to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, a succession of inspection reports, covering Highpoint, Bristol, Liverpool and Deerbolt prisons among others, have shown high levels of use of synthetic cannabis, known by inmates, as I understand it, as "Spice" or "Black Mamba". These legal drugs are not identifiable, so I am told, by more than a handful of sniffer dogs, nor through mandatory drug testing. Spice can cause high levels of addiction and there have been reports of debt, bullying and violence associated with its use becoming more widespread in prisons. The government response to the expert panel report included a commitment to improving information about new psychoactive substances in the prison estate. The Minister referred to this issue in his letter of 15 June. However, the purpose of the two amendments that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and I have tabled in this group is to make supplying, or offering to supply, a psychoactive substance in a prison an aggravating feature of the offence of supplying, or offering to supply. As we know, the Bill already makes it a statutory aggravating factor if the offence took place at, or in the vicinity of, a school. Surely another area of significant concern must be our prisons, where there are certainly some fairly unpleasant individuals, but there are also many potentially vulnerable people. To seek to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance within our prisons—there are different ways in which such substances get inside, whether through visitors, rogue staff, being thrown over the wall or sent in parcels or goods—is clearly making a difficult environment, with significant numbers in a relatively small space, even more awkward for both staff and inmates. I hope the Minister will share the view that supply, or offering to supply, in a prison should be an aggravating feature of such an offence, which is the purpose of our amendments. We await with interest his response to this and the other amendments in this group In conclusion, it was stated in the other place: "Thirty-five per cent of prisoners have a drug addiction and 6% acquire that addiction while in prison" The Secretary of State for Justice said in response to that comment that, "drug addiction is one of the principal factors that lead individuals to commit crime. It is also the case that there is an unacceptable level of drug use, both of illegal drugs and so-called legal highs, in our prisons".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/06/15; col. 737.] If that is the Secretary of State’s view—and I do not think that too many people would be surprised that he has expressed it—surely this is an opportunity to make supplying the new psychoactive substances, or offering to supply them, an aggravating feature of the offence in addition to what is already provided for in the Bill, which covers the situation where the offence takes place at, or in the vicinity of, a school. I beg to move.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): Before I respond on what I am doing with the amendment—I shall be withdrawing it; I do not want to appear to suggest that I am going to do something else—can the Minister say whether the Ministry of Justice is interested in seeing this become an aggravating feature in prisons?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister said that he would reflect particularly on the point about children. Is he saying that he will reflect on the prisons point? He worded it in such a way that it cast doubt as to whether he would.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): We would like to know where we stand before Report, because if we are drawing a blank, it is something we would certainly wish to consider pursuing on Report. We would not wish to do so if there was some movement on it. I noted the comments about bringing this into line with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. One might say that the Bill is not fully in line with the Misuse of Drugs Act, particularly over the offence of possession, for example. I am not sure that arguing that, on the one hand, you have to bring this in line with the Act but that on the other there is a clear distinction is the most consistent or best argument to use, quite frankly, on this issue I will of course read the Minister’s reply in full, since I appreciate he said quite a few things and I am not satisfied that I necessarily took them all on board. I will read Hansard carefully. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. One thing I noticed was that, in his reply, the Minister made reference to action that can be taken against the prisoners involved with these drugs, but of course the issue is about the drugs getting into prisons, which can involve them coming in with parcels or visitors. I appreciate that once the drugs are in the prison they are being distributed by prisoners, which is where the bullying and harassment can come in, but there is also the issue of who is helping to get them into prisons in the first place and whether that should be an aggravating feature. I note that the Minister has said he will raise this with the Ministry of Justice. If he could indicate where we stood ahead of Report, that would be extremely helpful indeed. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the amendment would introduce a system of licensing to sell psychoactive substances determined to pose low overall risk, which is contrary to the objectives of the Bill as it currently stands, which is to provide for a ban on new psychoactive substances. My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport has already referred to the views of the Local Government Association and its lack of enthusiasm for this amendment, saying that it would oppose councils being made responsible for licensing because of the difficulties of assessing whether a product is a low overall risk. My noble friend Lord Howarth went on to refer to the further comments that the LGA made about the need for a very thorough regime to be in place if we were to go down the road that was being suggested in this amendment. The Government’s expert panel also said that it would be difficult to define low risk from a legislative and harms perspective and, even if it could be done, a mechanism for controlling new psychoactive substances would still be needed, which could lead to confusing messages about new psychoactive substances overall How does one decide whether a drug is safe? There are immediate risks that occur and also long-term risks that occur, including long-term psychological issues and dependency, so what does low harm mean in that context? The amendment refers to everything being set out in regulations, but I am not sure whether, under the terms of the amendment, a drug would be presumed safe until evidence came to the contrary or whether the producers of a drug would be expected to prove that the drug was safe. If so, how would you do that, how would you determine all the possible different types of harm, and would it have to involve human trials—because, without trials, how do you determine harm or otherwise The amendment refers in a sense to Clause 3, which provides that the, "Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 1 in order to … add or vary any description of substance" We had a discussion earlier today about the significance of the word "vary" but, in the light of the Minister’s response at Second Reading, I am still not clear why that provision in subsection (2)(a) is there, and why the Secretary of State may add a substance to the list. Listening to the Minister’s response at Second Reading, I got the impression that he was making it very clear on behalf of the Government that the Secretary of State would not be adding substances under the terms of Clause 3. Bearing in mind that the Government have put it here in the Bill, I would simply ask: in what circumstances do they envisage the Secretary of State adding to items in Schedule 1?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Environment
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but I am very much getting the impression that the Government do not actually have any idea at the moment of the circumstance in which they might add an exempted substance to Schedule 1, but have put in the provision just in case something turns up that they cannot think of at the moment and that might lead them to want to do it.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Thomas Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I am glad that she has tabled these amendments and made the points that she has. It does not look as if there is anything to worry about but it certainly would be very helpful to have reassurance from the Minister and some clarification. It would also be very helpful if he felt it possible to add explicitly to the Bill the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick; namely, that, "the provision of advice or information … shall not be a prohibited activity" We have a number of charities and organisations active in the field which simply seek to reduce harm and to protect vulnerable people. They are not proselytising for the taking of drugs but are knowledgeable about it and doing what they do with good intentions. We certainly do not want the kind of information websites that we have debated as regards previous amendments to find themselves with questionable legal status. Clarification would be helpful and if the Minister feels able to put something in the Bill so much the better.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have some limited sympathy with these amendments. Any notice that has indefinite extent, which seems to be where the Bill is, has a certain discomfort about it. Clearly the Government share this discomfort because they are limiting the period of extent to three years for under 18 year-olds. I cannot see, having accepted that indefinite extent is inappropriate for under 18 year-olds, why it should not be inappropriate for those over 18. "Proportionate" is a word we all like to move around in legislation. I found that the Government have used it quite freely throughout the document. I will be interested in their response to Amendment 71A as well.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, just to revert to my original path, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the burden of proof. We think that for the orders a balance of probabilities is appropriate. The only question I seek assurance on is that if any individual were to be either imprisoned or fined, it would be under the provisions in Clause 23—and my understanding is that under that clause the criminal standard of proof would be necessary. Providing that one has that assurance, we do not object to the burden of proof in the relevant parts of the Bill with respect to the order.