Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Archibald Kirkwood (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I want to make two quick points as a codicil to this important group of amendments. I strongly support the attempt of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to insert the word "synthetic". As a former pharmacy graduate—non-practising—who studied such things, to me, the word "synthetic" makes perfect sense in this context, and it would make the Bill a lot clearer. I also support the amendments in this group that would reintroduce the concept of harm, which the 1971 legislation introduced in a way that has stood the test of time. Indeed, I am behind the thrust of all these amendments My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the Committee stage of this Bill, which the ministerial team dealt with in an exemplary way; it listened very carefully and did the best it could. But any Member of this House who has had the advantage, as some of us have, of reading the recent letter from Professor Les Iversen and the Home Secretary’s response of a few days later, will be left, as I certainly am, with a real concern about the difference in tone between the two approaches taken. I and many others expressed the concern in Committee that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was being written out of the script. I use that harsh language deliberately, although I am not blaming the Minister On the second page of his letter, Professor Iversen says: "The ACMD … wishes to present its concerns that the Bill, as drafted, may not achieve its aims", which is a pretty fundamental thing to say, "and may produce serious unintended consequences" The heading of the subsequent paragraph states: "The omission of the word ‘novel’ has widened the scope of the Bill", which all of us on my side of the argument were arguing against with the Government Front Bench. The heading of the next paragraph states: "The psychoactivity of a substance cannot be unequivocally proven" Again, with my academic background, I support that view, which is the one taken in Committee. The heading of the next paragraph states: "The Bill uncouples the concept of harm from control of supply, importation and production", which is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others were making What relationship do the Government really have with the ACMD, given that they seem to be so far apart? We had a manifesto commitment which talked in yellow journalese about, "a blanket ban on all new psychoactive substances, protecting young people from exposure to so-called ‘legal highs’" That is the kind of language we would see in manifestos, and a few short weeks or months afterwards we get this Bill, which seems a long way away from Professor Iversen and his colleagues. That is a concern to me. I do not blame the Minister, by the way, but that is a concern that this House is right to reflect on Report. Admittedly, there are proceedings in the House of Commons and I am sure that the Minister’s approach in Committee—the way that he was prepared to pick up points and reflect on them—will continue. I have been in this business a long while and I can see a long distance between these two bits of correspondence. The Minister has some work to do to persuade this House on Report that that gap is not dangerous and that people may not get hurt unless this is sorted out before the final passage and Royal Assent of this Bill.