| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Stoddart of Swindon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
- Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 11,"
The noble Lord said: I should like to say a few words in reply to the Minister. I understand what the Minister has said and I shall consider it. If it is true that we are moving away from formality I am very happy. However, it remains my impression that we are moving away from informality to formality. I give notice that I may bring this matter before your Lordships again at Report stage, but I shall not move Amendment No. 17.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.57 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 2001
7.57 p.m.
Lord Rooker rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my view, the provisions of this order are compatible with convention rights. The purpose of the order is to bring 36 previously uncontrolled ecstasy-type substances under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As required by that Act, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has considered the misuse potential of these drugs and recommended that they be brought under the Act's controls.
The Government's aim is to prevent these ecstasy analogues being launched onto the illicit drugs market. The order will prohibit the production and supply of the substances on the illicit drugs market and provide the enforcement agencies with the powers they need to stem the trade in these drugs. Thirty-five of the substances have no recognised therapeutic uses. The 36th substance—a-methylphenethylhydroxylamine (henceforth referred to as "a-m")—is used medicinally but is not manufactured as a medicine in the UK.
The order proposes that 35 of the substances be added to the list of controlled drugs specified in Class A of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. The 36th substance, a-m, will be added to the list of controlled drugs specified in Class B. In accordance with usual practice, we have consulted the organisations which represent the enforcement agencies, the medical professions and the pharmaceutical industry about the changes. None has raised any objections to the proposals.
If the order is approved we aim to bring it, together with the relevant amended regulations, into force on 1st February 2002. I commend the changes proposed in the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches entirely support the order. All must cherish this particular order: it is stuff with which to paper one's lavatory at home. However, we accept that it is very important. For the consideration of the Government, the only point I raise, which was debated in the other place, is that one of the drugs on the list was accidentally omitted on the previous occasion. I also understand that these are all artificial drugs. That is to say, they are compounds.
The world of drugs moves at a tremendous rate. New types of ecstasy-related drugs are created all the time. One wonders whether there is a procedure to bring these newly created drugs back to the House more swiftly than has taken place in this case. The drug
was left off three years ago. I raise the question in a spirit of constructiveness. Other than that, we support the Motion.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, these are alternative drugs to ecstasy which are designed to evade the drug controls. They are designer drugs.
The noble Lord's point about legislation is extremely valid. It will always lag behind the illicit traders. I shall ask for consideration to be given to his suggestion in order to avoid Ministers, or anyone, in future having to read out some of the drug names.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Criminal Justice (International
Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 2001
8.1 p.m.
Lord Rooker rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my view the provisions of the order are compatible with convention rights.
The purpose of the order is to add norephedrine to the substances listed under Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. That will enable the United Kingdom to comply with a decision taken by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs to bring norephedrine under the control of the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
The order will make it an offence to manufacture or supply norephedrine knowing or suspecting that it is to be used in the illegal manufacture of a controlled drug. It will be punishable by up to six months' imprisonment on summary conviction and up to 14 years on indictment and/or a fine.
If the order is approved, we aim to bring it into force, together with the relevant amendment regulations, on 12th December 2001. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Technical Advisory Board) Order 2001
8.2 p.m.
Lord Rooker rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I lay before the House the order under Section 13 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which requires
affirmative approval. The technical advisory board's function is to act as an appeals body should a communication service provider believe it is being asked to make unreasonable efforts to maintain an interception capability, and to act as a point of consultation on the order under Section 12 which in due course will define the scope of this capability.The creation of the technical advisory board was supported by the Opposition parties during the passage through Parliament of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Therefore, I hope that I do not need to explain it in further detail, other than to say that the technical advisory board will be an advisory non-departmental body. It will be run in accordance with the Cabinet Office guidelines while the recruitment of members will follow the Commission for Public Appointments' code of practice. Our intention is to recruit the chair first, so that he or she can then assist with the selection of the members.
This instrument is compatible with the ECHR. It is a straightforward order which gives effect to the will of Parliament. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I ask one or two technical questions. This matter is relatively straightforward in some ways. The European Council Directive 98/34/EC, amended by Directive 98/48/EC, creates an obligation on member states to notify draft technical regulations relating to manufactured products, agricultural products and information society services to the European Community before national adoption.
The technical question is whether that has been done. It may seem that the creation of a technical advisory board is not something that the European Community would be in the least concerned about. I have some sympathy with that position. The difficulty is that the European Council directive does not specify what should and what should not be included. We are stepping on to dangerously thin ice if we begin to decide to comply with these directives in some matters which we think are relevant and in other matters which we think are not. So I believe that that is a proper question to ask.
It would also be interesting to know how the law enforcement membership of the board will be selected, and, more significantly, how the communications industry members will be selected. That is relevant information to which this House should be entitled.
There have been wildly differing estimates of what the directive will cost the industry as it is implemented. Does the Minister have any further information on whether the Government's estimates of costs of the order of £20 million are correct or whether the industry's estimates—I entirely agree that industry tends to overestimate costs in these circumstances—are more realistic?
The final point is that the EU is moving slowly towards greater privacy and protection of individuals and what they say and do to each other. One wonders whether the powers that this advisory board is directed to controlling, which involve a greater intrusion into the privacy of communication, are consistent with the spirit of EU law as it is now developing.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, say that this is a straightforward matter. I seem to remember nights and nights of battling over this question. The good Lord Bassam, who sits next to the good Lord Rooker, is nodding his head. We must acknowledge a little gratitude to the Government for at last admitting that this was a necessary board. It will have very important work to do.
I have two questions to add to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The first is whether the Minister can give any indication of the kind of person who will be looked for as chair of the technical advisory board. It will obviously be a very important position.
The second question is whether or not the Government have in mind, even now, to use the provisions of Section 13(2)(c) to appoint others to the board. That is a power which the Secretary of State retained. On these Benches we had in mind the possibility that there might be, in addition to the phalanxes of industry on the one hand and officialdom on the other, a representative of the independent technical world or the civil liberties world. This issue is thick with civil libertarian issues. They also come into play under the anti-terrorism Bill. Perhaps the Minister can give us some guidance on both those points.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page