My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 16 I will also support Amendments 14, 17, 18 and 19. Amendment 19, on low-harm substances, links very closely with Amendment 16, and I will concentrate on Amendment 16 because of that particular focus.
Amendment 16 seeks to exempt from the scope of the Bill substances deemed to pose low health, social and safety risks. One of the objectives is to take a small step towards harmonising the Bill with the EU regulation. The Government have every right to opt out of the EU regulation, and of course they did so. However, there are very good reasons for attempting to move towards a degree of harmonisation. Paragraph 1.1 of the EU regulation says that,
“national restriction measures, which may differ depending on the Member State and on the substance, can hamper trade in the internal market and hinder the development of future industrial or commercial uses”.
So there are free market issues where the UK may cause problems for our own industries, and indeed trade, if the Bill goes ahead unamended. Amendment 16 goes some way towards reducing those obstacles to trade. Does the Minister know how significant the commercial and trade implications of the Bill will be for the UK if it is not amended in the way that Amendment 16 suggests and, if not, will he have these barriers assessed before introducing the Bill?
10 pm
The focus of the EU regulation, which this country should follow, in my view, is to treat very differently those psychoactive substances that pose severe risks, as distinct from medium and low risks. As we were arguing earlier in relation to Amendment 12, one of the really useful roles for any Government is to provide clear information about the level of risk of any particular substance. Of course, another is to provide effective treatment for those in trouble with drugs, but we will come to that later. The first role—the provision of information—is very badly served by this Bill. By banning all psychoactive substances—except, of course, a few really dangerous ones, such as alcohol and nicotine—the Government are giving out the most extraordinary message. What the legislation is actually saying to young people is, “Carry on drinking and smoking, even though these things actually kill you, but don’t, for goodness’ sake, take herbal cannabis”—which of course has never killed anybody and, if it is the right consistency, can actually be helpful for people. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that all these things are a bit dangerous. However, Professor Curran has said very clearly that, if the CBD and THC balance is right, cannabis does not have to harm anybody at all. And of course the CBD itself will be of tremendous benefit to psychotic patients. What sort of Alice in Wonderland world are we living in where we are giving out these strange and contrary messages?
A second very important aspect of informing young people is that, if low-risk substances were controlled through regulations and properly labelled, young people would have, for the very first time, real information on the label about the risk levels, side-effects, maximum dose and so on, as I think I mentioned in an earlier debate. This would be an infinitely safer environment for young people. The illegal drug dealer, on the other hand, gives no information at all. They cut these substances with all sorts of poisons and goodness knows what else. The young person has no idea what is in the substance that they are buying or how strong it is—one week it is one strength and another week it might be something completely different. No wonder young people are dying. This really is a very serious problem.
The EU regulation provides free movement of new psychoactive substances—this is a completely different point now—for commercial and industrial use and for scientific research and development, which we will come on to on the next Committee day. It also provides for a graduated set of restriction measures for substances posing risks, proportionate to their level of risk. Do we not need such a system here? I really would be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether he will take this issue away—the issue of proportionality as related to information. Will he talk to his EU counterparts and find out why they came up with this structure and system, and consider whether, even at this late stage, it may be wise to introduce the principle of proportionality of response into the Bill? The manifesto commitment to ban psychoactive substances would remain. It would simply be adjusted to improve the health and safety of young people. I very much recognise that we are not here to wreck or demolish the Bill but to improve it.
The EU policy follows the idea of the Government’s temporary class drug orders, which resulted in a substance apparently posing severe risks being immediately banned from the market as fast as it could be done pending its risk assessment. The EU plans exactly that sort of response, except that it wants to speed up the process—which of course we could do equally well here. The big difference is that TCDOs make no provision for a proportionate response at the end of the assessment period.
Following an impact assessment of policy alternatives, the EU regulation refers in paragraph 2.1 to experts and practitioners, pointing out that,
“new legislation on new psychoactive substances should be calibrated to the different levels of risks posed by these substances”.
Does the Minister have any problem with that idea? If so, perhaps he could explain what his problem is with a proportionate system of this kind.
Finally, the amendment proposes that an independent committee should be responsible for determining whether a substance represents a low risk. We suggest that the independent committee—when I say “we”, I mean the experts, not me—should be nominated by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Pharmacological Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences. I understand that the European Council has not yet sorted out how to determine what is and what is not a low-risk substance. Perhaps Britain could take the lead by putting forward this proposal.