| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree absolutely that a good Secretary of State would take the action that the noble Lord has highlighted when it becomes clear that advice is absolutely fundamentally flawed. However, that is not the case. The advice that was given by the advisory council took into account research similar to that to which the noble Lord referred.
We have considered the issue. On the previous occasion, I said that the Government would continue to keep the issue under review, as would the advisory
council. Professor Murray's report is consistent with the indications that had already been considered by the advisory council when it came to its view on classifications. As I said in my Answer, Professor Murray does not disagree with the reclassification of cannabis.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the House's Select Committee on Science and Technology examined in detail the evidence for cannabis causing harm and has continued to keep that matter under surveillance? The evidence that cannabis causes psychosis or mental illness is very far from clear. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that,
- "there is little evidence that cannabis use can precipitate schizophrenia or other mental illness in those not already predisposed to it".
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Minister seen three headlines from last week's press? One said:
- " 'Epidemic' of mental illness warning".
- "Why I'd rather be stoned than drunk".
Is the Minister sure that the Government have the kind of rolling advice that is needed, as all of us move on to thin ice in drugs law? Is the advisory council the right body to carry on the work, or should a statutory standing commission be set up to take account of new developments and new advice?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked several questions. In accordance with practice, I shall answer two. We agree about the need to have clear messages. We are spending over £1 million on a campaign to make sure that people understand the new law and that schoolchildren and others who may be directly affected get the information that they need to make a proper, informed decision. I also agree with the noble Lord that the concentration should be on those who purvey such pernicious drugs, to the detriment of us all.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister recall our debate on 12 November, in which several of us raised a concern that Professor Murray and others had sought a meeting with the Home Secretary and that that meeting had been declined? Will she confirm that, of the 34 members of the advisory council, not one comes from an organisation opposed to the changes that she outlined to the House that night? On that same council, there are 13 representatives of groups that are in favour of change.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the advisory council is made up of 20 members, chosen because of their expertise and independence of view. I know that the noble Lord will appreciate the high quality of the membership. That membership is clearly set out.
We do not accept that there has, in any way, been a lack of balance. Proper consideration has been given to Professor Murray's work. It has been taken into account, in order to make sure that what the Government do is properly balanced and right.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the reclassification of cannabis will result in increased use of cannabis, as happened recently in Lambeth, where it has already been effectively declassified? That may lead to growing health problems in the future.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not believe that it will lead to an increase in the use of cannabis. The European Monitoring Centre report does not show that cannabis use in the United Kingdom is increasing.
Of course, we will we keep the issues under careful scrutiny. We need to monitor the issue to make sure that the assumptions that we make now are correct.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that choosing to reclassify cannabis at this time will inevitably send out a message that its use is harmless? Does she accept, as a former practising barrister, that many of the people addicted to hard drugs who are involved in serious cases started by using cannabis before moving to harder drugs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we must base our judgments on the data that we have. As a good forensic lawyer, the noble Lord will know that that is the best way to approach things. The evidence does not, at the moment, demonstrate that to be so. The link between using cannabis and moving on to class A drugs has not been established with the clarity that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, once cannabis is reclassified at the end of the month, will the Government consider again the possibility of permitting the private cultivation of cannabis for personal use? That would cut out the middleman and reduce the volume of illegal trade.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, whatever the rights and wrongs of the psychiatric evidence, are the Government satisfied that police officers who catch people—particularly young people—using cannabis have the equipment to ensure that they obtain the right health advice about the possible psychiatric and psychotropic effects of cannabis misuse?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am confident that the guidance given to police is robust. Noble Lords will also know that we are developing some very responsive procedures and protocols for dealing with young people who are or may become addicted. So far, I am glad to say, those policies appear to be bearing fruit, and we are doing better than, perhaps, many thought we would be. But there is a long way to go.
Transport Policing and Security
2.57 p.m.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Who is responsible for the provision and funding of transport policing and security.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the British Transport Police, funded by the rail industry, is responsible for policing the national railways and London Underground. With some exceptions, police authorities are funded centrally and by council tax precepts and are responsible for policing generally.
The Department for Transport is responsible for aviation, maritime, Channel Tunnel and rail security. Industry must implement our requirements. It bears the operating costs, passing them on to its customers as it sees fit.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that interesting Answer. In response to a Question last week, he said that the new sky marshals would be funded by government. He has just said that the British Transport Police is funded by the industry. Does he not see it as inequitable that the rail industry must pay for its own policing—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—although rail freight does not get much policing, whereas, for all other forms of transport, it is effectively mostly paid for by central government? Would not the £132 million a year that the rail industry pays be useful in these times of financial difficulty for the railways?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall correct my noble friend, preparatory to accepting a correction from him. First, other modes of transport pay their security costs. Ports and airports, if designated, must meet the costs of security; it is not just the rail industry.
My mistake, which my noble friend highlighted, was that, in trying to stress the extent to which sky marshals would be trained police officers introduced by government at the insistence of the airlines, I emphasised that the training of such officers was a national impost. I omitted to say that the seats that they will occupy will be provided by the airlines, so, in that respect as well, the industry is paying some proportion of the costs.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chief executive of British Airways, Rod
Eddington, revealed that on a recent British Airways flight one passenger remarked to his neighbour, "We have been planning this for six months, let's do it"? That exchange was overheard by a rather nervous, fellow passenger in the next seat, who alerted the crew. As a result, two Tornado fighter jets were scrambled to Heathrow Airport. It was a false alarm. The conversation was between a father and son discussing an imminent family reunion with a great aunt. If armed sky marshals had been aboard the flight, would a response using force have been justified? Would the newly agreed protocols, if they had been agreed, allow such a use of force?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |