| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, made it clear on Third Reading of the IAN Bill on 14 March that the Government were not delegating responsibility for these matters, which remained in the hands of the UK immigration authority. It is difficult to see how the power to arrest, search and detain a passenger can lawfully be exercised by someone who is not a responsible officer within the meaning of the treaty, and if any explanation was given to ILPA we hope that a copy will be placed in the Library of the House, and a brief summary given by the Minister in winding up this debate.
Lord Dholakia: I have a couple more questions to add to those of my noble friend Lord Avebury. First, immigration officers now hold powers akin to those of police officers and are very much part of the process that comes under the Independent Police Complaints Commission when complaints are raised. I refer to the power to arrest, detain, search and so on. Could complaints in the control zones abroad now be investigated by the IPCC? Does the IPCC have power to operate in countries abroad and call for witnesses over there?
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC24
The second matter relates to the authorised search officers. Here there is an interesting situation whereby the immigration officers can be dealt with by the IPCC. Could the Minister explain about the accountability of those officers and whether the IPCC has powers to investigate complaints against the authorised search officers? It would be very helpful to know whether they fall within the ambit of the complaints commission.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her comments, and to the two noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches, who have a long history of persistently ensuring that we are held to proper account on a delicate area of implementation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about successes. We think that the way in which the service operates has been very successful. As the noble Baroness probably knows, the contracts are run by Eamus Cork Security—ECS—which has worked with the UK Immigration Service for a number of years, initially at Dunkerque and, since August last year, in Calais. The firm works to assist UK immigration officers with a freight-searching operation at berth side. In the past 10 months, the firm has intercepted some 1,200 clandestines and recently was successful in bidding for the contract to work with the UK Immigration Service in Calais as escorting officers, transporting persons detected concealed in vehicles to an immigration officer at a holding facility in the port. That contract contains an extension that provides for the work of ASOs, which will become effective only if this secondary legislation is approved.
5 pm
Lord Avebury: I was wondering how the figure that the noble Lord has given can be said to result from the use of ASOs, bearing in mind that, if they had not been there, identical searches would have been conducted by immigration officers, who presumably would have found those 1,200 people as well. There is not a control group with which you can compare the statistics that have been achieved by ASOs, is there?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is obviously the case, as I said earlier, that having those contractors there means that immigration officers can concentrate on more rigorous and demanding work. In a sense, the ASOs offer and provide activity that is more in support of the way in which immigration staff work. Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right in the sense that, if ASOs were not there, we would have to deploy immigration officers. It is a question of having the appropriate level of qualification among staff to carry out particular work.
The personnel who are deployed will have already been subject to rigorous security screening in the UK and France. They will also have undergone extensive training with Centrex, the central police training authority. When it comes to efficiency, they have demonstrated their track record at the port of Dunkerque where, since January 2004, they have
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC25
Non-British companies already undertake a freight-searching role for ferry companies and port operators outside the UK and have demonstrated themselves to be highly effective. The performance of the contractors will be scrutinised on a daily basis by the Immigration Service, which will examine any suggestion of underperformance or substandard behaviour. ECS personnel will also come under the scrutiny of the monitor, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a number of questions and, as best I can, I will respond to them today. If I cannot do so, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied by a written response, which I would be more than happy to share with other Members of the Committee. A copy of the training material that is used by ASOs will be put into the public domain, and I am more than happy to ensure that the noble Lord is fully advised on that. He asked about false matches on Eurodac. I find it hard to provide the noble Lord with that information this afternoon, but I undertake to prepare a written response for him as best we can. The database regulations provide a useful structure for ensuring that asylum seekers who are processed elsewhere will have been properly processed. We will ensure that we spell out more of the detail on that.
I do not think that the noble Lord is right in what he said about complainants; they would not have been returned to their country of origin. It is likely that they would be refused entry to the United Kingdom, and we would ensure at that point that they were handed to the French authorities to be processed.
The noble Lord asked me to name the monitor today, but I am not in a position to do that. I can tell the noble Lord that we are at an advanced stage of talks with a Crown servant, and we are confident that we will be able to appoint someone in the very near future. As soon as an agreement is reached, we will, properly, announce the name of the person who has been appointed.
Lord Avebury: If the complainant is not satisfied with the reply given by the chief immigration officer, to whom does he go? We were told that his route of complaint would be, first, to the chief immigration officer and then, if he was not satisfied with that, to the monitor. If no monitor has been appointed, to whom does he go when he is not satisfied in the first instance?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Under this order, the complaint will be processed and forwarded to the monitor. But, of course, that process will not kick in until the monitor is appointed. I will ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is given more information on how the monitor works so that he can be fully satisfied on that point. The noble Lord also asked what requirements have been laid down under Article 3(2) of the Le Touquet agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood, but the maximum period for which an ASO can detain a person is three hours. I cannot
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC26
The noble Lord also asked about the detention of children, on which he made a number of points. We have offered to facilitate a meeting between the noble Lord and the Children’s Commissioner, Al Aynsley-Green. I am not aware that that meeting has taken place, but the offer still stands. Children detected are taken immediately to an immigration officer. If the minor does not qualify for entry to the United Kingdom, he or she is handed to the French authorities and is dealt with under its domestic law. The French have well established procedures for the welfare of unaccompanied children.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked about ILPA and the question of vires. We will respond to ILPA’s very long and generally helpful comments. We are satisfied that we are acting within our vires and that ILPA’s comments, while useful, are not an issue. Again, I would be happy to share our response with the noble Lord if ILPA is content with that. For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that this order relates to the ports at Calais, Dunkerque and Boulogne.
I will undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in detail in response to his question on the IPCC, but it is my understanding that the IPCC will not oversee the juxtaposed controls. I shall of course need to ask my officials to ensure that that is the case.
That answers most of the main points but, as I said earlier, I would be more than happy to flesh out some more of the detail and specifics, particularly in relation to the pertinent questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2006
Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2006 [35th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the order is to reclassify the substance methylamphetamine from a class B drug to a class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As is required by the Act, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been consulted and agrees with the proposal. Methylamphetamine has been controlled as a class B drug under Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act from the outset of that legislation. It also has recognised medicinal benefits when in the form of a medicinal product—including treatment of attention deficit and hyperkinetic disorder—and consequently is categorised as a Schedule 2 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, so that doctors can prescribe it where necessary.
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC27
Prevalence of misuse of methylamphetamine has been very low in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, there are sound reasons for this proposal to reclassify the drug to class A. Relative harmfulness is central to our drug classification system. Our drugs laws should accurately reflect the relative harmfulness of drugs, when they are misused, both to the individual and to society at large.
The Committee will know that the drug classification system under the Misuse of Drugs Act has come under very close scrutiny recently. The Government believe that the current three-tier system is fit for its fundamental purpose of providing a framework within which criminal penalties are set with reference to the harm caused by a drug and the type of illegal activity undertaken in regard to that drug.
The system allows for clear and meaningful distinctions to be made between drugs. There is a wide understanding that class A drugs are the most dangerous substances and therefore carry the heaviest criminal penalties, while class C drugs, although still harmful, are not of the same order. It is this coherent system which has stood the test of time and which, for so long as it remains, we now propose to reapply to methylamphetamine. The action that we are taking to reclassify methylamphetamine is a good example of a fully functioning system where we are revisiting a drug’s classification in light of new evidence.
In the case of methylamphetamine, we have to decide how to respond to a drug that can be misused and can cause serious social problems, but has no significant prevalence in the United Kingdom at present. It is this potential for harm rather than methylamphetamine’s current prevalence here that is central to the proposal to reclassify the drug to class A.
Methylamphetamine’s harmfulness equates to that of other class A substances, both at the level of the individual and of society more widely. It is a derivative of amphetamine, which is a class B drug, but it is much more potent than other forms of the drug, with the potential for greater physical and psychological harm. It can quickly become highly addictive. Its reclassification to a class A drug will accurately reflect this relative harmfulness.
International experience documents the devastating impact of widespread misuse of methylamphetamine on society and the environment. Its use can increase risky sexual behaviour, thereby increasing the risk of blood-borne virus transmission; and it is a risk factor for aggression and violence, as well as acquisitive crime. Also, methylamphetamine manufacture exposes individuals and the environment to flammable and hazardous chemicals and production methods and to toxic waste by-products.
In its report published in November 2005, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs considered that, based on the then current situation in the United Kingdom, it would be inappropriate to reclassify methylamphetamine as a class A drug. Instead, the council recommended the development of an effective early warning system to monitor any shifts in the
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC28
In May this year, the council reviewed its decision in the light of further evidence and recommended that methylamphetamine be reclassified as a class A drug. Again, the council’s advice is available on the Home Office website. The prevalence of the drug in the United Kingdom continued to remain low, but the council was persuaded by the harmfulness of methylamphetamine and the international experience of the serious social problems caused by methylamphetamine misuse, as well as by intelligence provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which fully supports the reclassification of methylamphetamine to class A.
If the order is approved by both Houses and is signed in Privy Council when it meets on 14 December, it will come into force five weeks after it has been made to allow sufficient time to advise the police, the courts and other interested bodies that methylamphetamine will be the subject of control as a class A drug. That would result in a commencement date of 18 January 2007.
The maximum penalty for unauthorised production, importation and supply of methylamphetamine as a class A drug will be life imprisonment and/or a fine. The maximum sentence for the offence of possession of methylamphetamine will be seven years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
Reclassification to a class A drug will be a key element in the prevention of a significant escalation in the illicit use of methylamphetamine and the social problems that it could cause. It will provide a platform for greater enforcement activity, enabling the police to close premises where methylamphetamine drugs are being used, sold or manufactured, as they currently do with “crack houses”, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. This police power of closure is for class A drugs only. In particular, as a class A drug, methylamphetamine will be an explicit priority for the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which will direct its resources and enforcement activities accordingly. We are also implementing key recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ report around an early warning system to monitor prevalence.
Methylamphetamine’s main precursor chemicals—ephedrine and pseudoephedrine—are already listed as controlled precursors under European legislation, and we have now reached agreement on placing red phosphorus on the EU voluntary monitoring list that checks for suspicious transactions in chemicals. We are exploring ways to take a more robust response, but it must be remembered that these substances also have legitimate industrial uses, so it not simply a case of halting their supply. We are also taking steps to ensure that national survey data differentiate between methylamphetamine and amphetamines, which will assist in our monitoring of prevalence.
The Government will publicise the change in the law with regard to methylamphetamine through a Home Office circular and through the Talk to Frank and www.drugs.gov.uk websites. Reference to
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC29
This measure is very much in line with the Government’s commitment to cause maximum disruption to drug markets and thus protect young people from the harms of being exposed to dangerous drugs. For those reasons, I commend the proposed change. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2006 [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
5.15 pm
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support the order, which reclassifies methylamphetamine as a class A drug instead of the lower class B. It seems to us to be an appropriate measure, given the growing concern about the effect of the misuse of the drug, particularly in its crystalline form. The Minister was right to point out that there is an appropriate use of the drug for medicinal purposes under carefully controlled circumstances. The other part of the process is that precursors may be involved that have industrial uses. There may well be proper use of either component parts, precursors or the drug itself.
Like other amphetamines, methylamphetamine is a drug that affects the brain reward pathways, and its use can lead to the need to take more to achieve the same effects. It can lead to both psychological and physical dependence. Using the drug by intravenous injection or by smoking is particularly liable to lead to such an addiction. I understand that smoking the purer crystalline form, also known as “crystal meth” or “ice”, produces a very intense rush, similar to that produced by crack cocaine but longer lasting, for between four and 12 hours. It is highly reinforcing and can quickly become addictive. The greater potency of the “ice” form, particularly when smoked, makes it a greater threat than other forms of methylamphetamine.
Methylamphetamine-induced psychosis has been widely reported in other countries where misuse is almost epidemic, so it is absolutely right that the Government should bring forward the order as a preventive measure at this stage. That in itself produces one or two difficulties for proper control. As crystal meth is considered to be more potent and harmful than speed and other class B drugs, it is appropriate to reclassify it as class A. As the Minister said, the penalty will change. Maximum imprisonment for possession will be seven years instead of five, and for supply it will be life imprisonment instead of the current 14 years.
The main issue then must be how the Government take steps to ensure that the change is known about by those who might be sucked into the process of taking the drugs or who are already doing so. The Minister said that there will be an input into future educational material. How soon will that information be in schools? I am trying to avoid the use of the phrase “come on stream”. Obviously, while there is not an epidemic of misuse here now, one wants to
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC30
Lord Dholakia: I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said. We have no doubt on the basis of scientific and other evidence that methylamphetamine can, if misused, cause serious harm. However, there is a disagreement between the Minister’s remarks on classification and our position on it. We support the reclassification of this particular drug, but one has to bear in mind the fact that we are stuck at present with the A, B, C system of classification. Often there have been confused signals coming from the Home Office and the police.
I cite the recommendations and comments in the Commons Science and Technology Committee report from 18 July, Drug classification: making a hash of it? The report said:
“With respect to the ABC classification system, we have identified significant anomalies in the classification of individual drugs and a regrettable lack of consistency in the rationale used to make classification decisions. In addition, we have expressed concern at the Government’s proclivity for using the classification system as a means of ‘sending out signals’ to potential users and society at large—it is at odds with the stated objective of classifying drugs on the basis of harm and the Government has not made any attempt to develop an evidence base on which to draw in determining the ‘signal’ being sent out”.
For this reason, it would be very helpful if the Minister could once again look at whether the classification system is appropriate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her support and to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his. I am grateful, too, for the terms in which the noble Baroness in particular expressed her support. Clearly, there is an understanding across the political divide of the importance of reclassification in terms of the activity that it would unlock for enforcement purposes. It would enable the police, for instance, to ensure that they are well placed to stifle any emerging threat from the drug. It would enable them to attack crack houses much more precisely and enable us to ensure that there is much more knowledge about the damage that methylamphetamine can do.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |