DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 5 August 1925)

§ Sir ROBERT SANDERS
May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give us a little explanation of this Bill? I think practically all stages have gone through without anything being said about it, although it is an important Bill.

§ The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson)
In reply to my right hon. Friend, I would like to observe that this Bill is, I might almost say, a legacy from the Labour party. During the tenure of office of my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary, delegates were sent to Geneva, in order to discuss this question of dangerous drugs. The result of that delegation was that a Convention was arrived at which was signed by the delegates. We cannot ratify the Convention without a Bill being passed by this House, and the time for the expiry of signatures of the Convention is 30th September. We want, if possible, to ratify the Convention as soon as possible after the 30th September, and if we wait for this Bill until the House meets again we shall be too late so far as that period is concerned, and therefore we want, if possible, to get this Bill through as soon as possible. I do not know whether hon. Members would like me to explain. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!" "Yes!" "Agreed!" "Go on!"]

§ Mr. J. JONES
They know what is in it all right. It is only drugs, and they are used to them.

§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON
Although it is an important Bill, it is a small Bill. It only amends, a former Act to a very slight extent. What is does is to include coca leaves under a former Act. They are the real basis of cocaine. We place them in the same category as raw opium. Hon. Members will find that in the first Clause.
In the second place, we are relaxing the rule that makes people mark small packages of opium, because it has been found that where these packages are 1492 marked it draws notice, and people steal these packages. I will sit down—[HON. MEMBERS: "GO on!" and "Agreed!"] The House seems to be divided on the subject. Perhaps I may say that Clause 5 allows the League of Nations to make up its mind whether a so-called drug can be improperly used or not. If a committee of the League of Nations says that in their opinion a certain preparation of drug cannot be improperly used, then a relaxation is allowed upon the Schedule under this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will now agree to the passage of this Bill, and allow it to become an Act.

§ Mr. B. PETO
I am sure the House will be very much indebted to the hon. Member for the explanation which he has given. But it was certainly necessary, because he told us first of all that this Bill was a legacy of hon Members opposite, and that, to some of us, is "damning it with faint praise." Apart from that, and I am quite sure that if Lord Banbury were in this House to-day he would not let this Bill go through as easily as I shall. First of all, the legislation apparently, instead of being passed in this House, was passed in Geneva.. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office pointed out that the Bill could be entirely altered by a resolution of the League of Nations. That seems to me to introduce a rather dangerous precedent into our legislation, to pass a Bill in this House the terms of which can be entirely altered without any Motion in this House whatever. With that small and inadequate protest I do not wish further to detain the House, but I really should have liked to hear what some of the old maintainers of the constitutional rights of this House would have had to say about a Bill of this character.

§ Sir J. NALL
I only want to ask the Under-Secretary a question. He fold the House that this Bill was necessary in order to ratify an international Convention. Can he assure the House that the other nations who are parties to the Convention are definitely, genuinely going to ratify, or are they only likely to ratify in a manner which is sometimes adopted so that after the ratification the matter is not enforced?

§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I should like to reply to that, with the leave of the 1493 House. I understand that all the Powers which were represented are signing the Convention. Therefore I think in that case the Parliaments of the different countries will ratify.