§ Mr. GoodhartI beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 25, line 9, at end add:
'listed in schedule 2, part 1, Class A'.The Clause amends Section 16(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, and broadens the definition of "drug addict" to cover, not only heroin and cocaine users, but also those using amphetamines and barbiturate combinations.It is doubtful whether the implications of widening these grounds for granting a separation order have been fully con- 604 sidered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Matrimonial proceedings under Section 16(1) can now be brought against a very large number of men and women and the issue involved is extended well beyond the issues originally contained in Section 16(1), when it was necessary for a person to obtain in relation to his spouse, proof of danger to himself or to others, incapacity to manage himself or his own affairs, or proof of conduct intolerable to a spouse of ordinary sensibilities.
It has been argued by a number of magistrates with wide experience of domestic proceedings that the Clause could lead to some unfortunate wives or husbands being attacked and pilloried in the courts on the grounds of a relatively minor use of comparatively harmless drugs, just at the moment when they need particular support. The Amendment would largely restore the balance to what it has been from 1960 onwards.
§ Mr. OgdenIf I am ignorant or because of the late hour unable to comprehend quite what is happening, I apologise to the House in advance.
As I understand it, the Clause says:
There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament—(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State "—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)Order. The hon. Gentleman is quoting from Clause 35. I think that there is a mistake in one series of Amendment Papers today, and it may be that this is referred to in the earlier edition.
§ Mr. OgdenThat may well be the reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I was at a loss to understand what a list of drugs under Part I, Class A, had to do with matrimonial proceedings, in relation to moneys provided by Parliament to defray expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.
Perhaps after this exchange it may be possible for that to be cleared up.
§ Mr. AlisonI am very relieved that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is not so fatigued that he has made a mistake, and that the error lies elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has moved 605 an Amendment the effect of which would be to limit the bite of this part of the Bill to the same degree of severity as was imparted to the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, by the qualifying list of drugs in the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, which was originally the controlling instrument for drugs for the 1960 Act.
I do not think that my hon. Friend has quite made his case, though I have weighed very carefully what he said. I think that he would agree that the spirit of the 1960 Act requires that the class of drugs should be as wide as possible, provided that all drugs comprised in it are sufficiently harmful to be controlled by law. It was the underlying philosophy of the 1951 Act that those drugs cited were those considered dangerous enough to be controlled by law.
If my hon. Friend applies that same governing philosophy and spirit to the present circumstances I think that he will agree that the drugs in Classes B and C in the later parts of the Schedule, which I think he designated as comparatively harmless, are considered by the House to be sufficiently dangerous to be included in a Measure which proposes to control them by law. If this really is the case, I think it is extremely unsatisfactory that the wife should be denied matrimonial relief even though her husband is both dangerous to himself and to others or impossible to live with. This may well be the reality if the drugs involved are what we consider to be harmful and dangerous because they happen to be in Classes B and C instead of Class A. This would be unsatisfactory, Parliament having decided that they were dangerous drugs and not harmful drugs.
I think that my hon. Friend would agree that it is essentially the effect of the drug and not its narrow classification which must be the deciding factor, and I believe that the drugs listed in Classes B and C are really harmful; it is for that reason that they have been included. If we maintain the philosophy of the 1951 Act on drugs sufficiently dangerous to be specified in a Statute, we must allow the 1960 Act to be governed by all those that Parliament has taken the trouble to specify and list in the Schedule.
I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will be prepared to allow us to proceed on this assessment of what con- 606 stitutes dangerous drugs and to include Classes B and C and not only Class A.
§ Mr. GoodhartI beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.