§ 2.59 p.m.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect the passing of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, has had on illegal drug trafficking.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, the Act of 1965 consolidated the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1951 and 1964. These gave effect to international agreements for control of narcotic drugs now codified in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Until recently there has been virtually no evidence of trafficking in the United Kingdom in those narcotic drugs which are used for medical purposes. As, however, the noble Lord will be aware, the Interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction, in its Report published last November, found that there had been a disturbing increase in addiction to heroin and cocaine among young people, and that the main source of supply was the over-prescribing of these drugs by a small number of doctors.
The Committee's recommendations for new control over the prescribing of heroin and cocaine would require legislation and, with the other proposals made by the Committee, are now under urgent consideration by Her Majesty's Government. Trafficking in cannabis and raw or prepared opium continues to engage the vigilant attention of the enforcement authorities both in the United Kingdom and overseas.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Will the noble Lord agree that, before this matter gets out of hand, as has occurred in some other countries, particularly the United States, any legislation that is necessary is also urgent? May I also ask him whether Her Majesty's Government have considered including in Part I of the Schedule to the Act the comparatively new drug LSD, which is causing such concern in the United States?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, while deploring any increase in the illegal use 661 of drugs or in drug trafficking, I would not agree that there is any evidence that it has yet got out of hand in the manner that the noble Lord suggests is the case in other countries. With regard to his particular inquiry relating to LSD.25, it is not possible to include it in the Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, because the power in Section 12 of the Act to add substances to the Schedule is contingent upon a decision, or the probability of a decision, of the United Nations Narcotics Commission or the World Health Organisation to add the substance to Schedule I or II of the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs 1961. But LSD.25 is listed as a poison under Part I of the Poisons List, and can at present be sold only on prescription and under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. The Poison Board has recommended that the supply of LSD.25 should be restricted to duly qualified medical practitioners, and effect will be given to this recommendation in a new rule which will be included in consolidated Poisons Rules which my right honourable friend expects to make shortly.
§ LORD DERWENTI thank the noble Lord. Will he bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the fact that any necessary action should be taken before the matter gets out of hand, rather than afterwards?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I have already said that in our view we have no evidence whatever—I would emphasise this—to suggest that the matter has got out of hand, whatever may have been suggested in some Press reports. We are watching the position very closely, and the question of LSD.25 is under consideration.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, in view of the widespread concern that is felt about this matter of illegal drug trafficking, would my noble friend use his influence in the proper quarters to try to discuss the whole question on the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor at a very early date?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am hoping that the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor may well be discussed at a very early date. This matter and all matters dealt with by the Brain Committee are under 662 continuous, careful, anxious and urgent consideration, but we must proceed on evidence on not on statements, often made, which are not wholly supported by facts.