Lord Bassam of Brighton talks in his sleep

Whilst Ruth Kelly and Margaret Beckett are members of the Gubment it seems unreasonable, inaccurate even, to say that the splendidly named and unelected (and unelectable) Lord Bassam of Brighton (created 1997) is the stupidest member of the New Labour criminal fraternity . (Very strongly in favour of smoking ban and ID cards)

However his performance on Tuesday in the House of Lords takes some beating. (Pic 4th left over the V in Hove)

My Lord Cobbold rose to ask what seems a reasonable question. The Home Secretary in January 2005 announced a "root and branch review of the ABC system of drug classification". The current sytem is based, it is claimed, on classifying drugs on the degree of self harm they cause.

My Lord Cobbold (David Antony Fromanteel Lytton Cobbold. 2nd Baron created 1960 - father Governor of the Bank of England from 1949/1961 and sensibly married into the Bulwer-Lyttons of Knebworth House - believes Members of HOL should retire at 75 or 80 - C) was aware of "the excellent report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Drug Classification: Making a hash of it." and pointed to their conclusion on Page 48

“we have found glaring anomalies in the classification system as it stands and a wide consensus that the current system is not fit for purpose”.

He pointed out that the drugs trade is the second largest global business after oil, and it is all in the hands of criminals. Did the Minister consider this to be acceptable?

Or ...would the Gubment agree ...

" the real problem is not about detailed composition of their classification system but that current national and international drugs policies are as a whole not fit for purpose? Is it not obvious that prohibition, as the late Milton Friedman once wrote,

“is an attempted cure that makes matters worse”?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: (All this happened just after Prayers at 2.30 so one perhaps should take into account that My Lord Bassam may have been digesting a comforting and splendid lunch - perhaps with the addition of a decent claret and maybe a post prandial port or three).

"I am aware that there are some critics of the classification system, but we have to base our policy on something. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has served us well in advising not just our Government, but successive Governments, on the best course of action with regard to particular types of drugs and their derivatives."

Of course my Lord Bassam was right, although not helpful, nor indeed did he answer the question, but merely stated some easily determined facts and placed the blame squarely, if not fairly on the oddly named Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs . A point which the sharp minded The Countess of Mar was swift to point out ;

"My Lords, the noble Lord did not really answer the question put to him by the noble Lord Swinfen - Can he please tell us what consideration Her Majesty’s Government have given to purchasing the harvest of opium from Afghanistan and using it for medicinal purposes in this country? "

The policy of the excellent and very sensible Senlis Council - see endless postings here.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding from colleagues across government is that we are looking to ensure that crop substitution takes place. Work is being undertaken on that. (Whilst dodging the bullets in Helmand province no doubt)

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government’s view that legalising any particular drug would be likely to increase or to decrease its consumption?

At which point the blundering Lord was saved (as it were) by the bell, as Lord Rooker The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs curtailed further debate by reminding the House that in its quaint way "My Lords, I am sorry, but we are well into the eighth minute, and we must move on...."

Perhaps it would be right to mention that Baroness Gardner of Parkes had also asked about ,"What can be done to prevent tragedies occurring where someone has caused even death due to driving under the influence of drugs? to which the beached Bassam provided, not an answer but some fascinating statistics....

"My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that we should focus our attention on the practical impact of substance misuse. It is for that reason that the Government have invested as heavily as they have in drug treatment and tackling misuse. Since 2001-02, £7.5 billion has been invested by the Government in tackling drug abuse. In the past year alone, the Government invested £1.5 billion, and a further £86 million was made available for treatment services. If we can start to deal with drugs issues in those ways, we have a greater chance of success."

"There are examples of success in terms of reducing people’s interest in and consumption of drugs "

..... but he failed to provide any.

One could be forgiven for worrying about the way our legislators handle the greatest social evil of our times, the greatest criminal enterprise (although VAT fraud is fast overtaking) and the most profoundly damaging effect on young people, prostitution, people trafficking, crime committed to indulge in drugs ....

Curious how expenditure of £7.5 Mn with no demonstrable effect on the problems of drugs misuse is decribed as ..... an investment.

It seems very unreasonable that we should taunt these chaps after a decent lunch with all these difficult questions, and expect answers -