‘Lack of Evidence’ of Drugs Use in Parliament, Met Concludes

‘Lack of Evidence’ of Drugs Use in ParliamentMet Concludes

A series of confusing, contradictory statements have been issued about cocaine being found in parliamentary bathrooms

No action was taken by the Metropolitan Police on reports of drugs use in Parliament, Byline Times can reveal – despite the House of Commons Speaker saying the matter would be dealt with “as a priority”.

These facts contradict statements previously made by the Speaker to Byline Times, suggesting that the matter simply had not been escalated to the police.

To recap: last December, the Sunday Times reported that traces of cocaine, a Class A drug, had been found in 11 of 12 parliamentary bathrooms – including in the toilets nearest the private offices of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons, subsequently issued a statement saying that the reports were “deeply concerning” and that would “raising them as a priority with the Metropolitan Police next week. I expect to see full and effective enforcement of the law.”

After several months without an update, the Speaker’s office eventually told Byline Times in June that, “Contrary to press reports, no incidents of drug usage have been reported to the parliamentary authorities or, as far as we have been made aware, the Metropolitan Police in the last five years.”

In other words, it was suggested that the matter could not be escalated to the Met.

Now, however, the Speaker’s office has issued a further statement, saying that: “Mr Speaker was deeply concerned by the reports of drug use on the parliamentary estate and had meetings with senior figures from the Metropolitan Police to discuss the matter. Having conducted an investigation, the Met Police concluded that owing to a lack of evidence, the unreliability of the swabbing in question and the high likelihood of cross-contamination, that no further action was warranted. It was therefore decided that bringing sniffer dogs onto the parliamentary estate would be a disproportionate measure.”

Commons officials received reports late last year that cannabis could be smelled in the open space between Portcullis House – which contains MPs’ offices and meeting rooms – and 1 Parliament Street. Two drug dealers were also arrested and 13 people were detained for drugs possession on or around the parliamentary estate in the space of a year.

Hoyle’s office added that: “Mr Speaker will continue to monitor the situation and will act decisively should any new evidence come to light. He is committed to ensuring that anyone suffering from drug-related problems on the parliamentary estate gets the support they need and regularly reminds the parliamentary community of the facilities available to them.”

---

‘Drugs are Commonplace’

This all seems strange, not least because the December evidence was, after all, strong enough to compel the Speaker to speak of it on live television and meet with “senior figures” in the police force at some point between then and now. At no point did anyone in Parliament, including Hoyle himself, call the Sunday Times findings into question.

Former Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten told Andrew Marr back in May that “drugs are commonplace” in Parliament and that he “used to know of MPs who were snorting coke off their office desks” and “saw political editors of national newspapers snorting it off toilet seats”. Yet apparently the evidence isn’t clear enough for the police.

Indeed, those officially allowed to hold parliamentary passes include MPs and peers, their spouses and civil partners, drivers and carers, secretaries and research assistants, government department staff, contractors and house staff, journalists, and people considered to work for all-party groups (APPGs).

However, professional lobbyists and political consultants have also been given passes, including at least one arms lobbyist, leaders of private and charitable organisations in such sectors as defence, housing, and religious faith, and people holding senior or policy positions at ‘think tanks’.

Anyone with a pass can roam the parliamentary estate freely, avail themselves of the publicly-subsidised bars and restaurants, book meeting rooms, and generally make themselves at home. They also, as with APPGs, can make Parliament itself into a ‘dark space’ in which access, influence and power can be wielded opaquely.

In light of that, as well as the question of whether representatives are making law and policy while their judgement is impaired, it is very much in the public interest to know if unelected non-parliamentarians are taking opportunities to influence people who are under the influence. Among other things, it’s a clear national security risk.

We’re talking about a place where staffers have been stripped of passes after smuggling mates onto the estate after drunken nights out. Where guidance had to be sent to MPs and staff recently asking them not to pass out in their offices overnight after missing trains home. We’re talking about a workplace, with all the laws, regulations, protections, and professionalism that such an environment should entail.

And we’re talking about substances that not only impair but are illegal, allegedly found in the seat of the country’s lawmaking.

Ultimately, Hoyle must be well aware of the hypocrisy involved in offering counselling for a problem for which there is apparently “a lack of evidence”.