| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the slight concern that clause 4 may override a privilege that was granted by section 144 of the Finance Act 1989? I recognise that that is a rather esoteric question and it is not one on which I seek an immediate response.
Mr. Waddington : That point will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his reply. I do not think that it affects the question of privilege. The court will apply the same rules in connection with privilege as it does now. My right hon. Friend will be able to develop that point in his summing up. Clauses 5 and 6 concern the temporary transfer of prisoners from one country to another to give evidence or to assist with investigations. Clause 5 will enable us, with the consent of the individuals concerned, to transfer prisoners held in United Kingdom prisons to another
Column 150
country where they will be held in custody, brought to a court to give evidence and then transferred back to this country. By the same token we shall be able to receive on a temporary basis prisoners held abroad who are needed to give evidence in cases before courts here. Clauses 7 and 8 enable the police in certain circumstances to seek a warrant from a magistrate authorising the use of powers of entry, search and seizure at the request of the authorities in another country to assist with an investigation or proceedings taking place there.Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Will the Home Secretary vet such applications himself? Will there be political supervision of such requests so that the authorities in this country can be assured that the request coming from overseas legal authorities is satisfactory and that there is a case to be answered?
Mr. Waddington : That would not be a matter for the politicians--I sincerely hope not. If it were, I am sure that many hon. Members would complain. This is a matter for the courts of the land, whether magistrates or Crown courts. Judges will decide whether the application is properly brought under the law of this land and in accordance with the convention.
In drafting the provisions, we have been guided by the principle that no more powers should be available to be used by foreign courts and prosecuting authorities than would be available to our courts and prosecuting authorities in a purely domestic case. I am sure that that will give some reassurance to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It is a good example of the point that I am making. With this in mind, we have set out to replicate the domestic provisions contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and in Scottish common law. Thus a foreign authority will be able to ask our police to enter premises to search for evidence relevant to an investigation only if the police could act in a similar way in a domestic case.
Clause 9 deals with the forfeiture of what are known as "instrumentalities" of crime--objects used in the commission of an offence. As I have already mentioned, we have strong laws governing the confiscation of the proceeds of serious crime and have agreements with several countries covering the enforcement of each other's confiscation orders. But one thing that we are currently unable to do is to enforce orders made by overseas courts for the forfeiture of items used in the commission of serious crimes, such as a getaway car used in a bank robbery or a boat used to smuggle drugs. The clause will remedy that weakness.
I am sure that the House will recognise that the proposals I have outlined are sensible and practical, and will enhance our ability to work with our international partners in the fight against all forms of international crime. Our ratification of the European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters will be not only a positive demonstration of our commitment to work as closely as possible with our Council of Europe partners, but a guarantee that the other parties to the convention will assist us.
Part II contains provisions that are necessary to enable us to ratify the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The convention is known as the Vienna convention. It begins with a code of offences of illicit trafficking, and then
Column 151
provides mechanisms that enable states to co -operate with each other in bringing traffickers to justice, wherever they may be. It also provides for the tracing, freezing and confiscation of property derived from trafficking, which we already know to be a very powerful weapon. The convention also provides a framework of practical measures to assist the law enforcement agencies to detect traffickers. Clauses 12 and 13, together with schedule 3, for example, are designed to prevent the diversion to illicit use of a range of chemicals that are essential in the production of controlled drugs.Mr. Chris Butler (Warrington, South) : Why does clause 12 create the offence of manufacturing or supplying certain substances that are scheduled, rather than simply making it an offence knowingly to manufacture substances that may be used in the illicit manufacture of controlled drugs?
Mr. Waddington : It is very much more satisfactory to list those substances that we know are used in the manufacture of controlled drugs and then include an order-making power in the Bill. The Bill could hardly cover substances that do not exist. It would be very difficult to frame a clause specifying that any substances that might subsequently turn out to be ones that could be used in the manufacture of drugs should be covered by the Bill. That is why, if my hon. Friend turns to clause 12(5), he will find that the schedule may be amended by Order in Council. I think that that is a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
In the United Kingdom, since 1971, we have operated a voluntary system of control whereby the companies that manufacture and supply these chemicals have been encouraged to draw to the attention of the police and the Home Office drugs inspectorate details of any suspicious orders and transactions.
That system has worked well, with admirable co-operation from the chemicals industry, and this has led to the identification of many clandestine laboratories, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. We do not see the need to switch to a mandatory reporting system on American lines. What the Bill will do, therefore, is put the current voluntary system on a statutory basis, in that it will require records of transactions to be kept and will empower enforcement officers to enter premises and demand the production of records. Clause 14 is intended to enable us to meet the terms of article 3 of the Vienna convention. This requires parties to the convention to make it an offence to conceal or disguise property, or to convert or transfer it, knowing or suspecting it to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, and for the purpose of helping someone to avoid being prosecuted for a drug- trafficking offence. We already, of course, have a money-laundering offence in section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, but the new offence will catch the drug trafficker laundering his own proceeds, whereas the provision in the 1986 Act is about laundering the proceeds of someone else's trafficking.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for interrupting him, but I should like to know whether the reason for including this clause is that some drug companies have not co- operated with the Government by supplying voluntarily the information whose provision we are now making compulsory.
Column 152
Mr. Waddington : A very good voluntary system operates. That is why we do not consider it necessary, in this Bill, to go through the paraphernalia of requiring notification of dealings in any of these drugs. Therefore, in the Bill we are merely providing for what goes on at present. Companies keep records of these goods and can keep authorities informed of any transactions that they believe are in any way suspicious. There is no question of our putting in the Bill anything that is unnecessary. We are including the minimum that is required to conform with the convention.
Clauses 15 and 16 will enable us to meet fully the requirement of the convention that we should ensure that the maximum possible amount of the proceeds of drug trafficking--and any income derived from them--is confiscated. To do this, we need to make two adjustments to the confiscation scheme established under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The first is to make it possible to add interest to the amount that remains unpaid at the end of whatever time a court allows for payment when it makes an order for the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking. Clause 15 achieves that. The second thing that we must do is to make it possible to increase the amount that can be recovered under a confiscation order if it turns out that the amount that might be realised is greater than was initially assessed by the Crown court. That will be achieved by clause 16. The Vienna convention also requires parties "to co-operate" to the fullest extent possible to suppress illicit drug trafficking by sea and each party is required to establish jurisdiction over offences of illicit trafficking on its own registered vessels.
Clause 17 extends to British ships all drug trafficking offences--all those existing before the Bill comes into force as well as those that we are creating--and clause 18 creates
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question in relation to clauses 17 and 18? By "British ships" does he mean United Kingdom-registered merchant vessels, United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels and pleasure craft owned by United Kingdom nationals? What is meant by an unregistered ship?
Mr. Waddington : The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in his assumption. Clearly the Bill covers all United Kingdom ships--all those that are registered as United Kingdom ships and all those that fly the British flag. But the Bill must also cover circumstances in which, negligently or for a criminal purpose, someone has failed to register his ship with any nation. There would be a gap in the Bill if provision were not made to deal with that eventuality.
Dr. Godman : But what happens to a British-owned vessel that flies a flag of convenience?
Mr. Waddington : I think that in those circumstances, the ship would be treated as a ship registered with that other country. The convention would be apt to give us the power, with the consent of the other country, to board that ship. It would also give us extraterritorial jurisdiction to bring to trial anyone on board that ship against whom there was evidence of a drug offence.
Clause 18 creates a new offence in respect of the transportation of illicit drugs which will apply to the ships
Column 153
of convention countries and to unregistered ships, as well as to those registered here. Clause 18(2) provides that the offence is committed if a person knows, or has reasonable grounds to suspect, that the drugs are intended to be imported, or have been exported, contrary either to section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or to the law of any other state.Clause 19 and schedule 3 create arrangements whereby the United Kingdom may authorise other countries to board our ships and we may be authorised to board other ships. We in the United Kingdom do not require any authorisation to board an unregistered ship, but the Bill makes it clear that in the case of ships registered in convention states boarding may take place only at the request, or on the authorisation, of that country. Subsection (4) empowers the Secretary of State to seek such authorisation or authorise the boarding of United Kingdom vessels by other convention states. But in giving his authority the Secretary of State will be able to attach conditions. For example, he might wish to limit local prosecution of any offences discovered to ensure that they are offences broadly covered by United Kingdom law or to ensure that punishments seriously out of step with those allowed by our laws are not imposed.
Clause 21 deals with extradition and makes a number of adjustments to our laws to ensure that we are fully able to meet the requirements of the Vienna convention.
Clause 22 applies to offences created by the Bill certain provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in relation to existing drugs offences. For example, it extends the powers of enforcement officers in relation to searching and obtaining evidence in respect of controlled drugs to cover the chemical substances in schedule 2. No one can doubt that the United Kingdom--indeed the whole international community--faces a terrifying prospect unless we can prevent the drug problem from escalating further. In my recent visit to the United States I saw at first hand the misery that has been wrought by drugs. The most powerful memory that I brought back with me was of a class of five-year-olds having the "say no to drugs" message drummed into them, lest even as young children they should be targeted by and fall victim to the drug pushers. In the four days I was in the United States two law enforcement officers were murdered. One murder was clearly committed because the victim was carrying out a major investigation into the activities of a drugs cartel. The other died serving a search warrant on someone not directly involved in drugs-related crime but high on drugs at the time. In the past year in Colombia, we have seen how the drug cartels have felt sufficiently sure of themselves to wage war against a democratically elected Government. President Barco's courageous stand has won universal admiration. We must make sure that he is given all the assistance that he needs to defeat these evil men who corrupt our children and the very fabric of our society.
There is no simple solution to this problem. That message came across clearly in the debates at last week's special session of the United Nations General Assembly, which adopted a comprehensive global plan of action. But any plan depends on the level of commitment given to making it succeed. In the few months since I became Home Secretary it has become clear to me that one of our top priorities must be to reduce the demand for illicit drugs, for without a market the drug barons would soon be out of business. That is why we set up the new drug prevention
Column 154
initiative which will muster the forces of the communities most at risk. But we must also continue to be vigilant and energetic in reducing illicit supply.As the House knows, the world ministerial drugs summit, which we are organising in association with the United Nations, is due to take place in London between 9 and 11 April. Particular attention will be given to how to strengthen the effectiveness of demand reduction policies. We will also examine ways of reducing supplies of cocaine--which are reaching western countries in ever-increasing quantities. We are determined that the conference should have a tangible outcome, and complement the recent discussions in New York and last month at Cartagena when President Bush met the Presidents of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.
The need for concerted international action is also reflected in the report on drug trafficking and related serious crime prepared last November by the Home Affairs Select Committee. This is an excellent document and we shall respond shortly to its
recommendations. In the meantime I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and his colleagues for their painstaking work.
But the Bill is not just about drugs. It is about enhancing our ability to tackle international crime generally by allowing us to work more closely with our international partners. The two conventions that the Bill will permit us to ratify are useful and important instruments and I know that our ratification will be very welcome in the international community which has long looked to Britain to take a lead in the fight against crime and has not looked in vain.
4.29 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : It almost goes without saying that Opposition Members give the Bill our full support, following not only our commitment to it but the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when the Bill was first announced. Any measures which are carefully devised and thought through, and which tackle international crime in general and the murderous trade of drug trafficking in particular, will be wholeheartedly supported by the Opposition. That applies to this Bill, which is not controversial. I shall therefore also try to be reasonably non-controversial.
Mr. Lawrence : This is an important matter and it has come to the attention of most of us that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), again, is not here to hear the introduction of a Home Office Bill being presented by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman cannot still be out to lunch at 4.30 pm.
Mr. Sheerman : That was an appalling intervention. Had I known that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to make a dishonourable reference to my right hon. Friend, I should not have given way to him. My right hon. Friend is engaged on other important business. The Opposition are used to working as a team. Part of that team is here now and doing its job. We do not rely on one figure, as the Government often so obviously do. We work as a team.
The structure and ramifications of the Bill are complex, but the objective is simple--to deal with international
Column 155
drug-related crime. We believe not only that the Bill will enhance the ability of the Government and their police force and other police forces around the world not only to tackle more effectively the increasingly sophisticated and globally active drug barons but, more broadly, that it will enable proper international arrangements to be agreed on criminal matters generally. It is important for the House to note that the Bill is not just about dealing with the drugs barons or the drugs traffickers.Part I of the Bill relates to international crime. Again the Opposition welcome the abilities that it offers to the Government and police forces because crime is becoming global. Crime which starts off as a drug-related crime soon becomes a different type of crime as the money moves into different areas, different industries and different activities, not all of which are associated directly with the drugs trade. As the Home Secretary said, part I deals with mutual legal assistance--a formal tag for a simple procedure. It allows procedures by which states can co-operate with each other in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. It will allow us to ratify the 1987 European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters, which is most important.
Our main worry about part I relates to clause 4 and specifically to a protocol to the convention which allows a foreign Government to require our Government--and which in turn allows us--to require a banker to reveal information about a fiscal matter which, while a criminal offence in the originating country, is a civil offence here. That issue arose on Second Reading and in Committee in another place and it is a point on which we seek further clarification. I stress that we are concerned that something which originates as a criminal offence in another country, especially relating to fiscal matters and to tax avoidance, may be a civil matter in this country. I know that there is a worry on both sides of the House that there could be a country somewhere in the world where unscrupulous individuals could use the provisions as a lever to gain information. That was not the intention of the protocol. I hope that the Minister of State will mention that in his reply. Certainly we shall return to the matter in Committee.
The Home Secretary will know that eight countries have signed the protocol and four--Austria, Norway, Sweden and Iceland--have expressed reservations about the fiscal provisions. If we express a similar reservation, it will not prevent us from signing the convention. We know from proceedings in another place that the Government argue that it is in our own interest to sign the convention in toto. However, we should like the Minister to give an undertaking that no future Home Secretary would allow another country's law to change our law. Part I of the Bill, as I said, is the less contentious section of a Bill to which we have given broad support. Part II of the Bill, as the Home Secretary said, allows us to ratify the 1988 United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. That is quite a mouthful, but we all know what it means. In short, it means ratification of the Vienna convention. There have been various treaties and conventions signed in Vienna, some of which have proved more successful in historical terms than others.
Column 156
We welcome the clauses in part II dealing with the manufacture of precursors. I have talked to people in the chemical industry and the Select Committee also touched on the subject. I appreciate that it is a difficult issue, but we must attempt to control the raw materials used in processing coca into cocaine. There has been a cry from countries and from statesmen and stateswomen in south America and central America to control the sophisticated chemicals--the precursors--which come in from the United States and Europe and other parts of south America. That is a difficult matter and there is a certain pessimism in the chemical manufacturing industry about the efficacy of this measure and whether it will be the answer. Nevertheless, part of the answer is to control the flow of chemicals into countries where they are used to manufacture cocaine. We also accept the need to tighten the law against money laundering. The Bill makes provision to tackle the illicit trafficking of drugs by sea and to ensure that drug trafficking offences are extraditable. The Home Secretary mentioned clause 21, which firms up existing provisions and improves the current position.The one controversial aspect of my remarks involves money laundering. The Opposition are worried about this because the Bill's provisions for tightening the offence of money laundering are important and will be of great assistance to the police. I do not deny that, and no other Opposition Member would do so. However, we remain concerned about money laundering and whether the Government are doing enough about it, even in the Bill. Perhaps the Bill can be improved in Committee.
In a report published in November, "Drug Trafficking and Related Serious Crime", the Select Committee on Home Affairs said : "The United Kingdom continues to be a major centre for money laundering."
Indeed, the national drugs intelligence co-ordinator, the NDIC, told the Committee that the United Kingdom
"was regarded by the United States, Canada and some others as an offshore banking system."
That is a serious allegation from a body so close to the fight against drug -related crime.
That relates to some degree to the scandal of the Bank of Commerce and Credit International. The BCCI has 40 branches in the United Kingdom. In Tampa, Florida, this month that bank was convicted, having pleaded guilty, of three serious charges of conspiracy relating to money laundering and was fined between $14 million and $15 million. In a recent television programme that fine was described as a slap on the wrist for a bank involved to that extent in the money laundering business.
When I raised the issue with the Foreign Secretary recently, I was rather slapped down by the right hon. Gentleman, who was within a few days to attend a special assembly of the United Nations to discuss the drugs issue. I asked whether he thought that he might be taken more seriously at that assembly if he did something more energetic about money laundering. He replied :
"The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric is about four years out of date. This Government have been the pioneers in putting the necessary legislation through Parliament, in bringing that legislation into effect, and in negotiating agreements--of which there are now 13--with countries that have followed the same route."--[ Official Report, 7 February 1990 ; Vol. 166, c. 882.]
The right hon. Gentleman rather slapped me down, which concerned me in view of what was said the previous night--I have the transcript with me--in a BBC "Newsnight"
Column 157
programme. Hon Members who are familiar with that programme will be aware that each programme involves an in-depth investigation of a particular topic. In the programme to which I refer, the laundering of drugs money and the various ramifications involved--[Interruption.] I have faith in that programme. Indeed, unlike some Conservative Members, I have great faith in the BBC. That programme went in some depth into the Tampa case and the involvement of the BCCI. It posed some awkward questions about whether the British Government and the Bank of England were taking seriously the amount of laundering that was going on in British banks every day of the week. It is estimated that £1.8 billion of drugs money comes to this country.
Mr. Waddington : It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to go on in that way, but may we be told what amendment to the law he is proposing? What does he say is wrong with the drug trafficking offence that we pioneered? I should have thought that he would wish to give credit for the initiative that the British Government have taken. To the best of my knowledge, we were one of the first countries in the world to create a money laundering offence.
Mr. Sheerman : I regard the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which the Opposition supported enthusiastically, as an important first step. The Select Committee and others have expressed great concern--the point was put to the Bank of England when it gave evidence to the Committee --about the amount of laundering that is going on and about the fact that the present legislation is not catching much of it.
Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : I was a member of that Select Committee. We visited bankers in Washington and spoke to the Customs and Excise. They expressed anger at the fact that it is possible for anyone legally to bring a suitcase full of drugs money into Britain, to pay it into a bank here and to have it immediately faxed to America. Practically every other country in the world insists that when visitors arrive by aeroplane they have to fill in a form stating exactly how much cash they have on their person and there is a strict limit--$1,000, or whatever, I am not certain of the figure--on how much they may bring in. In Britain there is no such limit--anyone can bring in any amount of money. That is why the Americans are angry about our lack of holding operations. We cannot detain people for, say, 24 hours while inquiries are made. That loophole in the law affects not just the Home Office but the Treasury. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to do anything about it because he thought it would interfere with currency control.
Mr. Sheerman : I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was making precisely that point. We are not against the 1986 Act, but it is clear from the Select Committee report that that measure is not catching the big money. Sums as large as £15 million to £20 million are relatively small in terms of the huge amounts that are still eluding the net.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : A few moments ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary asked the hon. Gentleman to explain not just his criticisms of the present situation, which we understand, but what he proposes should be done. What are the Labour party's proposals?
Column 158
Mr. Sheerman : In addition to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), we believe that the Government should have responded faster to the Select Committee recommendations, which were published last November. It was clear from the evidence given by the Bank of England that the Government ought to take urgent action so as more effectively to catch drug laundering money.
Mr. John Patten : The Labour party has no policies at all.
Mr. Sheerman : The Government should act following an investigation by an all-party Select Committee which exposed the scandal of Government inaction over the laundering of drug money in the City of London. The Government have not yet acted on the Select Committee's recommendations almost three months after they were made. Although we support the Bill, we are entitled to criticise aspects of it. If we need more legislation, let it be enacted. Our fear is that the Government, who historically feel tenderness towards the City, are frightened to take the City on strongly, including telling the Bank of England that the present state of affairs is a scandal and telling the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary that something must be done.
Ministers ask about Labour policies in this sphere. New policies already exist in the form of the Select Committee's recommendations. If the Home Secretary would only act on them there would be a great improvement in the situation.
The national drugs intelligence co-ordinator estimates that £1.8 billion is received into the United Kingdom as a result of drug trafficking. The NDIC stated in a memorandum that vast sums were circulating in the legitimate banking system and might
"have a destabilising effect on the smaller financial institutions."
Those sentiments have not been conjured by by me. They come from a leading expert at the sharp end of these issues. The NDIC said that, despite the 1986 Act, the United Kingdom continued to be a major centre for laundering money. I reiterate that many countries facing this problem see Britain as an offshore banking centre.
That being so, it is no use the Home Secretary and his junior Minister being complacent. They are the responsible Ministers, they have the Select Committee report, and they should be aware of the worries that have been expressed by their officials who, I believe, are urging them to take action. Unfortunately, the Government are weak when it comes to facing City institutions. It is about time that someone kicked the Bank of England. If the Home Secretary will not have a go, he should step down. If he thinks that it is the Opposition's job, let the Government resign and we will start doing the job properly.
Some of us are worried about how effective the 1986 Act has been. I do not want to labour the point, but the laundering of drug money is the cornerstone of the drug trade. If we can deal with that, we shall have largely solved the supply-side problem. The Bill does not deal with the demand-side problem, on which the conference that the Government are hosting in London in April will focus, but if Britain can take the lead in a United Nations effort and do something about the laundering of drug money, the drug trafficker will find life much more difficult.
Column 159
The laundering of drug profits through the legitimate banking system was the most disturbing part of the Select Committee investigation. When the Bank of England was asked by the Select Committee what further measures it would recommend, it could not think of any. That answer jumps out at us from the page. If the Government told the Bank of England to suggest proposals which would effectively prevent London from being a centre for the laundering of drug money, it would come back with effective measures which could be implemented quickly.This is not a party political point. I am simply saying that it could be done. It must be possible to stop the laundering of such money and the Bank of England should have the expertise to advise the Government to do so.
We support the Bill and we shall give it a fair wind on Second Reading and in Committee, but we shall not let the Government off the hook if they refuse to give the City the big kick up the backside that it deserves with regard to the drug money laundering scandal. This is the most controversial part of my speech and I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State do not like what I have said. Nevertheless, it is three months since the Select Committee published its report, so why have the Government not called in the Bank of England and told it to produce solutions? Will the Home Secretary talk to his Cabinet colleagues and find out what they are doing about the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and other banks suspected of being up to their elbows in this kind of money laundering?
The Government's decision, to judge from remarks made in another place, to shift the burden of proof rather than reversing it is welcome and is to be commended. To reverse it would be a far-reaching change in our criminal law and a dangerous precedent.
We shall be going into the detail of the Vienna convention in Committee, but I will deal with two important aspects now. Article 5(b) provides that, when acting on the request of another party, special consideration may be given to concluding agreements or contributing the value of confiscated proceeds to intergovernmental bodies specialising in the fight against illicit traffic and drug abuse. To put it more simply, if a lot of money was recovered after an international operation, it should go not into various Government's coffers or the Consolidated Fund but into a special fund to provide the resources to do the job even better. The Select Committee got that right.
I would go further than that and say that the Home Secretary should also talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because money recovered in Britain could be used to give a wonderful incentive to police officers and other intelligence people. They may not need that, but it would be a marked advance if money recovered from a sophisticated operation, taking many man hours and a great deal of time, energy, effort and money, went back to the police departments and investigative agencies involved. That is a simple but important concept.
A drug informer who had been a constituent of mine for a year, who was not guilty of or charged with any offence, gave information which led to the recovery of an enormous amount--three large hauls--of cocaine. I had to fight long and hard to obtain recompense and a new identity for him, and it was only after many months that
Column 160
I achieved that. It was not that people, having wickedly used the man, said that he could get on his bike and go, but the Home Office and the police said that there was no money available to pay for that. Progress has been made in the past two years and more money has been made available, but there is still not enough cash to fight the drug menace. Preventing the proceeds of such operations from slipping back into the Consolidated Fund would mean extra cash to fight the drug menace. It would be nice for poll tax payers facing a 13.5 per cent. increase to pay for the police to be able to think that a big recovery of drug money would go back to those who had had to spend money providing the expertise necessary to make the operation successful.Mr. Waddington rose --
Mr. Sheerman : Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman says anything else, will he comment on the rumour that there are millions of pounds locked up in Washington which the United States Government would like to give to the Metropolitan police but that at present there is no mechanism to do so? Will that money be payable to the Metropolitan police when the Bill is enacted?
Mr. Waddington : I sought to intervene to remind the hon. Gentleman that some time ago the Government announced that provision is being made in 1990-91 for a central fund to meet some of the additional costs of international drugs investigations by the police--including rewards to major informants--out of the seizures of illegal drug assets.
Mr. Sheerman : I thank the Home Secretary for that. I acknowledged that steps have been taken, but if money recovered flowed into such resources it would make operations against drug barons even more effective. I take the Home Secretary's point. That fund did not exist when I was battling for my transient constituent. Nevertheless, it should be a great deal more.
The Government should make it clear that confiscated funds should help towards the overall effort. The Select Committee recommended that such funds should go to a central fund administered by the Home Office. That is an excellent recommendation. I hope that the Home Secretary will respond positively in the short run. Money could then go back to the investigating agencies and--I hope that the Home Secretary will look warmly on this--to rehabilitation and education programmes. The Home Secretary has much to gain from having common cause with the Secretary of State for Health. Part of the money should go to fight the war against the drug barons and part to the education and rehabilitation programme which is so under-resourced.
Mr. Waddington : How much would the Opposition dedicate to that programme?
Mr. Sheerman : I am saying that we would--
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : Answer the question.
Mr. Sheerman : I am in the middle of an answer. I do not need the Parliamentary Private Secretary to tell me how to answer a question. I was about to say that I have already given the policy. The policy is that a fund should be built up from the proceeds of cracking the illicit trade. Many
Column 161
millions of pounds could be used in that way. After the next election a Labour Government would take that course.Mr. Waddington : That is not an answer to my question. If a fund is built up from money seized, that money could be used for a variety of purposes. As the hon. Gentleman is apparently criticising the budget available for education and rehabilitation, we are entitled to know what budget he has in mind and how much the Opposition would spend.
Mr. Sheerman : The point I am trying to make is that we want a substantial appropriation of funds for education and rehabilitation programmes because the drug problem is tremendously important and we have not yet taken it seriously. In a moment I shall refer briefly to demand reduction. The Home Secretary and his colleagues like to appear on television making dramatic gestures. I want to give him the opportunity to say that the drug fund would go partly towards pursuing the criminals more effectively and partly to picking up the pieces in society which result from the ghastly, murderous trade. Young children could be educated so as to prevent them getting under the thrall of drugs. There could also be educational and rehabilitation programmes for the victims of drug addiction. In volume II of the Select Committee report, page 160, the Home Office memorandum says that article 2 of the United Nations convention makes an important point about sovereignty. I hope that the Home Secretary will bring it to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. According to the memorandum, the convention
"may even be helpful in countering the exorbitant claims to jurisdiction often made by the United States".
That was well said. Anyone who has spent time in south America will know that the people are sensitive about the United States using one rule on jurisdiction in one part of the globe and another in south America.
Article 14 of the convention relates to measures to eradicate the illicit cultivation of narcotic plants and the illicit demand for drugs. That is a worthwhile section which will be difficult to carry out. Hon. Members who take the matter seriously are worried about simplistic solutions. In a peasant economy such as Peru or Colombia, it is wrong to burn the fields of coca or attempt to introduce a caterpillar or beetle to destroy the coca crop without knowing what damage may be caused to other crops. I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude.
These matters do not relate just to the Home Office. If we are to do anything about the supply, right back to the grower, we have to face the fact that we spend very little money on overseas aid to south America. There was a little extra last year but aid for the whole of south America is only about £12 million. People in the West must get the message that they cannot burn or spray the crop from helicopters or introduce beetles to destroy it. We must offer people in the Third world alternative markets, alternative crops and alternative ways of earning a living. The simplistic solutions tried by some western countries have had appalling effects on the population.
I know only one south American country well--Peru. When one sees the poverty in Peru, one is not surprised that the peasants are forced into coca production when that is the only thing that they can grow. They must be
Column 162
given a genuine alternative. That does not come from helicopters or from slogans but from resources being put into alternatives to make the economy work differently.Article 14 states that measures taken to prevent illicit cultivation should respect fundamental human rights. It puts a finger on an important point. If we are to have respect for human rights, we must give them the proper environment in which to flourish. Article 14 also refers to the protection of the environment. We may talk glibly about the protection of the rain forests and about global warming, but we cannot criticise people who are struggling to make a living when we in the West shot the buffalo and killed half the animal species in the world when we were industrialising, and we are still the worst polluters. So when we talk about protection of the environment, we must do so sensitively.
I remember being shown the front page of the leading newspaper in Brazil the morning after a European initiative which criticised the damage to the environment caused by cutting down the rain forests. South American countries do not want to be patronised. They want to be talked to intelligently so that we and they can find solutions together. Article 14 is a valuable safeguard against spraying crops, the introduction of grubs, and so on.
I wish to conclude on the subject of demand reduction, although it is not covered by the substance of the Bill. While the Bill is important, it deals with only half the problem. Some people regard that half as the least important part of the problem because demand reduction is the most effective way of reducing the drug menace. The convention relates basically to the supply side, but we must not be preoccupied with that to the exclusion of demand at home. When last week I criticised the Home Secretary for going to the United States, I did so constructively. He should have gone to other countries in Europe which, because of their experience, would have much more to tell us about drug culture than the United States. The experience of the United States is special in one sense, and I thank heaven it is. If the Home Secretary were to talk to his opposite numbers in Germany, Holland and France, he might learn much more than he did on his trip to the United States. The United States, to its cost, made the mistake of concentrating on the supply of drugs and did not put enough effort and resources into demand reduction until it was too late. To stem the flood of drugs, it is more effective to stem the demand from people who use the stuff than to stem the supply.
We can talk as much as we like, and we shall give the Bill a fair wind--it will not take long to get through the House--but this is a complex matter and the problem will not be solved by one short Bill or Act. Drug addiction and the drugs problem are related to supply and demand in terms of their causes. For example, I have mentioned that on the supply side there is the question of what peasants have to do in certain countries of the world. On the demand side, the drug problem is rooted in poverty, deprivation and unemployment.
Mr. Waddington : If the hon. Gentleman is right, why was there not more drug taking between the wars? If he is right about deprivation, why was there not a greater drug problem when there was far more deprivation? He is talking nonsense.
| Next Section
| Home Page |