| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 190, in title, line 4, leave out "dealing with".
Mrs. Campbell: It may be helpful if I begin by reminding hon. Members that section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 states:
- A person commits an offence if, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on those premises.
- producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug . . . supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug . . . or offering to supply a controlled drug to another . . . preparing opium for smoking . . . smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium.
It will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I have tabled the new clause, given my concern about Wintercomfort and my constituent Ruth Wyner who at present is serving a sentence in Highpoint prison under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. She was convicted at the same time as her co-worker John Brock, who is not my constituent but who, nevertheless, was working in the charity, which is based in my constituency. I do not pretend to be an expert on the issue, but I shall use my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament of visits to homeless accommodation and day shelters, to explain why a change to the existing law is necessary.
6 pm
People work in this part of the charity sector because they care about people, and not just ordinary people, but those who have problems, which are often severe. They may be angry and disturbed, and many of them have lost hope. I have enormous admiration for the workers who want to help such people, and I feel in awe of the dedication that, day after day, takes charity workers into situations where people are often hostile and unfriendly, and desperately in need of help.
The charity Wintercomfort in Cambridge offers not only a cooked meal and hot drinks, but a place where homeless people can see a doctor, have a haircut and wash and change their clothes. It helps them to feel civilised and human. In many cases it offers a sympathetic ear so that people can talk about their problems, and it helps them out of a crisis. Such work is essential if we are to rehabilitate homeless people who may have spent many years on the street.
We know from surveys that many people who are homeless are addicted to drugs. The exact figure is not known. According to my latest edition of The Big Issue, the number is somewhere between 20 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the homeless population. I would never condone homelessness shelters becoming havens for drug abusers or places for dealers of hard drugs to make a quick buck. That is not shelters' intention, and such activity is disruptive to the local population.
If, however, there is drug taking and drug dealing on a shelter's premises, despite the best measures being taken, it should be a defence for a person charged under
section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that it was not wilfully permitted. That provision is needed to safeguard the livelihood of the many dedicated men and women who do a very difficult job to the best of their ability and to protect them from possible criminal prosecution.I shall address the precautions that charity workers must take now to avoid prosecution, and I hope to demonstrate that theirs is not a simple task and that it would be easy for somebody to fall into the same trap as my constituent Ruth Wyner. The 1971 Act applies to anyone who is a director, manager, deputy manager or team leader or anyone in control of the premises. Other workers and even volunteers also need to be aware of the Act, since anyone who has the authority to exclude someone from the premises would be considered to be concerned in the management. That is the advice of the charity Release which was published on the internet shortly after Ruth Wyner and John Brock were convicted. It has implications for the running of hostels and for training, which must be extremely thorough so that all staff and volunteers are aware of their responsibilities.
The supply of drugs need not necessarily take place in the building for an offence to be committed; if it is done outside the building, on the front steps or in the doorway, garden, yard or outbuildings, it still constitutes an offence. It is therefore necessary for staff to be extremely vigilant and to use mirrors and cameras and to have regular staff checks. Failure to adopt such measures could indicate unwillingness to prevent the supply of drugs and lay the staff open to criminal prosecution.
The situation is difficult because dealers do not pass drugs openly. The undercover surveillance conducted by the police at Wintercomfort indicated that drugs were not passed when staff were present, and it was only the surveillance that determined that drug dealing was going on.
A drugs policy is necessary for any organisation in this sector, and clearly it is good practice to put up notices and inform service users of the rules. The sanctions should also be clear; people who are caught with drugs are normally banned. Difficulties arise if people are banned and the police then require the names of those who have been banned.
Release has issued guidelines that suggest that a book with the names of those banned should be open for all workers and the police to look at, but confidential information, such as the reason for the ban, can be kept separately and privately and will not be open to police scrutiny. Those are only guidelines, however, and charity workers are worried that their shelters will not be used if users perceive that any information handed over in good faith will be passed to the police. There is a conflict of interest.
When my constituent Ruth Wyner first went into Highpoint prison, she was asked if she would like to train to counsel other prisoners, particularly on drug abuse. She went to her first training session and asked the inevitable question, "If somebody gives me information about drug abuse, do I have to keep it confidential?" She was told, "Of course, it is important that you keep it confidential." I find it ironic that, in prison, such information must be
kept confidential, but outside prison, in a homelessness shelter, people are expected to give names to the police. That is a difficulty that we need to resolve.
Mr. Malins: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her approach and her thoughtful and well constructed speech, which comes from the heart. The current offence is knowingly to permit drug dealing or drug taking to take place, and we think that we understand what that means. The hon. Lady suggests that the offence should be wilfully to permit that activity. I find it hard to see the difference. Is there is a real difference, and could she try to draw it out so that we are better informed?
Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman enables me to come on to my next point. There is a difference between "knowingly" and "wilfully". It is possible for workers to suspect that drug dealing is going on, but they may find it difficult to catch the perpetrators, and in that situation they would be knowingly permitting the offence to take place. "Wilfully" is a stronger description, and somebody would be wilfully permitting drug dealing if they deliberately turned a blind eye to it. There is a subtle distinction between the two, and I hope that my explanation has clarified that.
Well meaning workers who carry out their work conscientiously and diligently within the spirit of the law need an extra line of defence. That is what I propose, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept it.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that the change should be made. Although it is not the practice of the House to debate a conviction, and it must be said that up to now Ruth Wyner and John Brock have not had permission to appeal against their conviction, I do not believe that they should be held to be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be used.
I shall give an example to support my argument. A Home Office Minister is responsible for the Prison Service, in which the supply of illegal drugs is detected only one in every 30 times that a prisoner is detected to be using drugs. In Highpoint, Ruth Wyner and John Brock are in a place where the rate of detection of drugs use is lower than that at the Wintercomfort project in Cambridge.
I should say that, before becoming a Minister in the early 1980s, I was chairman of the executive council of the Church of England Children's Society. One of the 100 projects that we ran involved young people who misused drugs. I am aware of the difficulties that staff have in trying to get those who are drug misusers to become ex-drug misusers. According to the definition used by Cambridgeshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service, I would not have been surprised to join Ruth and John in prison. I hope that I would not have done so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |