| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend could not have done.
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend says that I could not have done, but in practice, if I knew that those who occasionally misused drugs were present, or if I were responsible, as a director or manager, for a project that had a needle exchange system--clearly, people who
misused drugs would be involved--I would know that drugs users used the facilities. Therefore, as I understand the Cambridgeshire Two case, I could have been convicted if I could not show that I had prevented any exchange of drugs for money. I hope that I would have been allowed leave to appeal against conviction, and I hope that they will be allowed leave to do the same. I say in passing that it would be interesting to calculate how long a sentence they would have completed in jail before their leave to appeal against conviction could be heard.If the Home Office is concerned about new clause 1--I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for the way in which she moved the motion--it should tell the law authorities that, because this is an untested case, they should bring forward the appeal and the application for leave to appeal to next week. If the higher court allowed leave to appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence, that would at least provide a chance for the House to know what the state of the law actually is, as well as remedying the injustice involving those two people.
During the march from Hyde park to Trafalgar square on 25 March, the most telling slogan was "Help the homeless, jail the social workers." I am concerned about prison governors and Home Office Ministers as well as social workers. People under the control of the state in prison were detected as having used illegal substances 18,000 times last year--in simple terms, they had used drugs. The number of people who were prosecuted in the Prison Service and allied employment was three. Two thirds as many people were prosecuted in the Cambridge case as in the whole Prison Service during the past 11 or 12 months.
One of the reasons why I am sensitive to the matter is that one of my brothers-in-law--Dr. George Reid--is a trustee of Wintercomfort. This country owes a debt of gratitude to his colleagues and those in similar projects throughout the country. We have a choice: should those who misuse drugs and who are on the streets be ignored, or should people try to work out what they basically need? They need the opportunity to remain in touch with the kind of medical services that the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. Should not they have a chance to be helped to come off drugs?
I pay tribute to Ministers and the Prison Service for the practical help that is available to drugs misusers in prison. I understand that that they even go so far as to have drugs-free wings in some prisons. Help similar to that provided in prison should be provided out of prison. Wintercomfort and the Bus project were trying to provide such help, but the impact of those convictions has been to close access rather than to open it. Many people around the country need open access to the schemes.
The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to The Big Issue. I do not know to which edition, but I bought the teenager-edited issue at about 1 o'clock today from someone on the non-swinging bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside. People under the age of 20 had written very openly about subjects about which they felt strongly, one of which was access to drugs. If a pupil says that drugs are available in a school, will the school governors, the education authority or the head be open to the same charge as that which the hon. Lady refers in the extra, stronger defence that she proposes, which might help those who are against drugs?
In the Wintercomfort case, it was clear that Ruth and John were against the use of or dealing in drugs. In fact, secret surveillance was required by the police, not the policeman who was passing; it was part of the protocol--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members can refer to relevant cases in discussing the Bill, but they should not seek to interfere with the process of the courts. I hope that that is clear.
6.15 pm
Mr. Bottomley: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is one of the reasons why I made it clear that there was no present leave to appeal against conviction. I said that, in my view, there should be, but I made that remark in passing. An application for leave to appeal is in a different category, but I have moved on from that passing reference. Your remarks have reminded us that there is an urgent need not just for new clause 1 to be considered, but for the Home Office to ensure that, if it wants to establish that there is no need for the law to be changed, the leave application is heard quickly.
I was referring to schools. So far as I am aware, until now, no head teacher, governor or education authority has faced a similar charge to that faced by the people in Cambridge. If we need to protect those in our schools who try to ensure that drugs are not available there, or, if they are available, that dealing and their use are stopped, I suspect that those who say, "Something needs to happen in my school because I know drugs are there and want to stop it," will be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be provided. Or must that unit, project, social project, school or prison be closed, if necessary in extremis? That was said in the case to which I shall not refer again. That is a disgrace.
If Ministers care about those who are helping the homeless and trying to reduce the number of people affected by drugs, those issues and new clause 1 matter. We have seen in the newspapers this week how many glamorous writers in this country appear to have had a heavy drugs habit, but should we convict editors and proprietors for knowingly employing those who misuse drugs? The underlying point is that the people who do a decent job for some of the least well off in society, who have the most need to come off drugs, need to be supported, not to be locked away in a place where there is more drug misuse than in the projects that they run.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): I am happy to support new clause 1 and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on tabling it. To understand the need for new clause 1, we must appreciate the precise nature of what is normally known as homelessness or rough sleeping. Only very briefly, and rarely, is the lack of a home the problem with those who sleep rough. In the great majority of cases, the problems for those who persistently sleep rough are not the transient ones of parental abuse or family trouble, but those of mental ill health and alcohol or drug addiction.
Large sums are being spent to overcome the problems of homelessness, but all the schemes end up dealing with long-term problems involving a relatively small group of people. The great difficulty is to take them into homes where they can spend the night away from the streets, but is it reasonable and practical to expect those people to end
their addictions that night--immediately? We know that there are schemes in other countries in which intermediate homes are provided, but they are not practicable or possible under British law. Those who come into the homes will say, with the best will in the world, that they will never touch a drop of alcohol or take a drug again. They often stay dry or do not use drugs for a short period, but inevitably, there is a great danger that those who have alcohol or drug addictions that stretch back many years will backslide.There is great fear throughout the organisations and places in this country that deal with homeless people. With the best will in the world, and although they will make every effort to ensure that people do not take drugs on their premises, there is a real possibility that drugs will be acquired from outside. There is no way that anyone can ensure that drugs are not taken and it is wholly unreasonable that those who work for such organisations should risk ending up with a prison sentence, perhaps of four years.
Making a change is essential. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, we are in a strange position. Drugs turn up in unexpected places. This weekend, we heard of a drug turning up where one would least expect it. I do not know whether the head of the household will be arraigned before the courts and threatened with a sentence. Drugs are in prisons, in schools--everywhere. The people who do wonderful work for the homeless feel demoralised and frightened by the present situation, but we can give them a confidence boost by passing this valuable new clause.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for introducing the new clause and it will not surprise the House to learn that, like others, I received a large amount of correspondence from people who support a change of the law in this direction. Their experience is a practical one of which we are all very conscious, and it does not matter whether a person offers youth service provision or runs either a shelter for homeless people, as in this case, or a centre in which people stay overnight or during the day.
Many of those who have management responsibility, the more removed responsibility of a trustee or a committee of management responsibility could be caught by the law and, if I may say so to the hon. Lady, it is entirely appropriate for her to have put the issue before the House. There has been a conviction and the matter has been dealt with. The people involved must pursue their appeal and I support the view of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) that the sooner it can be dealt with, the better. That is in everybody's interest and I hope that those who manage court and appeal business not only read our debate--we can make sure that they receive a copy--but respond to it.
We need to get to the essence of the matter, and I want to make two points. The first concerns the broad issue of how to deal with people who, technically, might be caught. To be honest, unless people with important management responsibility in social work in the wider sense are able to risk being with potential criminals, a lot of the work will not be done. I used to be a youth leader and the implication of that was that I sometimes dealt with
people who had weapons or drugs on them. Unless I had their confidence, I would never get into the relationship that allowed me to deal with the issue.Members of Parliament have similar experiences. A single parent came to my door on Saturday after being referred to me. That person's giro had not come, the children were at home and the family had no money. I took the best steps that I could. I went to the person's house and we then tried to sort things out with the Benefits Agency on Saturday evening. We are all often in positions in which we could have a responsibility to people who could break the law; we do not know their circumstances. The two people who have been convicted assumed that responsibility as part of their job. They took in vulnerable people who were at risk and near the margins of offending.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was absolutely right to say that people can become homeless as a consequence of a number of factors. I remember a tragic incident. A person came to my surgery who in three months had gone from having a home, being married and being employed as an officer in the services to having no employment, no marriage and no home. He had also become addicted to drink. Inevitably, the engagement requires the risk. The hon. Member for Cambridge is therefore right to say that we need a definition in law that does not risk the prosecution of people who are not knowingly party to the commission of offences and do not encourage those offences.
The second issue is the debate about the proposed wording and the law as it stands. I guess that we shall hear from the Minister a summary of the case law on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There is plenty of it and plenty of people have pleaded as a defence that their case did not comply with the terms of the law. The Bill should contain a legal definition that distinguishes between those who specifically and unequivocally know that somebody is dealing in drugs and do not take action--in colloquial terms, they go along with it, and do so actively rather than passively--and those who are in a position from which they may suspect, have concerns about or even be aware of possibilities of drug dealing, but do not participate in, condone or associate themselves with it, although it is part of their work.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not object if I say that it may be that Parliament needs two bites at the cherry to get it right: tonight's debate and the formal response as well as negotiation, in collaboration with the Home Office and others who have made representations to us, to find a form of words that works.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |