| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman rightly goes far beyond the debate held in Westminster Hall on 29 February and takes us back to the discussions that took place before and after the 1970 general election. It was absolutely plain that the provision was to deal with those who organised drugs-type parties and could say, "I didn't see it; I wasn't involved." That is very different from what he and the hon. Member for Cambridge have spelled out this evening.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I practised in cases in which such a crime was the charge and recollect that the provision was intended to deal with people who sought commercial gain, whether they
operated in a nightclub, a bar, a pub or other premises. Basically, turning a blind eye meant that they were able to facilitate the passage of drugs through their kebab house, pub or club. I know of loose management of commercial premises in my constituency which has given a place a reputation. The hon. Members for Cambridge and for Newport, West will know of examples in their constituencies and Members of the House do not have to be very streetwise to learn about specific places that are more likely than others to be venues for such activity. Even the slightly older Members soon get to hear about it.I went into a certain establishment on my way home from the House late one night to get some food and remember being told that, if I did not know it already, this was the place where, at any moment during the night, such activity was likely to take place. It is not the place that the hon. Member for Newport, West uses when he stays up in London during the week so he is quite safe.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West is right to say that the law was not intended to deal with social workers or the equivalent who run such places, or those who do a professional job in an effort to rehabilitate and support people. Nor was it intended to catch those who knew that they had to take risks, but did not conspire with others to break the law. The law is being misrepresented. We can have our views about the sentence--none of us was in court for the trial that has been referred to--but there is widespread public disaffection with the way in which the law has been applied in that case.
Not only have people written to us in significant numbers, but I know that in my own party, steps have been taken to have the matter debated more widely and to call for the law to be changed. That is entirely appropriate and if we can manage to achieve that before the end of this parliamentary term, the hon. Member for Cambridge will have done the House, her constituent and the colleague convicted with her a service. I hope that we make the law more like the law it was intended to be--one that does not sweep up people who were never intended to be criminalised. To be honest, they will not be able to do their jobs properly if we keep on the statute book a law that is interpreted in such a way.
6.30 pm
Mr. Dawson: I associate myself with the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and also with what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about the need for the Government to deal with this important matter as quickly as possible.
At Christmas, I spent a little while at a night shelter in my constituency. The shelter has operated over many Christmases, and I have often visited it, but I have never witnessed such anxiety among people there--one or two of them paid workers, but most of them volunteers--who, for goodness' sake, had given up their Christmas to offer comfort and support to some of the most vulnerable people in Lancaster.
Those workers and volunteers were extremely worried about their own positions in the light of the case in Cambridge. Even the first whiff of concern about drugs dealing led to the police being called immediately, with sniffer dogs, and to the whole place being searched from top to bottom. It is to the credit of all concerned, not least those who were using the night shelter--and the police,
and the staff of the shelter--that the search, which in fact revealed nothing, was taken in good part; but it was profoundly disruptive to what had been a pleasant evening at Christmas.I hope that the Wintercomfort case represents a significant aberration. However, it sent a chilling message to those who work with vulnerable people, often in extremely difficult circumstances and for little or no pay. They may be under physical threat, and they are likely to experience emotional difficulties; the hours are long, and the pressures are many. I hope that the situation can be resolved.
I believe that the Government are determined to deal with drugs issues, and to help with the rehabilitation of drug addicts and those involved in the complex world of drugs sub-cultures. Many difficult issues confront those who work in such a setting: there are tremendous subtleties. Sometimes there are hints of what is going on, and sometimes there is more evidence. Sometimes, I suppose, it is necessary to allow a situation to develop in order to deal with it properly. I regularly talk to my local police divisional commander, who tells me that, while he is aware of criminals operating in the division, it is sometimes necessary to allow that to continue in order to catch the criminals and deal with the matter properly.
It seems to me that, in the case we are discussing, two people committed to social work in the most difficult circumstances have been dealt with in a draconian way. The issue is plainly of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, and it needs to be dealt with. The Government need to take a view, and people working in such circumstances need proper protection.
Mr. Hawkins: I, too, compliment the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who has done the job that all of us, as constituency Members, seek to do in drawing attention to a serious issue in her area. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who--along with others--explained his personal connection with one of the trustees of the project, and his general concern about the issue.
I think that we all recognise that there is no more serious issue than that of drugs. I know from my experience in the courts both prosecuting and defending in drugs cases, and from my experience as a constituency Member, that there are many dedicated people who try to wean others off drugs. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned his dealings with such people, and, like all constituency Members, I too have met a number of them. In recent years, I have worked closely with Dr. Tony Blowers and the Surrey drug action team, and I know that there are similarly dedicated people in all areas. No doubt the Minister will join me in paying tribute to them.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not consider me churlish if I say that all of us, as Members of Parliament, must recognise the truth of the old saying that hard cases make bad law. We must also be conscious of the separation of powers doctrine. It is for Parliament to make laws, and for the courts to interpret them. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly warned us all not to stray over the boundary and comment on the courts. In relation to the case that we are discussing, I have only read what has been in the press, and all of us who have ever dealt with court cases know that it is often not possible to
obtain a full picture from press reporting. Sadly--although this is not a criticism of them--journalists frequently do not fully understand the nuances involved in a court's response to a case. It may be necessary to have sat in the court to know exactly what went on. I therefore do not wish to comment on this case, but I will say that we recognise that the issues are serious.The hon. Member for Cambridge presented her views very reasonably, as did all the other speakers, and we look forward to seeing how the matter progresses. However, the official Opposition will not support the hon. Lady's proposal. Although we feel that she was right to draw the House's attention to what happened in her constituency, we think that the new clause is akin to a private Member's Bill. She has made her case, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West and others, and we shall be interested to see how this difficult issue develops.
Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has used this Report stage as a vehicle to raise a case that she has raised privately in the past with my officials and me, and has also raised in a related debate in Westminster Hall. I congratulate her on her assiduity and determination in pursuing her constituent's interest.
It would not be proper for me to comment publicly on the Wintercomfort case, and I do not intend to do so. The matters involved have been before the courts, and are the subject of appeal. I should say, however, that, as far as I am aware, this is the first prosecution of care agency staff--it is, I believe, the first to be drawn to the House's attention--since the 1971 Act came into force. Care agencies have a duty to uphold the law; they are in no way exempt from it. The fact that this is the only case brought against care agency staff since the 1971 Act would not seem to support the contention that the current law in some way works against the interests of therapeutic interventions in this difficult and complex area, or works in a way that inhibits care staff from carrying out their proper functions and duties.
Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence for an occupier or person concerned in the management of premises knowingly to permit certain specified actions to take place there: the production or attempted production of a controlled drug; the supply or attempted supply of a controlled drug; the preparation of opium for smoking; and the smoking of cannabis.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |