| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
Section 8 replaced a similar section in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 and was specifically drafted to ensure that only a person with guilty knowledge could be caught by its provisions. Section 8 as drafted properly requires those concerned in the management of premises to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable steps that are available to them to prevent drug dealing.
I want to allay some concerns that anyone reading Hansard might have stimulated in them by the suggestion that, to found liability under section 8, it is enough to know that people on the premises use drugs. That is not
the case. The law is very clear, which is why we do not need to amend it as my hon. Friend suggests. What is required is that someone responsible for the management of premises should knowingly permit certain actions to take place on those premises; the offence is committed only if that person knowingly permits or suffers the illicit activity to take place. If he or she takes reasonable steps to deal with the problem and does not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye to the activity, there is no question of the offence having been committed.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: May I just finish, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Gentleman have had their say? I intend to lay out what we believe the law is. Then I will of course give way, first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.
It was argued that, if people, for example, did not tip off the police as to their suspicions that someone was taking drugs on the premises, that would in some way breach section 8. Nothing in section 8 should give cause for that belief. What is required is that they do not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, and that they take all reasonable steps to prevent the premises from being used in that way.
Let us draw on our own experience. We had the discussion in the debate in Committee. Many of us here have run youth clubs of one sort or another. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has; I have; and I suspect that other hon. Members have. There is a decision we must make when running a youth club: do we or do we not allow the stuff on the premises? It is a decision that a number of us have had to make in our own lives.
Once we make the decision, we enforce it. We say, "We are not having drugs on the premises. If you use drugs on the premises, you are out", and we enforce that. We are required to ensure that the youth club is managed in such a way that, if people are caught smoking on the premises, we tell them to leave and they do so. If they do not, we may well have to call the police. No one who takes that line in relation to the management of premises will find themselves falling foul of section 8.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for those of us who are concerned with the particular case to accept what the Minister is saying, because some of the issues that he is canvassing were brought up in the case, which we have been warned not to go into in detail. If the Minister could more easily stick to what the law was thought to be for the case under discussion, it would make for a rather better debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I made it plain earlier that it is possible to refer to the case in very general terms. I see no reason why the points that are being made cannot be made in that way. I think that that is what the Minister is trying to do.
Mr. Boateng: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
6.45 pmThe law is as laid down in a succession of Court of Appeal judgments to cope with the matter. The case to which the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred has, at first instance, its own very specific facts. I do not intend to go into that case. It is, of course, open--subject to the direction given by you Mr. Deputy Speaker--to hon. Members to raise it in a general manner, as they see fit. I do not seek to do that. I seek to share with the House the law as it currently is, and the interpretation by the Court of Appeal and existing case law of the impact of section 8.
The impact is as I have described it. For the offence to be made out, there is a requirement for an individual knowingly to have committed, or to have suffered, the illicit activity on the premises. If reasonable steps are taken to deal with the problem and there is no action to condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, the offence is not committed.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I refer back to a point that my right hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech. He said that it was not necessary to change the law because there had been only one such conviction under the law. Does he agree that the case has given rise to enormous anxiety among people working in the homelessness sector, who are very worried that they will now be caught in exactly the same way?
Mr. Boateng: I have not said in terms that we do not need to change the law because there has been only one case. What I said is that the fact that only one prosecution has been brought shows that there is not a widespread problem of care activity being inhibited by ill-founded prosecutions, accusations and convictions in this area. It is different from the gloss that my hon. Friend has put on it, but, having heard her and being aware of the concern that the publicity around the case has generated, we are concerned to ensure that there is clarity on the activities of care agencies in that important area. As has been said--it is certainly accepted by me--some very difficult and challenging tasks must be performed by dedicated and committed workers in the front line in relation to drugs and to the care and support of vulnerable and, at times, difficult and damaged people. Such workers need to be reassured and supported in their work.
Therefore, the Government and the relevant agencies are considering what further guidance should be issued to those who work with homeless drug misusers to clarify the law, and proper practice and procedure in that area. Clearly, there are concerns out there and they need to be addressed. We are anxious to ensure that they are addressed while the existing law continues to be upheld, as it must be upheld for very good reason.
Mr. Boateng: Once I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, I will come to that.
Mr. Bottomley: The House will be grateful for the Minister's comments on consultation. It would be very useful if he included the Association of Chief Police Officers in that consultation, as I think that some chief
police officers would issue guidance to their forces that is quite different from that issued to the Cambridgeshire constabulary.Will the Minister also include the Prison Governors Association in the consultation? Is it not true--on the issue of turning a blind eye--that, if prison governors know that drugs are getting into their prisons and extra resources and more hidden cameras would enable detection of those drugs, but that, if they do not get those resources, they would be in the same position as social workers who are unable to deal with drugs on their premises? I do not want to trade points of law with the Minister. As he said, we are dealing with an unusual case on which the Court of Appeal has not yet delivered a judgment, and neither he nor I can put ourselves in the court's position.
Mr. Boateng: As I have previously said to the hon. Gentleman, it is profoundly misconceived to compare the position of prison governors in relation to drugs in prison with the position of a care agency manager. Prison governors are required to take all reasonable action to deal with the use and misuse of drugs in prison--not only to prevent drugs from entering prisons, but to seek to detect and dissuade those who use drugs when they do enter prisons. Prison governors are given a range of powers and facilities, which they exercise, to take that action.
How the hon. Gentleman puts his case is entirely a matter for him, but comparing the position of a prison governor with that of someone who manages a care agency or those who are engaged in front-line work is not his best point. I see the attraction of making such a comparison, as there clearly are concerns about drugs in prisons, but it flies in the face of reason to suggest that prison governors are likely to fall foul of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Mr. Flynn: Is not the difference between the two circumstances the fact that prison governors have a group of people who are confined to prison, under their control and surveillance, 24 hours a day, whereas those who run places such as Wintercomfort supervise people for only a small part of the day? Additionally, those people are not only free to go outside and to make outside contacts, but are well used to disguising their addictions. Are not prison governors much better placed to be responsible for drugs misuse than those who run places such as Wintercomfort?
Mr. Boateng: I shall not be drawn down that particular path, because I simply do not think that the situation of a prison governor and that of a front-line worker in a care agency are analogous. My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Worthing, West and I clearly disagree on that point, and they will make their point as they see fit.
Section 8 was widely drawn intentionally to apply to all public and private premises and was not designed solely to deal with the type of premises that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drops into for a late-night snack on his way home or that the hon. Member for Worthing, West described as causing concern in the swinging 60s, when he was young. The 1970 Hansard extracts of the Committee's debates on the 1971 Act show that the Act was drafted deliberately to include not only pubs and clubs but care agencies and any other premises where there was a concern to ensure that no unlawful drugs are supplied.
For many years, across the country, drug treatment agencies, probation hostels and homelessness projects have acted on the basis that they need to take action to stop drugs from being supplied and used on the premises. That was, has been and always will be very much part of what those organisations do to create a desirable environment. In no circumstances is it desirable that people should turn a blind eye to--or in any way condone, encourage or collude in--the supply and use of drugs on premises.
It is quite reasonable that the law should require those who are concerned in the management of care agencies to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable action to prevent drug dealing. Managers can and do take a range of actions to combat drug misuse on their premises. Managers and staff should ensure that all reasonable action is taken, in accordance with the law, to prevent the supply of controlled drugs on the premises.
The key lies in an effective drugs policy which is known and understood by managers, staff, residents and others who use the premises. They will also understand that that policy has been developed on the basis of best advice, involving liaison with police and health agencies. Such a policy is the way forward and the basis of good practice.
Managers across the country have daily to deal with those issues. We owe the overwhelming majority of them a debt of gratitude for the way in which they perform that function.
We are unable to accept new clause 1, which we believe would weaken and certainly make less clear the provisions of the 1971 Act. The new clause would enable owners and managers to argue that, although they had what is currently considered to be a guilty knowledge of illegal activity, they had not permitted it wilfully, by showing that they had taken some, but not all reasonable measures to prevent the production, supply or use of illegal drugs on their premises.
I do not think that, in those circumstances, the new clause would achieve the clarity and transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the other hon. Members who tabled the new clause seek to achieve to enable those who do that difficult and complex work better to order their affairs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |