| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Orders of the Day
Drugs Bill
As amended in the Committee, considered.
6.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 17, after 'committed', insert 'on or'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 10.
Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 18, after 'school', insert
'or any other place where children frequently congregate'.
Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'at a relevant time'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(4A) In subsection (3) "in the vicinity" is—
(a) within one mile of the school; or
(b) within five miles of the school when on a route known to be used by pupils accessing the school; or
(c) on a vehicle used by local education authorities to transport children to school.'.
Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (5).
Government amendments Nos. 11 to 18.
Caroline Flint: Clause 1 stipulates the circumstances that a court must treat as aggravating factors when considering the seriousness of the offence of supply of a controlled drug when the offence is committed by a person aged 18 or over. It will be an aggravating factor where the dealer uses a person under the age of 18 as a courier to deliver a controlled drug, or in a drug-related consideration, or where the offence of supply occurs on or in the vicinity of school premises during the relevant times.
Recognising that schools are often used by young people outside conventional school hours, the clause establishes the relevant time as any time when the school is in use by a young person and one hour before or after that time. Because the clause focuses on protecting children at school, we have not included in its scope the supply of drugs at times when young people under 18 are not present at the school, but the clause would cover activities outside the normal school day and in the school holidays when young people are involved in an activity at the school.
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab):
I have great sympathy with amendment No. 4 because it is much more protective of the child than the wording of the Bill. Can my hon. Friend allay my fears, so that
22 Feb 2005 : Column 252
places such as clubs where young children are brought together are not seen as easy prey for the kind of person we are talking about?
Caroline Flint: The clause deals with the vicinity of a school. We are focusing on the school as a place in the community that is a visible and known building where young people assemble to attend school and for other legal purposes. We discussed in Committee—and I shall go into this further—how we might extend the provisions to other places where young people go, such as a cinema or a swimming pool. As I shall explain, part of the problem is how we define that, as it could be anywhere that children go.
John Robertson: The places that concern me particularly are sports clubs and sports centres, where there are large numbers of young people in an area that can also be attended by adults, some of whom might not be as nice as those looking after the children.
Caroline Flint: We recognise that drug-related activities can, unfortunately, take place at any time and anywhere in our communities. I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is important that the police and others work to make sure that, using local intelligence, they identify where those activities take place. There is already protection for young people, and account must be taken of aggravating factors such as dealing directly to vulnerable people. That includes people under 18. Dealers would be caught by that if they were dealing to young people in areas such as my hon. Friend mentioned.
In the clause we are focusing on the school, which is a premises where children are expected to go by law. It is a visible building in the community which is known to be used by children. We are considering how we might best create a safe zone around it.
Caroline Flint: I wish to make a little progress.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): Will the Minister give way on that specific point?
Caroline Flint: I wish to deal further with some of the points that have been made, as this matter was dealt with extensively in Committee. I ask hon. Members to please bear with me.
The Bill does not define what constitutes the vicinity of school premises, so it will be for the courts to make a determination on a case-by-case basis. I shall return to that point in relation to amendment No. 3. The clause will catch all school premises, including buildings, main and ancillary, playing fields and dormitory buildings. It will also encompass the use of school premises for community purposes, provided that a young person under 18 is participating in that use.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave the example of a community church using school premises and asked whether it would be caught by the provision. Initial advice suggested that the answer was no, but I sought further advice from parliamentary counsel, and they said yes.
22 Feb 2005 : Column 253
As far as I am concerned, on the basis of that second opinion, any activities taking place within what are defined as school premises will be caught by the clause as long as they involve under-18s.
The courts may already take into account aggravating factors when considering the seriousness of an offence of supplying a controlled drug. The clause recognises public concern, particularly about aggravating circumstances in which children are exposed to risk, even if they are not directly involved in drug-dealing activities. We hope that the clause will provide a measure of reassurance to parents and a deterrent message to dealers, as well as offering protection to young people.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): May I offer to the Minister the example of the school in my village that my children attend? As well as the school, there are various play facilities that are frequently used by children after hours. Presumably, given the terms of subsection (5)(a), a time when the children are playing there would constitute a time when the school is in use by persons under 18. Is she satisfied that that definition gives sufficient legal certainty, particularly given the fact that the provision extends to an hour before the start of such use? If there is no fixed start time, it will not be possible for a person to regulate their conduct according to the subsection.
Caroline Flint: I am convinced that the provision would apply to play activities of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If hon. Members remember, we discussed in Committee the defence of not knowing that young people were present at any given time, and I accepted an Opposition amendment.
It is necessary to recognise that the provision is about creating safer zones. Our intention is that, as far as is possible and practical—there are issues about how far the areas can be extended, what is practical and how wide the range should be—we should protect young people, particularly when they are attending school but not exclusively, from exposure to drug dealing. It is therefore important that all premises should fall within the scope of that approach. I think that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about her own school, Cheltenham Ladies' College—I think that it was in relation to the cash issue—and she pointed out that accommodation in boarding schools may be located on a different site from that of the school and asked whether such buildings would be covered. I sought additional advice as to whether ancillary school buildings such as accommodation provided by boarding schools and remote playing fields—when I was at school in London, we had quite a trek to our playing fields—are caught by the clause. I am assured that they are.
I have considered the point further, and I have taken the view that it is helpful, in order to avoid any doubt, to table an amendment. At the same time, it will also help to resolve any possible doubt about whether the provision catches over-18s who are dealing on such premises. Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 17 mean that an aggravating factor that a court must take into account when deciding a serious drug supply
22 Feb 2005 : Column 254
offence will be the fact that the offence was committed on or in a facility, which is covered by Government amendment No. 9, and that it was committed at a relevant time, which is covered by Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
It is always worth working through the different scenarios. It is possible that a teacher or caretaker might occupy solely as a dwelling, accommodation owned by the school, which is school premises, but which is not on or in the vicinity of other school premises. In an inner-city area, for example, a school might own accommodation that is not in the vicinity of the school or on the school plot itself. In recognising that such accommodation could be on the far side of town, our aim is to protect and provide a safe zone for children and young people, so that there is no need to catch premises used solely as a dwelling by a caretaker or teacher that are not on or in the vicinity of other school premises, although such a person might be defined as living in school premises. I hope that is clear.
The basic idea is to draw a distinction between catching those people who have accommodation on a site where children actively go to school or engage in activities and a situation in which a caretaker lives 10 or five miles away from his job, but his accommodation is linked to the school.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |