| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Caroline Flint:
The hon. Lady will remember that I said in Committee that I was concerned about khat and that I would refer the matter to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. We have two outstanding Home
22 Feb 2005 : Column 276
Office research projects that are examining khat. We are therefore mindful of the issue and I am asking the ACMD to consider khat as a classified drug.
Mrs. Gillan: I agree that the Under-Secretary said that she would consider the matter, but it is a little late. Introducing a Drugs Bill now and pushing it through so rapidly without taking advice on one of most obvious matters that was raised on Second Reading is unforgivable. Failing to consider reclassifying khat constitutes another missed opportunity.
The Under-Secretary has missed the opportunity to increase residential rehabilitation and to encourage schools such as the Abbey school to introduce random drug testing.
Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady accuses me of missing an opportunity to increase the provision of residential rehabilitation as a form of treatment. We are putting a record amount of money into communities to develop drug treatment, which includes residential treatment. The issue is about not including a provision to increase residential treatment on the face of the Bill, but putting in the money to invest in the treatment so that it can be provided. The National Treatment Agency is considering that, too. Provision exists and we are increasing capacity. That does involves not a Bill but the Government's commitment to provide the resources to make things happen.
Mrs. Gillan: The Under-Secretary's words are hollow and I shall set out our intentions shortly. There has been a missed opportunity and her comments are mere bluff and sentences thrown out purely for media benefit, not long-term benefit.
The Under-Secretary has missed the opportunity to set mandatory sentences for repeat drug offences by drug dealers. She has missed the opportunity to provide for automatic custodial sentences for those who deal to children. She has missed the opportunity to convince me that she has more plans for increasing the training and supply of suitably qualified drugs workers and assessors. We discussed that in Committee, and nothing she said will increase the qualifications and standards of people who treat drug users.
The Government should make a clear statement about drugs. They should have welcomed my suggestions for strengthening the Bill's provisions for dealing with drugs. The Government's message has failed the clarity test on many occasions and it lacks urgency. If I am in charge of drugs policy after the election, we will convey a clear message to people about drugs. We will reclassify cannabis to end Labour's confusion and send a clear message that the drug is dangerous.We will ensure that the message gets across that drugs are dangerous and illegal, that they ruin lives and that people should not take them. We will also ensure that random drug testing is supported for schools, and we will certainly allow head teachers to have the final say on expulsions. We will also provide the resources to enable drug addicts who wish to get off drugs to take up residential rehabilitation, by massively expanding the number of places available above and beyond the 2,500 that exist at present.
The Conservative party will make other announcements on these issues. In the meantime, I hope that when the Bill reaches the Lords, they will be able to strengthen its
22 Feb 2005 : Column 277
provisions and perhaps add to them. Rather than being a comprehensive attempt to tackle a growing problem, this is a Bill that has been slipped in to try to boost the illusion that the Government are taking action when, in fact, very little has occurred. It is basically a cynical electioneering platform. After the election, however, we will have the opportunity to put forward a well thought through, resourced programme of action to help the addicts who wish to reform, to punish the dealers who peddle misery and death, and to protect our children. That day cannot come soon enough.
8.5 pm
Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the Bill represented a missed opportunity. In many ways, I agree with her. It will surprise few people, however, to learn that the opportunities that I would have wished the Government to seize are rather different from the ones identified by the hon. Lady as having been missed.
I have found working on the Bill to be both an enjoyable and a frustrating experience. Our proceedings in Committee were remarkably good-natured and constructive, and in that regard, I give due credit to the Minister and to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). I enjoyed working with them both, and we were able to improve the Bill. Credit for that must also go to those on the Conservative Front Bench. I found the experience frustrating, however, because we could have done so much more. This is a remarkably modest proposal, in the Swiftian sense of the term, and in some ways it risks doing damage, despite the good intentions behind it.
Controlled drugs blight many of our communities. In my professional experience, I am aware of a number of fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland where such drugs have taken hold and destroyed otherwise highly coherent and strong communities. In my constituency, we often congratulate ourselves on our good quality of life, but we have also seen the growing presence of drugs. I am reassured to some extent, however, when I see a determination to tackle the problem, particularly in Shetland. I am thinking particularly of the dogs against drugs project, in which local people have rallied against the growing threat of class A drugs in their midst. I want to place on record, however, that it is unfortunate that some of the funding that could be made available to such projects has not been made available—in this case, from the Scottish Executive, who have been asked, and have hitherto refused, to make funds available from the money recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab): You are part of the Scottish Executive.
Mr. Carmichael:
The hon. Gentleman says that we are part of the Scottish Executive. He is very perceptive: I have never sought to deny that. However, the Liberal Democrats do not have to pretend that everything that we do in Government is correct. There is occasionally scope for improvement, and I would commend such an approach to Back-Bench Labour MPs, if any were in the Chamber to hear it.
22 Feb 2005 : Column 278
Others have observed that this is an election Bill. I drew that inevitable conclusion on Second Reading, and I am afraid that everything I have seen subsequently has served only to reinforce that view. We need something rather more comprehensive. Every 10 years or so, we have a revision of the Road Traffic Acts, but it is now more than 30 years since we had a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and such a review is long overdue. The best illustration of that came from our discussions on classification, particularly of psilocybin, or magic mushrooms. If we are to classify drugs according to their harm, the classifications A, B and C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 manifestly are no longer sufficient.
Instead, the Government propose revisions of the 1971 Act in clauses 1, 2 and 21. I feel that clause 1 is an exercise in window dressing that does not achieve a great deal. I was reinforced in my view when I read The Press and Journal—a publication that I commend to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham as being infinitely superior to The Daily Telegraph—which reported on its front page of 29 January 2005, "Sheriff Lashes Out At Cannabis Confusion".
The Press and Journal reported a case from Aberdeen sheriff court, where the presiding sheriff was Sheriff Douglas Cusine, who in a previous incarnation as Professor Douglas Cusine was foolish enough to try to teach me conveyancing, but who otherwise is a man of blameless judgment and reputation. It will be of interest to the hon. Lady that the sheriff said that the reclassification of cannabis from B to C
"I myself have some difficulty in understanding precisely what message it is the Government was intending to convey because cannabis is no less dangerous than it was before and the penalties for being involved in cannabis are exactly the same."
The case was brought against Craig Meldrum, who was sentenced to two months' detention in a young offenders institution for supplying cannabis—presumably cannabis resin—at Ellon academy in Aberdeenshire. Sheriff Cusine observed that drugs are the scourge of many schools and have to be tackled. He also said that supplying is serious, particularly when the "targets" are schoolchildren.
I bring that matter to the attention of the House because here we have an example of a sheriff applying the law as it stands and giving a more serious sentence—an aggravated sentence—where the supply in question concerns children in school. In other words, the law as it exists operates quite adequately to protect against the mischief that the Minister seeks to remedy. That is why I say that so much in Bill is in many ways merely window dressing.
I also have reservations about the operation of clause 2. Those were rehearsed on Second Reading and in Committee so I shall not go over them again, but I take issue with the claims made on behalf of the clause by the Minister in her letter to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, dated 22 February 2005, which has already been referred to. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 5, where the Minister states:
"Nonetheless our view is that this clause is a sensible step to take. It has advantages in that (a) not all defendants will be able to successfully"—
I apologise for the split infinitive, but I am quoting directly—
I am not quite sure why that is considered relevant. If it is perhaps being suggested that people who are not possessed of intent to supply will still be convicted I would have concerns.
The letter goes on to say that the clause
I do not understand how the Government have reached that conclusion—
"and (c) it will improve consistency as to when those in possession with drugs are charged with intent to supply."
That in itself is absolutely fascinating, because, having been through all six Committee sittings and Second Reading, and having received more briefings on the Bill than I care to remember, I know that this is the first occasion on which anybody has suggested that there is a problem with clarity or consistency as to when
Again, we seem to have a solution in search of a problem.
The classification of magic mushrooms as a class A drug does not make ready sense to me. Putting them in class A, where they are on a parallel with heroin and cocaine, is difficult to justify and eloquently shows the inadequacy of the law as it stands.
As I have said, there is no doubt that drugs are a growing menace in our society. However, little that has been done in the 33 years since the enactment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 seems to have been particularly effective. Nothing seems to have stopped the growing menace that permeates so many parts of our society. Drugs dealing seems to be a many-headed hydra—for every dealer who is removed, another three take his or her place. Surely this is a time to stop, take proper stock and proper consideration, and to ask whether things might be done better were much of this consideration removed from the political forum, which, notwithstanding the good nature of these proceedings, has been shown to be wholly inadequate to the task.
I very much regret that not a lot in the Bill will make an awful lot of difference in the long run. I am not opposing the Bill; I just wish that the Government had introduced something that the House could have approved and supported rather more enthusiastically than I am able to do tonight.
8.15 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |