Drugs Bill

---

Column Number: 3
 

Standing Committee F

Thursday 27 January 2005

Chairmen: Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Eric Illsley

†Bellingham, Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk) (Con)

†Blunt, Mr. Crispin (Reigate) (Con)

†Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

†Clapham, Mr. Michael (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab)

†Flint, Caroline (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department) (Lab)

†Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)

†Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab)

†Heppell, Mr. John (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury) (Lab)

†Iddon, Dr. Brian (Bolton, South-East) (Lab)

†Joyce, Mr. Eric (Falkirk, West) (Lab)

†Mann, John (Bassetlaw) (Lab)

Oaten, Mr. Mark (Winchester) (LD)

Pope, Mr. Greg (Hyndburn) (Lab)

†Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton, South) (Lab)

†Todd, Mr. Mark (South Derbyshire) (Lab)

†Watkinson, Angela (Upminster) (Con)

†Miss Sian Jones, Committee Clerk

†attended the Committee
 

(Morning)

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Drugs Bill

9.10 am

The Chairman: Good morning. The relevant documentation is in the Room and the usual restrictions apply to starred amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Drugs Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.10 a.m. on Thursday 27th January) meet—

at 2.30 p.m. on Thursday 27th January;

at 9.10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 1st February and Thursday 3rd February;

(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.55 p.m. on Thursday 3rd February.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I hope that we can make good progress in our consideration of the Bill in Committee.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I, too, hope that we can made good progress. The Bill is comparatively small; there are only 24 clauses.

The Chairman: Before we proceed, jackets may be removed. My co-Chairman will speak for himself.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. Like the Minister and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), I hope that we can make good progress.

Question put and agreed to.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a ways and means resolution and a ways and means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available in the Room. I remind members that adequate notice should be given of any amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1

Aggravated supply of controlled drug

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out '18' and insert '16'.
 
Column Number: 4
 

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out '18' and insert 'criminal responsibility'.

No. 30, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(c) the offender intended to supply controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16.'.

No. 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, after 'time', insert

'or involved the supply of controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16.'.

No. 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

Mr. Carmichael: Amendment No. 9 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). With it have been grouped amendments Nos. 17 and 10, and Conservative amendments Nos. 28 and 30, which largely deal with the same matters. I will leave others to speak to them, although in the interests of expeditiousness, I may make brief reference to them.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together, because, although they are different, essentially they strike at the same point. They are intended as probing amendments but, as always, I reserve the right to change my view on whether they are probing amendments depending on the attitude that the Minister exhibits.

As I may have said on Second Reading, I was struck by the fact that the Government have chosen to make the aggravation apply to offenders of 18 years or over. Exactly what was the reason for that? It leaves open an age gap of those aged 16 to 18, who may be the likeliest to be guilty of acting in this aggravated manner. A 16-year-old might be more likely to be a dealer because they would have left school more recently. They would have contacts in the school and would know who to go to, who would pass on the drugs, who would be the couriers and where they would be least likely to come to the attention of the school authorities. However, it seems to me that they will not be covered by the Bill, although I am always willing to be put right.

The second age-related amendment is amendment No. 10. It seeks to change the limit set for the age of the courier, which is presently under 18. On mature reflection, I suspect that it would not be wise to change that, because there is an argument for saying that keeping the limit at 18 would cover all those in the school under the scope of the Bill. That said, I am interested to know what the Government's thinking was when they set the age at 18. It is slightly unhelpful to set such age barriers, because age may not necessarily be the best way to define those who will be covered by the Bill.

Amendment No. 28 would change the age of those covered by the Bill to the age of ''criminal responsibility'', which would have the same effect as removing any question of age at all. It would mean that the Bill would apply to any transaction involving people of the age of criminal responsibility, which would be just about anyone. That would substantially extend the scope of the provisions. I would be cautious about proceeding in that way. The approach taken by the Government to ensure that there will not be an
 
Column Number: 5
 
element of compulsion on the basis of the age of those involved in these dealing relationships has something to recommend it. However, at the same time, there are these arbitrary cut-off points, at 16 or 18 or whatever it will be that is necessarily desirable.

Amendment No. 17 extends the terms of subsection (3), so that it would read

''the first condition is that the offence was committed in the vicinity of a school at the relevant time'',

and would then go on to read

''or involved the supply of controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16.''

The purpose in bringing the amendment before the Committee is again to probe the Minister and to clarify the aggravation. I fully accept that it would extend the scope of the aggravation fairly significantly, but I suggest it is also significant, in that it is in tune with the themes that the Government are using in introducing the clause. Surely, the reason for having an aggravation provision is to protect young people. They are in as much need of protection while at a youth club, or outside a burger bar, or in any place where they might happen to be at any given time, as they are when in school. For that reason, it seemed to me that simply to narrow the scope of applying the aggravation provision is not particularly useful. We miss an opportunity if we proceed in that manner.

A possible difficulty arises if aggravation applies merely to being in the vicinity of a school. There is always the possibility that transactions not related in any way to that school—they might take place half a mile or so away from it—would be caught by the provision as it stands. There is at the moment a quite broad definition of what the vicinity of a school is. However, the thrust behind this amendment is to ask why it should be that the protection offered by the clause, if it is necessary, is to be offered only in relation to schools.

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) moved his amendment extremely well, and I have few quibbles with what he has said to date. It cannot have escaped the Committee's notice that many amendments have been tabled to the clause. However, they are mostly probing amendments to try to get at the Government's intentions and, as I said, to try and strengthen the Bill.

The Government, in subsection (1), are seeking to amend section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and apply these new provisions if an adult is committing the offence in the vicinity of a school. Amendment No. 28, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and myself, replaces the age of 18 with the age of criminal responsibility, in a similar fashion to amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 30 seeks to add another subsection to catch anyone hoping to supply drugs to children. I appreciate the imperfection of the drafting at this stage; it is only intended to point us in the right direction and to give the Minister the opportunity to make any alterations that she sees fit.

The way in which drugs are permeating through our society is alarming. It seems that children are taking drugs at younger and younger ages and being exposed
 
Column Number: 6
 
to the drug culture. Few of us who saw a recent television report on drug-taking in London would have been anything other than horrified to see that concealed cameras had captured a child of about three, who was sitting in the passenger seat of a car, with the CCTV camera seeing in through the windscreen. She was seated next to an adult, alleged to be the child's mother, in the driver's seat, while the mother was taking crack cocaine. The child was helping her by using the lighter, and at one stage tried further to help but was pushed to one side. For prime-time television, I thought that that was an alarming but salutary lesson to us all of the younger and younger age groups that are being exposed to regular drug taking.

According to statistics from Home Office research on drugs, all sources confirm that the use of drugs is widespread among young people and that the average age of first drug use is falling, quite dramatically. One in 12 of all 12-year-olds has tried drugs at least once, as have one in three 14-year-olds and two in five 16-year-olds.

Even the age of the couriers has reached a point that is almost unbelievable. When I was reading some of the background information on dealing in the United Kingdom, I came across an horrendous story of an event in Gloucestershire that the police witnessed. The police found that children as young as four were being used to deliver packets of heroin. They watched a suspect's four-year-old daughter walk out of the family home clutching a bag and leave it on the ground for an addict. Subsequently, the user came to pick up the bag and the dealer met the user some time later to pick up his cash.

The tough stance of the police on street dealing in the area in question had made it increasingly difficult for drug pushers to operate in public, so the pushers immediately became much more devious in transacting their illegal business. Police in Gloucestershire say that such practices are now quite a habit and that youngsters of about 12 or 13 are frequently used to carry drugs, often by their parents. The police have also found increasing instances of children as young as four or five being used in that fashion, although they admit that that is rare.

I suppose that using children in that way is common sense, because if the police are more successful in an area, it is one way for the dealer to keep the drugs close to him and know that they are safe. At the same time, however, he can deny that they came from him, and if the drugs are found on a child, one defence, for example, would be to say that the child had just picked them up on the street.

With younger and younger children being used as couriers and exposed to drugs, it follows that younger and younger children will potentially be dealing in drugs as well. In order to send out the message that anyone, of any age, dealing drugs in the vicinity of a school will not be tolerated, I would like the Minister to say why she did not make the provisions in the Bill apply to any dealer who had, for example, attained the age of criminal responsibility.

 
Column Number: 7
 
There may be many technical reasons why doing that is not possible. If so, I ask the Minister to consider reducing the age from 18 to 16. Statistics show that the number of children in the crucial 15-to-17 age group going to prison has doubled over the past 10 years. The reconviction rate in that group is particularly high. Therefore, the penalty and sanction applied to a younger criminal must be considered carefully, because it needs to be more effective. In 1999, the last year for which I found statistics—perhaps the Minister could give some more information—about 80 per cent. of 14 to 17-year-olds discharged from prison were reconvicted within two years.

9.30 am

I asked the Minister about some statistics, which, like the Bill, use the cut-off of 18 years. I asked how many people under 18 had been arrested for possessing or selling class A drugs in each of the past seven years. Sadly, she could not tell me, because that is not the basis for the Home Office statistics. I have only the figures from its drugs seizure and offenders' table for 2001 and 2002, and it would be helpful if she could make available the statistics for 2003 and, if possible, 2004. That aside, the table, which uses 17 as the cut-off, shows that the number of under-17s found guilty, cautioned or given a fiscal fine for unlawful possession rose from 7,870 in 2001 to a massive 9,300 in 2002. The number who were in possession of drugs with intent to supply unlawfully rose from 240 in 2001 to 250 in 2002. Likewise, the number dealt with for unlawful supply rose from 230 to 260 between those two years.

I appreciate that the increases in the last two categories are not remarkable, but they are increases and it would be interesting to see whether the trend is followed through in 2003 and 2004. The dramatic increase, however, has been in the number of under-17s found to be in unlawful possession of drugs. Given that the Minister is using 17 as the cut-off age in the statistics, will she explain either why has she chosen 18 in the Bill or why the Home Office does not collect statistics based on the 18 cut-off?

I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it would not be sensible to change the age for the courier, but the amendments were devices to initiate debate, and it is quite understandable to raise the issue. I hope, however, that the Minister will highlight her reasons for choosing 18 and for not amending the Bill to reduce the age, if that is what she chooses to do.

---

Prepared 27 January 2005