|
Caroline Flint rose—
The Chairman: Order. Before the Minister seeks to intervene I should say that, in a sense, I have brought this on my own head by inviting a wide-ranging debate, but the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Wilkinson) will find that a later amendment deals with this point. While I am perfectly happy to have a wide-ranging debate about the principle behind the clause, it would be helpful if the Committee concentrated on the amendments under discussion so far as possible. I notice that we began a discussion about vicinity, and the appropriate place for that debate is probably on amendment No. 1.
Angela Watkinson: I apologise for getting carried away with a subject that is of abiding interest to us all, Mr. Gale. I will link tenuously to the clause.
Drugs education in schools heightens children's awareness of drugs, which makes them more vulnerable because it increases their interest. They have more information on the subject at their fingerprints than they would ever have acquired by accident. I know that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw will challenge me on that.
John Mann: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the DARE programme encourages drug-taking?
Column Number: 12
Angela Watkinson: DARE is one of the better drugs education programmes on offer. I have said many times that the focus should be on drug prevention rather than harm reduction, which starts with the assumption that most children will take drugs anyway, so we should reduce the harm and make it as safe as possible. I contend that the majority of young people do not take drugs. The downgrading of cannabis has given many young people the impression that it is legal now, and not particularly harmful. The police do not enforce against possession if it is deemed to be for personal use, and that has had a detrimental effect on the general attitude to drugs among schoolchildren, as well as increasing their vulnerability to dealers who not only offer cannabis but also a wide range of other wares that they can be tempted to try. I support the words ''age of criminal responsibility'' being added to the clause, so that its scope is widened and it will provide the greatest possible protection to the youngest children.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): I have three points to make in response to your invitation on the stand part section of this debate, Mr. Gale, but my remarks refer to all the amendments, so perhaps it is right to make them now.
First, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster on consultation. Will the Minister tell us exactly which organisations or individuals have been consulted about the aggravation clause?
Secondly, the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill states:
''Courts currently have discretion to take into account any aggravating factors present when the offence is committed''.
I raised the need for a clause on aggravated offences on Second Reading. I have had an answer from the Minister informally, but perhaps, in view of that comment in the RIA, she will put on the record why she feels that clause 1 is necessary.
Thirdly, the Home Office's own calculations, on page 19 of the RIA, suggest that the net effect of the change will be to add an average of one month to an estimated 63 convictions each year for aggravated supply. I wonder whether the Minister will convince us of the need for the clause.
Caroline Flint: Before I respond to the group of amendments before us, I ask for the support of the Committee in order to aid discussion. I am happy to try to deal with all the points that have been raised, but it will help me if we can respond under clause 1 to each group of amendments, and if there are any outstanding issues at the end I will try to answer individual concerns, although I may not always succeed. That might help me by allowing me to collect my thoughts.
The Chairman: I hope that I have made the position plain, but let me place it firmly on the record. There is a broad principle behind the clause. That can be debated at the start of the clause or the end of the clause, in a clause stand part debate. I am happy for that broad principle to be discussed, and indeed it has been. There are also amendments. Amendment No. 1, which we will reach in due course, deals with vicinity, and amendment No. 25 deals with the issue of time,
Column Number: 13
which was also raised. The appropriate place to deal with those matters is when the amendments are moved.
Caroline Flint: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Gale. I will attend to the group of amendments that are before us, which in different ways challenge the cut-off point of 18 in the clause. As has already been outlined by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—although he said that his amendments were probing amendments—amendment No. 9 would lower the age at which a dealer would fall under the clause. It would catch 16 and 17-year-olds who were dealing. Their offence would be subject to the aggravating factor. Likewise, amendment No. 28, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, and supported by the hon. Member for Upminster, would lower the age at which a dealer would fall under the clause yet further to the age of 10. Effectively, the amendment would mean that offences committed by those between the ages of 10 and 17 who were dealing would be subject to the aggravating factor.
I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said about this issue, and I would not dispute that there are young people under the age of 18—and probably considerably under the age of 16—who are involved in dealing drugs. We need to ask some questions about who the adults are behind the supply of those drugs to those young people. We must carefully consider the way in which we determine how vulnerable different groups of people in society are to those influences.
Mrs. Gillan: I entirely agree with the Minister. At the moment, the way in which the clause is worded means that a 17-and-a-half-year-old is protected from receiving an aggravated sentence. In the case of that group of youngsters—even the 16 to 18-year-olds—there might need to be greater intervention to allow the sentence to have greater effect. I suppose that I am arguing against a short, sharp shock and for a slightly longer sentence so that we have a better chance of educating youngsters and preventing them from reoffending.
Caroline Flint: I will explore that point as I develop my comments. My personal feelings about treating young people aged 10 to 17 in the same way as those over 18 for the purposes of the clause are supported by a number of organisations which work with young people who misuse drugs or who are involved in the supply side. Existing sentencing guidelines enable the courts to treat the targeting of vulnerable victims as an aggravating factor. In the context of sentencing 10 to 17-year-olds, that is best left to the discretion of the courts. I say that on the basis that some of the ways in which we have tried to challenge offending behaviour and to prevent young people from committing crimes again, through considering the different issues surrounding that behaviour, have brought us on in leaps and bounds.
That is not to say that young people do not sometimes commit crimes again. They do. However, when a young person is involved in the supply of drugs, we must carefully consider the circumstances in which that has come about and try to address them. I am not
Column Number: 14
negating the fact that the young person must take responsibility for committing the offence, but we must look more closely at their vulnerability, as well as their offending behaviour.
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister said that existing sentencing guidelines allow for the protection of vulnerable people. Therefore, why is the clause necessary at all?
10 am
Caroline Flint: Although there are aggravating factors in relation to supplying drugs to a vulnerable person—the secretariat to the Sentencing Guidelines Council has confirmed for me, because I wanted to check it following Second Reading, that the term ''vulnerable victims'' covers young persons under 18—they would apply when a dealer supplied drugs to a person under 18. However, this clause applies to someone seen dealing drugs, perhaps to an adult, in the vicinity of a school—we will talk a bit more about that under amendment No. 1. They do not necessarily have to be caught dealing to someone under 18. For the aggravated factor to apply, someone does not have to be found dealing to a young person if they are dealing in the vicinity of a school. It is a legal requirement for all young people to go to school, so we are trying to protect them from such influences and the environment in which drug dealing takes place. That is why the clause goes further than covering those who deal directly to a young person.
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister expects the clause to do more than it does. She is suggesting that if she and I, for example, involved ourselves in a drugs transaction in the vicinity of a school, that would be treated as an aggravation under this Bill, but that is not the case. Given subsection (4), aggravation applies only if one is caught using a courier under the age of 18.
Caroline Flint: We are requiring the courts to treat drug dealing in the vicinity of a school as aggravated, which is different from the aggravated factor that currently exists of dealing to a vulnerable person. If a person is arrested for dealing drugs in the vicinity of a school, that should be put forward by the prosecution as an aggravated factor. When we talk about schools, the vulnerable people who we are trying to protect are those under 18. However, in order for the aggravating factor to apply, it is the vicinity that is important, and the provision therefore expands beyond the aggravated factor depending on the vulnerable person.
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Caroline Flint: Could I finish talking about the age of a dealer caught under this offence, because I would like to expand on that point? Although we take seriously any person, no matter how old, supplying drugs to another person, particularly a young person, it is important to consider the vulnerability of the offender. That is one reason why the cut-off point is 18.
Column Number: 15
In many respects, that fits in with other measures for prevention and working with young people involved with drugs.
| 
