|
Mrs. Gillan: I want to take the Minister back to the discussion before the interventions from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and give her a break while she catches up with her notes. The logic for not reducing the age to 16 and leaving it at 18 is still difficult to follow. Where convictions occur, the highest rates of reoffending and reconviction are between the ages of 14 and 17—that age group has the heaviest reconviction rates within two years of coming out of prison. Therefore, to reduce the age, and make younger dealers—who, if they are over 16, are really adults in our world—subject to the aggravated offence, would be just common sense in the light of the evidence base derived from the statistics.
Caroline Flint: As I said, we have to bear in mind whether we consider those under 18 to be vulnerable as well as judging their actions, which I do not accept. Responsibility has to be taken for their actions. When we are dealing with young people and children, our approach should recognise that those children have often been subject to influences from other adults. That is one of the reasons why the issue of treating children as couriers is important. Examples were given by hon. Members, and I saw the report in my newspaper about the three-year-old who was asked by her mother to deposit drugs.
In some cases, children may be aware of what they are doing, but in some cases they probably are not. We are talking about three and four-year-olds who would see such activity as normal and a part of their life. They will not necessarily know what they are doing. We have to be careful about how we deal with people in this young age group, whether they are 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17. In other areas of public policy we recognise that we might need to take a different approach to young people involved in offending or risk-taking behaviour. There is no reason why we should not apply that approach in this regard.
In the case of any young person under 18 who is involved with drugs, we would hope to get to the bottom of what is going on. That is not just a question of a longer sentence. The involvement of a three or four-year-old who has grown up and is now 14, 15 or 16, may be a product of their parents' use of drugs. Many issues need to be considered, and the framework within which we deal with those young people is somewhat different from the one that we might expect for adults.
I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made. The debate about age, and when one becomes an adult or a young person—taking into account factors such as getting the vote at 16, or the age of consent—is not always straightforward. People have very different views on the point at which a person becomes totally responsible. The age ranges set
Column Number: 16
out in the clause are appropriate to our activities in this area, particularly the work that we are doing in terms of prevention and treatment for young people.
Amendment No. 17 would have the effect of making the supply of controlled drugs by a person aged 18 or over to a person under the age of 16, wherever it takes place, an aggravating factor that a court must take into account when considering the seriousness of the offence. The intention of the clause is to protect young people from dealers at or near their place of education, and from being used as drug couriers.
The clause responds to parental concern; I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw did not find evidence of drug dealing in the survey he undertook in his constituency—certainly not outside school gates. We are talking about dealing in the vicinity of such places. We shall talk about the issue later, but I shall just touch on it. Dealing might take place on the route to school. We have to explore that matter, and work out the points at which young people are vulnerable.
The clause responds to parental concern. I had a meeting with Turning Point, Drugscope, Addaction and Adfam, where we went through all the clauses. From that meeting I did not get an impression that it was thought that the clause was unhelpful in the general scheme of trying to protect young people. I understand that the clause was also discussed at the Association of Chief Police Officers drugs committee.
Furthermore, the amendment is unnecessary because current sentencing guidelines list, among other aggravating factors to which courts can have regard when deciding the seriousness of the offence, the deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims. This allows the courts to use their discretion to deal appropriately with the supply of controlled drugs to young people in situations other than in the vicinity of school.
I have already explained that I am opposed to reducing the age at which the person being dealt the drugs is an aggravating factor below the age of 18. I hope that is understood by the Committee. Sometimes the Home Office is criticised for having too much of a stick with young people. I am not saying that those under 18 should not accept responsibility if they are involved in drug dealing, but in this area we must be mindful of their own vulnerabilities as well.
In terms of dealing to under-16s in the vicinity of a school, amendment No. 30 would mean that the clause would apply only where an adult was intending to supply controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16. The courts would therefore be required to take into account these aggravating factors only if the offender intended to supply a controlled drug to a person under the age of 16. The effect would be to reduce the protection given by the clause to school pupils aged 16 and 17 because dealing to these people within the vicinity of a school would not fall within the scope of this provision. This amendment would also substantially reduce the protection given by the clause to all young people, including those under the age of 16.
Column Number: 17
Children will be exposed to risk by all dealing that takes place in the vicinity of their school, whether that dealing is to adults or young people. Our aim, for this reason, is to include all such dealing within the scope of this clause. It is vulnerability and exposure that we are trying to capture here rather than what the aggravated factor of supplying to a vulnerable person already covers in existing guidelines.
By preventing this clause from applying to those adults who deal to other adults and persons aged 16 and 17 within the vicinity of the school, I think this amendment weakens that protection—for reasons which I hope I have adequately explained to the Committee.
Children are required by law to attend school. We consider it to be essential that children and young people should be able to do so without being exposed to the risk of drug dealing when they are there. For those who do commit that offence, that should be taken into account.
This amendment would mean that the use of a courier under the age of 18—where the supplier was not intending to supply drugs to a person under the age of 16—would fall outside the scope of this clause. The use of a person under the age of 18 to deliver drugs or drug-related cash should be an aggravated factor regardless of the age of the person to whom they are delivering those drugs or that drug-related cash. This goes back to the point about how we are looking at vulnerable persons in this respect, and that 16 and 17-year-olds should be protected too. On that basis I ask the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland not to press his amendments, and I conclude there.
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister concludes by saying ''on that basis''. I am not clear exactly what basis that is supposed to be. On the particular points that have been raised on these amendments there has been little satisfactory explanation given.
I shall follow the lead taken by others and say a few general remarks on the overall thrust of these amendments and put them in the context of the clause. Perhaps I can take a prompt from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and say that I do not think that the clause serves any useful purpose. It is an attempt to address a mischief that is less real than apparent. It comes under the heading of pre-election window-dressing.
I want to consider the question of dealing outside a school.
10.15 am
John Mann: I should not want the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that I think proposed new section 4A(4) on couriers inappropriate. It is a very important provision. I was questioning the effectiveness of new subsection (3), but new subsection (4) is important. We should not rubbish the entire clause on the issue of whether new subsection (3) is workable.
Mr. Carmichael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but even proposed new subsection (4) deals with the sort of information that, on a charge under section
Column Number: 18
4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which covers being concerned in supply, would properly be put before the court already. It would already be treated as an aggravating factor by any sheriff or judge hearing the case and lead them to increase the sentence. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
Caroline Flint: One of the issues that led to our feeling that we had to act—and I do not necessarily dispute the hon. Gentleman's point that a court hearing the whole case would be minded to take into account the fact that a drug dealer had used children—was that there is evidence of greater and greater involvement of children in such offences. We felt that it should be seen as a separate factor, with a view to tackling the adults who clearly think that using children and young people will help them in their illegal activity.
Mr. Carmichael: If the Minister could tell me that more and more people are using children in drug supply and that the courts do not deal with it, I might be sympathetic to the clause. However, she does not say that. All that she says is that more and more children are used in the course of drug supply. I have no reason to doubt her. That is probably a trend that has been continuing for several years now. However, information of that kind would be put before the court under existing law and would be reflected in the sentence. I shall deal with sentencing on a later amendment.
I am just waiting for the day when the Government present to the House a Bill to make murder illegal. We seem to spend so much time criminalising conduct that is already illegal. If there is a problem, it could probably have been dealt with by sentencing guidelines. I do not accept that there is a particular problem in sentencing. The Minister has not said that there is a sentencing problem. I do not see that the clause is necessary.
| 
