|
Angela Watkinson: The Minister has referred to arcades, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw did. In my constituency, there was an arcade in the other sense of the word, a place where there were slot machines. Known for drug dealing and drug supply, it attracted schoolchildren in the evenings and a lot of police attention and was eventually closed down. According to that definition, an arcade is exactly the sort of place where drugs would be available.
Caroline Flint: I do not dispute the hon. Lady's example. As a number of other hon. Members have said, it is clear that there are various places in which drugs are supplied or, at least, where people can go to find out where to get them. I understand that. It is one
Column Number: 31
reason why the Government introduced, through our legislation on antisocial behaviour, greater powers for the police to close down crack houses more quickly than was previously possible. The provisions should be seen in the context of the other powers to tackle problems in other premises that are used in dealing drugs, whether they are commercial or residential, or have become a magnet for drug taking and drug dealing.
Our premise is to examine how we can further protect young people from their vulnerability to being exposed to drug dealing in school areas. The provisions are not contingent on a person being arrested for drug dealing to a young person. If someone is drug dealing to an adult, but in the vicinity of a school, it is important that there is an opportunity, based on the guidelines, for that to be an aggravating factor in the offence.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said. I certainly would like to pay tribute to those schools, and others, who work incredibly hard to equip our young people with the right knowledge and the confidence so that, when they are on their own and find themselves in a vulnerable situation, they will know how to handle it. That is the key aim of all our prevention work in that area. I believe that by supporting the clause, we can ensure that we send out a strong message of our intention to protect the most vulnerable.
Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister for her reply. The clause, and the entire Bill, are both about sending out a message. The Minister said that we already have the aggravating factor for dealing to children. Why, therefore, do we need the clause at all? The truth of the matter is that the clause reflects the election timetable rather than being a serious piece of legislation. That is why we are trying to widen and strengthen it.
Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Lady not agree that the aggravating factor of dealing in the vicinity, which would not necessarily apply to dealing direct to children, but to dealing in areas where children and young people are vulnerable, is important? That is the nature of the clause.
Mrs. Gillan: It is a nice try, but that argument does not wash at all. The Minister knows that I am determined to ensure that measures are taken regarding people who are dealing to children or others, or dealing in the vicinity of a school. The fact that I would like the clause widened shows that I am concerned about vulnerable people and young adults. It is a shame that the Minister could not consider today, or go away and consider, other provisions that could be specifically included in the Bill to ensure that those areas are kept clear of dealers.
The Minister mentioned youth clubs. Youth clubs are the sorts of places that parents send their children to because they know that they are safe and supervised. However, if a dealer is in and around and making contact, that is a doubly heinous crime, because youth clubs are places like schools where one thinks one's
Column Number: 32
children are safe, or where children should be safe. I therefore cannot understand the Minister's resistance to going back to the Department and considering widening the scope of the clause.
I am disappointed, in some ways, to hear that, yet again, the House of Commons and the Committee will not have the benefit of full and better particulars on the legislation. The Minister will issue guidance, and there will be a Home Office circular, and there will be consultation. The Minister said that she will be consulting widely. It would have been nice for that consultation to have happened before now. We should have had lengthy and detailed consultation about the provisions, to which we could all have had input. It is a shame that this issue is being used as a political platform when it should not be. It should concern us all, irrespective of our politics. However, the consultation will once again take place after the legislation and the CPS guidance are in place.
11.15 am
I am disappointed that the Minister is obviously resisting the amendment. She is even resisting the spirit of the amendment and is not willing to go away and think about it. I am pleased that she attempted to define vicinity. She defined it as cafes, apartments or houses near a school. What about club houses on playing fields that perhaps belong to the school but are not attached to it in any way? I want to explore this when we come to amendment No. 2. She needs to think about how vicinity of a school will be defined. Quite honestly, a clever defence lawyer will argue that half a mile down the road is no longer within the vicinity of the school even though that is a route that children take to it.
I hope that on Report the Minister can put some more flesh on the bones and not leave it again to a process that is outwith the Committee and the House. That is becoming patently obvious as we get into the details and entrails of clause 1. There are some important issues. We will think about how we frame our amendments on Report in the light of all our discussions. I shall invite my friends to vote on amendment No. 1 because I would like to show how strongly the Opposition feel that we should try to identify more premises where children could be vulnerable to this type of dealing and ensure that they are caught by the clause.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.
Division No. 2]
AYES
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Watkinson, Angela
NOES
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Flint, Caroline
Harris, Mr. Tom
Heppel, Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Mann, John
Taylor, Ms Dari
Todd, Mr. Mark
Question accordingly negatived.
Column Number: 33
Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out 'at a relevant time' and insert 'at any time'.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
Mrs. Gillan: I am afraid, Mr. Gale, that you and the rest of the Committee will get sick of the sound of my voice.
These amendments relate to subsection (3) of new subsection 4A, which is further qualified by subsection (5). The subsection that we have just been discussing has a further descriptor on it in so far as the first condition is that the offence was committed in the vicinity of the school at a relevant time. The current wording of the Bill seeks to limit the time frame in which the conditions for aggravation apply not simply to the vicinity but to the purposes to which the building is being put and the time at which the building is in use.
Subsection (5) defines the relevant time as
''any time when a school is in use by persons under the age of 18'',
''one hour before the start and one hour after the end of any such time.''
The Minister does not seem to be entirely at ease with the provision. She wants to send out a clear message about schools and put it at the front of the Bill; indeed, it is so important, it is the first clause of the Bill. I agree with her, but she seems to be rowing back at every stage and watering down the provision more and more.
This subsection, which qualifies that the school has to be in use by people under 18 and that the dealing has to be perpetrated either an hour before or after the school has been used by people under 18, gives the dealer an easy exit route and ignores the realities of drug dealing. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I am referring to the Minister's view that there is dealing in and around schools. I keep seeing his face and it is clear that he does not agree and it worries him deeply. However, if it does take place, to add these further provisos is absolutely ridiculous, and I ask the Minister to consider deleting the subsection altogether. If a dealer arranges a meeting at a school late at night, he will not be subject to the provision of
Column Number: 34
the clause. If he has a meeting with a child in the playing fields or the vicinity of the school early in the morning, say at 7 am, when only adults are around before the children have come into school, he will also escape the provision.
When we discuss the next pair of amendments, we will see another loophole and over-qualification of the offence. I do not understand why, having included this general provision in the Bill, the Minister is trying to restrict the application of it. What evidence does she have that setting such parameters will have any effect at all? Does she expect a large number of offenders to come under this provision? Does she have evidence that setting the parameters is sufficient to deter or affect any dealing activity, or that dealing in and around schools takes place only within an hour at either end of when a school is used by under-18s?
What if, as often happens, evening classes take place at a school? Any dealer plying his trade on school premises while adult classes are conducted in the school would escape the provisions, as the users of the school premises would be over 18. I fail to see the logic or sense of including qualifying times and ages, and I ask the Minister to delete them from the new section or give me the evidence base on which she is relying to show that these parameters are absolutely necessary.
It appears that the Minister is cutting off her nose to spite her face and, to use yet another phrase, tying at least one of her hands behind her back. She ought to float free and allow the more general provision to bite, rather than restricting it unnecessarily.
Caroline Flint: The purpose of the provision relating to ''in the vicinity of a school'' is to protect young people under 18. That is why the new section not only takes into account school hours—whether they are 9 pm to 4 pm, or 9pm to 3.30 pm—but also recognises that a lot of activities in schools involving under-18s occur later in the evening and also in the school holidays. The premise of the clause is to protect young people when they are in the school either during the normal school day or at other times as well.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
| 
