Drugs Bill

---

Standing Committee F

Thursday 27 January 2005

(Afternoon)

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Drugs Bill

Amendment moved [this day]:

No. 25, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out 'at a relevant time' and insert 'at any time'.

—[Mrs. Gillan.]

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

No. 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (5).

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

2.30 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Welcome to our proceedings, Mr. Illsley. I hope that we will continue to make good progress this afternoon.

We were discussing whether or not the aggravating factor that increases the seriousness of the offence of supplying drugs in the vicinity of a school should be applied at any time. That is the substance of the amendment of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham's (Mrs. Gillan). We are trying to create a safer zone around schools to protect young people under 18, who have a statutory duty to attend during the school term, while their families similarly have a duty to ensure that they do so. As children are required to attend school, it is essential that they are not exposed to the unnecessary risk of drugs. There are after-school activities and, as in my constituency, many schools provide play schemes and other activities on the school premises. That is why it is important that we do not lose the focus of the aggravating factor.

We cannot accept the amendments, as they go beyond the intention of the clause. They would apply the aggravating factor to any time, even when it would be difficult for a prosecution to claim that children were unduly at risk. Furthermore, because the clause covers all dealing in the vicinity of schools, including dealing between adults, the amendments would mean that an aggravated factor would be established when an adult dealer supplies drugs to another adult, even when children and young people could not be seen to be exposed or at risk. Unfortunately, therefore, the amendments weaken the focus on the threat posed to young people while attending school.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I apologise to the Minister if she dealt with this during my absence towards the end of the morning sitting, but it would be helpful if she placed on the
 
Column Number: 38
 
record exactly what she means by ''in use'' by people under 18. I have in mind a common situation, where children return to the playground after school hours and use the area for their own purposes. At that stage, the premises are not really in use as a school, and it is difficult to know how anyone in those circumstances would know whether it was ''in use'' or not.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and, as I said earlier, our consideration when considering the issue was recognising that many schools are no longer just buildings used to support young people in their activities during the school day, or the school term, but are more and more engaged in their out-of-school activities as well, which is why the clause is phrased in such a way to capture those times when schools are being used by young people under 18. People might say in their defence that they did not know, but they will have to justify that.

I tried to give some examples this morning of an issue that is pertinent to the amendment, and to all amendments regarding this issue—that what would fall within ''the vicinity of the school'' may differ from area to area. Part of the guidance will focus on the risk for young people and children of exposure or contact within the vicinity of a school. That will vary from one community to another. A distance in itself may be applicable, but other factors may need to be taken into account. Our main focus when developing the guidelines will be to determine whether a place falls within the vicinity of a school and will pose a risk to the children when they attend that school.

I listened to what hon. Members said this morning and I will consider whether it might be possible to arrive at a definition. However, because the risks may vary from one place to another, it may be difficult to insert a prescriptive definition in the Bill. I will consider the general issue of defining what we mean by vicinity and the issues that will inform the more detailed guidance.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): I hope that the Minister will continue to be generous in giving way so that we can have a real debate on this Issue. Unfortunately, she is not setting my mind at rest. She is leading me further and further down a muddled path. She said that she wanted to set up a safety zone around a school, but she then says that she wants to close down the time frame so that we prevent adults dealing drugs to adults in the vicinity of the school falling under the aggravated offence.

Even if it is an adult dealing to adults in the vicinity of the school, that building per se may attract children out of hours when it is being used as a school. Children return to buildings that they find familiar when they are at a loose end and want to play or simply congregate. In all our communities we see children hanging around school premises when schools are not being used, even in the holidays. I cannot understand how the Minister is achieving her stated aim. How is
 
Column Number: 39
 
she protecting children by creating this safety zone as it seems to depend on what time of the day or night it is but does not have children at its centre?

Caroline Flint: Let me be clear. We have already discussed this morning how there are aggravated factors if dealers are targeting vulnerable people, which include all those under 18. The clause focuses specifically on how a school is used by young people. That is the added plus to which we are trying to attend. While defining how the aggravating factor is to be used, it is appropriate to have a sense of the risks that are posed to young people and children. That could vary from one area to another. I tried to explain that in more detail a little earlier.

If someone is supplying drugs to another adult and is doing so in an area around a school where young people are on their way to school or are dropping into the cafe on the way to school, that may become known through surveillance and other means. The police often carry out operations to target dealers and to obtain evidence to convict them. They may witness this, and we think that the aggravating factor should apply here. There might be other aggravating factors, too.

If, however, someone is involved in dealing at a time when it is felt that the risk to young people was not a factor, it would probably be wrong for the aggravating factor to apply. That does not mean that the person will not be dealt with because the offence is dealing, for which they will be arrested. I hope that there would be evidence to support that in court. The judges have the discretion to consider a number of different circumstances in relation to the offence when they decide on the sentencing, as they do in other matters. This is one matter on which we think that where appropriate it should not be left to discretion but should be something that they should consider as a matter of procedure.

Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): The Minister said that she would give further thought to the matter. Will she take into consideration the circumstances that I mentioned earlier? A school in my constituency has a community church on a Sunday; it is very popular and the congregation is mostly very young people because it is an evangelical-style church. A dealer could reasonably say that he did not know that, because most schools do not have churches on a Sunday. Thus there are exceptional situations that could be used as mitigating circumstances in that a person could not be expected to know that the school was in use at the time, when it was actually full of young people.

Caroline Flint: Yes, I will examine the situation that the hon. Lady mentions and see whether there is anything further that we need to take into account in relation to the amendment. If people are dealing in a community, it is reasonable to expect that someone will be arrested and charged with an offence for which
 
Column Number: 40
 
evidence can be pulled together to convict that person. It is well known how schools are used in a community by the very nature of the number of young people and children going about their business, in and out of the school. However, I will look into the matter to see whether there is anything that we need to address.

Mrs. Gillan: I welcome you to our Committee, Mr. Illsley. I am delighted that you and Mr. Gale are looking after us.

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I welcome the fact that she will go away and think about defining the ''vicinity'' of a school, because everyone is perplexed about what it might mean. The Minister has muddied the waters even further by saying that the vicinity of a school may vary from area to area. That does not take us down the path to clarity; it makes the position even more uncertain. I will give way to the hon. Lady if that is not what she said, but I think that it is.

---

Prepared 27 January 2005