Mr.
Campbell: If I may just make a little progress, I shall
certainly let the hon. Gentleman intervene
later. In
agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers, we are
stepping up our enforcement response to cannabis. Those who produce and
supply it should be left in no doubt of our intentions. We are already
bearing down on organised crime groups involved in cultivation. The
latest statistics show that, while the overall number of seizures of
cannabis increased by 20 per cent. from 2005 to 2006-07,
there was a 44 per cent. increase in the number of herbal cannabis
seizures. In addition, the number of cannabis plants seized increased
by 65 per cent. in the same
period. The
action that we are taking will be stepped up through the joint efforts
of ACPO and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, with better
understanding of the problem, co-ordination, intelligence-sharing and
targeting of organised criminal groups. The activities of those
criminals are the more abhorrent for their use of trafficked children.
That cannot be tolerated. By shutting down those so-called cannabis
farms, we will reduce the availability of stronger cannabis in our
communities, disrupt organised crime, and ensure that the criminals
face longer sentences. Where appropriate, in the case of foreign
nationals, they will be
deported. To
accompany reclassification we are also creating a more hostile
environment for those who sell cannabis seeds, cultivation equipment
and paraphernalia for illicit purposes. Practical advice on how
existing legislation and powers can be used more effectively by the
police, local authorities and other partners, through local targeted
action, will be provided by the National Policing Improvement Agency in
March 2009.
To reinforce
how serious we are about the harm of cannabis to individuals, my right
hon. Friend the Home Secretary has accepted ACPO’s proposals for
a strengthened and escalating enforcement approach for possession in
England and Wales, targeted at adult repeat offenders. We must ensure
that positive action is taken when someone is found in possession and
that an arrest is always considered. However, we want to ensure that
police officers exercise their discretion where appropriate and that we
do not unnecessarily increase police
bureaucracy.
Mr.
Chope: Can the Minister explain why no change is proposed
to the penalty and enforcement regime for users under the age of 18,
where the big problem lies and where the biggest dangers to mental
health arise? More than 10,000 young people under the age of 18 were
treated in hospital for cannabis addiction last year. What is in the
proposal to tighten enforcement in relation to young
people?
Mr.
Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman can wait, I will refer to
that point later. I will say now that I take seriously his point about
young people and cannabis and about making the longer-term effect of
cannabis
perhaps more relevant, but the issue does not relate only to those under
18. We have not only proposals but practices in place that we believe
will deal effectively with that
issue. Subject
to the introduction of PNDs for cannabis possession by my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, a person caught in
possession will face an escalated response, with the likelihood of a
cannabis warning for a first offence and a PND that imposes an
immediate and financial criminal penalty for a second offence. A third
offence would normally result in arrest, with the prospect of further
action. All subsequent offences are likely to result in arrest, and
police officers would always have the option of arresting immediately
on the first offence. That approach maintains police officers’
discretion and flexibility while keeping police bureaucracy to a
minimum. It provides escalation with incremental sanctions, but one
that nevertheless remains proportionate. It provides a better deterrent
and an otherwise positive impact on an offender’s behaviour
without unnecessarily criminalising them. Ultimately, it is an
enforcement policy that will bring those whose offending continues
unabated before the courts, which have a range of sanctions at their
disposal.
James
Brokenshire: As the Minster will know, the adoption of the
process of having PNDs requires some legislative process, and the
explanatory notes make it clear that a consultation is being conducted
by the Ministry of Justice. Will he confirm the nature of that
consultation? Is it simply in relation to cannabis or to class B drugs
more
generally?
Mr.
Campbell: I cannot confirm that, but I will try to do so
as soon as I
can. I
will return to the issue of recording. It is important that recording
is effective. PNDs for cannabis possession will be recorded on the
police national computer. The new Pentip 24-hour national fixed penalty
database, which is due to be available from 2010, will be developed to
include a facility to record cannabis warnings as well. In the interim,
it is the responsibility of individual forces to determine how they
record cannabis warnings, and ACPO will ensure that all forces are
fully aware of the importance of more accurately recording cannabis
warnings locally.
The right
hon.
Gentleman—
Mr.
Campbell: Not right hon. yet. The hon. Gentleman referred
earlier to young people under the age of 18. They will continue to be
dealt with under the statutory process set out in the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, which already offered formal escalation with
referral at any stage to a youth offending team for a substance misuse
assessment and appropriate intervention.
Reclassification
and the accompanying tougher enforcement approach cannot be isolated
from the comprehensive package of measures in our new 10-year drug
strategy or the commitments that we have made across Government in
accepting 20 of the council’s 21 recommendations on
cannabis. We will continue to pursue all routes, whether through
campaigns, guidance or research, to make further progress on reducing
the
use of cannabis, increase awareness among young people of the harms of
cannabis and provide rapid access to effective treatment for those who
are dependent on it. The Government must do all we can to make it clear
that cannabis is harmful and has the potential to damage health. We
believe that reclassification will reinforce that
message. Dr.
Harris: Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Campbell: In a moment.
Through our
Frank campaign, the Government will continue to inform young people of
the risks posed by cannabis use. It is also vital that parents are
central to our efforts to educate children and young people on
cannabis. They are now a core audience for Frank. We will launch the
new phase of our Frank cannabis campaign in the new year through a
variety of media channels, including TV, radio and online
advertising.
Dr.
Harris: I do not want to disregard what the Minister is
saying about public education, but I have two questions. First, he said
that he feels that the reclassification will reinforce the message.
What published evidence do the Government have that shows that
reclassification and upgrading has any impact whatever on his policy
outcome? Secondly, because this is about evidence, can he give any
other example of the Government rejecting a recommendation of the
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs since it was set up decades
ago?
Mr.
Campbell: On the second question, we have never done that
before—this is the first time. We have done it for the reasons
that I hope I set out in my remarks. On the first point, I want to give
the hon. Gentleman the best answer I can, so I will return to it in my
closing remarks if he does not mind.
As my right
hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, there is a compelling
case for us to act now rather than risk the future health of the next
generation. When there is a clear and serious problem, we must err on
the side of caution. We make no apology for that, and I commend the
change proposed in the
order.
9.16
am
James
Brokenshire: Mr. Olner, I welcome you to the
Chair and the Committee. It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship yet
again. Opposition
members of the Committee welcome the order, which will give effect to
the reclassification of cannabis, and the debate that we are having to
consider it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member
for Oxford, West and Abingdon is gesticulating even at this early stage
for me to give
way.
Dr.
Harris: I recognise that I am outnumbered, but I would be
grateful if the hon. Gentleman was careful to create the policy
separation that he is desperate for and confirm that the Conservative
party, and not all Opposition members of the Committee, share that
view.
James
Brokenshire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
clarification of his party’s perspective. I certainly would
never have wished to cause any offence by suggesting
in some way that he and I were aligned on the issue. I entirely respect
his judgment, even if I fundamentally disagree with him, as he would
expect. It
is a pity, as we have heard, that it has taken so long for the
Government to recognise the issues before them and the increasing
evidence of harm associated with cannabis and to change its
classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The official
Opposition have been calling for that for some
time. The
UK has the highest level of problem drug use in Europe. This country
has the third highest teenage cannabis use in the OECD. Treatment for
cannabis abuse has increased dramatically. About 2.4 million people say
that they have used cannabis in the past year. In 2005, 1,082 people
were prosecuted for the unlawful importation or exportation of drugs,
of whom 1,061 were convicted. Yet, in 2006, that number fell
to 904 prosecutions and 870 convictions. In many ways, that highlights
the change in approach and the change in the seriousness with which the
police and law enforcement agencies viewed the issue, as a consequence
of the classification change. Clearly, that does not take account of
the harm and the dangers and all that is associated with them,
including the lives that will have been blighted, as a consequence of
the change.
Last
September, the Prime Minister
said: “Why
I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry
about is because we don’t want to send out a message—just
like with alcohol—to teenagers that we accept these
things”. Therefore,
implicit in the Prime Minister’s statement was that the
reclassification down to class C had indicated an acceptance of the
drug, with all the associated confusion and problems. On consideration,
it is hardly surprising that that contrary message comes through, when
police officers such as Assistant Chief Constable Simon Byrne have
said: “I
think there’s confusion on the streets about whether the drug is
legal or not and that’s causing problems for officers who are
trying to enforce the
law.” Super-strength
skunk cannabis now accounts for some 80 per cent. of all seizures. Its
linkages with psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia become more
apparent every day. The ACMD acknowledges the link, as the Minister has
indicated. The risk is heightened if there is earlier usage and binge
smoking. It is telling that the cost to the NHS of prescribing
anti-psychotic drugs to children and teenagers under the age of 16 has
increased by nearly two thirds since the reclassification of cannabis.
Those disturbing figures indicate an increasing prevalence of psychosis
in the young, and although I accept that we cannot make direct
parallels or suggest that everything associated with that is directly
attributable to cannabis, there is compelling evidence, from what the
ACMD and other medical experts have said, that there is a strong
linkage between cannabis use and the prevalence of psychosis. Sadly,
those figures—the additional prescribing regime set out
therein—show an increasing issue with psychosis among young
people.
Dr.
Harris: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman
says about the importance of tackling and the seriousness of psychotic
illness—in all people, including children. Does he accept that
the use of cannabis among the young has fallen, year on year, since
before the reclassification? His position involves a risk of disturbing
that fall, thus leading to an increase in use, particularly of strong
forms of cannabis, as young people seeking to use the drug are driven
towards dealers who sell them stronger forms because of the
reclassification. Does he accept that there is a
risk?
James
Brokenshire: I do not think that there is a risk. If we
look at the intended approach, the signals that I think are sent out,
as amplified through education, would actually reduce the risk and the
harm associated with cannabis.
Let us also
take into consideration the whole issue of cannabis factories.
Production capabilities in this country have grown exponentially.
[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. I remind members of the public that no
photographs or whatever are to be
taken.
James
Brokenshire: The Association of Chief Police Officers,
which initially supported the decision to downgrade cannabis, now
says: “The
2004 change in classification of cannabis has inadvertently provided an
opportunity for the greater and now flourishing illegal market in the
production, distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK and
potentially
beyond.” What
is worse, the Home Office does not appear to know the scale of the
problem. In its drugs strategy document, it
says: “Cannabis
factories represent a worrying development. It is clear that serious,
organised criminals are investing in the production of cannabis on a
commercial
scale”, adding: “Intelligence
from the community will be used to target drug markets and the sources
of domestically-produced drugs such as cannabis
factories.” Despite
talking about “intelligence from the community”, when one
asks for a breakdown of the number of cannabis factories detected by
each police force, the Home Office simply replies that the information
is not kept centrally. Therefore, if the drugs strategy relies on that
community information, why is the information not kept centrally, if
the Home Office is using it as the basis of directing policies and
approaches? When we asked each police force for a breakdown, under
freedom of information requests, the answers indicated that the
manufacture of cannabis factories has more than doubled in the past two
years alone.
Greater
Manchester police recorded a 161 per cent. increase in cultivation.
Kent police figures on identified premises that are cultivating
cannabis increased from three in 2005 to 38 in 2007, and Lancashire
police recorded a 168 per cent. increase in the number of cannabis
factories cultivating 10 plants or more—from 38 in 2005 to 102
in 2007. West Midlands police experienced a 169 per cent. increase in
offences—from 179 in 2005 to 482 in 2007. Those are just a few
examples of the increase in cannabis factories, which are spawning
across the country.
While the
Government have reviewed, dithered and delayed over the decision on
reclassification, cannabis factories have more than doubled, and the
drug dealers have flourished while the Government have floundered. It
has even been suggested that illegal cannabis farms
have become a cash machine for organised crime. Even
worse, links to child trafficking have been associated with cannabis
factories. In the light of the reclassification, will the Minister
confirm what additional steps he will commit to today to address that
failure and combat the ever-increasing domestic cultivation of
cannabis? The Minister
has explained the new enforcement regime, which it is proposed will sit
alongside the reclassification. That has always been spun as being a
tough new regime. According to the Government, in the absence of any
aggravating factor, possession will be dealt with by one cannabis
warning for a first offence, one PND for a second offence and, as the
supporting Home Office impact assessment
states, “arrest
for a third offence, then to be considered for further
action—including release without charge, caution, conditional
caution or prosecution. All subsequent offences are likely to result in
arrest.” Many
people would be surprised to know that that is supposed to be a clear
and tough picture of how this will be dealt with, given that it
indicates that the likelihood of receiving any meaningful sanction is
minimal, as a consequence of the Minister’s
proposals.
| 
