Mr.
Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is
even worse for those who are under 18, because there would still be a
provision for a reprimand? There is no way of recording reprimands and
no limit to the number of reprimands before moving to the stage of a
final
warning.
James
Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes an important point. On
the use of penalty notices, I have been critical about the whole
process of summary justice, because it still does not tackle the
underlying issues—for example, addiction. The regime is not
tough and does not address the underlying causes of such problems. I
therefore fear that, yet again, the Government have missed an
opportunity to make a difference on the issues of crime, punishment and
sanction. I
hope that the Minister will confirm what sanctions were applied before
cannabis was reclassified to a class B. In other words, what was the
enforcement regime before cannabis was downgraded from class
B—although it is now being re-upgraded? In addition, why was
that original approach not simply readopted now that cannabis is being
recategorised to class
B? I
hope that the Minister can explain, better than the explanatory notes
do, how the proposed new stepped enforcement regime will work better
than the current arrangements. The explanatory notes
state: “Notwithstanding
the fact that under current ACPO guidelines, no more than two cannabis
warnings should be issued, and whilst police data does not readily
provide national information on the number of repeat warnings given,
there is compelling anecdotal evidence that individual offenders have
received high numbers of warnings before any further action - if any -
has been taken. The issue of multiple warnings can in part be
attributed to varying local recording practices, which impact on an
officer’s ability to check systematically, whether a prior
cannabis warning has been given to an individual, and hence whether
stricter enforcement action is
appropriate.” The
notes go on to
state: “The
current use of cannabis warnings does not provide an adequately robust
or standardised escalation process. This results in the risk and
actuality that multiple warnings are issued to persistent offenders,
with no other sanction or action. As a consequence there is no
significant deterrent or other impact on these offenders’
behaviour.”
The
Minister referred to the Pentip computer system and said that it will
be fine in 2010, but that is not today. In bringing forward the
proposals, the Minister is effectively accepting and acknowledging
that, because of local recording standards and because the measure will
not be set down appropriately, multiple warnings will continue to be
given and that the escalation process that he set out will not
necessarily take
place. I
should remind the Minister that the Pentip computer system is already
running around two years late—I am sure that he will correct me
if I am wrong—and that its budget has doubled since it was
proposed. Although he cites 2010, who knows whether it will be ready
then? It may be ready in 2011 or 2012, but during the interim period,
we will still face the risk of multiple warnings being
given. The
Minister was unable to explain the current consultation or proposed
consultation on the use of penalty notices for disorder relating to
cannabis. We must understand that clearly. If he is saying that penalty
notices for disorder—they are normally reserved for minor crime
and antisocial behaviour in communities—will be extended to
class B drugs, is he saying that it would be appropriate to issue a
penalty notice for disorder, for example, for other class B drugs,
which include amphetamines? Are we saying that PNDs are appropriate for
possession of amphetamines? Equally, are we saying that PNDs are
appropriate for possession of ketamine—a class C drug? If we are
saying that possession of a class B drug may be dealt with by a penalty
notice for disorder, that seems to be setting a precedent for all other
class B drugs. Given that class B drugs are higher than class C drugs,
as night follows day, it seems that it will apply also to class C
drugs. Is that really what the Minister is saying? Is he saying that,
in respect of all drugs, a spot fine for an offence with a maximum
sanction of up to five years in prison is appropriate? He is making a
serious statement, and we need
clarification. In
2006-07, more than 77,000 cannabis warnings were issued—more
than double the number in 2005. Given that the Minister was shaking his
head when I made my point about the number of multiple warnings given
and despite what is stated in the explanatory notes, will he give an
assessment of how many of those 77,000 warnings were multiple warnings?
By how many does he expect the number of warnings to rise, given the
increase in classification proposed in the
order? The
explanatory notes state
that “The
extension
of” penalty
notices for
disorder “is
subject to public consultation by the Ministry of Justice, and separate
legislative process and Parliamentary
agreement” are
required. The Minister was unable to provide clarification in his
opening comments, so perhaps he will explain the timetable for that
consultation, who is being consulted, its nature and when it is due to
be completed? We are considering the order this morning on the basis of
the enforcement regime that has been set out, but we need to understand
when that proposed enforcement regime is due to operate and what will
happen if, for example, the consultation suggests that dealing with a
class B drug by a penalty notice for disorder is not appropriate. What
consideration has the Minister given to what alternative sanction
regime might be appropriate if PNDs are subsequently rejected by his
colleagues in the Ministry of Justice?
Other issues
and offences are relevant. Given the proposed reclassification of
cannabis as a class B drug, will the Minister confirm what steps the
Government are taking to prosecute those involved in the importation of
those drugs? Although I acknowledge the increase in domestic production
of cannabis—I have already referred to the growth of cannabis
farms—there is also trade in cannabis that comes into this
country. In particular, can he explain why 463 people were sentenced
for offences involving the trafficking of class B drugs as recently as
2002, yet the number had dropped to just 29 in 2006? Have the
Government taken their eye off the ball? Similarly, the number of
people in receipt of a custodial sentence for dealing in cannabis has
more than halved since cannabis was reclassified four years ago. There
has been a 20 per cent. decline in prosecutions, despite the fact that
the punishment for dealing in either a class B or class C drug remains
at 14
years. On
a separate point, the Minister will be aware of the trade in the seeds
required to grow skunk cannabis plants. Companies involved in that
trade are, in effect, trading on the back of other people’s
misery. The reclassification process provides the Minister with an
opportunity to review the legal position of cannabis seeds. Will he
indicate whether, as part of the order, such a reconsideration will
take
place? The
Minister spoke about education and the Frank advice service. What
information on reclassification will be made available through Frank
and other means? Will it emphasise that cannabis use is illegal? The
Frank service is intended to provide advice on cannabis, but some
people have argued that it is perhaps not as frank as it might be about
the illegality the
drug. Will
the Minister confirm what materials will be used in schools? What
discussions has he had with his colleagues in the DCSF, and will any
revised materials emphasise the potential harmful effect of the drug
and the fact that it is
unlawful? Will
the Minister consider providing further support to the families of
those who are addicted to cannabis? I have been struck by stories that
I have read of the real harm and hurt caused by cannabis addiction. It
has a significant impact not just on the people who are addicted but on
their families as well. The message that continues to come through is
one of a lack of support and advice for families and for parents who
may be concerned that their child is becoming addicted to cannabis or
is involved with drugs. Family support is crucial, and we need to
strengthen it. We need to do all that we can to help those who are
affected by
cannabis. One
needs only to look at some of the stories of aggression, disturbance
and truanting to understand the significant impact that the drug has on
the family unit and why, if we are to make a meaningful difference in
this area, we need to consider the whole unit—the whole family.
The fact is that if we are to try to change people’s behaviour,
we need the strength and backing of families to challenge that
behaviour and to make sure that it changes. We have an opportunity this
morning, with the reclassification, to make a difference in that
respect, and I hope that the Minister will take advantage of it, as he
should, and push forward on ensuring that we intervene more broadly in
this
area. The
Minister referred to the ACMD. He said that the Government still take
its recommendations and advice seriously, but clearly a precedent has
been set. We will
watch carefully to see how the Government respond to
the ACMD’s current investigations into the reclassification of
ecstasy. Dr.
Harris: I have listened carefully to the hon.
Gentleman’s well constructed contribution. Will he say what his
attitude is to the ACMD? For example, if there were a future
recommendation to reclassify ecstasy, would he reject it ab
initio?
James
Brokenshire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that
point. We have made it clear that we believe strongly that ecstasy
should not be reclassified. We will, of course, examine the evidence
that the ACMD provides, but we would need pretty significant persuasion
to believe that there was any need for reclassification, given the
significant problems that it has been shown can result from
reclassification and downgrading. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs is advisory, not mandatory. Therefore, it is appropriate for the
council to consider and set out evidence and make recommendations; it
is for the Government to decide what to do with that. I take the view
that a strong message needs to be given that ecstasy is a very
dangerous drug that has caused the deaths of many people. Therefore, to
downgrade it would send all the wrong messages. The Government made
that mistake with cannabis. It would send the message that ecstasy was
some sort of legal drug—that its status had been changed in that
manner. This
has been a useful discussion, but yet again, rather than taking firm,
clear action when it was abundantly evident that there was a growth in
skunk and in cannabis factories and that there was confusion about the
treatment of cannabis and that it was considered to be in some way
legal, the Government have delayed, dithered and not taken action as
quickly as they should have done. That will be the message from this
Committee and the message that very many families who have suffered as
a consequence of that delay will take to their hearts—the harm
that has been caused to them and the delay by the Government in taking
action. I think that that has added to the harm and to the problems of
society and drug crime as a
whole. 9.42
am
Dr.
Harris: This has been a depressing debate so far. The only
ray of light is your chairmanship, Mr. Olner, which I
welcome. In his last few remarks, the hon. Member for Hornchurch was
essentially playing politics with psychotic disease, which is a very
risky strategy. It can be incredibly upsetting and insulting to
families who are suffering the consequences of psychotic disease in a
family member. If one is going to draw political lessons from mental
illness, it is wise to have evidence on one’s side. There can be
foolish politicians, but wise politicians, when they invoke for
political purposes serious chronic diseases, particularly of mental
health, ought to be able to point to an evidence base and support from
experts in the field. I do not think that the Conservative party,
regardless of the debate that we are having about reclassification,
will be able to do that to sustain the view that Government policy has
caused psychotic illness. Employing the strategy that I have described
is an offensive thing to be doing, but mainly it is
foolish.
Mr.
Chope: I have before me a report from an organisation
called Rethink. It says that people who use cannabis are 40 per cent.
more likely to experience psychosis than people who do not use
cannabis. Does the hon. Gentleman accept
that?
Dr.
Harris: Even if I accept a random figure produced from a
random assertion and even if that figure could be found in
peer-reviewed public literature, the question is causality. If people
with established psychosis who have never used cannabis, for example,
choose to smoke cannabis, people who use cannabis will have a higher
association with, a higher chance of, having psychotic disease, but the
one has caused the other, not the other way round. All I am saying is
that we employ experts in mental illness, in the biochemistry of the
drugs and in epidemiology to work out these difficult associations and
give us
guidance. It
is, of course, the Government’s right to reject advice. I will
not say that the Government have no right to do that, but I think that
what we are seeing here is a totemic policy decision. It is a press
release by legislation, essentially. It is posturing and it has three
very bad effects. The policy of reclassifying cannabis to class B is
bad in its own terms, because it will increase the criminalisation of
young people—which is not a good thing if it can possibly be
avoided—to no benefit. There is no evidence of any benefit in
the increased criminalisation of young people. We should be able to
demonstrate or point to evidence, and publish any such evidence, before
criminalising people, particularly young people.
I am
astonished by the disconnection in the minds of people who believe in a
small state, who consider themselves to be protecting the rights of the
individual, yet do not demand to see evidence of harm and evidence of
benefit before criminalisation of—let us just stick to
them—consenting adults is increased. That is why I do not
understand how a so-called modernised Conservative party can say,
“Yes, let’s restrict the rights and freedoms and increase
the criminalisation of adults”, without any evidence of the harm
or any evidence of the benefit of so doing and still claim to be the
party of the small state. I am trying to identify a philosophical
element to the debate
too.
Mr.
Swire: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to a rehab centre,
rehab clinic or half-way house and talked to people there, including
the staff? Has he witnessed the very obvious connection and pathway
between cannabis and stronger drugs and the strength of cannabis now,
which is disproportionate to what it was a decade
ago?
Dr.
Harris: Yes. I have, in my medical career, obviously, and
as an MP, met with such people. I hope that you will forgive me,
Mr. Olner, because we are debating an issue which has been
discussed by the ACMD, for reading out what it says about the gateway
theory. I hope that the hon. Member for East Devon will accept that
that was his point. Paragraph 8.14 of the ACMD report
states: “The
“gateway theory” is the term that describes the
possibility that use of cannabis leads to use of more dangerous drugs
such as opiates and cocaine. It arises from the observation that users
of the most harmful (Class A) drugs have generally used cannabis first.
The interpretation of these studies is extraordinarily difficult
because of the confounding effects of alcohol, tobacco, solvents,
stimulants and psychedelic drugs, whose use frequently precedes that of
Class A drugs.”
Paragraph
8.15
states: “In
2002, the Council concluded that it was not possible to state, with
certainty, whether or not cannabis use predisposes users to dependency
on Class A drugs . Nevertheless, it considered the risks to be small
and certainly less than those associated with the use of alcohol and
tobacco. No further convincing evidence has been identified by the
Council to alter this
conclusion.”
| 
