Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
rose—
The
Chairman: I intend to call the Minister at
10.15 am. Two hon. Members have risen; one may have five
minutes or they may both have two and a half minutes
each. 10.11
am
Mr.
Swire: I will take the two and a half minutes,
Mr. Olner, to allow my hon. Friend the opportunity to
speak. I
want to limit my remarks to how this Government as a whole have failed
one element of society: the prison population. Lord Ramsbotham, the
former chief inspector of prisons
said: “Downgrading
cannabis was a mistake because it made it out to be less dangerous than
it is. Adult minds and adolescent minds are different and young people
must not play games with this
stuff.” A
Home Office study revealed that nearly three quarters of prisoners had
taken an illegal drug in the 12 months pre-prison and, of these, more
than half—55 per cent.—reported that they had committed
offences connected to their drug taking, the need for money to buy
drugs being the most commonly cited factor. That happens before they
get into jail, but I am concerned about what happens once they are in
jail. Accurate
figures are not available, because, as was stated in a letter from the
Prison Service to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr.
Field), prisoners are clearly “understandably reluctant to
admit” to committing further crimes in “contravening
prison rules”. However, it is commonly assumed that well over
half of the prison population regularly consumes some kind of drug, be
it alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines or heroin. The evidence is that
cannabis has replaced tobacco as an informal prison currency and supply
and demand is strictly controlled by prisoners, who will resort to
intimidation and bullying to ensure regular profits. Although
many prison officers will admit to turning a blind eye to the smoking of
cannabis, because it makes prisoners more relaxed and emollient,
prisoners’ letters to the Prison Reform Trust suggest that
prisoners who have accumulated large drug debts risk being bullied and
attacked. I ask the Minister to address that when resuming his earlier
remarks. The
reclassification of cannabis is welcome. It was a huge mistake to
downgrade it in the first instance. We are failing a large section of
our society by not tackling the misuse of cannabis within the prison
population. I hope that the Minister comes down strongly on those
prison warders and others who allow cannabis into our prisons in the
first place and thus contribute to the misery of those who get involved
with
it. 10.13
am
Mr.
Syms: The contribution by the hon. Member for Nottingham,
North was excellent. He made some good points, and there is no need for
me to make the same
ones. Signals
are important. Whatever the Government said when they reclassified, the
press interpreted it differently and, unfortunately, people take most
of what happens in this world from what they read in the press. That
has led to a change in the climate. We have heard about the strength of
the drug changing, but there is no quality control over the strength of
an illegal drug or how it is produced. It is dangerous to downgrade a
drug when the quality of that product cannot be
measured. All
hon. Members in our surgeries have had letters from concerned parents
who, whatever the evidence mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford,
West and Abingdon, see the effect that cannabis has had on the mental
health of their child who has taken it. As we heard earlier, that has
an impact on the whole family. Therefore, we need to take the
preventive approach. If we are not entirely sure and there is not quite
enough evidence, it is better if we err on the side of
caution. The
measure proposed today is right. I hope that there is a big campaign,
as the Minister said, on TV and radio. I hope that more money is
ploughed into education, for the important reasons given by the hon.
Member for Nottingham, North. More resources are needed for the police
and for drug rehabilitation. We all know of people who cannot get on
those courses, and there are so many pressures pulling the police in
different directions. I hope that, if the Minister has the time, he
will say more about the resources for continuing and policing the
policy. 10.15
am
Mr.
Campbell: This has been an interesting, if protracted,
debate, in which many people who know a great deal about drugs have
brought their experience and wisdom to
bear.
Mr.
Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Olner. The
Minister said that the debate has been protracted. I agree with the
hon. Member for Nottingham, North that the Committee has not provided
the opportunity to properly explore the issue. Indeed, you have
encouraged Members to be brief. Will you confirm whether
my
understanding is correct: if the Committee voted against the motion to
consider the order that would make no difference to
the procedure and that you would report the instrument to the House,
which would then vote on it in a deferred Division? We would be correct
to vote against the motion if we felt that the Committee had not had
the chance to consider the order properly. However, we are dealing with
perception, and the perception would be that Conservative Members were
put out and therefore opposed the order. That is the dilemma that we
face. Will you confirm whether I have correctly identified the dilemma
for those who support an order but do not feel that it has had proper
consideration in
Committee?
The
Chairman: Members must exercise their conscience when a
vote is called. Whatever the result, it will be reported to the
House.
Mr.
Campbell: I feel that I was fairly liberal in giving way
earlier, and I would therefore like to get through the points in the
short time that
remains. My
hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North brought wisdom to the
debate with his contribution, which was based not only on his knowledge
of the issue but on his constituency work. He explained very well why
the change that we seek is necessary, but he also stressed the
importance of intervention and prevention. Although the hon. Member for
Christchurch also brings a great deal of knowledge and experience to
the debate, I was disappointed that he was not as supportive in
acknowledging the work of the youth offending and drug teams in
constituencies. They are making a difference, particularly in misuse
assessment and appropriate
intervention. In
response to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, I do not
want to mislead him or the Committee, but I am advised that the
advisory council was ignored on a previous occasion, which involved the
reclassification of cannabis in the 1970s. Both he and I appear to have
missed that. Regarding his particular view of the evidence that is
available, he talks of certainty—I think that he used that
word—before acting. He brings to the Committee both medical and
scientific experience that many of us do not have; the Government,
however, have a duty to consider evidence, and that evidence is rarely
certain. We have a duty to act where there is evidence of harm, and we
seek to do so with the
measure. The
hon. Member for Hornchurch raised a number of issues, and I will try to
respond to as many as I can. The first was about cultivation and the
increasing number of cannabis farms. He suggested that that was the
result of Parliament’s decision in 2003 to reclassify cannabis,
but it is not a UK phenomenon; it reflects an increase in organised
crime across the world. Other countries, including the United States,
Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, are grappling with similar issues
and problems, yet they have different enforcement regimes.
The hon.
Gentleman talked about efforts to combat cannabis farms. There are, in
fact, great efforts being made to combat those farms, through the
Association of Chief Police Officers and the Serious Organised Crime
Agency. I would not want anyone to underestimate those efforts. There
are more seizures, and there is greater action against cannabis farms.
For example,
£46 million in assets have been seized in the past year, most of
which we estimate to have come from the profits of drug
dealers. The
hon. Gentleman asked whether penalty notices for disorder would be
extended to other drugs. The guidance from the Ministry of Justice and
ACPO will make it clear that only cannabis may be subject to a PND for
straightforward possession. I hope that he is reassured on that
point. The
hon. Gentleman referred to the Pentip computer system and guessed when
it might be available for use. I have given him the date by which we
expect it to be up and running, and I have no reason to think that it
will not be achieved. He also mentioned recording warnings locally and
a robust approach involving the police and ACPO. It is important to
make the point that we have worked with ACPO and the police throughout.
We have asked them for their opinion on how an enforcement process
could be made most effective. They have considered the matter of
recording warnings and what they believe the escalation would be. The
Government and the police have worked closely
together. The
hon. Gentleman asked about the Frank campaign, which has had success.
The people who tell us that are the young people themselves, who
actually help to produce it. They give advice on what works and what
they think are the best results. They tell us that it is working, and
we should be careful before undermining it in any
way. The
hon. Gentleman talked about advice and support for families, and he
made a very good point. However, I hope that he was not suggesting that
we are not doing anything. Interventions are made by local drugs teams
and a range of agencies and groups, including voluntary groups and
families. The Government resource much of that work and give it great
importance. He suggested that the Government dragged our feet, but as
soon as the Prime Minister announced the review in July 2007, we
referred the matter to the council, as we are required to do by
statute. We received the report on 28 April, and it was for the council
to set the timeline for its work. Is he suggesting that we should have
told it to report sooner? If we had done so, he would probably have
accused us of compromising its advice. A Cabinet decision was made on 6
May, and following consultation with ACPO, we laid the order as soon as
possible. I
pay tribute to my old adversary the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member
for Reigate. He has, no doubt, had a part in suggesting which
Opposition Members might be part of the Committee, as is his right. He
has put on the Committee himself and the hon. Members for East Devon
and for Poole, who bring a great deal to the Committee. I do not
underestimate that in any way, but they took a common view in 2003. The
other two hon. Gentlemen—the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for
Preseli Pembrokeshire—were not here in 2003. Were you
here?
Mr.
Campbell: You therefore did not have to make that decision
on
reclassification.
The
Chairman: Order. Speak through the Chair,
please.
Mr.
Campbell: Sorry, Mr.
Olner.
The suggestion
that, somehow, the Conservative Members here today reflect the position
that many of them took in 2003 is simply wrong, and I include in that
the Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr.
Swire: Just for the record, I was here in 2003. I was
elected to this great place in
2001.
Mr.
Campbell: Yes, but my point is that the hon. Gentleman
took a distinctive position—the same position as the hon.
Members for Reigate and for Poole. They did not support the
reclassification in 2003. I respect their position, but to suggest that
the Government are somehow the only ones who have been on a journey and
reached this decision is simply
wrong. The
order is important for all the reasons that I have set out, and I
commend it to the
Committee. Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes
1.
Division No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
(Amendment) Order
2008. Committee
rose at twenty-six minutes past Ten
o’clock.
| 
