Mr.
Burrowes: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. The
concern is heightened by the fact that, in practice, reprimands often
become multiple reprimands because they are not recorded, so people do
not even get to the stage of a final warning in relation to a
particular sanction.
Mr.
Hollobone: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. With
regard to lots of low-level crime involving young people below the age
of 18 and certainly below the age of 16, the experience that I have
gathered from my local force in Northamptonshire is that in most cases
the police are in despair about how little they can in practice do to
take action against offenders whom they catch. We are not talking about
a very large number of people. I am sure that my local police force is
not much different from most other forces. Local police constables know
who the troublemakers are and who the major drug users are, but again
and again, as my hon. Friend says, they are simply recording events,
incidents and crimes without any effective sanction being
imposed. I
am convinced that much juvenile criminality is related to drug use, in
that young people are committing crimes to fund their drug habit. I
reckon that in 99 per cent. of cases, the drug habit starts with
solvent or volatile substance abuse and then cannabis, and then
escalates. This would have been a wonderful opportunity for the
Government to address that up front, to recognise the problem and to
send a real “get tough” message, which certainly my
constituents would like to see happen. It is, sadly, a wasted
opportunity. The Government are this week sending a mixed message. They
will upgrade cannabis, rightly, to class B, but I think that fewer
sanctions will be taken against cannabis users as a
result. I
would like to know from the Government how many cannabis warnings are
issued now, how many cannabis cases go to court now and, if this system
were to come in, what the numbers would be, in the Government’s
estimation, of warnings and court cases. I think that the number of
cannabis users who end up being prosecuted by the courts and obtaining
the assistance that they need with the various drug agencies will go
down, while many cannabis users might now be served with penalty
notices for disorder, but will end up not paying the fines and in
effect escaping a criminal sanction, which under the present system at
least some of them are
getting. 9.39
am Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. Will the
Minister reassure the Committee on three issues? The first picks up on
the last point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering made, about
mixed messages. Does the Minister share my concern that there is a
problem that the Government will need to address? The problem is that
the Government initially made a mistake—which quite properly
they have recognised—in reclassifying cannabis from class B to
class C. They are now correcting that mistake and reclassifying it back
to class B. By doing so, they intend to convey to the public the
message that cannabis is a dangerous drug and that its use, even its
possession, is a serious matter that will be dealt with
severely—more severely than it would have been as a class C
drug. They now propose to take cannabis within the ambit of the
fixed-penalty-notice procedure meaning, as my hon. Friend the Member
for Enfield, Southgate has set out, that in the first instance at
least, the option is available to the offender to pay the fine and to
have no record of a criminal conviction. That will seem to the public
not to be a tough approach, and I wonder how the Minister
intends to square that circle and persuade the public that the message
that the Government originally intended to give out by reclassification
is not being undermined by what she proposes to do
here. Secondly,
what calculations has the Minister’s Department done on the
likelihood of police officers using this procedure on a widespread
basis, and what resulting savings will there be to the system as a
whole? If a fixed penalty notice is issued instead of another
procedure, does that result in a cost saving? If it does, has her
Department calculated what sort of figures are likely to be involved? I
ask that because although we are all in favour of efficiency
savings—as much as we are of police officers being relieved of
unnecessary paperwork—it would be wrong to give the impression
that the measure is being taken to save money rather than in the
interests of better and more effective law and
order. Thirdly,
will the Minister comment on the effect on those drug users whom we
will wish to take full account of and have full knowledge of within the
system. When I say the system, I am describing not just the court
system and the police, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering
mentioned, the drug agencies and those whose job it is to ensure that
drug users are weaned off their addiction and allowed to live
law-abiding and useful lives.
The Minister
will know—I must declare an interest here and say that I am a
barrister who practised in the criminal courts—that in dealing
with those charged with serious drug offences, involving, for example,
class A drugs, the courts often find it useful to have before them a
full background of the offender to understand how they reached the
position of their addiction and supply of class A drugs. That will
necessitate an understanding of their experience with class B
drugs.
Potentially,
the difficulty—I hope that the Minister can reassure us on
this—is that courts that deal with those who follow the conveyor
belt, mentioned by my hon. Friend, will not have their early history
recorded, because that early history may be entirely covered by fixed
penalty notices rather than dealings with the court. Therefore, will
she tell us where the information about fixed penalty notices and the
payment of those fines—quite properly in the first
instance—is recorded in the history of the offender so that the
courts dealing with them later can have full information about
them? 9.43
am Mr.
Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. May
I ask the Minister to clarify one issue? It relates to a not uncommon
situation in which the possession of cannabis is not an isolated
offence and is often caught up in a number of other offences, often
more serious than the possession of cannabis. Will the Minister clarify
what discretion the police will have in those circumstances to give a
fixed penalty notice for the possession of cannabis as opposed to it
being part of a wider prosecution for the multitude of offences that
have taken place on that one occasion? At the moment, it is unclear
what role the fixed penalty notice will play in that
situation. 9.44
am
Maria
Eagle: Despite the fact that many hon. Members think that
it is extremely early in the morning, we have had a lively debate,
notwithstanding the partying that
was apparently going on among Conservative Members last night, which I
have heard all about. I will do my best to deal with the points that
have been
raised. May
I say first and foremost to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate that
I accept some of his points on the consultation, which has not been as
extensive as he might have wanted? There has not been a full
consultation in respect of this. However, it has been well known since
last May, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear
that reclassification was taking place, that the intention was to
introduce an escalating process. The hon. Gentleman referred to it as
“three strikes and you’re out”. That is not how I
would refer to it.
One of the
consequences of reclassification to C has been that the ACPO
arrangements for making cannabis warnings, which are not criminal
convictions of any kind and are not recorded, have led to repeated
cannabis warnings with no escalation in some cases. That does not
provide any deterrent to people who are stopped repeatedly in
possession of cannabis for personal use.
That is what
we are talking about in respect of the PNDs proposed in the order; we
are not talking about anything beyond possession for personal use. They
are for that level of offence. Any individual possessing enough
cannabis to suggest that they intend to supply will not be dealt with
in that way, but that, of course, is a matter for the investigating
officer’s professional discretion and not something that I
imagine anybody on the Committee would wish us to mandate from here. It
is a matter for the investigating officers in the situations in which
they find themselves. We are dealing with adults in possession of an
amount that the investigating officer thinks is for individual use. We
are not talking about juveniles or those in possession of more than is
deemed by the investigating officer to be for personal
use.
David
Tredinnick: I am slightly concerned. The Minister appears
to be saying that she will give officers unfettered discretion in
addressing the amount of cannabis that they find. Surely it is sensible
to have some guidelines. Otherwise, one officer might interpret a
dealer as having a fractional amount, based on what he has seen of
dealing in the past, and another officer might take a totally different
view. Is it not sensible to have guidelines? Otherwise, we might end up
with a wide range of interpretation across the country. I would be
grateful for her
comments.
Maria
Eagle: ACPO—the professionals
themselves—will produce guidelines that make that clear.
Individual officers’ professional experience and practice rule
within their force will make it clear what amounts qualify under the
measures. That is not something that we would want to mandate from this
Committee or Parliament. We are talking about amounts for personal use.
Any amount that suggests an intent to supply will be dealt with
differently.
The idea is
that where an adult is found in possession of an amount thought to be
for personal use, it will be for the officer to use his professional
discretion about whether to issue a penalty notice for disorder. At the
moment, cannabis warnings, which are an administrative arrangement
mandated by ACPO and not a criminal offence, can be given on more than
one occasion. Anecdotally, repeated cannabis warnings have been given.
Having no escalation does not send the signal that there is an
increasing likelihood of consequences if the individual continues to be
caught in possession on the
street. An
escalating arrangement—the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate
called it “three strikes”—indicates a deterrent.
The first time, a cannabis warning is issued; the second time, a
penalty notice for disorder; the third and any other time, there is
prosecution and other sanctions through court. It is always open to the
officer to use his discretion if there are any aggravating features.
There is no suggestion that the power will force the officer to resort
to a penalty notice for disorder. It is perfectly open to him or her.
If there is an aggravating feature—if possession is obvious on
the street or around young people, for example—that person could
be arrested straight away for a first offence, if a PND is not thought
appropriate. That is a matter for the discretion of the officer,
following his own professional judgment and any guidelines produced by
the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Mr.
Burrowes: I understand that the reclassification came
about particularly because of concerns about the prevalence of skunk, a
higher form of cannabis. Regarding the guidance to police officers,
will there be any distinction between possession of cannabis in some
forms and cannabis in the form of skunk? Will it be an aggravating
feature that the cannabis before the police officer is a higher form of
cannabis and how will that officer be able to exercise that particular
judgment in those particular circumstances?
Maria
Eagle: The increasing prevalence of higher-strength
cannabis is one reason why I and the Government do not accept that we
have necessarily been flip-flopping about what level cannabis ought to
be classified at and whether it should be class C or class B. I know
that hon. Members have suggested that there have been changes of mind,
but there is a higher prevalence of higher strengths of cannabis. I
know that that issue is disputed, but none the less there are concerns
about what the impact of that higher prevalence might be. Over time,
the Government have come to a different view than we had before about
what the consequences of that higher prevalence ought to be in how we
deal with these offences.
Regarding
penalty notices for disorder, they must be dealt with on the street by
the individual officer; one cannot send away to forensics to establish
the exact strength of whatever it is that is taken off the individual
who is being looked at. That is one of the reasons why other types of
class B or class A substances, which hon. Members have raised questions
about, cannot be dealt with by way of penalty notices for disorder. If
it is not completely obvious what it is that the person possesses,
further evidence must be gained.
Maria
Eagle: I should be grateful if hon. Members would allow me
to answer one point before asking about another. I will try to deal
with all the points that are made.
Regarding the
point that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate was making about
strength, to the extent that experienced officers have some
understanding of
this issue they can use their judgment. It is there that the judgment
ought to be. The basic point is that passing this order today will give
those officers a way of having an increasing step up in seriousness,
which should send the appropriate signal to the individual. However,
that is not mandated on officers. They will obviously consider arrest
if there are aggravating features, but it is really a matter for their
professional judgment and it is not something that we want to
mandate. Jeremy
Wright: The Minister has talked about escalation and about
increasing consequences for drug users. Of course, I agree with her
entirely about that. However, I want to ask her a question that is
specifically related to the point that I made regarding the recording
of this information about when fixed penalty notices are
issued.
Let us
imagine that officer A stops a drug user on the street and issues a
fixed penalty notice for disorder which is then paid. Two weeks later,
officer B stops the same offender and says, “I think that it is
appropriate for the issue of a fixed penalty notice”. Will
officer B have access to the information that officer A, two weeks
before, issued another fixed penalty notice, so that an escalation
would be possible?
Maria
Eagle: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it
clear that cannabis PNDs will be recorded. One of the issues with
cannabis warnings is that they are not recorded. There is a certain
amount of intelligence locally about who has what, but it is rather
hit-and-miss. So, as I say, cannabis PNDs will be recorded, on the
police national computer, so that police on the street will know about
previous PNDs. Obviously, if we want escalation, there must be a
recording process. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that
there may be imperfect information and that therefore there may be an
unintended reissuing of PNDs.
In respect of
the point about enforcement that was raised by a number of hon. Members
during the debate, it is true that only about 50 per cent. of the fines
attached to PNDs—in this case, the intention is that the fine
will be £80—are paid within the 21-day period. If they
are not paid within that period, a fine is registered against that
individual through the usual court enforcement processes, at one and a
half times the original amount. Although it is not possible from the
fine enforcement records to be clear about which fine that is enforced
was originally a PND and which was a fine that was given by a court, it
is the case that over the last quarter about 85 to 87 per cent. of
fines were enforced. Although I am not in a position to suggest that
every person who gets a PND will always either pay it or have the fine
definitely enforced, because there is a gap in enforcement, the
enforcement of fines in the courts has become much better over the past
few years. Non-payment after 21 days is not the end of the
story; it is then registered as a fine and pursued in the usual ways,
and the figures indicate that, eventually, this means a higher level of
enforcement. Although I accept the concerns, it is not true that if one
does not pay at the end of 21 days, that is the end of the matter. On
the concept of escalation, if we caught the same individual in
possession on the street again, they would be looking at prosecution
and the prospect of being reported to the
courts.
| 
