| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Filkin: When we debate the clause, I am sure that we will inspect that aspect in more detail. In essence, the clause provides the opportunity for an identification of whether children have special needs; and, therefore, whether alternative provision for them might be appropriate.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the period of six or three months. I am not certain that I have seized the challenge that the noble Earl put to me. However, I believe that we are at one in wishing to ensure that the Home Secretary's commitment given in the other place, which we shall be introducing in a later amendment, is both clear and firm. In short, there will be a reassessment if a family is still in the centre at the six-month point. That process will seek to consider the interest of the child. If the family is still in the unit at the end of nine months, it would, if it wished, have a right to move elsewhere, irrespective of the stage of the appeal.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In that case, the question from this side of the Committee would be whether at the end of six months the children would be released into mainstream education.
Lord Filkin: Possibly, but not automatically, is the response to that query. It would depend on the conclusion of the assessment.
As ever, I am guided by higher, distant forces. I am advised that I should be referring to Clause 31, rather than Clause 32. One can always count on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to catch one out on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, spoke powerfully on fostering links with local schools. Although education will be provided in the centre, one should have an open mind as to the benefits of actual linkages with the wider society and with other schools. It would be both interesting and helpful to see how that could be developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether there would be a biased intake as regards families. I have touched on that as a question, and will leave it there. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned sufficient knowledge of language, which is totally germane. One is talking about a particular group of people whose common characteristic, apart from not knowing much about Britain, will be that most of them will not speak English well. Therefore, a short period—even a two-month period—in a school with intensive English training would be of benefit of them, whether or not they were accepted for refugee status.
I am aware that I am exceeding the patience of the Committee. It is almost impossible to answer all the points raised. However, we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss such matters. I look forward to taking forward this policy in its development with my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland. We are committed to the belief that this is in the interests of both families and children. We accept the challenge to demonstrate that that is true in practice, and the evaluation will allow us to do so.
Lord Greaves: The Minister answered my question as to whether qualified teachers would be employed. However, he did not say whether all the teachers who would be employed would have to be qualified. Can the Minister clarify that point? Further, I do not believe that the noble Lord answered my question about whether the teachers employed in these centres would be paid on pay scales/rates commensurate with those that apply to similar teachers in mainstream schools.
Lord Filkin: Yes, and I do not know.
Lord Bhatia: I do not wish to delay the debate any further. However, I should like to thank Members of the Committee for participating in the debate. It is good to take account of the variety of views expressed on all sides of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take heed of all the views that have been put forward.
Before I conclude the debate I wish to refer to two or three of the points that were raised. It is necessary to draw the Minister's attention to a debate that took place in the other place on 22nd May during which the Minister, Stephen Timms, said that no decision had been taken as to whether those who would be teaching
in the accommodation centres for asylum seekers would be required to have completed initial teachers' training. As things have obviously moved on, I should like an assurance that that is the case.There were various comments on the length of time in which people will stay in the accommodation centres, and various figures—three months, six months, two months—were mentioned. However, I think that most of the major children's charities believe that a week out of school is a week lost. A critical principle is at stake here. Should there be universal access to mainstream schools? If the answer is that, in principle, access should be universal, the matter of length of stay is neither here nor there.
Whatever we decide, we should think first and foremost about children and their emotional and educational needs. I make only one plea. Let us think about the children who will be in the accommodation centres as if they were our own children. By taking such an approach we might arrive at the right decision. Because of my personal experience—which, 30 years on, I do not wish to think about or remember—I concluded that I had to move this amendment. I hope that those of us deciding this law will think of children and their needs before anything else.
The Minister's answers are good enough for now, but I await the Government's proposals at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Drugs
4.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
-
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement in responding to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on drugs. In doing so, I wish to make it clear that I will publish a substantial update of the 1998 drugs strategy this autumn.
"On 23rd October, in my evidence to the Select Committee, I laid out a number of key themes which are reflected in the Committee's report. I am grateful for the excellent work which the Chairman and Members of the Committee have done and to all those who have assisted both the Committee and myself, including my drugs unit. I also thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the many agencies and authoritative bodies who have contributed.
"I cannot imagine that there is a Member of this House who does not wish to ensure that those we represent are free from the misery that is caused by drug abuse. Class A drugs are the scourge of our time and are potential killers. Over the past 30 years the huge increase in the use of drugs, particularly hard drugs, has caused untold damage to the health, life chances and wellbeing of individuals. This has undermined family life, fuelled criminality and damaged communities. The estimated social and economic costs of drug misuse are well in excess of £10 billion a year. Around three quarters of crack and heroin users claim to be committing crime to feed their habit.
"I am grateful for the considerable progress made by my predecessors. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for Health for the announcement we are able to make today of an additional investment, which will total £183 million over the next three years, for treatment services and harm minimisation. The numbers entering treatment have increased by an average of 8 per cent each year since 1998. In 2000, seizures worth £780 million were made. Last year, 3.4 tonnes of heroin and 10.9 tonnes of cocaine were seized, exceeding targets.
"Today, I wish to inform the House of the overall direction of the review of the drugs strategy and the Committee's report. There will be an increased focus on class A drugs. The message is clear. Drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade, and, where necessary, direct young people away from their use. We will not legalise or decriminalise any drug, nor do we envisage a time when this would be appropriate.
"As recommended by the Committee, there will be a better focus on those whose drug addiction causes the most harm to themselves and to society; those described as problematic drug users. In the past two years, we have established the National Treatment Agency and invested more than half a billion pounds. We have begun to fill the gaps in services for crack addicts. We will continue the rapid expansion of referral for treatment of offenders.
"We accept that expansion in managed prescribing for the most appropriate cases of heroin addiction will be necessary; the right treatment for the right patient. But more than treatment is required. Aftercare and rehabilitation must become part of the package of care for those leaving treatment, or from prison. Harm minimisation will be given greater priority. But in the form in which the term is normally used, we are not persuaded that shooting galleries would, at this moment, be helpful.
"We will use the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to confiscate the assets of those whose lifestyle depends on the misery of others and target the regional or 'middle' drug markets. We will clamp down on the dealers who prey on the young. We will increase the sentences for trafficking and dealing in class B and C drugs to 14 years. This will avoid mixed messages to those dealing in more than one
- drug, and will establish a lead in European-wide discussions. But we do not agree that it is necessary to introduce a supply for gain offence.
"We will support parents and families to help them cope with the effects of addiction. In line with the Committee's recommendation, we will ensure that carers and families are involved in the development of services. We will launch an education campaign targeted at young people with the message that all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers. We are not persuaded that ecstasy should be downgraded; it can kill. However, the message to young people and families must be open, honest and believable. That is why I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis.
"They have recommended that the current classification is disproportionate in relation to harmfulness and the nature of other controlled drugs. They were clear, and so am I, that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug and should remain illegal. However, it is not comparable with crack, heroin, or ecstasy. They were clear that greater differentiation between drugs which kill and drugs that cause harm would be both scientifically justified and educationally sensible.
"I have considered this advice along with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. I have taken account of the Metropolitan Police experiment in Lambeth, which has seen a 10 per cent increase in the arrest of class A drug dealers. The Metropolitan Police will today announce that the pilot will be adjusted and will be applicable across London in the months ahead. I can tell the House that I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year.
"Let me be clear: cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order. They will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk. The Association of Chief Police Officers will shortly issue national guidance to ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will confiscate the drug and issue a warning. Police time saved will be refocused on class A drug dealing.
"Where communities are strong, drugs do not take hold. Drug-related crime and disorder devastate communities. That is why last year we launched the communities against drugs fund to provide £220 million over three years to enable communities to become part of the solution. It is the vulnerable who succumb to drugs. Statutory and voluntary agencies, families and communities all have a role to play in protecting them.
"Through education, harm minimisation, treatment and tough action against dealers and traffickers, we have a winning strategy. It will require positive commitment, rather than grandstanding. Last October, I called for a mature and intelligent debate. I hope that this is what we can continue to have. I hope that, in moving this
- Statement today, we continue that sensible approach to a difficult and sensitive issue. I commend the Statement to the House".
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. His closing words are absolutely right; it is very much a sensitive issue. However, the House will recognise that it is indeed an extraordinary Statement made on an extraordinary day.
There are two coherent strategies on cannabis. The Government, in the Statement today, choose not to adopt either of them. I recognise that a serious argument can be made for complete legalisation of cannabis with sale being taken out of the hands of the drug dealers and the substance being treated like tobacco or alcohol, licensed and taxed. It is not an argument to which I subscribe. The alternative policy which we prefer can be constructed—as it is in Sweden—to make serious efforts to lead young people away from cannabis use. The Government have not adopted either of those courses. In fact, they are giving control over cannabis to the drug dealers, but with the police turning away.
This is not just the day on which the Home Secretary made a Statement about a muddled and dangerous policy; today is also the day when the Government's chief adviser on drugs, Mr Keith Hellawell, resigned in protest at that muddled and dangerous policy. He told the "Today" programme that,
- "this is causing a great deal of problems on the streets. It's causing a great deal of problems for parents who just don't know where they are".
I invite the Minister to explain whether the Government intend that the police should arrest people who are openly selling cannabis—as they are on the streets of Brixton today—or whether they are asking the police to look away. I remind the Minister what local people think of the experiment in Brixton. The Reverend Chris Andre-Watson, youth group leader at Brixton Baptist Church, said on 5th July this year,
- "This area has become saturated with cannabis and we even have drug dealing going on outside playgrounds. Young people feel that cannabis has been legalised".
Why are the Government introducing a system whereby they say, "We shall not prosecute you if you possess a small amount of cannabis. We are happy to let you go on buying this from your criminal drug dealer, but we will perhaps try to get hold of you and prosecute you if you try to buy harder drugs or if that same criminal who is supplying you with the cannabis tries to sell you harder drugs. What you have to do is say no to them. We shall not try to stop you if you say yes in the first instance to cannabis but we shall stop you if you say yes to the harder drugs". That is not a
clear choice for people to make. The Government are making a mockery of the "Just Say No" campaign. What are people to say no to these days?Will the Minister explain how it can be right to tell one set of people that it is all right to smoke cannabis but to tell another set of people that they may be put in prison for 14 years if they sell it? Will the Minister explain how, with a policy that consists of deeply confusing mixed messages, he can expect to reduce drug dependency and criminality in this country?
The Statement says that the police,
- "will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk".
I am afraid that just saying in the Statement that the Government's message is clear does not make it so. It is hopelessly muddled. The saddest thing about the policy is that it owes its origins not to the advice of the Government's chief adviser on drugs, nor to a well considered examination of the results of the Brixton experiment, and certainly not to the views of the people whose children's lives are being destroyed by drugs, but to a political stratagem.
The Government adopted this policy because they believed that they could wrongfoot all their opponents, perhaps buying off the libertarians with increased liberalisation and buying off the anti-drugs lobby with a show of toughness. But, as the Government's own adviser said today:
- "There is just a sort of repackaging, a respinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done".
But it is still not too late. It is not too late for the Government to think again before this disastrous Order in Council is implemented. In the interests of the Government and in the interests of the young people of the whole of our country they should do so.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. We look forward to the publication of the update of the 1998 drugs strategy.
First, I express my concern about the inconsistencies in the Government's approach to the drugs policy and about the way in which the police seem to be implementing it. We do not have to go too far back to the time when Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary rejected some of the key recommendations of the report of the Police Foundation. In fact, the appointment of the drugs czar at that time gave a pointer of the Government's intention to be tough instead of liberalising some aspects of their drugs policy. The certain demise of this high level appointment is a clear indication of the change at the heart of the Government in handling this subject. However, there is the question of the confusion of the public with regard to the different messages that seem to be filtering through from the Government.
We agree that drugs policy is an important, difficult and sensitive issue. Does the Minister therefore accept that this makes it all the more important that the Government have talks with opposition parties to seek maximum political agreement before the national drugs strategy is updated in the autumn? Does he accept that despite some progress and successes, drugs policies and the present law are still failing badly? The real signs of success are reduced numbers of drug users, drug addicts and drug-related deaths.
Does the Minister agree that dealing with users and addicts should be seen principally as a health issue whereas tackling the dealers and traffickers should be seen principally as a crime issue? Is not that distinction important? If treatment services are to be significantly increased, which we certainly welcome, what then is the Minister's alternative to so-called shooting galleries for moving heroin addicts out of the clutch of criminals and into the hands of health professionals?
Although prison will be entirely appropriate for dealers and traffickers, does the Minister accept that criminalisation and imprisonment are an inadequate response to the addiction of the addict while at the same time adding thousands more people to our already overcrowded gaols? The Minister mentioned an additional investment that will total £183 million over the next three years. It would be helpful to know precisely what is included within that figure.
On classification, what is the new logic for having different harm categories for amphetamines and cannabis, for example, if the maximum punishment for dealing in them will in future be the same? On cannabis, where the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls among many others shares the view that the present law has fallen into disrepute, we welcome the changed status of cannabis to a class C drug and the announcement that there will in future be a common police response across London to cannabis possession. However, it should not apply simply to London but should be a national policy.
Does the Home Secretary not see the horrible danger of muddled messages if it becomes national policy that cannabis use will not normally be arrestable unless the police consider it a public order matter, that the police will not be expected to look for people using cannabis but that the police will be expected to confiscate it if people use it?
If the Government agree with us that the main focus of the criminal justice and education systems should be to prevent young people being caught up in much more dangerous drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, is not the only logical, clear and consistent message that cannabis for personal use will never be the subject of criminal proceedings anywhere in the country but that dealing for profit in cannabis, as is the case with other drugs, will always be subject to prosecution by the law?
5 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, "Don't make any change" and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in effect said, "Legalise the possession of cannabis".
We take a middle and sensible course. Our strategy, as set out clearly in the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, is to focus on class A drugs; it is not to legalise cannabis. It remains unlawful and a crime to possess it. However, as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Select Committee advised us, one's policy on drugs must be coherent and credible. They advised us that the distinctions that need to be drawn between different sorts of drugs must be more credible. That is why those two bodies recommended that we reduce cannabis from class B to class C. That advice has been taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It involves not legalising cannabis but having a coherent and credible policy that people will understand. I believe that they will understand it very clearly indeed.
As for the increase in penalties for dealing in cannabis, again, people will not have any difficulty understanding the distinction between, on the one hand, possession and, on the other hand, clamping down hard on dealing in illegal drugs such as cannabis. There is no question of a mixed message; the position is perfectly clear. We have dealt with the matter with a degree of clarity that matches people's experience.
The noble Baroness asked whether the effect of the approach involved saying that it was okay to smoke cannabis. No, it does not say that. It says that it remains a criminal offence, albeit class C rather than class B.
Will there be arrest for simple possession? The answer is that there will not be arrest for simple possession but that there will be arrest in aggravated circumstances, such as those involving public order or where there is a risk to children. That is in accordance with the advice given by ACPO. On the circumstances in which there is a risk to public order, I do not believe that ACPO will have any difficulty giving appropriate guidance to its members. Police officers regularly make such judgments on the streets. We have complete confidence that they will be able to continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, focused on the need to reduce the numbers of drug users, of drug dealers and of people who continue to take drugs having started to do so. We thoroughly agree. That should be the aim of our drugs policy. He said that possession—I believe that he was referring to all
drugs—should be regarded as a health issue whereas dealing and trafficking should be regarded as a criminal issue. There is a role in respect of both approaches.The noble Lord indicated that when people go to prison, they frequently do not get sufficient treatment for their drugs problems. I agree. There has to be a real focus on providing help to people in prison who have drug problems.
The noble Lord asked: what is the Government's response to shooting galleries and are we in favour of some kind of authorised shooting gallery? Our position, which is set out more fully in the response to the Select Committee's report, can be summarised by saying that we support the provision of safe, medically supervised areas with clean needles for the administration of heroin prescribed as part of a comprehensive package of measures for treating heroin addicts, but not for those who have not been prescribed heroin. I hope that that answers the question.
I said in answer to the noble Baroness that we do not believe that our messages are mixed; they are quite straightforward. They seek to deal with the issue that many people face on the streets; those people need a coherent and clear response.
I turn to what the people of Lambeth thought of the experiment. The noble Baroness will know that the Police Foundation, in alliance with MORI, conducted a poll of Lambeth residents towards the end of last year. It showed that 83 per cent of residents supported the Lambeth cannabis scheme, although for 40 per cent of the total that was conditional on the police spending more time reducing serious crime. It also showed that 74 per cent believe that the scheme would result in police time being redeployed into tackling serious crime, that 64 per cent agreed that the scheme would improve community relations and that 71 per cent saw the scheme as a better way of dealing with young people who use cannabis. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has a better angle on what the people of Lambeth think.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Statement on cannabis is totally illogical and leads to the worst of all possible worlds? He said, on the one hand, that it is the Government's intention to declassify cannabis as a class C drug. I do not believe that that is right, but that is not the point. The fact is that that is bound to be taken by people as a clear message from the Government that there is really nothing wrong with taking cannabis. The Statement is bound to be looked on as encouraging experimentation and use of the drug among young people.
To attempt at the same time to increase the penalties on dealers is utterly illogical. Where is the supply, which the Statement will encourage, met other than through dealers? As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, are not the Government really throwing the control of
drugs and of young people into the hands on those very dealers? Does the noble and learned Lord really believe that those dealers, who will be encouraged to sell cannabis as a result of the declassification to class C, will be satisfied with going no further than that? Or does he accept that the chances are that they will encourage those who are going to them for class C drugs to advance to harder drugs—class A drugs—to the greater profitability of the dealers and the greater devastation of society, as the noble and learned Lord said?
I beg the noble and learned Lord to think again about how to deal with the situation. One cannot make Statements that appear to encourage the use and possession of cannabis and which imply that cannabis in small amounts is no concern without taking some view of the supply. If one goes down that road, surely it would be better to go the whole way, to decriminalise and to have open supply rather than to leave the situation as it currently is; that is, making cannabis a class C dangerous drug with supply only through the dealers.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page