Orders of the Day — Drugs Bill

House of Commons, 22 February 2005.

Clause 1 — Aggravated supply of controlled drug

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 17, after 'committed', insert 'on or'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 18, after 'school', insert

'or any other place where children frequently congregate'.

Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'at a relevant time'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

'(4A) In subsection (3) "in the vicinity" is—

(a) within one mile of the school; or

(b) within five miles of the school when on a route known to be used by pupils accessing the school; or

(c) on a vehicle used by local education authorities to transport children to school.'.

Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (5).

Government amendments Nos. 11 to 18.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Clause 1 stipulates the circumstances that a court must treat as aggravating factors when considering the seriousness of the offence of supply of a controlled drug when the offence is committed by a person aged 18 or over. It will be an aggravating factor where the dealer uses a person under the age of 18 as a courier to deliver a controlled drug, or in a drug-related consideration, or where the offence of supply occurs on or in the vicinity of school premises during the relevant times.

Recognising that schools are often used by young people outside conventional school hours, the clause establishes the relevant time as any time when the school is in use by a young person and one hour before or after that time. Because the clause focuses on protecting children at school, we have not included in its scope the supply of drugs at times when young people under 18 are not present at the school, but the clause would cover activities outside the normal school day and in the school holidays when young people are involved in an activity at the school.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I have great sympathy with amendment No. 4 because it is much more protective of the child than the wording of the Bill. Can my hon. Friend allay my fears, so that places such as clubs where young children are brought together are not seen as easy prey for the kind of person we are talking about?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The clause deals with the vicinity of a school. We are focusing on the school as a place in the community that is a visible and known building where young people assemble to attend school and for other legal purposes. We discussed in Committee—and I shall go into this further—how we might extend the provisions to other places where young people go, such as a cinema or a swimming pool. As I shall explain, part of the problem is how we define that, as it could be anywhere that children go.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The places that concern me particularly are sports clubs and sports centres, where there are large numbers of young people in an area that can also be attended by adults, some of whom might not be as nice as those looking after the children.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We recognise that drug-related activities can, unfortunately, take place at any time and anywhere in our communities. I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is important that the police and others work to make sure that, using local intelligence, they identify where those activities take place. There is already protection for young people, and account must be taken of aggravating factors such as dealing directly to vulnerable people. That includes people under 18. Dealers would be caught by that if they were dealing to young people in areas such as my hon. Friend mentioned.

In the clause we are focusing on the school, which is a premises where children are expected to go by law. It is a visible building in the community which is known to be used by children. We are considering how we might best create a safe zone around it.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I wish to make a little progress.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the Minister give way on that specific point?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I wish to deal further with some of the points that have been made, as this matter was dealt with extensively in Committee. I ask hon. Members to please bear with me.

The Bill does not define what constitutes the vicinity of school premises, so it will be for the courts to make a determination on a case-by-case basis. I shall return to that point in relation to amendment No. 3. The clause will catch all school premises, including buildings, main and ancillary, playing fields and dormitory buildings. It will also encompass the use of school premises for community purposes, provided that a young person under 18 is participating in that use.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave the example of a community church using school premises and asked whether it would be caught by the provision. Initial advice suggested that the answer was no, but I sought further advice from parliamentary counsel, and they said yes. As far as I am concerned, on the basis of that second opinion, any activities taking place within what are defined as school premises will be caught by the clause as long as they involve under-18s.

The courts may already take into account aggravating factors when considering the seriousness of an offence of supplying a controlled drug. The clause recognises public concern, particularly about aggravating circumstances in which children are exposed to risk, even if they are not directly involved in drug-dealing activities. We hope that the clause will provide a measure of reassurance to parents and a deterrent message to dealers, as well as offering protection to young people.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

May I offer to the Minister the example of the school in my village that my children attend? As well as the school, there are various play facilities that are frequently used by children after hours. Presumably, given the terms of subsection (5)(a), a time when the children are playing there would constitute a time when the school is in use by persons under 18. Is she satisfied that that definition gives sufficient legal certainty, particularly given the fact that the provision extends to an hour before the start of such use? If there is no fixed start time, it will not be possible for a person to regulate their conduct according to the subsection.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am convinced that the provision would apply to play activities of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If hon. Members remember, we discussed in Committee the defence of not knowing that young people were present at any given time, and I accepted an Opposition amendment.

It is necessary to recognise that the provision is about creating safer zones. Our intention is that, as far as is possible and practical—there are issues about how far the areas can be extended, what is practical and how wide the range should be—we should protect young people, particularly when they are attending school but not exclusively, from exposure to drug dealing. It is therefore important that all premises should fall within the scope of that approach. I think that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about her own school, Cheltenham Ladies' College—I think that it was in relation to the cash issue—and she pointed out that accommodation in boarding schools may be located on a different site from that of the school and asked whether such buildings would be covered. I sought additional advice as to whether ancillary school buildings such as accommodation provided by boarding schools and remote playing fields—when I was at school in London, we had quite a trek to our playing fields—are caught by the clause. I am assured that they are.

I have considered the point further, and I have taken the view that it is helpful, in order to avoid any doubt, to table an amendment. At the same time, it will also help to resolve any possible doubt about whether the provision catches over-18s who are dealing on such premises. Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 17 mean that an aggravating factor that a court must take into account when deciding a serious drug supply offence will be the fact that the offence was committed on or in a facility, which is covered by Government amendment No. 9, and that it was committed at a relevant time, which is covered by Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

It is always worth working through the different scenarios. It is possible that a teacher or caretaker might occupy solely as a dwelling, accommodation owned by the school, which is school premises, but which is not on or in the vicinity of other school premises. In an inner-city area, for example, a school might own accommodation that is not in the vicinity of the school or on the school plot itself. In recognising that such accommodation could be on the far side of town, our aim is to protect and provide a safe zone for children and young people, so that there is no need to catch premises used solely as a dwelling by a caretaker or teacher that are not on or in the vicinity of other school premises, although such a person might be defined as living in school premises. I hope that is clear.

The basic idea is to draw a distinction between catching those people who have accommodation on a site where children actively go to school or engage in activities and a situation in which a caretaker lives 10 or five miles away from his job, but his accommodation is linked to the school.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister clarify once and for all whether clause 1 will apply to school premises in Northern Ireland? Clause 24 is ambiguous about whether some or all of the provisions will extend to Northern Ireland. Will she put on the record that every school premises—as she has explained this evening, "school premises" is widely defined—includes school premises in Northern Ireland?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to set the record straight. I am pleased to say that clause 1 will apply to Northern Ireland, as will clauses 2, 4, 6, 8 and 21. Clauses 4 and 6 mirror clauses 3 and 5, so they have an identity in their own right. I agree that the wording of clause 24 is not as clear as we might all want, but sometimes we are all hostage to the legalistic wording used in such legislation. Many clauses amend existing legislation, and where the scope and range of that legislation applies to Northern Ireland, those changes will apply to Northern Ireland too. I reassure her that the measures in clause 1, which attempt to create safer zones around schools, will apply to Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Earlier, I referred to a letter that I received from the Northern Ireland Office. I must apologise, because it was actually a written answer from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is responsible for this particular subject. On 24 January 2005, he stated:

"I have sought and obtained approval for the extension to Northern Ireland of the following provisions in the Drugs Bill".

He listed several points, including the

"Creation of aggravating circumstances in which a dealer will face an enhanced sentence—such as dealing near a school or using young persons as couriers".—[Official Report, 25 January 2005; Vol. 430, c. 302W.]

Given the clear import of that reply, will the Minister reflect on making it clear in the Bill that the provisions extend to Northern Ireland? The Police Service of Northern Ireland must apply those provisions, which are not clear.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and therefore apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not necessary to specify Northern Ireland because we are simply amending existing legislation, which already applies to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I hope that that makes it clear that Northern Ireland is not excluded from the provisions that deal with the vicinity of schools and the possible use of children and young people as couriers by drug peddlers and dealers. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady and conveys a strong message to her local community.

Let me be clear. Premises that are occupied solely by a teacher or a caretaker as a dwelling and are on or in the vicinity of other school premises that children and young people use would be caught by the measure. Government amendment No. 17 therefore defines school premises more closely and exempts from that definition land occupied solely as a dwelling by a person who is employed at the school. It is not unusual for buildings that are used solely as a dwelling by a member of staff to be distinguished in legislation from other school premises.

Amendment No. 3 defines "in the vicinity" as

"(a) within one mile of the school; or . . . (b) within five miles of the school when on a route known to be used by pupils accessing the school; or . . . (c) on a vehicle used by local education authorities to transport children to school."

The question of what constitutes "in the vicinity" was thoroughly aired in Committee and I have, perhaps rather belatedly, written to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the matter. I am concerned about the definition and I held extensive discussions about whether it was possible to include one in the Bill. After much discussion, I am worried that attempting a definition runs the risk of undermining our purpose. A definition could exclude a set of circumstances that may currently be difficult to foresee or a position that arises from local circumstances, which a court might want to include.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I want to raise a point of clarity that was not made in Committee about definitions of vicinity, especially in view of Government amendment No. 9, in relation to school athletics and sports facilities that are used by adults—through community use—and children, for example on a Saturday morning. Am I right that, if the measure were passed, this country would have the strongest anti-drugs-in-sport legislation anywhere in the western world? Anyone who dealt in performance-enhancing drugs on a sports field owned by a school—that applies to all athletics facilities and most rugby and football fields in my constituency—would be liable for conviction for aggravated supply. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider whether such a provision could eventually be extended to cover professional sports, such as those football teams that are playing tonight?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

My hon. Friend is right that the Bill covers sports activities that take place on school premises—playing fields, sports halls or facilities that are open to community use. As long as young people who are under 18 are engaged in those activities, clause 1 will apply. My hon. Friend mentioned performance-enhancing drugs. If they were illegal, the clause would apply in the circumstances that he outlined. I shall draw his final point about other sporting activities to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

My hon. Friend will recall that I was somewhat sceptical about the parental fear of drug dealing outside schools and I gave examples from my constituency. I believed that the Government risked falling into the trap of overplaying a fear that was simply that and not a reality. My hon. Friend will be pleased that I am convinced by her arguments about tackling drugs in sport. Will she consider how best to publicise this to the sporting world? The issue did not come up in Committee, but it could represent a significant change in dealing with drugs in sport.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will think about the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. It will be important to make the provisions of the Bill well known, should it become law. That is an ongoing challenge for us, with regard not only to the new provisions but to the fact that record amounts of money are now being spent on all aspects of dealing with drugs, including prevention, treatment and building capacity. I know that my hon. Friend has played a huge role in this in his constituency, which I hope has been helped by the Government's determination to bear down locally on what can be achieved if people work together better to identify the problems and use the funds that we are providing to tackle them wisely. I will think about what he has said.

I would also like to point out to my hon. Friend that a conference is being held this week on the positive futures scheme, which we in the Home Office are funding, as well as Sport England and others. The scheme identifies young people who are at risk of drug involvement or who have already become involved with drugs. It is a sports-based scheme, and 50,000 young people have gone through it so far, with tremendous results. An awareness of the dangers of drugs—not only heroin and crack cocaine but performance-enhancing drugs—is an important part of the role of sports coaches, alongside providing brilliant sports coaching.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister is showing a great deal of concern for children by introducing this legislation, and we are now being led down the sporting route. She has also embarked on looking at "what if" scenarios. Will she clarify what would happen if children from a school were invited to play sport at a private sporting facility, for example, or a well-known football ground? If the children were going there as part of their school activities, would those premises be covered by the Bill? If not, why not? Why will the Minister not consider our amendment to make the clause apply to places where children congregate?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am going to address that issue in a moment, but the short answer to the hon. Lady's question is that the provision would not apply to such facilities. The Bill covers school premises, and I have already attempted to explain what we understand by that term. The provision would capture the scenario that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) outlined, but it would not apply to that suggested by the hon. Lady. I shall explain later our views on places where young people congregate and on other places that have been mentioned, including community centres. We are trying to focus on what is practical and what we can actually deliver.

What constitutes "in the vicinity" could vary from location to location. For example, a dealing site might be close to a school—and let us not forget that we are talking not only about someone dealing directly to young people, but about the exposure of young people to drug-related activities going on around them. An aggravating factor may already be taken into account by the courts during sentencing in cases involving dealing directly to a vulnerable person, including those under 18. These provisions are an attempt to tackle the problem of young people on school premises having to walk past or be exposed to dealing activities that might not directly involve them. This is about the risk of exposure, and the creation of safer zones around those areas.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The clause relates to the supply of a controlled substance by a person who has attained the age of 18. However, it does not cover the supply of such a substance by someone who has not attained that age. We know that when pupils in schools have been tempted into drug use, it is common for them to sell on their surplus to their friends, thereby creating more and more people with a drug habit. Will the Minister tell us how the provision relates to people under the age of 18?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

With the indulgence of the House, I will deal with that point, but I do not want to lose sight of the Opposition amendments. As the hon. Lady is aware, we had a discussion in Committee on that issue. We have to decide whether we accept that the law contains procedures that recognise how we might deal with under-18s in terms of sentencing, and how they are dealt with by different agencies, compared with over-18s.

There are enough examples of how we try to deal with young offenders, but that does not mean that we excuse for one moment the activity of someone under 18 who might be supplying drugs. That will be an offence for which—if they are caught and there is evidence—they can be charged. We had a discussion on this in Committee, and I do not think that applying to someone who is himself identified in law as a vulnerable person the aggravating factor of supplying to a vulnerable person is the right approach to take.

Do not forget that that is an aggravating factor linked to a charge for an offence. In dealing with under-18s, it is important that we charge them for the offence, but we should also consider what their involvement is and how they got involved. We should consider them as we do in other areas of law—in a way that understands that their actions are wrong, but at the same time they are young people, and perhaps even children. We need to deal with that appropriately. We have had that discussion, and although we may disagree, I think this is the right approach. So we are talking here about people over the age of 18 in respect of whom we believe such issues should be taken into account when they are involved in dealing activity.

A dealing site may be close to a school as the crow flies, but might be separated from it by a railway line that is not bridged for some distance from the school, and may therefore, for practical purposes, not be in its vicinity. Conversely, a dealing site may be some distance from the school using conventional footpaths or roads, but be easily accessible by less conventional means. In my constituency, young people going to school do not necessarily follow the paved route. They cut across fields and parks, and that becomes their normal route to school. If someone wanted to be involved in dealing activity, they might choose such an area for that.

Amendment No. 3, in attempting to define "in the vicinity", illustrates the dangers of doing so. As I have said, distance may not always be the only determining factor. If we were to go for a fixed distance, from what point on the school premises would a mile be measured, and who would have the authority to carry out that measurement? How would passengers on a bus know when they were within 5 miles of a school? Furthermore, the amendment would catch only buses provided by an education authority, but not public transport used by pupils on their way to or from school.

In addition, if there were active dealing on a school bus—we might presume that, apart from the driver, most of the people on it were under 18, and it might be the driver who was dealing—that would be caught by the aggravating factor of dealing to vulnerable people, which means those under 18. We also know that young people use other forms of public transport, such as trains or buses, and children could be exposed to dealing activity from which we need to protect them near a local train station, which is the dropping-off point for those making their way to school, or on buses.

We are talking about situations in which the young person is not directly engaged, but is exposed to the risk. We all want to try to deal with those situations, when young people experience those things around them. We need to consider how to ensure that they are seen as not acceptable and not a normal part of everyday life.

Paul Flynn (Labour, Newport West)

I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully. We would all agree that we do not want our children or grandchildren to be exposed to drug pushing, but as she is referring to the vicinity of schools and colleges, the route to school for all children and the means of transport to school, it seems to me that this measure will cover an enormous area. Has she calculated the percentage of urban areas that the ban will cover? It strikes me that a very small area would be excluded from it.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Well, some Members might be quite happy about that. The facility will be linked to the issue of risk to young people and children. Rather than having carte blanche, the risk of young people being exposed would have to be set against the activity and where it was located. Because those issues are complex, we feel that that is a matter for the courts to decide. I will refer later to some other pieces of legislation in which "in the vicinity" is also used to provide coverage in a certain area.

The way forward is to allow the courts discretion to decide what constitutes "in the vicinity", not to remove that discretion as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham suggests. Following the Committee stage, I sought further legal advice on the matter, and I am 100 per cent. certain that it is not sensible to provide further definition of the term in the Bill.

As I said, there is legal precedent for that approach elsewhere. For example, the term is used in section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, under which a constable may give a direction to a person who is present outside or "in the vicinity" of someone's home if he reasonably believes that the person is there to represent something to the resident or another person or to persuade such a person to do or not to do something. I have experience of that in relation to animal rights extremists setting up a vigil outside someone's home. The police have used that direction widely, even when someone is not in the particular street or outside the person's home but has been there and in that vicinity previously.

The term "in the vicinity" is also used in section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as inserted by section 94 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Section 60AA provides police with the power to require persons to remove disguises in certain places and under certain circumstances. Section 60AA(8) provides that a member of the British Transport police has those same powers in any locality "in or in the vicinity" of any police premises and in police premises themselves. We have done a search of case law to show that the term "in the vicinity" was used.

It is right that we should indicate the intention behind the clause, and the Home Office will draw up, consult on and issue guidance indicating particular concerns in that regard. I would like guidance to indicate that distance from the school is the key but not necessarily the determinative factor, and that the practical accessibility of a location to young people is an important factor. The risk posed by drug dealing to young people when attending schools is a primary concern, premises such as cafés and private dwellings that are in the vicinity of schools could be covered, and other points in the vicinity of a school at which young people gather regularly, such as a bus stop on the way to or from school, are also a concern. As for whether a place is one at which young people gather, we should also consider informal routes that they may take to the school premises, which would include public footpaths and roads and, dare I say it, trespassing across private land. Transport used by schoolchildren should also be caught within the definition when such transport is in the vicinity of a school.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I clarify, for my peace of mind, one point that bothers me? We are considering clause 1 on aggravated supply of controlled drugs. Is my interpretation of that clause correct that if a defendant is able to argue successfully that a location is not "in the vicinity" of school premises, that affects sentencing only? In view of the wide interpretation that the Minister has given, and her confirmation that it applies to Northern Ireland, for which I thank her, will she confirm that even if that argument is successful and a court does not hold that such a location is in the vicinity of school premises, it is still an offence for a defendant to supply controlled drugs?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Certainly it is still an offence for someone to supply controlled drugs. Such a person would be arrested and, I hope, charged with a drug offence, and it would be for the courts to take that into consideration as an aggravating factor, along the same lines as the aggravating factor of using children as couriers. The purpose is to focus the minds of those in our legal system on the importance of these issues, which should be reflected in sentencing. In Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised the issue of transparency, and I have agreed to write to the Sentencing Guidelines Council about how aggravating factors apply to sentencing. I felt that he had made a fair point.

Before issuing guidance my officials have already begun to consult Adfam, Turning Point, DrugScope, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Youth Justice Board. During initial discussions with a number of those bodies, none of them supported a definition of "vicinity" in the Bill; they felt that that should be covered by the guidance.

As for amendment No. 4, I understand the desire to protect young people from dealers operating in the vicinity of places other than schools, but feel that there are real practical difficulties in establishing what constitutes such a place. What constitutes a congregation of young people—three or 30? Moreover, as I have said, the current sentencing guidelines list, among other aggravating factors, "deliberately targeting vulnerable victims". I believe that that gives courts discretion to deal with young people appropriately.

Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we live in a time when drug dealing can take place in any location where there are young people. The aim is to come up with a focused practical measure that can be enforced in a way that does not dilute what we are trying to do. That is why we have singled out schools for the purposes of this offence.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would require a court to identify an aggravating factor increasing the seriousness of an offence of supplying drugs when a person commits the offence in the vicinity of a school at any time. As we have acknowledged, schools are not the same as they were in our time, when the school day lasted from 9 am until 3.30 or 4 pm. I think we are all pleased that schools are now live buildings that operate outside the normal school day and are open to the wider community, and we have covered that in the Bill.

Again, however, we do not want to dilute the aggravating factor. On occasion a school may be closed, with no one on the premises. To apply the aggravating factor when young people are not exposed would, in my view, undermine the clause. We should not forget that someone dealing in drugs outside a school at any time is liable to arrest and prosecution, but we do not think it appropriate for a court to apply the aggravating factor to those dealing at 2 am, when children are not using the premises. There must be a link with the risk of exposure.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 go beyond the intention of the clause. Because the clause catches all who deal in the vicinity of schools, the amendments would establish an aggravating factor when an adult dealer supplied drugs to another adult in the vicinity of a school, even if he did so when the school was shut and no young persons were present and exposed to risk. We must not lose the focus of the clauses.

As for Government amendment No. 12, clause 1 makes it an aggravating factor—which a court must take into account when deciding the seriousness of a drug supply offence—to use a person under 18 as a courier. I know from what people have told me that there is concern about the use of children by adults wishing to avoid prosecution, and I think that that is terrible. We had a productive discussion in Committee, and I agreed with a number of points that were made.

New section 4A(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which clause 1 inserts, provides that a person uses a courier in connection with an offence

"if he requests another person . . . to deliver a controlled drug to a third person"

or

"to deliver drug related cash to himself or a third person."

In Committee the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland tabled an amendment that sought to strengthen the word "requests", to make it clear that all acts of both commission and omission that a dealer might undertake in order for a young person to act as a courier were considered to be an aggravating factor. I acknowledged the merit of what the amendment was intended to achieve, and I hope that our amendment will achieve the same objective. It would replace "requests" with "causes or permits", so that the clause would catch not just any positive act that a dealer might commit to force or persuade a young person to act as a courier, but a dealer who accepted an offer from a young person to act as a courier. In Committee, we discussed circumstances in which young people might wish to ingratiate themselves with, say, someone with a fast car, and might offer to be used in that way. This provision would capture that possibility, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in Committee.

On Government amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18, again, the Bill deals with young people under the age of 18 who are used as couriers. New section 4A, which is inserted by clause 1, provides that for this purpose, drug-related cash is cash obtained in connection with the supply of a controlled drug or intended to be used to obtain a controlled drug. New section 4A(8) defines cash as including inter alia notes and coins and any monetary instruments specified by order made by the Secretary of State.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who tabled an amendment designed to have the effect of broadening the definition of cash to ensure that all possible forms of payment or reward for drugs received was caught. She argued that the definition in the Bill may not recognise the reality of the situation, because payments may be made, for example, in the form of consumer goods, CDs or clothes, as well as cash and monetary instruments. I acknowledged her argument and I hope that she will agree that we have come back with a suitable amendment to replace the term "drug related cash" with the term "a drug related consideration". That is further defined by amendment No. 14 as

"a consideration of any description".

We had a discussion about "a consideration" in Committee as well, and I have sought and obtained definitive legal advice. We are clear that it would not be appropriate to define the term "consideration" in the Bill. I understand—as a lawyer, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will probably know better than me—that it is a standard legal term that should properly be interpreted by the courts. It is used without definition in much other legislation, such as the Criminal Law Act 1967, the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. To attempt to define "consideration" would call into question some of those other pieces of primary legislation.

Amendment No. 15 widens the definition of "a drug related consideration" to cover that which is intended to be used in connection with obtaining a controlled drug as well as that to be used to obtain a controlled drug. The detailed definition of cash in new section 4A(8) is therefore no longer required, and amendment No. 16 deletes it. The new section contains a power for the Secretary of State to make an order specifying monetary instruments that fall within the definition of cash. That is no longer needed, and amendment No. 18 deletes it.

Amendment No. 13 and consequential amendments Nos. 14 and 15, 16 and 18 taken together have the effect of ensuring that all forms of payment or reward in exchange for drugs are covered by the clause. I commend the Government amendments to the House and I hope that on the basis of my explanation, Opposition Members will not press their amendments.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It is so good to see that the Minister has done her job properly on the first group of amendments on Report. The fact that, in order to do her job properly, she had to take more than two thirds of the entire time available for that group shows that she has been badly let down by her Whips Office. Again, we have lost valuable time for discussing this Bill. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is laughing away. I in no way blame the Minister. She did a proper job on the first group. It is just that the Whips Office should have allowed more time and the Government should not be so keen to cut off debate in the House.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Shame on the hon. Lady.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It is a shame on the hon. Gentleman because I hope to leave at least some time for him to say a few words on the off-chance, but forgive me if I do not manage it.

I welcome the Government amendments. We spent a lot of time on this clause in Committee because the Government made it a flagship clause. The Minister has admitted that there were some problems with its drafting. I find that extraordinary because the provision to make an aggravated offence for dealing around schools has been on the drawing board for some time. To have brought it to the House in such an imperfect form is extraordinary, but I admit that the amendments that she has tabled, which were stimulated by the debate on the Opposition Benches, will improve this part of the Bill no end.

I am particularly pleased that the Minister has caught up with the 21st century and realised that her original drafting, which included the exchange of bankers' drafts and bearer bonds and bearer shares by dealers in and around a school, is not today's reality. Her reality check has brought her to use the words "a drug related consideration". That is an excellent development that recognises that youngsters deal in and exchange many other things, from mobile phones and the new iPods, to cash or anything else that happens to be at hand. I must say that bearer bonds and bankers' drafts are used rarely.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I agree that their use is rare, but I remember that, in Committee, the hon. Lady thought that they were used at Cheltenham Ladies' College.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister ought to ask her colleague, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), about that. She was in my year at Cheltenham Ladies' College, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) was also at school with me. The Minister has two Cheltenham Ladies' College girls on her side of the House, whereas we have only one who has seen the light. We will exchange no further views on that.

I thank the Minister for her letter of 17 February dealing with some points raised in Committee, which I did not receive until yesterday morning. Despite those comments to me at that late stage and her comments at length just now, the clause is still imperfect and certainly not strong enough. I want to consider the amendments that I tabled, which would widen and strengthen the clause. I hope that I will be able to press the House to a Division when the time comes, particularly on amendment No. 5, if not also amendment No. 6, because nothing that the Minister has so far said has led me to believe that my amendments will do anything other than strengthen this part of the Bill, which is what we have been seeking to do.

Amendment No. 4 would widen the protection afforded to children where they congregate, or receive instruction or training. In her letter of 17 February concerning clause 1, the Minister said:

"I am advised that the clause does not include school premises which are in community use (eg a community church), even when the persons under the age of 18 are using the premises for such community purposes. This is because the term 'use' implies 'use as a school'. Children will be protected by this clause so long as they are using the school for some school-related purpose (eg., night class/drama rehearsal)."

That is not the comfort zone that I was seeking concerning the interpretation of this clause. It is my understanding that the Minister is actually saying that the aggravation factor will not apply if, for example, the children are at a school premises and attending a Sunday school.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. As I tried to explain earlier, I sought additional parliamentary counsel advice on this issue following that letter. I have subsequently made it clear that the provision would apply to the circumstances described earlier by one of her colleagues, but also to any activity taking place on school premises, whether or not it was organised by the school. Therefore, sports organised by other community-based clubs would be covered, as would a church service that is organised by a church, but which takes place within a school. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful for that reassurance and I was anticipating that the Minister might intervene on me. That goes to show that even the information that the Minister and her office provided to the Opposition so late in the day was inaccurate and no attempt was made to correct it in the ensuing period. Information has been introduced at this late stage and the Opposition were not notified; in fact, the material provided to us was obviously inaccurate. I am pleased that she has explained the situation, which may lead me to withdraw amendment No. 4. Although the amendment is not perfectly drafted, its purpose is to widen the spirit of the clause.

Examples have been one of the Minister's strong points and I would like to discuss another example, which I hope that she will be able to tell me will definitely fall within the ambit of the Bill. For example, I want to be able to protect children when they are in a learning environment that is not necessarily on school premises. The Minister confirmed earlier that, if children from a school were playing sports at a private club, they would not be covered by the Bill. In my constituency, some children are taken out of school and put into a completely separate learning environment from which they can benefit.

I shall provide one example of a project designed to help children who are having a tough time in school and who respond to learning in a different way. I refer particularly to the "Skids" project in Buckinghamshire. It takes place away from school and the kids get to work with cars and bikes. The kids get to do what they want to do and they respond very well. I want some reassurance that, if anyone enters those premises to deal to those children, who may not have responded so well to normal school practices, the Bill will protect them. The Minister is looking puzzled—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

indicated dissent.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister could intervene to tell me that such children would be protected while attending such a project.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I outlined in my earlier contribution, there are a whole host of places to which young people could be defined as going on a regular basis. We have tried to be practical about the matter and we acknowledge that a school is a known building in the community. In my constituency, projects are going on in all sorts of places and, from the outside, no one would be any the wiser that child-related or young persons' learning activities were taking place. The Bill would not apply in those circumstances, but it would apply to pupil referral units, for example.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

That disappoints me. It may apply to pupil referral units, but when a group of vulnerable youngsters are in another learning environment outside the school—and they have been taken outside of school by the school itself—they will not be covered. Once again, the issues have not been thought through.

I want the Minister to respond, if she has time, to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 because they are designed to strengthen clause 1. She says that she wants to protect children and that clause 1 is all about protecting children, yet she places a whole series of provisos on that protection by using the phrase "at a relevant time" at the end of subsection (3) and by including in subsection (5), the phrases

"any time when a school is in use by persons under the age of 18"

and

"one hour before the start and one hour after the end of any such time".

That effectively removes from the Bill's protection the very premises that attract children out of school hours.

Many of our youngsters feel safe and secure in the environments in and around school premises. The Minister must know that, because she must have seen, as I have, children congregating in and around school premises long after the school has closed. That is the very time—late at night—when these children are most vulnerable and when the dealer will have greatest access to them. Dealers well know that children can be found in and around a set of premises with which they are familiar.

Why on earth is the Minister cutting off her nose to spite her face over this matter? It would be simple to remove the term "at a relevant time" and remove subsection (5) so that the provisions would apply in, around or in the vicinity of school premises. I cannot understand why she is resisting and providing the dealers with a loophole. The dealers will find it easy to set up their places around schools at 11 o'clock at night, after they have shut down at 8 pm, yet they will not qualify for additional sentencing on grounds of aggravation under clause 1.

I sincerely ask the Minister to reconsider my amendments Nos. 5 and 6, on which I hope we will be able to vote. The common sense of the amendments has attracted some interest from Labour Members because they realise that they are proposed sincerely to protect children in and around schools. I hope that, if we vote on the amendments, Labour Members will join us in the Lobby.

Amendment No. 3 attempts to define the term "vicinity", and I listened to what the Minister had to say. She quoted a lot from her 17 February letter, but I am no longer sure which parts of that letter are accurate, and about which she has sought further advice from parliamentary counsel. One part of the letter refers specifically to the matter addressed by amendment No. 3. She wrote:

"Where a school has residential accommodation which is not on the site where teaching takes place, then this will also be caught so long as it is not occupied solely as a dwelling by a person employed at the school."

Why is that exemption made? If a school's caretaker were a drug dealer and lived in a nearby dwelling provided by the school, the drug deals are more than likely to happen at that dwelling.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That would be another consideration for the courts to take into account. A caretaker in the circumstances that the hon. Lady describes—living near the school and known to the students—would be caught by the Bill, even if he dealt only to adults and not to young people. It has been brought to my attention that a caretaker's accommodation is not always near the school at which he works. As a result, the exposure of young people to the dwelling is not always apparent.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Once again, the Minister is not on the side of child protection but of the drug dealers. She has missed an opportunity with this clause. She has tried to be tough but she has failed. She is not tough geographically, because she has not sought to define what "vicinity" means in the context of a school—

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

No, as I have nearly finished and I want to leave a little time for my hon. Friend from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

The Minister has not drafted the clause widely as far as time is concerned. It is a half-hearted attempt to pay lip service to protecting children near schools. She has missed a great opportunity. I hope that we can divide on amendment No. 5, if not on amendment No. 6 as well.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I want to make a few brief remarks in the time that remains. Before that, I want to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about the timetabling of this part of our deliberations.

As the Minister fairly said, the bulk of the Government amendments in this group had their genesis in amendments tabled by me or the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in Committee. They are to be welcomed, and they greatly improve the Bill.

I have some concerns about Government amendment No. 17. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham explored that very briefly earlier, but there are a number of school hostel premises in my constituency that are at some distance from the schools that they serve. However, there is often accommodation—either on the premises, or in the grounds—for a teacher or a janitor, or someone of that sort.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That would be covered, because the boundary around the accommodation for young people is taken into account and if the accommodation is on that site, the provision would apply.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful for that clarification. The matter is not as cut and dried as the Minister is suggesting, but we can deal with that on another occasion.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 were tabled by Conservative Members and we anticipate a Division on them. They have some merit because the inclusion of a reference to time in addition to place leaves the provision open-ended and makes it difficult for citizens to regulate their conduct. For reasons other than those for which they were tabled, I would be minded to support the Conservatives if a Division were called.

I accept the Government's reasoning concerning the definition of "vicinity". It is sensible not to include a definition, but I wonder whether the third part of the Conservatives' amendment No. 3 relating to school transport is not consistent with the Government's approach, although not just vehicles, but many other modes of transport—

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 1, line 17, leave out "a school" and insert "school premises".—[Caroline Flint.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out "at a relevant time".—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Clause 20 — Anti-social behaviour orders: intervention Orders

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I understand the concerns that have been raised today but, overall, there has been a constructive approach to the Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee. I hope that I have responded positively in the areas that we have covered to many of the points made by hon. Members. I accept the role of scrutiny and the fact that other parties have something to offer, but it seems that, on the Bill's return to the House, the fact that I have listened is not welcomed. That is an important part of the process. The Bill is not, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) suggested, badly drafted, but sometimes things are left out of Bills or require clarification. We have certainly tried to deal with that. The Bill is not the only representation of the Government's efforts to tackle the problems of drug abuse in our communities.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That is a relief.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is important that we look at what we can do to augment our achievements. It is acknowledged that we have devolved considerable amounts of Government funding to the local level through drug action teams and by pooling different moneys available for prevention and treatment into a single young people's partnership fund. We have enhanced powers for testing on arrest and for mandatory assessment of people who have tested positive for class A drugs. Those are significant efforts to break the vicious circle in which people commit offences to feed their drug habit. I am pleased that the drug intervention programme is beginning to bite, as an increased number of people are taking up treatment—a process that the Bill's provisions will only enrich. There are 54 per cent. more people in treatment than there were a few years ago, which demonstrates how importantly we take this issue. Even though people think it is important, drug treatment is not always a popular issue. It takes many forms—it is sometimes available in residential centres, but it must be supported within the community as well. We are committed to supporting and enhancing such initiatives. We are also building capacity, as we have not ceased in our ambition to grow the necessary treatment for people, whatever their age.

We are also keen to educate young people about the dangers of drug abuse so that they do not become problematic drug misusers. I am not complacent, but I am pleased to say that the use of class A drugs, which increased enormously in the 1990s, has stabilised since 1998 after years of increased use by young people. There is evidence to suggest that there has even been a drop in the use of cannabis by young people. We are reducing the supply of drugs in the UK, and Operation Crackdown, which we announced today, is showing impressive results. It is implementing the powers that the Government introduced effectively to shut down premises that are used to encourage drug dealing and other activities that are a blight on communities. We have had tremendous success in the past year, with 150 crack houses shut down. Today we announced further results provided by the police forces engaged in this important work.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate the fact that in her busy day the Minister had time to issue the press release first thing this morning, but she did not have time to properly inform the Opposition about matters pertaining to the Bill. I question the success of the operation, as reported in the press release. It states that in the past four weeks the police seized 17 kg of heroin. I understand from the statistics that back in 1999 the police seized 1,500 kg of heroin—that is, 160 kg in a month, so 17 kg is not that good. Likewise, the press release states that in the past month 413 people were charged with supplying class A drugs. Back in 1998, 7,230 people were charged—a rate of 605 a month. I am not sure that the statistics are as wonderful as the Minister trumpets them to be.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall have to look at the hon. Lady's reference sources. We are dealing here not with the whole picture, but with the specific campaign to focus on houses involved with drugs. That is where the police focus has been for the past four weeks. The results that we outlined today are due to that intervention. They do not account for all the other activities in which the police are involved, including the middle market drug units and the seizures taking place in other areas. The press release is designed to let people know about a particular campaign, which has been welcomed by police forces as a focus for their attention. It has also led to the seizure of firearms found at the same locations.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister rightly pointed to the success of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which enables police forces in England and Wales to close down crack houses. May I draw to the hon. Lady's attention the fact that none of the 2003 Act extended to Northern Ireland? Will she give a commitment to look again at the needs of Northern Ireland in the absence of an Assembly? Given the activities of some bank robbers and those who are connected with them, it is highly unlikely that we will have our Assembly back in the near future. The issue is a serious one that must be dealt with by means of the legislation that goes through this House, so that commitment will be most welcome.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will consider what the hon. Lady said and discuss with my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and others the impact of the legislation on England and Wales and the effect of its not applying to Northern Ireland.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The statistics that I obtained are taken partly from the information in the drug seizure and offender statistics, United Kingdom, 2001 and 2002, second edition. It is a Home Office statistical bulletin. May I ask the Minister where table 2.3 is in the statistical bulletin? That is the table that enables us to see what the police seize and what Customs seize, and it is missing from the Home Office's paper. I thought it was a mistake in my downloading, but the specific amount of drugs that were seized by each of those two operations is in table 2.3, which has been dropped from the paper. Will the Minister undertake to write to me, and will she provide us with the full details of how Operation Crackdown compares with the previous five years?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. This is a Third Reading debate with a limited amount of time—[Interruption.] Order. With limited time and three long interventions such as those that we have had, we may not make progress as we should.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am mindful of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall look at Hansard and reflect on what the hon. Lady said.

The Bill builds on a strategy dealing with better enforcement in relation to supply and with how we might better engage young people, as well as get those who are addicted to drugs into treatment. That applies to those who are committing crimes, but our intervention in building capacity is also having a knock-on effect for those who are addicted to drugs but are not committing crimes. As I said, the Bill builds on that strategy.

Several measures in parts 1 and 2 are a direct result of working with and listening to groups such as police forces from around the country and other organisations in respect of the need to have specific targeted powers to tackle the problems of street-level dealing of class A drugs. We had a wide-ranging discussion earlier about the vicinity of schools and part of a discussion about children being used as couriers, so I shall not expand any further on those issues.

We are also giving police and courts additional powers to tackle drug dealers who swallow drugs or conceal them about their bodies, and we believe that the measures in the Bill will send a clear message to street-level drug dealers that it will be more difficult to hide evidence and escape prosecution where they have committed an offence.

On the powers for testing on arrest and follow-up assessment, we have again learned from experience. While we were making inroads with those whom we were testing on charge, who would perhaps present themselves for voluntary assessment if they were found class A positive as a result of such a test, we felt that we wanted to tighten that procedure. That is why we believe that testing on arrest is important and that making the assessment following a positive test should be mandatory, rather than voluntary. Of course, that links to the other measures that we already have on bail conditions at court, as well as other provisions in the Bill allowing for police bail to take into account someone's co-operation in dealing with their drug misuse problem.

Since antisocial behaviours were introduced, they have become a vital tool. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is obviously aware of that, and she would like to see them extended to Northern Ireland. The new civil intervention order that we are seeking to introduce will allow us to continue tackling the underlying causes of a person's antisocial behaviour. There is already provision for such an order to apply to young people with drugs problems who are involved in antisocial behaviour, but we felt that there was a gap in respect of some adults for whom there might be a problem.

Clarifying the status of fresh magic mushrooms is an issue that we debated in Committee. The issue is not defining magic mushrooms as a harmful drug. They are a harmful and hallucinogenic drug on a par with LSD, but what we are trying to do is close a gap whereby some 400 outlets have developed—I was going to say mushroomed—in the past year. The outlets are selling the mushrooms fresh and not in a prepared state, thereby exploiting a loophole in the current law. We are closing down that avenue as well.

The Bill adds to what we are already achieving. It is based on gaps that people have identified and experience of implementation of the law as it stands. I hope that it sends a strong message that illegal drugs are a blight on our communities and that they have to be tackled not only on an international and national level, but also on a community level. I believe that we now have the framework in place to tackle the issue on all fronts. I was involved with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. The fact that the serious organised crime agency will have as its priorities drug and immigration crime will be an important contribution to this area, and through the Bill before us, we can further seek to deal with these problems in a real, practical and meaningful way.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I say to the Minister that I am not being curmudgeonly. I acknowledge that she has listened to what the Opposition had to say. As I said, we conducted the passage of the Bill in relative harmony until the past few hours, but we have rehearsed in the Chamber the problems with her administrative arrangements, and I am sure that she will try in future to do better.

We have not however had time to discuss the Bill. For example, we have not had the opportunity today to discuss new clause 1, an important clause which indicates that the Conservative party would reclassify cannabis. I felt that it was important to discuss that subject in the context of the Bill, not least because yesterday's Daily Mail trumpeted the success of the Government's drugs policy in an article entitled, "Cannabis sales bonanza":

"The supply of cannabis has turned into a boom industry since the drug was downgraded, it was claimed yesterday. Police have made several large seizures in the South East since it was reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in January last year. They believe criminals are trafficking huge quantities because they think law enforcement agencies 'have taken their eye off the ball'. Officers have been under orders to stop arresting adults for possessing cannabis, except in exceptional circumstances, and to let them off with a warning and confiscation instead. The idea was to give police more time to tackle the trade in hard drugs such as heroin. But Scotland Yard chiefs believe the switch has sent out the 'wrong message' to criminal gangs, who are now focusing their attention on the softer drug. 'One of the biggest growth areas in the shifting of organised crime towards cannabis importation,' a senior Yard source said yesterday." [Interruption.]

The fact that the Whip is scoffing from the Front Bench shows that he does not think that the use of cannabis is a problem, which reflects the Government's attitude. Fortunately, that is not the Conservative party's attitude towards cannabis, and it is a shame that we were not able to have the discussion that we deserved on the Bill.

Few problems facing our society today cause so much crime, misery, pain and the squandering of human talent as drug abuse and addiction, and one has only to examine the statistics for the prison population to see the evidence. More than 55 per cent. of convicted prisoners report committing offences connected with their drug taking, with the need for money to buy drugs being the most commonly cited factor. Shoplifting, burglary, vehicle crime and theft are all linked to drug misuse. Think of all the victims who are affected by drugs.

At the same time, the number of people imprisoned for drugs offences is high and growing. Back in 1993, drugs offences accounted for 7 per cent. of male and 27 per cent. of female sentenced prisoners. By 2002, the percentages had grown to 16 per cent. of male and 40 per cent. of female sentenced prisoners. The criminal possession and use of firearms is rising, particularly in urban areas, and the price of drugs has dropped alarmingly. Drug trafficking continues to be highly profitable and attracts more and more recruits from street dealing to manufacturing and importing.

The Government have offered up a very small and very thin Drugs Bill in the shadow of a general election. Why has it taken so long to introduce this particular Bill? I have a BBC news item from 21 May 2002, which stated:

"Drug dealers who target children at the school gate could face longer jail sentences under a new law being considered by the government."

At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was shadow Education Secretary. He said that

"the government had clearly not thought the matter through and accused ministers of operating 'a media-driven stunt'"

Today, we can see that it was a media-driven stunt, because the Government have had two years in which to introduce the provisions around schools. They did not choose to do so, and now they have introduced the Bill, they have not offered the full protection that we expect.

I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary would not accept amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I do not want to rehearse the arguments, but it is obvious that she is leaving loopholes in the measure. She has not drawn up clause 1 in a way that will protect our children adequately.

The Bill is a missed opportunity. It has missed the opportunity to protect children wherever they congregate. The Under-Secretary has not protected even the most obvious places. On Report, she suggested that even a project to which schoolchildren are sent because they do not respond to teaching in school will fall outside the provisions. That means that vulnerable children will not be adequately protected in an educational environment. She has failed to grasp the opportunity to protect even youth clubs or other places where young people gather.

The hon. Lady has failed to reclassify cannabis. She has spent a lot of money on telling people that it remains illegal, but the latest reports make it clear that cannabis use and importation are growing. She failed to reclassify even khat, which was raised in Committee.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Lady will remember that I said in Committee that I was concerned about khat and that I would refer the matter to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. We have two outstanding Home Office research projects that are examining khat. We are therefore mindful of the issue and I am asking the ACMD to consider khat as a classified drug.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I agree that the Under-Secretary said that she would consider the matter, but it is a little late. Introducing a Drugs Bill now and pushing it through so rapidly without taking advice on one of most obvious matters that was raised on Second Reading is unforgivable. Failing to consider reclassifying khat constitutes another missed opportunity.

The Under-Secretary has missed the opportunity to increase residential rehabilitation and to encourage schools such as the Abbey school to introduce random drug testing.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Lady accuses me of missing an opportunity to increase the provision of residential rehabilitation as a form of treatment. We are putting a record amount of money into communities to develop drug treatment, which includes residential treatment. The issue is about not including a provision to increase residential treatment on the face of the Bill, but putting in the money to invest in the treatment so that it can be provided. The National Treatment Agency is considering that, too. Provision exists and we are increasing capacity. That does involves not a Bill but the Government's commitment to provide the resources to make things happen.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Under-Secretary's words are hollow and I shall set out our intentions shortly. There has been a missed opportunity and her comments are mere bluff and sentences thrown out purely for media benefit, not long-term benefit.

The Under-Secretary has missed the opportunity to set mandatory sentences for repeat drug offences by drug dealers. She has missed the opportunity to provide for automatic custodial sentences for those who deal to children. She has missed the opportunity to convince me that she has more plans for increasing the training and supply of suitably qualified drugs workers and assessors. We discussed that in Committee, and nothing she said will increase the qualifications and standards of people who treat drug users.

The Government should make a clear statement about drugs. They should have welcomed my suggestions for strengthening the Bill's provisions for dealing with drugs. The Government's message has failed the clarity test on many occasions and it lacks urgency. If I am in charge of drugs policy after the election, we will convey a clear message to people about drugs. We will reclassify cannabis to end Labour's confusion and send a clear message that the drug is dangerous.We will ensure that the message gets across that drugs are dangerous and illegal, that they ruin lives and that people should not take them. We will also ensure that random drug testing is supported for schools, and we will certainly allow head teachers to have the final say on expulsions. We will also provide the resources to enable drug addicts who wish to get off drugs to take up residential rehabilitation, by massively expanding the number of places available above and beyond the 2,500 that exist at present.

The Conservative party will make other announcements on these issues. In the meantime, I hope that when the Bill reaches the Lords, they will be able to strengthen its provisions and perhaps add to them. Rather than being a comprehensive attempt to tackle a growing problem, this is a Bill that has been slipped in to try to boost the illusion that the Government are taking action when, in fact, very little has occurred. It is basically a cynical electioneering platform. After the election, however, we will have the opportunity to put forward a well thought through, resourced programme of action to help the addicts who wish to reform, to punish the dealers who peddle misery and death, and to protect our children. That day cannot come soon enough.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the Bill represented a missed opportunity. In many ways, I agree with her. It will surprise few people, however, to learn that the opportunities that I would have wished the Government to seize are rather different from the ones identified by the hon. Lady as having been missed.

I have found working on the Bill to be both an enjoyable and a frustrating experience. Our proceedings in Committee were remarkably good-natured and constructive, and in that regard, I give due credit to the Minister and to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). I enjoyed working with them both, and we were able to improve the Bill. Credit for that must also go to those on the Conservative Front Bench. I found the experience frustrating, however, because we could have done so much more. This is a remarkably modest proposal, in the Swiftian sense of the term, and in some ways it risks doing damage, despite the good intentions behind it.

Controlled drugs blight many of our communities. In my professional experience, I am aware of a number of fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland where such drugs have taken hold and destroyed otherwise highly coherent and strong communities. In my constituency, we often congratulate ourselves on our good quality of life, but we have also seen the growing presence of drugs. I am reassured to some extent, however, when I see a determination to tackle the problem, particularly in Shetland. I am thinking particularly of the dogs against drugs project, in which local people have rallied against the growing threat of class A drugs in their midst. I want to place on record, however, that it is unfortunate that some of the funding that could be made available to such projects has not been made available—in this case, from the Scottish Executive, who have been asked, and have hitherto refused, to make funds available from the money recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

You are part of the Scottish Executive.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman says that we are part of the Scottish Executive. He is very perceptive: I have never sought to deny that. However, the Liberal Democrats do not have to pretend that everything that we do in Government is correct. There is occasionally scope for improvement, and I would commend such an approach to Back-Bench Labour MPs, if any were in the Chamber to hear it.

Others have observed that this is an election Bill. I drew that inevitable conclusion on Second Reading, and I am afraid that everything I have seen subsequently has served only to reinforce that view. We need something rather more comprehensive. Every 10 years or so, we have a revision of the Road Traffic Acts, but it is now more than 30 years since we had a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and such a review is long overdue. The best illustration of that came from our discussions on classification, particularly of psilocybin, or magic mushrooms. If we are to classify drugs according to their harm, the classifications A, B and C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 manifestly are no longer sufficient.

Instead, the Government propose revisions of the 1971 Act in clauses 1, 2 and 21. I feel that clause 1 is an exercise in window dressing that does not achieve a great deal. I was reinforced in my view when I read The Press and Journal—a publication that I commend to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham as being infinitely superior to The Daily Telegraph—which reported on its front page of 29 January 2005, "Sheriff Lashes Out At Cannabis Confusion".

The Press and Journal reported a case from Aberdeen sheriff court, where the presiding sheriff was Sheriff Douglas Cusine, who in a previous incarnation as Professor Douglas Cusine was foolish enough to try to teach me conveyancing, but who otherwise is a man of blameless judgment and reputation. It will be of interest to the hon. Lady that the sheriff said that the reclassification of cannabis from B to C

"caused confusion in the minds of some".

He went on:

"I myself have some difficulty in understanding precisely what message it is the Government was intending to convey because cannabis is no less dangerous than it was before and the penalties for being involved in cannabis are exactly the same."

The case was brought against Craig Meldrum, who was sentenced to two months' detention in a young offenders institution for supplying cannabis—presumably cannabis resin—at Ellon academy in Aberdeenshire. Sheriff Cusine observed that drugs are the scourge of many schools and have to be tackled. He also said that supplying is serious, particularly when the "targets" are schoolchildren.

I bring that matter to the attention of the House because here we have an example of a sheriff applying the law as it stands and giving a more serious sentence—an aggravated sentence—where the supply in question concerns children in school. In other words, the law as it exists operates quite adequately to protect against the mischief that the Minister seeks to remedy. That is why I say that so much in Bill is in many ways merely window dressing.

I also have reservations about the operation of clause 2. Those were rehearsed on Second Reading and in Committee so I shall not go over them again, but I take issue with the claims made on behalf of the clause by the Minister in her letter to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, dated 22 February 2005, which has already been referred to. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 5, where the Minister states:

"Nonetheless our view is that this clause is a sensible step to take. It has advantages in that (a) not all defendants will be able to successfully"—

I apologise for the split infinitive, but I am quoting directly—

"raise the issue".

I am not quite sure why that is considered relevant. If it is perhaps being suggested that people who are not possessed of intent to supply will still be convicted I would have concerns.

The letter goes on to say that the clause

"will send out a clear message to dealers whose current methods may well be disrupted"—

I do not understand how the Government have reached that conclusion—

"and (c) it will improve consistency as to when those in possession with drugs are charged with intent to supply."

That in itself is absolutely fascinating, because, having been through all six Committee sittings and Second Reading, and having received more briefings on the Bill than I care to remember, I know that this is the first occasion on which anybody has suggested that there is a problem with clarity or consistency as to when

"those in possession with drugs are charged with intent to supply."

Again, we seem to have a solution in search of a problem.

The classification of magic mushrooms as a class A drug does not make ready sense to me. Putting them in class A, where they are on a parallel with heroin and cocaine, is difficult to justify and eloquently shows the inadequacy of the law as it stands.

As I have said, there is no doubt that drugs are a growing menace in our society. However, little that has been done in the 33 years since the enactment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 seems to have been particularly effective. Nothing seems to have stopped the growing menace that permeates so many parts of our society. Drugs dealing seems to be a many-headed hydra—for every dealer who is removed, another three take his or her place. Surely this is a time to stop, take proper stock and proper consideration, and to ask whether things might be done better were much of this consideration removed from the political forum, which, notwithstanding the good nature of these proceedings, has been shown to be wholly inadequate to the task.

I very much regret that not a lot in the Bill will make an awful lot of difference in the long run. I am not opposing the Bill; I just wish that the Government had introduced something that the House could have approved and supported rather more enthusiastically than I am able to do tonight.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

No doubt like many other Members, I represent a constituency in which heroin use is quite a serious problem in the villages of south Bedfordshire and in the former market towns. Tonight, however, I want to speak about cannabis. The Government's declassification of cannabis from class B to C, and the consequences of that, is one of the actions of their term in office about which I am most upset and angry.

About a year ago, I attended a mental health carers support group meeting in my constituency. About 12 people came to the meeting that evening, all of whom cared for sufferers of mental illness, mainly family members. Some eight or nine out of the 12, when they explained the situation of their son, daughter or partner, were absolutely clear that cannabis had been the cause of the mental illness from which they were suffering. I see the Minister shaking her head when I say that, but an increasing amount of research evidence also points to that, and the fact is that cannabis today is considerably stronger and more dangerous than that which was smoked many years ago.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman what evidence he has for his allegation that cannabis is stronger now than it was years ago? We take samples from police forces' seizures, which are examined by the Forensic Science Service and others, which show that the vast majority of cannabis used in this country is no stronger than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The Minister will be aware that there is research that disputes that. She will have seen such research reports, but it is not the time, with a few minutes remaining, to go into that in great detail. The fact is that there is a considerable body of opinion that believes that cannabis is stronger now and causes mental health problems. It worries me massively that the Minister sits there shaking her head and denying it. I wish that she could have come with me to that mental health carers support group meeting and met the families caring for the people concerned.

I shall tell the Minister about one more individual, and I would be grateful if she could listen to this story. A young man who came to see me with his mother about three weeks ago had been on the threshold of a very bright future—he had been the head boy of his school and all set for a career in the armed services—but he is now completely in the hands of my local community health trust. He has a very serious mental health problem, which is desperately sad for him and a great source of worry to his family, and which consumes a considerable amount of public funds. I spent half an hour with his mother two weeks ago, and she is adamant that what switched her son's future from being bright and promising was falling in with the wrong crowd and taking cannabis. That is the mother's view.

The Minister can sit there and shake her head, but I ask her to consider the feelings of the families involved. She asked me about the research evidence. According to reports I have seen, there is research evidence suggesting that cannabis is causing such problems. I know that many of her hon. Friends feel as strongly as I do about that.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Just about everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, including what he said about availability and increased strength, could equally be said of alcohol. Is he suggesting that we should prohibit alcohol?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

What I am saying is that the declassification from B to C has sent entirely the wrong message. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do—indeed, he said as much in his own speech, to which I listened with great interest, when he spoke about the sheriff in Aberdeen—that many people, including young people, who do not read the minutiae of the law gain the general impression from this place that cannabis is more generally acceptable than it has been.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Although cannabis has been reclassified, it is still an illegal drug, and our post-reclassification evaluation shows that 93 per cent. of young people recognise that. The hon. Gentleman should also acknowledge that there are different types of illegal drug. We have heroin, we have cocaine, we have amphetamines and we have cannabis. We should have a credible message for young people about recognising the different harms that those drugs cause—for they all cause harm—so that we can engage with them better about the consequences of using the various drugs, and explain how they can protect themselves. That is not to suggest that young people should take cannabis; they should not. We must send a credible message about the different drugs, however—and amphetamines, heroin and crack cocaine could also exacerbate a mental illness.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Of course I accept that neither the Minister nor any other Member present wants to encourage young people to have contact with cannabis or any other drug, but that is not the impression that most young people have.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimates that we spend between £2 billion and £5 billion a year on cannabis. According to European Union figures, one in 10 British adults is using cannabis. I think that that justifies the points that my hon. Friend is making.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am glad to hear that.

I think that there is now confusion in the minds of the police, a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). Let me give another example: that of a rather nasty divorce case, in which a departing father is turning a blind eye to his 17-year-old son's smoking of cannabis in the presence of his 11-year-old daughter. According to reports I have received, when the police have visited the premises they have been confused about exactly what powers they have and do not have as a result of the reclassification of cannabis. The Minister may be unhappy about that and say that it should not be the case, but it is a further example of what is happening on the ground.

On the basis of the evidence on mental illness and the reaction and attitude of the police, I must tell the Minister that there is great confusion about the issue, and that she really should think again.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In the short time that I have left, I want to correct a few points. A point was made about articles in the press about a drugs surge following the change in the law relating to cannabis. I assure the House that I do not know which senior member of the squad expressed those views; it would be nice if that person could be named. What I do know is that those views do not reflect the view of the Metropolitan police or, for that matter, that of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which supports the policy of reclassification of cannabis.Since reclassification, an additional 199,000 police hours have been saved. I am quite happy when I hear of attempts by the police to run operations to identify and catch people who are supplying huge volumes of cannabis—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, I will not.

I am happy about that because it shows that the police are diverting their activity to where it is most necessary: to the import and distribution of drugs—cannabis or any other drug. The people involved in the distribution of drugs deal not just with cannabis but with heroin and cocaine.

In relation to mental health, there is no proven causal link between cannabis and mental health problems, but we recognise that people who have an underlying mental health issue and use drugs can exacerbate their problems. That is why we are working with mental health organisations to deal with that.

The Bill is about providing more ways in which we can tackle the problems of drugs in our community through engaging with our young people by dealing with treatment and with supply. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.