MediaNews > Latest News > 12.01.05 > Committee Quotes

Transform briefing references from the Commons Standing Committee sessions
Jan 24th - Feb 3rd 2005

Note:Transform forwarded a briefing on the Drugs Bill to all members of the Standing Committee, and verbally briefed two committee members. Below are quotes from the Hansard text of the committee deliberations references to Transform. Some text from these exchanges is included but to read the full text and responses by the Minister please use the Hansard links provided with each quote. A couple of the quotes below reference the Transform briefing uncredited. The quotes are in chronological order and the clauses to which they refer are given.

Clause 1

Angela Watkinson (Con): Everybody in the Room has good intentions as regards doing whatever we can to protect young children from being exposed to drugs and tempted to try them, and all the proposals in the Bill have that aim in mind.

I am sure that all hon. Members have, like me, received lobby material from all sorts of interested groups. I was disappointed, however, by the briefing that I received from the Transform drug policy foundation, which claims that it would like the Bill to be scrapped and not to get on to the statute book. It claims:

''There has been an unacceptable lack of consultation with key stakeholders in the drugs field''.

I would submit that the key stakeholders are those children who have thus far managed to avoid being tempted into taking drugs. It is our duty to protect them from adding themselves to the ever-growing list of young people who are in need of treatment and who are heading towards a lifelong habit that will endanger their health, education and employment prospects.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/am/50127s02.htm

Alastair Carmichael (Lib Dem):
I do not think that the clause serves any useful purpose. It is an attempt to address a mischief that is less real than apparent. It comes under the heading of pre-election window-dressing.

----------

If the Minister could tell me that more and more people are using children in drug supply and that the courts do not deal with it, I might be sympathetic to the clause. However, she does not say that. All that she says is that more and more children are used in the course of drug supply. I have no reason to doubt her. That is probably a trend that has been continuing for several years now. However, information of that kind would be put before the court under existing law and would be reflected in the sentence. I shall deal with sentencing on a later amendment.

I am just waiting for the day when the Government present to the House a Bill to make murder illegal. We seem to spend so much time criminalising conduct that is already illegal. If there is a problem, it could probably have been dealt with by sentencing guidelines. I do not accept that there is a particular problem in sentencing. The Minister has not said that there is a sentencing problem. I do not see that the clause is necessary.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/am/50127s04.htm

Cheryl Gillan (Con - shadow home affairs):
If the hon. Gentleman indicated that he wanted to press amendment No. 9 to the vote at any stage, he would have support from my Benches. Does he agree that there is about the Bill a definite pre-election feeling of having been drafted to show that the Government are being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? In fact it is perhaps a little otiose, and if more time had been taken over it, it might have been found to be unnecessary.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/am/50127s05.htm

Mr. Carmichael:
The hon. Member for Upminster also said that she was disappointed by the Transform briefing. I am not quite clear whether it was the content or the lack of consultation that disappointed her. The lack of consultation rather adds to my impression that the Bill is not particularly well thought out.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/am/50127s05.htm

Mrs. Gillan:
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, after 'school', insert

'youth club, skate park, arcade or bowling alley'.

……

It is interesting to note that the briefings I have received on the subject do not all agree. For example, DrugScope pointed out one drawback in narrowing the provision. That organisation, like all of us, is becoming increasingly concerned about young people's use of drugs and therefore it does not oppose making it an aggravated offence to be found dealing near a school or using young people to run drugs. However, Drugscope thought the provision was symbolic, because some senior police officers have questioned whether there is a problem with dealers targeting schools, which is the argument of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. They believe that only very small-time dealers operate around schools, and young people come into contact with the dealers through older siblings and friends. That is another challenge to the Minister's logic which, although I do not agree with it, I would like her to answer.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation believes the benefits of the clause to be entirely political,

''pandering to popular fears, stoked by tabloid media coverage''.

It stated:

''The regulatory impact assessment notes the 'concern expressed' about this problem''—

the language that the Minister used—

''and the 'anecdotal evidence' to support it.''

Transform believes that the provision springs

''entirely from newspapers, notably . . . the News of the World (to whom Tony Blair gave an exclusive interview announcing random drug testing in schools (22.02.04))''.

It backs up its views with quotations from the 1998 report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

I disagree with the views expressed by Transform, but it is important that the Minister responds to them.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/am/50127s06.htm

John Mann:
The bowling alley in Bassetlaw is a carpet bowling alley. I have done some research and no children are known to have used it. I would not wish to give an average age, but it would certainly be a pensionable age. That would be an interesting aggravated supply. Perhaps it would involve amphetamines.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/am/50127s07.htm

Mrs. Gillan:
The clause, and the entire Bill, are both about sending out a message. The Minister said that we already have the aggravating factor for dealing to children. Why, therefore, do we need the clause at all? The truth of the matter is that the clause reflects the election timetable rather than being a serious piece of legislation. That is why we are trying to widen and strengthen it.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/am/50127s08.htm

Brian Iddon (Lab):
Secondly, the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill states:

''Courts currently have discretion to take into account any aggravating factors present when the offence is committed''.

I raised the need for a clause on aggravated offences on Second Reading. I have had an answer from the Minister informally, but perhaps, in view of that comment in the RIA, she will put on the record why she feels that clause 1 is necessary.

Thirdly, the Home Office's own calculations, on page 19 of the RIA, suggest that the net effect of the change will be to add an average of one month to an estimated 63 convictions each year for aggravated supply. I wonder whether the Minister will convince us of the need for the clause.

Clause 2

Caroline Flint (Home Office Minister):
I will look into that question and get back to the hon. Gentleman. If I cannot answer him this afternoon I will write to him with clarification.

The effect of the amendment would be to require a court, irrespective of considerable evidence raised to the contrary, to assume that a person intended to supply the drugs in his possession solely on the basis of the amount of drugs in question. The intention may be to create a reverse legal burden of proof, which would mean that the defendant would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not possess the drugs with intent to supply. We have taken advice on the matter and while we believe that we need to deal with loopholes that have been brought to our attention, the amendment would not be compatible with article 6(2) of the European convention on human rights, which enshrines the presumption of innocence.

Mrs. Gillan:
I tabled the amendment because a fear was triggered in my mind by a briefing sent to us by Transform. That organisation felt that much of the debate was theoretical because its legal advisers had advised that the ability of prosecutors to activate a presumption of guilt for intention to supply is severely limited by the wording and technical detail in the Bill, and specifically by new subsection (4B), which I am seeking to delete as the vehicle for this debate. The advisers said that the caveat in new subsection (4B) means that if evidence is adduced—they have gone to a dictionary for the meaning of adduced, which is:

''To mention a fact as a supporting reason, piece of evidence etc.''—

the presumption of guilt of intent to supply will not be triggered.

Defence lawyers will inevitably use the caveat, which was included to make the Bill compliant with human rights legislation, as the Minister confirmed, to avoid the presumption by producing evidence that could even be in the form of a simple testimony from the defendant. The effect will be that the measure, which appears to be tough and which I support, will rarely if ever be deployed. Will the Minister answer that specific point, because it was the point of anxiety raised in my mind when I originally read the briefing?

Caroline Flint:
My understanding is that although the clause will allow a defence for an individual against presumption of guilt, it goes further than we have ever gone in that the person will have to give good reason as to why the presumption should not apply. The prosecution will still have to make a case against the person in court. I would hope that, in most cases, the amount of drugs on a person would not be the only piece of evidence. Many such individuals are charged with possession, so other information and intelligence would form the case against them.

I shall look into what the hon. Lady said in more detail. She is quoting from the Transform briefing, which I do not have in front of me, but I will have a look at it and compare notes. I do not accept her amendment for the reasons that I have outlined. The measure strengthens the opportunities to charge people with intent to supply. That loophole has been brought to our attention, but when we have shared concerns with the police and others, they have been happy.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050127/pm/50127s06.htm

Mrs. Gillan:
There is no doubt that this proposed reversal of the evidential burden raises some legal problems. In article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 it is stated clearly:

''Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.''

If the clause is enacted, I need to make sure that its apparent reversal of the burden of proof—meaning that individuals are presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent—does not fall foul of that in any way.

I return to the term ''adduced'', which I know the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is particularly hung up on, as well as the phrase ''to raise an issue''. Again, we seem to be coming back to language. Yet that is, after all, what scrutiny of legislation is all about—to examine the language and to examine carefully whether it may work in the way we intend, or against us. I am not entirely unconvinced that the brief I have received from Transform is correct.

Clause 7

Mrs. Gillan:
I have been impressed by some of the organisations that have briefed us during the run-up to the Bill. I may not agree with them in many instances, but it is only fair that some of the points that they have raised with me should be raised with the Minister.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050201/pm/50201s05.htm

Mr. Alistair Carmichael:
Like the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I have had the benefit of briefings from various bodies, including DrugScope, to which she referred, and Transform. They have raised in my mind a number of issues on which I remain uneasy. In considering my position on the clause, I have had regard not just to the Bill but to the accompanying regulatory impact assessment. In a number of respects, the RIA is a little long on assertion and a little short on evidential support for those assertions.

We should all focus on maximising the number of people who enter and complete a treatment programme. That raises a fundamental question about the appropriateness of using coercion by the police at the point of arrest. We are dealing with people whose lives are among the most chaotic of those with which the police will deal, and people whose relationship with the police is among the poorest. I question whether it is appropriate for that to be their entry point into drugs treatment. I say that because the old adage is that one can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink. It seems that the Government's aim is to take the horse to water, and then to stuff its head in the river regardless of the consequences. I am not persuaded that they are going to achieve their ends.

The RIA makes an interesting assertion when it says that

''Refusal and breaches will be kept to a maximum of no more than 5 per cent. by ensuring that the police and the drug workers at all stages of the process are fully able to explain not only the requirements but more importantly the benefits of complying with the requirements, which are not onerous—''

That is certainly open to question—

''and putting in place processes, which will make it easier for the drug misuser to comply with the requirements.''

If we consider the life patterns that have brought many of the people to the point that we are considering, I have to suggest to the Minister that that assertion is optimistic in the extreme. The Transform briefing also questions the figure of 5 per cent. It points out, quite reasonably, that

''Experience with drug treatment and testing orders, court ordered treatment and treatment as a bail condition suggests that a substantial minority, often as high as 25 per cent. of arrestees, will choose to go to prison, where they can invariably maintain their drug habit, than enter coerced abstinence-based treatment. These will inevitably be the most problematic and chaotic users and the most prolific offenders. A recent NAO report on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders found that 80 per cent. of those on the Order had re-offended within 2 years.''

That is hardly a promising background for the measures that the Government seek to introduce.

A number of practical issues need to be addressed. I should like the Minister to go into some detail on the methodological and legal problems, and the history of false positives and false negatives, particularly in relation to class A drugs. The example that Transform cites is old, but one that I suspect remains true: that of those who test positive for class A because they have had something as innocent as a poppy seed bagel.

I would also be interested in the Minister's explanation for the basis on which she sees this as being a deterrent, either for drug use or drug-related offending. This has become a theme throughout the regulatory impact assessment, but its extent is not quantified anywhere in the assessment. What research has been, or will be, undertaken to establish the deterrent effect, if this is to come into law? The Home Office has never undertaken or presented any evidence to demonstrate the deterrent effect at the heart of this Bill. Such an effect seems to be marginal, and almost completely irrelevant to the chaotic lives of many drugs users. That is surely the point. The people with whom we are dealing will not see this in the same way that we, sitting here in this Committee Room, would see it. They are not impressed by the deterrent value in the way that we might be. Surely it is the offenders who have the most involved history, the most chaotic lives, who commit the most crime, that we ought to be striking at here. I suggest to the Minister that this clause quite simply fails to do that.

Finally, I come to a point made by Transform, which is slightly tangential to the clause, but fair none the less. To look at treatment purely in criminal justice terms, if we are to put treatment at the heart of our policy, we have to regard that as being a health issue as well. Why do we therefore have no measure at all of the health benefit to be had from this?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050201/pm/50201s05.htm

Caroline Flint:
We are not doing anything different, except to move the bar to arrest stage. Generally, there has been agreement with what we are doing at charge stage, so why are we moving it to arrest stage? Through testing on charge, we have had the opportunity to monitor and consider the practice and impact of arresting on charge.

First, it has proved the initial point about drugs being linked to certain groups of crime. Secondly, it has indicated what we already knew from other evidence—it has been backed up by the implementation of those procedures—that large numbers of people have a class A drugs problem as specified by statutory instrument under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend rightly said, DrugScope, Turning Point and Transform have pointed out that it is also to do with the process of engagement with individuals. I absolutely agree: testing is one part of the process, but the engagement of individuals is also important.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050201/pm/50201s06.htm

Clause 8

Mr. Carmichael:
I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 42, at end add—

'This power can only be exercised where the taking of an x-ray or the carrying out of an ultrasound scan has established the possibility of the person being detained having swallowed a substance reasonably believed to be controlled drugs.'.

We are back to our old friends the so-called swallowers. The clause will extend from 96 to 192 hours the period for which someone who has swallowed something believed to be a controlled substance can, on application, be remanded into police custody by a magistrate. My amendment provides that that power can be exercised only when the possibility of such a substance being present had been established by X-ray or ultrasound.

Eight days is a long time to hold someone in custody. Having given the police powers to order X-ray and ultrasound examinations, if we anticipate detention for a period of that nature that is the least that we should do. It is in everybody's interests for a person who has swallowed a substance to be scrutinised as closely as possible. The counterbalance to that is that we must first have established that there is a real prospect of there being something there. I deliberately worded the amendment to require the presence of ''controlled drugs'' rather than specifying class A or whatever. On reflection, I might have said ''a controlled drug'' rather than ''controlled drugs''. However, that is the sort of nicety that can be resolved if the Minister is minded to see the wisdom of the point.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050201/pm/50201s08.htm

Clause 9

Dr. Iddon:
the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill shows that 113,000 additional tests might be undertaken in police stations as a result of people being brought in. According to annexe A of the RIA, on page 35, some 35,000 of those tests will be positive

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050203/am/50203s04.htm

Clause 21 (Magic Mushrooms)

Dr. Iddon:
It is true that concern has been expressed about the clarity of the law, and I agree that it should be clearer, as do DrugScope and Turning Point—and, incidentally, Transform, which is against the prohibition of all drugs. Transform, of course, would not prohibit psilocin or psilocybin or the magic mushrooms themselves. It is significant that DrugScope and Turning Point both argue that they ought not to be class A drugs.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmstand/f/st050203/pm/50203s04.htm

Mr Carmichaeal:
We have all spoken about the range of briefings that we have received, and I have received as many as anybody else, but one of the most remarkable things has been the number of researchers from all parties who have sidled up to me at different points and expressed their concerns about the subject.

It was pointed out to me that the most widely identified alternative is Salvia divinorum, the leaves of which are smoked—it says here—and contain another powerful hallucinogen, salvinorin. Relatively little is known about the possible harms of salvinorin use, but it is widely available online and in what the briefing calls ''head shops'' in a variety of preparations. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation's briefing states:

''The spice nutmeg also is also psychoactive when consumed in larger quantities.''

That was news to me, and no doubt dishes will be proscribed from women's institutes the length and breadth of the country now that we have discovered the possible uses of nutmeg