HL Deb 12 June 1985 vol 464 cc1331-45

9.19 p.m.

Lord Rodney

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill was to have been introduced by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, but on the advice of his doctor he was persuaded not to undertake this task. In fact, he was going to speak this evening but, unfortunately, due to the lateness of the hour he has had to leave your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will join with me in welcoming him back. We are pleased to note that he is now recovering from his illness.

My noble friend paid me the compliment of asking me to stand in for him, which I agreed to do with some diffidence because I cannot hope to attain the same heights of eloquence and because this is my first experience of shepherding a Bill through your Lordships' House. However, having said that, I recommend the Bill wholeheartedly and I hope that your Lordships will show the same enthusiasm for it as was shown in another place, where it went through virtually on the nod.

The Bill is mercifully short and to the point, its objective being to increase the penalty for large-scale trafficking in Class A drugs from a maximum of 14 years to life imprisonment. It may be asked why this measure is necessary. I shall not detain your Lordships with long descriptions of the moral degradation and in some cases death which result from drug abuse and which ultimately are the responsibility of the major Mafia-like traffickers. The media have recently given those matters ample coverage, and I commend them for that.

However, if I may, I shall make a few remarks to put the situation in perspective without going into a long list of statistics, most of which are difficult to substantiate. It is beyond doubt that the misuse of drugs in this country is spreading at an alarming rate. The Metropolitan Police estimate that 23 per cent. of their targeted criminals are now involved with hard drugs. Ten years ago those people would have stuck to armed robbery, but now they find dealing in heroin and cocaine far more lucrative. The Bill is concerned with that category of criminal.

Heroin knows no geographical, class or age boundaries. With the increasing availability of those drugs the salesmen are ever looking for new markets. We have seen the spread out of London and the large metropolitan areas into the country. Now we are witnessing the spread down the age scale to the 12-and 14 year-olds. It is all to easy to give those youngsters free samples until they are hooked, and then these people have more regular clients on their books who almost inevitably will have to resort to crime to satisfy their needs.

The police and customs authorities are to be congratulated on the increasing quantities of drugs that they are intercepting, but that should not lull us into a state of complacency. All the indications are that the quantities available on the streets are increasing even faster. That is confirmed by the fact that the price of heroin has hardly increased at all recently.

There is another disturbing aspect, and that is the mounting risk of a flood of cocaine into this country. Our information is that the American market is saturated and the suppliers, mostly Colombians, are turning their attention to Europe and in particular to Britain. It is incontestable that those parasites of society need to be hit and hit hard. I put them in the same category as murderers and rapists, and when they are apprehended their sentences should be just as severe.

I must stress that this Bill is not aimed at the smalltime pushers who trade in drugs to support their own afflictions. That is not to say that I condone their activities, although I sometimes pity them. No; this Bill is intended for the cold-blooded traders in human misery. Regrettably, too few of them are caught but those who are should expect no leniency.

Hopefully this increased maximum sentence will act as a deterrent to at least some. At the present time, major traffickers can expect to be out in a few years to enjoy their illegal gains, far from the misery that they have created. With a life sentence, I would hope that a judge would recommend that those convicted would serve a minimum of, say, 15 to 20 years. I understand that a life sentence is literally with one for life, because if a prisoner is eventually released he is only let out on licence, which can at any time be revoked by the courts.

My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice set out some guidelines in 1982 for minimum sentences relative to the value of drugs apprehended. It has also been recommended that anyone sentenced to more than five years should not be considered for parole. When this Bill becomes law, which I confidently hope it will shortly, I hope that my noble and learned friend will issue new guidelines. However, I wonder—

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. The Lord Chief Justice is of course a noble and learned friend of all of us, but he sits, as is appropriate, on the Cross-Benches.

Lord Rodney

My Lords, I apologise. I thank the noble Lord. However, I wonder whether a different criterion could be found because I am not sure that the value of the catch always relates to the size of the fish.

There is no one simple solution to this problem. This Bill is only one cog in the wheel of the campaign to deter criminals who think that drug trafficking is an easy ride to satisfy their greed. I think no one believes that heavier sentences on their own will achieve a significant reduction in this despicable trade. First of all, we have to catch more of the ringleaders, which means greater resources for police and customs authorities. Here, perhaps I may say that I strongly recommend the suggestion that the Inland Revenue should be involved in this hunt. Often the first clue comes when large sums of money are perceived in circulation, sometimes in areas quite unrelated to the drug scene. In short, it means that a laundering operation is in progress.

Then we have to ensure that these people, once apprehended, are put out of circulation for a long time, which of course is the object of this Bill; and, finally, that their ill-gotten gains are confiscated so that neither they nor their associates will ever he able to enjoy them.

I am sure your Lordships will all join in welcoming Her Majesty's Government's declared intention shortly to introduce legislation to enable the assets of major drug traffickers to be sequestrated. This will be another cog in the wheel towards a viable deterrent. Hopefully we may hear something on this matter from my noble friend the Minister when she replies. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I hope this Bill will meet with support from all sides of your Lordships' House and that very shortly it will appear on the statute book. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rodney.)

9.29 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, on introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House. I have a horror of hard drugs. When the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, introduced a debate, I admitted that unfortunately I am a smoker. Some people say that this is a drug, which it probably is; and I am addicted to it. Hard drugs in Class A, about which we are talking here, terrify me. I am very lucky in that I have a son of 28 and a daughter of 26, and various nephews and nieces, who have all grown up without any of them ever being affected or touched by this awful trade. Today I have a nine-year-old god-daughter called Amber. I have my fingers crossed that she will grow up without ever having to know this frightful trade.

I welcome the Bill, but two aspects of it worry me. First, the maximum sentence is increased from 14 years to life. I was speaking today with the chief crime reporter of the Star. He confirmed my fear that a person given life will probably be out after 10 years. I may have misread the Bill. But while a person given 14 years in the old days before the Bill was in for 14 years, a person given life can be out after 10 years unless life actually means life.

This is a very short Bill. I have read it through. I may be wrong, but I should like to think that somewhere along the line it will be possible for a judge to say to those found guilty of trading in class A drugs that when they are given life, it means just that—life.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodney, also mentioned sequestration. It is one of those words I cannot pronounce. I wrote it down, hoping that I would get it right. I did almost get it right. It seems to me that a dealer in drugs makes his money and puts it in his wife's name or in bank deposits. I should like to see any money shown to have come from drugs, no matter whose name it is in—even if it is in a secret bank deposit—taken away. All right; the dealer in this trade serves his 10 years. His wife has still got the £2 million house and yacht. He has given away 10 years but then he can go back to enjoy what he has made. Those who deal in these hard drugs should never be allowed to enjoy anything ever again.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said that this is a crime as bad as murder and blackmail. It is far worse. If you kill someone, it might take a minute or a few seconds. If you supply a person with hard drugs, you lead that person down a path of degradation that can last six months or more. Again, as the noble Lord said, this is not happening to 20 year-olds and 30 year-olds; it is happening to 13 year-old, 14 year-old and 15 year-old children. We must stop this traffic. I support the Bill.

9.33 p.m.

Lord Denning

My Lords, I, too, warmly support the Bill. But it does not go very far. All that it does is to increase the possibility of imprisonment from 14 years to life. And, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has mentioned, life often does not mean life. It means 14 years, 10 years, or whatever it may be. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. It is a major step to deter, I hope, the major drug traffickers. That is the point that we must deal with. This is an evil and vicious trade carried on, often from overseas, by people who make large sums of money out of it. It is ruining many of our youngsters and causing infinite distress to their parents. The people we must get at are the great drug traffickers. Often they are not drug addicts themselves, but they are making money out of it; they are making millions of pounds, sums of astronomical proportions.

The representative of the Home Office said that they were considering better ways in which to deprive drug traffickers of the proceeds of their crime. He said that the Government were carrying out research into the matter and hoped that they could deal with it. I should like to suggest that our present law, if enforced by the Attorney-General, could do something at this very moment to deprive those drug traffickers of their enormous gains.

Two years ago there was a case in the Court of Appeal where an analogous question arose. A thief—someone reasonably believed to be a thief, but not charged at all—had stolen cheques and goods. He realised the moneys and put them into a bank account and from there into another bank account. It was the case of the Chief Constable of Kent v. V. and Another, in 1983 Queen's Bench 34. He brought proceedings for an injunction before the man was convicted at all to stop those moneys being dealt with—to freeze them, to sequester them well in advance before the criminal (if he was a criminal) could withdraw them from the bank. I venture to say that in that case, on an application by the police setting out their reasonable grounds, the High Court can grant an injunction to prevent the thief drawing on his own bank account and the bank from honouring his cheques, so that in due course the moneys can be restored to their true owner.

Therefore, the law in regard to those who are trafficking in stolen goods or their proceeds is such that before any conviction at all the chief constable can go to the court and get an injunction stopping the hank account from being operated upon. Why is not that same principle applicable to those who do not steal goods but who, by illegal and improper means, get the money out of the poor victims and put it into their huge bank accounts? The same principle applies and I see no reason at the moment why, without going into all the research in the Home Office, the Attorney-General, or the Chief Constable, when he realises that in that bank account there are largely the proceeds of drug trafficking, should not get an injunction then and there to stop the man from dealing with it.

If you wait until afterwards, if you wait until he is tried and convicted and a penalty imposed, he will have disposed of them all; he will have withdrawn them out of the bank and put them into a Swiss numbered account and so forth, so that you will never be able to trace them. However, by this machinery you can, in effect, sequester them: you can restrain him from dealing with them long before the man is convicted. Then, when you have them in hand, the penalty under the statute can be of any amount. In that way the courts can deprive the drug traffickers of their illicit, enormous and most wicked gains.

I suggest that that could be done under the present law. However, if I am wrong about that, please, please, let the Government act at once with a new Bill. You do not need to wait for much research: get on with it, so as to stop these drug traffickers from having the proceeds of their wicked crime. That is the additional remedy which I should like to see brought into play as soon as may be.

9.40 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, all Members from your Lordships' House and another place who belong to the All-Party Parliamentary Drug Misuse Committee share the concern about the horrendous problems which drug addiction brings. If this Bill, which my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has introduced so ably, is to help stop controlled drugs entering our country, I welcome it. Where there is money to be made people will seek to make it. Trafficking in drugs has proved to be very profitable. There seems to be a rising tide of deadly substances flooding into many countries. Behind these powerful organisations lie callous, greedy, and evil people who want to get rich on the weakness and misery of others. This problem has become one of world importance, and all nations need to unite under an international code of practice to try to close these floodgates.

I have just returned from abroad, and I heard Britain criticised for being a country of words rather than actions. There is no time to lose on action on drug traffickers. This Bill increases penalties for, production, supply and possession with intent to supply". If this Bill becomes law, criminals in this field will be at risk of imprisonment for life.

Nearly all responsible families throughout Britain with children growing up are now worried that their young people could become the casualties of this evil trade. As your Lordships will know, the chain of drug profiteers is organised with several different links in it, and catching the Mr. Bigs, who have a great deal to lose, seems to me to need the full co-operation of several countries. There are the financiers, the importers, the international distributors, the warehouse stock-keepers, and those at a low level on the streets very often selling to try to satisfy their own craving and risking destruction.

This Bill is aimed to get at the profiteers, and I hope that this is just what it will do. But there is concern from some people that more addicts at the street level may be sent to prison. I ask the Government whether prison is the correct place for them. With no treatment and rehabilitation facilities in prisons to cope with drug misuse does prison solve anything? It may well mean more drugs coming into our prisons.

We are dealing with a terrible plague in our society. Having visited some drug treatment centres, I have found the regime much tougher and more concentrated than prison life; very often the prisoners are shut up in their cells with a radio for 23 hours a day.

To help addicts kick the habit they have themselves to face up to the fact that they are addicted. If they go to prison, on discharge they generally go back on the streets and take drugs at the same level as when they went in, and 10 per cent. of addicts die within a week of release from prison. If they do not die, they continue the practice of pushing.

I should like to congratulate the Government on what they have done to help towards treatment and rehabilitation. But, like Oliver Twist, we have to ask for more. I expect that updated guidelines will be going to the judiciary, but what are they to do if there are not enough treatment and rehabilitation centres to which to send the addicts? As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, knows better than I, health authorities, with their ever-increasing demands—the most recent being the increase in nurses' pay—will not be able to provide the services needed to treat addicts unless they are given more money to do so from the Treasury.

The Home Office should look at this seriously. Disaster will result if this problem is not tackled and the buck is passed between Government departments. Perhaps the gains confiscated, as I hope they will be in the future from the traffickers, will go towards providing rehabilitation centres from the patients they have created. There is nothing more important in life than a healthy body and a healthy soul. Drug addiction is ruining many individuals and devasting families. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, I should like warmly to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rodney on the excellent way in which he has brought forward this Bill. I certainly welcome it very sincerely. I feel it should be stated that the Government are well aware of the escalating problem of drug addiction in this country. I was very pleased to see today that 50 extra specialist investigators have been taken on by the Customs and Excise. I hope that they will help to stop some of the drugs coming to this country.

Already the figures are high for drugs coming in the first quarter in 1985: the heroin seized was 32.4 kilograms with a street value of between £5 and £6 million. The cocaine seized was 13.4 kilograms with a street value between £2 million and £3 million. That is only for one quarter, therefore one can assume that for the rest of the year those figures might be quadrupled. That is a serious amount to be caught. Unfortunately, we have to realise that a great deal comes into this country that is not caught at the source of entry. We are also told that the number of new addicts—new ones—rose by 28 per cent. last year. Those are the people who have been put onto the lists. That is very serious, but it is only the tip of the iceberg as we all know.

I had the privilege of serving on the parole board for four years; with the statutory limit, I came off three years ago when the drug situation was beginning to escalate. We had brought before us those who wished for parole. I was amazed that the sentences they had been given for drug trafficking—these were the people who had brought the drugs into this country on a small scale—varied between five and seven years although 14 years was the maximum. These traffickers were unfortunately sometimes released after serving one-third of their sentences. Those of us who at this late hour can do any arithmetic will realise that those who took that risk by bringing drugs into this country realised that the risk was well taken when they had such very short sentences to serve. For those who had salted away vast sums of money as a result of trafficking in drugs, as other noble Lords have said, the prison sentences were a small price to pay. I sincerely hope that, as other speakers have said, the profits that they made will be sequestrated.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the life prisoners, I can tell him, having been on the parole board, that with all life prisoners their sentence is reviewed and decided upon by the Home Secretary in person. It goes from the local review committee to the parole board, from the parole board to the Home Secretary, and in the case of a life prisoner, whether he is serving life for murder, rape or whatever the offence, it always goes to the Home Secretary for his personal decision. The sentence of life imprisonment is surely vital not only as a punishment for purveying evil substances to, all too frequently, young people but also as a deterrent. In my view, it is also right that those who get rich by harming the lives of others should lose their liberty for the remainder of their lives. I wish success and a rapid passage to this Bill.

9.50 p.m.

Lord Shaughnessy

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, for his able introduction of this small but important Bill. The noble Lord, quite properly, avoided using statistics, but there is one figure I should like to relate to your Lordships: that is, that from 1971 to 1975, according to the figures of the Home Office, of the registered new addicts in each year—and it is well known that the registered addicts represent only a fraction of the actual numbers of drug addicts in the country—between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. were heroin addicts. It is interesting to note that yesterday the Home Secretary in his announcement, which included the number of new addicts registered in 1984, which was 5,370, made known that 90 per cent. of the new addicts were heroin addicts. I think that indicates that the major menace, the number one menace, of heroin is increasing at exponential proportions.

We have heard in recent months, in an entirely different context, that the possession of a deterrent is an important weapon in combating, if you will, the menace of war. It seems to me that the drug trade in all its manifestations has to be regarded as that kind of menace. This Bill proposes a deterrent—albeit not as great a deterrent as may be possible at a later stage, but at least an important deterrent—against the major drug traffickers. As such I hope, indeed, I am sure, that your Lordships will consider it a welcome measure. Those who have experienced directly or indirectly the horrifying effects and the proportions of this tragedy are aware, I think, that the major drug trafficker is the enemy within. He and his kind represent a fifth column pointed at the core of our society. The provisions of this Bill, going only so far as they do (and hopefully to be followed by further deterrents), are wholly welcome, and I support the Second Reading.

Lord McNair

My Lords, may I make two quick points? First, the changes in the law suggested by this Bill have also been part of the official policy of the party to which I have belonged for some years. We therefore congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, and I think I can guarantee that my noble friends will do nothing to impede the passage of this Bill.

A second point is that there is perhaps a very slight danger that by passing this Bill we may feel that we have done more than we have in fact done, because this is not really a domestic British problem: it is a global, international, perhaps supranational problem. The only way to tackle it finally is right back down the line to the areas in which the stuff is produced. I hope we shall not lose sight of that. I am sure that the Government are fully aware of it.

9.57 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, from these Benches may I say at once how much we appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, took over this task from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft? We join with him in wishing Lord Mancroft a speedy and complete recovery, and we would say to Lord Mancroft that he had a very worthy substitute in the way this Bill was moved on Second Reading.

May I also say from these Benches that I know of no words in the English language to describe the people who are responsible at the top for this evil traffic? I know of no adjective which can describe all our horror of the sort of people that they must be. From my point of view may I say there is no punishment too severe for the people who are at the top? I have emphasised "at the top" because that is what the Bill is directed to. As other people have indicated, the real situation is, if you look at our police courts and at our other criminal courts, that those who appear in the dock are as a rule miserable traffickers who have been paid a sum of money, be it £100 or £200, to take a chance on getting certain substances through. Many are themselves drug addicts. I endorse completely the purpose of the Bill and will not challenge one single word of it, but I echo the words of other noble Lords who have spoken. Do not let us think that by passing this measure what we are really doing is to hit at the people we in fact want to hit at.

One of the things that was said in the course of this debate—and I welcomed it—was the announcement that the Customs service has been strengthened by way of the number of investigators to see that cocaine and heroin do not get into this country. Of course, the main features of the Class A drugs are cocaine and heroin hitting at our young people, as it has been said, in such a disastrous way. I remember there was an educational supplement in The Times last year—I believe it was quoted in another place—in which one of the leading social workers in Merseyside told miserable stories of 10-year-olds who were being sold these packets but who had been given it free first of all for two or three times so as to get those poor little kids addicted. Then they were told, "For more you have to pay money".

As I have said, we are here dealing with people who are not the people who try to get the goods through Customs. They are sitting in their palatial homes or on their yachts, or wherever. They do not take any chances. What really worries me is that there was a report today from the Police Commissioner for the Metropolis—I heard this on the news this evening—telling the Home Secretary that the economical exigencies affecting his force, and the manpower problems, are such that the Metropolitan Police Force cannot properly carry out its duties in regard to the investigation of crime and to bringing before the criminal courts those people who ought to be there. It was a very worrying report.

I remembered, in that context, what was said by the honourable Member for Delyn, who also deserves our thanks for piloting this Bill through another place. He there recorded that the Metropolitan Police estimate that 23 per cent. of targeted criminals in their area are now involved in hard drugs. He said that they have turned from ordinary burglary, which presumably does not yield such a wonderful return, to the trade (however dastardly it may be) that yields a very substantial return.

Quite apart from the international point absolutely properly made by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and others, and the international dimensions of this thing, how are we to get the people we want in our own metropolitan area, quite apart from Merseyside and the rest, before the court? How are we to get the people we want before the court in order that sentences can be imposed unless there is an adequate Metropolitan Police Force and unless there are other adequate police forces in this country to enable this investigation to be carried out and for the personnel to be given this priority work to carry out this very necessary task?

My only other quick point is this. Reference has been made to the Government's projected legislation, which we hope will come before us next Session. I do not want any words of criticism to come into this debate at all but it is right to remember that this was announced as the Government's intention something like 18 to 20 months ago. It deserves priority: that is the moderate language that I am going to use. I shall use the, I hope constructive language of saying that it needs priority now, instead of reflecting upon the past.

There again, I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to consider that it is just not a question, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—who I miss from his place at this moment when I am referring to him—of getting injunctions and, it is hoped, of the parties concerned knowing where the bank accounts are of the man who has not even appeared before a criminal court. It is not only a question of sequestration of assets; it is a question of discovering with people of this wily nature what the assets are and of having the power—this is the point I really want to make—to investigate bank accounts.

I mention that because in the United States of America—and I remember reading an article reporting on this in the Sunday press, although I have forgotten which journal it was—great anxiety is expressed by those who are concerned about this matter. In the United States it is also a very great problem. It is said that much of the moneys being earned by people in the United States who are engaged in this horrid trade finds its way into Jersey bank accounts, and this article asked, though I do not know whether any official request has been made, that assistance should be given for the investigation of those bank accounts in conjunction with the authorities in the United States. We shall want very definite practical powers in this Bill, which we expect to hear about from the noble Lord the Minister. However, so far as that is concerned, I say to the noble Lord who has so eloquently and clearly introduced the Bill: "Bless you for bringing it to this House and may it go through as fast as possible".

10.5 p.m.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking most sincerely my noble friend Lord Rodney for introducing this very important Bill and for putting the case for it so clearly and forcefully. Perhaps I may also say how disappointed we are that my noble friend Lord Mancroft is not able to be here this evening, as I know he had hoped to be.

We all share the disgust at the activities of the evil people who traffic in dangerous drugs, who profit from misery and who have been called, I think appropriately, merchants of death. In its recent interim report in another place on the misuse of hard drugs, the Home Affairs Committee said: The Americans believe, and we agree, that the ruthlessness of the big drug dealers must be met by equally ruthless penalties once they are caught, tried and convicted. These penalties must be of such a character that no major drug dealer will risk taking on the United Kingdom market because of the penalties that will be imposed. We recommend that the penalties for systematic dealing in hard drugs should be no less than the penalty for premeditated murder". The Government entirely agree, and that is why we concluded and announced last October that nothing less than imprisonment for life was fitting as a maximum penalty for traffickers in hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Therefore, when my honourable friend Mr. Keith Raffan announced his intention, following his success in the Private Members' ballot last November, of introducing a Bill to give effect to this the Government welcomed his initiative and offered him assistance, and I am glad to say that this Bill has made rapid progress.

My noble friend Lord Rodney made the valid point that it is important to differentiate between those who handle drugs to satisfy their own needs and those who handle drugs for financial gain. Both, of course, commit offences, but the Misuse of Drugs Act already enables courts to take a more lenient view of the former than the latter and my noble friend's Bill rightly does not seek to penalise any further those who suffer from drug dependency. The provisions of this Bill are concerned with the big operators and would enable a much more pronounced distinction than can at present be made between the minor offender and the major criminal.

There are a large number of reasons why this Bill must become law. There is a widespread feeling that the crimes involved are so callous and so despicable that those responsible deserve drastic punishment. But there are also practical considerations. First, there is the deterrent effect. Illicit dealing in hard drugs is an enormously profitable business for major criminals and it is potentially more profitable with less perceived risk than, say, armed robbery. With millions of pounds at stake a drug trafficker may at present well be prepared to take a chance on spending 14 years at the most in prison. Although there has been a significant increase in the number of sentences of over seven years imposed on drug traffickers since the Lord Chief Justice issued guidelines in December 1982, and although the Home Secretary has introduced restrictions on parole for traffickers serving more than five years, the illegal drug trade is now flourishing as never before.

The statistics tell their own story. In 1980 HM Customs and the police seized about 40 kg. of heroin, but quantities seized since then have shot up each year, with around 300 kg. of heroin being seized last year. In the first five months of 1985 Customs seized 132 kg. of heroin, 28 kg. of cocaine and 6,000 kg. of cannabis, with a total estimated street value of some £38 million. This included the largest ever seizure of cocaine in one consignment—a consignment of some 14 kg. So the time has come to provide the courts with the power to pass truly credible deterrent sentences. An increase in the maximum to life imprisonment will enable them to impose much longer determinate sentences.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether life actually meant life and what might be the significance of the use of a life sentence. A person sentenced to life imprisonment can only be released on licence by the Home Secretary following a recommendation by the parole board. The actual time served will vary from case to case. It could literally mean life or it could result in imprisonment for a shorter period, but anyone released is liable to recall. Perhaps the key point about this aspect of the legislation is that the present absolute limit of 14 years will be replaced by an indeterminate upper limit which could in appropriate cases be very much longer than the present 14 years. Therefore it is hoped that the possibility of spending perhaps the greater part of his active life behind bars would make any drug dealer reassess the odds he is being offered before deciding whether or not to gamble again with his freedom.

The second practical effect of longer sentences is that major dealers will be kept out of circulation and therefore will be unable to continue their pernicious trade for a very long time. Just how serious are the results of their pernicious trade has been demonstrated by the fact that only yesterday the figures released for notification of new addicts in 1984 showed a 28 per cent. increase over the previous year. But the changes in the law must be seen as part of a wider Government strategy. This is being closely directed by an interdepartmental group of Ministers and senior officials under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. Mellor. The strategy ranges from measures to reduce the availability of drugs, through prevention and education campaigns, to improved services for the treatment and rehabilitation of those who have become dependent on drugs.

The noble Lord, Lord McNair, reminded us of the international context. We are playing a prominent part in promoting international co-operation through the United Nations and the Council of Europe. In May the Prime Minister launched a new initiative among the member states of the Bonn Economic Summit, resulting in the setting up of a group of experts from the seven member states who will be meeting shortly to examine further ways of strengthening international co-operation. We are also providing assistance both directly and through the United Nations to countries in which illicit drugs are produced. In particular, we are giving both practical and financial assistance to Pakistan, the source of much of the illicit heroin seized in this country.

In 1984 the Government pledged £1 million towards a United Nations programme of support for the Pakistan Government's efforts to eradicate opium poppy cultivation. This has been reinforced by the posting of a senior Customs officer to Karachi to improve operational intelligence about drug smuggling to the United Kingdom. This intelligence has proved extremely valuable and has led to some significant seizures of drugs and arrests of traffickers both in this country and elsewhere. Equally valuable work is also being done by a senior British police officer in the Netherlands, through which large quantities of drugs are trafficked.

In the United Kingdom itself, HM Customs has been adapting both operational and investigative methods to meet the threat in the most effective way possible. As my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve has reminded us only yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the appointment of 50 more specialist drugs investigators, which will mean that their numbers will have doubled since 1979. Greater emphasis is now being placed upon mobile and flexible Customs controls and on improved intelligence gathering with, for example, a new cocaine target team having been set up to target cocaine traffickers. Recent seizures of illicit drugs perhaps illustrate effectively the success of these measures and also the dedication and efficiency of members of our Customs service.

Perhaps I may briefly point to the work of our police service, which has a vital role to play in preventing drug trafficking and misuse. Every police force in England and Wales now has a specialised drug squad, and regional crime squads devote about half of their time to investigations into drug trafficking. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has designated the detection of drug offences as one of his six operational priorities for 1985. The Association of Chief Police Officers has established a working group to examine police structures and organisations in relation to drugs investigations. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking forward to receiving the report of that group within the next few weeks.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised a question concerning a report that has just been published, in which reference is made to certain cuts. I believe that the report to which he was referring is the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's annual report, which states that the Metropolitan Police are having to make some reductions to remain within their cash limits for the year 1985–86.

It may help if I were to stress that while some constraints on expenditure are necessary, if regrettable, in the present circumstances, the Metropolitan Police budget as such has not been cut. In fact, as I understand it, the budget for 1985–86 is 5 per cent. greater than in 1984–85. I cannot give any further information at the moment on the specific points raised by the noble Lord.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I appreciate that point and perhaps what I am going to say ought to be the subject of correpondence rather than an oral answer now. But is the noble Baroness able to indicate whether the constraints which the commissioner has mentioned will have some effect upon the announcement she has made concerning the priorities which are being set by the commissioner and other chief police officers in respect of the catching of drug traffickers and the establishment which she also announced, which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and other chief constables have?

If there is any difficulty at all in answering that question, because I have sprung it very largely on the Minister, then I shall understand completely. It is much better that we have a precise answer. If the noble Baroness can correspond with me, and follow the usual procedure of placing a copy of the letter in the Library, then I shall be content.

Baroness Cox

My Lord, I thank the noble Lord for suggesting that in the interests of accuracy—and I would put accuracy as the top priority in this matter—it will be best if I write to him and make a copy available for Members of your Lordships' House.

In concluding my reference to the work of the police, I should like to pay tribute to the dedicated work of the police service not just in bringing drug traffickers and pushers to justice but also in the valuable work that is being done in local communities, alongside statutory and voluntary bodies, in developing local responses to local drug misuse problems.

However, that is clearly of very little purpose, if, despite the valuable work of our Customs and police services in bringing drug traffickers to justice, the courts do not have adequate powers to deal with offenders. Herein lies the significance of this Bill, which will do so much to increase the powers available to the courts. As my noble friend Lord Rodney, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, have all indicated, further legislation is needed. I refer to the legislation to empower the courts to order the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking.

Such legislation will undoubtedly be more complex than the Bill now before us. Nevertheless, the Government are determined to make progress on this matter. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is currently considering exactly what additional powers are needed. I cannot say at this stage when an opportunity for such legislation will occur but I assure your Lordships that the Government attach a high degree of priority to this point.

I also noted the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, concerning the present powers available to the courts. I shall draw that point, together with that made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this context, to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also raised the question of money being laundered through the Channel Islands. I understand that this matter has been the subject of discussion with representatives of Jersey and Guernsey and that a Select Committee will be looking into this aspect.

I turn briefly to the demand for drugs as opposed to their supply. The Government are spending £2 million on an education and information campaign. This was launched in February with the issue of three advice leaflets to parents and professionals which have been very well received. Some 3 million leaflets have been issued so far. Also, last month saw the beginning of the second stage of the campaign with advertising on television and in the youth press in a direct approach to young people to discourage the misuse of drugs, particularly heroin.

Steps are also being taken in schools. Last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that under the education support grants arrangements £2 million will be made available in the coming year as well as a similar amount for 1987–88 to enable all local education authorities to appoint co-ordinators, to stimulate preventive and educational measures in their areas, and to provide advice, assistance and training for teachers, youth workers and other staff. Moreover, the DES is funding the production of teaching materials and will shortly be issuing a booklet of advice and information for teachers.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in terms of the alleviation of human suffering the Government are deeply concerned to ensure that adequate treatment and rehabilitation facilities are provided for existing misusers. This concern was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who also reminded us of the youthfulness of so many of those who suffer from the afflictions of drug misuse. In this context I point out that the DHSS is providing £11.5 million over three years for assistance to local treatment and rehabilitation projects; £2 million is being made available in Scotland, and £200,000 in Wales.

The money is being provided to enable new services to be set up more quickly than would otherwise be possible. In the long term, of course, it has to be for health and local authorities to respond to local needs. Therefore, in accordance with a DHSS circular issued last June, health authorities are preparing fully developed plans and long-term strategies to deal with the problem as part of their general strategic plans. A summary of health authorities' responses to the DHSS circular will be published shortly.

As I said earlier, my noble friend's Bill cannot be the complete answer to this country's drug problems. However, I am confident that it will, in combination with the other measures I have described, seriously challenge the image, and too often the reality, of drug dealing as a highly profitable enterprise. The Bill has had a speedy passage in another place. I should like to commend it to your Lordships and urge that it be given an equally speedy passage through its remaining stages in this House.

10.22 p.m.

Lord Rodney

My Lords, I start by expressing my appreciation for the kind words that all noble Lords have said about me. This is particularly appreciated when, as I said in my speech, it is my first experience of introducing a Bill on Second Reading, which can be quite awe-inspiring even with such a simple Bill as this. I expressed the hope that the Bill would be supported from all sides of the House and my hope has been completely fulfilled because very full support has been shown from all sides. I should like to say a few words of appreciation for the full support given to the Bill by my noble friend the Minister and Her Majesty's Government. I think all noble Lords welcome the assurance from my noble friend that there will be further legislation coming forward to perhaps put sharper teeth into a Bill which we all admit is very necessary but is only a small part of the total campaign.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.