HC Deb 23 October 1967 vol 751 cc1386-9

Lords Amendment No. 10: in page 4, line 22, at end insert new Clause "C":

C.—(1) In relation to offences in connection with a prohibition or restriction imposed by section 2, section 7 or section 10 of the principal Act (importation and exportation of certain drugs and other substances), being offences committed after the commencement of this Act, sections 45(1), 56(2) and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 shall have effect as if for the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years' there were substituted the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years'.

(2) In section 283(2)(a) of the said Act of 1952 (mode of trial of offences punishable with imprisonment for two years), after the words 'two years' there shall be inserted the words 'or more'.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Clause will increase from two years to 10 years the maximum period of imprisonment for smuggling drugs to which the principal Act refers. It is a necessary increase in penalty to deal with a gross anomaly.

The illegal possession of dangerous drugs is an offence punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, and it is an offence punishable by no more than two years' imprisonment under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. Usually the drug smuggler in the course of smuggling also commits and can be brought to trial for the offence of illegal possession, and when that occurs there is no great difficulty. But in some cases that is not so. In 1964, there were 17 cases before the courts in which it was not so; in 1965, there was one; in 1966, there were seven; and there have been two so far this year in which proceedings could be brought only under the 1952 Act.

The point which the House will also wish to bear in mind is that the anomaly can be particularly undesirable if the person brought before the courts is someone engaged in organising drug smuggling, but not actually doing it himself. Broadly speaking, the view which we will all take is that the person who deserves perhaps sympathy more than punishment is the addict who never makes any attempt to push. The person who deserves a mixture of the two is the person who has got himself addicted, but who also, for a variety of reasons, indulges in some drug pushing. The person who deserves no sympathy at all is the person not himself addicted to drugs, but who tries to get other people addicted, pushing without suffering from the disability, if it be disability, of addiction.

It is precisely this person under the law as it stands at present who can be left out and on whom the full force of the penalties would not fall. It is, therefore, very desirable to correct this anomaly, and the new Clause endeavours to do precisely that.

Subsection (1) puts in the new penalty. Subsection (2) makes a consequential Amendment to Section 283(2,a) of the 1952 Act so as to provide that any offence relating to a drug punishable under that Act with the new penalty of imprisonment of a term longer than two years shall continue to be punishable either on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment.

Independently of the question raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), there is a unanimity of view in the House that dangerous drugs, hard drugs in particular, are an immense menace to society and to individuals. We should not see the problem out of proportion. Our number of addicts in this country is still relatively limited, but it has been rising too fast. It is still a small problem. The number of heroin addicts in the City of New York alone is more than 30 times that of the number of heroin addicts in the whole of the United Kingdom. None the less, the rate of increase in addiction in this country has been disturbing and the Government are resolved—this is why we brought the Bill forward and this is why we have strengthened it in another place—to take all steps which can be shown to be necessary to deal with this problem. It should not be exaggerated and it should not be seen out of proportion, but it is none the less a real problem which can be destructive of personality for certain people.

Mr. Deedes

We certainly see the need for this Amendment and accept it. It provides, unusually, a fivefold increase in the sentence which can now be given, but it is an anomaly but subject to anything that my hon. Friends have to say, we accept the Amendment.

I am very glad to see this. There is a certain amount of disquieting evidence that smuggling is on the increase. It seems possible, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman had to propose earlier in our proceedings that smuggling may very well become a much more profitable enterprise. This is possibly inevitable.

Since this is under Customs and Excise, I hope that the staff that will be needed in connection with this will be given serious consideration. This is the most difficult of all functions for Customs and Excisemen to fulfil, as opposed to other forms of smuggling. It is no good providing swingeing penalties unless we put ourselves in a position to deal with those operating on this basis. We have had a warning from a number of cases which have arisen recently that this sort of traffic is not on the decrease, and the particular instance that the Home Secretary has in mind remains very relevant.

Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)

Anyone who has visited Hong Kong and been to the Narcotics Headquarters can understand with even greater force how terrible is the smuggling of drugs and its consequences. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I welcome this dramatic increase in penalty, and I hope that it will drive home to those who might be contemplating getting in on a smuggling racket that it is something which this House will not tolerate, and which the courts will not tolerate. I hope that they will realise that they will be liable to the most dire penalties.

What my right hon. Friend has said seems to be absolutely sound sense. There is a possibility that there would be an increase in drug trafficking if it were not for the increase in penalty. One sees in Hong Kong the lengths to which the smugglers go to evade detection. There have been some dramatic hauls and successes, but it is remarkable to see how large quantities of heroin came in, concealed in bamboo which was being imported, and on another occasion it was brought in in the internal sides of imported refrigerators.

Unless we are very careful, this sort of smuggling might be attempted on a greater scale in this country. I hope that this new Clause, by its dramatic increase in penalty, will deter. It seems quite right that we should have this increase and the courts similarly will no doubt take note of what is Parliament's view and back up those who are trying to stop the smuggling.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

I should like to add a word in support of this Amendment, because it comes very timely, when, throughout the country, there is an impression that permissiveness is gaining ground, that it should be shown that in this most serious direction permissiveness is not gaining ground, and that the seriousness of this smuggling of hard drugs is really being taken by Parliament with the seriousness which I think is proper.

On this ground, I should certainly like to voice my wholehearted support of this proposed Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.