MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971: ALTERA TION OF PENALTIES AND OTHER AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 13 July 1977)

§ Mr. Corbett
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this we may take Amendment No. 126—Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: Alteration of Penalties and Other Amendments.

§ Mr. Corbett
Nothing in the new clause or the amendment is concerned with the proposition that cannabis should be legalised. None of us supporting the new clause is proposing that cannabis should be bought and sold over shop counters in the same way as cigarettes, drink and tobacco, of which I am a regular user. I hope that it will be clearly understood by hon. Members taking part in the debate that we are not arguing that case.
The objectives of the new clause fall under three headings—first, to remove imprisonment as a penalty for the cultivation of cannabis; secondly, to abolish the offence of allowing premises to be used for the smoking of cannabis; and thirdly, to abolish the powers of the police to stop and search for drugs without formal arrest. I stress again that there is nothing in what is proposed that would legalise cannabis taking.
Since the passage of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 there has been a much-changed climate of medical, public and international opinion over cannabis, and it is right that the matter should be debated in this House.
Just as it is being argued that cannabis should more properly be treated in a class of its own under the 1971 Act—and I believe that it is wholly out of proportion to retain the penalty of imprison- 568 ment for possession—so we feel that imprisonment for the cultivation of cannabis is not appropriate. In Committee there was almost unanimity in the view that imprisonment was inappropriate for a conviction of possessing cannabis. The Minister said it as well as some of my hon. Friends and the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). Even the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was able to tell the Home Secretary in a letter on 17th June—I quote from page 499 of the report of the ninth sitting of 21st June—that certainly a majority of the Advisory Council takes the view at present that in principle imprisonment should no longer be available for the possession charge. I mention that by way of background because clearly that has a bearing on the home cultivation, if I may so describe it, of cannabis.
10.30 p.m.
In the light of that rare degree of unanimity and support from such a distinguished body as the Advisory Council, I am tempted to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench why they did not seek to make these and other changes at that stage. Although the Minister said in Committee that these matters would be considered as a matter of urgency, and later referred to an urgent plan for action. I expect that we shall be told later that it would not he appropriate to deal with this matter in a piecemeal fashion.
It is important for the House to know that there is, as reflected in Committee, a significant and profound change of view about the use and possession of cannabis. It is worth noting that the number of people who are sentenced to periods of imprisonment on conviction on a first offence of possession of cannabis in any one year can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
We would ideally have liked, Mr. Speaker, for you to see fit to call another new clause, which would have enabled us to argue the case for the reclassification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. As part of that argument we would have advocated the end of imprisonment as the appropriate sentence for conviction for possession.
I turn briefly to the suggestion that there should not be imprisonment for the 569 cultivation of cannabis. I like to think that I am as keen an amateur gardener as duties in this place permit me to be. However, I readily confess that cannabis is not among my crops. I am told that it is easy to detect its cultivation. There is not the slightest piece of evidence that in any back yard in any part of the country it has replaced lettuce, potatoes or cabbage as the standard back-garden crop.
The serious point I wish to make is that with the proposed removal of imprisonment as a penalty for possession, in logic it should also be removed for its cultivation. It is significant that a majority of the Advisory Council supports the view that imprisonment should no longer remain a suitable penalty for possession, and the logic of that should extend to cultivation, especially as there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that in secret farms scattered around in suitably-isolated locations there are vast crops of cannabis. There is no evidence to suggest that vast crops of cannabis are being cultivated with a view to people going into the illegal business of peddling and trafficking. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to that argument when he replies.
There is also the argument that we should abolish the offence of allowing premises to be used for the smoking of cannabis. I admit that it is likely to be contentious. I believe that I am correct in saying that the smoking of cannabis is not technically an offence. That is covered by the charge of possession. A person does not have to be smoking it to be caught. Having it in his possession is enough for conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That Act speaks of allowing premises to be used for the smoking of cannabis. In my view that places an unjust burden of criminal liability on a person to prevent the commission of an offence which is not strictly an offence—namely, the actual smoking. I am bound to add that I am informed that cannabis can be served in cakes if one does not smoke cigarettes.
Of course, there is the important qualification in this offence of knowingly—that is, knowingly permits. The offence is not committed if it is possession alone. I understand that under no other law is it a specific offence to know and not to 570 prevent another from committing a criminal act.
The last major point concerns stop and search. In any other context, I believe that this House would have none of this sweeping power given to the police. Indeed, I recall that when something similar was proposed under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, after a debate in this House the Government were forced to concede and to give way.
I am surprised that the National Association of Freedom has not picked up this point, because literally thousands of young people each year are stopped—not arrested—by the police under this general power of stop and search. However, there has not been a croak out of the so-called National Association of Freedom. Perhaps when it has finished trying to stir up industrial havoc in part of this city, it may be willing to turn its attention to this matter because it amounts to a gross and continuing violation of civil liberties on our streets in an offensive way. It is particularly offensive because it is almost primarily aimed at young people—the very people whom we in this House and others elsewhere have a particular and special responsibility to try to encourage to have respect for our law and for those whom we appoint to try to ensure that it is kept and enforced.
I am sure that many hon. Members know constituents whose sons or daughters have been stopped at random by the police and searched under these wide powers. Indeed, it happened to the son of the widow of a former Member of this House because at that time he had shoulder-length hair and was walking through some unlit back streets of Hemel Hempstead—at a time of night when I am usually in bed—on his way home from a party. Because he was there and a panda car happened to be passing, the police thought it right to stop him and not to say "Who are you, where have you come from, where do you live?", but, using the powers under the Act and without any explanation, to insist on stopping and searching him.
The Act provides that the police can stop only those whom they reasonably suspect. All too often it seems that the only kind of suspicion that the police need to have is that a person's hair is 571 longer than theirs, that he is dressed in a peculiar way compared with them and that the hour may be late. There is no obligation under the legislation for the police to say what reasonable suspicion they have.
The Inspector of Constabulary's Report for 1975 states that 14,099 people were recorded by the police as having been stopped and searched under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the number of searches carried out under these powers recorded by the police. It is fair to assume that a lot more were carried out that were not recorded.
I underline the injunction that under the powers of that Act, stopping and searching only be carried out only if the police reasonably suspect someone of being in possession of drugs. It appears that the police do not always have good grounds for that suspicion. As the Inspector's report points out, 76 out of every 100 people stopped in that way were found not to have drugs on them. The detection rate has fallen from 33 in every 100 who were found to have drugs when stopped and searched in 1973 to 28 in every 100 in 1974 and to 24 in every 100 in 1975. That power does not seem to be doing the job for which it was intended, apart from its offence to civil liberties. The law does not relate to any specific drug. Therefore, the statistics do not record which drugs the police felt that they had reasonable grounds for suspecting were being carried.
This single power has proved to be one of the most damaging to the police—public relations, particularly to relations between the police and young people. At a time when we need renewed respect for the police, this power stands in the way of that objective.
The police need powers to hound the traffickers and those who have on them the hard lethal drugs which send too many youngsters to a painful and early grave. But the police have adequate powers in that direction under other statutes. They have general powers of arrest to deal with this situation, which means that they do not need to continue this random, hit-and-miss, stop-and-search procedure which is so totally offensive to young people. It is an abuse of civil liberties which cannot be justified 572 by the results and which cannot be tolerated in a country which holds dear its civil liberties.
One further point concerns the proposed definition of the term "controlled drug" to prevent prosecution for an unusable quantity of such a drug. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act a mere trace of cannabis is enough to warrant prosecution and conviction and, as things stand, imprisonment. We suggest that offences involving controlled drugs should be restricted to those cases where the quantity can actually be used as a drug. Convictions can and have been obtained on amounts not visible to the naked eye. There has been one case where a sentence of one year's imprisonment was handed out for the possession of 20 micro-grammes of cannabis—that is, 20 millionths of a gramme. In another case a six months' suspended sentence was given for the possession of 50 micro-grammes of cannabis.
This kind of charge and its resultant conviction, often leading to imprisonment, can only bring the law into disrepute among young people. The change we are proposing would deal with that by confining prosecutions to the area that matters, that is, where there is enough of the drug to be taken and used.
I urge the House to support the clause and the amendment.

§ Mr. John
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) has accurately expressed the intention of the clause and I do not intend to repeat what he has said. However, he was less than accurate—I am sure, unwittingly—in what he said about the proceedings in Committee.
Certainly at that stage there was a great deal of sympathy for the view that imprisonment in this area was inappropriate, and a majority of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, set up by Parliament under the Misuse of Drugs Act took the same view.
However, the matter of urgency to which I referred then was not a programme of urgency for the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) was a member of the Committee and will readily assent to the fact that I gave no undertakings about being ready on Report with new matter.
573 I said that the body which we set up to advise us was, as a matter of urgency, initiating a comprehensive review of, among other things, the classification of drugs and penalties. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this is a useful way of proceeding. I hope, too, that the urgency which is expressed by the Chairman of the council in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be given effect and that therefore a report from it will be before the House in the not-too-distant future. I shall see that it has a note of my hon. Friend's remarks, a promise I made in respect of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
The next point is to consider whether we act on this matter now. The Advisory Council said in paragraph 8 of its letter that it did not feel that the Bill was an appropriate vehicle for such action because to write provisions into this Bill does not give time for a reasoned approach to the matter. I believe that my hon. Friend and I share the view that on this matter proposals must be reasoned, well thought out and capable not only of defence but of being maintained.
10.45 p.m.
I hope on that issue that my hon. Friend will feel that, having introduced the matter, having underlined his concern and having put forward the various factors involved, he can now leave to the Advisory Council the task of getting on with this urgent review.
My hon. Friend argued that the stop and search power was a matter of controversy. Whenever it has been discussed, both here and elsewhere, the majority view has come down in favour of a continuation of the stop and search provisions. However, this is part of the pre-trial process for which the Royal Commission has been set up. I suggest that my hon. Friend and others who feel as he does should give the benefit of their experience and knowledge of individual examples to the Royal Commission so that it can consider, in the course of looking at the procedure process, whether this power is necessary and should be retained. I do not believe that it is wise to set up a Royal Commission to investigate certain matters, and then 574 pre-empt it on all of them. Therefore, I hope that here, too, my hon. Friend will not press the matter.
It is with no lack of sympathy that I ask my hon. Friend not to press his clause. It is merely because I think that, technically, these matters will be better dealt with by the bodies I have mentioned.

§ Dr. Colin Phipps (Dudley, West)
I hope that the Minister of State will not take it amiss if I say that waiting for the results of a Royal Commission does not help those people who are likely to be stopped and searched arbitrarily at any time or who may receive prison sentences during the next two, three or 10 years which such a Commission may take to report.
Cannabis is treated in this Bill, as it has been for many years, as if it were one of the hard durgs, and it is extremely offensive to people who are strong anti-smokers to find that cannabis, which as far as I know produces fewer ill effects than the smoking of tobacco, should be condemned to all sorts of criminal proceedings when the smoking of tobacco is still widely practised and allowed in our society.
It is fair to say, I think, that if Sir Walter Raleigh had brought back marijuana from the New World instead of tobacco, we should have in this country today the Imperial Marijuana Company and the British-American Marijuana Company. instead of the Imperial Tobacco Company and BATC—

§ Mr. Mikardo
And fewer cases of lung cancer.

§ Dr. Phipps
—and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, fewer cases of lung cancer.
We equate cannabis, as we have always done, with different kinds of substances from those with which we should equate it—tobacco. I do not smoke tobacco or cannabis, and I should be happy to see fewer people smoking tobacco, but I find it difficult to see why we as a House of Commons can permit the free smoking of tobacco, which apparently has well-established detrimental effects on the health of individuals and on the economy of the country, but not accept the smoking of what appears to be a totally harmless substance, namely, cannabis.

§ Mr. Hooson
On the other side of the coin, if tobacco had been introduced only recently and we knew of its deleterious effects, surely we would try to ban it.

§ Dr. Phipps
I suspect that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is true—if we knew of its deleterious effects. But can anyone in this House tell me what the deleterious effects of smoking cannabis are? I understand that it does not cause cancer, that it does not appear to have addictive qualities and that it does not lead on to the much-proclaimed fact of going on to hard drugs.
I seems to me that the smoking of cannabis is much less offensive than the smoking of tobacco. Either we should be prepared to stop people smoking both, or we should be prepared to allow a certain degree of cannabis smoking. The amendment is not directed towards that. I should have liked to see accepted the new clause which puts cannabis and marijuana into a specific category. But that new clause was not selected.
We are discussing Schedule 126 and attempting to distinguish cannabis from the hard, lethal drugs and to put it in the same category as tobacco. Central to the schedule is the power to stop and search and to seize goods. It would be incredible for the police to have the power to stop someone walking down the street for smoking a cigarette, which is a dangerous thing to do. So long as one can walk down the street smoking a cigarette without being stopped and searched. I do not see why one should be stopped and searched on the suspicion of smoking marijuana. That is offensive and against the principles of civil liberty that we normally uphold in the House. It is totally opposed to what we should be doing.
I should like to see a full review not only of marijuana smoking but of tobacco smoking. If the debate does no more than persuade the Government to look at the smoking of marijuana and cannabis and the use of tobacco, it will have been worth while.

§ Mr. Corbett
In view of the statement by the Minister of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.