HC Deb 28 October 1985 vol 84 cc705-7

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 32, line 24, after "made" insert "by the offender"

Mr. John MacKay

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 33, in page 32, line 25, leave out "the accused" and insert "he"

No. 35, in page 33, line 10, leave out "accused" and insert "offender"

Mr. MacKay

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 meet a point raised by the noble and learned Lord Morton of Shuna in another place. They are intended to put it beyond doubt that in cases where an offender convicted of a drug trafficking crime is sentenced by virtue of clause 39 to a fine in addition to a term of imprisonment or detention. the court should bear in mind only the profits which the accused himself has made from the crime and not, for example, profits made by a co-accused.

As for amendment No. 35, new subsection 193B(5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 as inserted by clause 39 as presently drafted contains a reference to the "accused". As this subsection relates to a person who has already been convicted, this reference is not strictly accurate. The subsection should instead refer to an "offender".

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I do not intend to detain the House for long. I welcome the minor clarification as a result of the efforts of another place on what can be taken into account in deciding where a fine is appropriate under clause 39. The Minister will know from our debates in Committee that we have some doubts about the lack of definition. and that there was some confusion. It was one of those occasions on which we had a change of Minister halfway through our considerations of the Bill, and there was a distinct difference of opinion, or emphasis, between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) as to exactly what criteria the courts should apply. No doubt the courts will make up their own minds, as they so often do, irrespective of what may be said by either of the two junior Ministers at the Scottish Office.

We shall watch this matter with curiosity and interest. While we are all totally committed to the campaign to control drug trafficking, I am not as convinced as the Ministers seem to be that this legislation will make an important or particularly significant impact

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 33 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 32, line 28, leave out from "in" to "the" in line 30 and insert paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) or any offence mentioned in paragraphs (d) to (g) of that subsection where such latter offence involves a controlled drug as defined in section 2(1)(a) of".

Mr. John MacKay

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

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the measures to be introduced by clause 39 to cover offences involving all categories of controlled drugs as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In doing so it meets and expands upon an amendment tabled at Lords Committee stage by the noble and learned Lord Morton of Shuna, which sought to extend the provisions to include class B drugs. However, the present amendment extends the clause still further to cover all controlled drugs.

As it left this House, clause 39 provided that anyone convicted of a drug trafficking crime involving class A drugs was to be liable to be fined in addition to a custodial sentence unless it was considered inappropriate to do so. It was originally decided that the new measures introduced by clause 39 should be restricted to class A drugs to be consistent with the measures in what is now the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1985, which increased the maximum penalty for drug trafficking offences involving class A drugs from 14 years to life imprisonment, and to reflect the especially pernicious nature of class A drugs.

However, the Government recognise that large profits can also be derived from other controlled drugs in classes B and C. For example, one of the class B drugs is cannabis and large profits can be made from it. Following further consideration, it has been decided to extend the scope of the existing provisions to cover all categories of controlled drugs.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 35 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 33, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 45, in clause 59, in page 41, line 7, at end insert— () Schedule (Transitional provisions) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making transitional provision."

No. 57, after schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—