HC Deb 12 June 2000 vol 351 cc675-90

'.It shall be a defence for a person accused of an offence under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that he did not wilfully permit an activity under section 8 to take place.'.[Mrs. Anne Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 190, in title, line 4, leave out "dealing with".

Mrs. Campbell

It may be helpful if I begin by reminding hon. Members that section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 states: A person commits an offence if, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on those premises. That is to say: producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug … supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug … or offering to supply a controlled drug to another … preparing opium for smoking … smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium. New clause 1 would strengthen the defence of someone accused under section 8, which includes the words "knowingly permits". The new clause would allow an offence of wilfully permitting activities under section 8: that wording is slightly stronger. New clause 1 is grouped with amendment No. 190, which is a consequential amendment to the long title of the Bill which, in its current form, does not allow for the new clause. Amendment No. 190 makes further provision for persons suspected of, charged with or convicted of offences, as opposed to provision for dealing with such persons.

It will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I have tabled the new clause, given my concern about Wintercomfort and my constituent Ruth Wyner who at present is serving a sentence in Highpoint prison under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. She was convicted at the same time as her co-worker John Brock, who is not my constituent but who, nevertheless, was working in the charity, which is based in my constituency. I do not pretend to be an expert on the issue, but I shall use my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament of visits to homeless accommodation and day shelters, to explain why a change to the existing law is necessary.

6 pm

People work in this part of the charity sector because they care about people, and not just ordinary people, but those who have problems, which are often severe. They may be angry and disturbed, and many of them have lost hope. I have enormous admiration for the workers who want to help such people, and I feel in awe of the dedication that, day after day, takes charity workers into situations where people are often hostile and unfriendly, and desperately in need of help.

The charity Wintercomfort in Cambridge offers not only a cooked meal and hot drinks, but a place where homeless people can see a doctor, have a haircut and wash and change their clothes. It helps them to feel civilised and human. In many cases it offers a sympathetic ear so that people can talk about their problems, and it helps them out of a crisis. Such work is essential if we are to rehabilitate homeless people who may have spent many years on the street.

We know from surveys that many people who are homeless are addicted to drugs. The exact figure is not known. According to my latest edition of The Big Issue, the number is somewhere between 20 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the homeless population. I would never condone homelessness shelters becoming havens for drug abusers or places for dealers of hard drugs to make a quick buck. That is not shelters' intention, and such activity is disruptive to the local population.

If, however, there is drug taking and drug dealing on a shelter's premises, despite the best measures being taken, it should be a defence for a person charged under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that it was not wilfully permitted. That provision is needed to safeguard the livelihood of the many dedicated men and women who do a very difficult job to the best of their ability and to protect them from possible criminal prosecution.

I shall address the precautions that charity workers must take now to avoid prosecution, and I hope to demonstrate that theirs is not a simple task and that it would be easy for somebody to fall into the same trap as my constituent Ruth Wyner. The 1971 Act applies to anyone who is a director, manager, deputy manager or team leader or anyone in control of the premises. Other workers and even volunteers also need to be aware of the Act, since anyone who has the authority to exclude someone from the premises would be considered to be concerned in the management. That is the advice of the charity Release which was published on the internet shortly after Ruth Wyner and John Brock were convicted. It has implications for the running of hostels and for training, which must be extremely thorough so that all staff and volunteers are aware of their responsibilities.

The supply of drugs need not necessarily take place in the building for an offence to be committed; if it is done outside the building, on the front steps or in the doorway, garden, yard or outbuildings, it still constitutes an offence. It is therefore necessary for staff to be extremely vigilant and to use mirrors and cameras and to have regular staff checks. Failure to adopt such measures could indicate unwillingness to prevent the supply of drugs and lay the staff open to criminal prosecution.

The situation is difficult because dealers do not pass drugs openly. The undercover surveillance conducted by the police at Wintercomfort indicated that drugs were not passed when staff were present, and it was only the surveillance that determined that drug dealing was going on.

A drugs policy is necessary for any organisation in this sector, and clearly it is good practice to put up notices and inform service users of the rules. The sanctions should also be clear; people who are caught with drugs are normally banned. Difficulties arise if people are banned and the police then require the names of those who have been banned.

Release has issued guidelines that suggest that a book with the names of those banned should be open for all workers and the police to look at, but confidential information, such as the reason for the ban, can be kept separately and privately and will not be open to police scrutiny. Those are only guidelines, however, and charity workers are worried that their shelters will not be used if users perceive that any information handed over in good faith will be passed to the police. There is a conflict of interest.

When my constituent Ruth Wyner first went into Highpoint prison, she was asked if she would like to train to counsel other prisoners, particularly on drug abuse. She went to her first training session and asked the inevitable question, "If somebody gives me information about drug abuse, do I have to keep it confidential?" She was told, "Of course, it is important that you keep it confidential." I find it ironic that, in prison, such information must be kept confidential, but outside prison, in a homelessness shelter, people are expected to give names to the police. That is a difficulty that we need to resolve.

Mr. Malins

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her approach and her thoughtful and well constructed speech, which comes from the heart. The current offence is knowingly to permit drug dealing or drug taking to take place, and we think that we understand what that means. The hon. Lady suggests that the offence should be wilfully to permit that activity. I find it hard to see the difference. Is there is a real difference, and could she try to draw it out so that we are better informed?

Mrs. Campbell

The hon. Gentleman enables me to come on to my next point. There is a difference between "knowingly" and "wilfully". It is possible for workers to suspect that drug dealing is going on, but they may find it difficult to catch the perpetrators, and in that situation they would be knowingly permitting the offence to take place. "Wilfully" is a stronger description, and somebody would be wilfully permitting drug dealing if they deliberately turned a blind eye to it. There is a subtle distinction between the two, and I hope that my explanation has clarified that.

Well meaning workers who carry out their work conscientiously and diligently within the spirit of the law need an extra line of defence. That is what I propose, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that the change should be made. Although it is not the practice of the House to debate a conviction, and it must be said that up to now Ruth Wyner and John Brock have not had permission to appeal against their conviction, I do not believe that they should be held to be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be used.

I shall give an example to support my argument. A Home Office Minister is responsible for the Prison Service, in which the supply of illegal drugs is detected only one in every 30 times that a prisoner is detected to be using drugs. In Highpoint, Ruth Wyner and John Brock are in a place where the rate of detection of drugs use is lower than that at the Wintercomfort project in Cambridge.

I should say that, before becoming a Minister in the early 1980s, I was chairman of the executive council of the Church of England Children's Society. One of the 100 projects that we ran involved young people who misused drugs. I am aware of the difficulties that staff have in trying to get those who are drug misusers to become ex-drug misusers According to the definition used by Cambridgeshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service, I would not have been surprised to join Ruth and John in prison. I hope that I would not have done so.

Mr. Malins

My hon. Friend could not have done.

Mr. Bottomley

My hon. Friend says that I could not have done, but in practice, if I knew that those who occasionally misused drugs were present, or if I were responsible, as a director or manager, for a project that had a needle exchange system—clearly, people who misused drugs would be involved—I would know that drugs users used the facilities. Therefore, as I understand the Cambridgeshire Two case, I could have been convicted if I could not show that I had prevented any exchange of drugs for money. I hope that I would have been allowed leave to appeal against conviction, and I hope that they will be allowed leave to do the same. I say in passing that it would be interesting to calculate how long a sentence they would have completed in jail before their leave to appeal against conviction could be heard.

If the Home Office is concerned about new clause 1—I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for the way in which she moved the motion—it should tell the law authorities that, because this is an untested case, they should bring forward the appeal and the application for leave to appeal to next week. If the higher court allowed leave to appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence, that would at least provide a chance for the House to know what the state of the law actually is, as well as remedying the injustice involving those two people.

During the march from Hyde park to Trafalgar square on 25 March, the most telling slogan was "Help the homeless, jail the social workers." I am concerned about prison governors and Home Office Ministers as well as social workers. People under the control of the state in prison were detected as having used illegal substances 18,000 times last year—in simple terms, they had used drugs. The number of people who were prosecuted in the Prison Service and allied employment was three. Two thirds as many people were prosecuted in the Cambridge case as in the whole Prison Service during the past 11 or 12 months.

One of the reasons why I am sensitive to the matter is that one of my brothers-in-law—Dr. George Reid—is a trustee of Wintercomfort. This country owes a debt of gratitude to his colleagues and those in similar projects throughout the country. We have a choice: should those who misuse drugs and who are on the streets be ignored, or should people try to work out what they basically need? They need the opportunity to remain in touch with the kind of medical services that the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. Should not they have a chance to be helped to come off drugs?

I pay tribute to Ministers and the Prison Service for the practical help that is available to drugs misusers in prison. I understand that that they even go so far as to have drugs-free wings in some prisons. Help similar to that provided in prison should be provided out of prison. Wintercomfort and the Bus project were trying to provide such help, but the impact of those convictions has been to close access rather than to open it. Many people around the country need open access to the schemes.

The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to The Big Issue. I do not know to which edition, but I bought the teenager-edited issue at about 1 o'clock today from someone on the non-swinging bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside. People under the age of 20 had written very openly about subjects about which they felt strongly, one of which was access to drugs. If a pupil says that drugs are available in a school, will the school governors, the education authority or the head be open to the same charge as that which the hon. Lady refers in the extra, stronger defence that she proposes, which might help those who are against drugs?

In the Wintercomfort case, it was clear that Ruth and John were against the use of or dealing in drugs. In fact, secret surveillance was required by the police, not the policeman who was passing; it was part of the protocol—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. Hon. Members can refer to relevant cases in discussing the Bill, but they should not seek to interfere with the process of the courts. I hope that that is clear.

6.15 pm
Mr. Bottomley

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is one of the reasons why I made it clear that there was no present leave to appeal against conviction. I said that, in my view, there should be, but I made that remark in passing. An application for leave to appeal is in a different category, but I have moved on from that passing reference. Your remarks have reminded us that there is an urgent need not just for new clause 1 to be considered, but for the Home Office to ensure that, if it wants to establish that there is no need for the law to be changed, the leave application is heard quickly.

I was referring to schools. So far as I am aware, until now, no head teacher, governor or education authority has faced a similar charge to that faced by the people in Cambridge. If we need to protect those in our schools who try to ensure that drugs are not available there, or, if they are available, that dealing and their use are stopped, I suspect that those who say, "Something needs to happen in my school because I know drugs are there and want to stop it," will be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be provided. Or must that unit, project, social project, school or prison be closed, if necessary in extremis? That was said in the case to which I shall not refer again. That is a disgrace.

If Ministers care about those who are helping the homeless and trying to reduce the number of people affected by drugs, those issues and new clause 1 matter. We have seen in the newspapers this week how many glamorous writers in this country appear to have had a heavy drugs habit, but should we convict editors and proprietors for knowingly employing those who misuse drugs? The underlying point is that the people who do a decent job for some of the least well off in society, who have the most need to come off drugs, need to be supported, not to be locked away in a place where there is more drug misuse than in the projects that they run.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

I am happy to support new clause 1 and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on tabling it. To understand the need for new clause 1, we must appreciate the precise nature of what is normally known as homelessness or rough sleeping. Only very briefly, and rarely, is the lack of a home the problem with those who sleep rough. In the great majority of cases, the problems for those who persistently sleep rough are not the transient ones of parental abuse or family trouble, but those of mental ill health and alcohol or drug addiction.

Large sums are being spent to overcome the problems of homelessness, but all the schemes end up dealing with long-term problems involving a relatively small group of people. The great difficulty is to take them into homes where they can spend the night away from the streets, but is it reasonable and practical to expect those people to end their addictions that night—immediately? We know that there are schemes in other countries in which intermediate homes are provided, but they are not practicable or possible under British law. Those who come into the homes will say, with the best will in the world, that they will never touch a drop of alcohol or take a drug again. They often stay dry or do not use drugs for a short period, but inevitably, there is a great danger that those who have alcohol or drug addictions that stretch back many years will backslide.

There is great fear throughout the organisations and places in this country that deal with homeless people. With the best will in the world, and although they will make every effort to ensure that people do not take drugs on their premises, there is a real possibility that drugs will be acquired from outside. There is no way that anyone can ensure that drugs are not taken and it is wholly unreasonable that those who work for such organisations should risk ending up with a prison sentence, perhaps of four years.

Making a change is essential. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, we are in a strange position. Drugs turn up in unexpected places. This weekend, we heard of a drug turning up where one would least expect it. I do not know whether the head of the household will be arraigned before the courts and threatened with a sentence. Drugs are in prisons, in schools—everywhere. The people who do wonderful work for the homeless feel demoralised and frightened by the present situation, but we can give them a confidence boost by passing this valuable new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for introducing the new clause and it will not surprise the House to learn that, like others, I received a large amount of correspondence from people who support a change of the law in this direction. Their experience is a practical one of which we are all very conscious, and it does not matter whether a person offers youth service provision or runs either a shelter for homeless people, as in this case, or a centre in which people stay overnight or during the day.

Many of those who have management responsibility, the more removed responsibility of a trustee or a committee of management responsibility could be caught by the law and, if I may say so to the hon. Lady, it is entirely appropriate for her to have put the issue before the House. There has been a conviction and the matter has been dealt with. The people involved must pursue their appeal and I support the view of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) that the sooner it can be dealt with, the better. That is in everybody's interest and I hope that those who manage court and appeal business not only read our debate—we can make sure that they receive a copy—but respond to it.

We need to get to the essence of the matter, and I want to make two points. The first concerns the broad issue of how to deal with people who, technically, might be caught. To be honest, unless people with important management responsibility in social work in the wider sense are able to risk being with potential criminals, a lot of the work will not be done. I used to be a youth leader and the implication of that was that I sometimes dealt with people who had weapons or drugs on them. Unless I had their confidence, I would never get into the relationship that allowed me to deal with the issue.

Members of Parliament have similar experiences. A single parent came to my door on Saturday after being referred to me. That person's giro had not come, the children were at home and the family had no money. I took the best steps that I could. I went to the person's house and we then tried to sort things out with the Benefits Agency on Saturday evening. We are all often in positions in which we could have a responsibility to people who could break the law; we do not know their circumstances. The two people who have been convicted assumed that responsibility as part of their job. They took in vulnerable people who were at risk and near the margins of offending.

The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was absolutely right to say that people can become homeless as a consequence of a number of factors. I remember a tragic incident. A person came to my surgery who in three months had gone from having a home, being married and being employed as an officer in the services to having no employment, no marriage and no home. He had also become addicted to drink. Inevitably, the engagement requires the risk. The hon. Member for Cambridge is therefore right to say that we need a definition in law that does not risk the prosecution of people who are not knowingly party to the commission of offences and do not encourage those offences.

The second issue is the debate about the proposed wording and the law as it stands. I guess that we shall hear from the Minister a summary of the case law on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There is plenty of it and plenty of people have pleaded as a defence that their case did not comply with the terms of the law. The Bill should contain a legal definition that distinguishes between those who specifically and unequivocally know that somebody is dealing in drugs and do not take action—in colloquial terms, they go along with it, and do so actively rather than passively—and those who are in a position from which they may suspect, have concerns about or even be aware of possibilities of drug dealing, but do not participate in, condone or associate themselves with it, although it is part of their work.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not object if I say that it may be that Parliament needs two bites at the cherry to get it right: tonight's debate and the formal response as well as negotiation, in collaboration with the Home Office and others who have made representations to us, to find a form of words that works.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The hon. Gentleman rightly goes far beyond the debate held in Westminster Hall on 29 February and takes us back to the discussions that took place before and after the 1970 general election. It was absolutely plain that the provision was to deal with those who organised drags-type parties and could say, "I didn't see it; I wasn't involved." That is very different from what he and the hon. Member for Cambridge have spelled out this evening.

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Gentleman is right. I practised in cases in which such a crime was the charge and recollect that the provision was intended to deal with people who sought commercial gain, whether they operated in a nightclub, a bar, a pub or other premises. Basically, turning a blind eye meant that they were able to facilitate the passage of drugs through their kebab house, pub or club. I know of loose management of commercial premises in my constituency which has given a place a reputation. The hon. Members for Cambridge and for Newport, West will know of examples in their constituencies and Members of the House do not have to be very streetwise to learn about specific places that are more likely than others to be venues for such activity. Even the slightly older Members soon get to hear about it.

I went into a certain establishment on my way home from the House late one night to get some food and remember being told that, if I did not know it already, this was the place where, at any moment during the night, such activity was likely to take place. It is not the place that the hon. Member for Newport, West uses when he stays up in London during the week so he is quite safe.

The hon. Member for Worthing, West is right to say that the law was not intended to deal with social workers or the equivalent who run such places, or those who do a professional job in an effort to rehabilitate and support people. Nor was it intended to catch those who knew that they had to take risks, but did not conspire with others to break the law. The law is being misrepresented. We can have our views about the sentence—none of us was in court for the trial that has been referred to—but there is widespread public disaffection with the way in which the law has been applied in that case.

Not only have people written to us in significant numbers, but I know that in my own party, steps have been taken to have the matter debated more widely and to call for the law to be changed. That is entirely appropriate and if we can manage to achieve that before the end of this parliamentary term, the hon. Member for Cambridge will have done the House, her constituent and the colleague convicted with her a service. I hope that we make the law more like the law it was intended to be—one that does not sweep up people who were never intended to be criminalised. To be honest, they will not be able to do their jobs properly if we keep on the statute book a law that is interpreted in such a way.

6.30 pm
Mr. Dawson

I associate myself with the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and also with what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about the need for the Government to deal with this important matter as quickly as possible.

At Christmas, I spent a little while at a night shelter in my constituency. The shelter has operated over many Christmases, and I have often visited it, but I have never witnessed such anxiety among people there—one or two of them paid workers, but most of them volunteers—who, for goodness' sake, had given up their Christmas to offer comfort and support to some of the most vulnerable people in Lancaster.

Those workers and volunteers were extremely worried about their own positions in the light of the case in Cambridge. Even the first whiff of concern about drugs dealing led to the police being called immediately, with sniffer dogs, and to the whole place being searched from top to bottom. It is to the credit of all concerned, not least those who were using the night shelter—and the police, and the staff of the shelter—that the search, which in fact revealed nothing, was taken in good part; but it was profoundly disruptive to what had been a pleasant evening at Christmas.

I hope that the Wintercomfort case represents a significant aberration. However, it sent a chilling message to those who work with vulnerable people, often in extremely difficult circumstances and for little or no pay. They may be under physical threat, and they are likely to experience emotional difficulties; the hours are long, and the pressures are many. I hope that the situation can be resolved.

I believe that the Government are determined to deal with drugs issues, and to help with the rehabilitation of drug addicts and those involved in the complex world of drugs sub-cultures. Many difficult issues confront those who work in such a setting: there are tremendous subtleties. Sometimes there are hints of what is going on, and sometimes there is more evidence. Sometimes, I suppose, it is necessary to allow a situation to develop in order to deal with it properly. I regularly talk to my local police divisional commander, who tells me that, while he is aware of criminals operating in the division, it is sometimes necessary to allow that to continue in order to catch the criminals and deal with the matter properly.

It seems to me that, in the case we are discussing, two people committed to social work in the most difficult circumstances have been dealt with in a draconian way. The issue is plainly of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, and it needs to be dealt with. The Government need to take a view, and people working in such circumstances need proper protection.

Mr. Hawkins

I, too, compliment the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who has done the job that all of us, as constituency Members, seek to do in drawing attention to a serious issue in her area. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who—along with others—explained his personal connection with one of the trustees of the project, and his general concern about the issue.

I think that we all recognise that there is no more serious issue than that of drugs. I know from my experience in the courts both prosecuting and defending in drugs cases, and from my experience as a constituency Member, that there are many dedicated people who try to wean others off drugs. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned his dealings with such people, and, like all constituency Members, I too have met a number of them. In recent years, I have worked closely with Dr. Tony Blowers and the Surrey drug action team, and I know that there are similarly dedicated people in all areas. No doubt the Minister will join me in paying tribute to them.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not consider me churlish if I say that all of us, as Members of Parliament, must recognise the truth of the old saying that hard cases make bad law. We must also be conscious of the separation of powers doctrine. It is for Parliament to make laws, and for the courts to interpret them. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly warned us all not to stray over the boundary and comment on the courts. In relation to the case that we are discussing, I have only read what has been in the press, and all of us who have ever dealt with court cases know that it is often not possible to obtain a full picture from press reporting. Sadly—although this is not a criticism of them—journalists frequently do not fully understand the nuances involved in a court's response to a case. It may be necessary to have sat in the court to know exactly what went on. I therefore do not wish to comment on this case, but I will say that we recognise that the issues are serious.

The hon. Member for Cambridge presented her views very reasonably, as did all the other speakers, and we look forward to seeing how the matter progresses. However, the official Opposition will not support the hon. Lady's proposal. Although we feel that she was right to draw the House's attention to what happened in her constituency, we think that the new clause is akin to a private Member's Bill. She has made her case, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West and others, and we shall be interested to see how this difficult issue develops.

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has used this Report stage as a vehicle to raise a case that she has raised privately in the past with my officials and me, and has also raised in a related debate in Westminster Hall. I congratulate her on her assiduity and determination in pursuing her constituent's interest.

It would not be proper for me to comment publicly on the Wintercomfort case, and I do not intend to do so. The matters involved have been before the courts, and are the subject of appeal. I should say, however, that, as far as I am aware, this is the first prosecution of care agency staff—it is, I believe, the first to be drawn to the House's attention—since the 1971 Act came into force. Care agencies have a duty to uphold the law; they are in no way exempt from it. The fact that this is the only case brought against care agency staff since the 1971 Act would not seem to support the contention that the current law in some way works against the interests of therapeutic interventions in this difficult and complex area, or works in a way that inhibits care staff from carrying out their proper functions and duties.

Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence for an occupier or person concerned in the management of premises knowingly to permit certain specified actions to take place there: the production or attempted production of a controlled drug; the supply or attempted supply of a controlled drug; the preparation of opium for smoking; and the smoking of cannabis.

Mrs. Anne Campbell

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Boateng

Not at the moment.

Section 8 replaced a similar section in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 and was specifically drafted to ensure that only a person with guilty knowledge could be caught by its provisions. Section 8 as drafted properly requires those concerned in the management of premises to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable steps that are available to them to prevent drug dealing.

I want to allay some concerns that anyone reading Hansard might have stimulated in them by the suggestion that, to found liability under section 8, it is enough to know that people on the premises use drugs. That is not the case. The law is very clear, which is why we do not need to amend it as my hon. Friend suggests. What is required is that someone responsible for the management of premises should knowingly permit certain actions to take place on those premises; the offence is committed only if that person knowingly permits or suffers the illicit activity to take place. If he or she takes reasonable steps to deal with the problem and does not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye to the activity, there is no question of the offence having been committed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng

May I just finish, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Gentleman have had their say? I intend to lay out what we believe the law is. Then I will of course give way, first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.

It was argued that, if people, for example, did not tip off the police as to their suspicions that someone was taking drugs on the premises, that would in some way breach section 8. Nothing in section 8 should give cause for that belief. What is required is that they do not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, and that they take all reasonable steps to prevent the premises from being used in that way.

Let us draw on our own experience. We had the discussion in the debate in Committee. Many of us here have run youth clubs of one sort or another. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has; I have; and I suspect that other hon. Members have. There is a decision we must make when running a youth club: do we or do we not allow the stuff on the premises? It is a decision that a number of us have had to make in our own lives.

Once we make the decision, we enforce it. We say, "We are not having drugs on the premises. If you use drugs on the premises, you are out", and we enforce that. We are required to ensure that the youth club is managed in such a way that, if people are caught smoking on the premises, we tell them to leave and they do so. If they do not, we may well have to call the police. No one who takes that line in relation to the management of premises will find themselves falling foul of section 8.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for those of us who are concerned with the particular case to accept what the Minister is saying, because some of the issues that he is canvassing were brought up in the case, which we have been warned not to go into in detail. If the Minister could more easily stick to what the law was thought to be for the case under discussion, it would make for a rather better debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that I made it plain earlier that it is possible to refer to the case in very general terms. I see no reason why the points that are being made cannot be made in that way. I think that that is what the Minister is trying to do.

Mr. Boateng

I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

6.45 pm

The law is as laid down in a succession of Court of Appeal judgments to cope with the matter. The case to which the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred has, at first instance, its own very specific facts. I do not intend to go into that case. It is, of course, open—subject to the direction given by you Mr. Deputy Speaker—to hon. Members to raise it in a general manner, as they see fit. I do not seek to do that. I seek to share with the House the law as it currently is, and the interpretation by the Court of Appeal and existing case law of the impact of section 8.

The impact is as I have described it. For the offence to be made out, there is a requirement for an individual knowingly to have committed, or to have suffered, the illicit activity on the premises. If reasonable steps are taken to deal with the problem and there is no action to condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, the offence is not committed.

Mrs. Anne Campbell

I refer back to a point that my right hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech. He said that it was not necessary to change the law because there had been only one such conviction under the law. Does he agree that the case has given rise to enormous anxiety among people working in the homelessness sector, who are very worried that they will now be caught in exactly the same way?

Mr. Boateng

I have not said in terms that we do not need to change the law because there has been only one case. What I said is that the fact that only one prosecution has been brought shows that there is not a widespread problem of care activity being inhibited by ill-founded prosecutions, accusations and convictions in this area. It is different from the gloss that my hon. Friend has put on it, but, having heard her and being aware of the concern that the publicity around the case has generated, we are concerned to ensure that there is clarity on the activities of care agencies in that important area. As has been said—it is certainly accepted by me—some very difficult and challenging tasks must be performed by dedicated and committed workers in the front line in relation to drugs and to the care and support of vulnerable and, at times, difficult and damaged people. Such workers need to be reassured and supported in their work.

Therefore, the Government and the relevant agencies are considering what further guidance should be issued to those who work with homeless drug misusers to clarify the law, and proper practice and procedure in that area. Clearly, there are concerns out there and they need to be addressed. We are anxious to ensure that they are addressed while the existing law continues to be upheld, as it must be upheld for very good reason.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

rose—

Mr. Boateng

Once I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, I will come to that.

Mr. Bottomley

The House will be grateful for the Minister's comments on consultation. It would be very useful if he included the Association of Chief Police Officers in that consultation, as I think that some chief police officers would issue guidance to their forces that is quite different from that issued to the Cambridgeshire constabulary.

Will the Minister also include the Prison Governors Association in the consultation? Is it not true—on the issue of turning a blind eye—that, if prison governors know that drugs are getting into their prisons and extra resources and more hidden cameras would enable detection of those drugs, but that, if they do not get those resources, they would be in the same position as social workers who are unable to deal with drugs on their premises? I do not want to trade points of law with the Minister. As he said, we are dealing with an unusual case on which the Court of Appeal has not yet delivered a judgment, and neither he nor I can put ourselves in the court's position.

Mr. Boateng

As I have previously said to the hon. Gentleman, it is profoundly misconceived to compare the position of prison governors in relation to drugs in prison with the position of a care agency manager. Prison governors are required to take all reasonable action to deal with the use and misuse of drugs in prison—not only to prevent drugs from entering prisons, but to seek to detect and dissuade those who use drugs when they do enter prisons. Prison governors are given a range of powers and facilities, which they exercise, to take that action.

How the hon. Gentleman puts his case is entirely a matter for him, but comparing the position of a prison governor with that of someone who manages a care agency or those who are engaged in front-line work is not his best point. I see the attraction of making such a comparison, as there clearly are concerns about drugs in prisons, but it flies in the face of reason to suggest that prison governors are likely to fall foul of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Mr. Flynn

Is not the difference between the two circumstances the fact that prison governors have a group of people who are confined to prison, under their control and surveillance, 24 hours a day, whereas those who run places such as Wintercomfort supervise people for only a small part of the day? Additionally, those people are not only free to go outside and to make outside contacts, but are well used to disguising their addictions. Are not prison governors much better placed to be responsible for drugs misuse than those who run places such as Wintercomfort?

Mr. Boateng

I shall not be drawn down that particular path, because I simply do not think that the situation of a prison governor and that of a front-line worker in a care agency are analogous. My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Worthing, West and I clearly disagree on that point, and they will make their point as they see fit.

Section 8 was widely drawn intentionally to apply to all public and private premises and was not designed solely to deal with the type of premises that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drops into for a late-night snack on his way home or that the hon. Member for Worthing, West described as causing concern in the swinging 60s, when he was young. The 1970 Hansard extracts of the Committee's debates on the 1971 Act show that the Act was drafted deliberately to include not only pubs and clubs but care agencies and any other premises where there was a concern to ensure that no unlawful drugs are supplied.

For many years, across the country, drug treatment agencies, probation hostels and homelessness projects have acted on the basis that they need to take action to stop drugs from being supplied and used on the premises. That was, has been and always will be very much part of what those organisations do to create a desirable environment. In no circumstances is it desirable that people should turn a blind eye to—or in any way condone, encourage or collude in—the supply and use of drugs on premises.

It is quite reasonable that the law should require those who are concerned in the management of care agencies to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable action to prevent drug dealing. Managers can and do take a range of actions to combat drug misuse on their premises. Managers and staff should ensure that all reasonable action is taken, in accordance with the law, to prevent the supply of controlled drugs on the premises.

The key lies in an effective drugs policy which is known and understood by managers, staff, residents and others who use the premises. They will also understand that that policy has been developed on the basis of best advice, involving liaison with police and health agencies. Such a policy is the way forward and the basis of good practice.

Managers across the country have daily to deal with those issues. We owe the overwhelming majority of them a debt of gratitude for the way in which they perform that function.

We are unable to accept new clause 1, which we believe would weaken and certainly make less clear the provisions of the 1971 Act. The new clause would enable owners and managers to argue that, although they had what is currently considered to be a guilty knowledge of illegal activity, they had not permitted it wilfully, by showing that they had taken some, but not all reasonable measures to prevent the production, supply or use of illegal drugs on their premises.

I do not think that, in those circumstances, the new clause would achieve the clarity and transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the other hon. Members who tabled the new clause seek to achieve to enable those who do that difficult and complex work better to order their affairs.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The Minister may not be able to answer this question now. If he cannot, I should be grateful if he would write to me on it. He said that, in the context of care provision, the measure was used for the first time in the case that we discussed. Can he give us the figures on how frequently the measure has been used generally since 1971?

Mr. Boateng

No; but I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on that.

Clarity is crucial in the drafting of criminal offences. I do not believe that new clause 1, as drafted, would meet that test, as those who tabled the new clause intended it to do. However, I well understand the concerns about the general point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge articulated, while avoiding comment on the specific case. In considering further guidance, we shall certainly bear in mind the contribution of all hon. Members to this debate. It has been an important debate about a serious issue and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it in the way that she has.

7 pm

Mrs. Anne Campbell

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, which has been important in terms of clarification. I thank also my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the courteous way in which he responded to my concerns.

I accept that care agencies are not exempt from the law, nor would I wish them to be so. It is important that we take steps to ensure that there is no illegal drug abuse on premises where we can reasonably expect people to be protected from such activity. It is important that care agencies should not be exempt from the law; indeed, that was not what I was arguing.

I was arguing that there should be more clarity, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will issue guidance. I hope that that will come soon, because of the enormous anxiety that the case to which I referred has created. Of course, care workers must take reasonable steps to show that they have not knowingly permitted or suffered actions to take place. They must not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye.

I believe that reasonable steps were taken in the case of Wintercomfort when people who were suspected of drug taking were excluded from the premises. That does not appear to be a sufficient way of demonstrating that reasonable steps have been taken. Many people were excluded—not on the basis that they were seen to be exchanging drugs or money but, in some cases, simply on the basis that they were suspected of doing so. It may have been because of their behaviour. They may have been sitting close together in a huddle, having a conversation which looked as though it was not intended to be overheard.

My right hon. Friend maintains that this is not a widespread problem. I will be happy if that is the case, but there is a concern, held by many in the sector, that having once brought a successful case and gained a conviction, the police might be encouraged to bring others, and innocent victims may be caught.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the more interesting words used by the Minister of State were that, often, Court of Appeal judgments in these sort of things helped to make the law clear, and that it would be convenient if the Court of Appeal could do that in this case?

Mrs. Campbell

The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in pursuing this case and makes an important point. Like many others, I will read the words of my right hon. Friend on the clause with care. I hope that the further guidance from the Government will be issued and I urge that that be done as quickly as possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to