Clause 9 - Power of arrest for possession of Class C drugs
Criminal Justice Bill
5:45 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The issue in the clause has been approached, perfectly correctly, by the hon. Gentleman on the basis of its relevance to the status of cannabis. As he knows, while there are mixed opinions in all parties about cannabis, it has been my experience from working in south London, in areas close to his, that cannabis is a very nefarious drug. Therefore, if it were the Government's intention to reduce its status from class B to class C while preserving the ability to arrest for possession, that would not cause me particular concern. I can see that there are compelling reasons why there should still be a power of arrest for cannabis, even if there is a change in the sentence that can be passed for it. I do not want to dwell on that issue at much greater length at this stage, because that is not my principal concern about the wording of the clause.
I find the Government's behaviour amazing. Having got themselves tangled in an extraordinarily complex set of knots, they have sent out mixed messages about whether they approve of cannabis.
Having on the one hand announced that they would downgrade it and that the police should not target it, they suddenly veered back under public pressure to say that it must remain arrestable. When the fallout has finally landed we discover that there is not a clause that concerns cannabis, but one that, on my calculation, concerns 117 other substances, possession of any of which will become, for the first time, an immediately arrestable offence. As I am sure the Minister will be only too happy to confirm in a moment, those substances are described by their generic terminology. A medical practitioner can lawfully prescribed a large number of them to a patient.
Hilary Benn indicated assent.