Clause 1 - Aggravated supply of controlled drug
Drugs Bill
9:10 am
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister (Northern Ireland), Northern Ireland Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 9 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). With it have been grouped amendments Nos. 17 and 10, and Conservative amendments Nos. 28 and 30, which largely deal with the same matters. I will leave others to speak to them, although in the interests of expeditiousness, I may make brief reference to them.
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together, because, although they are different, essentially they strike at the same point. They are intended as probing amendments but, as always, I reserve the right to change my view on whether they are probing amendments depending on the attitude that the Minister exhibits.
As I may have said on Second Reading, I was struck by the fact that the Government have chosen to make the aggravation apply to offenders of 18 years or over. Exactly what was the reason for that? It leaves open an age gap of those aged 16 to 18, who may be the likeliest to be guilty of acting in this aggravated manner. A 16-year-old might be more likely to be a dealer because they would have left school more recently. They would have contacts in the school and would know who to go to, who would pass on the drugs, who would be the couriers and where they would be least likely to come to the attention of the school authorities. However, it seems to me that they will not be covered by the Bill, although I am always willing to be put right.
The second age-related amendment is amendment No. 10. It seeks to change the limit set for the age of the courier, which is presently under 18. On mature reflection, I suspect that it would not be wise to change that, because there is an argument for saying that keeping the limit at 18 would cover all those in the school under the scope of the Bill. That said, I am interested to know what the Government's thinking was when they set the age at 18. It is slightly unhelpful to set such age barriers, because age may not necessarily be the best way to define those who will be covered by the Bill.
Amendment No. 28 would change the age of those covered by the Bill to the age of ''criminal responsibility'', which would have the same effect as removing any question of age at all. It would mean that the Bill would apply to any transaction involving people of the age of criminal responsibility, which would be just about anyone. That would substantially extend the scope of the provisions. I would be cautious about proceeding in that way. The approach taken by the Government to ensure that there will not be an element of compulsion on the basis of the age of those involved in these dealing relationships has something to recommend it. However, at the same time, there are these arbitrary cut-off points, at 16 or 18 or whatever it will be that is necessarily desirable.
Amendment No. 17 extends the terms of subsection (3), so that it would read
''the first condition is that the offence was committed in the vicinity of a school at the relevant time'',
and would then go on to read
''or involved the supply of controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16.''
The purpose in bringing the amendment before the Committee is again to probe the Minister and to clarify the aggravation. I fully accept that it would extend the scope of the aggravation fairly significantly, but I suggest it is also significant, in that it is in tune with the themes that the Government are using in introducing the clause. Surely, the reason for having an aggravation provision is to protect young people. They are in as much need of protection while at a youth club, or outside a burger bar, or in any place where they might happen to be at any given time, as they are when in school. For that reason, it seemed to me that simply to narrow the scope of applying the aggravation provision is not particularly useful. We miss an opportunity if we proceed in that manner.
A possible difficulty arises if aggravation applies merely to being in the vicinity of a school. There is always the possibility that transactions not related in any way to that school—they might take place half a mile or so away from it—would be caught by the provision as it stands. There is at the moment a quite broad definition of what the vicinity of a school is. However, the thrust behind this amendment is to ask why it should be that the protection offered by the clause, if it is necessary, is to be offered only in relation to schools.