Drugs Bill
2:45 pm
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
No, to keep the girls in.
A dealer could argue that he did not know that that boarding house was part of the school and would get away with the aggravated offence, unless the Minister were willing to state, for when the legislation is interpreted in future, that she would include boarding schools.
There is another issue that I should like to ask about, although I did not know where in the Bill to raise it and have chosen this clause, because it deals with identifying premises. What happens, for example, when someone is dealing outside a local authority care home? In some cases care homes are educational establishments. The children resident there receive education on the premises. If the state is in loco parentis, an extra burden of care should be placed, with a commensurately high penalty for a dealer who offends anywhere in the vicinity of that home. Has the Minister considered extending the provision in proposed subsection 4A(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which I suggest should be deleted, to include care homes, as there would be a concentration of youngsters, which would appeal to any dealer?
That aside, I return to my original argument. If the offender or the offender's barristers reads the wonderful words in those provisions,
''did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know'',
they could put up a pretty good argument that they did not know they were near a school in use by persons under the age of 18. If a night class was taking place, the dealer could say, ''But I thought it was an adult night class.'' There could be children learning in a late night session and the dealer would still get away with it.