Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

This is an extremely important clause. It is the clause whereby the Government propose that, as a result of the intended reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C, the law on what is an arrestable offence should be changed so that the offences in relation to possession of controlled and class C drugs become arrestable offences. When Lord Justice Auld reviewed the criminal justice system and made his extensive report, he did not address the issue. When Mr. Halliday undertook the sentencing review, he did not address the issue. It was not a core part of Government policy.

This proposal from the Home Office is part of what I—and many people outside Parliament, not only from my party—feel strongly is an extremely muddled response from Government. I shall take time to explain so that colleagues, whatever their views about the use and possession of cannabis, understand that it is nonsense to propose that we make possession of class C drugs—not just cannabis—arrestable offences. It is extra nonsensical to do it, as appears to be the case, because the Government want a power of arrest to be available in what they call aggravated circumstances; powers to arrest already exist in a lot, if not all, of such circumstances.

Even if we accept the premise that there are circumstances in which possessors of cannabis and other class C drugs ought to be able to be not only apprehended and charged but arrested and detained—treated as though they had committed more serious offences—the proposal is unnecessary because of the existing law. Possession of cannabis is an arrestable offence by virtue of the fact that it carries a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment. That is the result of its being a class B drug. After reclassification, anything that—as is proposed for cannabis—changes to class C will carry a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and therefore will no longer be an arrestable offence, unless we change the law, as proposed here, to make it so. In order to retain the

power to arrest after one has changed the category, one has to change the law, which is what is proposed. The arrestable offences are in a schedule to PACE.

There are other drugs, as colleagues are aware, that are less readily recognised as class C drugs, such as anabolic steroids and benzodiazepines, but cannabis is the best known. In fact, there are few offences of that type—perhaps when the Minister presents his case for change, he will say how many such offences are committed—so we are discussing a de minimis area of law.

For 30 years since the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971, the unlawful possession of class C drugs was not an arrestable offence. As colleagues on the Committee and many people outside the House know, decisions about the classification of drugs are made as a result of advice given to Government by various bodies and on the basis of harm: it is a harm-related test. The advice that was commissioned by the Home Secretary after the last election, to his credit, is that cannabis should be downgraded on medical grounds—not because it is not harmful, as I believe that it is to an extent, but because it falls into the lowest of the three bands. There is no dispute in Parliament and outside that it is less harmful than an excess of alcohol and much less harmful than tobacco, neither of which are class C drugs.

I think that when I last checked the figures, there were no deaths from cannabis in this country, according to a ministerial answer—there might have been a handful, but the last figures that I saw suggested that there were none—whereas there are 120,000 deaths a year from tobacco-related cancer. The two are in entirely different leagues. The number of deaths directly related to alcoholism and alcohol poisoning is somewhere in between. I think that the figure is 40,000 a year.

As far as I am aware—I am open to the Minister telling me otherwise—there were no complaints in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s about law enforcement as a result of the fact that possession of class C drugs was not an arrestable offence. I am not aware that the police ever complained that it was a problem. The list of class C drugs grew during that time, but there was never any suggestion that possession should be an arrestable offence. Possession of class A and B drugs is an arrestable offence, and there is no proposal for that to change. The Liberal Democrats have debated the issue for two years, going around the country and taking evidence, setting up a policy review and discussing the issue at conference, and we do not believe that it should be possible to be imprisoned for any possession-only offence. Whether possession of a class A or B drug should be an arrestable offence is a slightly more difficult question, but because it might result in imprisonment, we argue that the power to arrest and imprison should not apply to possession-only offences. I would be happy if the law were to change so that arrest would be possible but the penalty of imprisonment would not apply.

Other bits of the law provide for powers of arrest. My understanding is that the police have a general

power of arrest under section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in cases in which an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence, which is otherwise not an arrestable offence, has been committed, and where specific other circumstances exist. Aggravated circumstances, therefore, can take the offence from the non-arrestable to the arrestable category—for example, if the identity of a suspect is in doubt and the police need to arrest someone to identify them, or if the officer needs to intervene to prevent physical injury or damage. It is not as if an officer cannot arrest someone whom he or she believes is in possession of cannabis and about whom the officer has other concerns. The powers already exist. I believe that that is entirely sufficient as a way of dealing with any offences relating to cannabis use that do not qualify as offences under others parts of the law.

I understand the political difficulty that any Government have in not wishing to be seen as soft on drugs. Some of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), argue that all drugs should be legalised. I do not go that far; under international law we cannot go so far. She is a doctor who believes that we should. Other colleagues may not agree with her, but they believe that drug possession should not mean a prison sentence. I subscribe to that view.

Despite the difficult political position that the Government perceive themselves to be in, by now the public and the media overwhelmingly believe that possession of drugs should not mean a prison sentence. I do not think that the Government or the police believe that it should either. The Lambeth experiment, which was not a complete failure, was endorsed by the last borough commander, Commander Paddick, and the present borough commander, Commander Moore, regarded it as a significant success.

In order to avoid the impression that the Metropolitan Police are ''going soft on drugs'', a power of arrest is being proposed that will be exercised at the discretion of an officer only if there are aggravating circumstances. These include blowing smoke in a police officer's face or disorder involving someone in possession of cannabis or possession of cannabis by a person aged 17 or under. I do not know why we need one law giving an officer the power to arrest someone aged 17 or under and another for arresting someone who is 18 or 19. That strikes me as an odd and anomalous suggestion; it is, however, being proposed. Will a person under 17 be treated more severely than a person over 18? It seems odd to arrest them. I imagine that that will raise issues concerning care.

Why can the public order powers not be used to deal with someone who blows smoke at an officer? The only argument offered by the police and by Ministers is that we will need this law not for run-of-the-mill possession but for possession with aggravating factors. I understand that the Government do not wish to look soft, but they are trying to have it both ways: they are trying to make the statute book look tougher, yet in practice be softer. That sends out a completely confusing message: ''From now on you will be able

to go out to smoke cannabis only if you know that there is a risk that you may be arrested and given a long prison sentence, depending entirely on the discretion of the police in your area and the police officer on the night in question.''

That absolutely confuses the message that class C drugs are least serious; class B drugs are more serious but not the most serious; and class A crack cocaine and heroin are deadly serious. If we are trying to get intelligent, and less intelligent, young people to understand this message we must surely use the same argument that we have always used when giving the proof on the outside of a bottle or the information on the label on a box of tablets that tells you whether the product is harmful.

I hope that the Committee and the House will act intelligently in anticipating the debates in another place, as this proposition will not stand up to proper scrutiny. It will not get through Parliament as it is; it will be thrown out on its ear in the other place, and it would be ridiculed even if it did get through Parliament.

There have been two significant inquiries into the working of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There was the Justice report in 1991 and Dame Ruth Runciman's well-respected Police Foundation report in 2000. Neither inquiry reported any problems caused by the fact that possession of class C drugs was not an arrestable offence. As far as I know, neither report said that the law must be changed.

If one looks back 10 years at the Justice report, which says that the power of arrest for possession of cannabis should be retained, one could argue that the experience of the following 10 years went in the opposite direction. The Runciman report considered that experience and specifically addressed the question of arrest for possession of cannabis. It did not make that same recommendation: indeed, it recommended that cannabis should be declassified and that there should not be a power of arrest. That was based on the experience of the police at that time, as well as of others who gave evidence.

There was concern in 1991 that an officer finding the drug would be disadvantaged without a power of arrest. That was the last argument that I heard made for the power of arrest for possession of cannabis. The substance would have to be sent to a lab for analysis, which could allow for allegations of misconduct and tampering. Moreover, the officer would lose the power to search premises after an arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

However, my understanding is that everybody accepted when they gave evidence to Dame Ruth Runciman and her colleagues that better procedures, analysis and techniques make allegations much less frequent. Allegations used to be preventable and the systems worked much better before because the power under section 18 of PACE is limited to searching for evidence in respect of the offence for which the suspect was arrested. A section 18 search was not often justified for possession of cannabis unless the individual was a supplier who was about to go and do lots of deals.

The police could use many other powers in circumstances in which the Government and the police appear to think that the power of arrest may be necessary. The Public Order Act 1986, which we all know and which is widely used by the police, gives summary power of arrest for all offences that are contrary to that Act. Therefore, threatening, insulting and abusive behaviour all carry the power of arrest. Someone who might be in possession of cannabis and who on seeing the police coming is rude and vulgar can be arresting for that offence. The police do not require the extra power under the Bill.

The paradox is that, having realised that all those other powers exist, one sees that this is a bold proposal that does not have any limitations on when the power of arrest might be used. We could legislate to give a power of arrest in certain limited circumstances and include those provisions in the Bill. One could argue that there should be a power of arrest for cannabis possession according to guidelines agreed and approved by both Houses as secondary legislation. However, none of those points is argued. It is a bold, straightforward proposition to change cannabis from B to C, yet still make its possession an arrestable offence—the same as for other class C drugs.

I would not support a qualified change to the guidelines. However, if there was at least a serious proposition, there should be some way that people would see that the legislation would be applied consistently. It is no good to say that we shall leave it to the different police forces' discretion. If people who live in Camberwell, in the Solicitor-General's constituency, walk towards Brixton—where Southwark becomes Lambeth—they are still in SE5. People may cross that boundary on their way from one bar or one home to another. The policy in Southwark may be not to arrest people for cannabis possession, but the Lambeth borough commander of the day might say that his officers will arrest people.

Someone from Uxbridge may cross into Buckinghamshire because that is where his mates go, and the policy of the Buckinghamshire police—part of the Thames Valley force—might differ from that in Uxbridge. It is complete nonsense that the law should be different in different parts of the country. It either should be an offence to possess a drug or it should not. That has nothing to do with the debate on whether it is an offence to supply cannabis and to be a dealer. I am absolutely into clobbering people whose offence is being a dealer, and I would have an aggravated offence for those dealing outside school playgrounds, youth clubs and other places where vulnerable youngsters might be found.

It is bizarre that the proposed increase in the penalty for trafficking in cannabis will, under this package of changes, increase from five years to 14 years. It is bizarre, when the advisory council said that it was less serious and should be downgraded, that it is suddenly proposed to double, and nearly as much again, the maximum term of imprisonment—talk about people not having confidence in judges, the legal system and sentencing.

It might be helpful if I point out that the maximum penalty will remain the same as it is now.

Yes, but the product will be different. The Minister is quite right that there is no proposed change in the penalty; unfortunately, it means that something that is now a class B drug that will become a class C drug, because everyone agrees that it is less harmful and should be treated as such, is none the less given the maximum penalty—the old penalty—that went with its being classified as a more serious drug.

The Police Foundation inquiry recommended that the penalty should go up from five to seven years for trafficking, but no one recommended that it should be increased to 14 years for trafficking in cannabis. The reality is that if people are dealing in cannabis they should be clobbered, but surely not to the same extent as those dealing in crack cocaine, heroin and ecstasy, which are included in the gradated tariff down to class C. The whole thing will undermine the idea of the three-category system—very serious, not so serious and least serious. My understanding, therefore—the Minister appears to agree—is that from now on, as part of this package of changes, the penalties for trafficking in classes B or C, rather than, as in the past, only class B, will be 14 years.

One other linked issue has been extremely controversial. Hon. Members will remember the Cambridge Two case, in which the people who ran a hostel were charged with offences for permitting the use of drugs there. The maximum sentence imposed on occupiers or managers permitting certain activities to take place on premises contrary to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is 14 years for class A and B drugs, and five years for class C drugs. If cannabis becomes a class C drug, the manager of premises where cannabis is used would be liable to up to 14 years' imprisonment. That, too, is illogical if we are trying to keep the same differentiation and gradation.

In one respect, this is all cloud cuckoo land. We should consider the sentences passed by the stipendiaries, district judges, lay magistrates and Crown court judges for possession offences. Although the maximum penalty for possession of a class C drug will continue to be two years' imprisonment, and five years for a class B drug, in the real world people are not sent to prison for possession of a class C drug and almost never for possession of a class B drug. We are giving a hugely increased tariff, but there has been not only no demand for but no experience of people being sentenced at the top of the tariff. That must bring the law into disrepute. I ask hon. Members to think seriously before signing up to the change.

Some may think that cannabis possession should remain illegal. I accept that in international law—we are signatories to the Geneva narcotics conventions—we cannot unilaterally decriminalise possession of cannabis. I understand what the Dutch are trying to do, but the theory that says, ''Go through the front door of a cannabis café in Amsterdam, share cannabis

with mates, and it is not an offence, but bring it from a lorry through the back door and it is an offence, but it will be ignored,'' is a fudge. The Dutch and Portuguese have considered making it subject to administrative penalty, like some parking offences, but that introduces unnecessary complications.

The way to handle the issue is to say that, although possession of cannabis must remain on the statute book as an offence, it should be a public policy decision not to prosecute, as is done in the case of the blasphemy law. The Crown Prosecution Service has always used two criteria in deciding whether to prosecute: whether it is in the public interest and whether it is 50 per cent. or more likely that a conviction will be achieved. If the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General were to decide that there would not be prosecutions for possession of cannabis, there would be no prosecutions. It could be left technically on the statute book but everyone would know, whether they were in Essex or South Wales, the Police Service for Northern Ireland or in West Mercia, that possession alone would not be prosecuted. My view is that it should not be.

When the police are desperately trying to get on top of problems such as the gun crime of which we hear every day, it is so low a priority for them to go after people for possession of cannabis that it should not be a police activity. It is a complete waste of time, space and effort and should disappear. I do not ask colleagues to share my conclusion. However, even if it is the Committee's view that there should be prosecution for possession of cannabis, it is absolutely illogical to downgrade cannabis to the least harmful category and then make it an arrestable offence, carrying a significant prison sentence, and to make trafficking of cannabis as serious an offence, in terms of punishment, as dealing in heroin and crack cocaine. I hope that the Committee will throw out the clause. It is a nonsense and a fudge and, whatever views we may have about drugs use, it is a ridiculous proposition. I hope that it receives very short shrift and is out of the Bill before it leaves Parliament.

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.

I see the Minister nodding. A person walking down Brixton high road could be the subject of a search because the police think that he perhaps has unlawful substances on his person, and they might discover in his pocket two tablets of diazepam. On the face of it, that would be a sufficient ground for arrest. It is unlikely that that person would be carrying the prescription by which he had lawfully obtained that substance.

Aside from unlawful suppliers, there is also the old problem, in this age of self-medication, that many such drugs are the sort of thing that one's Auntie Vera might give to one, saying, ''Why don't you have one of these if you're feeling a bit stressed?''

I like it.

I do apologise to the hon. and learned Lady. I was not thinking of her subconsciously. I had an aunt called Vera who had an interesting and rather vagabond lifestyle. I shall not go into the details, but perhaps that was what impinged on my consciousness.

The list of drugs is enormous, and many can be possessed perfectly lawfully. I have not heard about anxieties over the level of misuse of those substances, though I await the Minister's comments on that. I accept that they are all misused. Some are taken with hard drugs to prolong the effect. I do not have the slightest clue what some of them are; nor, I suspect, does he. However, whether we are talking about anabolic steroids or tranquillisers, I invite him to write to the Committee to say exactly what they all are, whether they are lawfully available on prescription, and what their harmful side effects are considered to be. When we know that, we can judge whether it is appropriate for possession to become an arrestable offence.

The issue is serious, and involves a massive extension of the state's power to take somebody off the street, take them into a police station and detain them while inquiries take place, for possession of a range of substances, a large number of which they might have a lawful reason to possess. That is entirely different to the situation with respect to class A and B drugs, and cannabis.

I do not have the list that my hon. Friend has, although I know that diazepam is frequently prescribed for epileptics. There are hundreds of thousands of epileptics in this

country who frequently have to carry large stashes of the stuff. That adds to his point. Not everyone will carry their prescription with them, and if they are searched by the police, they could easily suffer the effects of which he talked.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I picked on diazepam because it is one of the few drugs on the list that I immediately recognised. From my involvement in one or two prosecutions under the Medicines Act 1968, which is rather esoteric but concerns some of those substances, I suspect that many of them are not usually regarded as being especially harmful, even if they may be abused. The real abuse will be of the perfectly innocent people who are dragged off to police stations to satisfy police officers about the origin of prescription drugs because they cannot produce a prescription to justify their possession. That would be a disastrous state of affairs.

It beggars belief that in order to make the possession of cannabis an arrestable offence—this is the only possible reason for the proposal—the Government have decided to make the possession of all class C drugs, generically, an arrestable offence. I hope that the Minister will think again. If he wanted to draft an amendment to the law that satisfied the Government's desire to keep possession of cannabis as an arrestable offence while putting it into class C, I would understand the logic behind the clause. If he wanted to amend the law to identify those class C drugs possession of which would be unlawful in any circumstances, I would understand the logic and be prepared to see the distinction. However, to come up with a system for keeping possession of cannabis arrestable that potentially criminalises hundreds of thousands of people who have prescription drugs in their pockets and are going about their lawful business, or at least makes them liable to arrest and serious inconvenience is an appalling attack on civil liberties that lacks the smallest shred of justification—and it could not possibly be said that, if they had a prescription, the constable would not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence had been committed until the matter had been investigated at the police station.

Bearing in mind the desire of many Committee members to follow the Government's tortuous line on cannabis, I hope that they will have the courage to say that the proposal is simply nonsense. I cannot think of any justification for making possession of all class C drugs an arrestable offence. We have managed without such a provision for a very long time and no one was calling for it until we got into this cannabis conundrum. I ask the Minister to think again.

I have no hesitation in saying that the clause is simply nonsense, and I say that as a thoughtful, constructive supporter of the Government and the Bill, not as a usual suspect. In all honesty, I do not believe that the clause makes sense or should be included in the Bill. I say that as someone who stands behind the Government, not to slap them on the back—or stab them in the back—but

sometimes to push them forward to take better and braver positions.

I am not a lobbyist for cannabis. I do not buy it and I have never smoked it. The hardest drugs with which I have experimented are strong lager and Marlboro Lights, and I gave up smoking some years ago. Both those drugs are considerably more harmful than cannabis. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the statistics show that there are 120,000 smoking-related deaths and up to 40,000 alcohol-related deaths in England and Wales every year, yet it is entirely lawful to buy and use both cigarettes and alcohol, subject to constraints on age and excess. In 2000, cannabis was mentioned in just 11 death certificates in the United Kingdom. The various classes of drugs are dictated by harm, but they should be dictated by medical evidence. If we have evidence of that nature, we should follow it, as I thought that we had started to do when the Government recently announced that cannabis would be downgraded to class C. That was a step in the right direction. It was giving out a message that people understood—one that must be understood by people who are tempted to use cannabis and other drugs. If we say that those drugs are not harmful but then say that possession is arrestable, it sends out a confused and mixed message.

I believe that the message should not confuse the police or potential users. The police could be given the message that it is not so serious an offence and that they should not waste their time chasing possessors of a relatively harmless substance when they could spend their time chasing the dealers of extremely dangerous substances. I thought that that was our message, but we are now suddenly saying something rather different. I thought that we were saying to the users of this relatively harmless substance that it was not so serious, but we will now be giving out a different message at the same time.

I wonder what my hon. Friend would say to the 149 of the 150 of my young constituents to whom I have spoken during the past year, who are all heroin addicts? Each one of them bar one has told me that they directly compared the experience of taking cannabis with that of taking heroin. Cannabis was not taken as a gateway, but they thought that after experiencing the hit of taking cannabis and knowing that they could control their cannabis use meant that they could control their use of heroin—which they could until 149 of them became addicted. What would he say to them?

I would say many things to them, as I have said many things to the heroin addicts and cannabis users that I have consulted and talked to. First, if it is used as a gateway drug it will be a far more dangerous gateway if it is illegal, as it will have to be purchased from a dealer rather than being bought with a pack of Marlboro Lights or a pint of milk from the Co-op. My hon. Friend spoke with great feeling about those 149 youths, but the message would be far more credible if they were to be told that there are genuine distinctions between drugs—that heroin is desperately dangerous, which is why it is a class A drug, and that cannabis is relatively less dangerous, which is why it is a class C drug.

More important, I would give those youths the same message that I would give my three children. The one thing that I want them to avoid beyond all else is getting into hard drugs. If they can avoid that, other things will be possible according to their talents, their efforts and their endeavour. However, if they are going to experiment, I would want them to experiment on a sensible factual basis and from a sensible legal position. It is not sensible to downgrade cannabis and then suddenly to make its possession an arrestable offence—and not only that but make possession of a number of other drugs, some of which can be quite lawfully possessed, an arrestable offence, because one is afraid to take a consistent and brave position, apparently on the basis that cannabis can be possessed in aggravated circumstances.

If that is the true basis of the legislation, we should say so, and define those aggravated circumstances in legislation. Why should possession be an offence in some places but not in others? People should be able genuinely and honestly to understand exactly what the law is and why. It should be applied consistently and universally in every constituency, so that all our young constituents know the position and they can be fairly and equally treated.

We have had an interesting debate. I shall deal first with one specific question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about class C possession offences. He was right to say that the number was very small: in 2000, the total was 433. I must confess that I was genuinely puzzled by the argument that he advanced, although I acknowledge where he is coming from. He seemed to be saying that there were circumstances in which a power of arrest would be appropriate. In support of that, and notwithstanding the reclassification of cannabis from B to C, he argued that existing powers could be used to arrest in such circumstances. That is just what the clause says. The clause appears in the form that it does because our view, and the advice that we have received, is that the existing arrest powers to which he referred—and which he seemed happy to see used in certain circumstances, which is why I am confused by his argument—are not sufficient. For example, the advice is that the public order offences that he mentioned would not cover an individual blowing smoke into an officer's face. I genuinely do not understand his position, because I think that there is a general, if not total, consensus in support of the reclassification, which the Home Secretary proposed and on which he has received advice, and which we intend to proceed with.

We should not forget where the process comes from. It is driven in part, because it impacts on policing, by police forces. One has only to look at the figures going back 20 years for the number of occasions on which people found in possession of cannabis have been issued with cautions—they have risen substantially. That reflects policing practice. The police have come to realise that it makes sense to focus their effort as much as possible on dealing with the drugs that cause the greatest harm: specifically, class A drugs. They have initiated the process that we are considering. We propose to reclassify from B to C. In a

small number of circumstances in which people behave in an aggravating way, with the risk of causing difficulty, the police should have the power of arrest in relation to the possession of cannabis. I do not see an enormous contradiction between making a sensible change from B to C while retaining a power of arrest. The hon. Gentleman accepted, in advancing his argument, that that might be necessary in certain circumstances.

To go back to the point about the other powers that exist, I was not putting my case but observing that it is my understanding that there exist in statute a range of other powers that can be used. The Minister has not yet addressed, and I hope that he will, the question posed both by me and by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). If the Government believe that there are specific circumstances not covered by the current powers, why does the proposal not propose the power of arrest in those circumstances? It might at least deal in part with the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—unless there were an aggravating circumstance for carrying all the other drugs around, one would not be able to be arrested for the long list that he mentioned either.

I think that the answer is that it is better to leave it to the police to determine where it would be appropriate to use the new power, bearing in mind what I said a moment ago about the process having been started by the police. When we talk to police officers in our constituencies, they make the case for giving themselves time and space to concentrate on dealing with the most harmful drugs and the most serious crimes. I detect that there is not a lot of argument in the Committee about the sensible nature of the change. I simply do not agree with the argument that there is a glaring inconsistency in saying that, notwithstanding the change, we should not retain a power of arrest—

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's argument. It is persuasive. However, would this not be a golden opportunity to be completely consistent and to consider creating offences of either substantive possession or aggravated possession, thus making it clear to people exactly what the law is and what the purpose of and rationale for the law is?

I hear my hon. Friend's argument, but I hold to what I said a moment ago. In such circumstances, it is best to leave it to the police and to sensible policing practice. In most cases, first offences will result in a police warning given on the street, together with confiscation of the drug. Time will be saved by not arresting people and taking them to the police station. The police time thus freed up can be used to deal with more dangerous and damaging drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and others spoke about the danger of class A drugs. We all would agree that this is the real evil and the really pernicious danger to our society.

The second argument, which was advanced by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, related to the long list

of the other class C drugs, which I will not even attempt to pronounce. He was absolutely right that if prescription drugs are in someone's possession because they have been obtained on a doctor's prescription, that is not contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The police would not be able to arrest for possession unless they had a reasonable suspicion that they had not been prescribed. These drugs are therefore put in a separate category from cannabis in what will now be the class C category of drugs. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey argued with some passion that police up and down the country would now be nicking people for having some of these drugs in their possession, taking them to police stations and so on. I say to him frankly and honestly that I simply do not believe that that will happen.

I hope that the Minister will accept that I am a firm supporter of the police. I believe that they do a splendid job and they are an absolute necessity and the principal barrier between our society and serious crime. I also have to say that I take the view that there are instances when the police can misuse their power. If ever there was the potential for misuse, it is this.

I hear the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I would simply repeat what I said a moment ago. The police will not be able to exercise the power of arrest, which I freely acknowledge will now exist because of the change that we propose in order to deal with those very small number of offences relating to cannabis, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the drugs have not been prescribed. I have heard the arguments. A lot of passion has been exercised. In the end this is a sensible balance. I think that the Committee accepts the reasons for the reclassification from B to C. At the same time a clear power of arrest remains. I do not believe that the existing powers to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey drew attention would be sufficient for dealing with the problems that will arise. It is a balance, but I do not think that it sends out a mixed message.

Does the Minister not accept that he is making a rather weak argument? In essence, he is saying that Parliament is going to give the police an expanded power over this list of 100 drugs, but that we should not worry because in reality they will probably never use it. If that is the case, why give it to them?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there might be circumstances when the power could be used. We have to acknowledge that these drugs are class C for a reason. There will be circumstances where a doctor has not prescribed them properly. If there were not a problem in relation to these drugs they would not be on the list. In those circumstances, it would be a matter for police discretion. I do not accept that there will be an enormous problem. One needs to make a distinction between circumstances in which people have the drugs because they have been prescribed—the police cannot arrest unless they have a reasonable suspicion that

they have not been prescribed—and the other circumstances that give rise to this large number of drugs, the names of which I cannot pronounce, being placed on the class C list.

I am grateful for the up-to-date figure on the number of offences; it would be helpful if at some stage the Minister could tell me the maximum punishment that has been imposed for possession in the past year or two, although I appreciate that he may not have the evidence to hand. An easy ban is at times possible. Can he tell me how the 433 offences were punished? That would be interesting and useful information.

The Minister is right that there is support in the Committee for reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug. I did not hear the hon. Member for Beaconsfield argue that there was an immediate need for moving other drugs in or out of class C. I assume therefore that there is also general agreement that class C is the right home for those other drugs at present. In answer to the Minister's question, or statement of confusion, about whether I think that additional powers of arrest are important, we do not need more powers of arrest because the ''aggravated'' circumstances described by the Government and the police are already covered in law. There is no need for this change; breaches of public order can be dealt with under existing law.

The Minister failed to deal with discretion, which was raised by all parties in the Committee. Drugs possession and stop and search for drugs are so easily abused and lead to bad experiences between the police and young people in particular. Drugs can be easily hidden; they can be easily planted. The police do not have a clean track record when it comes to planting drugs; in many cases on record, they decided that they wanted to catch someone and so planted drugs on them.

Representing an inner-city, mixed-race constituency as I do, I find that one of the things that most turns young people against the police—and there are many of them—is their belief that the police will pick on them unjustifiably and go on picking on them. That is often what the police do: they go for the usual suspects. That can lead to those kids becoming real troublemakers.

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and have no doubt that he knows his constituency. May I tell him in contradistinction to his point of the experience of my constituency? Young people and old people alike tell me that they fully support the police, but they wish that the police were more active in attacking drug dealers and in raiding their premises, as drug dealers are making other people's lives a misery.

I share that view. I, like him, receive complaints that the police do not act on reports of drug dealers' criminal behaviour. The police should be going after the dealers, not after those who may occasionally have a little bit of puff in their pocket. That is not central to an intelligent strategy.

The evidence that I have from young people in my constituency is that they are all—all—involved in dealing at some level. All of them. They

deal at different levels of course. What are the criteria for classifying a dealer? Is a dealer someone who has hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of drugs on them or is it someone who has perhaps a bag of heroin worth £55 that he splits 11 ways, taking one for himself and selling the other 10 like every young heroin addict in my constituency? How would the hon. Gentleman distinguish between a user and a dealer in such cases?

That is a perfectly good question and one that I was going to ask the Minister. My view and that of the Runciman report is that social supply is not dealing and ought not to be treated as an arrestable offence. When my constituents or those of the hon. Gentleman give their mate—

They are selling, not giving.

Will the hon. Gentleman just bear with me? I know that he has a strong view about this issue and has done work on it in his constituency, but I hope that he will listen to the alternative arguments of people who have done as much constituency work as him, if not more, who know their constituency as well as he does his and who talk to as many people about this issue as he does. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that not everyone is driven to the same conclusion as him.

John Mann rose—

No, wait. Social supply is not for sale or profit, but about giving stuff to a mate—going out for the evening and passing stuff round. In my view, it is nonsensical to make that subject to prosecution. Just to complete the picture, I also believe that growing your own should not be subject to prosecution. In that way, the immediate supply that is not commercial would not be in the criminal system.

The people who should be prosecuted are those who supply for money—for profit. That is a different ball game and leads to another question, which has also been asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on the Floor of the House and by others. The matter could be dealt with by making it an offence to have significant or substantial amounts, rather than by using another definition. If someone had a significant or substantial amount of cannabis, it would be reasonable to deduce that it was not for their own use.

That is how one distinguishes the person who is part of a small network that passes drugs round, as many people do in society, including kids in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, and as people in the fashionable world of the west end do with cocaine and other things. I am talking about a social activity that is not for profit. It is simply about people sharing stuff when they are out on the street, in the bus shelter, round the back of the empty flats or wherever. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that that is different from selling, or will at least do me the courtesy of understanding that there is a difference.

Yes, there are people who realise that there is quite a good market there, but why, and from where do they get their large amounts to supply? They get them from

the people who deal in more addictive, serious drugs. If we do not separate the drugs that are very unaddictive—the least serious—from the others, of course people will be put into the hands of the suppliers and profiteers.

The hon. Gentleman again regales me with his vast knowledge of this subject, but let me ask him about the addicts. Young people in my constituency are addicted to drugs. They do not sell drugs for ''profit''; they sell drugs of whatever kind and whatever else they can get their hands on, such as cannabis, heroin and stolen goods, for money to buy more drugs. That is the nature of addiction. How can the hon. Gentleman distinguish between the levels of supply in respect of people who are addicted to drugs? How does that fit into his notion of not dealing with the problem of those who sell for profit? Who are these young people in his constituency? What is the evidence base for the assertions that he is making?

I could call before any Committee that the hon. Gentleman attended 20 or 30 such people. I shall name one: Russell is now an adult, but some years ago, when he was a teenager in south London, he used to cross the border between my constituency and that of the Solicitor-General. Russell started not by major selling or dealing, but by getting involved in a social activity.

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman cannot see that that activity is like what other kids do when they buy cans of lager or cigarettes. Cannabis is about a social activity that people do when they are hanging around in the evening. I do not know about the east midlands, but in south London it is a social activity. The evidence is that cannabis is not addictive in the same way, or at all. Of course, if we are to have a stupid system that means that we do not separate one category of drugs from another, so that the people who are pumping out heroin, crack cocaine and ecstasy tablets—not that they normally sell that range—start by flogging people cannabis, and then get them on to other stuff, we will drive the Russells of this world and others into the hands of the dealers and profiteers. I have agreed with the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that we should be going after the people who are supplying cannabis for profit, but many people do not do it for profit. The majority do it for social recreation.

Of course, we know what happens once someone is addicted; they have to pay for the product, which they buy from the dealers. That requires them to have money that they are probably not earning, so they do the nicking. They break into cars, nick radios and flog them on the black market, and break into houses, and so it escalates. We know the figures on drug-related property crime. However, many people do not start that way. We are talking about a social activity, like drinking cans of lager and hanging round bus shelters. Hundreds of thousands of people do it and it does not lead them all to lives of drug addiction and to heroin. That is what we have to prevent happening, but we do not stop that by lumping people together.

This is a very interesting dialogue. The word that I suggest the hon. Gentleman is missing out is ''can''. Yes, cannabis can be taken socially, as can cocaine, alcohol, cigarettes and, indeed heroin. Heroin smoking is initially done socially; in the vast majority of cases, it is smoked recreationally at weekends when people first start experimenting. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about those who are not taking any of those drugs, including cannabis, socially and recreationally, but recurrently or constantly? There are young people in my constituency who have moved on to smoking cannabis without or instead of tobacco not only daily but constantly, 20 or 30 times a day—

Briefly.

They then go on to look for a different kind of hit from drugs, and, in my area, particularly from heroin.

I do not just go on my experience from talking to people, having been a youth leader, and having lived in the same place for some 20 years. I have talked to DrugScope and lots of other charities, as has the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that of course some people move on and become addicted, but the medical evidence—I am not a doctor—is that the harmful effects of cannabis and its addictive qualities are not in the same league as drugs at the top of the danger league. That is the medical evidence, which is agreed. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said so to the Government. The drugs are not in the same category.

I am not encouraging anyone to get involved in smoking cannabis, but the reason why it is so wrong to make it public policy that possession of cannabis should be an arrestable offence—

Cannabis possession is already an arrestable offence.

No, I mean to downgrade it, having accepted medical evidence that it is less serious. By accepting the evidence that it should be downgraded and keeping its possession as an arrestable offence, one is making tens of hundreds and thousands of young people suddenly into criminals for possessing it. Young people, depending on the discretion of the police in any one place, and not knowing from one day to the next whether the police will intervene, and not knowing whether there are subjective views on whether there are aggravating circumstances, will be liable to come into opposition with the police. That will not improve community relations, and will not be over a matter of significant importance. This should be dealt with as a health issue, not a policing issue. We should not criminalise local young people.

I just wondered whether I could test the dangers inherent in the proposals that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward. If I am right in understanding his proposals, possession of class C drugs would remain a criminal offence. Cannabis would remain a class C drug as the Government propose. There would be no change to the offences in respect of class A or class B drugs, but all he suggests is to make the substantial possession or aggravated

possession of cannabis a more serious offence. Is that his proposal?

I argued that no one should be arrested or prosecuted for possession alone of any drug.

Just for clarification, because I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks in introducing the amendment, is he saying that possession should not be an arrestable offence at all, or that it should not be imprisonable at all, and does that apply to all drugs including crack cocaine?

The answer is that in relation to cannabis and class C drugs it should not be arrestable and in relation to the higher class drugs it should not be imprisonable.

So, to be absolutely clear, the hon. Gentleman does not think that possession of crack cocaine should be an imprisonable offence.

Not simple possession. But I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to come with me on that point.

You would be right.

The linked question put to the Minister—which would, if answered adequately, give a way forward—would be to explore carefully either the aggravated offence concept, if Government were willing to consider it, or the substantial possession concept. That would at least gradate those people who have lots of cannabis or other class C drugs on them—more than one could ever reasonably use, which would place them above the threshold for personal use—or other activities could be defined that would make possession an aggravated offence.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. He has been attempting to make several distinctions. He argued that people should not be imprisoned for possession of any drug. He also argued that those who supply it socially to their friends, as he put it, should not suffer the full weight of the law. But bearing in mind that it is often difficult to get convictions in terms of drug dealing, does he realise that any dealer who is caught will argue that the drugs were in his possession for personal use, and if that argument fails, he will then argue that he was only supplying it socially to my mates? He will say that he was not really dealing and therefore he cannot be prosecuted. Surely the hon. Gentleman's proposal would make the drug dealer's job easier?

No, because the hon. Gentleman either has misunderstood or misrepresents me on one point. I only argued the case for social supply and producing your own in relation to cannabis, not in relation to the more serious, addictive and harmful class A and B drugs. There is a strong case in public policy for defining what can be acceptable as a social activity by quantity, so that you cannot say, ''I've got loads of mates, I'm going to meet them and this is for them''.

The reality is that the kids who get picked up on the street know, and the police know, the difference between the amount you could use yourself, or that three or five of you could use, and an amount that clearly is not going to be used by you and a couple of

mates for one or two evenings. They live in the real world, and people know how much cannabis you get through in a certain amount of time.

The answer is that cannabis possession for social supply and growing your own in my view should not be subject to any prosecution. For more serious class A and B drugs there should be no imprisonment for possession alone, but in order to distinguish between the possession and dealing categories so that we get the dealers, you could have a much clearer definition of quantity in terms of where the line is to be crossed into dealing. The hon. Member for Rayleigh is right; the defence that is often used when people are nicked with a load of drugs is, ''It's my own supply for my own personal use''. You have to make sure that you do not allow that to be used where the quantity is clearly unreasonable.

On precisely this point there are two comebacks. The hon. Gentleman argues that the police know how much cannabis might reasonably be passed around friends and how much would mean that a person was dealing. But the simplest argument is that a dealer would say, ''Well, I have quite a lot of friends, which is why I have quite a lot of the stuff. I don't have just two mates. I'm a popular guy with 20 mates and I wanted to give them all a little. That's why I have rather a large amount.'' The hon. Gentleman's argument is both weak and dangerous.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman wants to distinguish between class A, B and C drugs, but once he concedes the principle that for class C drugs, the concept of social supply should not be punishable by law, people will undoubtedly cite the precedent in court and extend the principle from certain types of drugs to others. Once the principle is conceded that social supply, as the hon. Gentleman euphemistically puts it, is not dangerous for some drugs, it opens the door for the same defence to be used for more serious drugs. It is an extremely dangerous argument.

I shall deal quickly with those two points.

Very quickly.

On the second point, we have three classes of drugs because they are believed to have three different levels of harm. That has been the case in the past and will be in the future. It is perfectly reasonable to allow the defence that I have mentioned for the lower category C drugs, without extending it to other categories. It would not and could not be used; it would not get through the courts. My argument applies only to cannabis and other category C drugs.

The hon. Member for Rayleigh also asked how we should define what is substantial. It could be done with reference either to weight or quantity. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman is right that a dealer could argue that he met 35 friends every Friday night. That deals with his point.

May I move on to the Minister's argument about the need to deal with a small number of circumstances in which it would be necessary to have a power to arrest for unusually aggravated behaviour that cannot be dealt with under present law? It is a huge

sledgehammer to crack a small nut. It makes dealing in certain drugs an arrestable offence for the first time; it confers a 14-year prison sentence for the first time on certain activities; and it makes people who smoke cannabis uncertain about the consequences because it will be impossible to establish in advance when the aggravating circumstances apply. That is a recipe for uncertainty of law and for worsening the relationship between young people and the police. Surely we want a clear message, stating that cannabis is least harmful, that class B drugs are intermediately harmful and that class A drugs are very harmful. The provision muddles that message. I ask Ministers to think again.

Can I be absolutely clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Does he feel that possession of crack cocaine and heroin should be an offence?

I am saying that, in respect of all drugs, possession on its own—not for dealing, not for supply—should not result in a prison sentence and that cannabis possession should not result in arrest or charge. Possession of heroin and crack cocaine will remain an offence under international law and should result in various punishments, but not imprisonment because prison does not help someone who is addicted to hard drugs. In that respect, possession is a medical and health issue, not a law and order issue. Only dealing makes it a law and order issue.

So what would happen to someone found in possession of crack cocaine? They would be found guilty of an offence, but medical treatment is not dependent on that. What would be the consequences?

Every other option in the book except imprisonment—including drug treatment, testing orders, probation and community service—would be open to the courts, but locking people up does not help with their drug problems, however serious.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.