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

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. In fact, I have two points of order, the first of which is a matter of self-interest. You have understandably excluded amendments tabled yesterday from your provisional selection list, but I should be grateful if you would at least consider including them. To be honest, the only reason that I did not table my amendments the day before yesterday was that the House rose early and we were ''caught short''. I understand that it may not be possible to reconsider the issue now, and I am not labouring the point. Indeed, some of the amendments deal with matters that can be raised in the debate, and I make my request simply because you have the option to include them.

I turn now to the second point of order. In the light of the request that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I made on Tuesday, can the Minister tell us whether any material is available for distribution to help us with the Government amendments that we are about to debate? Understandably, many will be small and incidental, but with lists as long as that in schedule 21, we must follow matters carefully, as we always do, to ensure that we do not miss anything. It would therefore be helpful to have something that explained the provisions.

The second point of order is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the Minister is listening. If material is available, I am sure that the Government will make it available during this morning's proceedings.

The first point of order is a matter for me. As I explained to the Committee on 17 December, my co-Chairman and I will not, as a general rule, call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because the early Adjournment of the House on Tuesday precluded some hon. Members from tabling amendments and, indeed, parliamentary questions. However, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in the debate to make the points that he wanted to raise in his amendments. Having reconsidered the issue, therefore, I am not prepared to accept the starred amendments.

Thank you for your courteous ruling on my points of order, Mr. Illsley.

The clause is very straightforward and introduces schedule 20, which we shall debate next. It says that increases in penalties for certain drug-related offences ''shall have effect'', and those increases are set out in the schedule. It is right to raise general issues of principle now, rather than to wait for them to come up under the schedule, where it would be impossible logically to make the argument.

The clause relates to penalties for drugs offences and to the drugs policy that the Government have announced. The Committee has debated that policy substantially on one occasion and incidentally on others, prompted not least by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and others. That takes us back to one of the important secondary themes of the Bill: how we should deal with drugs matters.

First, I have a straightforward question, which the Minister might helpfully answer now, as he was unable to answer it when we debated drugs previously. Will he tell the Committee the date, accurate or approximate, when the Home Secretary proposes to change the classification of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug in line with his announcement last year and following the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? We know that that is in the pipeline. My understanding is that, whatever the date, the change will take effect immediately, once it has been agreed by Parliament. I am not aware that the decision can be deferred, but I am conscious that an order is necessary for the change to go ahead, so clarification of the process would be helpful.

In relation to the substance, schedule 20—I hope that you will excuse me for referring to it now, Mr. Illsley, but I shall not seek to have a debate on schedule 20 later—would amend schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as follows. In relation to class C drugs, wherever the maximum term of imprisonment is five years the Government propose that it should be increased to 14 years. Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 20 sets out the offences to which the increased term will apply. It is only a short list, so I shall read it.

''(a) section 4(2) (production, or being concerned in the production, of a controlled drug),

(b) section 4(3) (supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug or being concerned in the doing of either activity by another),

(c) section 5(3) (having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another),

(d) section 8 (being the occupier, or concerned in the management, of premises and permitting or suffering certain activities to take place there),

(e) section 12(6) (contravention of direction prohibiting practitioner etc from possessing, supplying etc controlled drugs), and

(f) section 13(3) (contravention of direction prohibiting practitioner etc from prescribing, supplying etc controlled drugs).''

The proposal would affect just two other laws by increasing maximum punishments. The first is the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The offence is the offence in schedule 1 to that Act:

''controlled drugs: variation of punishments for certain offences under that Act''

and deals with

''punishment on conviction on indictment of offences under that Act committed in relation to Class C drugs''.

So Customs legislation would be changed to make the maximum term of imprisonment 14, rather than five, years.

Lastly, the proposal will change section 19 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which relates to ships used for illicit traffic. Punishment on conviction on indictment of offences under that section committed in relation to class C drugs will be increased from five years to 14. That is five Misuse of Drugs Act offences and two others, for which the proposal would increase the maximum sentence from five years to 14 years.

My colleagues and I have made our views on the issue clear. Public policy should clearly differentiate between drugs in each of the three classes. Whether colleagues in Committee take an identical view to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and me about whether it is right to imprison people for possession or not, there is a separate argument that we should be careful not to give the same signals with regard to penalties in relation to class C drugs as we give in relation to class A and B drugs.

On one hand, the Government are concerned to move and to be more realistic and progressive, which I welcome. The Home Secretary was willing to make that move, which was not made by the first Labour Administration. On the other hand, the Government do not want to appear soft, which I also understand. I understand the genesis of, and the thinking behind, the policy. However, a danger of the proposal that emanates from those considerations is that there will be a muddled policy that will muddy the water rather than give a straightforward message. Dealing in class A drugs, which include dangerous, addictive drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, is the most undesirable offence, for which one can expect the harshest treatment. Dealing in class B drugs is dangerous, but not as dangerous as class A drugs. Class C drugs are still dangerous but not nearly as dangerous as class B drugs. That is the basis of the classification system. If those are the messages that we want to get down to the streets, the maximum prison sentences should follow in gradated severity. It is nonsense to increase the maximum prison sentence—what the statute book says could be the punishment for an offence—so that it is comparable to a sentence for an offence relating to class A and class B drugs.

Another consideration is that the provisions are intended to deal with people who are dealing and trafficking in drugs as opposed to people who use them. I do not argue against provisions that might provide for severe punishment of people who traffic in class C drugs. Society should be careful to give a discipline to people who misuse their position as general practitioners—two of the offences detailed by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are meant to deal with that—to people who prescribe improperly, and to people who not only turn a blind eye to, but become aiders and abetters to, a trade in drugs when they are running a hostel, which the provisions also cover. I appreciate that, so the argument is not about whether

there should be no prospective penal response, but about the level of that response. I seek to persuade the Committee that the danger with the drafting of the clause and schedule 20, which would change the maximum period of imprisonment from five years to 14 years, is that people dealing in cannabis, benzodiazapine or anabolic steroids will prospectively be in the same league as those dealing in crack cocaine or heroin. The courts of course have discretion, but it should be across a narrower band of prospective punishments than one that takes people up to 14 years.

The amendments that, for understandable reasons, you said that you could not select, Mr. Illsley—although that does not preclude me from making my point—suggested that the right maximum period might be four years. That was a cockshy in one sense, but it was also an attempt to fix a maximum period that would be less than the present five years, while recognising that there might be an argument for punishing people who are not dealers, even in the least serious illegal drugs, with that lesser maximum punishment, which would, again, send out a signal.

I propose that the Committee would do better to remove clause 248 and schedule 20. We should replace the schedule with one setting a maximum of four years or a similar sentence. There is no theology about four years, and it would be a relatively appropriate maximum tariff, given that the maximum sentence for trafficking in class A drugs is 14 years.

I am also well aware of the controversy that arose over the section 8 offence of

''being the occupier, or concerned in the management, of premises and permitting or suffering certain activities''.

The people who became known as the Cambridge Two were tried and convicted of that offence. They managed a hostel for the homeless in Cambridge that dealt with people who, among other problems, had drug addictions. They were convicted because they knew what was going on at the hostel but failed to control it. I have not met the two people or been to the hostel, so I speak from what I have read rather than from direct experience. However, their conviction appeared to be a harsh response to something that, although not an unwitting risk, was inevitable if one manages such premises. The danger of a maximum penalty of 14 years is that the courts could send a message that would be entirely out of proportion to sentences for people dealing in class A or class B drugs.

It would be helpful if the Minister could answer the questions that I asked at the beginning of my intervention about the Government's plans to downgrade cannabis to class C. It would be helpful if he would confirm that if my colleagues and I, and Parliament as a whole, fail to persuade the Government that clause 248 and schedule 20 should only come into effect at the same time as the change in the classification of cannabis. They should be seen as a pair of propositions.

It would be even more helpful if the Minister could respond to concerns that the penalty appears to be a disproportionate response to those using class C drugs.

I ask him to set out as fully as he can the justification for the penalty for class C drug offences. Cannabis will be included in that category in future. It is thought to be in the least serious category, so why should there be an almost threefold increase in the maximum punishment? Why should the maximum punishment therefore be as severe as that for the hardest drugs that are available?

I end by saying that I am aware that the Crown Prosecution Service will sometimes bring a charge for a lesser offence because it does not have the evidence for the more serious offence. People can often be prosecuted for possession when the prosecutors would like to prosecute them for dealing.

That raises the question of people who are caught in possession of an amount of drugs that it is illogical to suppose is an amount that they can have for personal use. The Minister has heard me say, and I assume that he remembers other hon. Members saying, that some of us believe that there is a strong case for creating a new offence of substantial possession. That is a proposition put by, among others, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). If a person was caught with more drugs than anyone could reasonably use himself, he should be able to be nicked for a more serious offence than possession for his own use.

The benefit would be that it would be possible to stop the games—not mischievous and awful games, but games none the less—that are played when people are charged with one offence and another is implied. The prosecution may try, in putting their case, to show that the person before the court on a possession charge is really there because the quantity of drugs that was found leads to an assumption that he is a dealer, but there is no evidence for that, so a charge has not been brought. An intermediate step could be made available.

If that were part of the Government's package, it would deal with some of the concerns that are answered, wrongly in our view, by the extraordinarily large increase in maximum penalties under clause 248 and schedule 20. I hope that before the Bill is passed the Government will rethink the matter. They should not give a message that cannabis use is less serious than heroin and cocaine use while setting the same maximum penalty for dealing in both. That is an inconsistent message.

It is not the same.

There are maximums of more than 14 years—I appreciate that—but the maximum for class C drugs is certainly being brought level with that for class B drugs, which would be 14 years. Class A drugs may have higher maximums, but if grading according to severity is done for all other purposes, it should be done also for the purpose of the clause. I hope that the Minister will accept that straightforward proposition, which is consistent with the Government's argument for changing the law on cannabis possession.

Order. We are debating clause 248 and we have strayed into the territory of schedule 20. I shall allow the debate to continue as though we are debating the two together, and I shall put the question on schedule 20 forthwith when we reach it.

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley, I am grateful for you guidance on that, because several of us wanted to comment on schedule 20 and felt that it would have been appropriate to restrict our remarks to the point in our proceedings when we reached it. Perhaps that is too simple an approach. However, I take it that you are telling members of the Committee that if they want to make any remarks on schedule 20, they should not make them in a debate on schedule 20, but in this debate on clause 248. Is that right?

The point that I am making arises from the fact that the debate has strayed into the content of schedule 20. So as not to take up time and so that the Minister will not have to respond twice on issues that are covered by schedule 20, any hon. Member who wants to raise points for debate on schedule 20 should do so now. I shall allow that leeway.

It is always interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in discursive and philosophical vein. It would be something of an achievement to be discursive and philosophical on clause 248 alone, seeing that the explanatory note states quite succinctly:

''This clause introduces Schedule 20.''

On its own, it did not seem to present subject matter for a great deal of discussion.

It seemed to me also—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—that the discursive and philosophical nature of his contribution probably did not go to the heart of the issue. The purpose of schedule 20, as I see it, is to get the Government out of the fix in which they have located themselves by reducing cannabis to the status of a class C drug, and having to work through the consequences of that. If I am wrong in that and there is a wider issue informing the schedule, I shall be happy to hear about it from the Minister.

I am not aware of there having been massive pressure, prior to the reclassification of cannabis, for the raising of the maximum sentences for producing or being involved in the sale of class C drugs. If I am wrong about that, or there have been expressions of view by the judiciary that the five-year maximum sentence has proved to be insufficient, I have not heard about it. Practising, as I do, at the Bar, one picks up the flavour of what is being said. Sometimes one hears that it is felt to be ridiculous that a sentence for something is five years. I have not heard that in all my time in practice, and I have done a great deal of drug-related work. I can only assume that the basis for the change is the reclassification of cannabis to a class C drug—the Government have got their knickers in a twist and in order to get them out of it, they have gone through a convoluted process by which, having reduced cannabis to a class C drug, they have had to

change it into an arrestable offence and to raise the penalties for involvement in pushing or production up to the levels that apply to much more dangerous drugs.

I would be delighted if the Minister would explain the background to the decision. It is an example of what happens when government ceases to be joined up and starts to respond to different pressures from different interest groups and we end up with a complete mess.

I am listening carefully to the important points made by my hon. Friend. He mentioned that the increase in penalties for class C offences would take them up to the same level as those for class A drugs. Can he give an example?

Well, a 14-year penalty for production would, I think, be the same as that for a class B drug. The penalty for a class A drug is more substantial. We considered earlier on the sorts of drugs that are in class C. I remember reciting them to the Minister in the context of the Auntie Vera comment about the circumstances in which people might have class C drugs in their pockets. I pointed out that they included many drugs that are legitimately available on prescription but that a person might have in his possession although they had not been prescribed. It is possible that such drugs might be produced and sold illicitly, although I doubt it, and the imposition of a 14-year sentence needs to be justified by the Government.

The law should respond to circumstance. If there is a problem with a particular activity, sentences might have to be increased. However, to increase a maximum sentence from five to 14 years for something that, hitherto, has not been a major problem strikes me as bizarre. Perhaps the Minister can justify it in relation to cannabis. If somebody imports or produces cannabis worth £2 million—making it into an industry—the scale might justify our saying that a five-year sentence is insufficient. However, for the majority, if not the entirety of the drugs that previously made up the category of class C, a 14-year maximum sentence is absurd. If I am wrong, and the Minister can give concrete examples, other than cannabis, in which it has been required or suggested by the judiciary or the Judicial Studies Board, I shall be only too pleased. I believe that the Government have got into a mess and are adopting a foolish means of getting out of it.

When I am in this Committee Room, I often have the distinct feeling that I am in a world detached from reality. Most people in the real world outside who studied our debate would probably say that toughening up the law is no substitute for effective policing and proper law enforcement. We could couple that belief with a rhetorical question: how many times in the past five years has a court in the United Kingdom imposed a maximum sentence for any drug offence? In my judgment, the answer is zero. So there we are.

However, let us return for a moment from the real world to our little artificial world. I want to press on a

little longer and I have a few specific queries for the Minister. First, as regards categorising drugs, does he accept that heroin and crack cocaine are the two critical ones in the system that cause the most damage? Secondly, does he believe that cocaine, as opposed to crack cocaine, is less of a problem? Thirdly, does he think that ecstasy should be in the same class as crack and heroin? I ask that because the Select Committee on Home Affairs carefully considered classification. Although no one would gainsay the fact that ecstasy is often dangerous, several members of the Select Committee believed—I put the position neutrally—that it was in a different category from heroin and crack cocaine, which are the absolute killers.

The next question is, did the Minister read the Home Affairs Committee report, and if so, did he note the proposition that the courts should distinguish between the separate offences of supply of a drug and supply for gain? Members of that Committee were quite vexed by the proposition that a perfectly reasonable youngster who bought half a dozen ecstasy tablets and supplied them to his chums at cost—that is, at no commercial gain—would face the same charge and penalties as those whom we naturally recognise as dealers and who the Committee thought were much more serious criminals. My point is not to remove the criminality from either practice, but to illustrate that the Home Affairs Committee had difficulty with what might be described as social supply. Eventually, we drew a distinction between supply for gain and simply supply.

May I—because I never stray from the matter before us, Mr. Illsley—make a point about people who permit drug activities on premises that they are in charge of or manage? My mind immediately turns to prison governors for the simple reason that—the Minister knows this as well as I do—many of us think that there is far too much drug activity in some prisons and a lack of will by some in authority to stamp it out. There are those who tell me anecdotally that some people are far less trouble when they get hold of drugs—I put the point as neutrally as that.

If the Minister cannot give me the information today, perhaps he can write to me setting out the steps that the Government have taken in the past 12 months, and those that they propose to take in the next 12 months, to ensure, as we must, that prisons are absolutely drug-free once more.

I believe that the Government are hopelessly muddled over clause 248 and schedule 20, and I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I sat on the Home Affairs Committee, and it might be useful if I explain why we thought that it was necessary to reclassify various drugs.

The Select Committee listened to expert and medical evidence and spoke to the parents of children who had died from drug abuse. We heard many hours of evidence and went into a huge amount of detail. We decided that class A should cover the most serious drugs, particularly heroin and crack

cocaine. We decided that ecstasy should be moved from class A to class B. That was a difficult decision, because there have been some high-profile deaths from ecstasy, but all the medical and other evidence that we received suggested that that was the correct classification.

Then we decided that cannabis should be moved from class B to class C. There were two reasons for our decision. First, under the Misuse Of Drugs Acts, drugs should be classified according to the danger that they pose, and in order to ascertain that, one must listen carefully to scientific and medical opinion. That is exactly what we did. The second reason is perhaps more controversial. The argument against reclassification is that it may send the wrong signal to young people—that if we move cannabis from class B to class C or move ecstasy from class A to class B, it will send a signal that, somehow, those drugs are okay. The Committee took completely the opposite view that, at the moment, the wrong signal is being sent, because young people are being told that ecstasy is the same class of drug as heroin and cocaine, and cannabis is the same class of drug as other, more dangerous, drugs. Not only is the reclassification scientifically right, but it sends the right signal to young people.

I sat in a drugs education class in a school in Wood Green in my constituency. If other hon. Members have not done that, I would recommend it, because it is interesting to see how drugs education programmes work. A policeman came to the class and explained the laws on drugs. He wrote on the blackboard which drugs are in classes A, B and C and what the penalties are. We should not pretend that the way in which drugs are classified does not send out a message, because it does, and we must get that message right.

In the second part of the drugs education programme, a former addict explained how he got into drug abuse, how he started on cannabis, then took some pills and ended up on heroin. He described how his life had collapsed, his friends had left him, his family had given up on him and he nearly died. In a very unpreachy, straightforward way, he described his descent into a drugs lifestyle. I have never seen a class of young people being so attentive. They were absolutely fascinated by what they were being told.

The Government's policy is terribly muddled, because they are moving cannabis from class B to class C and then massively increasing all the penalties for possession and supply in schedule 20.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that once a decision has been taken on the classification of drugs, we should not muddle things by mixing up the consequences of classification?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I was going to make that point. There may be a case for saying that, if the Government really want to crack down on the large-scale supply of cannabis, which it should do because it is a large industry, they should take that case and try to do something about it. However, they are using a blunderbuss to hit all class C drugs and offences thereunder, rather than the single rifle shot that is required to deal with cannabis.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Government felt that cannabis presented particular problems, should they not have justified their position before the Committee and argued that cannabis requires a separate classification that does not completely wreck the existing class C classification, as their current proposal will?

It would be helpful if the Government could do that, and they have time to do so before Report. I think that the right answer would be for cannabis to be a class C drug, because it would send the right message about the dangers of using the drug, but a separate offence will be needed to deal with the specific problem of large-scale dealing, with a different maximum sentence attached to it.

I want to take up the point about the other class C drugs. What consultation did the Government hold on suddenly and substantially increasing sentences for the offence of possession of class C drugs? Did they consult pharmacists? Have they talked to doctors? Have they spoken to the various drug charities, such as DrugScope?

I have mentioned before my concern on the subject, which arises from the fact that my son has severe epilepsy. As a result of that, I have to store diazepam, temazepam, clobazam, phenobarbitone and phenytoin my fridge. Some of those drugs are held in substantial quantities, particularly the benzodiazepines—valium-style drugs that have a value on the open market. Some drug users like to use them, but they are essential for controlling seizures and fits. Of course, I have a prescription; and I go to the pharmacy to have the prescription made up. What happens next is an ''Auntie Vera'' case.

When my Auntie Vera looks after my son, I hand over the necessary drugs, but I do not always have the prescription available to give to her. I see problems arising from that. The Government want to increase substantially the prison sentence for possession with intent to supply. As I have a lot of those drugs, the police might think it a large enough quantity to be possession with intent to supply. My specific question is, what consultation has been held about the change? What problems does the Minister envisage resulting from it? Indeed, is it necessary, given that he could go for a rifle shot rather than a blunderbuss?

It seems to me that treating possession as either social supply or supply for gain could provide the answer. When we talk about wanting a severe penalty for dealing in drugs, we want to get those who deal for gain. Perhaps we should differentiate between dealing for gain and simple possession or possession with intent to supply. There is a difference between someone going clubbing with 10 ecstasy tablets, some for himself and some for his friends, and someone with a suitcase full of ecstasy who is dealing and trying to make money out of it. I do not think that the law differentiates between those cases.

The hon. Gentleman's scenario would create a grey area. He talks of a clear differentiation between offences at one end of the scale or the other, but there will be a grey area, particularly

in terms of addiction, of what constitutes dealing for gain.

There is already a grey area. I have already told the Committee of the ex-addict who teaches in schools in Witney. He spends an enormous amount of time in court as an expert witness, explaining how much of a drug one person can take, and therefore whether an offence is simple possession or possession with intent to supply. If the law had a gradation—that is, if it provided for possession with intent to supply, with a separate offence of dealing or supplying for gain, or whatever other variations of offence one could go for—it would be better than the current vague situation, with the one offence of possession with intent to supply.

The answer could be for the Minister to think about this and to come back and say, ''Yes, cannabis should be a class C drug; yes, there is a problem with cannabis dealing; and yes, we need a new offence of dealing, with a stiff penalty attached to it.'' A more sensible drugs policy would list the various drugs and the different classifications, but it would admit that we have a specific problem with what I might call the cannabis industry and make proposals to deal with it. The current way of doing it does not make sense.

This is probably the third time during the course of the Committee's consideration of these matters that we have debated the provisions resulting from the proposal to reclassify cannabis. Subsection (1) introduces schedule 20, which amends schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, schedule 1 to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and section 19 to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, to increase—as hon. Members have rightly observed—the maximum penalty for trafficking controlled drugs, which are classified as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act, from five to 14 years' imprisonment. Trafficking includes unlawful importing, supply and possession with intent to supply.

There are two reasons for the increase. The first follows from the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in July 2002 of his intention to reclassify cannabis from B to C under the Misuse of Drugs Act. As has been recognised, this measure, which does other things as well, leaves the penalties in relation to cannabis as they are. We should acknowledge that.

But it does not just do that. That is the point. At a stroke, it increases the penalties for all the sorts of drugs that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) referred to, with no apparent need or justification.

If the hon. Gentleman had reflected for a second, he would have realised that I said that it leaves the penalties as they are for cannabis, but it does other things as well. No date has been fixed for implementation, but the intention is to commence reclassification as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent; in other words, to dovetail the two in the manner for which he rightly argued.

We have heard mention of the Cambridge Two. I stand to be corrected, but as I recollect the case, it related to class A drugs, not class C, so the argument is different from the one that I think the hon. Gentleman was trying to advance. The penalties proposed here in relation to class C are not as severe as those for the most harmful drugs. It might help the Committee if I point out that, for example, on indictment for a class A drug the maximum penalty for a supplier is life or a fine or both, for a class B drug it is 14 years or a fine or both and for a class C drug it is five years or a fine or both.

In answer to the questions that the hon. Member for Woking asked, I agree that heroin and crack cocaine are the most critical and that crack is generally more harmful than cocaine. I shall mention ecstasy briefly, as we are not debating its classification and I would be out of order to continue. Ecstasy is in class A, and I have noted the Home Affairs Committee report. The Government's view is that its classification should remain, as it is recognised that it can and does kill suddenly. It is also fair to say that its misuse is a relatively recent development. We do not know a great deal about its potential long-term effects.

I just hope that the Government will keep an open mind about the matter. I fear that they are in the message game. They are worried that reclassifying would send the wrong message. Is the Minister aware that a million ecstasy tablets are taken every weekend? If that is the case, what message is sent to its users if it is in the same category as heroin and cocaine?

I accept entirely the point that we need to continue to reflect, as a society, on how we deal with the problem of drugs. That theme has run throughout the consideration of the Bill. The reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C is a consequence of that reflection. I think that it is a sensible step, and no one in the Committee dissents from that view.

The police have discretion in dealing with someone found in possession of ecstasy tablets, for example, and the courts have a similar discretion. Obviously, someone found in possession of a vast quantity of drugs that they intend to supply to others will face a much more severe sentence than someone who is found to have only a few tablets.

The Minister made the perfectly sensible point that many agree that reclassifying cannabis from class B to class C so that those found in possession of it face a less severe penalty makes eminent sense. However, he must acknowledge that the Government have got themselves into considerable difficulty: reclassifying cannabis creates problems, as suppliers deserve a much higher sentence than is available for a class C drug. However, rather than deal with the matter discretely, the Government have used the blunderbuss of completely altering sentences for class C drugs. That concerns me and other members of the Committee.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will deal with it in a moment. The hon. Member for Woking spoke about drug supplying in prisons, and I should tell him that the biggest

indication of the progress that the Government have made on that is that the percentage of mandatory drugs tests that proved positive halved from 24 per cent. to 11 per cent in the past six years. That shows how seriously the Prison Service takes the issue and the progress that has been made on it.

The basis for classification is harmfulness, the social effects, consumption and advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Do the Government consider the addictiveness of a drug when deciding on its classification and the penalty for it? Will the Minister confirm that ecstasy is not nearly as addictive as heroin or crack cocaine?

We are not debating the classification of ecstasy; we are debating the reclassification of cannabis and the consequential amendments that the Government propose. I acknowledge the argument made by several hon. Members about reclassification. However, the reclassification of cannabis leaves the penalties as they are. There are 10 to 20 cases a year of cannabis trafficking involving amounts of half a tonne or more, and it has been acknowledged that sentences of significantly more than five years' imprisonment have been imposed. The courts must be able to impose substantial sentences in such cases, and the provisions of the Bill will allow them to do precisely that. Serious dealing offences in class C drugs, such as anabolic steroids and benzodiazepines, are exceptional.

This brings us to an important issue concerning drugs such as benzodiazepines and anabolic steroids. Have representations been made to the Government of instances in which the five-year maximum sentence was thought insufficient? Has a judge, for instance, written to the Government to say that that caused him difficulty? I am not aware of its happening, but perhaps the Minister will tell us if it has.

I am not aware of such representations having been made. However, I will ask and reply to the hon. Gentleman.

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not instinctively in favour of the proposal. However, I should like to know what the tariff sentence is for dealing in cannabis if one is talking about a quantity of 5 tonnes.

A lot—10 years.

Well, I bow to those who have greater experience, as the hon. Gentleman clearly does—10 years it is.

My final point is about the other reason for the change and the way in which we propose to make it. The change would enable the United Kingdom to meet the obligations to comply with the measures, which have not yet been finalised, that are set out in the emerging European Union Council framework decision to harmonise drug trafficking penalties and to have maximum penalties of at least 10 years imprisonment for serious drug trafficking involving any controlled drug. That is the other reason why the Government have chosen to make the change in the way that we propose.

The Minister in his last sentence added a new factor, which also does not support the Government's case. Even if one accepts the proposition that there should be a harmonisation of drugs laws across Europe, which might not find immediate and instinctive approbation, the suggestion on the table is for the maximum to be 10 years for any controlled drug, which would be less than the Government propose for class C drugs and considerably less than the Government propose for other things. That appears to be inconsistent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I will oppose the clause and the schedule. We think that the provisions are nonsense and that the case was not made in the beginning, has been less clearly made as the months have passed and has absolutely not been made today. I hope that the provisions will not survive their passage through Parliament.

However, the Minister has undertaken—partly explicitly, partly implicitly—to ensure that there is as much information in the public domain as he can lay his hands on about any representations made in relation to the requirement for reclassification or upgrading of the maximum penalties for offences in relation to class C drugs other than cannabis. He must also provide as much information as he can about the point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and others made about the current frequency of, and tariff for, the import of huge quantities of drugs, which I accept needs an appropriate penalty. The Minister should also give what I hope could be a considered rethink of some of the pragmatic suggestions that have been made in the Committee and in the House for different offences that could deal with the intermediate or major commercial activities of enabling people to have access to drugs. I hold absolutely no brief for people who import or traffic in huge numbers of harmful substances, including the less harmful ones. I want to ensure that the users and the petty dealers are not dealt with in the same way.

I hope that the Minister understands that we want clear messages and straightforward information, to ensure that the kids in schools, whether they are in Oxfordshire, London, Northamptonshire, Somerset or elsewhere, can be taught in a way that they understand, that the police's priorities are set and that we can guide the Home Secretary's intelligent initiative at the beginning of this Parliament to an intelligent conclusion. At the moment we are in danger of not doing so, despite the Home Affairs Committee's good advice. That would be a loss in relation to public policy, a loss in relation to enforcement and a loss in our potential to reduce the amount of drug use and abuse, addiction and the other bad things that flow from that.

I have found it difficult to approach the clause and schedule 20 properly, because in one sense I am understanding of the problem that the Government face. I can see persuasive reasons why the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug should not entail complete reclassification. In particular, the public need protection against drug

trafficking and production. I know only too well from my work that people make huge profits from those activities, and a five-year sentence of imprisonment for a major drug trafficker who brings in tonnes of cannabis in no way sufficiently reflects the gravity of the offence or the profits that are made. I have endlessly prosecuted lorry drivers who brought vast cargoes of cannabis from the Netherlands, having picked them up from emporiums on the Dutch-German border. I do not want to be too anecdotal, but I know that there is a huge trafficking problem, and five years is manifestly insufficient as a maximum sentence.

Faced with that difficulty, I find myself in a slight dilemma about the clause and the schedule. If I vote against them, I might be said to be sending the message that I am not concerned about that difficulty, but I am. On the other hand, I cannot avoid the fact that voting for them will raise the maximum sentence for a huge range of generic class C drugs. The Minister, who has been kind and pleasant with the Committee, has acknowledged that he has no evidential justification for that change.

We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Given that the Committee must make due and proper inquiries about each provision, clause by clause and schedule by schedule, my inclination is to vote against both provisions. Indeed, that is what I intend to do.

Just for the record, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to introduce a stiff penalty for dealing at the top end and clear police powers to confiscate at the bottom end, but are in fact doing neither?

Certainly, the Government are doing neither. To put myself in their position for a moment, they might argue that a 14-year sentence does not mean that people will be sentenced to 14 years, but simply that there will be greater flexibility in the system. They might say that no one expects those who produce or import anabolic steroids suddenly to get 14 years and that such people will continue to be sentenced in the same way. Well, that is what the Government might say, and Parliament may issue a generic guideline that covers a huge range of drugs. However, the Committee has said nothing about Parliament's intentions as regards sentencing, and I would not be at all surprised if there was an upward creep in sentences, even though there had been no public call for such a change hitherto.

We worry about lots of things in this Committee, and the prison population has been the subtext of many of our debates—it is a rather serious topic. We want to lock up those who need locking up, but we do not want to lock up for too long those who do not need locking up for long periods. In that respect, however, the drafting strikes me as very badly thought through. I know what the Government want to achieve, and I want to help them achieve it. Indeed, if they do not return to the issue on Report, we may do so, to help them achieve what they intend—a huge and flexible range of sentences that reflects the

reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug but continues to penalise drug traffickers.

What the Government seek to do in the present provisions, however, goes far beyond that. If the Minister explains in concrete terms why there is a vital need—some pressing public policy need—to include the other drugs on the list, I would be the first to say, ''That's fine. Let's go along with it.''

Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared, like me, to take part in discussions that might conclude that penalties for practitioners such as pharmacists and doctors who abuse their position might be worthy of specific consideration? The idea would be horses for courses. There is a range to be considered, including the big dealer, and we might be able to reach some agreement.

Indeed. A variety of things could be done.

In the end, the judiciary will keep a discretion. However, I am somewhat wedded to the civil liberties of this country and to the idea of not having oppressive laws. Parliament long ago decided that class C drugs merited a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment, because it did not consider the matter to be of any great consequence. The misuse of anabolic steroids, as we know, albeit to be deplored, is not a great social evil. It is a piece of folly by athletes or body builders who wish thus to damage their systems. Those offences do not merit 14 years' imprisonment. Perhaps circumstances will change.

I am making a plea to the Government. In voting against the clause, I want to make it clear that I understand their intentions, but that they have used bad drafting. They have tried to take a short cut to achieve a perfectly sensible end. It would be much more sensible to go back and sort out how they will tackle the cannabis problem. It may be necessary to introduce a new class of drug, such as B(a) or some such intermediate categorisation, rather than tinkering around with the poor old class C drugs that have existed hitherto, which, on the whole, have not caused people very great problems. On that basis—reluctantly, in some ways—I feel constrained to vote against the clause.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 248 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That schedule 20 be the Twentieth schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 249 ordered to stand part of the Bill.