|
|
|||||||
|
Sec.8 |
|
Section 8 and Closure Powers(updated 1.7.07) This area brings together all the site resources and news relating to Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and proposed amendments to it. The aim is to provide a focal point for news, information and developments. This section is under construction. |
|
| Drug News | |||
| KFx News |
|
||
| Section 8: Quick Finder | |||
|
Regional
Protocols - Turkeys Voting for Christmas When a crack den is not a crack den...a blurring of the lines Sussex Police first off the block to use new powers. Section 8 and cannabis: Government ruling leaves housing providers in ludicrous position 23.11.03 Anti-social Behaviour Bill in the Lords: Clause 1 survives unscathed 21.9.03 Is Blunkett going to throw a spanner in to the Anti-social behaviour bill? Minor amendments to Anti-social behaviour bill in Committee Anti-social Behaviour Bill - power to close premises Government may be moving away from S.8 commencement...but worse things in the pipeline? MSPs warn of problems for Scotland with S8 Drugscope/Homelesslink Conference - Bob Ainsworth speaks on Section 8 |
|||
|
|
|||
| How
Region Wide Drugs Protocols are exceeding the law - and abandoning the gains
of the past ten years.
Next year, it will be a decade since Ruth Wyner and John Brock were arrested and charged for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. During and after their case, many organisations and individuals worked long and hard to ensure that their dreadful experience would not result in the mass exclusion of drug users who were homeless from the limited provision available to them. The ‘Wintercomfort’ case threw up some difficult challenges. Was it possible to have known drug users on site? To what extent could organisations preserve client confidentiality? Did all known suppliers need to be reported to the police? Was it legitimate to place sharps bins in hostels? In the face of this uncertainty, the response from the Government and other key bodies was pitiful. Senior staff at the Rough Sleepers Unit refused to countenance the use of sharps boxes in hostels. Government advisors would not endorse models of working with ongoing users which would acknowledge use on site. And in 2001 the Government worsened the situation by passing the “Police and Criminal Justice Act” which extended Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This measure extended the obligation on occupiers and managers to stop the use of all controlled drugs on site rather than just the use of cannabis and opium. In the face of unhelpful bureaucrats, intransigent Government ministers and voluntary sector workers turned Government lackeys, the situation for housing organisations working with drug users looked terrible. But thanks to effective networking, proactive lobbying and dedication on the part of a small number of organisations, the legal and practice situation was salvaged, • Thanks to campaigns of lobbying and letter writing, the amendment to Section 8 was suspended and ultimately repealed. It never came in to force; • Thanks to the brave and innovative provision developed by a number of housing providers, a model of provision working in a “Eyes Wide Open” manner with active drug users • Thanks to resource development and training provision, a huge number of housing providers are aware of what they can and can’t legally do. • Organisations can and have been able to work with ongoing drug users, whilst maintaining client confidentiality and maintaining good relationships with service users, the local community and the Police. So where’s the problem? Given the above battles that have been fought and the success of them, it seems inconceivable that organisations would voluntarily surrender these hard-won gains. Yet they are. The new and worrying development is where region-wide drugs protocols have been put in place. Several areas are in the throes of developing such a protocol. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so. Indeed, such a Protocol can and should provide a safe umbrella under which all providers can legally and safely operate. But at least one of these new Drugs Protocols imposes restrictions not currently required under the law. There is an expectation that local agencies sign up to the protocol. The requirements of the Protocol exceed the legislative requirements. And the Protocol restricts models of provision that other services have implemented lawfully and successfully. A case in point is the <em>Newcastle Temporary Accommodation Drug Management Protocol</em>. Recently rolled out across all temporary housing providers, the protocol makes the following demands of signatories: • Reporting all episodes
of people possessing illicit drugs on site to the police; None of these requirements are current legal requirements and it is perfectly feasible to implement safe, lawful and effective drugs policy without such rules being in place. If an individual organisation chooses to adopt a strict drugs policy, or exceed the demands of the law in terms of sharing information with the police, that is very much up to them. Some organisations do not wish to adopt more flexible and inclusive policy and that is their right. A good few of these have adopted exclusionary policies because it reflects the needs of their clients. They are seeking to work with people who are now drug free, usually after a period of dependency. Their policy and practice reflect the needs of their clients and rightly so. But this is not always the case. Other organisations have adopted harsh policies out of ignorance, others out of fear or prejudice. But to date it has primarily been on an organisation-by-organisation basis. The idea that a City-wide or County-wide policy should turn its face on the gains of the past few years is deeply depressing. And it makes one wonder have the last few years all been in vain. So it seems now that the Government no longer needs to pass new, restrictive legislation – the turkeys are basting themselves and jumping in to the oven. To view a copy of the Newcastle Temporary Accommodation Drug Management Protocol and supporting documents please click HERE and scroll down to the relevant policies. To view a critique of this Protocol by Kevin Flemen/KFx click HERE |
|||
|
Section 38 Repealed; Section 8 (d) ammendment now history 23.4.05 In the tail end of this Parliament, the Drugs Bill was enacted and became law. The Bill included a clause repealing Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001. This Section had proposed widening the ambit of Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It would have made it illegal to allow the use of any unlawfully held controlled drugs on site. Section 38 was passed without debate in the House of Lords at the tail end of the last Parliament. It was allowed through by Charles Clarke who had previously said he saw no need for it, but allowed it in to secure the passage of the Police and Criminal Justice Act. The Act never came in to force: a year was wasted until notes of Guidance were produced and these were so poorly thought out that the Government accepted the law was unworkable. The Section was suspended pending new legislation to control so-called "crack houses." This came out in the form of the Antisocial Behaviour Act. With this having been deemed a success, the Government has now repealed Section 38. The old Section 8(d) with its obligation to prevent cannabis and opium smoking remains in force, thus confirming that the Home Office is primarily run by imbeciles, incapable of thinking in a joined up way. |
|||
|
Reading papers or listening to the Government, one would be forgiven for thinkin Crack Dens were being shut on an almost hourly basis. In Hackney, the local rag (Hackney Gazette) and the appropriately named Inspector Dave Rock claim that more than 200 "crack houses" have been shut. Now this is a huge number, and it seems hard to credit. Unless, by some Orwellian sleight-of-hand, the idea of 'crack house' has been widened to cover all houses where Class A drug activity takes place. By the use of the term "crack house" the Police, media and Home Office have created a new folk devil and this allows the unquestioned use of their new powers. It matters not a jot if crack is present or not - by using the term, the house becomes fair game. But who would be amongst the first to blur these lines? None other than Crime Concern, headed up by our old chum Roger Howard, formerly of Drugscope. Now Roger would have once been amongst the first to complain about the labelling and demonising of drug users. But since his move to Crime Concern, it seems such liberal tendencies have evaporated. Only the truly churlish would suspect that the gong that so eluded him whilst at Drugscope may finally be in his sights and that churning out sycophantic bilge via Crime Concern may be just the way to do it... In the meantime, given this increase in the use of Power to Close premises, we have become increasingly aware that the powers are being misused, and this is discussed in the Drug News section. There is also a PDF on how to defend actions to close premises, see link below. |
|||
|
Sussex Police hot-off-the-blocks to close crack house with new powers: Sussex Police closed a flat in Eastbourne using their new powers under the Antisocial Behaviour Act. The coverage is included in the Media section at: http://www.ixion.demon.co.uk/media.htm#se Anyone with any local news please get in touch. Section 1 Guidance Notes Published: Section 1 Powers in force The Home Office has published the Guidance notes relating to Section 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003. The publication followed the very-short consultation that the Home Office and the ODPM had wanted to ensure that the new powers came in to force quickly, even though this was a breach of Cabinet policy. A number of the criticisms that we made of the original document have been taken on board, although there are still areas for concern. The document can be viewed at: http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/Communities/1074606449/NotesofGuidanceFINAL.doc Now that this
stage has been completed, and with the new powers in force, we will need
to record how effective they are, and any examples of misuse or complications
arising. Government Consultation on Part 1 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act: KFx Responds In November, the Government launched a (low key) consultation exercise relating to Part One of the Anti Soical Behaviour Act 2003 (Closure of Premises used in cpnnection with the production/use/supply of Class A drugs and Associated Nuisance.) The Home Office produced notes of guidance for consultation. The Guidance notes and related documents are at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html The closing date for responses
is the 5th January - so not an awful lot of time to make considered responses. Having had a chance to read through the documents, we have prepared a detailed set of responses, and there is a link to these below. As the legislation and guidance stand, we have some very serious reservations about the power that they create. Our key points are:
To read a full copy of the response that we will be sending to the Home Office, please click here. We believe that the field should carefully read and understand the implications of this piece of legislation, and respond accordingly to do so. We will be lobbying the Home Office to extend the consultation period to allow organisations to prepare their responses, and would urge readers to respond as soon as they can. Government ruling on Section 8 and cannabis puts Housing Providers in a ludicrous position: The Government's ongoing attempts to tinker with elements of drugs legislation have created a ludicrous anomaly which will fuel the criminalisation and homelessness of young people. The problem emerged because of a failure on the part of Government, especially Ministers and Civil Servants with responsibility for drugs, to map the overlapping effects of cannabis reclassification and the amendment to Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. From the time when cannabis is reclassified (likely to be January 2004) the maximum penalty for possession will drop to two years. ACPO have issues guidance which says that the presumption should be against arrest, unless use is taking place in public, or there are other aggravating factors. This would all be well and good were it not for the additional obligations placed upon the managers and occupiers of premises by Section 8(d) of theMDA. This piece of legislation was of course replaced by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and this amended piece of legislation is currently suspended for two years pending the development of new powers under the Antisocial Behaviour Bill which has just completed its passage through Parliament. To compound our problems, the guidance document from ACPO on enforcing cannabis does not consider this issue at all. Section 8(d) obliged occupiers and managers to take steps to stop the smoking of cannabis (and prepared opium). This was widened by Section 38 to encompass "any controlled drug unlawfully held." A moratorium was placed on the commencement of this revised legislation when the Government heeded concerns from the field. The issue that remained unclear was if the 'old' Section 8(d) relating to cannabis remained in force. This has been a source of confusion although it was the strongly-held opinion here that the 'old' clause 8(d) was not in force having been subsituted by the 'new' section, which in turn awaited commencement. KFx sought a written answer from Caroline Flint MP, the Minister responsible for drugs. In a written answer from her office (approved by the Minister) a correspondent asserts that "in the meantime section 8(d) relating to cannabis, cannabis resin and prepared opium remains in force." This interpretation is questionable and has bad implications for social housing providers and other bodies including residential childrens services. The problem that housing providers would be left with is detailed in the (abridged) letter below. This was sent the Home Office questioning their interpretation of the current legal state of play. We will wait to hear back from them. In the meantime it can do no harm to raise concerns to both Caroline Flint and Tony Hall at the Home Office Drugs Legislation Enforcement Unit. The addresses are:
|
|||
|
Anti-social Behaviour Bill in the Lords: Clause 1 survives unscathed 21.9.03 Clause 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour Bill makes provision for closure orders for properties associated with production, use and supply of class A drugs. It was discussed in the House of Lords at Committee stage on the 11th September. Suprisingly, the clause passed unammended on this occasion, despite a few potentially unhelpful amendments proposd by Dixon-Smith. This non-elected member sought to radically alter the bill by authorising possession orders for either drug behaviour or nuisance, rather than the present form requiring both to be present. The proposed changes were opposed by our old friend Bassam of Brighton. He opposed the proposed amendments arguing "We want to give the police a power that is quick and easy to use, but, to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we must ensure that the power does not have unwanted—unwarranted, perhaps—or even undesirable consequences." These noble sentiments and others made by Bassam would be less suprising if it were not for Bassam's amazing volte-face. Bassam, you will remember, was the self same non-elected member who pushed through the original amendment to Section 8(d) with utter disregard for unwanted consequences. There is of course still scope for amendments to happen. Watch this space. For details of the Non-Elected
Houses Debate, please got to: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30911-01.htm#30911-01_head0 |
|||
|
Blunkett seeks to extend Anti-social behaviour bill to all controlled drugs: According to leaks to the Sunday Times, David Blunkett was pushing to extend the premises section of the anti-social behaviour bill to cover all controlled drugs rather than simply class A drugs. This was a potential course of actionthat had always been a cause for concern, but it is especially troubling that this should come from within the Government rather than from the conservatives. Should Blunkett wish to, he has the scope to force such a measure through. The proposed powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill always represented a worrying way of undermining security of tenure, and such steps should only ever be contemplated in the most desperate of circumstances. To broaden the spectrum of this to cover all controlled drugs would be an unacceptable step, and one that we would be obliged to oppose. |
|||
|
Minor amendments to Anti-Social Behaviour Bill in Committee stage: The Anti-social behaviour bill was heard in committee, and some changes were made to the proposed legislation relating to closure of premises relating to drug use. Whilst still restricting itself to Class A drugs, the grounds for closure have been extended to include production, along with use and supply. |
|||
|
Ruth Wyner, one of the"Cambridge Two" has had her book published. 'From the Inside' describes the arrest and trial of her colleague John Brock and herself, and time spent in prison followed by the High Court appeal and final verdict. The Guardian ran a large article in the second supplement about Wyner; this is included BELOW: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,963869,00.html KFx will review this information as and when we see a copy of the book. Anti Social Behaviour Bill - Legislation to close premises related to Drug Use. Section 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour Bill, placed before Parliament on the 27th March, proposes new legislation to close and seal premises where the use or supply of Class A drugs is taking place. The Legislation has been produced at the end of long and sustained criticism of the Government's previous attempt to address this problem, notably the ill-advised amendment to Section 8(d) of the Misuse Of Drugs Act by Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001. A BRIEFING DOCUMENT on the proposed changes, implications for agencies and what will happen next can be downloaded by clicking HERE. Details of proposed legislation are given below, and links to the Antisocial Behavior Bill can be found in the Drug News section. The legislation would work as follows:
AUTHORISING CLOSURE NOTICE: A Police Officer (superintendent or above) can authorise the issuing of a CLOSURE NOTICE on the following grounds: (a) The Police Officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the premises have been used in the relevant period in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a class A controlled drug and (b) that the use of the premises is associated with disorder or serious nuisance. If these two requirements have been met, the Police can issue the Closure Notice provided that: (a) The relevant local authority has been consulted and (b) reasonable steps have been taken to establish who lives on the premises or has control/responsibility/interest in t he premsies. Commentary: Given the Government's interest in addressing Class A drugs, it should come as no suprise that this should be reflected in the legislation. We will need to wait and see if this gets extended to Class B and C drugs during the Bill's passage through parliament. WIthin this legislation, the Police would no longer have to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that drug offences were taking place. Instead, the police just need to have reasonable grounds for believing that the offences were taking place. However, and this is the highly welcome aspect of the legislation, the Police do not simply need to demonstrate that use or supply is taking place. They also need to be able to demonstrate that this activity is associated with disorder or serious nuisance. This is a really welcome development as it means that the legislation should only be used where there is use or supply and nuisance. The involvement of the local authority is also useful It means that there will be an effective check on misuse use of the powers by an elected body. ISSUING CLOSURE NOTICE: The Closure Notice will be served on the premises. This will mean fixing notices to the building and giving copies of the Notice to people appearing to be in charge of the building. Importantly, the Closure Notice prohibits people other than the occupier or those normally residing in the premises from entering the premises. Doing so would be an offence. This would presumably help prevent properties being rapidly reopened by parties unknown, would of course reduce nuisance by preventing non-resident visitors or members of the public. The Notice has to include information about local housing and legal advice providers. It would probaby be useful if they included the provision of drugs advice here. CLOSURE ORDER: Once the Closure notice has been issued, the Police have to apply for a closure order at Magistrates Court; this needs to be heard no later than 48 hours after the serving of the notice. In order for a magistrates court to make a closure order they need to be satisfied that: (a) the premises...have
been used in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a Class A controlled
drug; In the first instance the order is for a maximum of three months. There can be an adjournment of up to 14 days to allow a case against the application to be prepared. Neither the issuing of a Notice nor the making of an order require any person to have been convicted of a drugs offence. Commentary: As with the Police, a magistrate would need to be convinced that the activity was taking place and was causing substantial nuisance. Further, the Magsistrate would need to be convinced that the order was necessary to prevent further nuisance. While the standard here does not require proof that the use or supply of drugs has taken place, there are sufficient safe-guards to ensure that such orders will only be granted where there is substantial nuisance and such an order is required. CLOSURE ORDER: ENFORCEMENT: Once an order has been made, the Police or others authorised by the police can enter and secure the premises by any other peson. CLOSURE OF PREMISES: OFFENCES: Once a notice is in force, it wil be an arrestable offence carrying a maximum sentence of six months to obstruct the police or their agents, enter the premises or remain on the premises. EXTENSION and DISCHARGE of CLOSURE ORDER: Provided that certain conditions are met, the initial closure order can be extended up to a maximum of a further three months, so that the whole Closure Order can last for a maximum of six months. The order can be discharged at any point provided that the magistrates are convinced that such and order is no longer necessary to prevent further disorder or nuisance. Other sections: The decisions of the magistrates court can be appealed in the crown court both by authorities seeking the Closure order and persons contesting the closure order. The Police or local authority can apply to the courts for costs incurred in clearing, securing and maintaining the property. The court can make an order for some or part of this payment against the owner of the property. In some circumstances, persons incurring financial loss as a consequence of a closure notice can seek compensation. |
|||
|
Government may be moving away from S.8 commencement...but worse things in the pipeline? Rumours started to circulate a few months back that the Home Office might be looking at other ways of dealing with 'crack houses' other than by issuing the commencement order for the revised Section 8. These rumours were added credence when we received correspondence from a worker in the field who attended a London based seminar on drugs and homelessness, and wrote to us to let us know that they had been informed that the Home Office was exploring other options. A request for information from the Home Office and the Civil Servants involved produced a mixed response but the gist of this was that, while nothing was certain at this stage, Ministers had asked Civil Servants to look at other options to respond to 'crack houses.' This now appears to have come to fruition, with the publication of the Government White Paper on anti-social behaviour, published today. For a full analysis of the relevant section of the White Paper, please visit the Drug News section. Section 8: Legal review says Section 8 Ammendment will cause substantial problems:
Updated briefing on Section
8 of Misuse of drugs Act
A number of agencies have been in touch with the Home Office to try and find out what the current state if play is with the Amendment and the Guidance. It should be stressed at this point that nothing is certain; however, the indicators are currently as follows:
Unfortunately, at the time of writing the Civil Servants most concerned with this consultation are not available; more updates to follow.... |
|||
|
|
11.11.02 By Bridget Morris
SUPPORT workers who help Scots drug addicts could fall foul of tough
new Westminster laws aimed at smashing the country's 'crack houses'. MPs have already voted to strengthen police powers to prosecute occupiers and managers who fail to stop illegal drug use on public or private premises, but a Home Office guidance paper admits the change 'could impinge on the legitimate harm-reduction activities' of those working with drug users . It says police officers can use their 'discretion' before deciding whether to charge a person. But Paterson said Whitehall officials have 'ignored the uniqueness' of Scots law, under which police officers are duty-bound to report all offences to the procurator fiscal -- who then decides whether to prosecute. He believes the legislation, which is expected to come into force soon, 'opens up a minefield' for landlords, councils, parents and voluntary groups. 'By giving no thought to the differences between Scottish and English
policing this change will cause enormous problems in Scotland and will
serve no purpose,' he said. 12th November 2002 A submission to the Home Office from a cross-bench group of MPs has criticised the proposed guidance notes on Section 8 and has called for a review of the legislation. We welcome this thought-out and unambiguous response and would encourgage other MPs to endorse this submission. If you are in contact with MPs, it may be worth encouraging them to sign the submission. The MPs announcement is included below: "In a joint submission
to a Home Office consultation MPs and Peers warn that The submission was supported
by: Lynne Jones MP; Peter Bottomley MP; Anne Lynne Jones said "Working within the guidelines
would mean that organisations trying to house The joint submission states: "If implemented the Guidance
would do immense damage to strategies for If organisations cannot undertake
harm minimisation work with confidence and a) a greater number of deaths
from overdose; In conclusion we are concerned
that the amendment to Section 8 will We recognise and accept that
it is not possible for a guidance document to For more information, please
call Lynne Jones on 0121 444 6277 Section 8 Amendment: Feedback from the Drugscope and Homeless Link Conference - Birmingham; 30th October 2002 Drugscope and Homeless Link held a joint conference on Homelessness and Drug Use in Birmingham at the end of November. It was hoped that the conference would be an opportunity to explore the ramifications of the amendment to Section 8 as those presenting at the conference included C.E. of Drugscope, Roger Howard, Lis Pritchard, CE of Homeless Link, Louise Casey, head of the Homeless Directorate and Bob Ainsworth, under-secretary at the Home Office. The conference however provided little clarity, and if anything created more worry, as it was very clear by the end that Bob Ainsworth MP has only a scant grasp of the issues and this is not helped by his bellicose approach to discussing the issues. Roger Howard of Drugscope described Drugscope as "vehemently opposed" to the proposed Guidance which represented a welcome statement of position from Drugscope. Louise Casey did not make any position statement on the subject save to say that she encouraged delegates to ask questions of the minister; while not condemning the Amendment or the guidance, she did make it clear that she was not setting out to make workers' lives more difficult. Bob Ainsworth arrived late in the day, and despite the fact that he had been briefed by Roger Howard the day before and, presumably, by his own civil servants. Despite this he, seemed not to have grasped the issues, and this was borne out by a number of gaffes during his presentation. Unfortunately due to his late arrival and early departure, delegates only had the opportunity to ask him questions for seven minutes which was far from ideal. He repeatedly made the assertion that, as there had only been a handful of prosecutions in the past, he did not see what workers were worried about now. He also maintained that the legislation was required to control the "closed market" of crack houses. He was confused at several points about opium and seemed unaware that this was not the same substance as Heroin. He asserted that as a few "irresponsible organisations" would "turn a blind eye to drug misuse on premises" the legislation and guidance was needed and what he wanted to do was to balance the the need to protect against the need to prosecute. He did not seem to recognise that rather than turning a blind eye to the use of drugs, organisations were wanting to approach the subject "eyes wide open," an approach illegal under the act. Mr. Ainsworth went on to say that he would welcome feedback on the Guidance, and it would all be evaluated. However, he said that he also wanted to hear more than just criticisms of the guidance but suggestions as to how to proceed. He specifically refered tp his conversations with Roger Howard when he said "and Roger Howard warns me that it will have all these consequences and Blah, Blah, Blah." Which would suggest that the concerns of the drugs and housing fields are not being treated with the gravity that they would deserve. Suggesting new approaches at this stage would seem like a topsy -turvy way to proceed; it would have been better to seek this opinion before either imposing the law or drafting the guidance. Further, nothing in the letter from the Home Office seeks alternative approaches, it merely asks for comment on the Guidance. Besides, as we have already established, guidance can not make the illegal legal, and would leave families, parents and carers criminalised and is not an acceptable position. However, for those organisations still submiting responses, the following pointers may be useful: keep the points very simple; make it clear how the changes will affect you and why. if you have alternatives to suggest, then do so. 29.9.02 Section 8 Amendment Guidance Produced for Consultation The Government has circulated Guidance Notes that relate to the amendment of Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The circulation and approval of the guidance is a required step prior to a Commencement Order being issued. Once this final step takes place, the amended Section 8 will be enforceable law. Since the amendment to Section 8 was first proposed, we have been warning that it would create substantial obstacles to effective work with people who use drugs, especially in housing settings. We have, at various times, been reassured that guidance would be provided, and that this would protect agencies engaged in legitimate work with people who use drugs. Having now reviewed the draft guidance, we feel that it is provides no protection for organisations. The legislation makes some current provision illegal such as supported housing for on-going substance users. The guidance recognises the need for such provision but does not give it the required legal protection. Instead it would require workers to work outside the law and depend on consent of the police to avoid prosecution. This is not an acceptable position for workers, organisations or the police. It is essential that the Government be persuaded to subject Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the amendment by Section 38, and the Guidance Notes to a full and thorough revision in full consultation with the drugs, housing and social care fields. To this end I would urge you to examine the Amendment, the guidance notes and ensure that representations are made to the Home Office prior to the 8th November 2002. Please take the time to make representations; the importance of this matter cannot be overstated. To help facilitate this process, I the following documents are posted on this site; please click on each document to download it.
Update: 12/10/02 Homeless Link have distinguished themselves by taking a very active and firm response to the Section 8 amendment. Visit the Homeless Link website at www.homeless.org.uk for an intial statement from Homeless Link. They will be collating responses, especially from housing organisations. A number of other organisations have yet to make any policy statements including Drugscope who, have yet to mention this crucial issue to the field. The amendment has been mentioned in Inside Housing, and Nick Cohen innacurately made reference to it in the Observer on the 6th October (see Media Section for details). At least one MP is taking an active interest in this, and hopefully many more can be stirred in to action. People attending the Homeless Link/Drug Link conference in Birmingham on the 30th October will be able to put questions directly to Louise Casey and Bob Ainsworth. KFx will have a stand at the conference. To all the organisations who
have prepared responses or are doing so, well done. For those who are
not doing so, please make representations even if you are not directly
affected. 17.5.02 News on the amendment to Section 8, and it is not good! We have been reliably informed (and subsequent enquiries have confirmed the rumours) that the long-delayed guidance on Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001 is nearing the end of its passage through the bowels of Whitehall. As many of you will be aware, this piece of legislation will expand the scope of Section 8 of the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971. At present, occupiers and managers of premises are obliged to stop the production and supply of controlled drugs on their premises. They are also obliged to prevent thesmoking of cannabis (and opium). The amendment, introduced by Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001 extends this obligation to cover the use of all controlled drugs unlawfully held. For more information about the amendment, you should look at the briefings in the RESOURCE section. The current state of affairs is that the draft guidance is being submitted to ministers in the near future. I understand that this is likely to be towards the end of next week, around the 24th May 2002. Given ministerial approval, the draft Guidance will be then circulated to the field, for comment and discussion. It is important to stress that this does not mean that the guidance is now complete, or that the amendment is about to come into force. It does suggest however, that there is a determination to proceed with the amendment despite the manifest problems that surround the legislation. There is another worrying aspect to the developments. It is our understanding that, following legal advice, civil servants have concluded that the guidance cannot offer exemptions or robust protection from prosecution. As feared, the guidance can only ever be that -just guidance, and so organisations that work outside the law will be exposed to risk of prosecution. It will be imperative that, once the guidance has been made public, concerned parties make detailed representations. I willbe making representations from within Release, and information will be posted here and on the Release websites as soon as any news becomes available. |
||