| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Jackie Ballard: No, I will not give way again. The right hon. Lady had plenty of time to speak earlier.
A recent Home Office press release said that victims' safety should be put first. I agree with that. That should apply also to potential victims of an unreformed offender, not just to past victims of a convicted person. We have a moral and practical duty not to treat prisoners so harshly in universities of crime that they come out as more hardened criminals--
Mr. Day:
What about the victims?
Jackie Ballard:
I am talking specifically about victims. Without offenders, there are no victims. If offenders are not treated in such a way that they are rehabilitated, there will be more victims. We must ensure that proper rehabilitation, including basic skills training, is provided so that we can break the cycle of harm. Community sentences and post-sentence supervision are keys to this process.
Electronic monitoring has a part to play in fighting crime and can make community sentences more effective. I understand that there are concerns over the technical feasibility of using electronic tagging as a means of exclusion--[Interruption.]
The Minister of State says not. If that is the case, I am pleased to hear it, but some people outside the House will need to be convinced that the technical problems have been resolved. However, if it is technically possible, I would especially welcome the use of electronic tagging to stop perpetrators approaching victims of domestic violence in their homes. That would be welcomed very widely, as restricting and monitoring the movements of offenders, especially in those circumstances, should provide greater protection for the public.
I come now to the subject of drug testing, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey spoke in some detail. We fully support attempts to make the criminal justice system more effective at tackling the causes of offending behaviour and at challenging the behaviour of offenders. It has been established that much criminality is related to drug misuse, and an effective response needs to be developed. As I said earlier, however, in statistical terms correlation does not prove--or even imply--causation. Many repeat offenders lead chaotic lives, as do many drug users. The chaotic life style may cause the crime, rather than the drug use per se.
It is essential that treatment plays a central role in our approach to testing. I would extend that to cover alcohol abuse, which is also linked to many crimes. Crudely speaking, illegal drug use is linked to acquisitive crimes, while alcohol is linked to driving offences and violent crimes. Crimes of violence constitute that element of the crime figures that has been rising most, and it continues
to rise. People fear being burgled and having their homes invaded. I know that they are very unpleasant experiences, but most people fear crimes of violence much more than acquisitive crimes. We should not be so obsessed with illegal drugs that we overlook the impact of alcohol on society.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, our primary concern with the Bill is that clause 48 is so broad that it could be construed as criminalising, for the first time, the use of drugs. I know that the Home Secretary disagrees with that interpretation, but his view is not shared by many other experts. The clause, as drafted, would create a new offence. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to do so, as existing provisions seem perfectly adequate to ensure that the possession, manufacture and trafficking of illicit substances are criminalised.
In principle, the proposal to create abstinence orders could be supported, but the orders will be counterproductive unless they are linked to drug treatment programmes. If they are not so linked, they will simply be a method of forcing drug users back into custody. If a person charged with an offence is found in possession of drugs, or if there is reasonable suspicion that that person was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offence, it would be acceptable to test for the use of drugs. Generally speaking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey noted, the critical point at which testing should take place is after conviction for an offence and before sentencing, not on arrest. Once guilt has been established, drug testing can help to identify the most appropriate sentence, not only in terms of punishment and deterrence, but in addressing the causes of criminal behaviour and reducing reoffending.
We oppose the Bill's provisions allowing the Home Secretary to extend, by order, drug testing to anyone who is arrested. I hope that the Minister will explain, when he responds to the debate, why the Prime Minister originally suggested--apparently off the cuff--that the Government's intention was to drug-test anyone taken into police custody. That has changed in the Bill, but it retains an order-making power allowing the Home Secretary to extend testing if he feels so inclined.
The law should distinguish between those who use drugs, and those who abuse them. Use of drugs in itself should not be criminalised, as that is not harmful to others.
Jackie Ballard:
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, from a sedentary position, says, "Dear me", but she did not criminalise the use of drugs when she was in government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The right hon. Lady should not be saying "Dear me" from a sedentary position.
Jackie Ballard:
Perhaps my ears are too good, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a blind side--if the right hon. Lady were sitting on my left, I would not be able to see her--but not a deaf side.
There is already plenty of legislation trying to prevent the use of illegal drugs. However, the resources devoted to the treatment of drug users are insufficient and not enough is being done to deal with the crimes that result
from the use and abuse of alcohol. None of the provisions in the Bill will be effective without a real and substantial increase in resources for the treatment of people with a drug habit.
I believe that it would be irresponsible to identify drug users without providing treatment for them. The Bill is likely to waste resources on testing, which will prove nothing except that a person has used an illegal substance. Questions arise about the efficacy of the tests available, and whether they will always be 100 per cent. effective. The House will recall that a Conservative Member had occasion to realise that his use of a perfectly legal medicine could cause him to test positive, as happened when he attended a conference.
In itself, drug testing will not prove a link between a crime and drug use, and neither will it produce treatment for persistent drug users. Moreover, a human rights issue arises here. Before trial, everyone is presumed innocent, but, under the Bill, an innocent person refusing a drug test will have committed an imprisonable offence. The Minister will know that Liberty questions whether that is an infringement of rights granted under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
Finally, I come to the proposals for the jailing of the parents of truants. Clause 55 provides for more serious sanctions than are in place already, including a level 4 fine of £2,500 and the possibility of a custodial sentence to ensure that a parent attends court. We share the Government's view that something must be done about the levels of truancy in our schools, but we cannot see how impoverishing a child's household, or jailing a child's parents, will improve matters.
What is needed is early intervention and more help for parents who feel unable to control their children, not new and ever more draconian punishments for people who already cannot cope. If the Government were deliberately setting out to create an underclass, I cannot think of a much better way for them to go about it. We shall seek to amend and overturn those provisions in Committee.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Bill has cost implications that have not been touched on. Many of its provisions will lead to an uncosted rise in the prison population, and the Bill itself suggests that, assuming 50 per cent. compliance, an extra 3,000 prisoners will be created. The worst-case scenario therefore is that there will be an extra 6,000 prisoners. I doubt that the Home Secretary would consider it an effective indicator of his performance if the prison population continued to rise during his tenure.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
I want to begin by injecting a little realism into the debate. There have been many serious speeches, full of good intentions, but we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is particularly true of this Government. Interestingly, however, the Government today slipped out a written answer to a question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on one of the issues central to the Bill.
My right hon. Friend had asked the Government to say how many offenders released under the home detention curfew scheme were convicted of each category of drug offence. We have heard a lot of soft stuff today about drugs matters, especially from Liberal Democrat Members, as so often. In his written answer, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)--who sits spluttering on the Government Front Bench--reported figures relating to those prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme up to 14 March this year. That is only two weeks ago today, and the figures show that no fewer than 2,931 released prisoners were convicted of drugs-related offences.
The Minister's reply sets out the numbers of prisoners convicted of each type of drugs offence. The answer shows that 103 were convicted of offences of production--in other words, that they were manufacturers of illegal drugs. A further 190 had been convicted of unlawful import or export--in other words, they were traffickers. Supply and intent to supply are among the most serious offences, and the written answer shows that 969 released prisoners had been convicted of supplying illegal drugs, and that no fewer than 1,238 had been convicted of possession with intent to supply. That means that more than 2,000 of those released were drug dealers.
After all the nonsense that we have heard from Labour Members about the home detention curfew scheme--I am particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is not in his place--it is clear from the written answer given today to my right hon. Friend that she was right to criticise the way in which the Government are using the scheme and the way in which they have, once again, systematically and deliberately broken their promises and undertakings that the scheme was never intended to be used for this kind of serious offender.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |