| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.30 pm
The hon. Member for Taunton has tabled two amendments that I firmly believe would detract from the effectiveness of the drug abstinence order by making
unrealistic and often unnecessary requirements for the availability of treatment services before the court may make such an order. That is not to diminish the importance of the availability of treatment, but a drug abstinence order targets those offenders under probation supervision who do not require immediate treatment, although their drug misuse requires monitoring. Drug abstinence orders are primarily designed for offenders who have a propensity for drug misuse, but who do not need immediate treatment.Interventions to identify and monitor drug misuse are planned for those on charge, on bail, on community service or under other forms of community supervision, including release from prison on licence. The drug abstinence order is an integral part of that strategy. In particular, it will complement the drug treatment and testing order, which is principally aimed at offenders who commit high-volume acquisitive crime to feed a drug habit, are assessed as requiring treatment for drug misuse and are motivated to enter treatment.
Those offenders who do not require treatment or who are not motivated to enter it may well be suitable for a drug abstinence order, which will enable supervising officers to monitor their progress by using random and mandatory drug tests. There is already evidence from the mandatory drug testing programme in prisons that testing, although not a panacea in itself, can have the deterrent effect on hard drug misuse that we are looking for. A positive test under a drug abstinence order would alert supervising officers to potentially problematic behaviour and the need for remedial action, including provision of treatment where necessary.
Our strategy is to have in place drug interventions at each stage of the criminal justice process to identify drug misusers and, where appropriate, to get them into treatment and monitor their progress.
Jackie Ballard: I want to be absolutely sure that I understand the hon. Lady correctly. Are abstinence orders designed not for class A addicts, but only for occasional class A drug users?
Jane Kennedy: I resist the invitation to specify the groups of offenders for which drug abstinence orders might be appropriate. They will be appropriate for some offenders in some circumstances. Some offenders do not opt for treatment--they resist it--but it may be possible to get them to agree to a drug abstinence order. The mandatory testing that will be part of the order will allow the supervising officers to follow their progress. We would know that such individuals had a drug habit and we would want to monitor their progress in resisting the use of the drug.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have another question on the same lines. I understand what the Minister says about the difference between monitoring people's continuing abstinence and providing treatment. Following the Home Secretary's statement last week and his speech, can she tell us whether the Government have a target for the maximum time for treatment where it is required as part of the continuing rehabilitation process?
Jane Kennedy: No, we do not have a target, but I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton
that we are aware that coverage for the treatment of drug misuse is not yet complete. Considerable resources are being put into treatment--£20 million into arrest and referral schemes and £56 million into drug treatment and testing orders--but we recognise that there is a shortage of capacity. That is being addressed.
Dr. Iddon: Will counselling be applied to an individual who accepts an abstinence order? If it is not available, I cannot see the orders succeeding.
Jane Kennedy: As I understand it, the failure of a drug test by an individual subject to a drug abstinence order would be reported to the court, and it would be for the court to determine what measures should be applied to that individual. It would depend on the circumstances in each case. I do not say that counselling will not form part of the package, but it will be for the court to decide.
I was talking about the shortage of capacity in the overall programme of intervention in drug misuse. We are aware of that shortage, and it is being addressed. One initiative that is in hand is a joint Department of Health and Home Office recruitment campaign for drugs workers. By April 2001, up to 685 drugs workers will be recruited and trained. Those are important steps; this is a major investment in an important part of our work.
Treatment availability will continue to be developed. In the meantime, the existence of any gaps should not constitute a reason for denying the opportunity of identifying drug-misusing offenders at arrest, and monitoring their behaviour on bail or while under probation supervision. That will go a long way towards reducing the damage being done to communities by drug-related crime.
Mr. Hawkins: I am encouraged by the Minister's helpful and serious response. She said that the Government would keep the matter under review. She also said that, at a later stage, they might well consider amendments along the lines that we suggest in relation to class B drugs, and that they will monitor the effects of provisions that the Government have, in fact, drafted very carefully. I shall therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but, once again, with the proviso that the other place may well return to the issue.
I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43
Amendment made: No. 26, in page 27, line 5, at end insert--
'(4) The court shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless it has been notified by the Secretary of State that the power to make such orders is exercisable by the court and the notice has not been withdrawn'.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 45
Amendments made: No. 27, in page 28, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
No. 28, in page 29, line 25, leave out subsection (9).-- [Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 46
Amendments made: No. 29, in page 30, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
No. 30, in page 30, line 35, leave out subsection (8).-- [Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 47
Amendment made: No. 31, in page 31, line 8, leave out clause 47.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 51
Amendment made: No. 32, in page 35, line 10, at end insert--
'( ) In section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (limitations on police detention), for subsection (5)(b) there is substituted--
"(b) that, in respect of any such matter, proceedings may be taken against him or he may be reprimanded or warned under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".'. --[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 55
Amendments made: No. 33, in page 38, line 25, at end insert--
'and no court is to make a custodial order except in relation to a person who is aged at least 17 but under 18.
( ) No court is to commit a person to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention of persons aged at least 18 but under 21 for default or contempt) or make an order fixing a term of detention under that section'.
No. 34, in page 38, line 28, leave out "or".
No. 35, in page 38, line 29, after "life" insert--
'or to a custodial order'.
No. 36, in page 38, line 30, after "aged" insert "at least 18 but".
No. 37, in page 38, line 32, at end insert--
'(2A) A person who--
(a) has been committed (before the coming into force of this section) to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or in respect of whom an order fixing a term of detention under that section has been made (before the coming into force of this section), and
(b) is aged under 21,
may be detained in a young offender institution, or in a prison, determined by the Secretary of State'.
No. 38, in page 38, line 37, after "(2)" insert "or (2A)".
No. 39, in page 38, line 44, at end insert--
'( ) In this section--
"court" includes a court-martial and a Standing Civilian Court,
"custodial order" means an order under--
(a) section 71AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to, the Army Act 1955,
(b) section 71AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to, the Air Force Act 1955,
(c) section 43AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to, the Naval Discipline Act 1957.'.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 56
Amendments made: No. 40, in page 39, line 7, after second "conditions" insert ", however expressed".
No. 41, in page 39, line 20, at end insert--
'( ) In this section references to a sentence of imprisonment include--
(a) a detention and training order,
(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,
(c) a sentence of detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure),
(d) a sentence of detention under section 91 of that Act (detention of offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences),
(e) a sentence of custody for life under section 93 or 94 of that Act,
and references to prison shall be construed accordingly.'.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 58
Amendments made: No. 42, in page 40, line 21, after "person" insert "aged 18 or over".
No. 43, in page 40, line 25, after "conditions" insert ", however expressed".
No. 44, in page 40, line 35, at end insert--
'( ) In this section references to a sentence of imprisonment include--
(a) a detention and training order,
(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,
(c) a sentence of detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure),
(d) a sentence of detention under section 91 of that Act (detention of offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences),
(e) a sentence of custody for life under section 93 or 94 of that Act,
and references to prison shall be construed accordingly.'.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 60
Amendments made: No. 45, in page 41, line 18, leave out from "constables" to end of line 19.
No. 46, in page 41, line 26, at end insert--
'( ) Before making any regulations applying in respect of constables in police forces in Scotland, the Secretary of State must, to the extent to which the regulations will so apply, consult the Scottish Ministers'.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 61
Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 41, line 31, leave out clause 61.
If the amendment were accepted--I am ever the optimist--it would lead to the deletion of clause 61, which increases the penalty for failure to secure regular school attendance. It more than doubles the maximum fine, and introduces imprisonment for up to three months.
In Committee, I expressed surprise that the clause had appeared for the first time in this Bill rather than in an education Bill, in which its merits or otherwise in helping parents to ensure school attendance could have been debated by colleagues specialising in education as part of a wider discussion about how to encourage parents to be responsible and responsive when their children are truanting. I hope that the Minister will not caricature my views on the clause, suggesting that I am in favour of truanting or of parents who are irresponsible about the matter. I think that the debate is about the effective way of ensuring that parents carry out their duties in getting their children to school.
It would be much better to debate the clause in an education context than in a criminal justice context. However, it is in this Bill, and I believe that increasing the penalties will not in itself help parents who are struggling to ensure that their children attend school regularly. I also think that it will have a minimal impact on those who could not care less what their children are doing between 9 am and 3.30 pm on school days.
A range of interventions, including parenting projects, home tuition and family support, are much more likely to help than draconian penalties. Many--although not all--families with difficulties, including school attendance, will be poor families with multiple problems. Doubling the fine that can be imposed will simply add to their problems. Using the ultimate deterrent and sending a parent to prison will further fracture dysfunctional families.
In Standing Committee, I asked the Minister what research evidence there was to show that a fine of £2,500 would make an appreciable difference, as opposed to a fine of £2,000 or even £5,000. The Minister had no answer to that question. It seems that the clause has been slipped into a criminal justice Bill to try to avoid the scrutiny of educationists and to enable the Government to claim that they are getting tough on truancy, without any empirical or even anecdotal evidence to show that those particular get-tough measures will help to deal with the problem in any way. They will not, and they may do much harm. That is why we wish the clause to be deleted.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |