|
Caroline Flint: There is a difference between an intimate search and a more general one. I shall obtain the details if they are required—I am sure that there are guidelines on searches. There is screening for visitors going into prisons. In some prisons, sniffer dogs are used. I have asked what would happen if one of those dogs sniffed out some drugs and the drugs were not obviously in a person's bags or clothing. I am told that at that point the person would be detained and the police would be engaged, because it would indicate that an intimate search would be necessary. I shall be happy to provide the hon. Lady with more details about current search powers. Intimate search is rather different, and my understanding is that there has not been a desire on the part of the Prison Service for prison officers or prison custody officers to be involved in that. They think that it is right for it to be a matter for the police. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister. She has obviously taken some pains to look into this subject, which is certainly one that worries me greatly. Nine out of 10 young adult prisoners, for example, say that they used drugs prior to imprisonment, but only one in three young offenders institutions provide drug treatment programmes. The statistics that I quoted when I moved the amendment certainly show that there is an enormous problem with substance abuse in our prisons. Notwithstanding that, some terrific work is being done in prisons by the CARATs teams and others to try to bring appropriate treatment, but that is against a background of diminishing resources. The prison budget is frozen at the moment, as is recruitment, and more and more strains are being put on the Prison Service. Something has to give.
Caroline Flint: I do not want to get into a general discussion about the Prison Service budget, but the additional moneys for drug treatment for those people caught up in our criminal justice system have been earmarked for that purpose, so that they are not lost in the general budget. That is added value in terms of what prisons have had in the past to deal with the matter. Importantly, we did not before have the additional funding that is available to the drug action teams for throughcare and aftercare for prisoners on release. That is a step change from what we have had in the past, and is all additional funding.
Mrs. Gillan: I appreciate that, but we also need the climate in prison in which rehabilitation programmes can be delivered. At the moment, there are increasing problems with the number of prison staff who are available to supervise our prisons. As there is a recruitment freeze, despite the fact that they are operating at safety levels they are also operating at marginal levels, and it is thought that there will be less time to spend on education and rehabilitation and less time spent out of the cells.
Column Number: 75
There is a burgeoning problem in our prisons, and because of the recruitment ban and the freeze on budgets, that black hole will obviously move through the Prison Service. We need to be reassured that there will not be an ongoing problem with drug treatment and that we will not—as we suspect is the case in some instances—have people going into prison and coming out having acquired a drug habit.
Angela Watkinson: When my hon. Friend tabled the amendment to include ''prison officer'' under those encompassed by the term ''appropriate person'', did she have in mind the simple point that drugs are often brought to prisoners by visitors or the much wider idea that drugs may be brought in to prisons by visitors and go undetected, and subsequently will be used by prisoners in their ordinary daily life in prison, when prison officers may need to be determined as appropriate persons for searches.
Mrs. Gillan: I had all of that in mind, and was hoping that we would have the general discussion that we have had about drugs in prisons. Obviously, when we are considering something as widely drawn as this Bill, it is only right that we discuss drugs in all quarters of our community. There is the tip of the iceberg, and the problem is below the surface. No statistics, as far as I know, are produced by the Home Office that consider whether people go into prison without a drugs habit but acquire one when they come out. The evidence is anecdotal, but we hear that as often as not.
I am satisfied that the Minister has considered the subject, but I am not entirely satisfied that we are completely clear about the role of prison officers or of officers and staff in private prisons. I know that the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill is coming to us from the other place, but a date is yet to be fixed for Second Reading in the Lords. I hope that the Minister will cross-reference with her colleague with responsibility for prisons and ensure that there is seamless and joined-up thinking on the issue of drugs. It is important to consider that there is no point having good and enforceable laws to prevent the misuse of drugs in the general community if we ignore the sector inside prisons.
When that Bill, which introduces the National Offender Management Service, finally gets off the paper and into Committee in the Lords, I will watch what happens to it, because I hope that we will have some sort of comprehensive planning right across the board, linking up with some of the admirable measures in this Bill. With that proviso, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Drug offence searches: Northern Ireland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 76
Mrs. Gillan: Clause 4 is almost identical to clause 3 except that it applies to Northern Ireland as opposed to England and Wales. I have a small point to make, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. When looking at similar clauses that apply to different territories, it is not unnatural that one should cast one's eyes over the legislation to see whether there are any differences in the way that they are drafted. The particular difference between clauses 3 and 4 occurs in clause 4(2), which inserts new paragraph (3B), which states:
''Where it is proposed that a drug offence search be carried out, a constable shall inform the person who is to be subject to it''.
That differs from clause 3, which refers to an ''appropriate officer''. My first question is: why that difference? I refer the Minister to a speech made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in the debate on the draft Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, when she said:
''I make a special plea to the Minister that when future legislation is drafted for Northern Ireland, instead of repeating the word 'constable', recognition is given to the fact that we commonly address new officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland as 'police officers'. Rarely since the Police Reform Act 2002 or the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 has legislation referred to constables. In fact, the Minister will be aware that the term 'constable' is confusing in legislation, as we have a special body of constables appointed under the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 and special constables appointed under harbours legislation.''—[Official Report, Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 26 February 2004; cc. 8-9.]
So her plea to the draftsmen was that, to avoid confusion in the future, all legislation should refer to ''constables'' only when it is properly intended.
I looked carefully through the debate, and the Northern Ireland Minister failed to pick up the point that the hon. Lady had made. As there is no hon. Member on this Committee who speaks for Northern Ireland, it is only fair that we raise this matter on her behalf. I hasten to add that I have not spoken to her about this, I have merely looked at the debate. It would be suitable, however, for the Minister to respond to this point, and tell us the thinking behind using the word ''constable'' when, obviously, time has moved on.
Caroline Flint: We consulted Northern Ireland on that issue. I understand that Northern Ireland has no detention officers or staff custody officers, and that only constables are involved. We therefore do not need to define the appropriate order. As far as I am aware, there are no plans to change that, but I will check in order to avoid future problems. That is the current position. I hope that, for now, that answers the hon. Lady's question.
Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I obviously needed to bring up the subject at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 77
Clause 5
X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and Wales
Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 22, leave out from 'officer' to 'has'.
I am getting tired of hearing my own voice, Mr. Illsley, for which I apologise; I hope that other hon. Members will contribute to our debates as the morning draws on.
Under clause 3, a drug offence search can be carried out by an officer or a constable, but when we move on to X-rays and ultrasound scans under clause 5 we suddenly find that the ranking has shifted. In subsection (1) of proposed new section 55A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, we see that the officer has to be of
''at least the rank of inspector''.
In most police forces, the uniformed ranks in ascending order are police constable, police sergeant, inspector, chief inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent—and then on to the giddy heights of assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable. That is the ranking in my force, the Thames Valley police force, but I understand that most police forces use the same ranks and symbols. Police constables wear their warrant number on their shoulders, as do police sergeants, but numbers are absent from the epaulettes for the rank of inspector and upwards. One has to identify the rank from a combination of diamond-shaped pips, crowns, wreaths and crossed staves—but they are firm rankings. The special constabulary also has firm rankings—special constable, section officer, area officer, chief area officer and chief officer. Then we come to police community support officers.
Subsection (1) obviously rules out certain police officers from deciding whether to make use of X-rays and ultrasound scans—particularly police constables and sergeants. Will the Minister say how she arrived at the rank of inspector; and will she explain the situation as it relates to police community support officers? The latter are being used increasingly, and although they do not have full police powers they may well be in and around the police station or area where arrests are being made.
The provision also states that the officer with at least the rank of inspector has to have
''reasonable grounds for believing that a person who has been arrested for an offence and is in police detention . . . may have swallowed a Class A drug''.
Placing that burden on an officer of at least the rank of inspector means that that individual has to rely on information passed to him or her by somebody who was around the suspect when they swallowed the package or whatever was swallowed or suspected of being swallowed. In my experience, an inspector will not necessarily be around at the time of arrest or when the suspect may have swallowed a class A drug. The inspector will therefore always rely on evidence that a junior or other officer reports to him.
Column Number: 78
Why has the Minister not considered allowing any officer who is present when a suspect is arrested, or who is in the vicinity of the arrest, to make the judgment about whether the person may have swallowed a class A drug? The drafting means that there will always be a transfer of information to someone who was not present when the individual was suspected of swallowing the drug. I hope that the Minister is following my logic. It seems that the decision is to be made by someone who is at a separate time and in a separate place from when and where the incident happened.
If the Minister specifies a police officer of any description—indeed, a constable—the clause will work. I see no advantage in limiting the officer concerned to the rank of inspector. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment, which will add greatly to the scope of the Bill, tighten up the provisions and allow any police officer who is in the vicinity or around the subject to make the decision, thereby triggering the search of that suspect.
| 
