|
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I am happy to give the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) an opportunity to have a break, although she may not like what I say, because I am not with her on the amendment.
The provisions on the decision to refer an arrestee to a doctor or a hospital for an X-ray or ultrasound are eminently sensible. We are talking about a medical examination and in law a medical examination without consent can often be assault. In those circumstances it is quite sensible for the appropriate safeguards to be put in place. Doing so is also in line with similar provisions already enacted.
We are also talking about something that involves a significant deployment of resources. Taking a person to a hospital or a doctor for an X-ray or ultrasound examination will take up a significant amount of the time of the officers concerned. It is therefore entirely appropriate for an inspector, who is normally responsible for the allocation of duties within a division, to make that decision.
I expect that financial costs would also be incurred as a result of the use of hospital facilities, because in this brave new world we get nothing for nothing.
9.45 am
Mrs. Gillan: Perhaps I have not explained my reasoning clearly. Somebody of the rank of inspector should certainly be able to authorise the search with an X-ray or a scan, but the point is that an inspector will not have been present. The suspicion should be acknowledged by providing that any officer with reasonable grounds for such suspicion who is present at the time in question should tell the inspector; the inspector could then make the authorisation. It should be made clear that an officer who witnesses the act of swallowing, or what he believes is an act of concealment in a body cavity, should be the pivotal police officer in the initial stages of the clause. I concede that then someone of the rank of inspector or above should give the final authorisation.
Column Number: 79
The clause gives the impression that the inspector is present at the time and has reasonable grounds for the belief. However, there is third party information involved.
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her thinking clearer, although I do not think that what she says is borne out in practice. The provision, like so many comparable provisions already, will inevitably work in this way: the constable or whoever makes the arrest will go to the inspector and explain why he believes an X-ray or ultrasound would be appropriate; that explanation would form the reasonable grounds on which the inspector would make the authorisation.
The hon. Lady remarked on drafting. By removing the words
''of at least the rank of inspector''
her amendment would result in any constable having the power to authorise an X-ray or scan. That may be what is these days euphemistically called an unintended consequence, but it would be a significant one. For those reasons, well intentioned though the amendment no doubt is, it would not be appropriate.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, the shadow Minister, because the clause does not give sufficient recognition to patterns of modern policing. In my constituency the Norfolk constabulary is setting up a number of outlying beat stations, most of which come under the command of a duty sergeant. There is an inspector in the area command, who is often on duty, but we all know that policing is becoming far more flexible and fleet of foot, and less rigid. The Minister surely appreciates that. It is a mistake for the Government to tell modern police forces to respond to the demands that they face with more flexibility, while they legislate to make the system more rigid.
The Minister should recognise, too, that in many rural police forces dozens of police constables and sergeants have up to 25 or 30 years' experience. Often the beat officers in rural areas are constables or sergeants with great experience who know their area inside out and are responsible people. Of course, they would contact the area commander and discuss the situation, but problems may arise if the clause is not altered. Can the reasonable grounds held by
''an officer of at least the rank of inspector''
under the clause be simply seeing a report from a police constable in a beat station? I do not know. That could be subject to legal challenge, in my opinion. We must make it clear that we want to deal with a serious problem.
Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman's logic were to be followed throughout the criminal justice system, no warrants for search and apprehension would ever be granted unless the judge or the justice of the peace granting the warrant were present to see what had happened.
Column Number: 80
Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is right; that is a well established legal route established in much legislation. I simply point out the possibility of problems or challenges to the clause in court. We need to give the police as much flexibility as possible. Clause 5 is one of the Government's flagship clauses, and to make it work properly we need to support the amendment.
Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the amendment to encompass all police officers is made, it should be absolutely clear that ''officer'' means a properly qualified police officer with knowledge of the law, and not a community support officer? Otherwise, there will be a creep of responsibility, and such powers will be passed to CSOs, but they should be given only to qualified police officers.
Mr. Bellingham: I agree entirely. In most Home Office Bills of which I have experience, ''officer'' means police officer, but the world of policing is changing under this Government, and more responsibility is being given to CSOs. As far as I am concerned, ''officer'' means police officer—that is our intention—but we ought to consider carefully what my hon. Friend proposes. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Caroline Flint: I am somewhat concerned by some of the statements of Conservative Members. Although it is part of the direction of the Bill to try to find appropriate ways in which to tackle people who deal drugs, it is important that there are safeguards in the system to which the police are accountable. That is why I resist the amendment, which would allow an officer of any rank to authorise an X-ray or ultrasound scan. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said, to authorise an X-ray or ultrasound scan is a significant step in an investigation, and it is right and proper that, as in other areas, that step is considered. I have heard the debate about how an inspector can make such a decision if he or she was not present at the point of arrest, but police officers have to seek authorisation for different things every day, and they have to make the case to an officer of rank—whether an inspector or other rank—as to why it is reasonable to authorise that action.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): In my experience, swallowers turn up mainly at airports. Before we get into major discussions on the clause, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that it covers airport police? I may well say something about that problem in the stand part debate otherwise.
Caroline Flint: Yes, it would, but Customs and Excise officers are also involved at airports, particularly with people who are used as mules. The clause is primarily to deal with dealers and cases such as those in which there is a raid on a property that the police have under surveillance, and people swallow rocks of crack to hide them, but it would cover police at airports. They, too, will have to seek the authorisation of an inspector.
Column Number: 81
Officers of the rank of inspector already have wide responsibilities under PACE to authorise similar steps in investigations, such as: searches to ascertain someone's identity under section 54A; intimate searches under section 55; the taking of intimate samples under section 62; and testing for the presence of class A drugs under section 63B.
Removal of this important safeguard would add no obvious benefit. I understand that an officer in a rural police station could put the case to an inspector over the phone, so it should not inhibit them. We are all keen to find ways to ensure that the police are able to get on with their primary job, but there is still a responsibility in the management chain to oversee police activities. We should not lose sight of the proper safeguards, which should continue to exist in this and other areas. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to withdraw her amendment.
Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister. The clause could have been drafted more clearly; I see no problem with someone above the rank of inspector authorising an X-ray, but the clause does not recognise that that would be someone other than the person who was present at the time when the person who was arrested might have swallowed the drug. The drafting is unclear, but I accept that when the Bill becomes an Act, the record of these proceedings will stand. The Minister has clarified the position for the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, leave out 'a Class A' and insert
'or can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 40, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert
'within 3 hours of the authorisation by that officer'.
No. 38, in clause 5, page 5, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 39, in clause 5, page 5, line 29, leave out '(or both)'.
Mrs. Gillan: This is the largest group of amendments to clause 5, and it gives me the opportunity to raise several points. I am somewhat surprised that the amendments have been grouped, as they cover separate issues. Amendment No. 37 seeks to leave out 'a Class A' and to insert
'or can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'.
My aim is to widen the provision, because there could be some question about how we identify whether the drug is a class A drug. I think that we on this Committee are fairly familiar with the classifications—heroin, methadone, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines, if prepared for injection and, as we shall discuss later in the Bill, magic mushrooms prepared for use are all class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Class B drugs are amphetamines,
Column Number: 82
speed and barbiturates, while cannabis, recently reclassified, joins anabolic steroids and benzodiazepines and tranquilisers such as valium and temazepam as a class C drug.
Identifying them is a different matter. It could be difficult to tell a class A drug from a class B or class C one. There could be a challenge to the use of the search on the basis of what type of drug the individual might have swallowed. Tranquilisers—class C drugs—are often tablets or capsules. It is difficult to tell the difference between a tranquiliser and ecstasy, which also comes as a tablet or a capsule in various shapes and sizes, but is a class A drug. Anabolic steroids also come in tablets that can be swallowed, and they are class C drugs. However, amphetamines, which can come in tablet form or as a grey or white powder, are class B drugs in certain conditions. Likewise, cocaine, a white powder, is a class A drug. I hope that the Minister is following this, although I am sure that she has been briefed on what the drugs look like.
It seems to be a narrowing of the provision to state
''may have swallowed a Class A drug''.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think seriously about widening it, and substituting the words
'can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'.
That would be much more fitting in the light of what actually happens when someone is apprehended by a police officer.
10 am
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned airport use. In many instances, of course, people picked up by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on their arrival at airports have ingested the drugs before boarding the plane, so the drugs may have been in their system for a long time. Inevitably, the drugs smuggled into this country in that way are class A. On the street, however, many dealers carry drugs, concealed, for example, in their mouths. I believe that they wrap them up in clingfilm and push them up inside their cheek or into other parts of their body, so when they are approached by a police officer who does not even intend to arrest them, they may swallow them. The drugs may not be class A; they have something else concealed on their person. The amendment removes the ambiguity, and I hope that the Minister will accept it as a valuable addition to the Bill.
Amendment No. 40 is purely probing, and seeks to insert
''within 3 hours of the authorisation by that officer''.
It attempts to glean from the Minister how she expects the clause to operate, as it defines no time limit between the authorising of an X-ray or ultrasound scan and getting the defendant to an X-ray or ultrasound scan facility. We need to consider the practicalities of how the provision will work. I welcome the clause and this departure from existing legislation. I have no problem with it, but I want to ensure that it does not fail because it does not work in practice.
Column Number: 83
We need to address some practical problems, one of which is timing. First, if the officer arrests someone and believes that they have swallowed a class A drug or other sort of drug, the officer will ask someone of the rank of inspector to authorise the scan or X-ray. Where will that X-ray or scan take place? It is much more likely to be an emergency procedure, because it will have to be carried out in time. Subsection (4) gives three possible places where the ultrasound or X-ray can be taken, and I presume that the accident and emergency department will be the Minister's prime location for the investigation, because it will have the necessary equipment for performing X-rays and scans and it will be staffed by the appropriately qualified health professionals for carrying out both procedures and interpreting the results.
| 
