|
Caroline Flint: Amendment No. 37 looks beyond the class A drugs on which the clause concentrates. To give the Committee some background, the reason why the clause concentrates on class A drugs is that the police—who have brought forward many of these issues—are particularly worried about crack dealers, who often carry rocks of crack in their mouths and will swallow them upon arrest. The police often have such people under surveillance for drug dealing, which is the other issue here, so they do not just walk along the street and think, ''Right, we'll stop them.'' When a street dealer attempts to swallow a rock of crack, the police are often left with the difficult problem of whether to take action which may involve having to put hands on that person to prevent them from swallowing, which in public places—where much of the street dealing goes on—can result in misinterpretation by bystanders. That would put at risk bystanders who may think that a fight may be occurring and wonder what is going on, since we may be talking about plain-clothes police officers.
So there are a number of reasons why the police feel they want back-up to deal with that particular practice of people having an opportunity to evade justice. It was particularly raised in relation to class A drugs, especially crack. That same problem does not really happen in relation to cannabis dealers, the police have told us, as the drugs are not usually carried in a form which makes them susceptible to being swallowed.
Amendment No. 37 would take us beyond the problem that the clause was designed to address. It would also put the clause out of kilter with other provisions of PACE, such as intimate drugs searches where the provisions are limited to class A drugs. However, I can see there may be some merit in exploring or, for that matter, anticipating the possibility that drugs other than class A drugs might in future pose similar problems. I am willing to take the issue away, reflect a little more on whether it is desirable to alter the reference to class A drugs by order, for example, should there be a need to do so in future, and to come back to the matter on Report. I have a relatively open mind on that particular issue, but it is also a matter of having clauses linked to a particular problem that has been brought forward for our attention, and to consider what is really practical with the sort of drugs most likely to be used in that regard.
Mrs. Gillan: I appreciate what the Minister is saying and would agree with her logic that the clause has arisen as a direct result of requests from the police. However, would it not be better to have it drafted more widely? Should the situation on the street change, it would seem to be a waste of time to return to legislation in order to widen the clause. The situation with regard to crack has changed dramatically within
Column Number: 91
a fairly short period of time and it is quite possible that it will change with regard to other substances. If the clause were to be drafted more widely, that legislation is there as a deterrent, as well as covering all eventualities.
Caroline Flint: The clauses in this part of the Bill are aimed at tackling those drugs most involved in criminal activity. Other parts of the Bill deal with the fact that it is overwhelmingly class A drug users who become addicted and involved in acquisitive crime. I have said that I am prepared to reflect on the issue further. I will reflect on the point about whether we should widen the catchment or seek to change by order. I have not made up my mind on the issue and I would like more time to take other soundings.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to require the authorisation for an ultrasound scan or X-ray to be given within three hours. We have had extensive debate on the issue. I take the point that it is a probing amendment, but there are many reasons why three hours would be an arbitrary cut-off point. There may be a need to obtain the services of a lawyer or an interpreter, which would create a time constraint.
There are times when delays occur where arrests have been made at unsocial hours. That is partly an occupational hazard. No matter which Government are in, there will always be problems in trying to provide such a wraparound service. It is tempting to get into a broad discussion about NHS resources, but I shall not. In my constituency and those of many of my hon. Friends, as well as throughout the country, we have seen huge investment in the health service, not only in terms of people—the rising numbers of doctors, consultants, nurses and others—but in buildings.
Record resources are going into policing: in real terms there has been a 21 per cent. increase since 1997; and there are real-terms increases in our health service as well, which we will continue to support. The hon. Lady has made many points about money and spending. We know that the Opposition want to cut spending in public services should they ever have the chance to come into government.
Mrs. Gillan: I can assure the Minister that we shall not be cutting public spending when we are recruiting 40,000 extra police, which will no doubt help tremendously.
However, there is a national shortage of radiographers, which is one of the most difficult issues to resolve. This is not a frivolous or point-scoring exercise, but a serious request for the Minister to tell us what she intends to do about the shortage of radiographers and people to operate and interpret X-rays and ultrasound scans. I know many people who have had to wait for some weeks to be slotted in for their X-rays, but she is expecting an accident and emergency department to see people at the drop of a hat.
Column Number: 92
Caroline Flint: I certainly have not said that they will be seen at the drop of a hat, which is why I am not accepting an amendment that says that it should be within three hours. A number of different issues apply. The Bill has gone through the usual channels around Departments and has received policy clearance from different Departments. We should be realistic about the extent to which the provision will be used. It will not necessarily be used every day or for the huge numbers that the hon. Lady suggests. It is linked to certain offences and there are certain safeguards in its application. The confinement to three hours is not suitable.
Mrs. Gillan: The Minister rightly said that the provision has been round all Departments for policy clearance. It would greatly aid our deliberations if she would make the response from the Department of Health available to the Committee, so that we know how it responded to the extra demand on its resources.
10.45 am
Caroline Flint: I am not going down that road. This is a Government Bill. I take the point that hon. Members are asking probing questions, but the arguments advanced are rather daft. There are several things that have to be taken into account at any one time in managing a situation and police officers, forensic medical examiners and others will work to ensure that what is proposed is done appropriately. In that respect, guidance will be given to the police by revising the PACE codes when the provision comes into force, and we will ensure that it is understood.
As drafted, the clause simply requires X-rays and ultrasound scans to be undertaken while the person is in police detention between arrest and charge. Normally, that is limited by PACE to 24 hours, but it can be extended depending on the circumstances of the case. The period should allow the X-ray or the scan, or both, to be undertaken while taking into account the busy health professionals serving our communities in hospitals throughout the country.
My response to amendment No. 38 is that before an X-ray or ultrasound scan is authorised, the clause requires the authorising officer to have reasonable grounds for believing that a person may have swallowed a class A drug, and
''(b) was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest'',
that is, that they intend to deal in the drug. The amendment would remove the requirement that a person in possession of a class A drug had the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest. That will catch not only dealers but those who have the drug in their possession for personal use. The intention of the clause is to target dealers, not users. In the case of users, testing is a route to treatment, which is more appropriate; that is why those who are arrested for acquisitive offences are tested, because, sadly, they are often drug addicts. To use the provisions of the clause against users would be unnecessary, unhelpful and disproportionate; I therefore cannot accept the amendment.
Column Number: 93
The hon. Member for Reigate mentioned the passing of drugs. In relation to those in custody, that is largely a theoretical problem. Police are used to keeping people in custody separate, partly to avoid the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred and also to avoid the exchange of information that will affect proceedings. He mentioned transit; obviously, the police have to take certain safeguards during transit to ensure that there is no activity that would prejudice or harm the procedures that the police undertake.
It is right that the clause should stay as drafted. People can always come up with a scenario that has not been thought of, but in most circumstances raised by the hon. Gentleman there are sufficient safeguards, or opportunities for the police to deal with the situations.
On the authorising of an ultrasound scan or an X-ray, or both, I want to make it clear that there may be situations in which an individual may, for proper reasons, refuse to have one of those procedures. The example of a pregnant woman was raised and there may be religious or cultural issues in some circumstances. That is why, although we say that the refusal to undertake an X-ray or an ultrasound scan would be made available for the courts to take inferences from, if someone had a reasonable excuse they could make that clear to the court, which could take it into account. That is a proper safeguard.
It is important that, with proper authorisation, both procedures should be allowed. The situation described by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland might arise. If an X-ray is authorised and it turns out to be inappropriate and a scan is needed—or vice versa—it would avoid the need to get another authorisation. That needs to be understood. It might be that an X-ray was not definitive, depending on the size of the package swallowed. An ultrasound scan to follow up an indication provided by an X-ray might provide a more definitive result. This is an attempt to build the evidence about the person and the offence for which they are being charged.
| 
