 House of Commons |
Session 2004 - 05 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Drugs Bill |
Drugs Bill |
Standing Committee FTuesday 1 February 2005(Afternoon)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Drugs BillClause 5X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and WalesAmendment proposed [this day]: No. 41, in clause 5, page 5, line 42, at end insert—
2.30 pmQuestion again proposed, That the amendment be made. Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): Welcome to our proceedings this afternoon, Mr. Gale. When we broke, I was responding to the Minister's response to the amendment. What really worries me is the lack of detail. I wholeheartedly support the Minister in what she is trying to achieve but would have liked some of the financial tests to be available to the Committee, not least when it comes to access to hospitals, general practice surgeries and the other medical premises included in the Bill. We are talking not about accident and emergency provisions but about a procedure that is to be initiated at the request of a police officer. The officer may request a general practitioner or a hospital's accident and emergency department to carry out tests on behalf of the police, and, indeed, to interpret those tests on behalf of the police and transmit the results to them. It follows that the national health service or private medical facility that provides those services will face a cost. The Minister has given no indication whether the police have the intention, or, indeed, the provision, to purchase the equipment necessary to carry out those tests. Nor has she said that specific facilities or suites will be made available for them. She will therefore have to rely entirely on the national health service and/or the private sector. If I remember correctly, her response this morning was that the costs will be negligible. I do not see general practices responding in that fashion to the sort of costs involved. GPs in Chesham and Amersham provide a tremendous service, and our primary care trust tries its very best, but they are all under a great deal of pressure. Indeed, my constituents have to travel some distance to avail themselves of X-ray facilities. The cost of the facilities is a moveable feast. However, while we were at lunch I unearthed a tariff of costs, and I need the Minister to respond to me in The radiology tariff from the Department of Health for 2004-05 can vary. I am afraid that the information is slightly outwith the amounts given by the estimable lady veterinarian wife of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but some of them could be the same price as a vet's X-ray. On the list is something with a specialty code RBA1, in band A, which costs £17. Ultrasounds start from £31 and go to £36, £69 and as much as £113. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I, too, have done some research over lunch, and it is important to put the issue in context. We anticipate about 100 extended detentions per annum. On the assumption that 50 per cent. of those have an associated X-ray, costing, to use a rough figure based on internet research, £50 each, and that 10 per cent. have an ultrasound scan—a private ultrasound scan for a pregnant woman is reported to be £170; we managed to get that figure together over lunch—we are talking about a total cost per annum of something like £7,000. My argument has been, first, that there is a deterrent factor to the provision, and that the process will not get as far as the X-ray because people will know that the game is up and that they should plead guilty; and, secondly, that only a small number of people are involved. As to how the police in Greater Manchester work, they currently use accident and emergency departments— The Chairman: Order. I remind the Minister that this is an intervention and not a speech. Caroline Flint: Sorry, Mr. Gale. I hope that the information that I have provided gives the hon. Lady a better context for the operation of the clause, and I hope that she agrees that there will not be an unusual, unexpected or disproportionate impact on the national health service. Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful that the Minister has done some extra research. I am sorry that we have had to drag it from her, kicking and screaming, over a lunch break. I hope that her estimates are right, because the other information that I dug up over lunch was from a reply to a written question of 7 May 2003, about the assessment that is made of current waiting times for X-ray tests and ultrasound scans. The reply was that data are not collected. However, it continued:
We can all agree on that. The reply added:
It follows, to go back to the debate that we had about timing, that there may be a very long wait in a public facility for a test.
Will the Minister write to all the members of the Committee and let us know the details of the results from the efforts made by the Manchester police? Also, further down the line, will she provide a firmer, technical explanation of exactly what X-ray or scan will be required? She mentioned a cost of £170 for a private, ultrasound scan for a pregnant lady. Of course, that could involve a full body scan, not just a lower abdominal scan, because where the body needs to be scanned and where the package may have lodged itself depend on how long has elapsed from the alleged swallowing of the class A drugs. I would like further and better details. It follows that only an abdominal scan will be needed, but that the whole alimentary canal will have to be X-rayed or scanned. That will take longer; there is more to it. It may cost more and the Minister may have underestimated the costs, even if she has not underestimated the numbers. It would be better if, rather than taking inspiration from another place, she could write to the Committee and explain the technical details. I will give way so that she can agree that she will—but she is not going to. We will all note that the technical details were not available on this clause, and I fall back on the inference that it was put together in rather a hurry. That seems increasingly to be the case with the Bill, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): I listened carefully to the debate on the amendment, which was quite lengthy, and rightly so. However, it did not address the real problem of swallowers. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the numbers are relatively small, at least in urban and rural areas, but my main concern is what happens at airports. I have studied that in a little detail. We did not have much of a cocaine problem in Manchester until flights started to come direct from the Caribbean rim a few years ago. The cocaine problem then started to get worse. I suspect that there is a change of fashion in the north from heroin to cocaine, but we have certainly not had the terrible experience that London and some other cities and towns have had, mainly in the south. The police fear cocaine far more than heroin: although both are addictive and equally evil, cocaine makes people aggressive, whereas heroin has the opposite effect. The police do not like to deal with people on cocaine, because they can be horrific to deal with, particularly A few years ago, I was on the police parliamentary scheme with the Greater Manchester police force, and one of our visits was to the Netherlands. We spent a whole day at Schiphol airport, and I thought that we should certainly do what was done there at Heathrow and Manchester, if not at some other international airports. The problem with British airports dealing with swallowers is that so many security forces are built into silos. At Manchester airport, we have the local police—the Greater Manchester force—special branch, who do not take a high profile, for obvious reasons, individual security companies working for baggage handlers and airlines, and Customs and Excise. Many years ago Holland realised that such silos were not working effectively together. An important report on that was made to the British Government. Forgive me, but I have forgotten the name of it, but I referred to it on the Floor of the House a couple of years ago. It suggested that the silos be merged. The Netherlands gives one force the total right to police all ports of entry and leaving. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 1 February 2005 |