The Chairman: Clause 6 is a mirror of clause 5, save that it relates to Northern Ireland. Matters relating specifically to Northern Ireland are therefore in order for this debate.
Mrs. Gillan: Briefly, we again have differences, in line 18 and line 30, which refer respectively to ''superintendent'', not ''inspector'', and ''constable'' rather than ''appropriate officer''. I ask the Minister whether that is the correct terminology, in light of the requests made and points alluded to earlier.
I will touch on the reporting requirements in both clauses 5 and 6. In both territories, the Minister is requiring the annual reportunder section 58 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 in this case, and under section 22 of the Police Act 1996 in clause 5, which refers to the Commissioner of the Police of the
Column Number: 112
Metropolisto report on the total number of X-rays and ultrasound scans and their results. That will give the Minister the results she requires to find out the numbers, but it will not tell us how many individuals have been X-rayed or scanned, or both. I hope that she gives some thought to redrafting that, perhaps introducing an amendment on Report or Third Reading, to give us the number of individuals.
The Bill allows for both ultrasound and X-ray to be carried out, but it would be interesting to see whether individuals fall foul of the provisions repeatedly. We will also need to see whether people elude the scans because they have not swallowed, but are then arrested in another situation. More qualitative information within the reporting requirements would help us to understand what is happening in that area of drug taking and dealing.
3 pm
Caroline Flint: As I said earlier, we discussed clause 6 with the Northern Ireland Office. It provides for X-rays and ultrasound scans in Northern Ireland, as clause 5 does for England and Wales. I mentioned also that in Northern Ireland, authorisation is to be given at the rank of superintendent, which reflects the difference between England and Wales and Northern Ireland, which has, historically, had higher-ranked authorisation procedures. However, I shall consider what has been said.
Mrs. Gillan: I am glad that the Minister is going to consider the matter. It may be that that ranking is no longer relevant at that level and that it should be lowered. That would give the police more liberty to deal with the matter, rather than restricting action to high-ranking officers.
Caroline Flint: As I said, we consulted with the Northern Ireland Office, but I am happy to double check.
In relation to the hon. Lady's point about reporting and monitoring, I cannot commit to that at this stage. The work necessary for the monitoring and accumulation of statistics could prove to be a rather bureaucratic burden in proportion to the outcome. I shall read Hansard, but I think that we should consider what is proportionate.
I hope that in some circumstances the powers in the Bill will lead people charged with supply offences not to prevaricate, but to realise that the court will draw inferences from their choice not to have an X-ray or scan. I hope that that will put an end to some of the problems that the police have had. The number of X-rays and scans might not relate directly to the number of successful prosecutions of individuals for supply. I am interested in considering the number of convictions for supply offences in relation to the whole basket of drug offences. That would be worth while, but I am not sure that adding more data would do what the hon. Lady would like it to do.
Mrs. Gillan: I appreciate that the Minister wants to consider supply offences, particularly in view of the statistics that I quoted in Committee last Thursday.
Column Number: 113
However, if she is going to reconsider the matter, may I ask her to think about location? Where will the X-rays and ultrasound scans take place? It would be good to know if a large number were in and around Manchester airport. Certainly there would be information on which police forces were using the powers and where in the country the incidence was highest.
Caroline Flint: Again, I have to say that part of the object is to give the police the power to get on with their job. Current custom and practice vary from one force area to another. Every day, police officers have, for one reason or another, and in one way or another, to take prisoners to hospital for medical procedures. It is not necessarily a good use of time either for the police to fill in charts to tell us where they are going and how much they use different places, or for the civil service to monitor them. We provide guidancein consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and othersas to how they should go about operational matters, but the procedures should take place under the law. I am a bit concerned about overburdening either civil servants at the centre of government or police forces on the ground with too much reporting.
Mrs. Gillan: I am not sure that the burden would fall on the police force, even though a record would be made in the police report. The national health service will have to log every X-ray and every scan, so the information will exist in NHS records.
Caroline Flint: I understand that we are talking about information to do with the total number of X-rays, but every time something is added, that is another a piece of information that must ultimately be provided. Hypothetically, if the police have to report back every time they use the X-ray and scan in a hospital, someone somewherethe police or a combination of the police and the hospitalwill have to fill in a form or put the information into a computer, so that it can be pulled back to the centre.
The question is: for what purpose will that information be used? I resist the proposal to add more bits of information, because I am not sure what they would tell us at the end of the day or whether it would help us in what we are trying to do, which is more effectively to provide the evidential base for convicting people of supply offences.
We have had a wide-ranging discussion on the clause. Before I tempt the hon. Lady to her feet again, I shall resume my seat. I hope that the Committee can move forward and accept the clause.
The Chairman: I was, of course, assuming that all hospitals referred to were hospitals in Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 114
Clause 7
Testing for presence of class A drugs
John Mann: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 7, page 8, line 34, after 'A', insert 'or class B'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in clause 7, page 9, line 3, after 'A', insert 'or class B'.
John Mann: The amendment probes the Minister on whether the Bill will cover amphetamines-type drugs. If it will, why do we need a class B at all? If amphetamines are not covered, however, that is a serious omission.
Amphetamines, particularly methamphetamines, are an increasing problem across the world. Taken orally and by injection, they are a problem in my area, particularly among a small group of women who are long-standing users. However, this country does not yet have the problems of south-east Asia and Australasia, where over the past three years
3.8 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.22 pm
On resuming
John Mann: The Minister should reflect on whether the powers that the police require for dealing with amphetamine-type drugs will be unnecessarily hindered. Drug testing in police custody suites is a welcome move by the Home Office; I believe that Nottinghamshire is the only police authority that tests for drugs at all its police stations. The ability to monitor what offenders are taking is proving to be extremely valuable and will become more so over time because it allows us to determine trends of offending and reoffending and the types and combinations of drugs being used. Such data are valuable to the police, to the health services and to us as legislators. Restricting testing under the Bill simply to class A drugs will at some stage require amendment.
I shall repeat examples that I cited earlier. South-east Asia is the best example, but more relevant is the growth in synthetic drugs in eastern Europe, which areI hesitate to use the term mushroomingincreasingly prevalent. Their increase in supply is quite dramatic, as are the associated problems, but the easiest examples to consider are Australia and New Zealand, where amphetamine-type drugs have become the problematic drugs of choice. They are the ones in which the organised gangs deal, because they can literally be cooked up in the back of a van as the gangs are driving around. No one can tell whether we will have exactly the same problems. We can, however, say that Australia and New Zealand did not have that problem four years ago, but they do now. The Minister should reflect on whether the Bill is unduly restrictive, hence my suggestion that class B drugs should be included.
Column Number: 115
Mrs. Gillan: I support the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who has put considerable thought into recommending the amendment to his Front Bench. He deployed an argument that is very much in keeping with my views on the clausethat it would be a sensible precaution to widen its provisions to cover class B drugs. After all, they are exceedingly serious, and amphetaminesspeed, or uppers or whatever they are calledcertainly fall within that category. Class A drugs are of course prepared for injection; the anomaly is that if the drugs of which he spoke are made to be ingested in a different formnot orally but by injectionthey too will come under the class A provisions.
I encourage the Minister to think about that. I want to give her as much power as possible in the task that lies ahead, and I certainly want to give as much power as we can to the police. Rather than revisiting the legislationalthough we may do soit seems sensible to widen the provisions now. If the hon. Gentleman is inclined to put the amendment to the vote, he will have my support and probably that of my hon. Friends.
|