|
Mrs. Gillan: The clause is chiefly about the initial assessment following testing for the presence of class A drugs, but the amendments give rise to several issues that the Minister has not addressed, and I would like to know her view. The first is very simple. I want to ask her about a drafting point. Clause 9(2) says that:
''A police officer may, at any time before the person is released from detention at the police station, require him to attend an initial assessment and remain for its duration.''
Clause 12 deals with attendance at initial assessment, and gives the impression that it is going to be at another time and place. Can the Minister clarify whether the initial assessment does not have to take place before that person is released from detention? At the moment, I think that could be read ambiguously, and could be interpreted to mean that the initial assessment has to take place before the person leaves the police station, immediately following their detention, because they have tested positive for class A drugs.
I want to establish with the Minister not whether that is poor drafting—it is poor drafting, actually, otherwise this issue would not have come up—but whether the person can leave the police station, go home, and then come back at another time for an initial assessment. Otherwise a conflict is set up between clauses 9 and 12, which would create difficulties of interpretation in a court.
Column Number: 154
Perhaps the Minister would consider expressing clause 9(2) in a different way, to dispel the impression that that person had to remain in custody. Sitting alongside provisions for extension to custody in other parts of the Bill, it needs to be clear that the person is only going to get the notice that they need to go for an initial assessment, and then they can walk free. That will create another difficulty, of course: if they are required to attend an initial assessment—and if one is trying to get people in for initial assessments—one has to decide, once one has got them in the police station and they have tested positive for drugs, whether they remain there for that initial assessment. They will be lost if they are allowed to go. Also, the penalty kicks in for failing to attend the initial assessment. What should one do with them in practice? I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me that I am not confused by the drafting. At the moment, however, I think there is a loophole in the way that it is expressed. The person can walk away from the police station and be required to attend an initial assessment at another time, so we do not have the link of the initial assessment taking place immediately.
My second point also refers to clause 9(2), which refers to a ''police officer''. I would like clarification as to what sort of police officer. Again, we had this debate at an early stage, where the rank of inspector became an issue. I want it put beyond all reasonable doubt. This could even be a community support police officer, or a special constable, because I presume a ''police officer'' covers any rank, at any time, in any place whatever. Does it include all ranks and all types of police officers, including CSOs?
In clause 9(3), what is a ''suitably qualified'' assessor? What qualification must these assessors have? Is a member of the church who has worked with drug offenders, for example, a suitably qualified assessor? If the assessment has to take place in the police station before the person has departed, what will the availability of these assessors be? If one is not available, how do we get this clause to operate to keep the person who has tested positive within the ambit of a potential path into treatment? I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me on those practical difficulties.
Why does clause 9(5) specify people who have
''attained the age of 18''?
We could have this debate on one of the new clauses. Nevertheless, why has the Minister gone to the lengths of producing a good and interesting idea for getting and retaining people on the path to treatment, only for the Bill to exclude the under-18s, who are the people who are most in need, who would benefit most, and who are most in danger of dropping out of the equation? I would like the Minister to explain the thinking behind that. Why does she want that cut-off point at 18 when people under that age would benefit?
In light of some of our accommodations and the experience of Committee members, I would like the Minister to explain what will happen if a person is detained at a police station and reveals a class A drug, and at any time before they are released from detention a police officer requires them to attend an initial
Column Number: 155
assessment, and it is then discovered that they are in this country unlawfully? How will these provisions affect such immigrants? What will happen to their immigration status? What will subsequently happen to them? That is a major problem in terms of drugs, and I ask the Minister to provide further and better particulars.
Caroline Flint: I shall begin by addressing the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. I am the last person who would suggest that there is not more that needs to be done, but I hope that he would he agree that where we are now is a huge improvement on where we were in the past.
Dr. Iddon: I accept that this Government have done a great deal since 1997, and I am proud of their achievements in treating drug addicts. Far more addicts are being treated now than in 1997, and I look forward to the continuation of the Government's good policies and their improvement of them. We are trying to be critical in a constructive way.
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I have great sympathy with some of the issues that he raised. I said earlier that one of the problems that we are having to overcome is a cultural attitude towards the treatment of those with drug addiction problems within the health service, at primary care or other levels. There is another problem about people having sufficient confidence and understanding to use and interpret guidelines that are provided by the Department of Health and the NTA—the models of good practice and the models of care—in a way that is most appropriate for the individual.
The prescribing of methadone is one of many options. There are a number of alternatives to methadone, which are outlined and available and can be used. However, there is a problem in getting the people on the ground—GPs and others—to be prepared to use those alternatives. It is right for us to be doing that work. Department of Health officials and the NTA are trying to address that problem. With regard to crack addicts and substitutes such as methadone, there is no alternative.
It is also right for us to build up awareness of what is happening in the treatment of drug addiction not only in parts of this country where provision is good, but elsewhere. In some places, there is a more traditional response. We do not think that we have got everything right and that other countries are not doing interesting work. We look at what other countries are doing, and we keep an open mind about different treatments and how they apply. The involvement of carers, users and former users is crucial in guiding us on what works. That is the test—what works—and it might differ from one person to another.
10.15 am
I am pleased that the NTA advisory board now has representatives from user and carer groups. I met two representatives from those groups to discuss their work; I am keen—as are officials in the Home Office—
Column Number: 156
that we should have links with such people as well as with professionals and experts. We should encourage the same approach at drug action team level. I know that in my hon. Friend's constituency, Tina Williams, who is a representative of carers on the NTA board and whom I have met, has shown that there is added value in listening to people from those backgrounds, and ensuring that we get services right and that they pass the test of what works.
Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend has made it clear that the way in which treatment is applied varies between localities, and we have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) had to say on that, but has the Minister discussed with her colleagues at the Department of Health how best practice could be driven through the NTA? The wide variation between localities means that we need to drive best practice through to get uniformity of treatment.
Caroline Flint: We have such discussions, and the NTA is now accountable to both the Department of Health and the Home Office. Every quarter, I have a working lunch with treatment-providers from the voluntary sector, and I was pleased, recently, to have Paul Hayes from the NTA join the group when we discussed commissioning in relation to services and specification to ensure that good services are recognised and poorer services dealt with.
It is also important that we improve treatment standards, and the group has discussed how to drive them forward. More than ever, there is good work going on, but people can learn from each other. We will try to help people do that by having regional conferences on drugs, at which we will bring stakeholders from across the region together to engage in what is happening in different parts of the region and, I hope, share best practice. That is not an end in itself, but it is important.
It is also important that we get behind the national averages, so that we can pinpoint areas in which we are not doing well—for which there might be legitimate reasons. We are building a new industry, and we have to build up workers to be part of it, and get workers such as nurses and doctors to want to work in it. Therefore, we have a lot of work to do. It is important that we look for the best and the worst, and try to tackle both—we need to praise people, but we also need to say, ''Please improve your standards; this is how you can do it,'' and give good advice.
I move to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). She is right to say that the initial assessment does not have to take place before the person leaves detention—clause 11(8), which allows police to notify the person of a change to the time of the initial assessment, supports that interpretation—so there is flexibility. As I said, people could be arriving at all times of day and night, which may cause problems with the management of an efficient and effective service.
As we discussed earlier, the assessment may have to be done by someone else. The assessment does not rule out the possibility of other people leading if that is the
Column Number: 157
most appropriate solution. If someone is already participating in a scheme with their GP, it might be appropriate for the GP to lead, with others, if there is a follow-up assessment.
In answer to the question about the definition of police officer, I understand that it means any rank of police officer, but not civilian staff, so it does not mean community support officers. I will double check that and inform the Committee if I am wrong, but that is my understanding.
I do not want to enter into the debate about under-18s, because we will discuss this in more depth in a debate on a new clause, and there is a danger of having a repeat discussion on the issue.
The point about someone who is not in this country lawfully is interesting. For now, I hope that the following answer will suffice, but I will look into the matter in more detail. Someone who has committed an offence in the UK would be dealt with first in accordance with UK criminal law, but we may not know their nationality or legal status in the country at that point or for some time, so what we are dealing with first and foremost is the fact that they have committed a crime.
On the point about immigration law, my understanding is that it would continue to apply, so if immigration law takes into account the fact that the criminal offence has been committed in the UK, which it does, nationality and legal status will continue to be irrelevant. Such matters become more complicated if someone is not legally entitled to be here, but the fact that they are not legally entitled to be here would not prevent the authorities from pursuing the criminal offence for which they have been charged. It is very important that we deal with criminal activity as well as illegal status in the UK.
| 
