|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for reasons of detention were received by the Detention, Escort and Population Management Unit in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he (a) has made and (b) plans to make to the recommendations in the Select Committee on Science and Technology's Seventh Paper, Forensic Science on Trial, HC96 200405, that independent research should be undertaken to assess (i) the public attitude towards retention of DNA samples from convicted criminals and others and (ii) the evidence of benefits associated with retaining DNA samples. 
Mr. Charles Clarke: The Government's response to the recommendations in the Select Committee's report was placed in the House Library on 25 July 2005. The benefits of retaining DNA profiles on the national DNA database is evidenced by the number of matches with crime scene stains which provide vital intelligence to the police in the investigation of those offences.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of people arrested tested positive for (a) opiates, (b) cocaine and (c) any drug at the time of their arrest in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Charles Clarke: We cannot currently provide this information on a national basis, or for the specified years. However, some indication is provided by research published by the Home Office in 2004 from the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Programme (NEW-ADAM).
This provided information on the proportion of arrested persons testing positive for drugs who had voluntarily agreed to an interview and to provide a urine specimen for analysis. The research was undertaken in selected large custody suites in 16 police force areas between 1999 and 2001 involving approximately 3,000 arrestees, 95 per cent. of whom agreed to provide a urine sample.
The research showed that for those arrestees voluntarily providing a urine sample, (a) 31 per cent. tested positive for opiates (b) 22 per cent. for cocaine and (c) 69 per cent. for any drug excluding alcohol.
The NEW-ADAM survey programme has been replaced by a new, continuous, nationally-representative Arrestee Survey. Results from the first year of the survey, covering interviews with about 7,500 arrestees in 60 custody suites from around the country conducted between October 2003 and September 2004, will be published shortly. The survey is on-going and will provide information on trends in drug use among all arrestees in the future.
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced by this Government to break the links between drugs and crime. The intensive form of the programme operates in 97 areas with a history of high levels of drug related crime. Individuals charged with a range of trigger offences, identified through research to be closely linked to drug misuse, are drug tested for specified class A drugs.
New provisions contained in the Drugs Act 2005 were successfully implemented in three police force areas on 1 December 2005. Testing on arrest now becomes an alternative to testing on charge for those adults arrested for a trigger offence", enabling adults misusing specified class A drugs to be identified earlier in their contact with the criminal justice system, so that they may be steered into treatment and away from crime as soon as possible. Those testing positive will be required to attend an assessment of their drug use. The provisions will be rolled out to the remaining intensive areas in England on 31 March 2006.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for dealing in (a) cannabis, (b) heroin and (c) cocaine in each year since 1993. 
John Penrose: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were tested for drugs in North Somerset in (a) 2003, (b) 2004 and (c) 2005; and how many tests were (i) positive and (ii) negative in each year. 
Paul Goggins: The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) is a critical part of the Government's strategy for tackling drugs. Intensive elements of the programme are operational in 97 high acquisitive crime areas and include testing for class A drugs on charge for certain trigger offences.
From 1 December 2005 new provisions contained in the Drugs Act 2005 have been implemented in three police force areas: Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and Nottingham. These give police powers to test for specified class A drugs on arrest and to require persons who have tested positive for a specified class A drug to attend an assessment of their drug use (an initial assessment). Whilst the DIP provisions for drug testing are not operational in North Somerset but other key elements of the programme are. Offenders can be tested for drug use as a requirement of a community sentence, either as part of a drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) or, since April 2005, a drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR) of the community order. The number of DTTOs and DRRs made in North Somerset from 200305 were:
The results of drug tests on offenders subject to DTTOs/DRRs within North Somerset from 200305 is not centrally available. Drug testing of prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on licence was introduced across England and Wales from April 2005. Three PPOs
13 Feb 2006 : Column 1720W
within North Somerset had been made subject to such a licence condition up to 31 December 2005. Aggregated drug test data for PPOs on licence within North Somerset are not routinely collected centrally.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 20 December 2005, Official Report, column 2892W, on drug testing (drivers), what discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart on the use of tests on saliva for the presence of drugs. [48120R]
Paul Goggins: The Home Office Scientific Development Branch is currently developing a device to test for the presence of drugs via analysis of saliva. The branch keeps fully abreast of relevant work in other countries, including the recent developments in Australia. An official from the branch attended in December a conference reporting the Australian experience and other findings worldwide. All relevant material will be taken properly into account as work continues.
Mr. Charles Clarke: The Government remain committed to exploring as many avenues as possible to ensure that young people receive appropriate provision to address their substance misuse. Drug treatment and testing conditions attached to action plan orders and supervision orders are part of a range of available interventions.
The latest monitoring data (December 2005), shows that 14 drug treatment and testing conditions have been attached to supervision orders in the five areas where this intervention has been piloted. To date, courts have not applied either a treatment option, or a treatment and testing option to an action plan order. It is recognised that not all young people will be assessed as needing the rigours of an on-going drug treatment or drug treatment and testing requirement to address their substance misuse. The important principle remains to make the widest range of interventions available to young people.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have committed an offence within a year of completing a drug treatment programme in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Charles Clarke: Information on reoffending following completion of a programme is not routinely collated on an individual basis. Research evidence shows that drug treatment can lead to a significant reduction in drug taking and associated offending. In prisons, research into the effectiveness of drug interventions shows that completion of an intensive treatment programme can lead to significantly lower rates of reconviction (up to 10 per cent.) after two years, provided treatment was continued on release.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many referrals were made to the Cambridgeshire probation area regarding (a) drug treatment and testing orders and (b) drug rehabilitation requirements in the last period for which figures are available. 
Fiona Mactaggart: 31 drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) and 62 community orders with a drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR) were made in Cambridgeshire between April-December 2005, the last period for which figures are available.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|