Drugs Bill

Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2005.

Standing Committee F

Clause 3 - Drug offence searches: England and Wales

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 3, page 4, line 22, at end insert—

'(d) a prison officer'.

This is a probing amendment. Subsection (6) defines ''appropriate officer'' as:

''a constable, . . . a person who is designated as a detention officer in pursuance of section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 if his designation applies paragraph 33D of Schedule 4 to that Act, or . . . a person who is designated as a staff custody officer in pursuance of section 38 of that Act if his designation applies paragraph 35B of Schedule 4 to that Act,''.

Clause 38(2) in part 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002 defines ''officers'' as

''community support officer; . . . investigating officer; . . . detention officer; . . . escort officer.''

The amendment is a request for clarification because the clause does not mention prison officer. I would like the Minister to define clearly the appropriate officer, and to include prison officer under the definition in the Bill if she believes that the term should be included.

We all know that there is an enormous problem with drugs in our prisons. The number of people in prison for drug offences alone is very high and is growing. The last figures that I have for 2002 show that 16 per cent. of sentenced male prisoners were convicted of drug offences, whereas in 1993, only 7 per cent. of our sentenced male prisoners were convicted for drug offences. There has been a similar enormous increase in the number of sentenced female prisoners convicted of drugs offences. Back in 1993, some 27 per cent. of the sentenced female prison population had been convicted of drugs offences, but in 2002, that figure had risen alarmingly to about 40 per cent.

The Home Office has undertaken several studies on the problem. A recent Home Office study found that 47 per cent. of recently sentenced male prisoners had used heroin, crack or cocaine in the 12 months before imprisonment, and that heroin was the drug most likely to be used daily. Overall, 73 per cent. of all respondents from the sentenced male prison population had taken an illegal drug before entering prison. In some inner city local prisons, as many as eight out of 10 men are found to have class A drugs in their system on reception. In Styal, the women's prison, the same number of new arrivals are thought to have a drugs problem.

The problem is highlighted by Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales, in her latest annual report, which came out in the past week or so. As page 36 makes clear, there are huge drugs issues in prisons, and supply reduction and monitoring is an issue in all of them. Apparently, there were gaps in mandatory drug testing in many prisons, with little or no weekend testing and inconsistent target testing. The majority of the mandatory drug-testing positives related to cannabis, but the key performance target did not distinguish between cannabis and class A drugs, so it provided a limited measure of the scale of the problem. Interestingly, there were also issues in some establishments about the reliability of particular drug dogs, which are used extensively in prisons. Establishments that integrated supply and demand reduction were likely to be far more successful in reducing the availability of illegal drugs.

Although the term ''a prison officer'' is not included in the Bill, we need to know what the situation in our prisons is. We cannot have hard evidence, but it seems likely that people who are going into prison are not being cured of their drug problem and that others may, indeed, even acquire a drug habit while they are in prison. I therefore tabled the amendment so that the Minister can tell us what is happening in our prisons, what statistics are being kept in prisons and how she will prevent prisoners from acquiring drug habits and from leaving prison in a worse condition than when they went in.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I look forward to you chairing today's proceedings, Mr. Illsley. I hope that we make good progress.

I shall resist the temptation to have a lengthy debate about prisons and drugs; suffice it to say that record sums are going into tackling drug addiction. That includes ensuring that we have appropriate access to treatment across the Prison Service and that we take a coherent approach from the time that someone is arrested so that they are given support if they go to prison and afterwards. That is why record resources are going into dealing with this issue.

The drug interventions programme is very much about dealing with what has been a weakness over many generations: when people with a drug problem have gone to prison, little attention has been given to their problem, and they have ended up passing through the revolving door time and again. That is why testing is important and why the process of engagement needs to start before people go to court. It needs to continue when they go to prison and—let us not forget—when they leave prison and go back into the community.

We are trying to tackle some of the problems about which the police have informed us. People may, for example, hide drugs in the cavities of their bodies and refuse to have an intimate search, which has caused the police problems. That is what lies behind the clause. The amendment would include prison officers in the definition of an ''appropriate officer''. I have looked into the matter and have had extensive discussions about whether it is right to leave prisons officers out of the clause. I have asked what happens when a prisoner, a visitor to a prison or, regrettably, somebody working in one is involved in drug activity. While they are on duty, prison officers have all the powers of a constable, including arrest. Prisoner custody officers, who are the officers at contracted-out prisons, do not have the powers of a constable, but they have a citizen's power of arrest. There is likely to be a change to the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill that will give prisoner custody officers the power to detain a suspected smuggler for two hours, pending the arrival of the police. That will be a helpful strengthening of their role.

If a prison officer suspects that a visitor is trying to smuggle drugs into a prison by concealment, that visitor will be stopped, arrested and detained pending the arrival of the police. The visitor will not be subjected to an intimate search at the prison, either by prison officers or by the police. The police will decide whether to release the visitor or to take him into custody, where he will be removed to a police station and processed as would any other suspect. In that situation, following the authorisation by an inspector that is covered in the clause, the suspect might be subject to an intimate search at the police station under the provisions of section 55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The clauses, if agreed, will apply in that situation. I have asked whether we are missing something—whether prison officers, having received authorisation, should be able to ask a person whether he will comply with an intimate search. The feedback has been that it is not necessary because, if that point is reached, it will be a police matter, and it should be dealt with in a police environment. However, I hope that I have made it clear that that is not to deny that prison officers and prisoner custody officers have a role in tackling the use of drugs in prison and their being brought in.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate that the Minister has been making inquiries as to what happens in prison. However, she has raised a few points about people who work in prisons. I should like, briefly, to explore with her what rights prison officers have to search other people working in a prison who are suspected of having brought in drugs.

One of the most serious issues that I have found on visiting prisons has been that visitors often bring in drugs by concealing them not on themselves but on children attending prison on family visits. One of the biggest problems for prison officers is their feeling that they should inspect babies' clothes and nappies, because they are vehicles by which drugs can be brought into prisons. What have the Minister's inquiries revealed on those two fronts?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

There is a difference between an intimate search and a more general one. I shall obtain the details if they are required—I am sure that there are guidelines on searches. There is screening for visitors going into prisons. In some prisons, sniffer dogs are used. I have asked what would happen if one of those dogs sniffed out some drugs and the drugs were not obviously in a person's bags or clothing. I am told that at that point the person would be detained and the police would be engaged, because it would indicate that an intimate search would be necessary. I shall be happy to provide the hon. Lady with more details about current search powers. Intimate search is rather different, and my understanding is that there has not been a desire on the part of the Prison Service for prison officers or prison custody officers to be involved in that. They think that it is right for it to be a matter for the police. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Minister. She has obviously taken some pains to look into this subject, which is certainly one that worries me greatly. Nine out of 10 young adult prisoners, for example, say that they used drugs prior to imprisonment, but only one in three young offenders institutions provide drug treatment programmes. The statistics that I quoted when I moved the amendment certainly show that there is an enormous problem with substance abuse in our prisons. Notwithstanding that, some terrific work is being done in prisons by the CARATs teams and others to try to bring appropriate treatment, but that is against a background of diminishing resources. The prison budget is frozen at the moment, as is recruitment, and more and more strains are being put on the Prison Service. Something has to give.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I do not want to get into a general discussion about the Prison Service budget, but the additional moneys for drug treatment for those people caught up in our criminal justice system have been earmarked for that purpose, so that they are not lost in the general budget. That is added value in terms of what prisons have had in the past to deal with the matter. Importantly, we did not before have the additional funding that is available to the drug action teams for throughcare and aftercare for prisoners on release. That is a step change from what we have had in the past, and is all additional funding.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate that, but we also need the climate in prison in which rehabilitation programmes can be delivered. At the moment, there are increasing problems with the number of prison staff who are available to supervise our prisons. As there is a recruitment freeze, despite the fact that they are operating at safety levels they are also operating at marginal levels, and it is thought that there will be less time to spend on education and rehabilitation and less time spent out of the cells.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

When my hon. Friend tabled the amendment to include ''prison officer'' under those encompassed by the term ''appropriate person'', did she have in mind the simple point that drugs are often brought to prisoners by visitors or the much wider idea that drugs may be brought in to prisons by visitors and go undetected, and subsequently will be used by prisoners in their ordinary daily life in prison, when prison officers may need to be determined as appropriate persons for searches.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I had all of that in mind, and was hoping that we would have the general discussion that we have had about drugs in prisons. Obviously, when we are considering something as widely drawn as this Bill, it is only right that we discuss drugs in all quarters of our community. There is the tip of the iceberg, and the problem is below the surface. No statistics, as far as I know, are produced by the Home Office that consider whether people go into prison without a drugs habit but acquire one when they come out. The evidence is anecdotal, but we hear that as often as not.

I am satisfied that the Minister has considered the subject, but I am not entirely satisfied that we are completely clear about the role of prison officers or of officers and staff in private prisons. I know that the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill is coming to us from the other place, but a date is yet to be fixed for Second Reading in the Lords. I hope that the Minister will cross-reference with her colleague with responsibility for prisons and ensure that there is seamless and joined-up thinking on the issue of drugs. It is important to consider that there is no point having good and enforceable laws to prevent the misuse of drugs in the general community if we ignore the sector inside prisons.

When that Bill, which introduces the National Offender Management Service, finally gets off the paper and into Committee in the Lords, I will watch what happens to it, because I hope that we will have some sort of comprehensive planning right across the board, linking up with some of the admirable measures in this Bill. With that proviso, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Drug offence searches: Northern Ireland

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Clause 4 is almost identical to clause 3 except that it applies to Northern Ireland as opposed to England and Wales. I have a small point to make, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. When looking at similar clauses that apply to different territories, it is not unnatural that one should cast one's eyes over the legislation to see whether there are any differences in the way that they are drafted. The particular difference between clauses 3 and 4 occurs in clause 4(2), which inserts new paragraph (3B), which states:

''Where it is proposed that a drug offence search be carried out, a constable shall inform the person who is to be subject to it''.

That differs from clause 3, which refers to an ''appropriate officer''. My first question is: why that difference? I refer the Minister to a speech made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in the debate on the draft Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, when she said:

''I make a special plea to the Minister that when future legislation is drafted for Northern Ireland, instead of repeating the word 'constable', recognition is given to the fact that we commonly address new officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland as 'police officers'. Rarely since the Police Reform Act 2002 or the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 has legislation referred to constables. In fact, the Minister will be aware that the term 'constable' is confusing in legislation, as we have a special body of constables appointed under the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 and special constables appointed under harbours legislation.''—[Official Report, Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 26 February 2004; cc. 8-9.]

So her plea to the draftsmen was that, to avoid confusion in the future, all legislation should refer to ''constables'' only when it is properly intended.

I looked carefully through the debate, and the Northern Ireland Minister failed to pick up the point that the hon. Lady had made. As there is no hon. Member on this Committee who speaks for Northern Ireland, it is only fair that we raise this matter on her behalf. I hasten to add that I have not spoken to her about this, I have merely looked at the debate. It would be suitable, however, for the Minister to respond to this point, and tell us the thinking behind using the word ''constable'' when, obviously, time has moved on.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We consulted Northern Ireland on that issue. I understand that Northern Ireland has no detention officers or staff custody officers, and that only constables are involved. We therefore do not need to define the appropriate order. As far as I am aware, there are no plans to change that, but I will check in order to avoid future problems. That is the current position. I hope that, for now, that answers the hon. Lady's question.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I obviously needed to bring up the subject at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and Wales

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 22, leave out from 'officer' to 'has'.

I am getting tired of hearing my own voice, Mr. Illsley, for which I apologise; I hope that other hon. Members will contribute to our debates as the morning draws on.

Under clause 3, a drug offence search can be carried out by an officer or a constable, but when we move on to X-rays and ultrasound scans under clause 5 we suddenly find that the ranking has shifted. In subsection (1) of proposed new section 55A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, we see that the officer has to be of

''at least the rank of inspector''.

In most police forces, the uniformed ranks in ascending order are police constable, police sergeant, inspector, chief inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent—and then on to the giddy heights of assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable. That is the ranking in my force, the Thames Valley police force, but I understand that most police forces use the same ranks and symbols. Police constables wear their warrant number on their shoulders, as do police sergeants, but numbers are absent from the epaulettes for the rank of inspector and upwards. One has to identify the rank from a combination of diamond-shaped pips, crowns, wreaths and crossed staves—but they are firm rankings. The special constabulary also has firm rankings—special constable, section officer, area officer, chief area officer and chief officer. Then we come to police community support officers.

Subsection (1) obviously rules out certain police officers from deciding whether to make use of X-rays and ultrasound scans—particularly police constables and sergeants. Will the Minister say how she arrived at the rank of inspector; and will she explain the situation as it relates to police community support officers? The latter are being used increasingly, and although they do not have full police powers they may well be in and around the police station or area where arrests are being made.

The provision also states that the officer with at least the rank of inspector has to have

''reasonable grounds for believing that a person who has been arrested for an offence and is in police detention . . . may have swallowed a Class A drug''.

Placing that burden on an officer of at least the rank of inspector means that that individual has to rely on information passed to him or her by somebody who was around the suspect when they swallowed the package or whatever was swallowed or suspected of being swallowed. In my experience, an inspector will not necessarily be around at the time of arrest or when the suspect may have swallowed a class A drug. The inspector will therefore always rely on evidence that a junior or other officer reports to him.

If the Minister specifies a police officer of any description—indeed, a constable—the clause will work. I see no advantage in limiting the officer concerned to the rank of inspector. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment, which will add greatly to the scope of the Bill, tighten up the provisions and allow any police officer who is in the vicinity or around the subject to make the decision, thereby triggering the search of that suspect.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am happy to give the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) an opportunity to have a break, although she may not like what I say, because I am not with her on the amendment.

The provisions on the decision to refer an arrestee to a doctor or a hospital for an X-ray or ultrasound are eminently sensible. We are talking about a medical examination and in law a medical examination without consent can often be assault. In those circumstances it is quite sensible for the appropriate safeguards to be put in place. Doing so is also in line with similar provisions already enacted.

We are also talking about something that involves a significant deployment of resources. Taking a person to a hospital or a doctor for an X-ray or ultrasound examination will take up a significant amount of the time of the officers concerned. It is therefore entirely appropriate for an inspector, who is normally responsible for the allocation of duties within a division, to make that decision.

I expect that financial costs would also be incurred as a result of the use of hospital facilities, because in this brave new world we get nothing for nothing.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Perhaps I have not explained my reasoning clearly. Somebody of the rank of inspector should certainly be able to authorise the search with an X-ray or a scan, but the point is that an inspector will not have been present. The suspicion should be acknowledged by providing that any officer with reasonable grounds for such suspicion who is present at the time in question should tell the inspector; the inspector could then make the authorisation. It should be made clear that an officer who witnesses the act of swallowing, or what he believes is an act of concealment in a body cavity, should be the pivotal police officer in the initial stages of the clause. I concede that then someone of the rank of inspector or above should give the final authorisation.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her thinking clearer, although I do not think that what she says is borne out in practice. The provision, like so many comparable provisions already, will inevitably work in this way: the constable or whoever makes the arrest will go to the inspector and explain why he believes an X-ray or ultrasound would be appropriate; that explanation would form the reasonable grounds on which the inspector would make the authorisation.

The hon. Lady remarked on drafting. By removing the words

''of at least the rank of inspector''

her amendment would result in any constable having the power to authorise an X-ray or scan. That may be what is these days euphemistically called an unintended consequence, but it would be a significant one. For those reasons, well intentioned though the amendment no doubt is, it would not be appropriate.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, the shadow Minister, because the clause does not give sufficient recognition to patterns of modern policing. In my constituency the Norfolk constabulary is setting up a number of outlying beat stations, most of which come under the command of a duty sergeant. There is an inspector in the area command, who is often on duty, but we all know that policing is becoming far more flexible and fleet of foot, and less rigid. The Minister surely appreciates that. It is a mistake for the Government to tell modern police forces to respond to the demands that they face with more flexibility, while they legislate to make the system more rigid.

The Minister should recognise, too, that in many rural police forces dozens of police constables and sergeants have up to 25 or 30 years' experience. Often the beat officers in rural areas are constables or sergeants with great experience who know their area inside out and are responsible people. Of course, they would contact the area commander and discuss the situation, but problems may arise if the clause is not altered. Can the reasonable grounds held by

''an officer of at least the rank of inspector''

under the clause be simply seeing a report from a police constable in a beat station? I do not know. That could be subject to legal challenge, in my opinion. We must make it clear that we want to deal with a serious problem.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

If the hon. Gentleman's logic were to be followed throughout the criminal justice system, no warrants for search and apprehension would ever be granted unless the judge or the justice of the peace granting the warrant were present to see what had happened.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Gentleman is right; that is a well established legal route established in much legislation. I simply point out the possibility of problems or challenges to the clause in court. We need to give the police as much flexibility as possible. Clause 5 is one of the Government's flagship clauses, and to make it work properly we need to support the amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the amendment to encompass all police officers is made, it should be absolutely clear that ''officer'' means a properly qualified police officer with knowledge of the law, and not a community support officer? Otherwise, there will be a creep of responsibility, and such powers will be passed to CSOs, but they should be given only to qualified police officers.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I agree entirely. In most Home Office Bills of which I have experience, ''officer'' means police officer, but the world of policing is changing under this Government, and more responsibility is being given to CSOs. As far as I am concerned, ''officer'' means police officer—that is our intention—but we ought to consider carefully what my hon. Friend proposes. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am somewhat concerned by some of the statements of Conservative Members. Although it is part of the direction of the Bill to try to find appropriate ways in which to tackle people who deal drugs, it is important that there are safeguards in the system to which the police are accountable. That is why I resist the amendment, which would allow an officer of any rank to authorise an X-ray or ultrasound scan. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said, to authorise an X-ray or ultrasound scan is a significant step in an investigation, and it is right and proper that, as in other areas, that step is considered. I have heard the debate about how an inspector can make such a decision if he or she was not present at the point of arrest, but police officers have to seek authorisation for different things every day, and they have to make the case to an officer of rank—whether an inspector or other rank—as to why it is reasonable to authorise that action.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

In my experience, swallowers turn up mainly at airports. Before we get into major discussions on the clause, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that it covers airport police? I may well say something about that problem in the stand part debate otherwise.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Yes, it would, but Customs and Excise officers are also involved at airports, particularly with people who are used as mules. The clause is primarily to deal with dealers and cases such as those in which there is a raid on a property that the police have under surveillance, and people swallow rocks of crack to hide them, but it would cover police at airports. They, too, will have to seek the authorisation of an inspector.

Removal of this important safeguard would add no obvious benefit. I understand that an officer in a rural police station could put the case to an inspector over the phone, so it should not inhibit them. We are all keen to find ways to ensure that the police are able to get on with their primary job, but there is still a responsibility in the management chain to oversee police activities. We should not lose sight of the proper safeguards, which should continue to exist in this and other areas. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to withdraw her amendment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Minister. The clause could have been drafted more clearly; I see no problem with someone above the rank of inspector authorising an X-ray, but the clause does not recognise that that would be someone other than the person who was present at the time when the person who was arrested might have swallowed the drug. The drafting is unclear, but I accept that when the Bill becomes an Act, the record of these proceedings will stand. The Minister has clarified the position for the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, leave out 'a Class A' and insert

'or can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 40, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert

'within 3 hours of the authorisation by that officer'.

No. 38, in clause 5, page 5, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 39, in clause 5, page 5, line 29, leave out '(or both)'.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

This is the largest group of amendments to clause 5, and it gives me the opportunity to raise several points. I am somewhat surprised that the amendments have been grouped, as they cover separate issues. Amendment No. 37 seeks to leave out 'a Class A' and to insert

'or can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'.

My aim is to widen the provision, because there could be some question about how we identify whether the drug is a class A drug. I think that we on this Committee are fairly familiar with the classifications—heroin, methadone, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines, if prepared for injection and, as we shall discuss later in the Bill, magic mushrooms prepared for use are all class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Class B drugs are amphetamines, speed and barbiturates, while cannabis, recently reclassified, joins anabolic steroids and benzodiazepines and tranquilisers such as valium and temazepam as a class C drug.

Identifying them is a different matter. It could be difficult to tell a class A drug from a class B or class C one. There could be a challenge to the use of the search on the basis of what type of drug the individual might have swallowed. Tranquilisers—class C drugs—are often tablets or capsules. It is difficult to tell the difference between a tranquiliser and ecstasy, which also comes as a tablet or a capsule in various shapes and sizes, but is a class A drug. Anabolic steroids also come in tablets that can be swallowed, and they are class C drugs. However, amphetamines, which can come in tablet form or as a grey or white powder, are class B drugs in certain conditions. Likewise, cocaine, a white powder, is a class A drug. I hope that the Minister is following this, although I am sure that she has been briefed on what the drugs look like.

It seems to be a narrowing of the provision to state

''may have swallowed a Class A drug''.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think seriously about widening it, and substituting the words

'can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'.

That would be much more fitting in the light of what actually happens when someone is apprehended by a police officer.

The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned airport use. In many instances, of course, people picked up by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on their arrival at airports have ingested the drugs before boarding the plane, so the drugs may have been in their system for a long time. Inevitably, the drugs smuggled into this country in that way are class A. On the street, however, many dealers carry drugs, concealed, for example, in their mouths. I believe that they wrap them up in clingfilm and push them up inside their cheek or into other parts of their body, so when they are approached by a police officer who does not even intend to arrest them, they may swallow them. The drugs may not be class A; they have something else concealed on their person. The amendment removes the ambiguity, and I hope that the Minister will accept it as a valuable addition to the Bill.

Amendment No. 40 is purely probing, and seeks to insert

''within 3 hours of the authorisation by that officer''.

It attempts to glean from the Minister how she expects the clause to operate, as it defines no time limit between the authorising of an X-ray or ultrasound scan and getting the defendant to an X-ray or ultrasound scan facility. We need to consider the practicalities of how the provision will work. I welcome the clause and this departure from existing legislation. I have no problem with it, but I want to ensure that it does not fail because it does not work in practice.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, as one would expect, but I ask her to consider the following point. When drug addicts or other suspects swallow a package, they often put their health in extreme danger. We have had examples of packages opening in people's insides, and those people have died or have had to be rushed to hospital. Would my hon. Friend not agree that that is another reason why we need a time scale?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

There are many reasons why we need to consider the time scale, and that was a helpful intervention.

Let us consider what happens in our accident and emergency departments, because the suspect's destination will be a hospital. Timing will be critical. In England, there are 155 trusts with at least one major A and E. According to the NHS handbook for 2004, which is published by the NHS Alliance, that is about the same as the number of acute trusts—NHS trusts with hospitals in them.

In the normal scheme of things, a vast array of diagnostic investigations is required for patients. They are required by emergency patients, and they include the plain X-rays and ultrasound scans that I assume the Minister envisages under the clause. Waiting for such procedures places an additional burden on patients. Existing processes, which are usually designed around the efficiency and resources of individual departments, can often inadvertently cause delays for the patient whose pathway takes them, for example, from one department to another within the hospital.

What will happen, therefore, when the police ring up the local hospital, saying, ''We want to bring a suspect down for an immediate X-ray''? Will staff be available? Staff roles have been expanded, and practitioner roles in radiography, as well as nurse requesting and nurse interpretation of X-rays, have been introduced. How will we know, however, that the relevant staff will be available and that there will be time on the machines to carry out the X-ray and ultrasound scan for the police?

There are some facts and figures about what is happening in our health care system, and the National Audit Office has come up with some interesting data about emergency provisions. The Department's survey data show that there are delays to diagnostic tests in A and E, accounting for 11 per cent. of long stays in A and E. We therefore know that there are bottlenecks in A and E departments. I accept that the numbers may be falling, but many trusts must still make an effort to address the problem of access to diagnostic services for ordinary patients, let alone suspects who are brought along from the local police station for an X-ray or a scan.

There are also problems with national shortages. For example, there is a national shortage of radiographers—

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

And radiologists.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

And radiologists—my hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. There are only 72 departments where a radiographer is available 24 hours a day. So, the Minister has some other problems. It is possible that an X-ray will be needed in the middle of the night and that the inspector will want it carried out immediately—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Why limit it to three hours?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Exactly, but the amendment is a device to encourage debate—a probing amendment to enable us to discuss the issue of timing.

We have problems because normal patients experience delays in radiology departments; there is not 24-hour cover from technicians and staff who are suitably qualified to carry out or interpret the X-rays and scans; and, of course, in some cases there are enormous gaps in the availability of equipment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

In my local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn, there is a shortage of radiographers and radiologists. Although the hospital's representatives would never say so publicly, I think that they would regard the extra pressure of people being brought in by the police for X-rays as a problem for patients; it would put waiting lists and procedures under pressure. If no time scale were specified in the Bill, inordinate delays could result.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I think that that is right. The Minister must tackle all those questions of timing and access.

I know that some trusts have been quite advanced and have arranged some form of access to a consultant radiologist at all times, for the interpretation of results and the making of diagnoses, despite the shortage of such specialists. Interestingly, at least 10 trusts have developed telemedicine systems for CT scans, and six trusts have or plan remote-access digital X-ray facilities. Has the Minister investigated the availability of such technology for application under clause 5?

Amendment No. 38 is another probing amendment and would remove paragraph (b) from proposed new section 55A(1) of PACE. The Minister has included an extra hurdle in the subsection, requiring the officer—of at least the rank of inspector—to believe that the person was in possession of a class A drug

''with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest''.

What is the reason for that extra hurdle? Why, if there has already been an arrest, should the inspector have to satisfy himself further that the suspect who was in possession of the drug was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest? The fact that the arrest has taken place is surely sufficient to indicate that the behaviour of the suspect was such that an arrest had to be made.

I wonder why proposed new subsection (1)(b) has been included. Surely, if a person has been arrested and the officer believes that he may have swallowed a controlled drug, that should be sufficient to trigger the search by X-ray or scan, and it is not necessary to create a further hurdle—the requirement for the officer to believe that the person was in possession of the drug with appropriate criminal intent before arrest.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Perhaps I might briefly add to my hon. Friend's argument the example of what might happen after the arrest of a group of people. If the drugs are passed from one person to another after arrest, either in the back of a police van or at whatever stage in the custody process, and the amendment is not made, those people will be given a defence.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

That is very possible. The Minister should put that on her list of points to answer.

Amendment No. 39 is simple and will delete the words ''or both'' from line 29 in subsection (1) of new section 55A. We need to examine in what situations we might find that the inspector requires both an X-ray and an ultrasound scan. As I understand it, both X-rays and ultrasound scans would be able to detect drug packages in an individual suspected of swallowing drugs. X-rays are only able to detect objects that are opaque to light and all X-rays involve radiation, so they should not be performed without a clinical indication to limit exposure to the harmful effects of radiation.

While we are considering what an X-ray actually does, we need to hear from the Minister what arrangements she will make, because I am informed that effects from X-rays are particularly damaging to a foetus and that they should not be done on a woman who believes that she may be pregnant, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. [Interruption.] Obviously, the Minister has thought about that; it hardly surprises me. However, I think that while we are discussing the clause, and as this is the largest group of amendments—I am sorry to be taking up so much time of the Committee, but these amendments contain the substance of the debate—I hope that she will let us know what arrangements have been made, particularly to deal with women.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Lady raises the question of the position of an arrestee who is pregnant. In retrospect, does she think that that is another good reason why authorisation should be given by an officer of the rank of inspector or above?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have acceded to the fact that the authorisation should be given by someone of the rank of inspector, but the deduction would be made by a police officer of a lower rank because they are most likely to be the person present when the swallowing takes place. I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that one would have to be above the rank of inspector to detect that a woman may be expecting a baby. Of course, pregnancy could be a reason given by a female suspect for resisting having an X-ray or a scan.

Packages of drugs are opaque to light and I am informed that they should be easily detected on an abdominal X-ray. However, as the provision is drafted it says that both an X-ray and an ultrasound scan can be carried out on the same person. An ultrasound scan uses high-frequency sound waves to examine the structures of the body. Its advantage is that the patient is not exposed to the potentially harmful effects of radiation. However—this is the nub of the problem—an ultrasound scan and the procedure involved are much more time consuming than an X-ray.

X-rays or ultrasound scans need to be performed by qualified health staff, who can be a radiographer, a radiologist or a doctor with specialised training in radiology, but both X-rays and ultrasound scans would need to be interpreted by an appropriately qualified doctor. I presume that that would be a radiologist. When does the Minister envisage that both an X-ray and an ultrasound scan would be required? For example, if a female suspect was informed that an X-ray or ultrasound scan was required, and she said ''But I am expecting a baby,'' I could envisage an ultrasound scan being used in that instance, but when would both be used? What will the cost of using both be?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I suggest that the answer lies within the hon. Lady's question. It might well be that authorisation is given for an X-ray, but if the inspector is then advised that the woman is pregnant, surely it should be open to him to authorise an ultrasound scan at that stage? The fact that both are authorised, does not necessarily mean that both have to be carried out.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate that. Surely, however, the either/or decision could be taken at that stage? There are also cost implications. It would be interesting to know if the Minister has a default position on this. Will the guidance to police officers say that they must always go for an X-ray—which is the cheaper option, as I understand it—and use an ultrasound scan only in certain situations? Such a situation would become apparent to the inspector at the time, and they could therefore decide either/or. It would not be necessary to authorise both. It is a decision that will have to be made at the time of the authorisation, when they are considering the specific suspect who is to be subject to this.

My final point on this group of amendments concerns the costs. I appreciate that amendment No. 41 relates to potential costs, but I mention costs this stage because the authorisation to have the scan or X-ray at a hospital—or registered medical practitioner's surgery, or some other place for medical purposes—will, of course, attract a charge, and we know that budgets are squeezed on all fronts. Can the Minister inform the Committee, therefore, what the cost difference is between X-rays and ultrasound scans, and whether there will be a cost-driven element in the guidance that is given to police? When and how will a policeman decide whether to use an X-ray or a scan? If, for example, the policeman telephones the hospital and finds that the X-ray machine is backed-up because there are a lot of patients using it, will the officer then go for an ultrasound scan? Does he have that capacity, or will he have to wait in line for his suspect to use the X-ray machine, as and when it is available? That brings me back to amendment No. 40.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Will the officer accompany the suspect in the queue at the hospital? What practical arrangements does my hon. Friend envisage for that process?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

My hon. Friend anticipates the debate that I hope to have on amendment No. 41. There are additional difficulties about the physical nature of how the investigation will take place.

I am conscious that I have spoken for a long time, and I am sorry to take up the Committee's time on this, but it is important. This is a good step forward. I would not want anybody to get the impression that I have anything but support for the principle, but we need the practical details to be set out for us clearly by the Minister, so that any issues or problems that may arise in future can be addressed.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

This is an interesting if, as the hon. Lady says, mixed bag of amendments. However, it is not for mere mortals such as us to speculate on the selection of amendments—indeed, I would never dream of doing so.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

But?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

There is no but—I accept your authority and that of your fellow Chairmen in such matters, Mr. Illsley. If dissent is to come from Conservatives, let them challenge the authority of the Chair.

I can see some merit in amendment No. 37. We are talking about the inspector having to cross an extra barrier to conduct the examination. Confusion about the circumstances in which people are often brought into detention in the first place might not make it clear to an arresting officer whether amphetamine or cocaine has been swallowed. Both are white powders and if the substance was wrapped up in cellophane, it would not be easy for the arresting officer to say. Therefore, although I understand the Government's motivation, the amendment has some merit.

Likewise, I initially thought that the insertion of a three-hour time limit, as proposed by amendment No. 40, was sensible. However, the more I heard the hon. Lady explain that amendment, the more I thought that she was wise to say that it was a probing amendment, which she would not press.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I was racking my brain as to how we could debate timing, so we could discover what was in the Minister's mind, so I chose an arbitrary period of three hours. I would not expect the Minister to accept amendment No. 40, I hasten to add, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is right.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The basis of my initial approval is that it is important sometimes to have time limits, as much for the person arrested as anyone else. The hon. Lady has been quite candid on whether three hours would be appropriate, although amendment No. 40 has another possible defect. Proposed new section 55A(9) of the 1984 Act says that courts

''may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper''

in considering various matters, including the determination of a case to answer or a conviction. That might affect someone whose X-ray fell outwith the proposed period. Amendment No. 40 would open up a further loophole, which would not be sensible, although the hon. Lady said that it was a probing amendment and we have had a useful discussion for all that.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It is not unreasonable to have guidelines on how long a police officer can reasonably leave a suspect before the X-ray or scan search is made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the guidance that we seek from the Minister is not only for our local constabularies, but to give the suspect some idea of the thinking that has gone into the period for which they can be held. We will discuss the extended detention provision later in the Bill, but there could be an extended detention situation if, for example, machinery was not available to conduct the test.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Yes, that is perfectly fair. Guidance is one thing; putting a time limit in the Bill is another. However, the hon. Lady has done the Committee a service in tabling the amendment, which has allowed us to receive an indication from the Minister of what guidance might be given to police officers.

Amendment No. 38 would omit subsection (1)(b) of new section 55A and the reference to possession with the ''appropriate'' criminal intent. I do not support it. Appropriate criminal intent—possession with intent to supply, under section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—is quite proper; but to extend that provision, as the hon. Lady seeks to do, to cases of simple possession is neither necessary nor desirable.

In addition, and from a practical point of view, the provision is partly for the protection of the arrested person—another reason why the amendment is unnecessary. Possession with intent to supply, or cases in which there is a suspicion of possession with intent to supply, will usually but not necessarily involve the possession of larger quantities of controlled drugs, which can often be more injurious to the arrested person should the packaging split within them. It is right that we should deal with possession with intent to supply: the taking of X-rays or the carrying out of ultrasound examinations is a significant step, but it will not be routine, and it is appropriate in such circumstances.

I did not pick up the entirety of the intervention of the hon. Member for Reigate, but he seemed to be speaking about drugs being passed from one person to another in the back of a police van, suggesting that one person would hold them and then give them back. Interestingly enough, such possession would show ''appropriate'' criminal intent because it would be possession with the intent to supply—the person holding the drugs would intend giving them back. As we all know, supply is not necessarily supply for a consideration.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Subsection (1)(b) of proposed new section 55A deals with possession with the appropriate intent ''before his arrest''. If the person receives the drugs subsequent to his arrest, it would rule out the application of that provision.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That is an interesting point, although it is rather like the dancing angels on the head of a pin. If the person had been arrested on a simple possession charge or even on something completely unconnected, he would need to be rearrested on that other charge. Yes, that is a perfectly fair point.

On amendment No. 39, it is sensible that the X-ray and the ultrasound scan should both be available to the inspector. One can think of any number of reasons why, not least because it may not always be possible for the inspector to speak to the hospital—the radiographer, radiologist, consultant or whoever. Indeed, such a decision might best be made when one gets to the hospital. In addition, even though an X-ray has been authorised, it might subsequently be appropriate or even necessary to take an ultrasound scan. In the interests of flexibility that were exhorted earlier this morning, I would support the retention of the words ''or both''.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I shall be brief, as I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say. None the less, I would ask her to comment on a number of points.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, amendment No. 40, which suggests three hours, is a probing amendment. I think that the Minister will agree, however, that to leave it completely open would be asking for trouble. What discussions have taken place with the Department of Health about the sort of protocols that need to be put in place between trusts and police authorities—and not only with trusts, but with PCTs and those general practices that have X-ray machines and scanners? Serious problems could arise for consultants and hospital staff trying to deal effectively with their own waiting lists if they suddenly had to provide a scan or an X-ray for one, two, three, four or more suspects during a 24-hour period. There would be that tendency, unless we have some assurance from the Minister about there being a tight protocol in place between the health service and the police, so that action would be taken within a reasonable period of time and on certain terms. Has the Minister considered the costs? Will the police authorities reimburse the trusts for the use of these machines? Have these particular matters been thought through in a sensible manner, and has there been proper consultation between the two Government Departments?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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 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 (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am following the Minister's explanation carefully. I do not disagree with it. Where does the evidence come from? Is it from Customs and Excise or has there been a pilot?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

There has not been a pilot. We have asked the police about this. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady. We have ongoing discussions in the Home Office with the police and others about the supply of drugs and enforcement. The ACPO committee has seen the clauses and is happy with them. I have asked the questions and the officials have advised me. I would hope that in most circumstances one intervention might be enough. Obviously the guidance needs to be clear.

In an example of joined-up government, the Department of Health experience confirms our findings. There are situations that have nothing to do with criminal activity but involve identifying a medical problem. We may all have been in a situation where we have had an X-ray and then been told by doctors that they are not happy with it and that a scan is needed too. Suffice it to say, those who are trying to define a medical problem or to identify drugs that someone has swallowed confirm that there can be occasions where it is not clear from one procedure and the other is needed as a follow-up.

People must understand that team work is involved in the process. Police officers do not have the medical ability to take some of these decisions. Once an inspector is authorised to carry out a scan, an X-ray or both, the normal route would be for a forensic medical examiner, formerly called a police surgeon, to refer the arrestee to hospital. The forensic medical officer would have to be satisfied that the procedure was safe before referral. Presumably they would speak to the person about any issues and any outstanding medical conditions including pregnancy. They may also refer the arrestee to hospital for attention if they consider their health is at risk because a package of drugs may be leaking. We need safeguards in the system, both to protect the health of the arrestee and to ensure that if the case comes to court the defence could not argue that procedures were not followed properly. Given what I said earlier about amendment No. 37, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the other amendments in the group.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I thank the Minister. I am pleased that she has thought again about amendment No. 37. I know that she excelled herself last week by accepting three of our amendments. I hope that she will reflect favourably on the issue that we have raised and widen the catchment on Report. That will strengthen the provisions in this area, and that is what we all want. The hon. Lady is right about amendment No. 40. The time may have to be extended while a lawyer, legal representative or interpreter arrives, and the hours may be antisocial. I am disappointed, however, because she has still not given any real indication of what she expects to be a reasonable amount of time to elapse between the decision being taken that a scan or X-ray is necessary and it being done. The matter is obviously open-ended, but some studies and information must be available.

The Minister said that guidance will be given to the police. I am interested to know when it will be given. I appreciate that that will be after the provision comes into force. Will she remind me when the provision comes into force? Perhaps she can take advice and intervene in a minute. Or will it be a matter for consultation of some sort, for the simple reason that we will have to consider the surrounding circumstances?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The provision will come into force by order, and obviously we want to ensure that we can enforce it as soon as is appropriate once guidance and other matters are more clearly defined and discussed with the appropriate police and others who will have a part in it.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Once again, the provision is being pushed right out into the long grass, so we cannot expect it to be brought into force later this year. It will be enforced at some time in the future, which is slightly depressing, because it could be available to the police almost immediately as a tool. That is a great shame.

On amendment No. 39, the Minister has acknowledged the cultural problems of taking scans and X-rays, but she did not respond on the difference in cost between an ultrasound scan and an X-ray. Perhaps we can return to that when we discuss amendment No. 41. I am not going to die in a ditch about it, so I shall not press amendments Nos. 37, 40 and 39 to a vote. I do, however, stand by amendment No. 38, however imperfectly it is drafted, because the Minister struck at my heart when she said that the Government were trying to get at the dealers, not the users. That revealed the intention not to send the strong message that I expect from the provision. A very strong message should be sent from this new innovation that such behaviour will not be tolerated in our society. The message needs to be strengthened.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Some dealers are obviously also users, so they do not always fall nicely and neatly into compartments. We are, however, considering ways of organising police time and priorities, and we are focusing on those who engage in dealing and other criminal activity that harms other people. There has been much discussion this morning about resources and priorities. As we will discuss when we come to other parts of the Bill, we are considering ways of identifying people with an addiction problem who are committing offences that may not be supply offences, of stopping that criminal activity and of engaging with the problem of their addiction to drugs, which is fuelling the activity.

This part of the Bill relates to supply offences and dealing offences. We are conscious of the fact that people evade the charge of supplying drugs by using all these ruses to get around it, which is why we have confined ourselves to directing police time to dealing with some of these difficult issues and the drug crimes that cause the most problems. That must be the offence of dealing, particularly in class A drugs.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate where the Minister is coming from, but I must diverge slightly from her view because the clause is about the people who have swallowed the drugs. Now the Minister is saying that the clause is designed to catch not the user, but only the dealer.

Despite what the Minister has said, although I am prepared to withdraw amendments—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

So that the question does not hang over us until Report, I inform the Committee that the PACE codes that would need to be revised in order for the measures to be enforced are revised annually on 1 August. Our aim is to bring this provision into force by August 2005—that is the deadline to which we are working.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am more than excited by that prospect, but I hope that I, rather than the current Minister, will be the Minister who implements the provision. We will do our best to ensure that it is an excellent tool to give to our admirable police forces. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 38, in clause 5, page 5, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 41, in clause 5, page 5, line 42, at end insert

''(d) a purpose built facility for carrying out searches authorised under this legislation''.

The purpose behind the amendment is to continue the debate that we have had on earlier amendments, because I had expected there to be some separation. I therefore hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I repeat myself to some extent. I originally tabled the amendment because I wanted to use it as a device to examine the costs to the Home Office.

Having read the regulatory impact assessment, I was not sure that the costs had been featured. I have the RIA with me, and I hope that the Minister may be able to point me in the right direction. I could not find anything that helped me to establish the cost of an X-ray or an ultrasound scan, or to quantify the numbers that were expected or the appropriate staffing levels. Indeed, I made a note about interpreters and antisocial hours, because those factors would add to the costs of the entire exercise.

Subsection (4) refers to:

''(a) a hospital,

(b) a registered medical practitioner's surgery, or

(c) some other place used for medical purposes.''

I presume that that paragraph (b) refers to a GP's surgery and that ''some other place'' would include private facilities. I therefore ask the Minister what the difference in costs is between having an X-ray or an ultrasound scan in a hospital, at a GP's surgery or at

''some other place used for medical purposes.''

Obviously, this tool will be of use; it has been requested by police forces throughout the country. I presume that there will, at some stage, be an assessment of how often it might be used. Has the Minister considered the cost of having purpose-built suites, or mobile scanners, for police use, as a dedicated resource? What sort of technology does she envisage being used? What discussions has she had with the health service? The Minister ducked that question earlier, but she cannot brush this important issue under the carpet; there are implications for the resources of the Department of Health and for the public purse and the public budget. As far as I am aware, it is not covered in the RIA, although the Minister may tell me that I am wrong about that. I am willing to accept such a correction.

I want to compare what would happen if there were facilities available at certain police stations in a police area, with what would be involved in getting to a hospital, GP's surgery or some other place used for medical purposes. What arrangements will there be to transport the suspect? How many people will be expected to accompany them? What arrangements will there be for waiting? Will the suspect wait in an accident and emergency department in full sight of people who are waiting for treatment, or will he or she be treated in the same way as a prisoner who is taken out of prison to receive hospital treatment? What will be the practical arrangements at GPs' surgeries, private hospitals—if such facilities are to be used—and A and E departments?

What sort of transport and escort resources will be eaten up by the measure? Obviously, if there is no purpose-built facility at a police station, and travel is required, there will have to be arrangements to take the suspect to the X-ray or scanning facility with however many police officers are considered necessary. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us. I see that she is hurriedly looking through the RIA, but cannot find the answer; perhaps we can join forces and request better and further information, because there is a glaring hole in the RIA on this issue. I hope that I will have her support in getting the answers to my questions, which will be of great help to the Committee, and will enable us to examine this provision in the detail in which it deserves.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The clause requires that an X-ray or ultrasound scan be carried out only at a hospital, registered medical practitioner's surgery or some other place used for medical purposes, which could, I suppose, be a private hospital. I will seek further guidance, but that would be my interpretation. Obviously, it would have to be an environment with the appropriate equipment and staff to carry out an X-ray or ultrasound scan.

In line with what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said when we were discussing the previous group of amendments, we do not want to confine ourselves to using the local hospital if there are other suitable premises. That approach offers flexibility in carrying out the procedure, and recognises that the development and modernisation of our health service means that, in future, there might be walk-in centres or other facilities in which those procedures can be carried out. Currently, some pregnant women can have ultrasound scans at their local GP's surgery. We have to be open to change, because it can sometimes be right and appropriate to provide these procedures in settings other than a hospital.

Although this is a probing amendment, I want to address its substance. If it were included in the Bill, it would make provision for

''a purpose built facility for carrying out searches authorised under this legislation''.

That would not be proportionate in cost, and I know—at least, I hope—that that is not the hon. Lady's intention; it would be rather overstepping the mark.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I can assure the Minister that that is not my intention. I am not seeking a vote on the amendment; it is purely a probing amendment. I want to see whether consideration had been given to portable machines and the new technology that enables them to be carried around. I also want to find out more about the work that the Department should have done on this issue. This is not a dyed-in-the-wool, ''I'd like you to change the Bill'' amendment.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. There are pros and cons to the argument, but regardless of the hon. Lady's point about us putting pressure on our hospitals by using them for the purposes set out in the clause, the provision would not be used willy-nilly every day, and we are talking about small numbers of people. I would prefer resources to go into our hospitals so that they can continue improving their facilities and equipment, with the police having the option, on occasion, to access those facilities. That would be the right way to use those resources, and I am sure that the public would agree.

Obviously, it is difficult to know what variation in costs there is between locations or, for that matter, how an individual hospital or trust costs an X-ray as opposed to an ultrasound scan. However, the cost will be marginal, because we are not talking about a huge number of people. Let us not forget also that, every day, the police may have reason to take someone who is in detention to hospital for a procedure or because of other matters connected with that individual's health. I might be wrong, but I cannot recall anyone suggesting that there is a huge problem with the police impinging and placing burdens on the health service.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Is the Minister right that the cost will be negligible? The procedure will require a highly trained health professional to be present to carry out the X-ray or the ultrasound scan. Indeed, ultrasound scans take longer and are more complex procedures, as I am sure the Minister knows. Thereafter, there is the added cost of having a much more highly qualified person interpret the results, which cannot simply be looked at by a police officer. The financial and time costs to the NHS of each scan or X-ray will therefore be reasonably significant. Will it get the money back from the Home Office? What is the financial arrangement between the Home Office and the Department of Health? They have obviously agreed the policy, but surely not without allocating the cost.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Of course, a police officer will not carry out the X-ray or the ultrasound scan; people in the hospital will do that. As in other situations, arrangements exist in practice to deal with a prisoner or someone who has been arrested should they need attention in hospital. I return to the point that the hon. Lady raised in an earlier discussion. One reason for not including a time limit is that we must recognise that other people use these facilities. It is not necessarily a question of leapfrogging over others who are waiting for an X-ray.

I shall make another point about why we have endeavoured to tackle the issue in these clauses. One problem at the moment is that some people refuse to have an ultrasound scan or X-ray, thinking that it will help their case or weaken the police case in court. When we discussed the effects of the clause we considered whether it would affect someone who, having been arrested, and faced with the prospect of being charged with supply offences, realised that past loopholes no longer existed.

There is another side to the argument—an opportunity to avoid some of the time-wasting of the past and to provide a deterrent. However, because of other evidence that the police will have, from surveillance and other sources, the person will also be able to reason that if they refuse the ultrasound or X-ray without proper reason—such as pregnancy—the court will be able to draw inferences. Thus in many cases it might not be necessary to use the X-ray or ultrasound route, because the person will realise that the game is up and that in the light of the other evidence they might as well plead guilty.

We all, I hope, would prefer a state of affairs in which—provided that everything was done properly—the police evidence would, more often than happens now, persuade the arrested person that they would be better off pleading guilty to a supply charge rather than pleading not guilty or trying for a possession charge.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not disagree with what the Minister says, and if her wishes and aspirations come to fruition the Home Office and police services will obviously benefit. However, the provision seems to create a net drain on other resources that come within another Department's responsibility. I am not sure that primary care trusts and GP surgeries in my constituency will take kindly to another burden being placed on them with no financial recompense.

Mr. Carmichael rose—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am intervening on the Minister, actually, so I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. She is telling me that no financial assessment has been made of the costs of the X-rays and ultrasounds, and that no arrangements have been made with the Department of Health other than at policy clearance level to consider what resources will be needed. She now tells hard-pressed, overburdened GPs that they are expected to take on another burden and accident and emergency departments that they are expected to cater for non-accident and emergency work, with no financial recompense.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is an interesting discussion, given the huge resources that have gone into the health service to build up many hospital departments and primary care in the community.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It may assist the Minister if I tell her that I took the opportunity to phone my wife's surgery; I was advised that it expects an ultrasound scan to start at £29 and an X-ray to start at £36. The Minister, however, will bear in mind that my wife is in practice as a veterinary surgeon.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Perhaps we should add those to the list.

I know what great interest the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham takes in animal welfare, as a devoted dog owner. I do not know whether she still keeps her dog in her office—or perhaps I should not have said that.

What we are considering would take up a tiny proportion of the time that local health service hospitals spend on different activities and, in particular, X-rays and ultrasound Scans. I do not say that it would not take up some of their time; of course it would. My understanding is that the health service is quite able to absorb those costs within the huge resources that have been provided for it under this Government. We are discussing one of many instances in which the police may need to refer suspects to the health service for medical intervention. Neither we nor the Department of Health think that it will be a problem, but, as with any piece of legislation, it will be kept under review.

Part of our ambition is to stop people using loopholes that have been available in the past and that have extended the system. Health costs, court costs and police time are all involved. Sometimes it is hard to quantify exactly how much will be saved from one budget or another, but our overall intention is to reduce costs in the criminal justice system by ensuring that people are brought to trial as speedily as possible. The purpose of the clause is to deal with clear attempts by suspects to frustrate police officers and the fact that courts are unable to know that people have refused X-rays and ultrasound scans. The medium to long-term cost benefits of the provisions are greater than some of the costs that the hon. Lady has put forward.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister is in some difficulty because there is no reference to what we are discussing in the RIA. She is obviously taking advice during the course of the debate, but there are still problems surrounding this issue. For example, what if a GP's surgery refuses to take an X-ray or ultrasound scan if it is requested to do so? What burdens will be placed on the Department of Health? If the hon. Lady can assure me that the Department has accepted these costs as extra burdens on hospital, hospital trust and primary care trust budgets, I will be satisfied, but I do not think that that is the case.

If we are going to have

''some other place used for medical purposes''

as set out in paragraph (c), there must be an agreement with the private sector, or with other facilities that provide X-rays or ultrasound scans. I hope that the Minister will provide more detail at a later stage, perhaps by writing to members of the Committee.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I do not accept the premise of the problem that the hon. Lady is putting forward, but I will examine the police's current use of the NHS and share my findings with the Committee. As she must be aware, the police have to call on the services of other agencies, including the NHS, every day to carry out their job. The clause does not add any undue burdens that would create a huge problem. On the basis of what I have said, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I will withdraw the amendment. [Interruption.] I will withdraw it for the simple reason that I drafted it as a probing amendment, and I was up front about that. I am being urged by my hon. Friends not to withdraw it, but I will. The Minister is moving in the direction in which I wish her to of providing us with more detail.

Let me make it clear that I am not against the provisions; I am trying to strengthen them and to iron out difficulties that I foresee. The haste with which the Bill has been brought before us has resulted in some of the i's not being dotted and the t's not being crossed. The absence from the RIA of an estimate of the cost to the health service is indicative of that haste.

GPs' surgeries will not be happy that a policeman can telephone from a local constabulary requesting use of their facilities for which they will not be reimbursed.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee F

Clause 5 - X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and Wales

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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 writing—I shall withdraw the amendment—setting out what tests she will require the police to request from the national health service or a private facility.

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.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I remind the Minister that this is an intervention and not a speech.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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:

''The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately.''

We can all agree on that. The reply added:

''Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, dependent on the clinical priority of all patients waiting to be scanned.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 764W.]

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.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

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 if they have just snorted or smoked it. We now have the problem in Manchester because of direct flights from places such as Kingston.

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.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have looked very carefully at clause 5 and it does not deal with the matters to which he is addressing himself. It deals with X-rays and ultrasound scans. I appreciate that a little background may be in order, but try as I may I am finding it increasingly hard to determine that he is in order.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I will try to focus on the main point, which is about swallowers coming into airports. I am willing to be corrected, but as I understand it, the clause gives police at airports and in urban and rural areas the right to subject people they suspect of swallowing hard drugs—class A drugs—to X-rays and scanning. My point is that the biggest problem is at our airports, whether it be at Heathrow or Manchester.

I was trying to describe what happens in the Netherlands, and I shall finish talking about the position there. One police force deals with all swallowers coming into airports, and it has a tremendous set-up. If the Minister has not visited Schiphol, I strongly recommend that she spend two or three hours there seeing how the force deals with swallowers.

The last amendment dealt with purpose-built facilities, but most airports already have, or are building, special medical facilities. People come off planes with all kinds of medical problems, and the medical facilities at a large international airport such as Heathrow may already have X-ray equipment, so it would not always be necessary to take a swallower to the local accident and emergency unit.

The real reason why I support the clause, which gives the police extra powers, is that people die transporting drugs into Britain. In the Antilles, a former Dutch colony, children as young as 12 spend hours trying to swallow the largest grapes that they can collect. Then, of course, they are introduced to swallowing the real thing—condoms packed hard with cocaine, which are mightily difficult to get down. Of course, flights are profiled, and someone looks at who buys tickets, who gets on the plane and how passengers behave on board. If passengers do not eat or drink on the plane, they will obviously be under suspicion immediately because they may be worried about passing the balls of cocaine. Indeed, they sometimes do, and a hell of a smell develops in the cabin. There are many ways of dealing with those people, and highly profiled passengers—those picked out before boarding the aircraft or on arrival—who get off planes at international airports such as Heathrow or Manchester will be observed, taken away, searched and interviewed. The trouble is that they have to be kept in cells for an awfully long time before the evidence can be collected.

Sometimes, packages burst on the aircraft, and those carrying them die; indeed, quite a number of mules die. The Dutch told us that they had caught 14 mules on one plane from Kingston, Jamaica. They probably did not get all the swallowers on the plane, because international flights from the Caribbean rim are being swamped, and that is the main way of getting cocaine into Britain.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem affects women in particular? The largest proportion of female foreign nationals in our prisons is from Jamaica. The majority received custodial sentences after they were used as mules.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am sorry to spoil this party, but the clause has nothing whatever to do with the matters that are being discussed; it is specifically about the technicalities of X-rays and ultrasound scans. Can we please return to the matters in the clause?

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I take your second indication that I should focus on the subject, Mr. Gale, but it is important to point out that people die after swallowing balls of cocaine. The clause is about diagnosing mules when they arrive at airports, and that is why I support it. People sometimes arrive in great pain as a result of having swallowed drugs, and many subsequently die. The Dutch police told us that they had found butchered bodies in harbours because the security forces had failed to catch people coming off a plane. When they died, their bodies were butchered to get the drugs out. I am trying to show the Committee that the clause is amazingly important and that it may well save lives. That is why I support it. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Gale.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I intend to ask the Minister two specific questions about subsection (1)(a) and one about subsection (2).

My question about subsection (2) relates to ion scanners. Although I support the clause, the problem of people swallowing drugs when they think they may be arrested is small. My police have a bigger problem with flushers: those who flush drugs down the toilet. That is a common problem. On drugs raids, the first thing that the police do—I have witnessed this on several occasions—is head for the toilet to ensure that drugs are not flushed down it. The clause does not attempt to deal with that problem.

I move on to our successes. We lead the world with our technology for scanning for drugs. We supplied the equipment used in Jamaica, where every suspected cocaine-swallower leaving the country must go through ion scanners, which are supervised by British Customs and Excise staff. Are those scanners defined as X-ray equipment in this context?

Are the Government succeeding in their strategy on this issue? Information from the Hibiscus charity in Jamaica, which the Government partly funds, is that the number of drug-swallowers exiting the Caribbean for the UK has reduced by more than half in the past few years. It seems that we lead the world in some of the technologies and methodologies that we use. Will the expertise that we have built up, particularly in the Caribbean, through Customs and Excise, have a direct impact on how the police will use their powers under the clause? Will ion scanners be classified as X-ray equipment available for police use?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

There are important issues relating to people who are manipulated to act as mules or who feel that that is the only option available to them because of poverty or other reasons, but the clause is designed to address intent to supply.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) says, it is of concern that people try to dispose of drugs by swallowing them. Drug squad officers from Doncaster have told me of an occasion on which they had a house under surveillance where they knew that supply offences were taking place. They wanted to raid the property and catch the suspect—he was known to them and had been under surveillance—with drugs on him that he was going to use for supply offences. The police have become wised up to such operations, and have, on occasion, had officers not only going into the house, but checking the down pipes from toilets to ensure that they get to the drugs before they disappear. However, because the police have become much better at those sorts of raids, and are better about searching places where drugs might have been disposed of, such as rooftops and back gardens, some dealers are swallowing.

That brings us back to the debate about getting a person's consent to X-ray or scan, and the fact that an inference can be made in court if they refuse. As I said, the person might have a legitimate reason for not having an X-ray or scan. The measure primarily concerns that situation, rather than that of people being used as mules.

As my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Bassetlaw and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, there has been tremendous success in Jamaica, where technology has reduced numbers. We welcome the international co-operation with the Jamaican authorities on that, as we could not have done it without their support. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is right: there has been a drop of at least 50 per cent. in the number of people coming through. That is important, because the longer these people have the drugs inside them—it is a long plane journey—the more they are at risk. I will check what my hon. Friend said about the use of ion scanners in this area. Obviously there could be a cost implication, because there are a whole number of places around the country in which someone could be arrested and charged. I will follow that up because, if there are opportunities to tackle that and identify drugs as technology advances, we should look at them. Identifying reasonable evidence of drugs is what the Bill is all about. I hope that will suffice for my hon. Friend at this point.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East about police intervention. Let us not forget that people in a busy airport may not be acting as mules while still involved in the supply of drugs. Someone could be detained and arrested who swallows a drug because the concourse of the airport is their patch, where they are supplying drugs. There might be a need to follow that up. There might be occasions where an airport that already has facilities to deal with the more traditional mule route could make facilities available to the police to deal with those who engage in supply activities within the airport perimeter. I take my hon. Friend's point on that.We have had an interesting debate. The clause is about detention. It is about suspects who have tried to use every trick in the book to frustrate the police in their attempts to get evidence. If they realise, given the safeguards I have outlined, that their denial—refusing X-rays or scans—will be looked at by the courts, my hope is that the clause will not necessarily lead to a huge increase of people going for X-rays and scans. It might help to reduce the police time involved by getting people to be more up front about their offending behaviour.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - X-rays and ultrasound scans: Northern Ireland

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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 report—under 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 Metropolis—to 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.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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 (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate that the Minister wants to consider supply offences, particularly in view of the statistics that I quoted in Committee last Thursday. 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 (Labour, Don Valley)

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 guidance—in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others—as 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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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 (Labour, Don Valley)

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 somewhere—the police or a combination of the police and the hospital—will 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.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

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.

Clause 7 - Testing for presence of class A drugs

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 7, page 8, line 34, after 'A', insert 'or class B'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

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 (Labour, Bassetlaw)

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—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

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 are—I hesitate to use the term mushrooming—increasingly 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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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 clause—that it would be a sensible precaution to widen its provisions to cover class B drugs. After all, they are exceedingly serious, and amphetamines—speed, or uppers or whatever they are called—certainly 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 form—not orally but by injection—they 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 legislation—although we may do so—it 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.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I support the amendment, which widens the scope of clause 7 to include testing for the presence of class B drugs. As we all know, many drug users are poly-drug users, although most have a preferred drug. On the day of testing, they may have used a class A drug. Others will sometimes be class A users and sometimes class B users. Such people may have taken a drug that does not fall under the clause and may therefore not be caught by its provisions.

If we assume that the purpose of drugs legislation is not only to deal with trafficking and dealing, and as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, the collection of data, but to direct drug users into treatment, then missing someone under the provisions of the clause who takes class B drugs may mean missing an opportunity to direct that person to treatment. The policy of focusing entirely on class A drugs is misguided. I know that one reason for it is the enormous amount of police time that was used in dealing with class B drug offences, but we do not want policy to be founded on expediency rather than advisability.

If cannabis is reclassified as a class B drug, which I feel it should be, it would be captured by the clause, should the amendment be accepted. That would give us an opportunity to divert large number of people from their drug-taking habits before they acquired the habit for class A drug or harder drugs.

For those reasons, I support the widening of the provisions of the clause to include class B drugs.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I oppose the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has great knowledge of drug misuse, and I understand that he is trying to simplify the law by making the three classifications simpler. The problem is that most drugs in classes B and C, with the possible exception of cannabis, are medicines. I do not want to increase the penalty for people who are accidentally caught in a positive drugs test.

The Runciman committee suggested that the Government keep to the classification of drugs according to the harm that they do to a human being, male or female. I think that the present classification, including the reclassification of cannabis from B to C, is correct, bearing in mind what that committee thought, having taking wide evidence on the point. I shall say more about the classification of drugs when we come to the mushroom difficulty at the end of the Bill.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Some interesting points have been made and have opened up discussion about different types of drugs and their effect on people. By testing on charge—of course we hope, under the Bill, to test on arrest—the Government have, with increasing success, been attempting to identify what we know about the types of drugs that lead to addiction and the huge range of acquisitive offences that are dealt with in police stations and the criminal justice system.

At the heart of our strategy is the wish to find better and quicker ways to identify a drug problem, and I shall talk more later about the relationship of class A drugs, namely heroin and crack cocaine, to crime. We want to do that not as a means to prejudice someone's trial for burglary or another crime, but to find a better way to engage them in taking up treatment, even before they reach court, and so that the treatment plan, if they take advantage of it, can follow them through the criminal justice system, whether it be into custody or a community sentence. We can thus try to stop our justice system's revolving door of people on drugs committing offences, not getting treatment and committing offences over again.

I understand the underlying intention behind the amendments to extend the power to test people for drugs, on charge or on arrest, to include testing for class B drugs. However, there would be several implications. Drug testing is at present used as a screening tool to identify those who use specified class A drugs—heroin and crack cocaine—because research has shown a strong link between certain offences and the misuse of those drugs in the UK. That is important, because different countries have different patterns of misuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will know, Australia and Asia have a big problem with amphetamines, particularly methamphetamine, which they have tried to tackle through their drug laws.

In the UK, the link has not been shown for other class A drugs or, for that matter, for class B drugs. The NEW-ADAM survey showed that 85 per cent. of illegal income generated by arrestees is generated by users of heroin, crack and cocaine. Only 13 per cent. of illegal income is accounted for by arrestees who use only drugs other than heroin, crack and cocaine.

Following reclassification of cannabis, most class B drug offences involve amphetamines, and the latest available data show that there are few such offences. In 2002 only 5,820 offenders were found guilty of committing amphetamine offences, from more than 110,000 drug offenders. They make up only 5 per cent. of all offenders, and the number for other class B drugs is so small that separate analysis is not carried out. Given where we are in the UK on the use of drugs, the links to crimes and the harms to individuals in society, we believe that it is unnecessary to extend the scope of drugs screening on arrest or charge to include class B drugs. The available evidence does not suggest a causal link between trivial offences and the misuse of class B drugs. There would have to be an evidential basis for such a link. Without that, it would be necessary to justify the cost of such an extension. From where we are now, the cost would be disproportionate to the benefit and could not really be justified.

Furthermore, if no strong link is established between the taking of class B drugs on their own and the commission of crime, it would be difficult to justify the interference that such testing would entail with a person's privacy, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, on the grounds of preventing crime. That is important, because when we introduced the powers to test on charge—we are now discussing testing on arrest—we rightly had to make a case and say why we thought that appropriate in terms of an individual's human rights. Obviously, if the situation changed, and if there was evidence of new synthetic drugs being used in the same way as heroin or crack, as my hon. Friend suggested, and there was a shift in patterns of drug use, we would, as with anything else, keep things under review, and seek to reclassify the drug in question as a class A drug or, by order, seek the House's support for an extension of the legislation.

I understand part of my hon. Friend's desire in the amendment, but although we can consider other countries, we should recognise that situations sometimes differ and that we must deal with how things are in this country. For the reasons that I have outlined, to do with the justification for testing—an important change is being made in how such issues are tackled—and to do with the evidential basis to justify the cost, I do not think that we can accept the amendment. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The Minister has given part of an answer, but in many ways the Government's thinking—perhaps the Home Office's thinking would be more accurate—is given away by the use of the word ''only'' with regard to the use of amphetamines. The evidence that I have seen suggests that few amphetamine users in this country use only amphetamines; we can track the users in my area, who are well known. Those people are therefore just as liable if arrested to test positive for another drug, even though amphetamines are their drug of choice and the one that creates the behaviour that leads to acquisitive crime.

That is the fundamental point about amphetamines that I think the Minister has not fully addressed. Even if the figure was only 5 per cent. and remained so—I dispute the statement that our information base says that the figure is only 5 per cent., because of the nature of testing and poly-drug use—the direct link with acquisitive crime would still demonstrably exist. That is what distinguishes amphetamines from other class B drugs and, indeed, from class A drugs such as ecstasy.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I might not have made myself completely clear. My hon. Friend is dwelling on amphetamines, but class B includes drugs such as codeine. Codeine is regularly taken by a lot of people; it is the main constituent of cough mixture, for goodness' sake. If people are being tested in police stations for hard drugs, on which we ought to be hitting down hard, as the Government are, the tests will pick up people who are on cough mixture. That would surely be a waste of resources.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

My hon. Friend points clearly to the mess that the Government inherited with drugs classification. Clearly, the idea that codeine—even when used New Zealand-style, baked and turned into morphine—should be classed with amphetamines is nonsense. However, that is an issue for another day and is not the purpose behind the amendment. Even if the figure is just 5 per cent., it seems that the causation link with acquisitive crime is sufficient to merit consideration. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on the point that the shift to amphetamines and methamphetamines came in within a mere three months in New Zealand and Australia. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Clause 7 concerns testing for the presence of class A drugs. The key proposal makes a number of amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow for the introduction of drug testing of a person for specified class A drug use on arrest for a trigger offence, and later there is a provision to require a person with a positive test to attend an assessment by a drugs worker. However, as I understand it the provision signals a new departure: if a person over 18 is arrested and not charged, on the say-so of an officer he or she is required to undergo testing for a ''specified Class A drug''.

My first question to the Minister is, what is a specified class A drug? Why not just a class A drug? Why introduce the word ''specified'' and what is its significance? We have just had a discussion on the classification of drugs. The drugs included in class A are heroin, methadone, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, amphetamines if prepared for injection and magic mushrooms prepared for use. Does the inclusion of ''specified'' mean that the officer has to choose one of those drugs and specify which, or does it cover all class A drugs?

This provision would play into the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, although he withdrew his amendment, to try to widen the clause to catch both class A and class B drugs, because amphetamines appear in both class A and class B. Will the Minister explain the inclusion of ''specified'' and say whether she considers it necessary? It appears to be a narrowing of the provision that ties the police officer's hands behind his back rather than the wide catch-all provision that both sides of the Committee seek.

I have been impressed by some of the organisations that have briefed us during the run-up to the Bill. I may not agree with them in many instances, but it is only fair that some of the points that they have raised with me should be raised with the Minister. It is apposite that some of the issues should be raised during a stand part debate on clause 7, to which they relate.

I refer specifically to a briefing that I received from DrugScope, with which I know the Minister is familiar. I repeat that I do not always agree with what it has to say. On this provision, it says that it is doubtful whether the power to test on arrest rather than at charge will lead to an improvement in the number of people entering and completing treatment, because the evidence on improving responses to problem drug users at the point of arrest does not suggest that the problem is with a lack of coercive police powers to compel people into treatment.

DrugScope goes on to ask why the emphasis is not on strengthening existing voluntary schemes, particularly the arrest referral scheme, with which the Minister will be familiar. It also asks why, rather than introducing new police powers, which are linked to criminal sanctions, those provisions cannot be extended. We all share the Minister's aspirations for getting more people into drug treatment, and we accept that that is an exceedingly difficult task, given that the lives of those people are often chaotic and not at all stable, but the arrest referral scheme is seen to have some merits. It is a voluntary scheme that aims to identify problematic users at the point of arrest and to encourage them to tackle their problem.

Police custody staff offer the scheme, and people are assessed when they agree to participate. If they are appropriate, they are referred to services. Arrest referral workers screened about 49,000 individuals in England and Wales between October 2000 and September 2001. More than half those individuals were voluntarily referred to specialist drug treatment services. Of those who were referred, a quarter—5,500—entered into treatment.

The research evidence on the arrest referral suggests that the priority of a Government concerned about improving outcomes for arrestees with drug problems is not to introduce new coercive police powers. Recent research identifies the following essential ingredients for successful arrest referral work: a proactive mode of work that wins the respect and trust of users; adequate resourcing; the capacity to provide continuing support, which is exceedingly important when dealing with such a group of offenders; and appropriate and adequately resourced treatment services to which to refer individuals, which I am afraid are in short supply.

Turning Point and DrugScope, both of which have provided briefings, believe that the Government should use this opportunity to introduce several practical improvements to the existing arrest referral schemes in order to deliver enhanced arrest referral and to encourage people to enter treatment voluntarily. They suggest the following modifications: the provision of pre-booked appointments for treatment; accompanying clients to appointments; assertive outreach following non-attendance; follow-up contact; special arrangements for particularly vulnerable clients; and the provision of further training for workers on issues such as prostitution and stimulant and alcohol use, all of which are relevant when dealing with this particular group of people. I do not know whether the Minister is particularly familiar with those suggestions, but perhaps she will comment on them for the benefit of the Committee. Turning Point and DrugScope believe that those measures would be more effective and would actively support people in attending drug treatment centres voluntarily. I hasten to add that I do not necessarily agree with those provisions, but I am interested in the Minister's response. To be fair, I do like to know the Government's position when I am briefed by an organisation.

DrugScope has other concerns about clause 7. It believes that there needs to be clarification of the status of the test sample and how the information derived from the results of the test is used. It wants assurances that information from test results is handled sensitively and used only to inform a course of treatment, rather than to influence criminal proceedings, where it has no bearing on the crime and does not relate to problematic behaviours. I am interested to know what the Government have to say about the test results and whether they will be used as additional evidence in support of offences for which the person has been arrested.

DrugScope is also concerned that the process and results of testing on arrest could be used oppressively in an interrogation and related processes at a police station. Again, it seeks assurances that appropriate guidance, safeguards and monitoring will be put in place to ensure that these powers are not misused. I agree with the organisation that the method of recording the results and the length of time for which they are retained are also important. It believes that that is particularly important if the charges are dropped for the crime for which the individual was arrested. It is not clear what happens if someone is arrested and tests positive for class A drug use, but is not charged. Is that person still bound to attend assessments and to face criminal penalties if he does not?

I have other queries in that regard but that is enough for the Minister to deal with for the time being. I welcome the provision, but would like to know how she would deal with its critics.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Like the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I have had the benefit of briefings from various bodies, including DrugScope, to which she referred, and Transform. They have raised in my mind a number of issues on which I remain uneasy. In considering my position on the clause, I have had regard not just to the Bill but to the accompanying regulatory impact assessment. In a number of respects, the RIA is a little long on assertion and a little short on evidential support for those assertions.

We should all focus on maximising the number of people who enter and complete a treatment programme. That raises a fundamental question about the appropriateness of using coercion by the police at the point of arrest. We are dealing with people whose lives are among the most chaotic of those with which the police will deal, and people whose relationship with the police is among the poorest. I question whether it is appropriate for that to be their entry point into drugs treatment. I say that because the old adage is that one can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink. It seems that the Government's aim is to take the horse to water, and then to stuff its head in the river regardless of the consequences. I am not persuaded that they are going to achieve their ends.

The RIA makes an interesting assertion when it says that

''Refusal and breaches will be kept to a maximum of no more than 5 per cent. by ensuring that the police and the drug workers at all stages of the process are fully able to explain not only the requirements but more importantly the benefits of complying with the requirements, which are not onerous—''

That is certainly open to question—

''and putting in place processes, which will make it easier for the drug misuser to comply with the requirements.''

If we consider the life patterns that have brought many of the people to the point that we are considering, I have to suggest to the Minister that that assertion is optimistic in the extreme. The Transform briefing also questions the figure of 5 per cent. It points out, quite reasonably, that

''Experience with drug treatment and testing orders, court ordered treatment and treatment as a bail condition suggests that a substantial minority, often as high as 25 per cent. of arrestees, will choose to go to prison, where they can invariably maintain their drug habit, than enter coerced abstinence-based treatment. These will inevitably be the most problematic and chaotic users and the most prolific offenders. A recent NAO report on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders found that 80 per cent. of those on the Order had re-offended within 2 years.''

That is hardly a promising background for the measures that the Government seek to introduce.

A number of practical issues need to be addressed. I should like the Minister to go into some detail on the methodological and legal problems, and the history of false positives and false negatives, particularly in relation to class A drugs. The example that Transform cites is old, but one that I suspect remains true: that of those who test positive for class A because they have had something as innocent as a poppy seed bagel. There are other issues of greater concern. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has implied, there are legal issues concerning the possible use of the results of these tests when people are in custody, and what happens to the samples once the initial decision has been taken.

I would also be interested in the Minister's explanation for the basis on which she sees this as being a deterrent, either for drug use or drug-related offending. This has become a theme throughout the regulatory impact assessment, but its extent is not quantified anywhere in the assessment. What research has been, or will be, undertaken to establish the deterrent effect, if this is to come into law? The Home Office has never undertaken or presented any evidence to demonstrate the deterrent effect at the heart of this Bill. Such an effect seems to be marginal, and almost completely irrelevant to the chaotic lives of many drugs users. That is surely the point. The people with whom we are dealing will not see this in the same way that we, sitting here in this Committee Room, would see it. They are not impressed by the deterrent value in the way that we might be. Surely it is the offenders who have the most involved history, the most chaotic lives, who commit the most crime, that we ought to be striking at here. I suggest to the Minister that this clause quite simply fails to do that.

Finally, I come to a point made by Transform, which is slightly tangential to the clause, but fair none the less. To look at treatment purely in criminal justice terms, if we are to put treatment at the heart of our policy, we have to regard that as being a health issue as well. Why do we therefore have no measure at all of the health benefit to be had from this?

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I have a slight concern about false positives. The all-party group on drugs misuse, of which I am the chairman, performed quite a detailed inquiry—followed up by DrugScope in a more detailed response—on testing of drugs. One of our conclusions was that the drug testing industry is totally unregulated. I am not saying that all firms that the police and others use are cowboys—far from it. Nevertheless, some are. Has the Minister, or her Department, given any consideration to regulating this industry? After all, it is a growth industry and this Bill will help to achieve that.

False positives can come about in other ways. I am concerned, for example, for those suffering chronic pain, particularly the pain that cancer produces. My wife had a dear friend, whom we have now sadly lost, who had to take morphine for a long time. She led a normal life, shopping, going out to the cinema and so on. She was on morphine for more than two years towards the end of her life, to kill the terrible pain. That was, of course, legally prescribed. I do not know whether the Committee is aware of this, but when heroin gets into the body it undergoes a chemical reaction called deacetylation, and is turned into morphine. People who are legally on morphine could be—if, of course, they have committed a trigger offence, or an offence covered by new subsection (1A) (b) in subsection (3)—picked up by testing in the police station. These people are already very ill, and I am a little concerned about the humiliation that these people may suffer in police stations as a result of taking legal morphine.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

If someone were taking morphine as a prescribed drug, they would be able to show evidence of that.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

That is true, and I hope that that would happen in 100 per cent. of cases, but I fear that some such people will leak through the system in some police stations, and I would not want them to be caught by the drug-testing procedures being introduced. I hope that the police will be sensible, and that people will be able to produce prescriptions; of course, a call to the doctor would relieve them of that humiliation.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion. I do not believe that any police constable faced with somebody who says that they take morphine to dampen their pain due to cancer would not make every effort to substantiate that, or would not accompany that person home so that they could show that they have the appropriate prescription. I hope that his fears are completely unfounded.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I hope so too; I merely point out that false positives could arise in those two ways. I am particularly concerned about regulation of the industry.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will try to answer the pertinent and interesting questions that have been raised. If I forget anything, I will try to take interventions.

The content of the clause is not new. We already have testing on charge in a number of our police stations. There was much debate about that, but the reason behind it was the huge number of people with drug-addiction problems who commit criminal offences. The present arrangements do not excuse someone from having committed an offence: due process will be followed and they will have to go to court. Regardless of the comments made about the concerns of DrugScope and Turning Point, with which we have a good relationship, there is a general welcome by those who have worked with drug addicts for years to the fact that we are finally trying to address the problem of people who fuel their drug habit through criminal acquisitive offences. There is a range of trigger offences.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the Minister clarify that? Will police officers have to nominate which class A drug they are testing for, or will it be for all class A drugs, in which case why is the word ''specified'' used?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I said, heroin and crack cocaine are the specified class A drugs for which people are tested upon charge. All that we are doing is moving the testing process for those drugs to arrest stage instead of charge stage. In that respect, there is no change. As I said in the previous debate, those drugs are specified because of the NEW-ADAM survey, which examined the illegal income of arrestees, and found that 85 per cent. was generated by users of heroin and crack cocaine. I do not want to revisit that argument.

We are not doing anything different, except to move the bar to arrest stage. Generally, there has been agreement with what we are doing at charge stage, so why are we moving it to arrest stage? Through testing on charge, we have had the opportunity to monitor and consider the practice and impact of arresting on charge.

First, it has proved the initial point about drugs being linked to certain groups of crime. Secondly, it has indicated what we already knew from other evidence—it has been backed up by the implementation of those procedures—that large numbers of people have a class A drugs problem as specified by statutory instrument under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend rightly said, DrugScope, Turning Point and Transform have pointed out that it is also to do with the process of engagement with individuals. I absolutely agree: testing is one part of the process, but the engagement of individuals is also important.

I wish now to address a couple of other matters. One of the issues raised by the police and arrest referral workers now working in that field—it has been referred to by a number of hon. Members—is that individuals who are seriously addicted to drugs are often chaotic in their use of drugs, which creates all sorts of problems in the custody suite at the police station.

One of the problems is that hours can often be lost when waiting to test on charge. The police and arrest referral workers both say that if they could test earlier they could start engaging the person earlier. That is particularly true of heroin addicts. When they are arrested, the police feel that they should be tested in order to ascertain whether there is a link between the drug and the reason for the arrest; they want to engage the addicts in such a way that they can tell the addicts what is available.

Although more needs to be done, I am pleased to say that the growth in access to rapid prescribing in our drug intervention programmes has been a huge success. In the past 18 months, the waiting times came down, and in some places the turnaround time for that group is very quick. That is important, because we must find a way to capture such people's attention. We need to tell them that they can have a substitute and therefore do not need to leave the police station to get on the street for the next fix.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. I have been waiting for an opportunity to intervene, but I did not want knock her out of her stride on such an important point.

One specific point arising from what she said is vital—the specifying of class A drugs. One important piece of the analysis required is on diversion—for example, of methadone. The only real way to ascertain whether there is an increase in diversion is through the evidence of drugs testing. Is the Minister saying that methadone would not be specified and thus tested for? Such information, which would be used for different purposes from information on heroin and crack cocaine, could be provided to the health service and others involved in the criminal justice system in order to see whether the particular substitution being used is being diverted.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall check on that, and come back to my hon. Friend either today or later. I understand the point, though. Another side to testing is intelligence—that is, general intelligence, not to be used against specific individuals, about the usage of such drugs. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will return to the matter later.

We have been told about the need to build in more time to allow for effective engagement with individuals, and the provision would allow that. We know from what is happening in drug intervention programmes that many who are arrested and then charged are found to test positive for those drugs. That strategy and that process were approved in principle in the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, but by making the present change through primary legislation, we hope to ensure that appropriate amendments can be made—for example, on the duties and responsibilities of the custody officer before charge.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister says that the priority is engagement, and in that she is absolutely right. She made an interesting case for bringing forward the point of testing, but that would introduce an element of coercion. How does she think that will improve engagement?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will deal with that point, but I want first to deal with the several points raised about testing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. When I have dealt with them, I shall go on to the next stage—the mandatory assessment that he referred to.

One question, properly raised, was about the handling of the test sample, about the need to protect the individual and ensuring that samples are not used as evidence in relation to the offence that has been committed. In line with current legislation, the test result may be disclosed in order to inform decisions about bail in criminal proceedings, to inform decisions about the supervision of the individual, to inform court decisions as to the appropriate sentence—that would obviously include drug treatment—and for the purpose of ensuring that appropriate treatment and advice are available. The police will be able to use the test result to inform decisions on police bail. The new provision will additionally allow for information taken from the sample to be disclosed in order to inform decisions about attaching conditions to conditional cautions and for the purpose of requiring an initial assessment and a follow-up assessment.

I accept that there are elements of carrot and stick in trying to get people to engage with treatment. In response, I shall say a little about the drug intervention programme, the difference that it has made for those who have moved on to the assessment process and how the numbers taking treatment have risen. Test results are recorded on police and court files. The practice of keeping and destroying records varies, but police files in general are kept for seven years, then destroyed. For trigger offences, court files are destroyed in the following circumstances: in the case of acquittal, 12 months after the date of acquittal; in the case of conviction, 12 months after completion of the sentence. Those are important safeguards.

Two points were raised. The first was whether test results could be used in interviews in relation to the offence for which the person had been arrested or subsequently charged. I understand that that would not be an appropriate use of the information. The second question was whether the information could be used in a court hearing. Yes, it would be right and proper, in connection with the offence, for such information to be used in court. However, it is also right and proper, as it is now under the charging process, that when considering bail or when sentencing, the fact that a person is undergoing an assessment or seeing a drug programme worker should be taken into consideration.

We are trying—in many areas, we are succeeding more than ever before—to create a situation in which more people are presenting themselves for treatment. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the nature of the risks involved, and the problems of people going for treatment and failing and so on, but measures to harness treatment and offer something of quality will give people an incentive in terms of their final sentence and represent a step change. We are already seeing results in the increasing numbers of people going into treatment. They are also staying there much longer than in the past.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

On that last point, these welcome improvements are made under a voluntary scheme. Does the Minister anticipate that the positive result would be added to the data on that person held on the police national computer? Would that not be a further source of concern in the situation outlined by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East in relation to people who, for innocent reasons, might give a positive test?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I was coming to the issue of false negatives and false positives. I will come back to mandatory assessment too, but I should first like to deal with some of the other points that have been raised.

I was asked where the 5 per cent. figure in the regulatory impact assessment came from. The breach rate for restriction on bail and for assessment is about 10 per cent., and it is about 1 per cent. for refusal of testing on charge. That gives some indication that the number of people refusing is perhaps not as high as some might think. The aim of the assessment clauses is to get as many drug misusers as possible into treatment, and not to prosecute them. Given that some drug misusers refuse to engage with us whatever we do, we estimate that the breach rate for testing on arrest and for assessment will be up to 5 per cent. We hope that the figure will be much lower as large numbers have not so far refused to take part.

I was asked about false negatives and false positives. Clause 16 answers some of those questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said that someone arrested for an acquisitive offence who found themselves testing positive might have a reasonable excuse. I hope that they would provide that information to the police officer so that the matter could be sorted out. No one wants to waste time if someone is on prescription drugs. The provision is not about testing anybody who is arrested, but is linked to acquisitive offences.

Anyone who believes a positive drug test to be false can ask for the test to be sent for further analysis by the Forensic Science Service. We are also ensuring in guidance that any assessment requirement under part 3 will be arranged after the further analysis is received. If the test proves negative, the requirement will cease. That builds in provision for a situation in which the result is unclear and the person is unhappy about it. Everything would be delayed until the more detailed analysis came back from the FSS. I hope that answers hon. Members' questions. I may have to seek advice if there are further points.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am interested by the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East and I should like to explore it in a slightly different scenario. Let us imagine that we are dealing with someone who has a history of drug misuse and acquisitive crime, which often go together, but who had been free from drugs for five years or so and then found himself in the situation described by the hon. Gentleman. How much of a fair hearing from an open mind does the Minister think someone in such a situation would get when they tested positive?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is rather hard to answer that question. The police will obviously deal with situations at their discretion at any time. The issue is that people have committed an offence and will be tested. I do not know if I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but unless he wants to repeat what he said, I will check Hansard to see whether we are missing out anything that he said.

Earlier, I mentioned the refusals that we have seen through the drug intervention programme and the criminal justice intervention programme, and how those have worked in practice. I have been to a number of custody suites and seen the whole process in action, and I have been reassured by the police focus and what they are trying to achieve in terms of the connection with the specified drugs, and by the way in which they have handled the process. Other people—not only police officers but arrest referral workers or even detention officers in the custody suites—may carry out the drug test, and I probably have not recognised that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw raised a point about methadone. We do not test for methadone, and nor does the test detect it. Although I understand his point about the misuse of prescribed methadone and how it may be used on our streets—issues of how prescribing takes place and shared care are very important—the link between crime and the misuse of methadone is not felt to be based on evidence. It is usually the case that a person is addicted to heroin, so might be using methadone then topping up on heroin, or something like that. However, if the problem that he raised comes up, methadone could be specified in a statutory instrument under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, and we will keep the matter under review. Again, I will read Hansard and look into that issue.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I am not suggesting that there is a problem, but lots of people do. Statistics are collated not through testing, but based on voluntary information provided by the person on arrest. It is already possible to do an analysis over a period of time to see whether there is a trend. In my own area, there is no trend of an increase in methadone diversion. However, with officially prescribed substitute drugs—both buprenorphine and methadone—it would be useful to have such testing available both as evidence of the effectiveness of the drugs treatment and for the NHS and others to be able to see who is diverting and on what basis. Not to have such powers is rather a weakness, albeit a small one, in our system. Consideration ought to be given to it and, in particular, legislation should not debar.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. One of the matters that I will consider is the information that people provide over and above what they have been tested for. I will consider that issue, but I do not necessarily think that we have to deal with it in the Bill. I will have a look at what happens with the intelligence on what drugs are used, perhaps relating to my hon. Friend's earlier point about what other substances are used by people who use heroin or crack cocaine. As well as helping the individual, we are trying to get a better fix—for want of a better word—on what is happening in local drug markets and in supply and, even if we use information other than testing, on what drugs are becoming part of the local scene.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Methadone is certainly an addictive drug. Could the Minister say how it would be classified were it not prescribed?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I do not want to be diverted into that area. We are talking about the testing on arrest at this stage. We could have a big discussion about all sorts of drugs, but these are obviously all controlled substances. Therefore their use is restricted, and there are clear arrangements about how they should be prescribed.

I agree with the hon. Lady in one sense: methadone is a very serious drug, and must be handled properly and in a way which, where it is used as a substitute, minimises the risk of people using other drugs on top of it, possibly leading to a fatality. It must also be managed and used so that it does not turn up on our streets for other people to use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised the issue of accreditation. The Home Office approves the equipment to be used by the police for drug testing within the drug intervention programme areas. The approval process is subject to a competitive tender, where the successful equipment supplier is required to comply with a rigorous specification and undergo extensive laboratory testing. The specification and the voluntary testing are devised and undertaken by expert forensic advisers to the Home Office. Obviously, this should not be confused with workplace or school drug testing. That is not an area that we feel that we have responsibility for. But my hon. Friend raises some important points about expansion. Schools or employers wanting to go down this route should think about the type of kit they might be using, how it would be used, and what benchmark would be used in accreditation.

I hope that has reassured my hon. Friend that, in terms of police testing, we think that it is very important that it is accredited and approved by the Home Office. It is not just left up to police forces to pick something off the shelf. Another reason for that is that we are putting a huge amount of funding into this programme, and we want to ensure consistency in quality of approach throughout the police forces currently operating within it, and as it expands. A lack of consistency would affect us in all sorts of ways, not least with regards to the quality and vigour of the information we get back.

On the issue of assessment, I have had many discussions over the last 18 months with lots of different people—from the voluntary and private sectors, within Government and the Department, users, parents, and carers—in many different parts of the country about this whole issue and the element of coercion in the whole process. Funnily enough, I have found that, in a number of areas, the general response has overwhelmingly not been a negative one—for example, with regard to conditions on bail and the fact that we are saying that a user's participation could affect their sentence. An element of coercion has been quite helpful for many drug users in making them face up to the situation they find themselves in. Part of that is getting people in front of them who can explain to them what sort of support, and care plan, they are likely to receive. For a number of problematic drug users, it is not that they have not had treatment in the past. They have often had treatment in different forms, but it has not necessarily worked. Many of them have been in prison before. They have had detox and come out of prison, but at the end of the day there has been no throughcare and aftercare.

Part of what we are attempting to do is demonstrate that there has been a change. There is more to be done, but the waiting time for treatment has gone down nationally, and in drug intervention programme areas it has gone down faster. The wrap-around care and support that follows people through the criminal justice system and which will follow them as they leave it, whether they have had a community-based sentence or a custodial sentence, is something the like of which we have never seen.

When I have spoken to users or former users who have come through a drug intervention programme or for that matter been subject to a drug testing and treatment order and I have asked them about the more coercive elements, the response has been good. Sometimes they have made the point referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: that one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. I do not like to use that expression about people, but he used it and I shall too. Some users, when told, for example, that they are subject to a DTTO, have reacted in a quite hostile and negative way. At that point, when they are forced to face their situation, the quality of the engagement will make a difference to whether their mindset about the treatment will be changed.

I met such an individual in Manchester not long ago—a real hard case who had been round the block hundreds of times, to whom, as far as he was concerned, nothing more could be offered—but I am pleased to say that after he had been involved in a programme for three months or so, his life was being turned around. That is not to say that he would not face risks and difficulties in the future, but the change was happening, and it would not have happened without a wake-up call telling him that he was going to be a part of the programme, and that whether he liked it or not he would be assessed and see someone and turn up for the appointment.

Of course, the important thing is to develop best practice to encompass issues that the hon. Gentleman and DrugScope raised, such as attendance at appointments, and recognition of and dealing with chaotic lifestyles. However, we have reached the point at which we need the assessment to be brought closer to the test, and made part of the process.

For a long time I have felt, having been to see testing in police stations, that the process of conducting the test, followed by the wait for the person to decide whether to see an assessment worker voluntarily, is a lost opportunity. It is right to make the mandatory assessment element part and parcel of the testing process.

I hope that I have answered most of the questions of hon. Members and not missed anything. If, having consulted Hansard, I find I have missed something, I shall write to hon. Members as appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Extended detention of suspected drug offenders

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 42, at end add—

'This power can only be exercised where the taking of an x-ray or the carrying out of an ultrasound scan has established the possibility of the person being detained having swallowed a substance reasonably believed to be controlled drugs.'.

We are back to our old friends the so-called swallowers. The clause will extend from 96 to 192 hours the period for which someone who has swallowed something believed to be a controlled substance can, on application, be remanded into police custody by a magistrate. My amendment provides that that power can be exercised only when the possibility of such a substance being present had been established by X-ray or ultrasound.

Eight days is a long time to hold someone in custody. Having given the police powers to order X-ray and ultrasound examinations, if we anticipate detention for a period of that nature that is the least that we should do. It is in everybody's interests for a person who has swallowed a substance to be scrutinised as closely as possible. The counterbalance to that is that we must first have established that there is a real prospect of there being something there. I deliberately worded the amendment to require the presence of ''controlled drugs'' rather than specifying class A or whatever. On reflection, I might have said ''a controlled drug'' rather than ''controlled drugs''. However, that is the sort of nicety that can be resolved if the Minister is minded to see the wisdom of the point.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

On first reading the amendment, I thought, ''Why not accept it?'' On the face of it, 192 hours, which is about 8 days, seems like a long time to hold somebody, and why would that power be needed to carry out an X-ray or a scan? That was my starting point. I hope that I shall be able to explain why it is necessary.

As we have discussed before, somebody who swallows drugs, suitably wrapped, upon arrest does so in order to conceal evidence and to avoid prosecution. At the moment, under PACE, a suspect can be detained for a maximum of 96 hours with charge. Apparently, that is often insufficient time for the substance to pass through the body. The record is 40 days. I do not know what the substance was—I can see the pained looks on people's faces—but it took that long or longer. We are not asking for 40 days. We spoke earlier about Manchester airport and mules. Customs officers often face similar problems in relation to people suspected of swallowing drugs in order to smuggle them into the country. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made provision—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made provision for a magistrate to commit a person charged with possession of a controlled drug or a drug trafficking offence into the custody of a customs officer for a period of up to 192 hours. Under clause 8, we are trying to give magistrates similar powers to remand a person charged to the custody of a police officer for a period of up to 192 hours to increase the likelihood of the evidence being recovered. That is an important part of the clause.

Although the amendment appears reasonable, it would limit the exercise of the power to cases in which an X-ray or ultrasound scan has established the possibility of the defendant having swallowed a substance that is reasonably believed to be a controlled drug. I do understand the desire to ensure that the power of extended detention is used only where necessary, and I would certainly expect the police to take great care when considering whether to use the new powers to seek an X-ray or ultrasound scan before deciding to seek a remand for 192 hours.

I cannot accept the amendment, however, because it could mean that a suspect could avoid being remanded on charge to police custody simply by refusing consent to an X-ray or an ultrasound scan. In the light of our earlier discussion, the court could obviously make inferences from a refusal to consent. On the other hand, there is the question of building the case and the evidence base that the person is involved in the supply of drugs. We will know for sure that the evidence is inside them only when it comes out at the other end.

Section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already requires a magistrate to consider whether the use of the power is appropriate. That is important, because the power is exercised by the magistrates, not police officers, and therefore must be exercised judiciously. I would also remind hon. Members that the power cannot be used on defendants under 17 years of age.

The power is important for dealing not only with refusals, but with X-rays or scans that are not clear and which might therefore cause problems with showing reasonable belief that a substance is there, in line with the amendment. We have sought information from customs officers. Although they said that most swallowed parcels of drugs are detected by X-ray or ultrasound, a small pellet may remain undetected. That may depend on the experience of the ultrasound or X-ray operative or on the equipment being used.

Although there must be a procedure for the police to make a case—in this case to the courts—for using the power over and above an X-ray or scan, or when someone has refused, the police need to have the power provided for them in certain circumstances. On that basis I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister's point about an accused person being able to avoid the provisions by refusing is a good one and her objection is well founded on that count. However, I wonder whether it might not still be possible to make the Bill somewhat stronger. Would it be possible to make it clear to police officers, through guidance notes, for example, that in all but the most exceptional circumstances an X-ray or ultrasound scan should be carried out? We are talking about a fairly draconian power and we have already given the power of X-ray and ultrasound. Parliament is entitled to expect that power to be used unless there is a good reason why not.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will look into the guidance. There will be issues arising in relation to the X-ray and ultrasound scan, which we discussed earlier. We will also consider how the customs model is applied, because at the end of the day a case will have to be made to a magistrates court to get permission for the additional power.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which reassures me that the line of operation that I sought to introduce in tabling the amendment would be followed in practice. What happens in practice is what concerns me most, and has done so throughout the Committee. In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I wish to explore a few points. First, I want to ensure that the new provisions do not alter the hours that will be counted for the person who has been detained. Secondly, the Minister referred to Customs and Excise. Have there been any difficulties with Customs and Excise or lessons learned? Thirdly, if the evidence had not been recovered in 192 hours, would it be possible to return to the magistrates court and extend the time? The Minister referred to the record as being 40 days, so would the person have to be released if their retention factor proved to be in excess of 192 hours?

Finally, I do not want to descend into lavatorial discussion, but I understand that the drugs smugglers whom Customs and Excise have to deal with have drugs wrapped in everything from condoms and balloons to the fingers of latex gloves. Suspects have to remove their clothes and put on a paper suit, which stops them hiding materials.

The customs officers keep the suspect under constant supervision while they wait for nature to take its course, which may take several days. Eventually, the suspect has to go to the lavatory and that is usually when the swallowed packages appear. The packages are then usually washed in a small chamber used by Customs and Excise called a Frost chamber. I have pictures of the Frost chamber and, indeed, have seen it when visiting Customs and Excise facilities. I would therefore like the Minister to explain what will be available to police officers and in police cells to carry out the hazardous and unpleasant work to recover evidence after the suspect has been detained for 192 hours.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on the exceptionally delicate way in which she dealt with the matter. The money spent on sending her to Cheltenham Ladies college was not wasted.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The clause arose because front-line police officers said that they would find it helpful in certain circumstances to have the power that we propose. As I said, we have the customs model of how the power should be applied and we shall consider how the police will use it. A force will have to consider equipping one or more custody suites for these purposes but the proposal will not necessarily be used disproportionately. As the police will initiate the request to the magistrates, they will be able to consider the issue of control on officer time and how the process will be managed. Obviously they will have to consider special facilities which may or may not be the same as those for the customs, which has access to see-through toilets, for example.

Forces will have to think about these issues as part and parcel of their approach to tackling drug supply offenders and we will consider how to guide them on how customs use the power, which they see as very useful; they are enthusiastic about it. There will be occasions on which it will be possible to seek an extension from a magistrate, but returning to the magistrate will have to be justified. It is possible for customs to do that at present. It will be for the police, based on the guidance, to determine how they will manage and use the power as part of their general approach to tackling drug offenders.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Could the Minister comment on the arrangements that the police might have to consider concerning what Customs and Excise do in respect of removing garments and putting suspects into plain white suits?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I cannot answer that question now, but I shall look into it. I understand that some police forces already have certain types of equipment for the purposes that the clause tries to deal with—the passing of packages containing drugs. They also have protocols for using it, including those related to health and safety issues. There are clearly issues to consider in terms of the health risk to the detainee, which would have to be assessed by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. I do not want to reopen the debate about hospitals, but in some cases it may result in the detainee having to be transferred to hospital, if necessary. We can draw upon the custom and practice of Customs and Excise to assist us. What is proposed is just another tool to assist the police in their work.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 3 February at ten minutes past Nine o'clock. The Committee consisted of the following Members: