Clause 5 - X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and Wales
Drugs Bill
10:45 am
Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)
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.