|
Mr. Grieve: I hope that the Minister can reassure the hon. Gentleman, unless the Act has been tinkered with since I drafted it. The appeal acts as a stay, though there are tight time limits on the bringing of the appeal.
Simon Hughes: That is the substantive question that I wanted to clarify, which is important, not least for the reason alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, with his previous—and present—life in mind, that the prisons should not be filled with extra people during the process of appeal. I would like the Minister to confirm what the time limits are, so that people who read our
Column Number: 005
proceedings will know. What statistics from the Lord Chancellor's Department are available to the Minister on what the time scale is in practice? It is important that the process be instantaneous.
Lastly, if the procedure is to be changed, so that it goes from the lower courts to the Crown court, as opposed to the High Court, a view that I generally support, there is no reason why, on every working day—by which I mean every working day of the year, every non-bank or public holiday and not on Saturdays or Sundays, rather than every legally termed working day of the year—the Crown court should not be able to deal with all the cases on that matter that all the magistrates courts within its area dealt with the previous day.
I should like a reassurance that someone to whom a magistrates court grants bail on a Friday, only for the prosecution to indicate that it wants to appeal, will know that the appeal will be dealt with on the next working day.
9.30 am
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I take his final point about what he regards as effective operating practice. On his first point, who am I to gainsay the person who played a part in drafting the original legislation? I am happy to confirm that what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said in his intervention is indeed the case.
The 1993 Act requires the prosecution to indicate immediately that it intends to appeal. That appeal must be heard, in answer to the substantive question, within 48 hours. It is not quite the 24 hours that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his final point. However, that does show that the time limits are tight. On his point about statistics, I do not know the answer to that question, but I shall make some inquiries and write to him.
Simon Hughes: I am grateful, but I seek one final clarification. If the 48-hour rule is invariable—I am tempted to say that matters of Government policy are invariable one day and the next are subject to exceptional measures—I presume that it would mean that if bail were granted on a Friday and the prosecution indicated that it would appeal, that appeal would be dealt with on the Sunday by the latest, if the Government really mean 48 hours and not 48 hours in working days. What would it mean were bail granted on Christmas eve? I ask so that people know where they stand. Is it a 48-hour rule or a 48-hour rule that does not take account of weekends and public holidays?
Hilary Benn: If I inadvertently mislead the Committee, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to correct him. However, I believe that it is the latter consideration, because I am not aware that the courts sit on Sundays to consider prosecution appeals against the grant of bail.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 006
Clause 16
Drug users: restrictions on bail
Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 16, page 11, line 24, after 'conducted' insert 'in premises notified by the Secretary of State in pursuance of subsection (6C)(a) above'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 101, in
clause 16, page 11, line 25, leave out 'suitably' and insert 'medically'.
No. 102, in
clause 16, page 11, line 25, leave out 'suitably qualified person' and insert 'person who is medically qualified or is possessed of a qualification recognised by practitioners licensed to give any form of treatment to persons dependent on Class A drugs, using only procedures which are recognised by such practitioners.'.
Government amendment No. 52.
Mr. Allen: I have three questions for the Minister in order to help us understand the clause. What specialist facilities do the Government have in mind for the assessments? Who do the Government propose should carry out those assessments? What do the Government mean by their proposed assessment?
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his probing amendment. It gives me the opportunity to tell the Committee that it is important that suitably qualified personnel carry out the assessment of offenders. I am sure that all Committee members agree with that. That is the purpose of Government amendment No. 52, which will allow the Secretary of State, from time to time, to specify the necessary qualifications or experience to undertake such an assessment.
Members will appreciate that assessment does not involve the provision of drug treatment. Rather, it is designed to identify the offender's needs and develop a comprehensive care plan. For that reason, to undertake an assessment does not require the assessor to have a medical qualification. Although it is important for the assessment to be carried out in appropriate premises, the availability of accommodation will vary from area to area. We do not wish to restrict the location of assessments to specific premises in each area. However, we do intend to provide guidance to those areas where the powers are introduced. That guidance will set out the types of premises that will be suitable to undertake an assessment under clause 16.
Mr. Allen: With those reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
John Mann (Bassetlaw): I beg to move amendment No. 146, in
clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out 'assistance or'.
This small amendment has behind it a major question on drugs treatment. At our last sitting, I raised the over-dominance of the probation service on matters relating to drugs treatment. The phrase ''assistance or treatment'' is not accidental, but it is wrong. The notion that a drug addict or person with a propensity to misuse specified class A drugs can be ''assisted'' without being treated is a misnomer.
Column Number: 007
One of the recommendations that I have made, both locally and to the Government, is that there be an expansion of supported tenancies. That is the sort of assistance that should be given. The idea that someone with a health problem can be given a supported tenancy without the health problem being treated is a highly dangerous notion. Over recent years, it has led to the cycle of offenders not being treated—and, crucially, their being given alternatives to treatment that do not work. It provides a suitable excuse for the drugs treatment services not treating people's health problems. It is one of the major problems in drugs treatment, and it is a cop-out.
If I have a health problem, I would expect it to be treated as such. A series of additional factors may be involved—for example, I may be or may have been homeless, or I might have been abused at home, either as a child or an adult. It is right that a multi-agency approach should be taken.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough): I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great interest. I agree with him but I wonder whether, given the additional assistance that many of those people will need, a more appropriate amendment might not delete the words ''assistance or'' but replace the word ''or'' with the word ''and''.
John Mann: If that is what the Bill had stated, I would not have needed to table the amendment. In my view, the definition of treatment needs to be considered. If an amendment was tabled that replaced the word ''or'' with the word ''and'', the points that I am making would be suitably dealt with. It is crucial, however, that we go beyond the framing of the legislation and consider how it is put into practice. We must get away from the notion that it is acceptable that people with a drug dependency can be given assistance that does not include treatment for their health problem. If the word ''or'' was replaced with the word ''and'', or if the definition of treatment incorporated other forms of assistance such as supported tenancies, I would be happy; but I am most unhappy with the existing phrase, which allows the option for non-treatment. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
Hilary Benn: I have listened with care to my hon. Friend. It is clear that, in many circumstances, individuals with drug misuse problems require support or help other than clinical intervention. As my hon. Friend just acknowledged, that support may include the provision of a range of counselling options to address social problems underlying drug use, such as housing and employment problems, or it may include other therapies. My hon. Friend asked what constitutes treatment. The straight answer is that a range of treatments will be available to address the underlying cause, and it is our intention that a wide range of effective interventions should be available, because my hon. Friend is right that that is what matters in dealing with drug use. We want to maintain flexibility in this area so that the most appropriate follow-up in the circumstances can be offered to any individual.
Column Number: 008
The clause makes it clear that we do not intend to rule out assistance or treatment, especially bearing in mind my point about flexibility. We certainly intend to take up that point in guidance, because we do not want to put a court in the position of having to choose between one or the other. We want both. I undertake to reflect a little further on the point that my hon. Friend raised to ensure that we have the clause entirely right, but our intention is clear. Perhaps we can deal with the issue in guidance, and if it would be helpful, I undertake to write to my hon. Friend, following further reflection, on the important points that he raised.
|
