HL Deb 17 June 2004 vol 662 cc903-7

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2004 laid before the House on 12 May be approved.

The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced provisions allowing for the taking of samples from persons in police detention after charge, and at other stages in the criminal justice process, for the purpose of testing for the presence of specified class A drugs. Drug testing under these provisions currently applies to persons aged 18 and over and is targeted particularly at those who have been charged with, convicted of, or released from a custodial sentence for a trigger offence as defined in Schedule 6 to the Act.

The current trigger offences are largely acquisitive crime offences under the Theft Act 1968 that have been shown to be closely linked with misuse of the specified class A drugs: heroin, cocaine and crack. Possession and supply offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, if committed in respect of a specified class A drug, are also trigger offences. Heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine are the drugs that cause the most harm, and on which the Government's drugs strategy is focused.

We now seek to put into effect the Government's intention, stated in the criminal justice White Paper Justice for All, to extend the range of trigger offences to include handling stolen goods and "attempted" acquisitive crimes. The draft order will amend Schedule 6 to the Act to add the offence of handling stolen goods under Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, and to add offences under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 in respect of handling stolen goods and the existing trigger offences of theft, robbery, burglary and obtaining property by deception.

Making handling stolen goods a trigger offence is a logical addition to the existing acquisitive crime trigger offences. Goods obtained from street crime offences, including mobile phones, and from burglary and other acquisitive crime are often sold to handlers, many of whom themselves commit acquisitive crime to fuel a drugs habit.

It is reasonable to assume that the profiles of offenders charged with attempted crimes and completed crimes are similar. It is logical, therefore, to include the relevant attempted offences as trigger offences to ensure that those who may have a drugs problem are identified and encouraged into treatment in the same way as those charged with the completed offence.

In addition, the draft order adds offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in relation to begging. The link between begging and specified class A drug misuse is very strong, and we believe that the addition of these offences will be an important measure in combating this criminal and anti-social behaviour. We know that many problematic drug users who beg are not in touch with services and do not receive the help that they need. If those who beg because of their drug misuse are helped to get access to effective treatment, it will help them as well as the communities affected by their anti-social behaviour and those intimidated by begging.

Drug testing on charge is a way of identifying problem drug misusers at an early stage of their contact with the criminal justice system, so that they may be encouraged to address their drug misuse, gain access to treatment or other programmes of help, and be steered away from crime. It is a significant component of the expanding Criminal Justice Interventions Programme, which involves criminal justice and treatment agencies working together to provide a tailored solution for individuals who commit crime to fund their use of class A drugs. Extending the range of trigger offences as proposed in this order will broaden the scope for identifying drug misusers through testing on charge under the programme.

It will also provide an opportunity for persons committing these offences to be picked up at later stages in the criminal justice system where trigger offences are applicable, pending changes relating to sentencing and release on licence being introduced under provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Goldsmith.)

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his explanation of this order.

In general, we agree with the extension of the trigger offences. Identifying offenders who commit crimes to fund a pernicious drug habit is only to be encouraged so that rehabilitative programmes can be quickly administered and the individuals can be steered away from drugs and crime. Identifying drug abusers is therefore an important task, and broadening the offences which enable police officers to initiate drug testing should help to achieve this.

Although identification is undoubtedly the central issue, unless it is to be followed up immediately by rehabilitation it will be a largely wasted exercise. It would therefore be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could indicate the extent to which the Government expect these new powers to be used and what resources will be available for follow-up rehabilitation.

While the power to require a drugs test may be only a minor inconvenience, rather than a severe punishment or a restriction to one's liberty, we are concerned about a shift that unduly encourages the police to pick people off the street to test them. Trying to crack down on those stealing to fuel a habit by identifying abusers through drug testing is to be encouraged; however, too much power enabling widespread drug testing, some of which will inevitably prove negative, could greatly damage relations between the police and the general public.

The Explanatory Notes refer to "supporting research evidence" as a result of which this list of additional offences was constructed. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could give us some details of this research.

Our concerns are perhaps greatest over the last two trigger offences to be included for the purposes of drug testing: begging and persistent begging. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General pointed out, this comes into effect through amendments to Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. That legislation, created 180 years ago to deal with the social problems arising after the Napoleonic wars, makes it illegal for people to beg, busk and in some circumstances sleep rough. To put that in the context of this legislation, are the police fully justified in randomly drug testing those who beg, busk and sleep rough? Does that not appear to be a somewhat draconian line to take against a group of particularly vulnerable people?

Persons proceeded against in the magistrates' courts in the case of begging numbered fewer than 2,000 in 2002—one tenth of the number proceeded against for handling offences. The logic for enforcing drug testing after a trigger offence is committed depends on the offence committed being drug-related. Certain offences, such as theft or burglary, attempted or otherwise, clearly have a strong link to drug abuse, and it is sensible that the offenders can accordingly be drug tested. Additionally, these crimes are aggressive and malicious. Begging, by contrast, is rarely aggressive, malicious or even, as the noble and learned Lord put it, acquisitive, although persistent begging may be.

The noble and learned Lord claimed a very strong link between crime and the vagrant population. Hazel Blears, his colleague in the Home Office, claimed on the department's website: We know that more than 85 per cent of beggars have a drugs or alcohol addiction and are begging to fund their habits". If that is the case, I understand the logic behind including begging among the trigger offences. But my concern is that that might represent a shift towards saturation drug testing in high-risk areas.

As a result, the detail concerning begging in this statutory instrument could signify, if the powers are to be used aggressively, a substantial policy shift with considerable implications for civil liberties. Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explain whether or not, with regards to begging, he expects the new powers to test for drugs to be used sparingly, and where there is cause for suspicion, or whether they are to be a carte blanche to test all beggars for drugs? I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's response to the questions, subject to which we support this order.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for his explanation of this order. We do not have any fundamental objection to the statutory instrument, but there are questions that should be put, and there is a need for some clarification.

Am I right in saying that the changes will not apply to under-18s? Section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 amended PACE to lower the minimum age for drug testing from 18 to 14. We must be clear exactly who could be affected by the changes. I also have concerns about the inclusion of begging on the list. I can see a good argument for using police arrest as a means of getting people into treatment. Equally, I am sure that crack and heroin-addicted burglars and shoplifters do engage in begging now and then. As far as I can see though, the order would allow the courts to impose a drug abstinence order, with a regime of testing, on people who are homeless and begging and are highly likely to breach the requirement, often ending up in prisons. I have never seen any statistics on the number of abstinence orders given or the number breached. It would be interesting to know whether such figures are available.

The trigger offences have been included on the basis of some strong supporting research evidence. That there is relevance between trigger offences and drugs is not in dispute. The sooner a drug dependency is identified, the quicker it is to address the issue of drug misuse. Here, I sympathise with and strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said. I do question the availability of access to treatment or other programmes of help that can steer individuals away from crime. We also need an assurance that we are capable of not only identifying the causes of crime, but have the capacity to provide help. I have some doubt that our penal institutions have such a capacity.

Lord Goldsmith

My Lords, I start by thanking both noble Lords who have spoken for their expressions of support in principle for the changes that are made in this order. I shall need to come back to the specific question of begging. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, asked to what extent we expect the powers to be used. In the order of 16,000 persons are presently charged with the offences that are proposed to be added to the schedule. That is to say that 16,000 persons over the age of 18 were proceeded against in the magistrates' courts for handling offences in 2001–02. We have no separate data available for attempted offences, and the noble Lord has already given figures in relation to those who were charged with begging offences. That gives some idea of the order.

The noble Lord also asked about resources for rehabilitation. The Government are investing considerable sums of money in drug treatment. The total annual expenditure is now in the region of £500 million. Resources have been provided to ensure that all those who wish to enter treatment have the ability to do so. The Home Office and the Department of Health have been working jointly on estimating the number of drug users requiring drug treatment. This is about finding solutions to the problems that drug-using creates. Therefore, we entirely see the importance of making sure that these are carried through—not just testing, but testing through to assistance, help and to treatment.

The noble Lord asked what the evidence there is to demonstrate the link between these offences and drug-using. In relation to handling, over one-third of those arrested for handling stolen goods in one survey programme were shown to have tested positive for heroin and cocaine or crack. Over half of the group who had been arrested and classified as drug-misusing repeat offenders reported that they had been involved in handling offences within the past year. The statistical evidence is strong. There are no separate data in relation to attempting, but as I said, we think that the profile for those who commit completed crimes and those who commit attempted crimes is likely to be similar, and the link for the substantive crimes has already been clearly shown.

So far as begging is concerned, the statistical evidence is strong. A research study found that 86 per cent of beggars were currently using drugs. The study, which covered five major towns and cities, estimated that 75 to 90 per cent of beggars used class A drugs, primarily heroin, and for many of those the routine of begging sufficient cash to fund that habit was a total preoccupation.

These offences are being included because of their close link with the specified class A drug misuse to help combat the anti-social behaviour that is associated with begging offences. I emphasise to both noble Lords that not only is the link between drug abuse and the offences clear, but at the moment these people are not getting the help that they need. Including these offences will assist, by enabling the police routinely to test those who are charged with begging offences and then encourage those who are tested positive into effective treatment or other programmes. If those who beg because of their drug problems are helped in this way, it will help them, it will help communities, and it will help those people who are presently intimidated by begging.

There are other changes, as noble Lords will know, in relation to how we will deal with begging, which will include the ability to impose community penalties in the future. A failure to comply with community penalties could give rise to enforcement procedure; there is nothing new about that. The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was whether changes would apply to those under 18. The extension in this order will affect young people only when the relevant provisions in the 2003 Act for drug testing those aged 14 and over are brought into effect. They will have to be commenced, and notification will have to be given to the chief officers of police concerned. I was asked for the figures on the number of tests and breaches. I cannot answer that standing at the Dispatch Box today. If figures are available in a form that will help the noble Lord, I will ensure that those are sent to him and I will put a copy in the Library.

I hope that I have dealt with the points that have been raised. On that basis, I invite the House to approve the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.