I beg to move amendment No. 915, in

schedule 17, page 230, line 41, at end insert,

'and

(c) that his dependency upon, or propensity to misuse, drugs is related to his offending behaviour, such that it is relevant and proportionate for the court to require treatment, and

(d) that the option of voluntary treatment provided concurrent to the order would be unsatisfactory'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 916, in

schedule 17, page 232, line 11, at end insert,

'and

(c) that his dependency upon, or propensity to misuse, drugs is related to his offending behaviour, such that it is relevant and proportionate for the court to require treatment, and

(d) that the option of voluntary treatment provided concurrent to the order would be unsatisfactory'.

The schedule is linked to clause 243. It would give the courts power to include drug treatment and testing in certain orders in respect of young offenders. It raises an issue that we have touched upon before, which is when is it appropriate for young people, particularly 14 to 17-year-olds and, in theory, those who are even younger, to be subject to a formal drug treatment and testing order? The children's organisations and societies quite reasonably express concern about this.

The amendment would allow the power to be used only if alternatives of voluntary treatment had been considered and rejected for good reason. At present, the power is proposed to be available where a court proposing to make an action plan is satisfied that the offender is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse of drugs, and that his dependency or propensity is such as to require and be susceptible to treatment. If the amendment were agreed to, the dependency on or propensity to misuse of drugs would be related to the

offending behaviour. We must ensure that we do not send youngsters for compulsory drug treatment and testing if their offence is unrelated to drug addiction. There may be perfectly good reasons for treating their drug addiction but making them subject to a court order, if is unrelated to the offence, may not be helpful at all.

Any such order should be relevant and proportionate to the offence. If the offence was breaking a window, nicking some apples off a tree or some sweets from a sweetshop, it might not be proportionate to send the offender through a great regime of drug treatment and testing. Secondly such an order could come into play only if the option of voluntary treatment provided concurrently to the order would be unsatisfactory. If it were known through the social inquiry report that the youngster had had contact with solvents and might have a solvent abuse concern, there might well be an argument for dealing with it. However, voluntary regimes might be able to do that.

Youngsters of 14 to 17 often breach orders to which they are made subject. That is not necessarily intentional; it could be natural adolescent indiscipline. They might not turn up. They might be persuaded to go off with their mates instead of turning up at the health centre, the doctor's surgery, the clinic, the school education welfare office or the local family centre. That would bring down on their heads all the sanctions that result from breaching an order.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

The Children's Society has provided a strong argument in support of writing the qualifications into the schedule, and I think that the Committee should heed it. It states:

''The Children's Society believes that any compulsory medical or psychological treatment by court order should be taken as a very serious prospect, and recognised as one that incurs many civil and children's rights issues. We are concerned in principle at the prospect of children being compelled, on pain of the criminal offence of breaching a court order, to undergo the treatment they need. We recognise, however, that these are measures to which the Government and many others have a strong commitment . . . We are therefore deeply concerned that the provisions contained in Schedule 17 do not include safeguards to ensure that the very serious step of using court compulsion to treatment would only be used where absolutely necessary, and where voluntary options had already been considered and tried.

We are also concerned that, for a court to compel drug treatment as part of a sentence there ought to be good reason for that treatment to form part of the disposal for their offence. The inclusion of treatment in the order should not merely be justified simply because the child needs it and would benefit from it. For example, a child suffering badly from asthma may both need and benefit from regular medical attention during the course of their sentence, however it would not be considered something appropriate to require within their sentence, on pain of breach for failure to comply. For this reason, we believe that the link between the individual child's drug use and the offence(s) for which they have been convicted, should be demonstrated to the court in order to warrant the inclusion of treatment requirements.''

That is a strong argument. There should be a clear link between the drug problem or addiction, if there is

one, and the offence. There should be a clear view that there is no alternative way to deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.

If a young offender has a dependency on or a propensity to misuse drugs, it is important for the courts to have the option to include a treatment requirement in an action plan order or supervision order, regardless of whether that dependency or propensity is specifically related to the offence.

We are all aware of the evidence, which we have debated at length, of the link between illegal drug use and offending. Although not all drug users go on to commit crimes related to their drug use, it is important to take every opportunity—particularly in the age group in question—to identify and deal with, as early as possible, dependency on and propensity to misuse drugs. The point is to do it early, to minimise the chance that the young person will become a persistent drug user with a life of persistent crime.

I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that the court would include a treatment requirement in the orders if it was satisfied that that would be a relevant and proportionate intervention. That test is very important. As to voluntary drug treatment running concurrently with an order, it is open to any misuser of drugs—anyone with a problem—to seek voluntary treatment at any time. If the offender has done so and the courts are made aware of it, they can take it into account in considering whether it is appropriate to include a treatment requirement in an order.

The purpose of the schedule is to allow treatment to be included as a component of a community sentence. If an offender consents to treatment as part of an order but subsequently drops out or withdraws his or her consent, that would be taken into account in deciding how best to deal with them in the light of the continuing aim to help tackle drug-using behaviour. If the treatment were solely voluntary, the offender would have less of an incentive to continue it. If he or she dropped out after the making of an order, the court could not subsequently make provision for effectively addressing the drug-using behaviour.

Finally, I turn to the hon. Gentleman's question about breaches. The guidance will deal with it and will certainly not propose a policy of ''one breach and you're out''. We all know the difficulties of dealing with this sort of problem, particularly for young people. The underlying aim is to help young people out of their drug problems. Youth offending teams and the specialist drug workers who support them are well used to dealing with young people who have multiple problems, including drug misuse, and will make every effort to encourage and support them through the process. The guidance to the courts and the youth offending teams will make it clear that breach action should be undertaken only as the last resort. The purpose is not to deal with a breach, but to help young offenders out of the drug problems that have a grip on them.

I am reassured by the Minister's closing remarks that no assumption of automatic

breach leading to sanctions will apply. The people who work with youngsters understand that, too. I recognise that the Government have a general public policy interest in dealing with youth offending and drug abuse. I hear what the Minister says about his presumption for voluntary rather than compulsory provision.

The one unsatisfactory aspect of what the Minister said applies to my examples of sweet-nicking, apple-nicking or pane-of-glass-breaking—small offences that may be committed by someone who, as a juvenile, might have had a recurrent history of sampling solvents or drug abuse. The Minister seems to endorse taking the opportunity of a youngster appearing in court to place him or her in some sort of compulsory regime. That is a draconian step that may be appropriate only as a last resort, but more often than not it is unwise for people of such ages because kids customarily respond better to something that they are working with rather than against. The danger of imposing an order is that it is perceived to be unfair by the youngster because it has nothing to do with his offence. That amounts to a serious objection.

I shall not press the amendment to a vote. People reading our proceedings and others will deliberate further on the appropriate triggers for intervention. Imposing orders on young people is a sensitive issue, to which we shall doubtless return later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 911, in

schedule 17, page 231, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'unless' in line 26.

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

No. 912, in

schedule 17, page 231, line 26, after 'he', insert

'has indicated his willingness to comply with treatment, and the appropriate consent to treatment has been obtained'.

No. 913, in

schedule 17, page 232, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'unless' in line 26.

No. 914, in

schedule 17, page 232, line 39, after 'he', insert

'has indicated his willingness to comply with treatment, and the appropriate consent to treatment has been obtained'.

This group of amendments deals with the willingness of the person in question to comply with—effectively to consent to—the treatment. Subsection (4D)(b) requires consent

''in the case of an order made or to be made in respect of a person aged 14 or over''.

I would apply that requirement for consent to youngsters in general. I am conscious that we have debated who consents for whom, at what stage a parent consents, and whether, if a parent or guardian is not available and no consent is given, an order can still be made against the youngster.

The amendments reflect the concerns that have been expressed to me by organisations concerned with the welfare of children, as well as reflecting my own, that we should try in every circumstance to obtain the consent of the young person. Whether somebody is aged 13 or 15, the precondition for the success of any such treatment is that the young person has agreed to be a partner in it. Crossing the line to something that does not have consent, and is thus seen to be coercive, may create a difficulty in that it would produce a counter reaction from the youngster. Gaining consent has the extra advantage of the youngster's understanding that there might be a sanction for the breach of the order. He would accept that sanction more readily than if he had not agreed to the order and did not consider it justified.

We have discussed what constitutes consent to that age group. Do we mean consent by the youngster, or consent exercised on his behalf? If the person is in care, should the local care worker or the foster parent give consent? Can the Minister elaborate on that? These are probing amendments, designed to ensure that we do not start marking up young people as the subject of orders.

My last question is to do with the criminal record. If a youngster breaks the window or nicks the apples and ends up in court where he receives a drug treatment and testing order by virtue of the court order, how long will that remain on his record? Can he at any stage seek to remove it? In what circumstances can it not be erased under the rehabilitation of offenders process?

In court, criminal records follow people, even though they might not apply in the civil world. My concern is that, as youngsters go through all sorts of adolescent difficulties, it is perfectly proper for them to be subject to social inquiry reports and, later, to probation reports. Such orders are less proper for criminal records for adults. It might be wrong to record a problem that had nothing to do with the offence, because that might prejudice a later sentencer should the individual commit an offence that indeed has to do with drugs or alcohol. Will the Minister say how far such records once on the books will inescapably follow the individual into adult life?

I am not sure what answer the Criminal Records Bureau would offer, but I am happy to undertake to find out and to write to the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising the difficult issue of consent, and I recognise the probing nature of the amendments. Under the schedule, consent simply to the attachment of a treatment requirement to the order is required—not consent to the treatment itself. For example, if a medical intervention is proposed as part of the treatment order, that would require consent. Therefore, giving consent to the treatment requirement in general does not presuppose consent to the individual elements, such as the medical ones that I mentioned.

Having reflected on the matter, we feel that it is sensible to require the consent of those aged 14 and above to the inclusion of a treatment requirement, not least for the simple reason that those young people should be engaged in the decision-making process as

actively as possible. If they have given their consent, the likelihood that they will wish to participate increases, because they have put something into the process. All the lessons demonstrate that an individual's positive engagement in compliance will increase the chances of a successful process. Without that compliance and engagement, the process is likely to be less successful, for obvious reasons. One must make a judgment on where the cut-off point should be. Offenders over the age of 14 are much more likely than younger offenders to be able to understand what it means to be asked to give consent.

The issue of offenders preferring to give consent does not have any evidence base, and I hesitate to ask for the Minister's. Offenders who have a drug addiction will, by their nature, already be voluntarily attempting to get off that drug. Offenders have repeatedly made the point to me that the nature of the coercion and the rigour is precisely why DTTOs are popular with them. They demand DTTOs in the same way that later in life they demand prison, because if they could get off, say, heroin voluntarily, they would already be doing so. The coercive nature—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is intervening; he is not making a speech. Interventions should be brief.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. He refers to DTTOs for the most difficult group of offenders, the early signs of which are encouraging. That does not take away from my general point—it is no more than that—that it is better if one has someone's consent to take part in a process than if one does not. I would not put the point any stronger than that, in responding to the request for a large body of evidence to support that supposition.

I was just saying that not all 10 to 13-year-olds will be mature enough to understand the implications of consenting to the inclusion of a treatment provision in the order. In those circumstances—one must draw the line somewhere—it is for the court to determine the maturity of the child and to consider both the child's and the parents' response to the inclusion of the treatment provision. The schedule as drafted provides for the willingness to comply with treatment. Without such willingness, there would be no consent to the inclusion of a treatment requirement in the order. The individual carrying out the treatment would, when necessary, require the individual consent to the treatment to be provided. The precise form of the treatment will not be prescribed in the requirement, so that the treatment regime can be amended to take account of all factors, including those that might arise after the making of the requirement.

Again the Minister is in part reassuring. This is a debate in which it is helpful to know that the policy is that there will be consent. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made, which is that there are occasions on which youngsters need coercion or encouragement rather than just their voluntary agreement. In my experience it is more often the families of people with drug problems who say, ''I wish they could be locked up, because in that way there is a

chance that they will get rid of the supply for their habit.'' That also presumes that if someone is locked up the drugs will not be available. In fact, the prison authorities are now getting better at keeping drugs out of prison.

I do not wish to divide the Committee. The amendments are about how we deal with young people who may have a drugs problem and may need help as well as punishment. We can return to the discussion later, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 917, in

schedule 17, page 231, line 27, leave out subsections (4E) to (4G).

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 918, in

schedule 17, page 232, line 40, leave out subsections (5) to (8).

The Government Whip may be delighted to know that these are the last amendments from our Benches this afternoon.

This is the third set of amendments to the schedule and relate to another aspect of treatment: the action plan and supervision orders. If anyone does a degree in social work after this, I assume they will have to know what all the different variants on the theme are, and what can be asked for, recommended or received. I hope that we manage to get fewer titles of orders rather than a whole range of things.

It seems to me that the courts often—the hon. Member for Woking will know more about this than I do—have to spend a huge amount of time working out which of many options are available, only to find that in many parts of the country they are not available.

The amendments are primarily probing amendments. We suggest that it is not necessary to have the additional testing requirements under this type of authority when a treatment requirement has already been decided on. The Children's Society and others have put arguments against those additional requirements. The Children's Society believes that

''these requirements are entirely unnecessary, given that drug testing, where it is believed by professionals to be necessary as part of treatment monitoring, could already be detailed within a treatment plan under the treatment requirement.''

That seems to me to be logical and intelligible. The schedule seems to be creating a whole additional provision to do something that can already be done. What does this provision allow for that is not provided for by other routes?

Moreover, am I right in believing that failure to comply with the suggested provision would result in the potential for breach and its ensuing consequences? What is the implication for the future record of the young person of receiving this sort of order? How long will it remain on a young person's record—will they be lumbered with it for the rest of their lives?

The addition of testing requirements to the treatment order suggests that the courts would keep on adding additional qualifications and requirements

to the sanctions that they apply to the young person—the society refers to ratcheting up the response to the offence. The more conditions there are, the more likely a breach will be. If there are six conditions, there will, by definition, be six opportunities for a breach.

Will the court always ensure that the order is proportionate to the offence and the need? I am troubled by the fact that there is nothing in the Bill to make it proportionate to the offence, and the Minister effectively confirmed that. The offence could be very minor, but a whole series of orders and requirements could be imposed. The youngster could be assessed as needing them, even though he had barely been in trouble with the law.

That raises another problem. The more a youngster feels—to use a phrase from elsewhere—cabined, cribbed, confined and hemmed in by restrictions, the more unlikely he is to comply. As the Minister said, a voluntary agreement, which has the youngster's consent, is far more likely to command confidence than something that is imposed.

Can the Minister give us a ball-park figure for the number of magistrates courts that would be able to make such orders because treatment facilities exist in their jurisdiction? The National Audit Office and the Audit Commission produced their report on drug treatment services in the middle of last year, and it revealed what all of us knew—that drug treatment is as much of a lottery as much other health treatment. The possibility of making orders is therefore entirely conditional on whether there is treatment and a vacancy in that part of the world. It is no good telling youngsters what one often tells adults—that they need treating, but that they must come back in nine months. A 14-year-old who needs treatment is an entirely different creature from a 15-year-old who returns after nine months, having moved on hugely through life experience. What information do we have about the availability of such services?

When courts consider such matters, as juvenile courts often do, how up-to-date is their information? The courts will do the best they can, and magistrates and district judges will have inquiries made. It may take a while, but they will wait for the social inquiry report and talk to a probation officer, if there is one. Often, however, the answer that comes back from those involved is, ''We may be able to get someone in here, and there may be a place there. We're not sure.'' Cannot the necessary data be computerised? I have never understood why we cannot make such data available in this day and age. Data about residential, non-residential, site-specific, voluntary, compulsory, hospital, health centre or voluntary sector facilities for young and old people could be made available day to day and updated so that we know what capacity there is. Juvenile courts spend a huge amount of time trying to find appropriate treatment, and the famous IT systems in the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office could come to the rescue if they are up to the job, although they have not been so far.

May I deal first with the availability of treatment? As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed,

new subsection (4D) acknowledges his point. We dealt with the issue earlier, and it clearly makes no sense to operate the policy if appropriate treatment arrangements are not available to the courts. That is taken as read.

The schedule allows a testing requirement to be included in an action plan order or supervision order in respect of offenders aged 14 or above. That mirrors the testing provisions in section 53 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 on drug treatment and testing orders.

Moreover, that is wholly consistent with the provision in clause 10 to test those aged 14 and over in police custody; the provision in clause 145 to test them pre-sentence; and the provision in clause 239 to test them after they have been released on licence. Those clauses have already been ordered to stand part of the Bill. The reason for testing to be included in an action plan order or a supervision order is the same as for those other circumstances: it is important to be able to identify whether an offender has used illegal drugs, so that every assistance can be given to help him deal with his drug use. Although the requirement allows for testing for any drug, tests will in practice focus on identifying class A drug use, as happens at present with drug treatment and testing orders. We all understand why that should be the case.

To allow a testing requirement to be included assists the responsible officer or treatment provider to ascertain whether the offender is receiving effective treatment. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that a testing requirement has not been included for offenders aged 10 to 13 years, because their drug use tends to relate to drugs other than class A drugs.

The treatment will be made available through local drug action teams. They are charged with developing substance misuse plans for young people as part of their focus on the most vulnerable. We have been round the houses on that argument: if we think that it is sensible to give help and support to youngsters who are in the grip of drugs, it is appropriate, at the different stages of the process, to make provision for testing in order to be able to see whether the programme is working. We should view the schedule in that modest but important light.

I understand what the Minister says. Can he deal with my question about the availability of information to the court? I understand that that information must be available in the area. However, there is a practical problem. Is there a way in which that information could be correlated? Are there plans for a streamlining of information in a way that would be readily accessible?

I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Another promise of another missive. I shall add it to the stack that makes up the ancillary documents for this Committee. All are gratefully received.

Or the hon. Gentleman could ask a parliamentary question.

Indeed.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Seventeenth schedule to the Bill.

Unfortunately, I was unable to comment last week on the issue of drugs testing. It is slightly unfortunate that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey used the orchard analogy, because there are many orchards in my constituency. I assure him that scrumping of apples is not the problem when it comes to offenders—including new offenders—with a class A drug addiction.

Young people with a heroin addiction overwhelmingly believe that coercion is required. Time after time, I speak to people who say that if they could get off heroin they would do so of their own volition. Heroin is a loser's drug. It is an addictive opiate. Indeed, those people's attitude contrasts with those on crack cocaine, whose users' general experience is that they enjoy being on it. They certainly enjoy some of the edge that goes with the addiction. Only a small number of heroin addicts are comfortable, cosy and happy to be on heroin. They seem to be the slightly older, or sometimes much older, addicts rather than the younger addicts who suddenly find themselves addicted after experimenting. The nature of coercion is essential in terms of treatment. Even a country allegedly as liberal on drugs as the Netherlands sees coercion as the model when it comes to drugs testing and treatment. The people who have been the proponents of cannabis cafés are also the greatest advocates of coercion in relation to class A drugs. I make no comment on the cannabis debate, but that observation on class A drugs is interesting and vital if we are to get on top of the problem.

My other points relate to new subsections (4C) and (4D). In line 9 in new subsection (4C), the word ''at'' is used. I referred to that word earlier in our proceedings—it says much about how we see drugs treatment. The word in my mind, which I hope the Minister will reflect on in coming days, is ''by''. The concept of having to go somewhere for drugs treatment lends itself to the drugs treatment being in the secondary, rather than the primary health care sector. Again, however, there is overwhelming evidence from France, the Netherlands and Sweden that intervention through the primary health care sector is fundamental to tackling the drugs problem.

I will not elaborate on that point, because I have today tabled another 20 written questions to the Home Office on precisely this issue, so that people can contemplate it. However, the fact that GPs are not expected or, often—including in my area—encouraged or allowed to get involved in the treatment of drug offenders is totally nonsensical. There is no evidence base anywhere to suggest that such involvement is a worse option, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is far more effective.

I return to what I have crudely, and perhaps wrongly, described as the probation-led nature of drugs treatment in this country. The Home Office's perception of drugs treatment is wholly wrong. One

cannot go to some distant establishment and be treated and cured. That is not in the nature of heroin addiction. However, four key forms of treatment could be given. One is methadone maintenance, which is used in the Netherlands. That does not cure people, but stabilises them. The second form of treatment is psychotherapy, which tends to be residential. The other two forms of treatment are buprenorphine and naltrexone. There is evidence from France and Portugal about their effectiveness, but they are not offered.

New subsection (4D)(a)(i) refers to treatment only where ''arrangements . . . can be made''. Well, arrangements can be made if GPs are allowed to get involved in treatment. With the Blackpool Tower project, there was a 40 per cent. reduction in crime within six months. That was achieved with a single GP using only one of the four forms of treatment and dealing with everyone who was arrested. That pilot is working. The same principle has been applied in the Netherlands for 30 years and has worked there. Heroin addicts in the Netherlands are not involved very much in crime, whereas heroin addicts are responsible for the vast majority of crime in some of our communities.

To build into the legislation a get-out clause that gives rise to the feeling that treatment is not and cannot be available is not right. It is not more money that is needed in treatment services. The money that is there needs to be spent effectively. The Home Office needs to wake up to that.

As my hon. Friend has mentioned the Blackpool Tower project, will he accept that a key reason why the project has been so successful is that it involves joint working between the police, the health service and voluntary organisations in a non-threatening environment that gives people the support they need?

I endorse what my hon. Friend says. In Blackpool, treatment takes place within 24 hours. What is the difference between Blackpool and the rest of the United Kingdom? If treatment can be provided in Blackpool in 24 hours, by one GP, why cannot that happen in the rest of the country? The answer is that it can. We need a rethink of how we perceive treatment as part of our drugs strategy.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clause 244 ordered to stand part of the Bill.