CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (DRUG DETECTION POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: This bill was put into committee on Tuesday. The minister approached me. I had already indicated, via my office, that I would speak to it today, but for some unknown reason he wanted to get it into committee.

I do want to put on record my concern about this as a process because I note, for instance, that the Hon. Mark Parnell made his second reading speech and immediately the minister responded, but he responded only to the comments that the Hon. Mr Ridgway had made a couple of weeks earlier. So it means that this process does not allow, for instance, for the Hon. Mr Parnell's comments to be responded to with any degree of research. And, for that matter, it also means that the minister is not going to be able to get back with a response that has any degree of research involved in it to any comments I make. He might be able to do it off-the-cuff, but it does concern me because I have not understood what the sense of urgency is.

Effectively, from the point at which the bill was introduced to the day it was put into committee I think was either five or six sitting days and there has not been an argument given for this sort of urgency.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It has taken two years to get here.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I appreciate that the Hon. Mr Lucas thinks this should have been here earlier, and I know this has been one of his crusades, but I do not agree with him. In fact, I think that we now have a situation in South Australia where the government is whipping up public fervour again and again so that we can get ever-greater police powers, and that is now what is driving public policy in this state.

I briefly remind members of the sorts of laws that are passing through the council. First, there is secret evidence, now called 'criminal intelligence', which is the backbone of a number of bills; secondly, we have the ability to outlaw groups and pursue their members, even if they have not been found to break any laws; thirdly, we have guilt by association, where you can go to gaol for five years just for associating with someone who is subject to a control order; and, fourthly, as I will mention when we are dealing with the firearms bill, we now have another new form of guilt, which is guilt by proximity.

I object to all these developments because they are undermining some of our basic values, and I believe that this and other pieces of legislation are eroding our culture of freedom. That may be the right to peaceful assembly or the right to freedom of association. We are changing from a society where governments have previously had to justify their intrusions on our rights to a point where it is now the other way around, and it seems that everyone could be under suspicion.

It is important to stress that principles such as freedom, due process and transparency are not abstract academic ideals; they are the distilled wisdom of centuries of experience by practical revolutionaries and nation-builders. The ideals of freedom, transparency and due process were forged by people who lived through the English, French and American revolutions. They often saw their societies under threat but still retained a commitment to freedom and due process. I believe this government's rush to play on our fears and diminish our freedoms is culpable, and the willingness of elected members of both the major parties (and some of the minor parties) to surrender these freedoms which have been fought for so hard really verges on the cowardly.

My second objection to this sort of legislation is that we have no evidence that it makes us any safer. The government has still not made a case for the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill, for instance; it has not demonstrated to us that serious and organised crime is increasing, that bikie gangs are a growing part of the problem, or that the measures it is proposing will work.

In relation to the specific legislation, I note that in the minister's explanation he said, 'In preparing the legislation the government has drawn on the experience from the trials conducted in New South Wales.' Well, if the government is indeed drawing on that experience it would not be introducing this bill, and the Hon. Mark Parnell referred to that on Tuesday in his speech when he referred to the report from the New South Wales Ombudsman regarding that state's legislation, the Controlled Substances (Drug Detection Powers) Amendment Bill. Let us look at what that report said. It said that 99 per cent of people tested did not have drugs, and that there were only 19 successful prosecutions out of about 10,000 incidents where dogs stood passively by someone to indicate that the person had drugs.

There was also no evidence that the use of drug detection dogs disrupted low-level street dealing. Unfortunately, the dogs can deter people from using needle exchanges or cause people to bolt down their drugs to avoid detection, and I have previously argued against these dogs being used in relation to the Big Day Out for precisely that reason: that young people, if they see a dog coming, will take all the drugs they have on them at the one time. So, rather than reducing harm we increase harm.

Another of the problems in the New South Wales' situation (and I do not see why the dogs in South Australia will be different) is that the dogs pick out people who are carrying prescription drugs—much to their embarrassment. As the Hon. Mark Parnell pointed out yesterday, Sudafed (which is a precursor for amphetamines) is something that many people use. As he said, he has it in a drawer of his desk here—and by having something there for bad hay fever, he is hardly someone who is dealing in drugs.

The Ombudsman said that in New South Wales these powers cause humiliation and embarrassment because people are sniffed and possibly searched in public—and the dogs got it wrong 74 per cent of the time! And we are to unleash this technology in South Australia! We would not allow a doctor to operate if he got things wrong 74 per cent of the time. I found another example, although it was not in New South Wales or even Australia. In the US, the Nine Mile Falls School District uses sniffer dogs to search its middle and high school students. The American Civil Liberties Union took that to court to stop that. In that particular case, the dogs were getting it wrong 85 per cent of the time. So, this sounds to me to be an extremely bad form of technology to try to get a right answer.

Where the dogs do get it wrong, it is interesting to see the impact. Yesterday, the Hon. Mark Parnell talked about the embarrassment this would cause to people—and remember that 74 per cent of the people who were detected by these dogs did not have drugs.

The following are some of the comments made by some of these innocent people who were held up by these dogs. The first is from a health education officer who specialises in drug and alcohol problems. He was searched at 11 o'clock at night in King Street, Newtown and, of course, nothing was found. His complaint states:

This action ruined my night. I felt intimidation and embarrassment in front of strangers and friends, as well as people I work with or who work with organisations which dealt with my workplace. The personal cost to my reputation and the trauma of such a severely intimidating and unjustified interruption to the simple pleasure of enjoying an evening out relaxing from work and socialising led me to feel this action was completely unwarranted in the circumstances.

I am really disturbed that the Hon. Paul Holloway is reading something else while I am putting this on the record. This is legislation that is based on New South Wales legislation where the drug dogs got it wrong 74 per cent of the time and where people were innocently held up and searched as a consequence. He ought to be listening carefully. The health education officer continues:

They took me outside and asked me to step over to the wall and raise my arms and they then patted down my body and went through my wallet and asked me to empty all my pockets. All those inside the moderately filled venue, along with the staff, watched me led outside. After the search was over and nothing was found, I returned to the bar and was refused service.

Members should think about that. Here we have a health education officer working in the drug and alcohol area and, for this period of time, looking as if he is actually someone who used the same substances he was apparently working to stop other people using. Imagine the impact on his reputation. The second one was a laboratory manager from an electronics R&D company who was searched at 8.30pm at Blacktown station while returning from work. They said:

All this took place on the main concourse of the station, in full view of other people using the station. I felt extremely embarrassed by the whole incident. I do not accept [sniffer dogs] can be used to randomly identify persons, who are innocently going about their business, as possible felons. I asked what if I refused to turn out my pockets or allow the officers to search my briefcase. The reply was that I would have been arrested for suspected possession of drugs. I consider this to be a violation of my basic human right to be able to go about my affairs, unmolested.

But it seems that here in South Australia we do not think that that is a basic human right. We are going to allow somewhere between 75 and 86 per cent of people to be innocently apprehended and searched as if they were criminals. A father of a 15 year old girl searched at Eastwood station lodged a complaint. He said:

My girl was shocked and embarrassed in public, in front of her school friends. I believe that any measure of public benefit is far outweighed by the oppressive police state atmosphere created by the warrantless searches.

Another parent of a 15 year old who was approached but not searched by police at Hornsby station after school, said:

My 14 year old was harassed and threatened with fines 2 days in a row by members of the police force who were present in intimidating numbers with sniffer dogs, for what appeared to be nothing more than talking to friends in a stationary position. She was informed that she was 'obstructing' before being threatened with a fine if she did not move.

My daughter has been profoundly affected by her experience and now has a totally different perception of the police, the law, and the state we live in.

Again, I remind members that when he was introducing the bill the minister said that the government has drawn on the experiences of the New South Wales legislation.

A man who was drinking with two managers from work and who was searched at a bar in Surrey Hills stated:

He (the police) returned my bag saying he thinks I have used it to carry marijuana. This is absolute rubbish! He said he was suspicious of me and took my name and address.

I felt totally humiliated in front of my managers and the onlookers in the pub.

I cannot believe I was treated like a criminal just because a dog decides it likes me.

My managers now suspect that I deal or take drugs, and I am too embarrassed to return [to that hotel].

Imagine what the impact will be for that person back in the workplace when these dogs get it wrong 74 per cent of the time. A visiting DJ at the Berlin Nightclub was searched while he was in the DJ booth, and nothing was found. He states:

I was told I was quarantined from the DJ booth and that I would have to be searched before I could do anything. This caused great dilemma to the club.

I asked the police could they talk to me in the back room or something of that nature. She (the police) ignored me and continued with the search.

I did not appreciate being harassed by them in the club, especially in the VIP section where everyone could see me.

While talking to me, he was flashing his flashlight in my eyes. As he did that, I asked him many times to move the light from my eyes. He said he could not see me.

Since they did not find anything on me they told me they would be back.

In the end, I felt alienated due to the fact that I was the only person in the club who got searched and, ironically, I was the only black person in the club that night.

The final two sentences of the report summary of the New South Wales Ombudsman's report state:

These findings have led us to question whether the Drug Dogs Act will ever provide a fair, efficacious and cost-effective tool to target drug supply. Given this, we have recommended that the starting point when considering this report is to review whether the Drug Dogs Act should be retained at all.

And here we have legislation that is based on this, when the New South Wales Ombudsman is questioning whether or not the legislation should even be allowed to exist.

The Hon. Mark Parnell said that he intends to amend the legislation to give the Police Complaints Authority the role of scrutinising the exercise of powers under the bill. I intend to go much further. I hope to have those amendments on file before the end of the afternoon so that others can look at them. One question that I would like to ask the minister, given that the bill targets what it, I think, calls drug transit routes (or something of that nature) is whether or not the road transport industry has been consulted by the government in the preparation of this legislation.

I indicate to members that the amendments that I will move are taken from the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2005. That might sound surprising. Given that that act is there to deal with suicide bombers and terrorists, I am taking this course of action because the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act has greater protection for people's civil liberties and their dignity than exists in this bill before us.

Before anyone from either the government or the opposition attempts to suggest that the amendments that I will be tabling are an indication that I am soft on crime, be assured that they are coming from a very powerful piece of legislation. I indicate my outright opposition to this bill. It is unfortunate that I am making this speech on clause 1; otherwise, I would have been calling for a division on the second reading.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I should at least make some comments in view of what the Hon. Sandra Kanck said.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: It's shameless.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: She is still going on, saying how shameless it is. How extraordinary from someone who is saying that we should have an ICAC. This is a body which can tap phones, with someone who is totally unaccountable to anybody—not an elected official—not someone like the Police Commissioner who is subject to checks and balances.

She wants an ICAC that can tap phones and do all sorts of damage to people, as we have seen before, yet she talks about civil liberties because a dog sits still next to someone. A person can then be searched and, if they do not have drugs on them at the time (incidentally, it does not necessarily mean that they have not had drugs on them before), of course that is the end of the matter.

What is the difference between that and going through an airport and being picked out at random to be checked for explosives? Does that mean that you should feel guilty that somehow or other you are carrying explosives? I am sure that all of us at one time or another have been through an airport and have been randomly selected for an explosives check. Why should that make us greatly worried? From my point of view, it makes me feel a lot more secure that, when I travel on an aircraft, action has been taken, through random checks (you cannot check everybody), to do what can be done to ensure that travel is as safe as possible.

So, when the honourable member says that dogs get it wrong 74 per cent of the time, I think that that really does not tell the whole story. The Hon. Sandra Kanck talked about someone who may have worked as a person dealing with drug dealers. Clearly, these dogs have a very strong sense of smell, and it could well be that some of those odours remain. All this power seeks to do is allow people to be searched if the dogs detect an odour. If the person does not have drugs on them, that is the end of the matter. It is the same as all other random checks.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: Except that the person is humiliated and embarrassed.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Does the honourable member feel humiliated and embarrassed if she is picked out for an explosives check at the airport?

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: I feel angered every time it happens, actually.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, I have to differ with the honourable member. I am happy that we have these checks, particularly given the high risk at times. I think it is good that we have these random checks, which must (in the case of airport checks) act as a deterrent to people carrying explosives. However, in relation to these drug dogs, people should have the knowledge that, if they are not in possession of drugs, they have nothing to fear. I agree with the honourable member that these dogs ought to be used intelligently by the police, and I am sure that they will be. At the right sorts of venues, I think that they will act as a deterrent.

The honourable member talked about intimidation. Yesterday, she was the person who asked me about the Gypsy Jokers, suggesting that the police were intimidating these poor old Gypsy Jokers. If you have ever seen one of these motorcycle runs, when hundreds of motorcycles go through red lights, ignore traffic and do that sort of thing, I think a lot of people would find that intimidating. However, apparently Sandra Kanck thinks that that is police harassment, but she is concerned about these dogs that simply sit down and wag their tail if they detect the smell of drugs nearby.

People are presumed innocent in the sense that they must actually have drugs on them. The dog smelling and stopping might give the police relevant legal cause to check the person, but it does not of itself lead to a conviction—nor should it.

Another matter raised by the Hon. Sandra Kanck related to transit routes. I know that police have regular contact with transport operators. However, in relation to this bill, I will answer that question specifically when we get to it. I know that, from time to time, the police discuss with transport operators the matter of drug carrying in particular.

They are obviously significant issues, but I do not know that the existence of these dogs really changes the situation much. I do not see how in any way it profoundly changes the issues in relation to drugs being used by long distance operators other than what already happens. I would have thought that the use of these dogs in such situations would be a fairly marginal increase in the activities that police employ, but I will get a specific response this week. I understand that the Hon. Sandra Kanck is preparing amendments, so I guess we will have no option but to adjourn the debate at this stage and come back to it at some other time.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just before the leader reports progress, I want to make some brief comments because the minister responded at the end of the second reading to some of the issues I raised, and we will be able to pursue some of those under the respective clauses. Given the comments of the Hon. Sandra Kanck, I wanted to urge the minister to take advantage of the time between now and when we sit next to clarify a number of issues.

One of the questions I raised was the issue of whether or not the passive alert drug detection dogs (sniffer dogs) would be able to operate within schools, TAFE colleges and tertiary institutions. I advise those members interested in this issue to look at the Hansard response from the minister. In essence, it would appear that the minister's advice is: in a number of respects the answer would be yes, and in other respects it might be no, but it is not entirely clear. Certainly, it hinges on whether or not it is a public place and whether or not there is free access of the public to those areas. It would appear to be the government's advice that, if one looks at the University of Adelaide campus, for example, where there is free and public access to most of the open areas, that would be deemed to be a public place and the passive alert drug detection dogs could be freely able to canvass drug detection issues on our university campuses here in South Australia. Similarly, I would think on the basis of that advice it would apply to our TAFE institutes or colleges.

I think the interesting issue is then in relation to buildings on the university campuses. I suspect it is unlikely that the administration of the university would ask the police to enter particular buildings, but an interesting question would be to consider what might be the case at the various indoor venues on university campuses where concerts are held or entertainment venues on the university campus, such as the old uni refec or the various other sections of the respective university campuses. I think that is one issue that ought to be clarified.

Moving on to the more vexed area of schools, the advice seems to be more complicated. The advice seems to be that certainly there is public access to most school grounds at various hours through the day—perhaps not during school hours, but certainly after hours and on weekends—and it is possible (maybe probable; I am not sure) that that would be deemed to be a public place and, therefore, the sniffer dogs could be used. The more interesting and important question is: if a school, with the agreement of the school administrators, asked for the use of the sniffer dogs—and this might be a non-government school, because it may well be the government has a policy that will not allow drug sniffer dogs within government schools—would these dogs under this legislation be able to be used within school buildings?

I do not think that this chamber ought to allow the passage of the legislation until we have definitive legal advice from the government on what this bill means. As the minister will know, I will be the last person in the world acting to delay the passage of the legislation, but, if this legislation passes in the form that it is, sooner or later someone will test the legislation and there will need to be crown law advice on what the law actually means. I am saying to the Minister for Police that, at this stage, he ought to be pro-active (to use that terrible word) and say, 'Okay, crown law, if this legislation passes in the way it is and someone comes to me or someone else—one of the schools or whatever—and says, "We want to use these dogs within school buildings and school lockers", does it or does it not permit it?'

There ought to be an answer to that because the issue of the use of sniffer dogs in schools has been around for 20 years. As minister for education I personally supported the use of sniffer dogs in schools, if the school administrator wanted it, but crown law at the time expressed concerns about the current state of the legislation and whether or not it would be supported. Subsequently, other ministers and other chief executives have not been supportive of the use of sniffer dogs within schools. It is an ongoing issue. Other members in this chamber have pieces of legislation that cross over in relation to drug detection in schools—not necessarily by sniffer dogs but through other means—but detecting the presence of drugs within schools is a live issue.

It is imperative that the Minister for Police, who is responsible for the legislation, ought to be able to say to this committee when we come back in two weeks that he has sought crown law advice and this is it: if the legislation passes in this form it will not be allowed or it will be allowed in relation to the use within the circumstances that I have outlined. I will not delay the committee for much longer, other than to say that, over the past couple of years, the minister and I have been engaged in an ongoing battle over this matter. The minister and I vigorously disagree in relation to the reasons for his tardiness. He understands my view and I understand his, but we disagree.

All I can say is that I did put a question to the minister, asking him when he was first advised. I advise members that the minister has not responded. He refers to when he received his first written advice, which was in February 2007, but that is the minister's clever way of not answering the question. He knows and I know that he was advised verbally well prior to that. He has not responded to that. If he wants to respond to that when he comes back, then I invite him to do so. He cleverly slips through the side door, if I can put it that way. He talked about when he receives his first written advice, which he says was in February 2007. This minister knew much earlier than that. He knew in or around the middle of 2006 that the legislation needed to be changed, because he received advice from various persons within SAPOL that that would be required.

As I said, the minister does not agree with my position and, at this stage, it is largely academic, other than, if my view is correct, the minister has misled this chamber. Obviously, I am not in a position at this stage, anyway, to be able to prove it. We have seen in another jurisdiction where a minister misled the house. He lost his position as minister and as deputy premier in the Tasmanian parliament. Maybe at some stage something will turn up to be able to prove the point of view that I have put and disprove the position that the minister has put.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a number of observations and some questions of both a general nature and a technical nature. I want to be assured that we will not be closing off clause 1 because I do not believe that the minister necessarily will be able to answer some of my technical questions. However, I am happy to put the questions of a general nature now; but, Mr Acting Chairman, I will take your guidance on that later. My first observation with respect to clause 1 is that the minister drew a parallel between this regime and the universal checking at airports for metal objects.

He made the point, 'Well, we've just come to accept that, and this drug testing regime will become the same.' I make the point that they are entirely different situations for a number of very important reasons. The first reason is that the airport situation is universal. No-one gets into an airport without going through that regime. There is no attempt to target some individuals over others. There is no randomness about it. Everyone goes through it. Secondly, I think that there is a culture of acceptance at airports. It is a culture of reluctant acceptance, and the reason we reluctantly accept it is that the consequences of something dangerous getting through are absolutely catastrophic. None of us wants a gun, a knife, a bomb or anything to get onto an aeroplane.

The consequence in relation to this is that a person might have a small amount of an illicit drug in their pocket. Clearly, the two situations are not comparable at all. One is that the life and limb of hundreds or even thousands of people is at risk in a universal detection regime; the other is that it is a very smaller, lower key issue. In terms of the culture and how we feel, the minister said, 'Well, you don't feel embarrassed if you get pulled to one side.' The culture is such that, if you see an elderly woman, for example, pulled to one side at the airport, you can sort of take bets: 'I bet it's a nail file'; 'I bet it's some small metal item—a knitting needle—that has been inadvertently left in a bag.' You do not take a step away from that person, skirt around them, thinking, 'Well, here's a vicious criminal. I' m glad they've caught this person.'

The culture is very different. The minister also said that if, no drugs are found, well, that is the end of it. We have heard that three quarters of the time the dog gets it wrong. Those three quarters of innocent people could have been embarrassed in front of work colleagues, social friends at an evening out or in front of complete strangers, and the Hon. Sandra Kanck referred to a couple of examples. Another example could be a person who has just moved into a new flat and they were embarrassed in front of their new neighbours. What a first impression to create—subject to a drug search on your very first day moving into a new flat!

What response mechanism is the government proposing to deal with this embarrassment, to deal with these three quarters of innocent people who are embarrassed in public? Will there be an apology regime? Will they be issued with a little note saying, 'Thank you for cooperating in this important scheme but you are completely innocent. We are sorry that we took up your time'? Or will the response be, as the Hon. Sandra Kanck says, snide remarks, saying, 'Ha, ha, they probably did have drugs in that bag. Now they don't anymore', or some such? What system of reparation is embodied in this legislation to minimise or overcome the embarrassment that three quarters of the people subjected to these tests will face?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will quickly answer a couple of points and then report progress. I used the example earlier about explosive testing at airports. Perhaps a more appropriate example might have been breath testing for alcohol. We now have random breath testing, but, of course, a random breath test can be done anywhere. We had a regime for many years whereby the police had to have reasonable cause to require someone to have a breath test. It could have been if someone was driving out of a hotel and did not use their indicator, or something like that. They could be pulled over and given a breath test. Of course, if they did not have the required level of blood alcohol content, that was the end of the matter; and if they did they were charged. There are a number of ways in which police make a preliminary assessment.

In that case, during that era when we had those breath-tests, I am sure that, if you like, the police might have got it wrong on a number of occasions, but they also got it right on a lot of occasions. Even if that figure of 74 per cent is correct—I think we need to understand exactly what the statistics are—and even if 26 per cent of people have drugs on them when the sniffer dogs suggest that they do, that is a lot higher than one would get in the general population, where it is probably only 1 or 2 per cent, one would hope, of people who may be in possession of drugs. So it may not be a perfect test, but it is certainly a pretty good filter for working that out.

In terms of what one should do about the embarrassment of people, obviously the police have an obligation to do this testing in a professional way. Of course, if they do embarrass people, that is the sort of reason that we have the Police Complaints Authority for. If police officers do not treat people with dignity and professionalism, of course, they should be appropriately admonished for doing that.

The Hon. Rob Lucas asked some questions about schools. Of course, that is a fairly complicated matter. It is not just a question about what the law says about buildings but also a question of the policy for use. It is really the interaction of those two. I know there was an issue some years ago, and I suspect this was what Rob Lucas had in mind when he asked these questions which I think were to do with checking bags and things at schools, on buses and that sort of thing.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Lockers.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Lockers. There are some policy issues. It is one thing for the law to say the circumstances in which drug dogs can be used; it is quite another to say, in a policy sense, when they ought to be used. There are really two issues there, but perhaps we can discuss those in more detail when we resume debate on the bill. I will also try to get some more information in relation to that debate on the schools, because I know it is a very complicated but important area. Perhaps we can take up that debate when we resume.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I have another question on clause 1. I know that the minister is probably going to see this as disingenuous, seeing as I have indicated my very strong opposition to the bill, but I come back to the statement in the explanation that the government has drawn on the experience of the New South Wales legislation.

Given the figures that I have put on record—more than 10,000 incidents where the dogs stood beside people; only 19 successful prosecutions; the dogs getting it wrong three-quarters of the time, and so on—what was the basis of the information that the South Australian government got from New South Wales to indicate that this was successful legislation and that we should, therefore, mirror it? The minister may not be able to answer it today—I understand that he may need to get advice—but it really has me quite perplexed.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will answer that in full next time. Clearly, the government made a decision. We have these dogs and they are trained to do certain things. It is a matter of employing them in a manner which can best serve the public interest, and that means trying to deter the use of drugs within our community. In particular, of course, we would like these PAD dogs to be most effective in detecting dealers and those profiting from drugs, but sometimes you need to catch the users of drugs to be able to catch the dealers.

New South Wales has had this legislation and, essentially, this legislation is modelled on that, but obviously we take into consideration the effectiveness or otherwise of that legislation. Again, I make the point—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Rob Lucas goes on about why we have not given this legislation priority, but, in fact, the government's priorities were for some of the outlaw motorcycle gang legislation, DNA, and a whole lot of other legislation. Whilst we think this legislation will provide a valuable addition to police powers in terms of detecting and deterring the use of drugs, at the same time I would not claim that it is the most significant piece of legislation that we will pass this year. However, we would not put it up if we did not think it added a useful contribution.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.