Examination of Witnesses (Questions 295
- 299)
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2001
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER ANDY
HAYMAN, CHIEF
SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN
MORRIS, MR
JONATHON LEDGER
AND MR
ROGER HOWARD
Chairman: Gentlemen good morning. Thank you
for coming. This is the fourth session of oral evidence we have
taken on our drugs inquiry. We have had over 160 written submissions,
many of them flatly contradictory. We are hoping you are going
to help us pick our way through them this morning. We have decided
to proceed a bit differently from how we normally do which is
to start by putting three questions to each of you and then taking
it from there. If any of you disagree with what is being said
indicate to me and I will bring you in. Can we play it like that?
Bridget Prentice is going to start the ball rolling.
Bridget Prentice
295. I am going to address my questions to ACPO,
first of all. Looking through the evidence that you and others
have submitted, a number of people are saying things like f you
were to ask the question is the Government's drugs policy working,
then the answer seems to be `the results are not coming through',
`the battle against drug misuse in the case of heroin has been
lost', `they are fighting a losing battle', and so on. So is the
drugs policy working?
(Mr Hayman) You will have seen from our written submission
that ACPO's view is that it is working, providing you can describe
what success would look like. We have got to look at it by saying
there is a long-term strategy and, therefore, if you are expecting
overnight results, you will be disappointed. Some of the points
you mentioned there give the impression from others that have
given evidence that they are looking for short-term results. It
is too early to throw the towel in about heroin, or any other
drug come to that. Having said that, we have said in our written
submission that we feel it is too early to say that the results
are coming through. What I would say has been particularly successful
is for the first time it has set out in a strategic format how
together—and it is a partnership activity—to tackle
the very broad problem of drugs. What are the pluses, why are
we saying it is working? The pluses are that partnership working
is thriving. It has given us a framework to work together. We
have now got structures in place in the UK, co-ordinaters. The
last two reports shine through the way in which the structures
are starting to bite. We should also be very pleased as agencies
to see the resources that have been released by both government
and by working together. That is obviously welcomed. The other
plus I think, which again is all credit to the strategy, is the
response to feedback from other agencies that we really need to
be setting baseline data from which we can then measure success
in the medium to long term. That is an issue which we feel as
ACPO has been missing. In summary, the pluses are that it has
been a very strong harnessing of effort. The downsides of the
strategy are that disappointingly—and I guess in a way it
is not surprising—we still operate at times in silos, so
we have not got the joined-up thinking across statutory departments.
Again over time I think that will work. Another significant point
would be that performance indicators do not seem to reflect the
activity of each agency and closely akin to that is the priority
setting. We make the point in our written submission that ACPO
feels it is not surprising that when you have got PIs in different
agencies that are not always focused towards drugs you will not
necessarily reflect the activity. The example we gave in the evidence
is that it may be a more pressing priority for health to deal
with reduction in waiting times and for education to deal with
reduction in class sizes and whilst that is not in any way us
being critical, because they are understandable pressing priorities,
when you are looking at performance data across the piece on the
drugs agenda the prominence of PIs for other agencies are not
equal to those of the Police Service. In conclusion, it is not
bad news to say they are disadvantages and downsides because they
are easily rectified and ACPO suggests in our submission that
by bringing in joint performance indicators and joint funding
streams, some of the silo working and barriers that exist could
be broken down. I think statutory agencies should take heart from
those in the voluntary sector (and the partnership working we
have described as being a plus point) as a strong indicator of
what can be achieved.
296. Does anybody want to violently disagree
with that?
(Mr Ledger) I think perhaps from another perspective
and working at a different end of the spectrum from where Andy
is talking about, we have concerns that with the offenders we
work with there is little evidence of improvement in the way the
system or the strategy is working out. Clearly a significant proportion
of our caseload are people with drug problems and particularly
those at the lower end of the scale, you might say people on the
receiving end of supply rather than being in any way significant
players in the system. I am going to pick up from what Andy said,
and I think it is more significant than he indicated, the availability
of resources to people who are using and who commit offences and
who are known to us is a significant problem. We are not able
to get people into detox and rehabilitation programmes at anything
like the rate or number or speed that we would need to do in order
to effect some real change in the people we work with. The other
problem is—and we will probably come onto this—that
in the context of their accountability and our accountability
to the courts through court orders and things like that, people
are constantly being returned to court, not necessarily for criminal
behaviour but because of their failure to comply with orders,
and that can disrupt the process of treating or dealing with people.
From our end of the scale, and as I say I am talking from a different
perspective to Andy, I think we have concerns that the strategy
is not working as well as it could.
(Mr Howard) Can I endorse what ACPO was saying about
the good things in the strategy but add a couple of things on
the downside. I think there are two or three things that we need
to consider. One is the performance targets that have been set
in the national strategy. A lot of us would share the criticism
and critique of them being based on a fairly thin and flimsy starting
point and evidence base. Secondly I think we have got to recognise
that they are over-prescriptive and centralised and there needs
to be a lot more local flexibility in their interpretation in
meeting local needs. I think another thing I would say is we cannot
get away from the fact that the balance in this strategy is still
very much around enforcement, supply and interdiction and that
is reflected in the allocation of resources. One must ask questions
whether that is a fair distribution and the most effective distribution.
The last point I would make is about prevalence. If the outcome
of the strategy is being judged by prevalence figures, I think
there must be serious questions about what is happening. Today,
just an hour ago the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction released its annual report and it shows that the
United Kingdom is the one country in Western Europe that has seen
a rise in cocaine use amongst young people. So we must ask questions
about whether the strategy is effective in what it is achieving.
297. Thank you for that. I am going to return
to Mr Hayman, my colleagues will, I dare say, pick up those points
from the rest of you later. You have said there are many positive
aspects and some negative, based more it seems to me on process
than anything else. What changes would you make if you were making
changes in the strategy as it presently stands?
(Mr Hayman) I think it is important to stress the
strength of the process. Some people might be critical of that
and say "we really need to see results and let's not mess
around with doing the process and setting structures." Of
course, we know from the past when we have bowled into this and
looked for activity rather than planning beforehand, it has not
achieved what we want to achieve. For me I would tend to put more
emphasis on the process. I do not think we have done enough yet.
The point I made earlier is structurally we have set out the stall
and we understand what we want to do in partnership working but
we have not bound together those partnerships and statutory agencies
as well. The only way to do that, it seems to me, a bit like herding
sheep into a pen, is what have we got to do to make sure that
work will happen. At the moment there is a little saying which
I think we are all familiar with, "if it is not measured,
it will not happen". Therefore, if you have not got performance
indicators around all the agencies that are involved in this agenda
what is the driver for them to be able to even be getting engaged
in it? Equally, if there is no analysis of how much benefit we
have gained from the resource investment, there is no driver there
for people to be wise about how to spend and use their resources.
For me, if I had to put at the top of my shopping list what I
would want to introduce, I would put in joint performance indicators,
joint funding streams and a very robust performance analysis as
well. Picking up on what Roger was saying, and I am glad he made
the point, I was remiss in not making it myself (albeit it was
in written evidence) we see that the targets can be demoralising
if they are not set out on true baseline data. Therefore, if we
are clear in our process setting, we know what the baseline data
is to set our target, we negotiate those targets with the agencies,
we set the performance indicaters from which they will be successfully
measured, we align their spending to their activity and then someone,
a body, holds people to account at the end of a set period for
what they have achieved, I think that people who are, quite understandably,
looking for results not only will start to be able to make judgments
such as are we getting fair activity for the efforts and resources
we are releasing and be able to judge that by performance indicators
as well as any other activity. This is not a cheap shot but I
think it is an important point to make. The challenge will be,
if you look at page 3 of the ten-year strategy, there are some
very bold signatures there from all the agencies that are signing
up to collaborative working. I think the agencies will ask the
question to what extent are those signals mirrored in activity
and I think in answer to your question, although I have not majored
on it, that is the most important thing.
298. Thank you for that. Can I just ask you
this, because we have made an assumption that drug-taking is wrong,
it is bad, we do not like it, and that is presumably the basis
of the strategy, and we have assumed that in the course of the
questions so far, but what do you think would be the effects of
either decriminalisation or legalisation of these drugs? If you
can, can you tell the Committee if you have a different view on
cannabis, from ecstasy, from heroin, from cocaine or whether you
take an overall view?
(Mr Hayman) One of the difficulties around trying
to develop the thinking on this is to understand what all these
terms mean. They are really confusing, not only for the community
but confusing for the professionals in the field. What do we mean
by "decriminalisation", "legalisation", "declassification"?
I find myself slipping into the wrong term and checking myself
out. At the moment let's not worry too much about that because
we know it is a very difficult debate. Let's go back to basics.
From ACPO's perspective we want to be really clear on three points,
firstly, whatever we do—legalisation, decriminalisation,
declassification—why are we doing it? What is the purpose
of doing that? Let's be clear about that. When we are clear about
what the purpose is let's scan the evidence to support either
way the arguments, what is the evidence like, and that needs to
be very broad—scientific, medical, as well as legal. Finally,
what are the consequence? ACPO feel that one of the disappointments
in all this discussion is that the clarity—I am sure there
are other headings but we see those three headings as particular
helpful— we would be looking for under these three headings
is absent. Let's answer the question boldly. Decriminalisation—the
terms of reference have highlighted three areas, the effect it
may or may not have on crime, other drugs' availability, and deaths.
Some headlines from ACPO's perspective. On other drugs the indications
elsewhere are that once you go down this road, which has to be
said is a bit of a step in the dark, usage is likely to increase
around experimentation. Why are people passing away from drug
misuse? Certainly around heroin the indication is that it is overdose.
To what extent would any decriminalisation of whatever drug (but
certainly class A drugs) avert that? We think on balance it would
make no difference, it may even increase it. On crime we know
the arguments about drug-related crime. It may well follow if
usage increases there is not going to be any indication of a reduction
of acquisitive crime; on the contrary. In the round, certainly
talking about the class A drugs, the serious drugs, this is something
we have been very strong in our evidence—we would not support
legalisation. On declassification, if you would like me to move
on to that, certainly a lot of focus has been made on the Home
Secretary's announcements and from ACPO's perspective we understand
why we are doing that reclassification but going back to our three
touchstones, what is the purpose, what is the evidence, what are
the consequences, it would be very good if we could have a debate
about it. Our understanding of the Home Secretary's intention
is that it will enable resources to be freed up to focus more
on the class A drugs. That does not necessarily follow. Very pragmatically
if you look at the police officers that deal with cannabis, they
are normally, I would say, street cops who come across that kind
of offence or that usage. There is a different set of police officers
that deal with class A drugs. I was interested to read recently
in the Rowntree Foundation's emerging findings (and I know they
will be reporting in the life of this Committee so it might be
something the Committee wants to look at) the indication there
from research is that any freeing up of time is more likely to
be eaten away in patrol time—which again is a plus to the
community because it increases the visibility of the patrol but
it does not necessarily follow it would go into class A. The last
point that ACPO would want to pick up of course is the emotive
debate about the transferring of powers. If you go back to the
touchstones and ask the question why is it we would want to be
reclassifying cannabis, which is the main debate at the moment,
if we transfer the powers which Parliament have given us, it would
not necessarily free up time. The downside of that, of course,
is that the opportunities that exist currently with drugs being
an arrestable offence and the opportunities that exist within
that which Parliament have given us around arrestable offences
would be lost. In summary, let us be clear about what the terms
are. We are pretty clear about our views on decriminalisation
and legalisation. We feel that is a step in the dark and all the
indications are that it will not improve things at all. We are
fairly relaxed about declassification but there is a discussion
to be had around transfer of powers.
299. That is very interesting but the Chair
of your Drugs Committee has called for ecstasy to be classified.
Do you not go along with that?
(Mr Hayman) I am the Chair.
|
