Select Committee on Home Affairs Third Report


ANNEX: NOTE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS

1.  "We do not agree with the Police Foundation. Those guilty of "social supply" should not escape prosecution for this offence on the basis that their act of supply was to their friends for their personal consumption. We believe that this act of "social supply", while on a different scale from commercial supply, is nonetheless a dangerous crime which must be punished as such" (paragraph 82).

    "We believe that while there are two different crimes of supply, the law only formally recognises one. We recommend that a new offence be created of "supply for gain", which would be used to prosecute large-scale commercial suppliers. So-called "social suppliers" who share drugs between their friends on a not-for-profit basis should continue to be prosecuted for supply" (pararaph 83).

    1.1  At present, there is a single offence for "supply"[243] under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The offence does not require proof of payment or reward so, for example, it would cover the act of passing a reefer cigarette to a friend so that he can have "a draw",[244] in addition to acts of large scale commercial supply.

    1.2  Under the present statutory scheme, the following offences all carry the same maximum penalties for each class of drug:

      —  Importation

      —  Production

      —  Supply

      —  Possession with intent to supply

      Where the above offences concern a Class A drug, the maximum penalty on indictment is life imprisonment.

    1.3  Maximum penalties roughly reflect the gravity of an offence, but they do not determine the sentence that will actually be imposed in any given circumstance. The actual sentence will be one which, in the opinion of the court, is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and which does not exceed the maximum. From time to time the Court of Appeal lays down guidelines for the sentencing of an offence or class of offences.

    1.4  The new offence of "supply for gain" could be made subject to the same statutory maximum penalty as the existing offences of supply and possession with intent to supply. It would then be for the courts to determine appropriate sentences which reflect the relative gravity of offences, within that bracket. Alternatively, the new offence could have a higher maximum penalty to reflect the seriousness of supplying for gain. This could be achieved by reducing the maximum penalty for supply and possession with intent to supply (currently, life imprisonment) where gain is not involved. In addition, two new offences could be established, "supply for gain" and "possession with intent to supply for gain", which carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.[245]

2.  "In the event of the successful completion of clinical trials and a positive evaluation by the Medicines Control Agency, we recommend that the law be changed to permit the use of cannabis-based medicines" (paragraph 109).

    2.1  This recommendation requires an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 (S.I. 1985, No.2066, as amended).

    2.2  At present, cannabis can only lawfully be produced, offered, supplied or possessed under licence by the Secretary of State.[246] There is no general exception which would otherwise permit its use for medicinal purposes.[247]

    2.3  Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA 1971) empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which except specified controlled drugs from the restrictions of importation and exportation, production, supply and possession. The 1985 Regulations, which were made under this section, provides general exceptions for the drugs listed in Schedules 2 to 5.[248] This excludes cannabis, which is listed in Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

    2.4  The drugs listed in schedules 2 and 3 (which include Class A, B and C drugs) are excepted (subject to conditions) from the restrictions of production, supply and possession. Different rules for record-keeping apply to each, with tighter requirements for Schedule 2 drugs. Schedule 4 excepts benzodizepines and anabolic steroids from most of the restrictions which apply to controlled drugs. Schedule 5 is concerned with preparations which contain very small proportions of controlled drugs.

    2.5  The simplest means of implementing the Committee's recommendation would be to amend the 1985 Regulations in order to move cannabis from Schedule 1 to either Schedule 2 or 3. Schedule 2 may be the most appropriate categorisation, given that tighter record-keeping requirements apply.

3.  "We support the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug" (paragraph 121).

    "We...recommend that ecstasy is reclassified as a Class B drug" (paragraph 135).

    3.1  These recommendations require amendments to Schedule 2, MDA 1971, which classifies controlled drugs into the three classes—A, B and C.

    3.2  Reclassification must be implemented by Order in Council.[249]

    3.3  The prescribed procedure is set out in section 2(5) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  • The Government must first consult the Advisory Council (unless it is acting on the recommendation of the Advisory Council).
  • After consultation, the Government must lay a draft Order before Parliament, which must be approved by resolution of each House.

  • Once the draft order has been approved by Parliament, the Government may recommend that Her Majesty in Council do make the Order.

    3.4  The terms of the Order(s) would need to exclude ecstasy from the list of Class A drug[250] and include it in the list of Class B drug[251] and, similarly, exclude cannabis from the list of Class B drugs and include it in the list for Class C.[252]

4.  "We recommend that appropriate treatment forms a mandatory part of custodial sentences and that offenders have access to consistent treatment approaches within the prison estate as well as outside it. This should include strictly supervised methadone treatment in the first instance, as the most effective treatment available" (paragraph 169).

    4.1  The recommendation that appropriate treatment forms a mandatory part of custodial sentences is likely to require primary legislation. The recommendation that offenders have access to consistent treatment approaches does not appear to require legislation. It could be implemented through policy, as the existing legislation makes general provision for the medical treatment of prisoners.

    4.2  The existing legislation does not, however, make express provision for treatment of drug addiction, nor does it require Prison Governors to make provision for drug treatments within the prison estate.

    4.3  The Prison Act 1952 makes provision for prisoners who require medical attention, to receive it outside the prison estate, if the Secretary of State so directs.[253] In addition, there is general provision for the medical treatment of prisoners within the prison estate. For example, every prison must appoint a medical officer (who must be a fully registered medical practitioner), to be entrusted with "the care of the health, mental and physical, of the prisoners of that prison".[254] Section 47 of the Act empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations (the "Prison Rules") for the treatment of prisoners, among other things.[255] Although neither the Act, nor the Prison Rules, make express provision for treatment of drug addiction, there is provision for drug testing.[256]

    4.4.  Rule 3 of the Prison Rules provides that the "purpose of the training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life". Treatment for drug addiction would not appear to fall outside that purpose. However, the courts have held (in the context of the "sex offender treatment programme") that the rule does not impose a mandatory duty on the Prison Service to provide a rehabilitative programme.[257]

    4.5  The latter part of the Committee's recommendation could be implemented by amendment to the Prison Rules. For example, the Prison Rules could be amended by inserting a new Rule 20A:

    "20A (1) For the purposes of this rule, the medical officer shall consult a medical practitioner who is a fully registered person within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983 and has the necessary qualifications or experience for the purpose of treating drug addiction (the "drug treatment practitioner"). A drug treatment practitioner may work within the prison under the general supervision of the medical officer.

    (2) The medical officer or the drug treatment practitioner shall make arrangements for the provision of treatment to any prisoner being addicted to any controlled drug,[258] with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's addiction to drugs.

    (3) For the purposes of this rule, a prisoner shall be regarded as being addicted to a drug if, and only if, he has as a result of repeated administration become so dependent upon the drug that he has an overpowering desire for the administration to be continued.[259]

    4.6  This amendment would confine the provision of drug treatments to prisoners who were addicted to drugs (as defined).

5.  "We recommend that an evaluated pilot programme of safe injecting houses for heroin users be established without delay and that if, as we expect, this is successful, the programme be extended across the country" (paragraph 186).

    5.1  This requires an amendment to section 8 of the MDA 1971, which creates an offence for occupiers who knowingly permit or suffer various drug-related activities on their premises. This recommendation is dealt with in more detail at paragraph 9 below.

6.  "We recommend that a pilot along the lines of the Swiss or Dutch model, is conducted in the UK. Should such a pilot generate the positive results which one would expect from the Dutch and Swiss experience, we recommend that such a system should supersede the little-used "British system" of licencing" (paragraph 190).

    "We recommend that the Government commission a further trial to look at expanding prescription of diamorphine to addicts who have not yet or are not currently accessing any treatment, despite having a long history of heroin addiction" (paragraph 194).

    6.1  The Misuse of Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1997[260] prohibit doctors from supplying or prescribing certain drugs (cocaine, diamorphine and dipipanone) to addicts, except under licence of the Secretary of State (or for the purpose of treating organic disease or injury).

    6.2  It would appear that any pilot programme would need to be exempted from these regulations.

7.  "We recommend that training in substance misuse be embedded in the undergraduate medical curriculum and postgraduate General Practice curriculum, as a problem which will arise with increasing frequency over the careers of all prospective doctors training today" (paragraph 218).

    "We would also expect the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practice to take a rather greater interest in this area than is evident so far. In particular we would expect these organisations to use their considerable influence to ensure that treatment of drug misuse is included in the medical curricula." (paragraph 219).

    7.1  The Education Committee of the General Medical Council is responsible for overseeing the content of the undergraduate medical curricula. The Privy Council has certain default powers to act where the Education Committee does not.

    7.2  An individual can only practice medicine if he is a fully registered medical practitioner (or provisionally, with limited registration). Entitlement to register is conditional on (a) holding one or more primary United Kingdom qualifications specified in the Medical Act 1983; (b) passing a qualifying examination; and (c) satisfying certain specified requirements as to post-qualification experience.[261] Accordingly, training for drug misuse may either be included on the curricula for qualification or, alternatively, it may form part of the post-qualification experience.

    7.3  The Medical Act 1983 provides that:

      —    The General Medical Council's Education Committee shall have "the general function of promoting high standards of medical education and co-ordinating all stages of medical education".[262]

      —    For this purpose, the Education Committee must (among other things) "determine the extent of the knowledge and skill which is to be required for the granting of primary United Kingdom qualifications and secure that the instruction given in universities in the United Kingdom to persons studying for such qualifications is sufficient to equip them with knowledge and skill of that extent.[263] Accordingly, the Education Committee has a duty to determine the knowledge and skill requirements of medical qualifications. It may decide that drug misuse ought to be required as part of the medical qualification.

      —    If it appeared to the Privy Council that the Education Committee ought to determine that drug misuse be a requirement of the medical qualification, but had failed to do so, then the Privy Council may direct the Committee to do so.[264] If the Education Committee failed to comply with such directions, the Privy Council could effectively step into the shoes of the Education Committee and exercise the power itself.[265] This power may be exercised by any two or more of the lords and others of the Privy Council.[266]

8.  "We recommend that the Government review Section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act, with a view to repealing it, to allow for the provision of drugs paraphernalia which reduces the harm caused by drugs" (paragraph 252).

    8.1  The purpose of section 9A was to prohibit the sale of drug kits, which were previously available on the open market.[267] Repealing the section would allow the re-emergence of the legitimate sale of drug kits. There is an argument that the ready availability of such kits might encourage, or otherwise legitimise, drug use. The section could be amended, however, to ensure that paraphernalia is available to addicts for the purposes of harm reduction.

    8.2  At least two options are available. First, the section could be amended to exempt specific articles of paraphernalia, which are known to reduce harm (for example, witnesses have mentioned citric acid in particular). These could be exempted in the same way that hypodermic needles are excluded (see section 9A(2) of the Act below). Secondly, the section could be amended to permit supply by specified persons (such as doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc). This would prevent the commercial sale of drug kits on the open market, whilst allowing supply by bona fides treatment providers.

    8.3  Section 9A (at present) provides:

      "(1) A person who supplies or offers to supply any article which may be used or adapted to be used (whether by itself or in combination with another article or other articles) in the administration by any person of a controlled drug to himself or another, believing that the article (or the article as adapted) is to be so used in circumstances where the administration is unlawful, is guilty of an offence.

      (2) It is not an offence under subsection (1) above to supply or offer to supply a hypodermic syringe, or any part of one.

      (3) A person who supplies or offers to supply any article which may be used to prepare a controlled drug for administration by any person to himself or another believing that the article is to be so used in circumstances where the administration is unlawful is guilty of an offence.

      (4) For the purposes of this section, any administration of a controlled drug is unlawful except—

        (a) the administration by any person of a controlled drug to another in circumstances where the administration of the drug is not unlawful under section 4(1) of this Act, or

        (b) the administration by any person of a controlled drug to himself in circumstances where having the controlled drug in his possession is not unlawful under section 5(1) of this Act.

      (5) In this section, references to administration by any person of a controlled drug to himself include a reference to his administering it to himself with the assistance of another."

9.  "We recommend that Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act be amended to ensure that drugs agencies can conduct harm reduction work and provide safe injecting areas for users without fear of being prosecuted" (paragraph 257).

    9.1  Section 8 was only recently amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (s. 38), which extended its application quite significantly (although the amendment is not yet in force).[268] The purpose of the extension was to cover so-called "crack houses", although it would appear to extend more widely than that.[269]

    9.2  Section 8 (as amended) provides:

      A person commits an offence if, being an occupier or concerned in the management of premises, he knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on those premises, that is to say—

      (a) producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug in contravention of section 4(1) of this Act;

      (b) supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug to another in contravention of section 4(1) of this Act, or offering to supply a controlled drug to another in contravention of section 4(1);

      (c) preparing opium for smoking;

      (d) smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium;

      [(d) administering or using a controlled drug which is unlawfully in any person's possession at or immediately before the time when it is administered or used.]

      NB: the new paragraph (d) (substituted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s. 38) is underlined and in square brackets. This will replace the italicised paragraph (d), when it comes into force.

    9.3  There are two options for implementation of the Committee's recommendations. The first is draft an exclusion clause, which applied specifically to a defined group (eg drugs agencies), or for a defined purpose (eg to provide safe injecting areas). The second, and perhaps simpler, option is to draft an exemption which permitted a licencing system, whereby the Secretary of State would authorise specific harm reduction activities to take place on specified premises.

    9.4  Adopting the second option, section 8 could be amended as follows:

      (1) A person commits an offence if, being an occupier or concerned in the management of premises, he knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on those premises, that is to say—

        (a) producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug in contravention of section 4(1) of this Act;

        (b) supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug to another in contravention of section 4(1) of this Act, or offering to supply a controlled drug to another in contravention of section 4(1);

        (c) preparing opium for smoking;

        (d) administering or using a controlled drug which is unlawfully in any person's possession at or immediately before the time when it is administered or used.

      (2) It shall not be unlawful for any person mentioned in sub-section (1) to knowingly permit or suffer any activity which is authorised in accordance with the terms of a licence, issued by the Secretary of State, and in compliance with any conditions attached to the licence."

10.  "We recommend that the Home Office and the Department of Health urgently review the current legal framework on the dispensation of controlled drugs by community pharmacists in consultation with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society" (paragraph 260).

    10.1  This would require a review of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985[270] and, in particular, Regulations 15 (form of prescriptions) and 16 (provisions to supply on prescription).

11.  "We recommend that Drugs Abstinence Orders be amended to carry the requirement of access to treatment" (paragraph 264).

    11.1  This recommendation requires amendment to those provisions of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which deal with Drug Abstinence Orders.

    11.2  Drug Abstinence Orders may only be made in respect of adult offenders (18 and over) where, in the opinion of the Court, the offender is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse specified Class A drugs and he has either been convicted of a "trigger" offence,[271] or the court feels that his Class A drug misuse caused or contributed to the offence.

    11.3  Such orders must be made for a specified period not less than 6 months and not exceeding three years.[272]

    11.4  At present, Drug Abstinence Orders must include only two requirements. First, that the offender abstain from misusing specified Class A drugs and, secondly, to undertake a drug test on instruction.[273] Accordingly, there is no express power to make provision for treatment within the order.

    11.5  By contrast, Drug Treatment and Testing Orders must include a requirement that the offender submit to treatment, in addition to testing.[274] Accordingly, treatment under a DTTO is compulsory.

    11.6  Drug Abstinence Orders could be amended to require the Court to make an order which includes provision for access to appropriate treatment, through the following amendment to section 58A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. After sub-paragraph (4) insert:

      "(4A) The drug abstinence order shall provide that, for the duration of the order, the offender shall have access to an appropriate course of treatment by or under the direction of a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience, with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's dependency on or propensity to misuse drugs."


243  The offence covers "supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug or being concerned in the doing of either activity by another". MDA 1971, s. 4(3). Back

244   R v. Moore [1979] Crim. L. R. 789. Back

245   On indictment. Back

246   1985 Regulations, Reg. 5. Back

247   Cannabis falls within Schedule 1 of the 1985 Regulations, to which the general exceptions do not apply. There are, however, two specific exceptions applicable to cannabis. The first permits the smoking of cannabis or cannabis resin for research purposes, in premises approved by the Secretary of State (1985 Regulations, Reg.13), and the second permits the cultivation of cannabis plants under licence issued by the Secretary of State (MDA 1971, s. 6 and 1985 Regulations, Reg.12). Back

248   For example, doctors and dentists (or any person acting in accordance with the directions of a doctor or dentist) are permitted to administer to a patient any drug specified in Schedule 2, 3, or 4 and Any person can administer to any other person a drug specified in Schedule 5 (1985 Regulations, Reg.7). Back

249   MDA 1971, s. 2(2). Back

250   Part I of Schedule 2, MDA 1971 contains the list of Class A drugs. Esctasy (or "methylenedioxymethylamphetamine", MDMA) is not specifically mentioned in Schedule 2, but it is a Class A controlled drug as being a compound falling within paragraph 1(c) of Part of I of Schedule 2 (Archbold: criminal pleading, evidence and practice 2000, para. 26-15).  Back

251   Part II of Schedule 2, MDA 1971. Back

252   Part III of Schedule 2, MDA 1971. Back

253   Prison Act 1952, s. 22(2). Back

254   Prison Act 1952, s. 7(4) and Medicine Act 1983, ss.55 and 56, Sched. 6, para. 11(2); Prison Act 1952, s. 7(1); s. 47; Prison Rules 1999 (S.I. 1999, No.728), Reg. 20(1). Back

255   Regulations 20 and 21 of the Prison Rules 1999, make various general provisions for the medical attention of prisoners within the prison estate. Back

256   The Prison Act 1952 provides for the compulsory testing of prisoners for drugs (section 16A) and alcohol (section 16B). However, the Act makes no express provision for treatment of drug addicts (or, indeed, alcoholics). Back

257   R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. John Shaw, 10 February 2000, QBD. Back

258   "Controlled drug" is already defined in the Prison Rules as "any drug which is a controlled drug for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971", Rule 2(1). Back

259   This replicates the definition of drug addict, as defined in the Misuse of Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1997, S.I. 1997, No. 1001. Back

260   S.I. 1997, No. 1001. Back

261   Medical Act 1983, s. 3(1)(a). Section 3(1)(b) provides that EEA nationals are entitled to be registered if they hold one or more primary European qualifications. Back

262   Medical Act 1983, s. 5(1). Back

263   Medical Act 1983, s. 5(2)(a). Back

264   Medical Act 1983, s. 50(1)(b). Back

265   Medical Act 1983, s. 50(2), (3). Back

266   Medical Act 1983, s. 52. Back

267   Rudi Forston, Misuse of Drugs and Drug Trafficking Offences, (Sweet and Maxwell, 2002), para. 7-35. Back

268   Date in force: to be appointed; Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s. 138(2). Back

269   Rudi Forston, Misuse of Drugs and Drug Trafficking Offences, (Sweet and Maxwell, 2002), para. 7-01. Back

270   S.I. 1985, No.2066 (as amended). Back

271   Schedule 6 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2000, sets out a list of offences which are "trigger" offences. Back

272   Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s. 58A(7), as inserted by Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2000, s. 47. Back

273   Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s. 58A(1). Back

274   Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s. 52-8. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 22 May 2002