PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING
TO THE REPORT
TUESDAY 26
MARCH 2002
Members present:
Mr Chris Mullin, in the Chair
| Mr David Cameron | Bob Russell
|
| Mrs Janet Dean | Angela Watkinson
|
| Bridget Prentice | Mr Tom Watson
|
| Mr Gwyn Prosser | |
The Committee deliberated.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 9 April at half past
Four o'clock.
TUESDAY 9 APRIL
2002
Members present:
Mr Chris Mullin, in the Chair
| Mr David Cameron | Mr Gwyn Prosser
|
| Mrs Janet Dean | Bob Russell
|
| Mr Humfrey Malins | Angela Watkinson
|
| Bridget Prentice | David Winnick
|
The Committee deliberated.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 16 April at a quarter
past Ten o'clock.
TUESDAY 16 APRIL
2002
Members present:
Mr Chris Mullin, in the Chair
| Mr David Cameron | Mr Marsha Singh
|
| Mrs Janet Dean | Angela Watkinson
|
| Bridget Prentice | Mr Tom Watson
|
| Mr Gwyn Prosser | David Winnick
|
| Bob Russell | |
The Committee deliberated.
[Adjourned till Thursday 18 April at half
past Two o'clock.
THURSDAY 9 MAY
2002
Members present:
Mr Chris Mullin, in the Chair
| Mr David Cameron | Mr Marsha Singh
|
| Mrs Janet Dean | Angela Watkinson
|
| Bridget Prentice | Mr Tom Watson
|
| Mr Gwyn Prosser | David Winnick
|
| Bob Russell | |
Mr David Cameron declared an interest as a non-executive director
of Urbium plc, a bar and nightclub business.
Draft Report [The Government's Drugs Policy: Is it working?] proposed
by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph
by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 10 read and agreed to.
A paragraph—(Angela Watkinson)—brought up and
read as follows:
'However, we do not accept the argument that because alcohol
and tobacco are legal and have acknowledged risks, drugs should
also be made legal.'
Question, That the paragraph be added to the report, put and negatived.
Paragraphs 11 to 19 read and agreed to.
A paragraph—(Angela Watkinson)—brought up and
read as follows:
'We note that the supply of drugs is demand-led and that the
twin strategies of prevention and enforcement, as demonstrated
in Sweden, offer the best chance of reducing the number of addicts
and, therefore, demand and supply.'
Question, That the paragraph be added to the report, put and negatived.
Paragraphs 20 to 23 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 24 read, as follows:
We believe it is self-evident that by focussing on the relatively
small group of problematic drug users, the Government could have
a significant impact on the harm caused by drug use.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph, and
insert the words:
'We recommend that while focussing drug policy on problematic
opiate users, prevention and enforcement of all drugs offences
should be maintained as a deterrent to new users.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 24 agreed to.
Paragraphs 25 to 28 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 29 read as follows:
The Department of Health statistics submitted to the Committee
suggest that during 1999-2000, there were 8,505 hospital admissions
with primary diagnoses of mental and behavioural disorders relating
to drug misuse, although this may include some patients who were
admitted more than once. Long-term harm commonly associated with
tobacco smoking, such as cancers and cardio-vascular problems,
also attach to smoking of drugs such as cannabis. There is much
we do not know about the long term harm caused by the use of illicit
drugs.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, at the end, to add the words:
'Cannabis is also known to be a risk factor for schizophrenia
and to affect levels of attainment in students, performance at
work, the ability to drive safely, judgement and insight.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 29 agreed to.
Paragraphs 30 to 37 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 38 read as follows:
We believe that drugs policy should primarily be addressed
to dealing with the 250,000 problematic drug users rather than
towards the large numbers whose drug use poses no serious threat
either to their own well-being or to that of others. It follows
that government policy should be examined in this light, and it
is to this that we now turn.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words 'We believe...that
of others' (in line 3) and insert the words:
'We believe that all illegal drug use is harmful and that
drug policy should focus equally on deterring new users and treating
problematic drug addicts.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 38 agreed to.
Paragraphs 39 to 47 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 48 read, as follows:
The proponents of the most radical change to the drugs laws
are those who suggest that the prohibition of currently illicit
substances has not worked and cannot work. They argue that, far
from limiting the harm caused by drug use, it is prohibition itself
which causes the greater part of that harm. The argument here
is that illegality militates against safe, open use and creates
a dangerous environment in which drug use, criminality and social
exclusion become unnecessarily wedded together.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, at the end to add the words:
'We find no merit in this point of view. We conclude that
the greatest harm comes from the mind-altering properties of the
drugs themselves, the detrimental effects on mental and physical
health of the individual user and the effect of their antisocial
behaviour on others.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 6
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
Paragraph 48 agreed to.
Paragraphs 49 to 55 agreed to.
A paragraph—(Angela Watkinson)—brought up and
read as follows:
'We believe it is impossible to separate the self harm done
by addicts from the resulting harm done to other individuals and
the wider community.'
Question, That the paragraph be added to the report, put and negatived.
Paragraphs 56 to 65 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 66 reads as follows:
While acknowledging that there may come a day when the balance
may tip in favour of legalising and regulating some types of presently
illegal drugs, we decline to recommend this drastic step.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph, and
insert the words:
'Whilst acknowledging that pressure in favour of legalising
and regulating supply of some types of illegal drug may increase,
we do not support this step.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 3, at the end, to add the
words 'except for cannabis, for the reasons set out in paragraphs...below.'—(David
Winnick.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 66 agreed to.
Paragraphs 67 to 77 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 78 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 79 to 87 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 88 read as follows:
We, therefore, conclude that the time has come to reconsider
the existing classifications for the less harmful drugs and we
address each in turn.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph, and
insert the words:
'We conclude that the message must be robust in its warnings
about outcomes and penalties and these must be backed up by enforcement.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 8
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mr David Cameron
|
| Mrs Janet Dean |
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Bob Russell |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 88 agreed to.
Paragraphs 89 to 105 read and agreed to.
A paragraph—(Angela Watkinson)—brought up and
read as follows:
'We note with concern that cannabis cultivation in The Netherlands
is among the largest in Europe and that an estimated 80% of the
heroin seized in Britain and France has passed through The Netherlands
where it is considered to be "relatively trouble free from
a criminal's point of view". We conclude therefore, that
relaxation of the law has led to an increase in availability,
use and marketing.'
Question, That the paragraph be added to the report, put and negatived.
Paragraphs 106 to 113 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 114 read as follows:
The surveys of public opinion, conducted at the end of 2001,
found that there was a considerable degree of confusion over what
exactly the pilot entailed. However, 74% of people consulted felt
that the scheme would result in police time being released to
deal with more serious crime—but 17% felt serious crime
would increase, and 21% felt use of hard drugs would increase
as a result of the pilot. Despite this, 36% approved of the scheme
unconditionally, a further 32% supported it provided the police
spend more time on serious crime, and 15% approved provided it
actually reduces serious crime. 71% of people thought the scheme
offered a better way to deal with young cannabis users. Having
said this, parents of primary school children are amongst the
most likely to disapprove of the scheme.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, at the end to add the words:
'We conclude that both users and dealers have been attracted
into Lambeth from other boroughs during the experiment. It has
created a damaging message, many young people think that drugs
are now legal in Lambeth.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 114 agreed to.
Paragraphs 115 to 119 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 120 read as follows:
We accept that cannabis can be harmful and that its use should
be discouraged. We accept that in some cases the taking of cannabis
can be a gateway to the taking of more damaging drugs. However,
whether or not cannabis is a gateway drug, we do not believe there
is anything to be gained by exaggerating its harmfulness. On the
contrary, exaggeration undermines the credibility of messages
that we wish to send regarding more harmful drugs.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We believe that cannabis is harmful, both in its mind altering
properties and as a gateway to more harmful drugs and that its
use should remain illegal. We accept that nearly all hard drug
users start on cannabis and for that reason alone, its harmfulness
cannot be exaggerated. The credibility of messages we wish to
send regarding more harmful drugs depends upon the gateway danger
being made explicit.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 120 agreed to.
Paragraph 121 read as follows:
We support, therefore, the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify
cannabis from Class B to Class C.
Question proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and insert
the words:
'We do not, therefore, support the Home Secretary's proposal
to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 8
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mr David Cameron
|
| Mrs Janet Dean |
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Bob Russell |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Another Amendment proposed, in line 1 to leave out the paragraph
and insert the following new paragraphs:
'Therefore having given much consideration to whether cannabis
should be decriminalised we wish to go further, and recommend
it should be legalised. Decriminalisation would simply leave users
and the authorities, including of course the police, in a kind
of no man's land, as well as ensuring that supply largely remained
in the hands of criminals.
'As pointed out in paragraph 89, amongst 16 to 29 year olds some
44% had used cannabis in their life and 22% in the last year.
We see little or no sense in continuing to criminalise a drug
used by a substantial minority which on all the evidence certainly
does less harm than tobacco and the excessive use of alcohol,
which again we have referred to in earlier paragraphs.
'Nevertheless as we say, this drug can be harmful, and certainly
it is not our wish that our recommendation should somehow be seen
as 'approving' its use, except for strictly medicinal purposes
as mentioned in paragraph 109. We remain firmly of the view that
all drug taking is undesirable and should be discouraged, as with
tobacco and excessive alcohol drinking.
'However, the reality is that despite what we as a Committee,
or Parliament itself, would like, many otherwise law-abiding citizens
do take cannabis and see no reason not to do so. Is it really
realistic to criminalise cannabis use while tobacco and alcohol
are legally and so widely available for sale?
'If our recommendation is not acceptable, we would support the
Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Class C
drug. It does show how opinion generally has moved that such a
proposal has aroused so little controversy and opposition compared
to the likely reaction just a few years ago.' —(David
Winnick.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 6
|
| Mr Marsha Singh | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| David Winnick | Bridget Prentice
|
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Bob Russell |
| Angela Watkinson |
| Mr Tom Watson |
Paragraph 121 agreed to.
Paragraph 122 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 123 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 124 to 127 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 128 and 129 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 130 to 134 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 135 read as follows:
We agree with the Police Foundation and therefore recommend
that ecstasy is reclassified as a Class B drug.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We support the Minister in this view and recommend that ecstasy
remains classified as a Class A drug.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 7
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mr David Cameron
|
| Mrs Janet Dean |
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Bob Russell |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
Paragraph 135 agreed to.
Paragraphs 136 to 168 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 169 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 170 and 171 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 172 read as follows:
Not all users want to be treated. There will usually come
a point when treatment does seem more appealing to most users
than the other alternatives open to them, but for a large part
of their using career this will not be apparent. It is vital that
treatment programmes are well publicised, that addicts know where
to go to seek treatment and that they are encouraged to join such
programmes. However, some will still be reluctant. In the meantime
it is necessary to minimise the harm which even these users are
causing to themselves and others, in the hope of providing a bridge
into a more ordered way of life. The user can then be offered
treatment with the eventual goal of abstinence. One obvious possibility
is the provision, under strict conditions, of legal, clean heroin
(or diamorphine) to persistent heroin addicts.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, at the end to add the words:
'However, we consider that the provision of diamorphine to persistent
heroin users would signal approval and lead to increased use.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 172 agreed to.
Paragraphs 173 to 183 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 184 read as follows:
It has been persuasively argued to us that the legalisation
and regulation of heroin would collapse the criminal market, drastically
reduce the level of acquisitive crime and make addiction easier
to treat. For reasons already given we do not propose to go down
this road. We do, however, accept that there is a strong case
for bringing heroin use above ground, so that those who wish to
be helped can be, and those who do not wish to be helped can at
least indulge their habit at a minimum risk to their own health
and that of the public. The obvious first step is the introduction
of safe injecting houses (so-called "shooting galleries")
of the sort that exist elsewhere in Europe. At their most basic
these are places where addicts can go without fear of arrest to
inject illegally-purchased heroin and where practical advice is
available as to the safest means of injection and the safe disposal
of needles. The Home Office told us that "the current government
position is that injecting rooms for illicit drugs should not
be introduced in this country whilst we have no evaluations of
those developed in other European countries".
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'It has been argued to us that the legalisation and regulation
of heroin would make the criminal market collapse, reduce the
level of acquisitive crime drastically and make addiction easier
to treat. For reasons already given we do not propose to adopt
that policy. A case has been made for bringing heroin use into
the open, so that those who wish to be helped can at least indulge
their habit at a minimum risk to their own health and that of
the public. The introduction of safe injecting houses (so-called
"shooting galleries") of the sort that exist elsewhere
in Europe has been proposed. At their most basic, these are places
where addicts can go without fear of arrest to inject illegally-purchased
heroin and where practical advice is available as to the safest
means of injection and the safe disposal of needles. The Home
Office told us that "the current government position is that
injecting rooms for illicit drugs should not be introduced in
this country whilst we have no evaluations of those developed
in other European countries".'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 184 agreed to.
Paragraph 185 read as follows:
We believe that such facilities may offer potential to reduce
harm. As well as helping users to reduce the risks to their health,
safe injecting premises could make a significant impact on the
nuisance caused to others by illicit injecting. All members of
the Committee have heard from constituents about the problem of
discarded needles and other paraphernalia in the street posing
a health and safety risk, particularly to children. If injecting
users could be directed to safe premises, needles could be disposed
of in a safe way and the problem contained.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'All members of the Committee have heard from constituents
about the problem of discarded needles and other paraphernalia
in the street posing a health and safety risk, particularly to
children. However, there is no evidence that those same constituents
would welcome "shooting galleries" in their neighbourhoods.
We believe that the provision of such facilities would remove
any personal responsibility or deterrent from addicts and lead
to increased use which is contrary to the aims of the national
strategy. We believe it would be wrong to make it easier for addicts
who do not wish to be cured, to indulge their habits.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 185 agreed to.
Paragraph 186 read as follows:
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.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We do not recommend, therefore, that a network of safe injecting
houses for heroin users be established.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 186 agreed to.
Paragraph 187 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 188 read as follows:
Opinion, however, is far from unanimous. Dr Claire Gerada,
of the Royal College of General Practitioners, told us that providing
diamorphine to addicts would mean "colluding and creating
life long addicts". We asked Mr Ralf Löfstedt, Deputy
Director of the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs,
for his opinion of heroin prescribing, given Sweden's more restrictive
approach to drugs policy. He told us that providing prescribed
heroin implied that some patients were "uncurable" and
warned that society would be sending out inconsistent messages:
"What will the effect on society be if we take more and more
people directly from drug addiction into another type of drug
addiction, but one sponsored by society?". He also suggested
that it might be harder to motivate addicts to take up treatment
such as methadone and drug-free programmes if they were able to
access clean heroin. He told us that the reductions in crime which
had been seen in the Swiss and Dutch programmes might not be sustained
and suggested further that heroin treatment programmes might cause
a rise in the numbers of new users.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, after 'unanimous', to insert the
words 'We agree with'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 14, at the end to add the
words:
'We note further, that Sweden's drug policy was liberal in
the 1960's, reflecting a harm reduction approach. However, in
1978, the goal of a drug free society was adopted officially.
Swedish policy is based on education, treatment and enforcement.
It is formulated around the gateway hypothesis. The dangers of
cannabis are strongly emphasised in education. All non-medical
use of drugs is regarded as abuse and possession is punishable
by fine or imprisonment. The police have the power to enforce
drug testing if they suspect abuse and abstention from prosecution
is rare. After a quarter of a century, the outcome has been far
more successful than the "harm reduction" approach used
in The Netherlands where illicit drug use is significantly higher.
The Netherlands is also one of the main entry points of drugs
into Europe and the centre of synthetic drug manufacture in Europe,
notably ecstasy and amphetamines.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 188 agreed to.
Paragraph 189 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 190 read as follows:
We conclude that the Dutch and Swiss evidence provides a strong
basis on which to conduct a pilot here in Britain of highly structured
heroin prescribing to addicts. 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.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We conclude that the Dutch and Swiss evidence shows that
the harm reduction approach results largely in addicts' habits
not only being maintained but also made easier to maintain. There
is no deterrent to new addicts and no motivation for existing
addicts to aspire to abstention. The policy has lead to a substantial
increase in cannabis and hard drug abuse and trafficking in The
Netherlands.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 190 agreed to.
Paragraph 191 read as follows:
We recommend that a pilot offering prescribed diamorphine
to heroin addicts be targeted, in the first instance, at chronic
addicts who are prolific offenders.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We conclude further, that the Swedish evidence shows that
prevention, education and treatment, backed by strong enforcement
of the law is far more effective in reducing drug abuse and should
be adopted in this country.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 191 agreed to
Paragraphs 192 and 193 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 194 read as follows:
We recommend that the Government commission a further trial
to look at the prescription of diamorphine to addicts who have
not yet, or are not currently accessing any treatment, despite
having a long history of heroin addiction.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We recommend that the Government commission a trial to look
at how prescription of diamorphine to problematic addicts who
are not accessing any treatment, might contribute towards their
withdrawal and abstinence.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 194 agreed to.
Paragraph 195 read as follow:
It has been emphasised to us that diamorphine prescription
should be used as a complement to already existing treatments
which are backed up by strong evidence, such as methadone treatment.
If diamorphine treatment could be offered to all problematic users
who do not successfully access other treatments, we believe it
could play a useful part in managing the social problems generated
by this group of people.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, after 'methadone treatment' to
insert the words:
'It remains to be proved whether, if diamorphine treatment
were to be offered to all problematic users who do not successfully
access other treatments, it could play a useful part in managing
the social problems generated by this group of people.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 195 agreed to.
Paragraphs 196 to 200 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 201 read as follows:
We are also concerned about the quality of drugs education
material, and the possibility of ambiguous messages contained
within it. We accept Mr Ainsworth's recognition that "preaching
at young people is not going to work". However, we believe
that all drugs education material should be based on the premise
that any drug use can be harmful and should be discouraged.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We are also concerned about the quality of drugs education
material and the ambiguous messages contained in it. We believe
that the Minister's statement that "preaching at young people
is not going to work" is defeatist. We believe further, that
all drugs education should be far more robust in its warnings
about the dangers to health, educational attainment and career
prospects and the penalties incurred if caught and convicted.
It should be based on the premise that illegal drug use is wrong.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 201 agreed to.
Paragraph 202 to 221 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 222 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 223 to 251 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 252 read as follows:
We recommend that the Government review Section 9A of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, with a view to repealing it, to allow
for the provision of drugs paraphernalia which reduces the harm
caused by drugs.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We recommend that the Government reviews Section 9A of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 relating to the provision of drugs paraphernalia.
We believe, however, that policy should not make drug use easier.'—(Angela
Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7
|
| Bob Russell | Mr David Cameron
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mrs Janet Dean
|
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 252 agreed to.
Paragraphs 253 to 256 agreed to.
Paragraph 257 read as follows:
We recommend that Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
be amended to ensure that drugs agencies can conduct harm reduction
work and provide safe injecting areas for users without fear of
being prosecuted.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the paragraph and
insert the words:
'We support Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in preventing
and deterring a proliferation of premises where illegal drug use
occurs.'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 8
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mr David Cameron
|
| Mrs Janet Dean |
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Bob Russell |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 257 agreed to.
Paragraphs 258 to 261 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 262 read as follows:
The Committee has heard representations that the schemes have,
in some places, been set up in such a way that offenders receive
preferential treatment over non-offenders: "in some districts,
the quickest way to access treatment is to commit a serious crime".
We consider it highly undesirable that it should be easier for
a drug addict to access treatment through the criminal justice
system than in the community. This is a further reason, if any
were needed, for the Government to provide more treatment in the
community.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, after 'more' to insert the words
'prevention and withdrawal'—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
Paragraph 262 agreed to.
Paragraphs 263 and 264 read and agreed to.
Another paragraph—(Angela Watkinson)—brought
up and read as follows:
'We have heard how a softening of enforcement leads very quickly
to increased dealing and use: Lambeth experiment and The Netherlands.
The evidence from Sweden however, has demonstrated how a robust
combination of prevention, education and enforcement has resulted
in a dramatic reduction in demand that in turn has affected supply.
Sweden has sought to create a drug-free society through prevention
and police control, following the failure of its previous liberal
harm reduction policy. Public opinion in Sweden is very supportive
of this policy. The evidence base for the effectiveness of enforcement
measures is strong. For example, Swedish policy has demonstrated
that stronger enforcement reduces demand and therefore dealing.'
Question, That the paragraph be added to the report, put and negatived.
Paragraphs 265 and 266 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 267 read as follows:
We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within
the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including
the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle
the global drugs dilemma.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words 'of alternative
ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation'
—(Angela Watkinson.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 8
|
| Angela Watkinson | Mr David Cameron
|
| Mrs Janet Dean |
| Bridget Prentice |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser |
| Bob Russell |
| Mr Marsha Singh |
| Mr Tom Watson |
| David Winnick |
Paragraph 267 agreed to.
Paragraphs 268 to 276 read.
Motion made, to leave out paragraphs 268 to 276 and insert the
following new paragraphs:
'There is little doubt that illegal drug use is widespread
and is the cause of a great deal of acquisitive and violent crime
as well as health problems and social misery.
'Illegal drug use affects not just users but also their families,
friends and the wider community. It is a personal freedom that
cannot be exercised without impinging on the freedom of others
and, therefore, cannot be tolerated.
'Opinion on how to tackle the problem falls into two broad categories,
greater acceptance and tolerance or stronger enforcement. However,
it is generally accepted that no single strategy is likely to
succeed and a combination of strategies are required.
'The main justification for the more liberal approach is that
the problem has grown to such unmanageable proportions that effective
enforcement is impossible. This is the policy of surrender and
defeat. The same argument could be used to justify decriminalising
burglary or speeding. There is no overwhelming public demand in
favour of a major relaxation of current anti-drug laws. The answer
is not to give in but to step up enforcement and prevention. Prevalence
will not decline while users know that there are no sanctions.
The example of The Netherlands demonstrates this.
'Our first duty is to protect young people from becoming the next
generation of drug addicts. Much more robust education and prevention
programmes are needed to enable children to reject peer pressure
to experiment with drugs. This should include personal responsibility
for decision making. Most new users are introduced to the habit
by "friends" and they need to be taught how to resist
emotional blackmail.
'Robust enforcement regimes in New York and Sweden have been shown
to succeed. They could also succeed here. Penalties should be
severe enough to deter and should include mandatory drug treatment.
'The treatment of existing addicts is a separate problem and the
cost cannot be sustained unless the level of demand diminishes.
There was consensus that more treatment should be available. However,
drug use should not be made easier by simply maintaining habits.
Treatment should have withdrawal or abstinence as its goal, otherwise
the flow of addicts would never decrease. This would remove any
incentive to abstain and would collude in maintaining lifelong
habits.
'Drugs are illegal for a very good reason—they are harmful.
Government should not shrink from upholding existing drug laws
and from enforcing them rigorously. However distant the goal might
be, government should be aiming for a drug-free society'.—
(Angela Watkinson.)
Question, That the paragraphs be read a second time, put and negatived.
Paragraphs 268 to 274 agreed to.
Paragraph 275 read as follows:
Finally, many sensible and thoughtful people have argued that
we should go a step further and embrace legalisation and regulation
of all or most presently illegal drugs. We acknowledge there are
some attractive arguments. However, those who urge this course
upon us are inviting us to take a step into the unknown. To tread
where no other society has yet trod. They are asking us to gamble
the undoubted potential gains against the inevitability of a significant
increase in the number of users, especially amongst the very young.
They are overlooking the fact that the overwhelming majority of
young people do not use drugs and that many are deterred by the
prospect of breaking the law. We, therefore, decline to support
legalisation and regulation.
Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 7 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Cameron | Mr Marsha Singh
|
| Mrs Janet Dean | David Winnick
|
| Bridget Prentice | |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser | |
| Bob Russell | |
| Angela Watkinson | |
| Mr Tom Watson | |
Paragraph 275 agreed to.
Paragraph 276 agreed to.
Annex read and agreed to.
Mr Humfrey Malins joined the meeting from Standing Committee E
(considering the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill).
Motion made, and Question put, That the Report be the Third Report
of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 9 | Noes,1
|
| Mr David Cameron | Angela Watkinson
|
| Mrs Janet Dean | |
| Mr Humfrey Malins | |
| Bridget Prentice | |
| Mr Gwyn Prosser | |
| Bob Russell | |
| Mr Marsha Singh | |
| Mr Tom Watson | |
| David Winnick | |
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134
(Select Committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.
Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
be reported to the House.—(The Chairman.)
Several Papers were ordered to be reported to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 14 May at a quarter
past Ten o'clock
|
