Memorandum submitted by Mr Bob Ainsworth
MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office
UN COMMISSION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS: 8-17 APRIL
2003: VIENNA
You will recall that I gave evidence to the
Home Affairs Committee on 20 March, primarily to explain the position
which the UK Government planed to take at the 46th Session of
the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in April. The Committee
had asked me to provide such evidence because CND this year included
a Ministerial segment to review the 1998 UNGASS 10-year drug strategy
at its mid-term point. Given the Committee's strong interest in
the review, I thought you might find it helpful to have this brief
account of what transpired from a UK Government perspective.
The Commission was attended by just over 1,000
delegates from 129 countries. Seventy-five countries had Ministers
in attendance or Ministerial level heads of delegation. The UK
delegation achieved its principal objectives which were to:
— secure adoption of a UK-led resolution
aimed at strengthening management of the UN Office on Drugs &
Crime (UNODC);
— support, or negotiate acceptable
language in, the other resolutions tabled (of which there were
20, making 21 resolutions in total);
— explain clearly the UK Government's
policy on cannabis, and challenge the misleading statements in
the INCB's report of 2002 in support of my letter of 4 March to
the Board's Secretary;
— request in open forum that UN legal
advice on harm reduction measures provided to INCB be shared with
member states;
— engage effectively in the UNGASS
drug strategy mid-term review;
— participate in parallel/alternative
events organised by NGOs.
The Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio Costa,
presented an upbeat analysis of performance against the UNGASS
1998 political declaration, based on the individual returns submitted
by member states. However, it was recognised that more needs to
be done to achieve significant results; improve the evidence base;
evaluate outcomes; and share best practice. The UK played a leading
role in ensuring that the Ministerial Statement agreed at the
end of the Commission stressed the need for drug policies to be
evidence-based and properly evaluated. We will now press for those
words to be turned into action. Predictably, the review process
was not as robust or dynamic as we had wanted, comprising largely
of a series of national statements presented either in plenary
session or within themed "discussions". Consequently,
the outcomes lacked the degree of forensic analysis and challenge
that one would normally expect from a strategic review. We will
push for a more systematic and effective approach in the lead
up to the full review in 2008.
One of the principal themes to emerge from CND
2003 was the growing polarisation on cannabis and harm reduction
issues, with those member states advocating a zero tolerance type
approach far outnumbering those who would like to see greater
flexibility. The UK is largely perceived as being in the "lenient"
camp on cannabis (notwithstanding our clear compliance with the
Conventions) and as pushing at the Convention boundaries—but
not beyond—on harm reduction. These two issues are likely
to dominate future CND agendas, and it is possible that the polarisation
I have described will grow still further. But I remain of the
view that the call for greater flexibility on the part of some
member states and NGOs is unlikely to lead to an early review
of, or changes to, the UN Conventions; indeed, the outcome of
CND 2003 very much confirms that view. In any event, and as I
said when I gave evidence on 20 March, there is nothing within
our Updated Drug Strategy which we are doing, or planning to do,
which falls outside of the UN Conventions. It therefore follows
that there would be no justification in the UK Government taking
a lead in seeking a review of the Conventions at this time.
On 20 March I also promised to write to you
with details of treatment waiting times and drug treatment programmes
for prisoners. A letter covering these issues will follow shortly.
8 May 2003
|
