|
Dr. Iddon: One of the things that is emerging from the drugs debate—not only this debate, but from all debates currently going on across communities—is that we need to look at the classification of drugs. I strongly agree with that. I assume that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be the correct authority to do so.
The Co-ordination Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of New Drugs Report—the so-called CAM report—that the Dutch produced when they were looking at the risks of psilocybin and psilocin carries out a very important risk analysis. We need to develop a system of risk analysis along these lines in this country, if we have not already got it. I do not know what the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs does itself. We need risk analysis that ladders drugs, from the top to the bottom. Then we tailor the punishment according to the harm that the drugs produce.
For example, with the two compounds that we discussed earlier—psilocybin and psilocin—the report gives four categories. ''Health of the individual'' got a 1.8 score, which is no risk. ''Risk to public health and society in general'' got a 2.9 score, a low risk. ''Risk to public order and security of the general public'' was given a score of 2.5 for those chemicals, again a low risk. ''Criminal involvement''? There was none in the case of psilocybin and psilocin. That was given a score of 1.8: no risk. Psilocin and psilocybin cannot be differentiated from each other, in the same way in which it is hard to differentiate between heroin and morphine, because one is converted into the other in the body. That puts paddos, which is what the Dutch call those two drugs, way below gammahydroxybutrate, which has caused concern in this country, and it puts it way below drugs such as heroin and morphine. We could adopt a similar procedure and risk analysis on all the illicit drugs that are classified according to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and could punish people accordingly.
I speak against both new clauses for the following reasons. I admit that I do not know much about the use of khat, but it worries me that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has tabled new clause 1, which seeks to classify khat as a class A drug equal to morphine and cocaine. I say that I know nothing about khat, but I am sure that I would have known about it if it had been as harmful as morphine and cocaine.
Mrs. Gillan: I am simply taking the lead from the Minister, who put magic mushrooms into class A.
Dr. Iddon: The hon. Lady heard what I had to say about that earlier, which is why I am arguing, as other
Column Number: 213
Members such as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have argued, that we really need to reconsider the classification of drugs and, as I say, develop some sort of risk analysis process to do that.
Mrs. Gillan: Would the hon. Gentleman consider including in that risk analysis the results from the Brixton experiment? I do not want to knock any results that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has had in his area, but the hon. Member for Vauxhall stated that the experiment in Lambeth led to drug dealers pushing harder drugs into the area using their cannabis client base. That would need to be part of the risk assessment, which completely defeats the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East.
Dr. Iddon: I shall discuss Brixton and will answer that point in a moment.
The Government argue that all their legislation should be based on evidence and consultation. I ask the Minister and the hon. Lady what consultation we have had with the community that largely uses khat. Khat has been brought into this country by another culture, just as the West Indians brought cannabis into the country as part of their culture, music and traditions. We should consult widely, and not only with the Somalian community. We should also consult the ACMD and others who know far more about khat than any of us do on this Committee.
I do not accept the hon. Lady's suggestion that the Brixton experiment was an utter disaster. The problem was that it was conducted here in the capital in the full glare of publicity. There were television cameras, radio, and all the international media. It was an experiment that could never have succeeded in the way in which the hon. Lady wanted it to, because it received so much publicity that it sucked dealers into Brixton. It was not carried out on the quiet in a drug-using area of Manchester. Things were wrong with it, but so far as I could tell, things were also right with it. The police, for example, could concentrate on hard drugs, and they had some success, even in Brixton.
Mrs. Gillan: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the Metropolitan Police chief, Sir John Stevens, said that he regretted the Brixton experiment?
Dr. Iddon: I do not want to comment on everything that the hon. Lady throws at me, because time is short.
Caroline Flint: If I am correct, Sir John Stevens was actually making the point that my hon. Friend is making, which is that it might have been better on reflection to conduct the experiment across boroughs so that there was no displacement, rather than focusing on Brixton, because the media focus created problems. The experiment itself was not a problem; it was the way in which the media treated it, and the fact that it was conducted in isolation from other London boroughs. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Column Number: 214
5.45 pm
Dr. Iddon: Many myths have been quoted this afternoon, such as that cannabis causes mental illness and is a gateway drug to hard drugs—[Hon. Members: ''Where is the evidence?'']
It is not so much about where the evidence is, but about recognising that such statements are largely mythical. Let us take the issue of mental illness. The all-party group on drugs misuse carried out a dual diagnosis inquiry in which we discovered that about 42 per cent.—that figure is higher now—of the people in this country who misuse drugs are also mentally ill. Mentally ill people are predisposed to the use of drugs; it is not just that drugs make people mentally ill. Some drugs do make some people mentally ill, but that cannot be quoted as a generalisation, even with cannabis.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Iddon: I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions. I want to give the Minister time to respond to all my points.
I recommend a book by Zimmer and Morgan called ''Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence'', which is published by the Lindesmith Center. Bearing in mind the hon. Lady's current position on the Opposition Benches, I think that she ought to read that book if she has not done so, and consider the evidence that it presents. It presents a very balanced argument.
I shall try to deal with one final myth: cannabis is getting stronger. To which species of cannabis is the hon. Lady referring? There are 23 varieties. I made this point on Second Reading. She is referring to skunk, in which the tetrahydrocannabinol content is very high, but there are 23 varieties of cannabis, starting with ones with low THC content. In the Netherlands, the use of proper education allows people to start at the lower rather than the higher end of that spectrum. The problem with the sale of cannabis in Britain is that people do not know what they are buying on the street: one can even buy cannabis from Morocco that is full of camel dung.
Caroline Flint: I will deal first with new clause 1. I understand the desire to protect families from the serious consequences of the misuse of khat. I recall that on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) spoke about his experiences of dealing with that problem in his constituency.
The misuse of khat is a particular problem in the Somali and Yemeni communities. Last year, I dealt with an Adjournment debate on khat, which was attended by representatives from those communities, and I had the chance to speak to them afterwards about their concerns. Linked to those communities is the geographical issue of where khat misuse is a problem, which is mainly in Liverpool, Cardiff, and west and east London. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) caught me in the Corridor the other day to talk about some of the problems there. Her concern, which is based on anecdotal evidence following her
Column Number: 215
discussions with the police, is that khat use may be extending beyond those traditional ethnic cultural communities.
There is little evidence that khat misuse is widespread, but that should not prevent us from considering its use as a matter of general concern, and as constituting a social problem. Usually, when we consider the issues surrounding controlled drugs, we look at them in the context of the wider population, but we should be mindful that khat use might be taking a hold within communities and causing severe problems.
Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for looking on this matter sympathetically. In 2003, Customs and Excise estimated that between seven and 10 tonnes of the plant was being imported into the UK, but there is evidence that that figure is growing. Has the report that she promised been produced?
Caroline Flint: I understand that the report will be published in May. We have asked the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders to deliver on that, but I will say more about that later. I am conscious of time, and want to have time to speak about the cannabis issue.
Khat is a leaf that is traditionally chewed, but it can be made into tea. It is grown only in east Africa and southern Arabia. It gives the user a mild, amphetamine-like euphoria, and usually takes about half an hour of chewing to take effect. It is typically used by the older males in the family, for whom its use was traditionally a social activity. There are associated physical health problems, such as lack of sleep, food intake, related oral infections and an increase in levels of aggression. Colleagues have raised with me the issue of domestic violence associated with men using khat in a prolonged way.
The impact of khat is more social than physical. Not only is there the issue of domestic violence, but because of regular usage, men are unable to sustain themselves in work. There are therefore high levels of unemployment and such men are likely to be dependent on state benefits. That can create huge domestic tension, especially when spending money on khat becomes an economic drain on the family's income, and as I have said, it can cause increased aggression in the home.
We are keeping a close eye on the matter. Two pieces of separate research—one by Turning Point and the other by NACRO—that we have supported are being carried out into the impact of khat misuse. We look to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for advice on classified substances and controlled drugs. I am not in a position to say whether khat should be classified as a class A drug or at all. The question was last considered in 1988, and the ACMD has discussed the matter several times in more recent years.
Khat does not fit neatly into the usual profiles of drug misuse. We have spoken about a link between heroin, cocaine and crime, but there is no evidence of such a link for khat because it is not an illegal drug. That is not to say that there is not a good case for
Column Number: 216
controlling khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The best way ahead is to request the ACMD to undertake a comprehensive study on khat, especially in light of the latest research. I shall write to the chairman of the ACMD, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, asking him to undertake such a study and to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on its findings before the end of 2005.
| 
