| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 Jun 2007 : Column 366WH—continued
I hope that hon. Members will not mind, but I think that it is important to proceed point by point, rather than making great, rhetorical flourishes that may sound good, but sometimes do not mean an awful lot. The Committee asked us to ensure greater transparency about the various factors that influence classification decisions. I hope that hon. Members realised that when we reclassified methamphetamine—crystal meth—as a class A drug on 18 January 2007, we set out in clear terms the reasons for the reclassification
in Parliament and in the Home Office circular. We tried to take on board the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made about that.
The Committee called for the rationalisation of differential classification depending on the route of administration. For example, amphetamines are a class B drug, but they are class A when in a form prepared for injection to be applied to other drugs. We have asked the ACMD to provide advice on whether other drugs should be reclassified depending on the route of administration. That work is likely to be carried out in the ACMD’s systematic review, to which I will refer in a moment.
The Committee asked for greater openness and transparency for the ACMD. I say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that, irrespective of what is on the ACMD’s website, which he mentioned, it will publish the minutes of its meetings on the Home Office website. That will commence—I shall ask why it is not on the website already—with the most recent ACMD meeting held in May. I expect that to appear on the website in the very near future.
Another aspect of the Committee’s call for ACMD openness and transparency was the suggestion that it should hold open meetings. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that those will commence in the autumn. Parts of those meetings might be closed, but the general presumption will be that wherever possible the meetings will be open. Members of the public will be invited to observe proceedings, as indeed any Member of Parliament will be able to do, and have the opportunity to ask questions of the council. Alongside that, the ACMD is developing a publication strategy in order to inform the public in more detail about how it is trying to improve openness.
The Committee called for greater involvement from the Home Office scientific adviser. Already, the secretariat of the ACMD has moved under the management of Professor Wiles, the Home Office chief scientific adviser. He will oversee the expertise required on the council in any forthcoming recruitment round—another move that the Committee was anxious to see. Furthermore, under the chief scientific officer, the council will strengthen its links with research councils. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Professor Wiles holds regular meetings with the chief executives of all the relevant research councils, and as I said, we expect him to continue his meetings with the chief scientific advisers of other Departments.
The Committee recommended in particular that the ACMD conduct a systematic review of individual drugs. It is looking into doing that. Furthermore—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—as part of that systematic review of individual drugs and their classifications, it will undertake a review of ecstasy. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East that it will look also at magic mushrooms, which he mentioned. The important point to make about the systematic review of individual drugs, as appropriate and determined by the ACMD, is that it will consider both classification and harm reduction.
Dr. Evan Harris:
I know that the Government have no plans to reclassify ecstasy. That is taken as read. However, the Minister said that the ACMD will
reconsider the classification of ecstasy. If that is the case, does he rule out reclassifying it, if it recommends doing so?
Mr. Coaker: We will have to wait and see, but the Government have no intention of reclassifying ecstasy. I was asked to confirm that the ACMD was going to look at ecstasy as part of its systematic review. I can confirm that it will. Furthermore, in respect of the Committee’s report, I point out that the systematic review of individual drugs within the classification system is an important step forward. I hope that that is helpful.
I know that it is a bit pedantic—that seems to be the favourite word at the moment—but I shall continue with the approach that I have taken so far. It is very important that I go through all the points that have been made; I know that a lot of people are listening with particular interest.
The report said that there was a need for better engagement between the ACMD and other Departments. Recently, the council has held meetings with officials from five Departments—the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Transport, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and the Home Office. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon spoke about how best to deal with drugs in schools. Such issues could be on the agenda of those more frequent interdepartmental meetings, particularly between the Home Office and the DFES. Hopefully those issues can be addressed. Recently, the ACMD held discussions with the DCMS on steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in the run-up to the Olympics. There is also an ongoing invitation to officials from the DFES and the DOH to attend ACMD meetings. I hope that that will start to address some of the fears and concerns of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and his Committee about the lack of liaison between Departments.
The hon. Gentleman wanted the ACMD to look more at social harm and to engage with stakeholders. I can confirm that it will do that. He asked also about how the ACMD operates. I can tell him that the Home Office non-departmental public body review has taken place and the results are currently with the Home Secretary for his consideration. That is an important point, but I cannot say any more than that.
Let me turn to what I think is the crux of the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a couple of minutes to respond and to express agreement with this: of all the recommendations in the Committee’s report, the point about our drugs policy needing to address not only the classification system, but harm reduction, has had the greatest impact. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West that we accept absolutely that we need more than just a criminal justice solution to the drugs problem. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough knows from his court experience, that is obvious to everyone. A criminal justice solution alone is not appropriate.
The Committee said that it wanted greater emphasis on harm reduction, treatment and other alternatives. We agree with that absolutely. We are trying to increase the number of people receiving treatment and to ensure that that treatment is more effective. However,
alongside that, we want a strong law enforcement and criminal justice approach. At the risk of repeating myself, in my view—I say this as Minister with responsibility for drugs as well as an individual—the debate is plagued by the “either/or” argument. Of course, we need a criminal justice approach.
When I went to the all-party group on drugs misuse, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East heard me say that we need a strong criminal justice and law enforcement approach to deal with those who deal drugs in our communities. All of our constituents would expect that; they do not want people dealing drugs with nothing done about it. On the other hand, however, they accept that those arrested, charged by the police or who come into contact with the criminal justice system do not suddenly stop being addicts. They know that as well as we do. The criminal justice system must deal with those individuals—both dealers and users—in the best way possible, which is why we set up the drugs intervention programme in order to strike a balance between relying on the criminal justice system and encouraging more people into treatment. Alongside a tough law-enforcement approach we have tried to improve, and increase the level of, treatment.
We have tried to back that up with money. Let us consider the pooled treatment budget, which comes mainly from the DOH, but also from the Home Office. In 2001-02, expenditure in this area was £142 million. This year it is £398 million—a 280 per cent increase. The budget for the drugs intervention programme, which did not exist until 2003, is now £149 million. We also have the £55 million budget for the young persons substance misuse plan.
Our task is to relate the classification system to the drugs intervention programme, about which I shall say more in a moment. We know that if we want a successful drugs policy, the classification system must be robust—we have tried to start to take account of the points made by the Select Committee——but alongside that must be a plethora of other policies and a welter of other initiatives. We need not only a criminal justice system that is based on the classification system, but a treatment system whereby people go into treatment and are kept in treatment, and in which there are wraparound services to improve people’s chances of success with that treatment. This is about not only treatment, but all the other measures, such as employment, benefits, housing, confidence and self-esteem.
Yes, we can talk about how drugs should be classified in the system. We could have a huge debate on virtually every drug and whether it should be in class A, B or C, but we are plagued by that debate. Of course, the criminal justice system, linked to the classification system, has a role to play, but alongside that all the other aspects of policy are necessary and important. That is why we have a wide-ranging drugs strategy, of which the classification system is one part. We have tried to develop the other strands to it and we will certainly continue to do so.
I welcome the Select Committee report. I hope that what I have said shows that what the Committee said in its report has led to changes in the Government’s policy and practice and caused us to think about the
operation of the classification system, even without the fundamental review that I know the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was hoping for and expecting.
Dr. Evan Harris: I think that the Minister is coming to the end of his remarks. Before he does, I want him to return to something that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) would agree was critical to the report: the question of whether policy is evidence-based. The Minister has just restated his policy. It is not the case that he has no plans. However, the Government do not intend to reclassify ecstasy. Is that an evidence-based policy, a policy that is ideologically or economically based—I gave him that option and he could not be criticised for it if he was clear about it—or a policy with some other base? The report wanted the Government to be clear about the basis of their policy when there is evidence around.
Mr. Coaker: The hon. Gentleman keeps returning to the issue of ecstasy. I have said that the ACMD will consider ecstasy. We set out how the ACMD comes to its view about whether a drug should be in class A, B or C on page 16 of our response to the report and laid out the various factors that the ACMD takes into account. We always listen carefully. In fact, from memory, I think that we have never disagreed with any recommendation that the ACMD has made to us. We shall have to wait and see what happens when the ACMD makes a recommendation. The hon. Gentleman seems to be presuming that it will recommend changing the classification, but we shall wait and see what happens. I look forward to him welcoming the ACMD report, should it make such a recommendation.
I want to give the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough a couple of minutes to respond to the debate, but I have a few other remarks to make first. The Government maintain that the classification system has stood the test of time and that it continues to discharge its function fully and effectively. Its single purpose is to provide a legal framework in which criminal penalties are set by reference to the harmfulness of a drug to the individual and to society, and to the type of illegal activity undertaken. The criminal justice system expects a stable and enduring system and the Government must provide that. The classification of any drug must be a reliable fact of law, which was a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. Our tripartite classification system allows clear and meaningful distinctions to be made between drugs. Its familiarity and brand recognition should not be dismissed.
In deciding not to pursue a review of the classification system, the Government took two key factors into consideration. First, there is no optimum system of control, or even a system of structuring drug harm classifications, that is obviously better than the present one. That was the conclusion of the Police Foundation report and it remains as true today as it was in 2000, when that report was published.
Secondly, it is the job of the Government to identify and set the priorities that will have the most impact on achieving our shared aim of reducing the harm caused by drugs. There is no evidence to show that a change in the way in which we classify drugs would contribute to
that aim. Indeed, the evidence supports the position that we set out in our response: the drugs strategy as a whole is having real impact on the harm caused by drug misuse to individuals, their families and communities.
Such harm is beginning to reduce. Overall drug misuse has fallen by 16 per cent. since 1998, while the misuse of class A drugs has stabilised. Drug misuse among young people has fallen by more than a fifth in the past 10 years. Since the onset of the drug interventions programme, recorded acquisitive crime, to which drug-related crime makes a significant contribution, has fallen by 20 per cent.
More and more people are entering and staying in treatment. Nearly four fifths of the 181,000 people who have undergone drug treatment programmes in the past financial year completed their programmes. As a Minister with responsibility for drugs, I want to know what constitutes the successful completion of a drug treatment programme. Indeed, I would ask that important question of all of us because it is a crucial issue. It is possible to make the situation look very good, but we need to understand what is meant by the successful completion of a drug treatment programme.
Although the classification system has a necessary part to play in our drugs strategy, it is not the most important part. That is not just the Government’s view because it has become increasingly clear to me that that view is shared by many, although not all, professionals and service users involved in drug treatment. At the many stakeholder events in which I have participated throughout the country, I do not remember having once been asked about the classification system as a whole, although I have been asked about the classification of an individual drug. Our judgment is that the delivery of the drugs strategy as a whole must be our priority. Prioritising our resources in that way to achieve the greatest impact will be the key to our continued success.
As we have seen this afternoon, there will always be lively debate and disagreement about whether certain drugs are in the right category of the ABC system. The Government agree that, as far as possible, individual classifications should be evidence-based. We rely on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which is an expert and respected independent body, to provide us with advice that is based on its assessment of the evidence of the harm caused by a drug to the individual and to society. That advice constitutes the most significant input into any classification decision, and it is noteworthy that in the 10 years of the present Government, we have accepted all the ACMD’s recommendations on classification.
We recognised from the Select Committee report that we needed to build our evidence base. In particular, the Committee called on the Government to gather evidence on the deterrent effect to which we refer. I can tell the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we have done some scoping work on that and we are considering how we can take it forward.
I shall rush through some of the other points that were made. The Government recognise the harm caused to individuals by alcohol and tobacco, and we have policies outside the classification system that deal with alcohol and tobacco. The hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee in the Chamber will
have seen the new alcohol strategy that the Government published last week called “Safe. Sensible. Social. The next steps in the National Alcohol Strategy”.
I can say for the benefit of everyone that we will consult shortly on a new drugs strategy. We expect the consultation document to be published in the next few weeks and that will lead to a revised drugs strategy to commence in April 2008. We know that all hon. Members in the Chamber will participate in the development of the new drugs strategy. I will welcome the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to that process. I agree with his comment that when we can collaborate, we should do so. In developing the strategy, we shall not forget the contribution that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough makes and the ongoing work that we need to do to take account of its recommendations.
May I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Bolton, South-East that although I do not agree with some of the points that they made, I do not dismiss them? Just because someone says something with which we do not agree, it does not mean that we should not let them challenge our views. If we allow them to challenge our views, we move further along the road of having the public policy that we all want: one that reduces the harm in our communities caused by the use of illegal and legal drugs.
5.41 pm
Mr. Willis: I do not wish to detain hon. Members for too long. I thank the Minister enormously for the way in which he responded to this debate, for the open and honest way in which he addressed the areas on which we do not agree, and for reading the report and reporting that the Government intend to make many changes. I do not think that any hon. Member who had listened to this debate and the Minister’s response would criticise him for his enthusiasm and commitment to this issue. He was right that we are all committed to reducing harm. We are talking about not simply harm to the individual, but harm to the whole of society.
Despite the slight criticism that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made of me, which I do not take personally, the measured way in which he examined the formulation of the Conservative party’s policy on this incredibly difficult area gives me a lot of heart. Whenever we use this matter as a political football, we further entrench views, rather than seek sensible solutions.
On the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and in response to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should say that one of our great frustrations was the fact that we felt that there was a lack of transparency. There was a sense that we were being told, “We hold this information and you have to prise it from us.” There did not seem to be the view that we were partners in this, which was not acceptable. However, the Minister’s response was positive.
As a former educationalist, the thing that hurt me most—I shall go no further than this and I am sure that the Minister knows this one, too—was the lack of connection between the ACMD and the Department for Education and Skills. However, our schools will
make the big impact on educating young people about the misuse of drugs and other substances. That goes to the heart of what we were trying to do in our report. We want to ensure that the public at large, especially our young people, are educated about a scale of harm that includes tobacco and alcohol and puts other things in context. Our approach contrasts with one of people thinking that because those things are legal, they can get as drunk and cause as much damage as they like on a Saturday night, and smoke as much as they like without it mattering.
Mr. Coaker: In rushing through my remarks, I failed to make an extremely important point. The hon. Gentleman’s comment pricked my conscience because, like him, I was an educationalist. We have done some research, which is called the blueprint programme, on what constitutes effective drug education in schools. We hope to publish the first report in the next few months and a further report in summer 2008. I am sure that he will agree that the key issue is not only the drug education that is taking place in schools, but what constitutes effective drug education in schools. We hope that the blueprint programme will help us on that.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |