Mr.
Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Dr.
Harris: Yes, of course, in a
minute. If
on that basis the hon. Gentleman argues that we need to do something
about progression, why does his party have an extremely inconsistent
record on tobacco—for example, on tobacco advertising and the
smoking of tobacco in public places? I hope that he accepts that if
politicians believe in a theory—the gateway theory—for
which there is little or no evidence, then consistency in the
application of that theory would be useful to
see.
Mr.
Swire: I do not think that there is any great evidence of
pure tobacco having any psychotic implications, which is certainly not
the case with cannabis. The hon. Gentleman read out that report and
says that there is no great evidence to suggest there is a pathway. But
there is no great evidence to suggest that there is not. Of course it
is by no means certain that anybody starting on cannabis will
necessarily progress as a result of that to a stronger drug, but it
clearly is the case that a lot of people who have progressed to
stronger drugs started off by using
cannabis.
The
Chairman: Order. Before I call Dr. Harris, I remind hon.
Members that the business of this Committee must finish at 10.25.
Obviously, some very serious questions are being asked about a very
serious subject and I want to give the Minister plenty of time to
respond. Mr.
Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): On a point of
order, Mr. Olner. Clearly no Members from the Back Benches
have spoken. I hope that the Front Benchers, even though the Minister
should reply, will allow Back Benchers to make their contributions
too.
Dr.
Harris: The conclusions of the ACMD on the gateway theory
come in paragraph
12.11: “The
Council does not consider the risks of progression to Class A drugs as
a consequence of using cannabis to be substantial; and considers that
such risks are likely to be less than those associated with the use of
alcohol and
tobacco.” The
point that the hon. Gentleman was raising was about the gateway, not
the link between cannabis and psychosis, which I will come
to.
The policy is
bad in its own terms, as I have said, but it also brings the
classification system into disrepute. What is the point of having a
classification system, which is supposed to help people understand the
risks of illegal drugs, if it loses its credibility? That is why many
people on the ACMD and the ACMD itself have been careful. I am
extremely disappointed that neither the Minister nor the Conservative
spokesman felt able to read from its report. It would be easy for the
ACMD to say what the Government want to hear and say, “All
right, re-classify as B, that’s fine”. However, the
council made the point time and again in its report that the harms
associated with cannabis—which I do not doubt exist, let us be
clear about that—are not of the kind, scale or seriousness of
those associated with other class B drugs. Perhaps the Government have
a master plan to re-classify all class B drugs to class A, and to
create a
new class A* out of the existing class A drugs, but in the absence of
that, this policy is undermining to the credibility of the
classification system. If—and
it is a big if—the classification system is relevant to whether
people use or start to use illegal drugs and if people with existing
psychosis read the law before deciding whether to smoke cannabis, the
credibility of that system is important. Only if the system bears no
relationship to use is it less harmful to have a random allocation,
based on the evidence of harm, between the classes. I do not think that
the Government can justify either approach. They are not claiming that
the system is random and it does not matter, but they cannot show any
evidence for that. Indeed, the Select Committee on Science and
Technology, on which I serve, looked at this and it could find no
evidence of a link between the classification system when it is not
associated with harm, and the use of cannabis.
The third
reason why this is a bad policy is that it undermines and, I would say,
fundamentally destroys the reputation of the Government on
evidence-based policy making.
James
Brokenshire: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is
saying. Perhaps he might clarify his thoughts. Does he believe that
cannabis should remain as a class C drug, or is he saying that it
should be decriminalised altogether?
Dr.
Harris: If there was evidence that decriminalisation would
be beneficial—that it would minimise harm and minimise the
criminalisation of people— and no evidence that there are
benefits in the criminalisation of those people, then I would. My party
and I are on the record as clearly saying that, but in today’s
debate I can vote only one way or the other and I shall be voting in
line with the evidence. Although I do not empathise, I recognise the
pressure that the Government feel under in their chase for approving
headlines from the tabloid media and right-wing commentators. However,
when there are grounds for political mischief, as there are on this
issue, it is even more important to take advice from expert advisory
councils.
I think that
this Government would be the first to criticise the Bush Government for
ignoring the advice of expert bodies on climate change, yet here we
have an expert body set up by the Government, from which no Government
have ever rejected a recommendation, in a culture of evidence-based
policy making with which all politicians like to associate themselves,
and we now have the first departure from that advice. It is
disappointing to hear the Conservative party say in advance that it
would reject any advice that came from other areas too.
This is the
death of evidence-based policy making and the “what
works” approach that the Government used to boast about. I would
say to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that my view is not a
liberal view, it is an evidence-based view, a practical view and one
that I would expect the Government to identify with. If the ACMD is
right, its recommendation will lead to less cannabis use and less harm.
I do not think that that is a liberal approach in the sense that the
hon. Lady used the term. I hope that she will allow me to say that yes,
I like to feel that I have a liberal approach to the consenting private
behaviour of adults, but this goes beyond that: it is what
works.
I want to deal
with a couple of the points raised in the ACMD report, which have not
been mentioned and which concern the issue of harm and potency. These
are the last two points that I shall make.
Dr.
Harris: Of course. What the report says about potency goes
against what the Minister and the Conservative spokesman have
intimated. Recommendation 12.1.6
says: “The
Council considers that, since its last review...there is evidence
to suggest users of cannabis are now exposed to products with a higher
THC content than previously...This has occurred largely because of
the substantial increase in the market share of
sinsemilla.” However,
it goes
on: “The
consequences, however, are less easy to predict because, if users
titrate their intake to achieve a desired intensity of effect, the
‘effective’ THC dose for individuals may be
unchanged...It is worthy of note that despite the increase in
cannabis potency, there has been no concomitant recorded increase in
enquiries to the National Poisons Information Service, nor an increase
in hospital admissions due to cannabis
intoxication.” That
is the view of the advisory council. Even though the potency issue is
recognised, there does not seem to be a link between that and hospital
admissions. The council sets out clearly in a table the evidence that
the concentration of THC in sinsemilla has dropped since 2005 from 13.7
per cent. to 10.4 per cent. in 2007. We are not facing an escalating
increase.
The council
also had clear views about the evidence of increased harm. Although I
do not dispute for a moment the devastating effect on a family of a
diagnosis of psychotic illness, the council estimates that the number
of people who would have to be prevented from starting cannabis use in
order to prevent one person from developing psychotic illness is around
20,000. At the lower end of the error bar, it is still several
thousand. There needs to be more understanding of the numbers that it
would be necessary to treat before a change comes about. I
would want to see that reduction in the number of people starting
cannabis use, but if there is no evidence that this policy will achieve
that, we as politicians and lawmakers must consider the consequences of
increasing criminalisation for no significant
benefit. In
his remarks, the Minister referred to a lot of the Government’s
policies on tackling cultivation and dealing. I do not disagree at all
that they must be tackled—that is the real criminality compared
with possession—but today we are considering penalties for
possession. I know that he accepts, as I do, all the recommendations of
the ACMD that deal with other issues around cannabis, but on
possession, recommendation 3 on classification is what is
important.
I am
disappointed that the Government have not yet published the evidence on
which they based their decision. In his reply to my question, the
Minister urged me to look at the Government’s response, but all
that it says is what he
said: “In
reaching its decisions, the Government has also taken into account
wider issues such as public
perceptions”, which,
as he accepts, the ACMD examined before making its
recommendations, “and
the needs and consequences for policing priorities.”
If anything,
increasing the criminality of cannabis possession will increase the
drain on police resources, so it goes the other way. I could understand
if he added police priorities on terrorism, crime and disorder and
acquisitive crime—which is not associated with cannabis use, by
the way—as a reason not to increase the classification, but it
is illogical and it goes against logic for him to argue that police
priorities are a basis for increasing
criminalisation.
The
Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks
to a close? There are Back Benchers wishing to speak in this important
debate.
Dr.
Harris: I understand, Mr. Olner. I myself have
been a Back Bencher and not had the opportunity to speak. I did not
have the protection that you are giving them, and I welcome
it. I
hope that the Government accept that it will now be much more difficult
for them to claim that their policy is based on evidence and that the
Home Office in particular is prepared to accept scientific advice. This
is not only a bad day for people in this country who will be the
victims of bad law; it is a bad day for policy making in and of
itself.
9.59
am
Mr.
Allen: It is a great pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship again, Mr. Olner. It is generous and firm by
turns, as it needs to be. It is also a pleasure to serve with the
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the
Member for Tynemouth. It is the first time that I have served with him
on a Committee and he has taken to his duties very well—as if he
had been doing it for many years. Although, he should always listen to
contributions from Back Benchers rather than talk to the Whip on the
Front Bench, otherwise people may get the wrong impression. There was
also a fine contribution from the hon. Member for Hornchurch. He was
not always in agreement with his opposite number, but it was a telling
contribution none the less. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon came over with his usual trenchant views on behalf of his
party. I am tempted to think that if three such eminent brains could
get together, we could have, in all senses of the word, a joint policy
on this important issue—please excuse the pun Mr.
Olner.
I am
concerned about the role of Parliament. This is a really important
statutory instrument. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall
Green normally has to drag people to Committees considering statutory
instruments to make up the numbers. This is an issue that deserves to
be debated on the Floor of the House, not in a Committee with no press
present and, I am sure, no outside coverage. I hope that, through the
usual channels, colleagues will take away those points. It is important
to all constituents; this is not a minor technical amendment but a
serious change to the way we perceive drug use. We would be stronger if
it were taken on the Floor of the House in the not-too-distant
future.
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): As the representative of
the usual channels on the other side of the House, I gently point out
to the hon. Gentleman that the Government, whom he supports, imposed
rules on
Parliament that mean that decisions taken in this
Committee make no difference to the final consideration, which will be
a deferred Division with no vote on the Floor of the House—of
course, the House voted for those rules. It makes no difference whether
we say that we have or have not considered the instrument at the end of
the debate. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important
point.
Mr.
Allen: I take that as a pledge from the Front Bench that
the Conservatives will change this ridiculous process should there ever
be a change of Government. However, I have been here long enough to
recall the Conservative Government many years ago, who had the
opportunity to change this process and did not. I suspect that the
collaboration between the Front Benchers is our problem, rather than
what Parliament itself does. Parliament is weak in this regard.
[Interruption.] When individuals make points it is
probably polite to listen to the response.
The
Chairman: Order. Let the Member
speak.
Mr.
Allen: In particular, Members who have raised points
should have the courtesy to listen to the response, because they may
learn that this is not an invention of the current Government, but the
way Government treats Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do
something serious about it, he can talk to his party about the changes
that he would like to make to the statutory instrument procedure. I
wish him well. Government is stronger for listening to Parliament and
this is a classic
example. I
have nothing but admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), but I will make one
minor criticism. When we rush to make policy in instances such as this,
sometimes because of outside pressures, we do not have proper
pre-legislative scrutiny, and we come back and amend later. Doing it in
haste wastes more parliamentary time than it saves. We legislate in
haste and repent at leisure. Involving Parliament—the relevant
Select Committees and the Chamber—to get legislation such as
this right is useful. We made mistakes on the criminal justice Bills
and on the Child Support Agency. Parliament has a serious role
to play and I hope that all Front Benchers take that on
board. The
real reason for my contribution—I will not go beyond 10
minutes—is to underline that perceptions are more important than
reality. What the kids think and the way these things are viewed are
more important than the dry statistics about who does what, when and
where. I feel that very keenly, because one of my great drivers in
social policy is drug education, not chasing after people when it is
too late; not paying £200,000 a year to get someone on a serious
drug rehab course when two out of three people reoffend or reuse after
the course, but to get to the kids really early. Part of the philosophy
of early intervention is to put in filters and safety nets so that
young people understand that it is bad news to abuse drugs and
drink. I
speak as the chair of a local strategic partnership. We have invested
£250,000 to give each child between six and 16 in our city the
inoculation—not a failsafe measure, but an inoculation, and what
is a preventative effort—to say no to drug and drink abuse. That
cost sounds quite high, but it is the cost of putting three or four
people into intensive drug rehab when we have got
it wrong. A stitch in time saves nine, and if we are to take such action
effectively, we must not undermine the messages and the symbols by
sending mixed messages from this place or from the Government,
whichever party is in power, that confuse individuals, particularly
young people and those whom we expect to provide effective drug
education. The messages must be clear. That is fundamentally what I am
trying to get over today. I do not intend to talk about the medical
effects. There are people far better qualified to judge that than me.
My argument is not about enforcement after it has happened, and it is
too late. Again, people are much qualified than me to do that, but I
want to get to the brains of the kids early by making the messages
clear. One
of the things that I did when I knew that I had the privilege of
serving on the Committee was to ask a lot of local people what they
thought about the issue and how we as a class of politicians have
conducted ourselves over the past few years. My local drug education
organisation is called DARE, and its director, David Gilbert, gave me a
couple of bullet points. He used the word “clarify”. It
keeps coming up over and over again. He said to stay with it, be
sustainable and to hold the policy line for a long time so that we can
undertake a generation’s worth of drug education. He
said: “clarify
the law in respect of cannabis...remove the apparent
dilution”— he
was not making a
judgment— “of
it being taken seriously as a harmful drug...Present an element of
common sense into dealing with what is a popular, yet harmful,
drug”. Those
are words from an eminent local practitioner.
My local
chief of police in the city of Nottingham
said: “Professionally
I support the re-classification back to Class B. Practically all we
have seen since the downgrading is an explosion in the organised
production of cannabis, predominantly by south-east Asian offenders. I
am not aware of any transferred benefits in enhancing targeting of
Class A trafficking—indeed the organised production of Cannabis
has been an extra burden for operational
policing.‘ As
a little postscript, he
added: “at
a time when we are actively working to reduce smoking it seems perverse
to give out mixed signals around
cannabis.” A
local secondary head
said: “The
changes in classification over the past years have both confused and
weakened the message on the streets. Cannabis is seen as
‘ok’ to take—many media personalities glorifying
it in the eyes of young people, it is seen by many young people as a
natural part of recreation. When I talk to young people about it many
draw a clear line between cannabis and ‘harder’
drugs—referring to people who use hard drugs as
‘druggies’, whilst accepting their own cannabis
consumption in a similar way to a night at the
cinema.” He
finished by
saying: “I
would ask that whatever is decided in Parliament is then not changed
for a number of years and the message is made consistent—it is
said a message should be repeated 14 times before it truly becomes
‘learnt’—this has not happened so far, it is
inevitable that confusion will
reign!” A
senior local councillor wrote that
first “the
stuff is getting stronger 2) we don’t yet know the long term
effects 3) it creates a turpitude in its users which makes them less
employable 4) people think it has been
decriminalised”. He
said that, as a
consequence, “it’s
becoming pervasive and acceptable and used in the presence of
children”
He asked about the
effect on a child’s upbringing, and said that there should be
particularly punitive measures for those who subjected children to its
influence. He said that it is openly smoked in the street, which people
find offensive and that those smoking it in public need to be subject
to a
fine. I
could go on providing evidence. This evidence may be anecdotal,
but—do you know what, Mr. Olner?—it is the way
people feel and the way things are perceived. All hon. Members have a
responsibility to try to put that right so that we can build bridges
for all our young people, so that they can say
no. I
will not go any further; I said that I would sit down after 10 minutes.
I hope that the message from the Back Benches to all Front-Bench
spokesmen, even though Back Benchers have been allowed only one third
of the time in this debate, will be taken. Put aside the petty partisan
point scoring here and, please, collectively, if possible, come up with
a policy that gives clarity to those people out in the tough
areas—the inner cities and outer estates—who are trying
to give our young people a chance to say no to drug
use.
| 
