Mr.
Willis: May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve
under your chairmanship, Ms Walley? It is also a pleasure to follow a
very thoughtful response to the Minister from the hon. Member for Bury
St. Edmunds.
Given
the events of this weekend, particularly the urgent question before we
came to the Committee, it is interesting to consider the real work of
the ACMD, an advisory body that has been established since the 1971
Act, and has been working as it should. However, if one
looks at the history of that legislation and the early work of the ACMD,
one will see that it was not always thus. A great deal of advice was
given to the Government that simply stated, “We think”,
without a body of evidence to support it. The Minister has presented
good evidence today to support the recommendations and the evidence has
come from the ACMD, supported by all. My party will not call a
Division, and will support the Government, because it would be
incongruous to argue that we should have good scientific advice and
then to vote against it. I should like
to make one or two brief comments, without repeating those of the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I was nodding in agreement with much of
what he said, particularly on GBL and the difficulty around its
placement in the categorisation system. I am on record as saying that
the current ABC classification system for drugs has had its day and is
counter-productive. The Government need a good drugs policy that can
convey the degree of harm of a particular drug. As the hon. Gentleman
made clear, that is particularly difficult when young people have no
reference point within their cognisance.
Sometimes
when Members argue for a different classification based on degree of
harm for both legal and illegal drugs, it somehow equates to
declassification of drugs and a free-for-all. That is certainly not my
position. I take a much harder line than many of my Liberal Democrat
colleagues. I think I am in line with the general public’s view
that drug culture is a scourge on our society that causes immeasurable
harm. Whatever Government are in power, they have a duty to support a
sensible way forward in dealing with some of those major
issues. The
classification system has certainly had its day. Not long ago methyl
amphetamine or crystal meth was placed in class B, simply because the
Government did not want to put it in class A, where it should have been
and where it now is, because that would have sent out the wrong
message. Magic mushrooms are in class A because they contain psilocin
or psilocybin, yet there is no evidence to support any misuse. Again,
today, drugs are being put into class C for their potential harm in the
future. Every
drug has a potential harm—that is the reality. Members of the
Committee will know that in their constituencies on a weekend, alcohol
is the major problem. There are more deaths from alcohol every weekend
than from the whole of the illegal drugs trade in a month. That is an
imbalance, and I want to make not a political point but say that,
rather than pretend, we must address that issue.
I want to ask
the Minister about the ACMD, whose advice, which we take and support,
is before us today. The question is about the position of the ACMD and,
in particular, of its chairman, whoever they might be. I was intrigued
by the response to the urgent question this afternoon, when the code of
practice was referred to. I would like the Minister to confirm that
that code of practice has not been changed in the past year, six months
or three months, and that it remains in place. The code of practice
clearly states that the advice
of—
The
Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear
in mind that there was a statement earlier, and that the position of
the chairman of the advisory committee is not the substance of our
discussion.
Mr.
Willis: I appreciate that, Ms Walley. I am asking a simple
question. At the heart of our discussion this afternoon is the advice
of the ACMD. The Minister is asking the Committee to approve an order
that will classify four different groups of drugs on the advice of the
ACMD. My question, with your patience and permission, Ms
Walley—I will be finished by five o’clock—relates
to the advice of the ACMD. This is the key point: the code of practice
states that the
advice “will
be published in writing. The advice will be objective and independent
of
Government.” That
is not only my understanding, but the basis of the advice that will be
given. I
want the Minister to reassure the Committee that the ACMD is not an arm
of Government, but an independent advisory body advising them. Its
chairman’s advice is totally different in character from that of
the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser, Paul Wiles, who has
a statutory responsibility and is paid by the Government. Will the
Minister confirm that there is a fundamental difference between those
two roles? Leaving that question on the table, I am happy to say that
my party will support the
order. 5.2
pm
Mr.
Campbell: I appreciate the measured tone of this debate. I
will attempt to address all the issues—certainly as many as I
can.
I am grateful
for the assurance of support from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
He and other hon. Members have expressed concerns about whether class C
is an appropriate place for GBL, and whether that will send out the
wrong message. Let me be clear about this matter. If we bring GBL into
the classification system, we send out the message that it is harmful.
I do not want anyone listening to, or reading about, this debate, or
anyone in this Room today, to believe that class C drugs are not
harmful; it is a question of how harmful they are. That is why we rely
on the AMCD to give us advice. As I have said, GHB is the closest to
GBL, and therefore that is the basis on which we are
proceeding.
The 1971 Act
specifically states that classification should not and does not depend
on use with other substances. The hon. Gentleman made a good point
about the question of alcohol and the environment in which GBL is
sometimes taken. All that was part of the consideration of where best
to place GBL. All factors are taken into consideration when classifying
a particular drug, and that includes alcohol. The ACMD arrived at the
conclusion that the best place was class C, and we agreed with
that. The
hon. Gentleman also raised an interesting point—I do not think
there is strong and clear evidence for this yet, but it may be
emerging—regarding reports that GBL is a drug that may be used
in sexual assault, or a date rape drug as it is commonly known. Of
course, we keep under review the classification of all drugs that have
been classified and those that might need to be classified as new
evidence emerges. The 2007 ACMD report, “Drug Facilitated Sexual
Assault”, found little clear evidence for the use of drugs, but
found a number of cases in which alcohol was used. I hesitate to say
that because of the media reports last week around that very issue, and
I do not want to give the impression that
drugs are not used. The evidence is unclear, which is why we need to
keep such things under review and, as we shall with GBL, ensure that
there is a strong education message, so that people know not only of
the drug danger that might be out there, but of all the other dangers,
whether of alcohol or anything
else. Mr.
Ruffley: What would be particularly useful is for the
Minister to explain to the uninitiated—I am certainly one of
them—the frequency with which the evidence that might come on
stream is assessed, whether in relation to date rape facilitation or a
greater or stable use of such drugs? Is that assessment monthly,
quarterly or annually? It would be useful to understand the process by
which the regime that will come into effect under the order is kept
under review. Is it real-time, annual or something in
between?
Mr.
Campbell: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive
answer in terms of weeks, months or years. That depends on how the
evidence emerges. The key is the ACMD, which meets frequently. It has a
programme of work into the future, by which we try to ensure that it
looks at emerging trends in drugs, but it also has the flexibility to
be applied quickly to issues that emerge more quickly. That sometimes
involves returning to drugs that have already been classified, as the
new evidence emerges. At the heart of the debate, particularly over the
past few days, is that, yes, we want to rely on the science. However,
the science is not always there, and evidence emerges from time to
time, which is why we must have a flexible system and one that can be
applied appropriately and
proportionately. The
hon. Gentleman asked about BZP. A number of other countries are seeking
to control BZP in line with their obligations as EU member states. I
cannot list them now, but I shall go away and find out the definitive
answer. In answer to what lay behind his question, we are to some
extent ahead of the game with a generic definition, which is where it
is best for us to
be. On
enforcing the law with regard to steroids, again, I shall need to check
the numbers, although I think that the hon. Gentleman quoted from a
letter that I have signed, so I should have that at my disposal. I
shall come back to him with a more definitive answer. However,
sometimes, as with many aspects of the classification system, we are
really going after the suppliers and traffickers, which is why we are
bringing the new substances under control. The Olympics is also
focusing our attention, although we would be keen to keep an eye on
steroids at all times. I shall try to get the hon. Gentleman more
evidence on that and share it with the whole Committee.
The hon.
Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised a number of general
issues, which are perhaps beyond the scope of the order. I am sure that
the debate will continue outside on his points. I do not want
to go into detail because you will rule me out of
order, Ms Walley, but I want to mention alcohol in case anyone
thinks that we have a regime for drugs but not for alcohol or
cigarettes—we do, but the contention is that we have a different
way of looking at each of them, which is partly because we think that
society looks at them differently. The hon. Gentleman has a particular
standpoint, which is perfectly valid, but we do not accept that now is
the time to look at all those things under one system. That is at the
heart of some of the anomalies that occur
sometimes. The
hon. Gentleman asked about the Department of Health warning on other
legal highs. Again, this may be the first time that we visit the issue,
but I am sure that it will not be the last. We shall see what further
extensions need to be made in future, including looking at labelling on
products—a number of things can be done without having to go
down the route that we are going down
today. The
hon. Gentleman asked about the code of practice—I looked at the
code of practice in the light of what else is going on. The Home
Secretary had something to say on the subject today. The code has
certainly not changed to my knowledge, and certainly not in the time
scale that the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, I give him a
commitment: I shall look at the matter and write to him about it. I
take his points about the chief scientific adviser, but I do not want
to go too far down that road because the Home Secretary has already
said a great deal. It would be a shame to reopen some of those issues,
even if you allowed us to do so, Ms Walley, because the order before us
today includes good examples of where the system is working. I
appreciate the efforts of the ACMD and have done so in the past.
Sometimes, however, we have just not agreed with it. I look forward to
that work
continuing. With
that, let me say that the substances under discussion may be legal
highs, but they are not safe. That is why we are seeking to take the
action under the order. The substances concerned are dangerous and
harmful—there are debates about how harmful, but we have worked
with and appreciate the work of the ACMD. We have brought forward our
conclusions, and I hope that the Committee can support
them. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
(Amendment) Order
2009. 5.11
pm Committee
rose.
| 
