Drug Policy

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to respond to the United Nations Secretary-General’s statement of 26 June 2013 on drug policy urging Member States to “conduct a wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options”.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I seek a response from the Minister to my Question, but I must first congratulate the Government, and in particular the former Home Office Minister Norman Baker, on the production of the report Drugs: International Comparators. The report benefits greatly from fact-finding visits and discussions with 11 countries. It is a great pity that the executive summary omits the key findings of the report, most particularly that there is no clear correlation between the “toughness” of an approach and the levels of drug use. This is probably the most significant finding, with very clear implications for drugs policy, and yet the executive summary makes no mention of it. The report also omits all the recommendations that I understand had been prepared by officials.

The report makes clear that the UK has experienced a recent fall in the use of traditional drugs. There are at least two explanations for this. One is a rapid rise in the use of so-called new psychoactive substances, many of which are of course extremely dangerous, and are in fact more dangerous than the original, traditional drugs. More particularly, the second reason is that, although the possession of illicit drugs remains a criminal offence, the police now focus fewer of their resources on arresting drug users. Therefore, fewer young people are criminalised and, as a result, many will quickly recover from their drug problem and return to school or to work. It is interesting that our police have to compensate for the failure of our politicians, is it not?

Nevertheless, the UK remains the overall highest user in Europe of the four most used drugs. This is an incredibly important point. We are the hub for the distribution of new psychoactive substances across Europe. We have no reason to be satisfied with our performance. What are the Government therefore doing to promote an open debate on effective policies, which we clearly do not have here? Which options are being actively considered?

Will the Minister also inform the House what the Government’s response is to the recent change in US drugs policy? The US policy shift was defined in the recent statement by William Brownfield, the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. The US of course drove the “war on drugs” for 50 years. Now the US is driving policy in the other direction, and is at last in line with the fundamental objectives of the UN conventions: the health and welfare of individuals. We have never had that before. Brownfield envisages changes in policy through shifting enforcement priorities, such as decisions not to arrest drug users and greater flexibility in interpreting the conventions.

The Brownfield doctrine, as it has come to be called, is based upon four simple points: defending the integrity of the core of the conventions; allowing flexible interpretation of the treaties; allowing different national and regional strategies; and tackling organised crime, which is fair enough. This is all incredibly new. Do the UK Government agree with these four points?

In support of the doctrine of flexibility, we can point to one of the key architects of the 1961 convention on narcotic drugs, Herbert May. We should not forget him. He argued in 1955—he was a man of foresight—that a central goal of the convention was to provide “greater flexibility” to the international system due to the likelihood of changes in circumstances—surprise, surprise—as well as medical and scientific innovations and research. Yes, Herbert May, this is precisely the argument behind the new Brownfield doctrine. The modern world cannot turn its back on the evidence of effective drug policies, nor can we turn our backs on the need for further experiments and evaluation of them.

What does this mean in practice? For the UK, much of the evidence is summed up in the Government’s excellent report, Drugs: International Comparators. On the basis of the evidence, the UK should be rolling out heroin-assisted treatment clinics and decriminalising the possession and use of all drugs. Heroin-assisted treatment clinics have been trialled and evaluated extensively in Switzerland, and introduced in the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Germany, Belgium and Denmark, with pilots in the UK. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reviewed recent studies of this approach and concluded that there is strong evidence for the efficacy of HAT, when compared with methadone treatment, for long-term heroin-dependent individuals who do not respond to other forms of treatment. HAT achieves, in its words, marked reductions in the continued use of illicit street heroin and, to a lesser extent, in the use of other drugs such as cocaine and alcohol. It also achieves improvements in physical and mental health, as well as reductions in criminal activity, compared with levels prior to entering treatment. Would it not be wonderful if we could achieve that here? Will the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government have only three pilots rather than rolling out this well tried and evaluated policy across the country?

The Portuguese model of decriminalisation of drug possession, which involves dissuasion commissions and an increase in spending on treatment rather than on prisons, has been extensively evaluated and found to be beneficial. The essence of the policy is that, instead of arresting and charging a person caught in possession of a small quantity of any illegal drug, that person will have their drug confiscated and will then be referred to the local commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction, composed of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The main aim of the commission is to explore the need for treatment and to promote healthy recovery.

In the UK, a person found in possession of even a small quantity of an illicit drug is still far too often, despite attempts by the police to go in the right direction, arrested and will have a criminal record, with all the disadvantages throughout life that such a record brings. Can the Minister explain to the Committee what the Government see as the advantages of the UK system over the Portuguese model? The evidence suggests that there is no advantage whatever.

There are two other policies which merit an open debate, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General. The first is a transfer of the primary responsibility for drug policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health. Most of our European neighbours did this some years ago, and it would make an awful lot of sense if we followed suit. Of course, close liaison with the Home Office would be necessary to deal with certain aspects.

Secondly, also very important is the rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 to recognise the fact—not an illusion—that cannabis has medicinal properties. That is all that this would mean. It makes no sense to have Sativex, a cannabis-based medication, available on the NHS while having cannabis in Schedule 1, implying that it has no medicinal properties. We know that patients with multiple sclerosis and those suffering the side-effects of chemotherapy—very sick people—go to enormous lengths, travelling to Europe to pick up less than three month’s worth of cannabis. They say that it is the only thing that helps their symptoms. If they could obtain the drug just through a simple prescription on the basis of their diagnosis, would that not be a reasonable policy? Again, will the Minister agree to consider this proposal and ask the Home Office to undertake a serious study of the feasibility of such a change?

Finally, I want to put on record that the APPG for Drug Policy Reform, which I chair, is working with Latin American and European Governments to provide guidance across the world—it sounds a bit ambitious—on interpreting the UN drug conventions for the 21st century. The focus will be on the need to promote the central purpose of the UN conventions for the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and it will take account of the Brownfield doctrine. Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Government will support an open debate on that guidance when it is fully prepared? The US, Latin America and Europe are all moving forward. Will the UK continue to be left behind?