---

Drug Classification

Indeed. It is important to say that the Select Committee’s report did not say that there should not be a criminal justice approach. That was not within its remit, and I do not want to give the impression that it was. It made it clear that the current system of linking the scale of harm to penalties is flawed, and that sending out messages with no evidence is also flawed, as my hon. Friend made clear in his excellent opening speech. Even without the Minister accepting that pursuing the criminal justice-based approach to the exclusion or detriment of any other approaches is wrong, it is easy for the Government to accept the report’s recommendations. It is a unanimous report from people who do not all share my view or that of my party colleagues on the wrong focus of the Government’s approach. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The report raised concerns about the relationship between the ACMD and Departments. Again and inevitably, the ACMD was extremely defensive in its response and argued that there were perfectly good links with other Departments. It stated:"““The council has numerous and extensive interactions…with the Department of Health””." It continued:"““It is unclear…how, or why, the Committee considers the links between the ACMD and other Departments are deficient.””" There are good reasons for the Committee thinking that. The Department for Education and Skills seems keen to promote random drug testing in schools. When I heard that that was happening in a Kent school where someone had been given a role in that work by the Government and had resigned as head teacher in order to carry it out, I looked at the evidence base. I noted that the ACMD report ““Pathways to Problems”” states:"““We recommend that drug testing and sniffer dogs should not be used in schools. We consider that the complex ethical, technical and organisational issues, the potential impact on the school-pupil relationship and the costs would not be offset by the potential gains.””"