---

Drug Classification

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I begin by thanking the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), for his report and his colleagues for their work in producing it. I thank him also for the measured way in which he introduced the subject, which cannot be said of all speeches this afternoon. The title of the report, which was published last July, ““Drug classification: making a hash of it?””, demonstrates not only that he has—to a certain extent—a sense of humour, but that he is critical of the Government’s approach to illegal drug classification. If one turns to part 7 of the report, one sees on page 42 the way in which the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs approaches classification. There are three categories: ““Physical harm””, ““Dependence””, and ““Social harms””. Within those are the types of harm, or factors, that influence the ACMD’s approach. In relation to physical harm, the ACMD talks about ““Acute””, ““Chronic”” or ““Parenteral””; in relation to dependence, it talks about the ““Intensity of pleasure””, ““Psychological dependence”” and ““Physical dependence””; and in relation to social harms, it talks about ““Intoxication””, ““Other social harms”” and ““Healthcare costs””. Paragraph 94 of the report says:"““It is important to note that most of the current classifications of drugs were not decided on the basis of the risk assessment process described above. This is reflected in the conclusion drawn by the RAND report that ‘classification is not based upon a set of standards for harm caused by a drug; it varies depending on the drug in question’. DrugScope also told us: ‘there is no standard assessment tool or set of criteria of harm against which to match the different drugs’.””" That seems to be a perfectly fair and legitimate criticism that is based on evidence. The report goes on to make another fair and legitimate criticism. It notes that on 19 January 2006, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:"““The more that I have considered these matters, the more concerned I have become about the limitations of our current system…I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will make proposals in due course.””—[Official Report, 19 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 983.]" As three or perhaps four hon. Members have said, the review has not been undertaken, or if it has, it has not been publicly referred to. If it has been undertaken, I do not believe that we have seen any of its results. Such a legitimate criticism can be made of the Government on this difficult issue. Let me declare an interest of sorts: I still sit as a Crown court recorder—a part-time Crown court judge. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Bercow, that a huge proportion of the cases with which the Crown court deals concern illegal drugs. We know, because there has been plenty of discussion of this today, that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 approaches the question of drugs through the ABC classification. As a sentencer, I have to consider, among other things, the classification of the drug involved in the offence before me as a guide to sentencing.