---

Drug Classification

I thank the Minister for that intervention, which highlights the issue of research. One of the report’s central themes is the question of where the research is. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is right to ask continually where the evidence is to support the conclusions that are given in every one of our reports. Social science is just as important as chemistry—the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) constantly reminds our Committee about that subject. It is important to get evidence to support one’s policy, whether that is social policy or something else. One needs to say what works and ensure that that is put in the public domain, and, more importantly, to say what does not work. Our report came to the conclusion that all political parties constantly hide the things that do not work. We see it as a failure when we try something and it does not work, instead of saying that we have tried it and are going to move on to something else. The aspect of the Minister’s response that disappointed me—I am sure that he would not expect me to say anything other than this—was his dismissal of the proposals of Blakemore et al, which the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned. They include a new scale of harm and, in particular, a decoupling from the criminal justice system. We will return to that because we have set out our policies. We welcome the systematic review. It is important to review each of the drugs in the categories because, for example, although ecstasy is a glorified amphetamine, it is in class A, while other amphetamines are in class B. There is no justification for that, not because it is the drug of the moment for clubbers, but because there is no evidence base to support it. The Minister might say that even if we have the review and the Committee comes up with proposals, the Government will not accept them, but if that happens, both ACMD and Government policy will be damaged. There needs to be a commitment to an independent body advising the Government about whose advice is capable of changing policy. If such a body is not capable of doing so, the system does not work. This has been an excellent debate. I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow, which, as always, was superb, despite the interruptions. I thank hon. Members for their contributions and look forward to continuing this debate in the future. Question put and agreed to.