Drugs Bill

Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2005.

Standing Committee F

Clause 9 - Initial assessment following testing for presence of class A drugs

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 9, page 11, line 14, after 'person', insert

', who may be his GP,'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 21, in clause 10, page 12, line 17, after 'a', insert 'GP or other'.

No. 22, in clause 10, page 12, line 26, after 'assessor', insert 'and his GP'.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The amendments are intended to probe the Government's approach to assessment. In my view, the greatest weakness in the British drugs strategy is the person who undertakes the assessment. In reality, it is done by a range of people. As a result, the word ''script'' has taken on a new meaning; the addicts in my area repeatedly talk about getting a script. By that, they mean that someone who is not a medical professional makes a judgment on their treatment; that person then goes to a professional; and the professional comes in for a short time and writes the script. Those professionals are doctors.

I put it to the Minister that, in my area and everywhere else in the country, those professionals are the doctors who, shall we say, do not succeed when applying for jobs in general practice. The problem with that, which I have witnessed on many occasions, is that probation officers or drugs workers with no medical background—they may well come to the job with no training; perhaps they are psychiatry students or former drug addicts—operate under the generic term ''drugs worker'', which has no specific qualifications attached to it, and then presume to make decisions on treatment.

Those decisions are often wrong. The average dosage of methadone given in Nottinghamshire until nine months ago—it was comparable to that given in most of the country—was about 25 mg. That dosage does not work for most people, so they continue taking heroin on top of the methadone. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that they keep in contact with the criminal community and have a criminal lifestyle.

The way to break that cycle is straightforward. It is to have the person's own general practitioner overseeing the treatment. That happens in 90 per cent. of cases in my constituency, and the results are phenomenal in terms of non-recidivism, reduction in crime, people returning to work and people remaining in treatment. We have moved from having two people under GP treatment to more than 320. The drop-out rate over the past 18 months is so small that it is possible to calculate it exactly. It is either five or six, depending on one's definition of dropping out.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I shall.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

What support services are available to GPs to help keep people on the straight and narrow?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I come to that precise point; it is the key, and we have used it over the past 18 months in Bassetlaw with great success. First, the primary care trust has taken responsibility for drugs treatment. Secondly, rather than the GP and the medical generalist or specialist acting as support to the drugs worker, the drugs worker acts as support to the GP. That is exactly how all other chronic relapsing diseases are treated in the community. The GP may call in mental health specialists, drugs workers or housing officers, but the GP is responsible for overseeing the treatment.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

It sounds as if my hon. Friend proposes returning to the pre-1971 British system. Am I correct?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

It is as near to that as would make no difference. I should point out, however, that treatment methodologies are far more sophisticated these days. One could describe what I am talking about as the previous British system, but one could also describe it as the Australian, the New Zealand, the Swedish or the French system, because that is what it is. It is the GP who makes the decision on treatment, in co-operation with other agencies where necessary. Probation officers, drugs workers and mental health specialists will therefore have an input, but the GP will make the decision and have the responsibility.

This approach has one other fundamental impact, which relates to the definitions of rehabilitation, and it is vital. Residential rehabilitation is one of the options available to GPs and their patients, and they can use either cognitive behavioural therapy on a day basis, which is non-residential, or something similar on a residential basis. However, for people who have been on drugs—who have, almost invariably, led a life of crime—the first form of rehabilitation is the ability to walk into their own GP practice. When we move from one part of the country to another, what is the first thing that we do when we engage with our new community? We register with a GP. The non-connection with one's GP is a key issue in non-rehabilitation; once we turn that situation round, we can rehabilitate people and address all the other health-care issues, which is precisely why drop-out rates are so incredibly low.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman before we came into the Committee, I have great sympathy with the amendments, and I am listening carefully to determine whether my hon. Friends and I can support him. However, does he agree that it is also important to recognise the medical profession dimension, because many of the individuals to whom we talk have complex make-ups? We are not necessarily talking about people who will display their full medical history to an ordinary assessor, although it would be available to a GP. It is almost essential that there is a medical profession dimension, because such individuals may have many other problems, which the GP will be treating.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Some of these people have only one problem, which can be dealt with straightforwardly; others have complex problems, which will require ongoing, detailed work involving a range of specialists. However, it is the ability to go not simply to a GP, but to one's own local doctor's surgery, that is critical to improving not only people's health, but their mental health. That is the critical point; that is my definition of rehabilitation.

That approach is proven. In one area of my constituency, Worksop, there are 9,000 people who come not under the Mansfield District primary care trust, rather than the Bassetlaw trust. Mansfield uses the British system—the new one, not the previous one—and people there who have exactly the same problem, but who live 10 miles away, routinely see a drugs worker, rather than a GP. The drugs worker will make a decision on treatment, and a distant GP, who is no longer in general practice, will come and write a script. Those involved do not even see the GP; the script is written at a distance, based on the drugs workers' recommendations.

I am challenging that approach, because it is unethical and, I would suggest, illegal, although it is absolutely main stream in the drugs system in Nottinghamshire, and elsewhere. Someone will write a script for a person who they do not know, based on the recommendation of a drugs worker. I have met drugs workers and probation officers who are proud to tell me that they know what they are talking about; they tell me face to face that they know what to prescribe. Well, first of all, they do not; secondly, they have no insurance liability for what they are doing, and neither do the people above them; thirdly, their decisions, in my experience, are normally wrong; fourthly, it is not simply a matter of pumping people up with methadone or buprenorphine, or of using a naltrexone implant, and hoping for the best. We cannot just stick people on a detox and hope that they come through that, or put them in residential rehab and hope that everything works out all right.

All those measures are modalities that a general practitioner can use; each of them may well be appropriate, but they may often change during a course of treatment that could last years or a lifetime. Being within the general practice system, and going to one's own doctor, gives an accountability and a democracy to the system, and it fundamentally works because it means that people address their other health needs. The GP can act as the factor that fires those people to get back into work.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Is not one of the problems the fact that many GPs are afraid of prescribing in this area because they have not been trained in it, either before or after they graduated? Is not there a need for proper training? A second problem is that many people are given such low doses of methadone that it does not give them the buzz that they have been getting on the street, so they return to the street to top up with heroin. Low doses of methadone are given because it can be a dangerous drug at the higher doses that are so necessary for some drug addicts. I come back to the original point: training on dose levels is extremely important.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

My hon. Friend is right that training is important, and he emphasises my point that a competent medical practitioner should be making these decisions, not an amateur. It is amateurs who are, in reality, making the decisions. My evidence for that comes from what I have seen and heard. Probation officers and drugs workers, who I could name, have told me that they make these decisions. They are not competent or qualified, and the decisions are wrong. They under-prescribe methadone to be safe and often fail to use alternatives such as buprenorphine. That is a problem. Building GPs into the system is fundamental to the success of the Government's drug strategy.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has done some detailed work on drugs in his constituency, which is to be commended. He has put much thought into the three amendments, which would have the effect of involving the object of the treatment with his or her own GP. I have sympathy with what he has said.

The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) took the words out of my mouth; one problem with the amendment relates to cost. On the point about GPs' training on drugs treatment and provision not being sufficient, it is certainly not standard throughout the country. People are trained to different levels. The amendment would involve extra resources and training throughout the health service. It would seem that every GP's practice would need to have someone with a greater level of expertise than is to be found currently.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Is not any treatment much cheaper than the cost to society of having a serious drug addict stealing property to top up his or her addiction?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

We are of one mind. When the Minister turns the amendment down, her problem with it will be the immediate cost, but we should be looking ahead and thinking of the long-term saving in terms of the cost to society. There is no doubt about it: failure to treat young people—failure to treat any drug addict—results in tremendous on-costs. We will come to that later, when we discuss other clauses. One of the new clauses that I have tabled is a device to bring up that subject.

The evidence that has been produced by the National Treatment Agency shows that treatment programmes are not being entirely successful. The involvement of the GP will help to put the emphasis on the fact that we seek successful rehabilitation and not just the cheap statistics of people going into drug treatment, which seems to be how we measure success. There is no doubt that more people are undertaking drug-treatment programmes, and I commend that, because the more people who start them, the more people—we hope—will finish them.

The test for the programmes is on people entering, sustaining and coming through the other end of them. There will be an increased likelihood of more cost savings, if we are to consider the matter in hard-nosed financial terms, more rewarding outcomes for the individuals and a much lesser cost to society. Therefore, I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. I hope that the Minister will take them on board and accept amendments from her own side, in the vein that she has exhibited earlier in the passage of the Bill.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I support the amendment. It is eminently sensible. It is ideal if the drug user is treated by their own GP, but there is one caveat. There might be GPs who are reluctant to be involved in the general area of drug treatment. It is important that other people are willing to do it. Some GPs are reluctant to have drug users coming to their surgeries, where their behaviour might be disruptive. The inclusion of this provision is an additional option in the range of people who might be able to perform the service, albeit the ideal one, and, with the caveat I mentioned, I support the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I certainly support the amendment. It has been pointed out that there could be unnecessary extra cost implied in it, but we should consider the wording presented by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. He is saying not that a GP has to be the person who undertakes the assessment, but that they could be. The provision leaves that open and provides that extra option. I think that I am correct in that conclusion. It builds in flexibility, which I support.

On the availability of GPs, we want more GPs becoming involved in the treatment and the rehabilitation of drug addicts and drug offenders. My concern relates to the number of GPs who have been struck off. I know that I am moving into other territory, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the serious problems that are being faced in the profession and the signal that has been sent to GPs as a consequence of the suspension of a number of doctors, including what happened to Dr. Adrian Garfoot. There is a batch of other doctors who have been struck off. That has sent a signal to GPs that this is a difficult area in which to become involved. That background will make the amendment more difficult in practice, but I support it.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall clarify the matter. We are talking about someone who has just been tested for class A drugs. Should that prove positive, they will see an assessor at the police custody suite. We are talking about that person. If the Bill is enacted we will not only have drug tests on arrest, but a mandatory assessment. Straight away, or as soon as possible, after that test, usually in one of the custody suites in the police station, someone will meet and engage with that person about their drug-taking behaviour. The point of that is to strike while the iron is hot. Such people are there primarily to engage with the person. They might have a background in drug support and counselling, but more than anything else we want them to motivate the person to listen. Their job will be to engage with the person and tell them what is on offer, such as prescribing, immediate access to a general practitioner or a hospital, or identifying whether the person has other problems in his life.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, I wish to continue making my point because it is crucial to our discussions on the amendments.

They will need to find out whether the person has a home or is living on the streets, and whether they have dependants. They will need to discover whether anyone else in the house takes drugs, whether the person has a job and is committing crimes at the same time, and what other issues in the person's life need attention. If an appointment is required, they will need to know where he lives, and how easy it will be for the person to keep the appointment with a medical practitioner to undertake a full medical assessment of his needs and receive the right treatment along with everything else.

I do not support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw because we are not talking about the person who will decide the level of dosage for the individual. I agree with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, but, to pick up on the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, I shall refer to one of the issues that concerned me greatly when I came into my job and which is pertinent to the other discussions about the GP's position. Unfortunately, not all GPs are champing at the bit to deal with drug addicts in their community. That is sad because people, no matter what their health problem, deserve a health service. Yes, it should be provided in hospitals, but it should also be provided in the community. No massed ranks of GPs are lining up to deal with such matters, and some have good reasons for that. They are worried about being isolated and not having the necessary back up and support, or about how they would provide possible substitutes for people in a busy, crowded practice and, thus, how the physical dimensions of the practice would operate.

Mrs. Gillan rose—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I want to continue my point, after which I shall take interventions. We can do something about people with legitimate concerns, but let us consider the community outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw in which one GP practice was working alongside a drug action team and others. I refer to the position in which there is shared care with a multi-agency group and others, who have conferences with the person responsible for housing matters and which is pivotal to clinical and medical interventions and the provision of advice about appropriate treatment and whether it should take place in the community or residentially.

Such a system is excellent and I am pleased that it seems to be working in my hon. Friend's constituency. We are supporting such a model through the additional funds that we are putting into drug action schemes. Indeed, only recently the Government made it a requirement for primary care trusts, as part of their performance rating, to deal with drug addiction in their communities. Not so long ago, that was not the case. PCTs must now attend to such issues and we are providing resources for them to do that.

I have visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). She will agree that there are some excellent GP-based services, but another GP service may unfortunately not want to be involved. On one side of the street is a residential shelter run by a charity for those with drug addiction problems, while on the other side of the street is a GP practice that will not help the shelter provide the medical treatment that people need.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister has made the case for the amendments of her hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. He is not attempting to impose GPs on the system, but the amendments seek to make it clear in the Bill that the assessor may be the person's GP. If, in the situation that she describes, the person who is under assessment expresses confidence in his GP, that GP might well be the most appropriate person to undertake the assessment. The option should at least be considered in the initial assessment and it is surely important for the general practitioner, if willing, to be involved when it comes to the care plan. As the Minister says, if PCTs are to be involved in assessments, it is likely that GPs will be pushed in the direction of doing exactly what she thinks is best practice.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The problem is that we are talking about the first point of contact after somebody has been tested for class A drugs. The Bill does not ignore the role of GPs. We give guidance through the National Treatment Agency and through our drug intervention programmes on how people should work with others and how clinical intervention should be delivered. All such schemes are part of the drug intervention programme. I acknowledge that it is done better in some areas than in others; that is life. The Government have to help the ones who do not do it so well to become as good as those in the better areas. Bassetlaw is a case in point.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw would like to tell me about the situations and name the people who—apparently without any clinical training—are prescribing doses for individuals, I shall be happy to follow that up, because it should not happen. They might not be GPs, and if he has concerns about other qualified doctors prescribing, he should tell me about those as well. The point is that where the system works well, it is where the personnel in multi-agency teams, whether on the clinical side or dealing in other areas, work together to help the individual.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have been following the Minister's argument carefully, and I think that she is being slightly disingenuous in the impression that she is trying to give the Committee. Either that, or the Bill has been hastily and poorly drafted, because it does not say that the assessment concerns whether somebody is in a job or housing or what have you. Subsection (3)(a) says that it is an appointment with

''a suitably qualified person''—

we have doubts about that—

''for the purpose of establishing whether the person is dependent upon or has a propensity to misuse any specified Class A drug.''

Somebody needs fairly special and high-level qualifications to establish that. It is not about whether the person has a home. Subsection (3)(b) talks about the assessor thinking

''that he has such a dependency or propensity''

and could

''benefit from . . . assistance or treatment''.

Those are clinical judgments, and the Bill requires a suitably qualified person to make them. We would be looking for a very special person, and the Bill would be improved by the inclusion of the option of using a GP. The Minister is giving a wrong impression about what the person is going to do with the offender.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Lady is right. We are looking for very special people. Those special people would have to be found in a short space of time to go to police stations as soon as possible after somebody has tested positive for class A drugs, to engage with that person and to discuss his drug taking—which will have been proved—not to specify what ought to be prescribed. That should be followed up with a suitable, more detailed, examination by somebody who is better qualified to do it. It will not be the job of that individual to sort out the person's housing from the prison suite. The point is that the assessor in the prison custody suite—[Interruption.] All right, we are in the police station still, but it is not for that person to sort out the housing.

The assessor is part of a multi-agency team working with a number of agencies and individuals. They should be able to pick up the phone and say, ''We have Mr. So-and-so here. He has just tested positive for class A drugs and he might get police bail, but he has nowhere to stay tonight, so can you help sort the problem out?'' It is not for them to be the master of all the different forms of help that an individual might need, but they are a point of contact for that individual to have that immediate discussion.

Mr. Blunt rose—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I want to make a little progress.

That is the right way forward.

Training for GPs has been mentioned, and, as I have said, I would like to see more training, but I would also like more GPs to see such work as part of their core role in the community. It is about culture as well as training, and about changing an attitude as much as anything else.

The Government have provided funding to the Royal College of General Practitioners to develop and run a course to assist health care professionals in developing skills to work with drug misuse. Part of that is about overcoming their fears and concerns, but it is also important to deal with some of the issues that surround prescriptions. The range that the Department of Health provides is quite extensive. However—I understand why—GPs often tend to go for a lower dosage, which sometimes means that people supplement it, and we obviously do not want that.

We will continue to work with the Department of Health to increase the number of GPs working with drug users. I am pleased to say that in 2003-04, the percentage of GPs involved with shared care schemes was 31 per cent., which is a substantial increase, but still only 31.3 per cent. of all GPs. Such schemes are key, because even with these amendments the GP alone will not necessarily solve the problem or provide rounded support and back up, as sometimes it is a matter of the shared care worker bringing the person to the GPs surgery, because the nature of such people is that they are chaotic, and because we need follow up outside the GP's surgery, and with the best will in the world I do not think that many GPs are prepared to sign up to a 24-hour commitment.

I acknowledge the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, but I do not think that the amendments are necessary for what this part of the Bill is trying to address, which is immediate contact after a class A drug test. The amendments would specifically include as a suitably qualified person for initial and follow-up assessment a GP or the GP of the person concerned. That is not helpful, because, as I said, the initial and follow-up assessments are about engaging the person and ensuring that they are seeing the professionals as part of their care plan. However, that should be carried out by one person who can make sure that that is happening.

In drug intervention programme areas, anybody who is taken on to the scheme is given a caseworker—who is not necessarily the doctor or someone who is sorting out housing—who gets to know that person, makes sure that they turn up to appointments and that they take part, and gets feedback from the other professionals to determine whether there are other problems or issues. If someone recommends something that involves funding, the caseworker can go away and try to sort out some of the funding issues and problems with the drug action team or with others.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister has said that a third of GPs are part of the scheme. Is not the key issue that an individual GP has been chosen and is part of the community? Someone is dropped into the criminal justice system at the moment of arrest or when they are in the police station, and they are given an assessor and everything is then done for them. It may be that if a GP was prepared to assist and look after the person, as one would hope would be the case, that person might have confidence in their GP. They therefore might ask for their GP to be their assessor. Those ideal circumstances are when one wants to keep the link between the community involvement of the individual and the criminal justice system. Otherwise, the person is just dumped in the criminal justice system and has then lost an important link in their successful rehabilitation.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I invite the hon. Gentleman to see some of our drug intervention programmes. The concept that they are about dumping people in the criminal justice system, with no connection to the wider community, is ridiculous.

The whole point of the scheme is to stop what was the dumping of people in the criminal justice system, where their drug addiction was not dealt with. People could go to the courts and to prison and deal with a whole range of professionals along the way, but there would never be any joined-up thinking. Someone would leave prison, but no one would know, and whatever drug treatment that they had received in prison would be undone within 24 hours. I am afraid that that still happens today, which is why we are putting resources into stopping it as much as possible.

We are fighting against that, and multi-agency working with community-based teams is already happening. If one visits a drug action team in an area where they have such a programme, and one sits down and talks to the people who are running it, one will find that a mixture of different statutory agencies are involved. They include the local authority, the police, the health service, voluntary agencies and community groups, with, of course, at the heart of them, the individual.

The amendment would provide that an initial assessor may be the GP of the person required to attend the initial assessment. My point is that we are talking about people being arrested at all times of day and night. They have just been tested for class A drugs. The police have contracted the arrest referral workers to work certain hours and to be at the key point in the process. I do not even agree with the concept that the GP should be involved at this stage, but, with the best will in the world—

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No. I would like to finish the point. With the best will in the world, a GP—no matter how concerned about the individual—is not necessarily going to come out in the middle of the night, or leave a busy surgery, to deal with someone within what we want to be a relatively short time after being drug tested. I think that that idea is utopian, and I am not even sure that it is necessary.

One of the issues that will be discussed between the assessor and the individual who has just been tested will be whether they are having any treatment or already using a script. Some people are already receiving treatment—there is no doubt about that—but are still out there using drugs off the street and committing crimes as well. That should obviously be part of the discussion.

Of course, if someone has a GP—unfortunately, a lot of the people we are talking about do not, because the GPs will not put them on their books—

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

No address.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

My hon. Friend is right—such people have no address. However, if a GP were willing to help, it would be ridiculous to suggest that he should not. If GPs are willing to work with the clients we are talking about—people coming through the drug interventions programme—we would like to harness them in the system. I am not in favour of making it hard for myself or for drug action teams. If there are willing professionals in a community that want to work with a drug action team on drug intervention programmes and be there for their patients, someone would have to be foolish to turn that down. That is exactly what is happening where programmes are working well. What we have to make sure is that they are working better across every community.

Amendment No. 20 would provide that an initial assessor may be the GP of the person required to attend the initial assessment. That is what it means—to attend the initial assessment. All that that might involve in terms of added bureaucracy and organisation is not appropriate at this point in the process.

Amendment No. 21 would specifically make a GP ''a suitably qualified person'' for the follow-up assessment and could be interpreted as implying that a GP would be the option of first choice as a follow-up assessor. We have to give flexibility to the drug intervention programmes to understand what is happening in their areas. That is not to exclude a GP at all, but is about saying that, unfortunately, we do not have that equality of support and engagement by some health professionals in all parts of the country.

I shall give another example. Not so long ago, I was pleased to visit a funded Middlesbrough GP practice, which looks like an ordinary practice to the outside world. However, its only patients are drug addicts or former drug addicts, although nobody would know that from the outside. It had to be developed because of the problem of getting other GPs to engage. It provides treatment not only for drug addiction, but for any health issue—treatment such as anyone would get from their GP practice: for pregnancy, for a cold, for falling down and spraining an ankle or whatever. That practice will deal with anything like that, but it is just for people who are using or have used drugs. I am afraid that that is the reality in which we live.

We do not want to be too prescriptive in the Bill; we want to allow for flexibility and any changes that may be appropriate over time. The Bill intentionally provides for assessments to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, defined in clause 19 as

''a person who has such qualifications or experience as are from time to time specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of''

these provisions.

People who work with drug users come from a wide range of backgrounds and have a wide range of qualifications and experience. Systems for developing and assessing competence are being put in place as part of DANOS, the drugs and alcohol national occupational standards, which specify the standards of performance to which people in the drugs and alcohol fields should be working. That is a first, and it is groundbreaking because we are developing that service and help and support for such people, who have been neglected by Governments for generations.

As I said, the Bill's provisions do not preclude in any way a suitably trained and experienced GP from carrying out such assessments. However, most generalist GPs do not have suitable experience or training in this area of work. It is important to remember that the assessments under the provisions are not confined to a basic discussion about clinical or medical treatment issues; they are also designed to determine what other assistance and support services are needed and what other experts and professionals need to be contacted by the assessor to help form an integrated, comprehensive and sustainable care plan.

Overwhelmingly, the aim of the assessment is to motivate the drug user to take up treatment and remain engaged. That is one of the key aspects of the process: whether a connection can be found with that individual that could lead on to more detailed discussions and health support. As I said, a police station is not necessarily the best environment for that.

My hon. Friend also expressed concerns about probationers and officers having more than an appropriate role in defining clinical treatments. If he wants to talk about that, I shall be happy to listen. I also hope that I shall be able to work with him to campaign for more of what he seems to have in his constituency, which I am sure is a result not only of his intervention, but of the resources that we are putting in and the changing attitude of those on the front line of health care, whatever people's needs. I hope that, on the basis of my remarks, he will withdraw the amendment.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, which were addressed primarily to amendment No. 20. It might be appropriate on Third Reading to table a modified amendment relating to the follow-up assessment, which is the critical issue.

In essence, the Minister is saying, ''We in Britain have got it right, but the French, the Swedes, the Australians and the New Zealanders have got it wrong.'' I put it to her that those countries have not got it wrong. Part of my constituency has GP-led treatment and part of it does not, so I can compare the system that operates in most of the country with the system that we have introduced in Bassetlaw.

Hon. Members mentioned cost and the cost savings are as follows. Accident and emergency admissions for drug overdoses have fallen in Bassetlaw from 173 a year to 39 a year. Deep vein thrombosis during in-patient stays has fallen by 400 per cent.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

No. I will not take an intervention. If the Minister compares the statistics for Kingsmill hospital in Mansfield, which is the part of my constituency that does not have the system, she will find that cases of deep vein thrombosis during in-patient stays have risen, which means that drug addicts take up hospital beds. If she compares the statistics on acquisitive crimes, such as burglary and shoplifting, for Warsop with those of Bassetlaw—the police have given the Home Office the statistics—she will see what happens when a GP-led service is put in place.

My hon. Friend will have copies of the correspondence between the PCT and the drug action team. She will see that our system is not a shared-care system but a GP-led system, which draws in all the services that the GP requires. That is not the shared-care system that allegedly operates in Mansfield, whereby one of my constituents has to go to a drugs worker to get methadone and another GP to get antidepressants. That is total nonsense and also expensive.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I have a great deal of sympathy for the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has been making in the past hour. We have to return to the system of engagement of the majority of GPs. Until we do, and for the reasons he has adequately explained, we will not get on top of the problem in the way that many other countries have.

I want to develop three themes. First, the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill shows that 113,000 additional tests might be undertaken in police stations as a result of people being brought in. According to annexe A of the RIA, on page 35, some 35,000 of those tests will be positive. The system is already creaking because we do not have enough specialists, whether GPs or others, to treat people adequately. If the Bill is enacted—that is a big ''if'', of course—can the system cope with another 35,000 people on top of those who are trying to get into the NTA schemes?

Clauses 9 and 10, and subsequent clauses, deal with assessment, but, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, we cannot separate assessment from treatment because the two are so intimately related that we cannot ignore the treatment. Last March, the National Audit Office published a report entitled ''The Drug Treatment and Testing Order: early lessons'', which drew widely on research undertaken by London South Bank university, alongside a report entitled ''Review of criminal justice interventions for drug users in other countries''.

The two reports showed that the position in Britain is rather bleak compared with that in other countries. Only some 28 per cent. of drug treatment and testing orders are completed satisfactorily, and some 70 per cent. of participants still tested positive for opiates after 12 months. Two years after the orders commenced, the reconviction rates were as high as 80 per cent., which is unacceptable. Interestingly, the London South Bank university research studied all other countries, but it did not study France, the country just across the Channel that has been mentioned this morning, which is having enormous success with drug treatment programmes. I cannot understand why that study did not cover France.

What is the big difference between the way in which we deal with serious drug addicts in this country and the way in which France and the countries mentioned by my hon. Friend treat people? The simple answer is that we are stuck on methadone, methadone, methadone. I am sorry to bang an old drum that I have banged many times before, including on Second Reading and in several Adjournment debates. Why are we so stuck on methadone in this country? Let me say right from the start that it has been a successful drug treatment, and it is the preferred drug for many patients. It is, however, highly addictive, and is more addictive in some people even than heroin. It has a very narrow window of toxicity, which means that people must be trained to administer it and to monitor those who are taking it. As I said, many of the people who are prescribed it are prescribed such low doses that it is totally ineffective, which is a complete and utter waste of money. It can also cause fatal respiratory depression, and has resulted in some of the tragic deaths that we have seen.

France, Australia and other countries have turned increasingly to buprenorphine. France is reliant less on methadone than on buprenorphine and indeed other choices of treatment for drug addicts: methadone and buprenorphine are not the only two possibilities. It has surpassed this country's success rate, because it uses a drug that acts as an antidote to itself in higher doses, which means that, unlike methadone, there is no point in ramping up the dose of buprenorphine. There is virtually no black market for the drug and—this is the real point—it is so safe and effective that general practitioners who are not trained in treating drug addicts can administer it.

In conclusion, we must return to the old British system, or the new British system, as my hon. Friend described it, bring in more GPs, and persuade them to prescribe other antidotes to heroin than methadone.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The clause is chiefly about the initial assessment following testing for the presence of class A drugs, but the amendments give rise to several issues that the Minister has not addressed, and I would like to know her view. The first is very simple. I want to ask her about a drafting point. Clause 9(2) says that:

''A police officer may, at any time before the person is released from detention at the police station, require him to attend an initial assessment and remain for its duration.''

Clause 12 deals with attendance at initial assessment, and gives the impression that it is going to be at another time and place. Can the Minister clarify whether the initial assessment does not have to take place before that person is released from detention? At the moment, I think that could be read ambiguously, and could be interpreted to mean that the initial assessment has to take place before the person leaves the police station, immediately following their detention, because they have tested positive for class A drugs.

I want to establish with the Minister not whether that is poor drafting—it is poor drafting, actually, otherwise this issue would not have come up—but whether the person can leave the police station, go home, and then come back at another time for an initial assessment. Otherwise a conflict is set up between clauses 9 and 12, which would create difficulties of interpretation in a court.

My second point also refers to clause 9(2), which refers to a ''police officer''. I would like clarification as to what sort of police officer. Again, we had this debate at an early stage, where the rank of inspector became an issue. I want it put beyond all reasonable doubt. This could even be a community support police officer, or a special constable, because I presume a ''police officer'' covers any rank, at any time, in any place whatever. Does it include all ranks and all types of police officers, including CSOs?

In clause 9(3), what is a ''suitably qualified'' assessor? What qualification must these assessors have? Is a member of the church who has worked with drug offenders, for example, a suitably qualified assessor? If the assessment has to take place in the police station before the person has departed, what will the availability of these assessors be? If one is not available, how do we get this clause to operate to keep the person who has tested positive within the ambit of a potential path into treatment? I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me on those practical difficulties.

Why does clause 9(5) specify people who have

''attained the age of 18''?

We could have this debate on one of the new clauses. Nevertheless, why has the Minister gone to the lengths of producing a good and interesting idea for getting and retaining people on the path to treatment, only for the Bill to exclude the under-18s, who are the people who are most in need, who would benefit most, and who are most in danger of dropping out of the equation? I would like the Minister to explain the thinking behind that. Why does she want that cut-off point at 18 when people under that age would benefit?

In light of some of our accommodations and the experience of Committee members, I would like the Minister to explain what will happen if a person is detained at a police station and reveals a class A drug, and at any time before they are released from detention a police officer requires them to attend an initial assessment, and it is then discovered that they are in this country unlawfully? How will these provisions affect such immigrants? What will happen to their immigration status? What will subsequently happen to them? That is a major problem in terms of drugs, and I ask the Minister to provide further and better particulars.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall begin by addressing the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. I am the last person who would suggest that there is not more that needs to be done, but I hope that he would he agree that where we are now is a huge improvement on where we were in the past.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I accept that this Government have done a great deal since 1997, and I am proud of their achievements in treating drug addicts. Far more addicts are being treated now than in 1997, and I look forward to the continuation of the Government's good policies and their improvement of them. We are trying to be critical in a constructive way.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I have great sympathy with some of the issues that he raised. I said earlier that one of the problems that we are having to overcome is a cultural attitude towards the treatment of those with drug addiction problems within the health service, at primary care or other levels. There is another problem about people having sufficient confidence and understanding to use and interpret guidelines that are provided by the Department of Health and the NTA—the models of good practice and the models of care—in a way that is most appropriate for the individual.

The prescribing of methadone is one of many options. There are a number of alternatives to methadone, which are outlined and available and can be used. However, there is a problem in getting the people on the ground—GPs and others—to be prepared to use those alternatives. It is right for us to be doing that work. Department of Health officials and the NTA are trying to address that problem. With regard to crack addicts and substitutes such as methadone, there is no alternative.

It is also right for us to build up awareness of what is happening in the treatment of drug addiction not only in parts of this country where provision is good, but elsewhere. In some places, there is a more traditional response. We do not think that we have got everything right and that other countries are not doing interesting work. We look at what other countries are doing, and we keep an open mind about different treatments and how they apply. The involvement of carers, users and former users is crucial in guiding us on what works. That is the test—what works—and it might differ from one person to another.

I am pleased that the NTA advisory board now has representatives from user and carer groups. I met two representatives from those groups to discuss their work; I am keen—as are officials in the Home Office— that we should have links with such people as well as with professionals and experts. We should encourage the same approach at drug action team level. I know that in my hon. Friend's constituency, Tina Williams, who is a representative of carers on the NTA board and whom I have met, has shown that there is added value in listening to people from those backgrounds, and ensuring that we get services right and that they pass the test of what works.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

My hon. Friend has made it clear that the way in which treatment is applied varies between localities, and we have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) had to say on that, but has the Minister discussed with her colleagues at the Department of Health how best practice could be driven through the NTA? The wide variation between localities means that we need to drive best practice through to get uniformity of treatment.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We have such discussions, and the NTA is now accountable to both the Department of Health and the Home Office. Every quarter, I have a working lunch with treatment-providers from the voluntary sector, and I was pleased, recently, to have Paul Hayes from the NTA join the group when we discussed commissioning in relation to services and specification to ensure that good services are recognised and poorer services dealt with.

It is also important that we improve treatment standards, and the group has discussed how to drive them forward. More than ever, there is good work going on, but people can learn from each other. We will try to help people do that by having regional conferences on drugs, at which we will bring stakeholders from across the region together to engage in what is happening in different parts of the region and, I hope, share best practice. That is not an end in itself, but it is important.

It is also important that we get behind the national averages, so that we can pinpoint areas in which we are not doing well—for which there might be legitimate reasons. We are building a new industry, and we have to build up workers to be part of it, and get workers such as nurses and doctors to want to work in it. Therefore, we have a lot of work to do. It is important that we look for the best and the worst, and try to tackle both—we need to praise people, but we also need to say, ''Please improve your standards; this is how you can do it,'' and give good advice.

I move to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). She is right to say that the initial assessment does not have to take place before the person leaves detention—clause 11(8), which allows police to notify the person of a change to the time of the initial assessment, supports that interpretation—so there is flexibility. As I said, people could be arriving at all times of day and night, which may cause problems with the management of an efficient and effective service.

As we discussed earlier, the assessment may have to be done by someone else. The assessment does not rule out the possibility of other people leading if that is the most appropriate solution. If someone is already participating in a scheme with their GP, it might be appropriate for the GP to lead, with others, if there is a follow-up assessment.

In answer to the question about the definition of police officer, I understand that it means any rank of police officer, but not civilian staff, so it does not mean community support officers. I will double check that and inform the Committee if I am wrong, but that is my understanding.

I do not want to enter into the debate about under-18s, because we will discuss this in more depth in a debate on a new clause, and there is a danger of having a repeat discussion on the issue.

The point about someone who is not in this country lawfully is interesting. For now, I hope that the following answer will suffice, but I will look into the matter in more detail. Someone who has committed an offence in the UK would be dealt with first in accordance with UK criminal law, but we may not know their nationality or legal status in the country at that point or for some time, so what we are dealing with first and foremost is the fact that they have committed a crime.

On the point about immigration law, my understanding is that it would continue to apply, so if immigration law takes into account the fact that the criminal offence has been committed in the UK, which it does, nationality and legal status will continue to be irrelevant. Such matters become more complicated if someone is not legally entitled to be here, but the fact that they are not legally entitled to be here would not prevent the authorities from pursuing the criminal offence for which they have been charged. It is very important that we deal with criminal activity as well as illegal status in the UK.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I hope that the Minister will address the training problem to which I referred before she concludes her remarks. It is key, but I am grateful for her clarification. I accept what she said about the position on immigrants, but ask her to respond to me further in person or in writing, because the situation is more complex than first meets the eye, particularly since, once clause 9 bites, we will use up resources in the UK when someone is to be deported or will not remain in this country for very long. I would like a critical path analysis of what happens when the person concerned is an illegal immigrant.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will consider that point in more detail.

With regard to the training problem, I said that clause 19 defines a suitably qualified person as

''a person who has such qualifications or experience as are from time to time specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Part.''

As I said, people who work with drug misusers come from several different backgrounds. With the NTA and others, we are developing systems for assessing competence in line with the drugs and alcohol national occupational standards—DANOS—which will specify the standards of performance to which people in the drugs and alcohol field should be working.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I was hunting for that information before, and I wanted to include it in my contribution to the clause stand part debate. At the end of 2003, a major providers group, with which I am sure the Minister is totally familiar, published a very useful report on the opportunities for and barriers to drug treatment, in which it made a specific point about the work force. It said:

''There is currently a lack of clarity on how best to train, recruit and further develop a pool of competent, qualified and motivated drug workers. The confusion has been exacerbated by the involvement of a number of different bodies and organisations and by a failure of Commissioners to ensure that adequate provision for the development and training of staff is incorporated into contracts.''

That reflects a concern that we all have about what is happening in this area. I, for one, will welcome it if the Minister can show that she is making swift and positive progress on this, because it has been an issue for several years.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

This area is growing and developing. We are in the process of making a huge amount of change. We are on a journey from a situation in which there was very little treatment available unless one could pay for it to a situation in which we are trying to provide rapid treatment, for which there is obviously a demand beyond our current capacity. In this area and others, the key issue is the commitment and conviction of Governments to see it as a priority and to ensure that the resources are there. We can ask for training and treatment, but the fundamental question is, ''Are they going to be paid for and resourced?'' I can stand here and happily share with the Committee the fact that a record amount of resources are going into this area, rising to £1.5 billion this year. That is not just for treatment, but for the criminal justice system through the drug intervention programmes, as well as prevention and working with children and young people. We are committed to a path of expanding opportunities for treatment.

It is not just about resources, but their effective use. That is why we are looking both at the training and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) earlier, the commissioners and their competencies, so that they know what they are looking for and can say to treatment providers ''Look, you are not providing quite what we want,''—residential rehabilitation, for example—''but this is what we are looking for. Can you help us with that?''. They would get a more dynamic engagement, which would help some services adapt to today's needs. One of those is that, ultimately, somebody has to come back into, and live in, the community. Whether they have been in prison or residential treatment, we hope that they will ultimately be part of the community with more ongoing support. We are developing this area, and working on models of care with the NTA and others to ensure that we will continue to do so. I hope that that is enough assurance for the hon. Lady for now.

I hope that I have covered most of the points people have raised on this issue this morning. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is unfortunately no longer here. These clauses are very important. They are about early engagement with people who are testing positive for class A drugs, and trying to ensure that the assessment is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It is a means to all those other professionals and experts who can provide that full and comprehensive care plan. I hope that that will mean that when the person arrives at court—let us not forget that many of these people will be charged—there will be a report to that court that this person is engaging in treatment. That is very worth while indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Follow-up assessment

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Obviously, this clause deals with the follow-up assessment. The way this Bill is drafted, one has to keep going back to the attendance at the initial assessment, and forward to arrangements for the follow-up assessment.

There seems to be rather a lot of administrative detail on the face of this Bill. The way I read it—and I need this confirmed by the Minister—is that, although the two assessments are compulsory and contain sanctions, the important provision of the care plan, and its implementation, has no element of compulsion whatsoever. If that is the case, I must ask whether this provision is really going to help. If we are going to go to the lengths of having two assessments—initial and follow-up—but there is no inducement for assistance or treatment after that, does this not fall short of what is required?

I will listen to what the Minister has to say on this with interest, and I hope that she will let me intervene. It seems to me that there is a huge lacuna between the compulsion of the assessments—finding out what is wrong with the individual—and the substance of the treatment, which is not subject to any sanctions.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Lady's remarks are of particular relevance to new clause 2 on compulsory drug treatment. A debate on that new clause is included in our agenda, so I will not take up the Committee's time with discussing it now.

Clause 10 applies if

''a police officer requires someone to attend an initial assessment''

under clause 9. There is also a requirement for that

''person to attend a follow-up assessment and remain for its duration''.

We hope that that will not be necessary in most circumstances, but this measure is intended to give an additional chance to get a person to engage. It is a requirement that can be imposed only where the relevant chief officer of police has been notified that the arrangements for conducting follow-up assessments have been made. We recognise that some drug misusers who might benefit from treatment or assistance may not readily or sufficiently engage with the drugs worker at the initial assessment, and they may therefore benefit from a further opportunity to do so. The measure is a safeguard or safety net. It is necessary because of the nature of the individuals we are dealing with; they are often chaotic.

I will not be drawn on the compulsory issue, because new clause 2 is on the agenda, and we should debate that in the round.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

With respect, I am not talking about new clause 2. I am talking about the purpose of drawing up a care plan. Subsection (4) defines the care plan as

''a plan which sets out the nature of the assistance or treatment''.

This is an example of the train stopping short of the station; the two assessments carry the penalty, but the vehicle that will have a real effect on the individual has not arrived. Is there any point in having the care plan?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The assessments are part of developing the care plan, and making the assessments mandatory is about addressing and trying to engage individuals.

There is a debate to be had about making care plans that include clinical interventions as a compulsory element, and I am sure that we will have it when we address new clause 2. The issue of compulsory treatment should also be discussed when we debate new clause 2.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It is a probing amendment.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Therefore, we can probe the matter later, in the debate on it.

The point is that the assessment should and will lead to a care plan. We are pleased that under the current voluntary system, many of those who get to the point of assessment then agree a care plan and enter treatment. That is worth while. The quality of the engagement by the arrest referral worker is high, as is the assessment that follows and the care plan that is put together to motivate that person to engage. When those people finally come to court, that is taken into account.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

Are my hon. Friend's remarks on the care plan related to an earlier statement that she made on PCTs? PCTs have now been encouraged to come on board. Might a PCT be involved in the drawing up of a care plan?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Probably, in an indirect way, because where we have the drug intervention programmes, PCTs will be involved, as will people working for them through drug action teams; often, people who are part of the drug intervention programme team will be heavily involved in helping to develop that care plan.

As was said in an earlier debate, a care plan might deal with a number of different issues that need to be attended to, such as clinical interventions, or housing, or counselling. There is a range of possible issues, and I hope that when care plans are developed, appropriate health contributions will be a part of them. We are saying in the Bill that to refuse to take part in having the assessment that leads to the formation of the care plan should be an offence. There is another debate about whether someone should have a clinical intervention compulsorily forced on them. We will probably need to have a debate—I hope that we will have one—on proposed new clause 2 about compulsory drug treatment, because it raises a number of issues.

On the positive side, I can say to hon. Members that, so far, we are pleased that the numbers who voluntarily agree to have an assessment and then not only agree to a care plan, but agree to take up the treatment, including clinical interventions, are very positive and are growing. That is one reason why we felt that if we made the assessment mandatory, we could get to people, put before them what is on offer and engage them in a positive way to take up treatment.

This is a mixture of carrots and sticks. There are issues on bail restrictions. The fact that when someone finally comes before a court it will take into account whether they have engaged in a positive way in their treatment can work to the individual's benefit. We have talked in the Department about discussing that with defence lawyers as well, because we want them to know what is available for their clients who have drug problems.

I am sure that we all share a common goal of enabling people, getting them committed to being involved in drug treatment and to making it work. That is what we are trying to do. I think that we are doing it well at the moment, but the shift to the assessment as a mandatory part of the process allows us to have more people going to treatment and to recognise individual human rights, of which we must be mindful. We had a discussion about that when we talked about testing on arrest and the mandatory side of the assessment. Although I probably have not done so to the hon. Lady's satisfaction, I hope that I have covered the points that she raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Requirements under sections 9 and 10: supplemental

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Clause 11 is really all about the practical details of the assessments. In particular, it puts the obligations on police officers, who seem to be doing most of the administration.

I find it extraordinary that the Bill has so much detail about the administrative arrangements, particularly in the light of the dearth of provisions on X-rays and ultrasound scans, and that the Minister usually likes to rely on secondary legislation to put any of the flesh on the bones. One of the sad markers of this Bill is that so much of the real detail that we should be examining in Committee will be subject to orders at another time and place and will not have the detailed scrutiny that we could otherwise have given it. Again, I presume that that is to do with the political timetable and the haste with which the Minister was keen to have something to wave in the air and enable her to say that she was doing something about the drugs problem.

Clause 11 has some detailed provisions about what policemen must and must not do. One of the questions that I have is about the police officer who has to inform the person of the time and place at which the initial assessment is to take place under subsection 2(a), and then explain that the information will be confirmed in writing under subsection 2(b). Presumably, they will repeat all that information later in writing and send it to a person who the Minister said may or may not have somewhere to live. That was one of the things that she wanted to ascertain in the initial assessment. So some practical difficulties arise. I am not sure how the police officer would confirm all that in writing if the person could leave the police station and walk away. It would not be known until the initial assessment whether the person had somewhere to live or whether they were homeless. I am taking the Minister's own words. [Interruption.] The Minister said from a sedentary position that the person would need to be charged, but they would not, would they? That is the problem: they would be only under arrest, not charged. The Minister should fill in that gap in logic.

I move on to subsection (8). If the Bill is to include details of what police officers must or must not do, it is worth querying whether a great deal of qualified police officers' time will be taken up. Subsection (8) states that

''a police officer or a suitably qualified person may give the person a further notice in writing . . . .of any change to the time when, or to the place at which, the initial assessment is to take place.''

I would leave the police officer out of that process completely. Why would they need to be engaged in it? Presumably, either the assessor or the client would change the time or place of the initial assessment by some sort of agreement. We cannot call the person anything other than a client, because they would not be guilty of an offence; they would not have been charged, only under arrest.

Why not simplify matters for the police? Rather than putting all that into the Bill, why not have practical provisions so that guidelines can be established? If the Bill is enacted, the House of Commons will have to go to a remarkable amount of time and trouble to change all the provisions. Primary legislation will have to be considered and amended—even, for example, to include giving notification by e-mail. As technology moves on, there will be a great deal of difficulty.

My plea to the Minister is that she should consider again the drafting of the Bill before Report and Third Reading. Things that ought to be in the Bill seem not to be, yet unnecessary detail is included that will cause us even more problems.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I suggest to the hon. Lady that because the sanction of criminal prosecution is attached to failure to attend, it is necessary to include such things in the Bill. Many people to whom it will apply will lead chaotic lives, and will no doubt have a history of claiming, ''I didn't know'' or ''I forgot'', and all the rest of it. That sort of detail is necessary because of the Government's decision to attach a criminal sanction.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister may make that point; it is useful that the hon. Gentleman has helped her out in that chivalrous fashion.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Actually, I was trying to help the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Thank you; I welcome help from any quarter. However, I still think that some parts of the Bill have gone into excruciating detail, and that others seem very light on detail.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

Earlier, the hon. Lady referred to the amount of time that police officers in the custody suite would take in complying with clause 11. I am sure that she will have had letters from the Police Federation that raise issues about the likelihood of the custody suite sergeant being replaced by civilian personnel. I have had such letters. It appears that a police officer may not deal with the provisions of clause 11, but that some highly trained person will deal with them. The police will be freed up to be on the front line.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

We have a problem of police numbers. If the Conservative party wins the next election, it will put 40,000 more police officers on the beat.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Just like that?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

That would happen over a reasonable period. I feel that, even if the detail is there because of the criminal sanctions that the Minister seeks to impose, we could give the police officer a bit of a rest from subsection (8). I do not see why a police officer should be included in that process.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We included such details for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). There is an offence attached to people not complying, and we think it appropriate to provide the safeguards in the Bill because we want to ensure that the process can stand up to people suggesting that it had not been followed or that they were not informed. In the end, that would create yet more bureaucracy. As I said, the Bill has been before the drugs committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which seems to be happy with it.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

For a moment, I shall don my hat as a former prosecutor.

This sort of detail is necessary in order to establish the case in the event of prosecution. Outlining it in step-by-step measures will greatly assist the prosecuting authorities.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

There is not much to add. You win some, you lose some. We are criticised for not having enough in the Bill, and then criticised for having too much.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

My problem is that I started life on the defence side, and it is beginning to show.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The notice should be given in writing before the person leaves detention. It is not only about people being charged; it is also about people who have been arrested. In the guidance, we will emphasise the need to schedule the assessment at a time that will not lead to a charge. It is important to have such a provision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone spoke about custody officers. That is the subject of another piece of legislation, so I will check that we have it absolutely right. On the second point, about those offences in connection with a further assessment, it does not necessarily mean that a police officer would have to do it; it is left open.

I am pleased by the enthusiasm and engagement that the police have shown in our drug intervention programme, and in their work with health service professionals, PCTs, community groups and local authorities on the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Police officers, of whatever rank, are enthusiastic because, for a number of years, they have been seeing such people coming to the police station time and time again. Their enthusiasm is buoyed up by the fact that they can play a constructive part in getting to the heart of the problem and finding the reason for people's reoffending. Police officers, like everyone else, do not like unnecessary paperwork, and the programme has been put together in consultation with the police. We are always looking for ways to reduce bureaucracy, but bureaucracy is sometimes necessary—and this is one those times.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Attendance at initial assessment

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Leading naturally on from clause 11, clause 12(2) states:

''The initial assessor must inform a police officer or a police support officer''.

The police support officer has now crept into the equation, and I want to know why. If we are to keep police officers in that role, it is inexplicable that the police support officer should suddenly be given a role. If the police support officer is included here, why could he not be included in the informing requirements of clause 11? That is my first question.

My second question is a qualitative one. I ask the Minister to speculate about the relationship between the assessor and the client, for the simple reason that the assessor has the burden of reporting a failure to attend the initial assessment or remain for its duration. It is very much an absolute clause. As we have already said, we are dealing with a group of chaotic people who may have personality problems. There may be conflict, and the session may be interrupted by a falling-out between the assessor and the client. The clause does not seem to make provision for that.

I presume that an assessor would have the latitude to halt an assessment, walk away from it, and suggest that it continues at another time, in another place, and perhaps even with another assessor. That is the point on which I need the Minister's help. What would happen if an assessor wished to change the arrangements, stop the procedure halfway through or make a practical arrangement? Suppose the assessor has to stop the assessment because something intervenes in his or her life. For example, what if a lady is assessing, and she gets a call and has to pick her child up from school because he or she has fallen over in the playground? What would happen in those instances, because the assessor may fail to inform the police? That is a series of questions about the absolute nature of the clause.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

In answer to the first question, the reason why the assessor has to notify the police, rather than a police officer, is purely practical. One is basically informing them that someone has not turned up for, or has left during, an assessment. That issue might be taken up by support staff working with the police, and it is just an administrative matter. Obviously, if there is follow-up, and the offence of not taking part is applied, that would be taken up by the police officer.

It may be that a police station has someone to answer the phone. Many police stations now have support staff working with police officers to help them with the admin. For example, they might deal with calls from crime victims and people who ring up to ask what is happening to their case; they do not necessarily have to speak to the investigating officer. That is a way of providing a more effective police service, and of not tying police officers to desks unnecessarily. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree with that. So, the measure is purely practical.

The hon. Lady raised a number of points, and if I do not cover them all, I will be happy to write to her more fully about the process. We are talking about the initial assessment or, where appropriate, a follow-up assessment. If the person does not take part, that is linked to committing an offence, and so it is important that the information is relayed to the police.

In terms of wider care plan issues, of course there are different relationships. To take what currently happens to people under the guidance of probation officers, they may be getting support for drug addiction, or other support, and may turn up for an education course or what have you. There has to be someone in the system who takes responsibility for overseeing whether the person is complying. If they are not complying, that has to be logged and reported. That does not mean that other people cannot have relationships with that individual, developed on the basis of whether they are there for drug treatment, education or training, but at the end of the day someone has to be the person in authority; otherwise, there could be chaos in the system.

It is important to recognise that the initial assessment and the follow-up is really for getting to grips with the person, and for deciding whether they want to engage in a care plan, how we develop that plan and so on. Others might have a closer developmental relationship, although in this role it is somewhat different. There could be a number of scenarios. If someone has been knocked over by a bus and cannot make the appointment, or if there were any other issues, the assessor could change the time and place. That would not prejudice the situation and the person would not be guilty of an offence. Similarly, if something else happened, another assessor might be able to take on the assessment at short notice. However, we would not want that to be too widespread. We should have expectations of people, and the arrangements should be made to work at the right time and the right place, as agreed in the first instance.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Based on the evidence that she took before introducing these procedures, how long would the Minister envisage an initial and a follow-up assessment taking?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That is difficult to say, because we will be dealing with different scenarios, but I can get the hon. Lady some information about them. To give an example, the assessment might be very quick if the person just says, ''I'm not interested.'' The assessor would explain what will happen, mentioning that there will be a report and that the court will be aware that an assessor has been engaged, although I hasten to add that that will not be linked to the person's offence if they go to court. If the person has not been charged, the assessor will also explain how that will be dealt with. The person will be informed of the reasons behind the assessment, what their options are and what the consequences may be. If they just say, ''I'm not interested. I'm out of here'', it will be a very short assessment, but it could be anything from half an hour to two hours.

I should emphasise again that we are talking not about an interview to define every single detail of the individual's care plan, but about an initial assessment. We should also be conscious of the fact that, however long the assessment lasts, the first few minutes of engagement are probably the most important, because the assessment is about making a connection with someone so that they are willing to listen further. However, I am told that the assessment could last from 30 minutes to two hours. I should have thought that anything longer would be pushing it a bit. If the person gets through the assessment, meets someone else and is then willing to take up the opportunity of receiving treatment, that couple of hours will have been well used.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Arrangements for follow-up assessment

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister said earlier that she anticipated producing guidance on this issue. Leaving aside the detail involved, when will the guidance come into being? Will it be consulted on? When will the provisions be up and running?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We will be consulting on the guidance and the time frames, and one of the issues to be considered is how we expand assessment provision in a number of areas. However, I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with more detail. I hope that that will suffice for now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Attendance at follow-up assessment

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I thank the Committee for bearing with me; I am getting tired of the sound of my own voice, but I have just a couple of questions about the clause.

Subsection (3) states:

''A person is guilty of an offence if without good cause . . . he fails to attend''.

The penalty is 51 weeks' imprisonment or a level 4 fine, which is quite serious. May I therefore ask what ambit is envisaged in the phrase ''good cause''? The provision is very open-ended, and I should like to know what would and would not constitute good cause. What thought and discussions have gone into the drafting?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is quite difficult to include in a Bill all the circumstances that might arise. To return to our previous discussion, if someone was knocked down by a bus and did not manage to arrive at an appointment, that could be a good cause. There may be others as well. I think that the matters will partly be brought together by our experience so far of the voluntary situation. I will write to the hon. Lady, if that is okay with her. We would obviously want to give guidance as to how the good cause should be interpreted. As I said, we should be mindful that the definition is not so wide as to make a mockery of the process. That is key.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

That is my very point. The clause is framed so widely that I or people much cleverer than me could probably make a good cause to avoid the penalty and the benefits of the provision. For example, we are dealing with a clientele who may have a genuine fear of going to the assessment and of what might follow. That might be considered a good cause. The clause is drafted so widely that it would be pretty easy to get around.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. If somebody does not attend and that is made an offence under the Bill, the courts will have to determine the term ''without good cause''. The point is, however, that we should be giving guidance to the people implementing the measure so that if they go to court they do so on the basis that the prosecution will be successful. It would not be helpful if a number of cases were brought to the court and the court said that they were ridiculous, because they were obviously good causes. We do not want to create unnecessary use of court time. In some situations, it is inevitable that someone might not attend. I hope that we can cover that in the guidance, which we will base on working with drug addicts and on their attendance and participation in other drug treatments under other programmes. I hope that she is satisfied with that response.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Disclosure of information about assessments

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Clause 15 deals with disclosure of information about the assessments. I have only a brief point to make, but clarification from the Minister would certainly help me, if not the rest of the Committee.

Subsection (1) states:

''An initial assessor may disclose information obtained as a result of an initial assessment to any of the following—

(a) a person who is involved in the conduct of the assessment;

(b) a person who is or may be involved in the conduct of any follow-up assessment.''

That is a specific restriction on who can have information that has been adduced from the initial assessment. Clause 17(4), however, reads:

''An initial assessor may disclose information relating to an initial assessment for the purpose of enabling a court considering an application for bail by the person concerned to determine whether subsection (2) or (3) applies.''

What is the definition of being

''involved in the conduct of the assessment'',

and to whom will it apply? Is it the police officer who took the client into custody? Is it any replacement officer who has taken over on the case, because police officers move around and their involvement is not always continuous? What about the probation officer, who will need information on the assessment to move the individual forward? We are talking about individuals who often have complex roles and are subject to intervention from various bodies. What about a prison officer or governor, who will be involved in the interim between the first assessment and any follow-up assessment if the due process of law has kicked in and the individual concerned has been put into a custodial situation, either as a result of sentencing or because they are on remand? What about a doctor or other medical staff involved in the emergency treatment of that individual?

I am sorry to throw up a range of examples, but I suggest that the issue is important if there is intended to be a restriction, qualified only by clause 17(4), on the people who can receive information from the initial assessment. Again, the Bill is narrowing down a provision, which will mean that the individual is prevented from receiving the wider help that is envisaged elsewhere in the Bill.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I always get a little nervous when I hear the term ''multi-agency''. In my experience it often means ''multi-excuse''—everyone is responsible, so no one takes responsibility, which was certainly the situation in Bassetlaw until two years ago.

I want to ask a question in relation to a constituent of mine, whom I shall refer to as Ms X. She does not live in the Bassetlaw side of my constituency, where the GPs do treatment, but lives in the Mansfield side. Ms X receives a script via a drugs worker but gets anti-depressants quite separately, from her GP. Having checked the records, I know that most drug addicts in my area are registered with a GP but have bad attendance records while they are addicts. Indeed, during those periods they rarely visit their GPs or dentists at all, even though they are registered. Ms X is registered and has to receive anti-depressants from her GP.

Currently, if Ms X were arrested, as she might have been on many occasions, assessed post-arrest and put into treatment, her GP would not be entitled to receive information of that assessment. If the clause were considered further in the light of our discussions, we would have a golden opportunity to overcome the data protection issues that stop the police from providing vital information to GPs.

Nottinghamshire is, I think, the only place in the country with drug testing on arrest in all custody suites. It is to Nottinghamshire police's credit that they have attracted the funding for the system and had the wherewithal to put it in place. The police say that testing on arrest is incredibly valuable, and having looked at the detailed results, I agree with them. For the GP or indeed anyone else involved in the treatment, that information would also be incredibly valuable, as they would know whether an individual in their health custody had tested positive for drugs in an assessment on arrest or had admitted to the use of illegal and health-harming drugs.

In addition, if there are significant programmes using methadone or buprenorphine, the issue of diversion can be addressed. Someone writing a prescription for buprenorphine or methadone would want to know, for two reasons, whether their patient was selling it illicitly. First, that would obviously be an illegal sale, but secondly, there would be ramifications for the health of the individual, because someone who sells on is not using their dosage or are taking the wrong dosage. In making out a prescription precision is vital; methadone is probably the most obvious example, but the same would be true of buprenorphine. Similarly, if a patient were receiving what should be prescription drugs illicitly, that information would be useful for continuing health assessment.

At the moment, it is not possible to work in that way. The information is in the custody suite at Worksop and other police stations. Under the arrangement in question, a significant new pool of information about people's health would be available. Nottinghamshire police certainly feel that they do not have power to provide the information to the health service, although the health service could do with it for the purpose of effective treatment.

It seems from Home Office research that has never been questioned that the majority of class A drug addicts are liable to involvement in acquisitive crimes with an impact on the rest of the community, as well as in buying illicitly. Therefore, even if it benefits only a small minority, in relation to health issues connected to diversion or failure of substitution treatment admitted in assessment—in other words if someone is on a programme but has been arrested and found to be in possession of heroin or crack or to have it in the bloodstream—the information should be given to the health service.

In relation to the follow-up assessment and what happens after it, the point is not an esoteric one; it is vital, because there are those who argue that buprenorphine and methadone are bad forms of treatment, because of diversion. Some of those who use that argument are, as I know from my experience, involved in the assessment process and, as I understand it, will continue to be involved. Without accurate data on diversion they are making a guess, but in Nottinghamshire accurate information about those who have gone through the custody suite is available, although not to the health practitioners to whom it should be available.

I should be interested to know whether the Minister feels, in relation to disclosure of information, whether what I suggest would be permissible under the law anyway, or if not whether the creation of such a power of disclosure to a third party—an appropriate competent health professional—would be worthy of consideration later in the progress of the Bill.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Clause 15 provides that information obtained as a result of the initial assessment or follow-up assessment may not be disclosed without the individual's written consent, save for information sharing purposes between those persons involved in the conduct of an initial or follow-up assessment.

That does not affect the initial assessor's ability under clause 17 to disclose information about the initial assessment for the purpose of determination by the court, but it is about making sure that information sharing should happen through different protocols. Those information sharing protocols would have to apply and be implemented within the established legal framework.

The legislation provides that the information obtained as a result of the initial and follow-up assessments may be disclosed to a third party only with the individual's express written consent, except in a case in which information sharing might be necessary. It might be necessary to share that information with a number of people for a number of reasons. Let us not forget that the assessor is not prescribing; the assessment process is a means of identifying whom people need to see in order to take follow-up action. Let us also remember that GPs can disclose medical information only with the consent of the patient.

We could turn the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw around and say that those involved with drug addicts and working in drug intervention programmes should have an automatic right to see the records of individual patients in a GP's practice. He might agree with that, but there are disclosure issues in the example that he gave. He mentioned Ms X, who is receiving both treatment for drug addiction from drug treatment agencies and anti-depressants from her GP. I hope that if she has visited him as a constituent, he has advised her that that information is worth sharing. My experience—I do not say that it is foolproof—is that the drug users whom I have met have given permission for people to contact different organisations and groups.

Let me give an example from another field, prostitution. A number of the mobile outreach units that work in areas in which prostitutes operate engage with those involved, who are mainly women, about their drug taking. The mobile units have clean needles to exchange, but they also have information about where people can go if they want to talk and to get assistance with their drug problem. I know that those working on such projects ask the women whether they are prepared to sign waivers so that they can follow up and find out what has happened. That works very well.

I do not feel that what my hon. Friend has said is necessarily pertinent to this clause, but I shall think about it. It is not an easy situation. Currently, GPs are not obliged to provide medical information without the consent of the patient. If we were to opt for a different route, we would have to be mindful that it could be a two-way street.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The issue has been discussed by my primary care trust and by the drugs intervention police unit. I shall discuss it further with them tomorrow morning. The health services would be keen to have that information, but they are nervous about the legal implications of getting it. However, if it were or could be provided by law, they would want to get it precisely because of the issue of diversion. The police are not interested in the individual records of patients; they are interested in trends, and I agree with them. What is important to them is to know the kinds of treatment being given—the modalities—and the overall consequences.

For example, if 300 people are on a certain dosage of methadone, it is worth the police's while to know and understand that. If those people are all using Subatex tablets, the police should know that. If they are all on detox programmes or a combination of treatments, the police should know, because then they will know what to look for when it comes to diversion issues. If anyone were admitting to buying naltrexone in my area, where there are no prescribers of naltrexone, that would clearly be an issue for the police when they investigated supply coming in from elsewhere. I welcome the Minister's offer to consider that further.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Obviously, police intelligence is important. We share statistics about the results of tests for heroin and crack cocaine with the police; we do not link them to individual people, but gain such intelligence in a more global way to indicate the number of people coming through who are using different drugs.

We have already discussed which drugs we test for and why. To move a step further needs consideration, as issues of people's rights to privacy need to be addressed. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is important that we have a sense of what is happening in drug markets in our communities, but more thought is needed on this issue. He is talking not about test results, but about sharing information about people's health and how they are using drugs or substitutes.

In trying to ensure that we clearly track people's progress, particularly if they are dealing with different agencies, we are looking at information sharing protocols that could be established to make sure that the relevant people, who may include GPs, can be part and parcel of the process. My hon. Friend will be aware that when people engage with one person in the system, we often do not get a complete package of understanding about their needs. I agree that we need to ensure that we do not lose people in the system. Where appropriate, information sharing should be encouraged for the benefit of the individual and for an effective programme. I shall think about what he said, and see whether any other issues can be addressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Samples submitted for further analysis

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Subsection (2) provides that

''If a requirement ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (1), a police officer must so inform the person concerned.''

No time limit is attached to that provision. Will the Minister confirm that such information should be passed on on a fairly immediate basis? Police officers should not have an open-ended time scale in which to inform someone that they have effectively been let off, because that could be used in all sorts of ways about which I do not want to speculate in public, and which I hope will never arise.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I agree that people should be informed of test results as soon as is practically possible, so that any undue stress can be removed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Orders under this Part and guidance

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I want to probe the Minister as to exactly what is envisaged with this clause. Subsection (2) is widely drafted: any order made under paragraph (a) can be varied for different police areas, whereas under paragraph (b), provisions can amend the age—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee F

Clause 18 - Orders under this Part and guidance

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. There might be one or more Divisions in the House this afternoon. That will inevitably intrude upon the time available for debate, and a considerable amount remains to be done. I mention that because, as things stand, there is no injury time for suspensions for Divisions, and the Committee will therefore have to finish its work by 5.30 pm.

It is open to the Committee, by arrangement through the usual channels—and, of course, in discussion with the Chairman—to extend the sitting later into the evening to compensate for time lost during Divisions. I say that simply to inform the Committee. It is not an instruction; I simply remind the Committee of the present situation.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The clause deals with orders and guidance. An enormous amount of the substance of the Bill will be enacted through order and secondary legislation. It falls to me to question the Minister about subsection (2), which makes two provisions—first, that orders may

''make different provision for different police areas''

and, secondly, for those

''who have not attained the age of 18 to attend . . . an initial assessment or a follow-up assessment''.

How will the provision for different police areas be varied? Will persons under the age of 18 fall within the Bill's provisions in some police areas, but not others? That is my primary concern.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall deal first with the question of age. Clause 18 provides that any order made by the Secretary of State under clauses 9(4) and 10(5) to amend the age at which persons may be required to attend the initial and follow-up assessments must be approved by resolution of both Houses. That will allow the power to require persons to attend such assessments to be extended to young people if it is considered necessary and appropriate. It also requires the police and others carrying out assessments to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under part 3 when exercising any functions under that part. That will ensure that note is taken of any additional safeguards thought necessary to protect the rights of those affected by the provisions.

The hon. Lady is, I hope, aware that we are piloting drug testing on charge, and voluntary arrest referral for young people, which comes in at a later stage than for adults. We may want to go down that route in future, so we are considering the emerging findings of those pilot schemes to see whether the same requirements are necessary for younger people as for older people.

The figures on testing, for example, are telling us whether the amount of class A drugs showing up on testing is comparable to adult testing. It will allow us better to think how we might plan the expansion of testing and assessment for young people. It is not that we do not think it important, but work on testing adults is further advanced, and we want to ensure that the Bill leaves open the opportunity to expand. As we are talking about young people under the age of 18, we think it appropriate that such provisions should be discussed by Parliament. As during our debates over the past few weeks, people will probably want to discuss capacity, and what support and treatment is available. I hope that that answer satisfies the hon. Lady.

The other question was about the reference to different police areas. The hon. Lady is probably aware that the drug intervention programme focuses on areas with the highest levels of acquisitive crime linked to drug misuse that we can identify. Although the programme is not yet available throughout the country, we have identified the basic command unit areas that have the most problems in dealing with such crimes and the associated drug taking. That will allow us to include other police areas as and when appropriate, based on need and on their capacity to deliver. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

That reassures me, but will the Minister further reassure me that she looks forward eventually to having uniformity of provision—necessity driven, of course—across all police areas, rather than the current patchy provision?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I think that as necessity drives, which is what is important, we would like to see further opportunities to expand what is already a good foundation for tackling drugs and crime. We must, however, look at the necessity for that because we must justify the public expenditure and ensure that there is the capacity to deliver. We are building capacity, reducing waiting times and making sure that people get appropriate treatment that works.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Anti-social behaviour orders:

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

We went through clause 19 so quickly that I was not able to ask my question about a suitably qualified person—the Minister will have to write to me. I wanted to know when the specifications will be forthcoming from the Secretary of State.

I move swiftly on to clause 20, which deals with antisocial behaviour orders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made most of the points that I wish to make in his opening address on Second Reading. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to pick up on those points. A new order can be made alongside an ASBO when drug misuse has been a cause of the behaviour that led to the ASBO being imposed.

Statistics on page 27 of the Home Office publication, ''Perceptions and experience of antisocial behaviour: findings from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey'', show that 25 per cent. of people experience drug-related incidents of antisocial behaviour. Paragraph 56 of the explanatory notes shows the size of that problem. Some 15 million incidents fall into that category. I believe that there could be 4 million acts of drug-related antisocial behaviour annually.

Paragraph 56 states that

''it is estimated that this proposal will produce some 100 orders per year, resulting in an annual assessment and treatment cost of approximately £0.37 million. The Criminal Justice System costs are minimal.''

That means that one in 40,000 drug related antisocial incidents will be picked up by the provision, so how effective does the Minister envisage the remedy will be? The measure will also be delayed until April 2006, and I would like some explanation of why it will take that long. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, it makes the provision meaningless for another 15 months, which is a fairly long time. I hope that the Minister will address those points, which were, rightly, raised on Second Reading.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The clause deals with antisocial behaviour orders, as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. ASBOs address the antisocial behaviour of adults, rather than that of young people, for which there are already measures in place. ASBOs are about what one should not do—they impose a curfew, or state that a person should not go to a particular area—whereas the conditions that we are discussing are about what people should do. There is already a provision for young people. That might go some way towards explaining the total number of incidents of antisocial behaviour by adults and young people.

We do not want to miss the opportunity to further the work that we are doing on antisocial behaviour, and to consider how we can develop a framework that includes what adults could do—for instance, if drugs are involved, that issue should be addressed. Some adults may be covered by other provisions. Sometimes, but not exclusively, adults involved in antisocial behaviour are arrested—and possibly charged—under other parts of the criminal justice system. In such cases, they are covered by other arrangements for testing and assessment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

In that case, what about the position on equal treatment of alcohol misusers on ASBOs, in whose cases the drinking is shown to be the cause of the antisocial behaviour?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That is an important factor. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government are doing a great deal to tackle the disorder on our streets that is associated with alcohol. We have, for example, raised the fixed penalty from £40 to £80—I hope that that figure is correct—and that is beginning to bite. It is a useful measure—if somebody goes out, not only on Friday or Saturday but on any night of the week, and decides to drink alcohol to excess, it is a sharp sanction that can be implemented quickly. The police prefer to issue fixed penalty notices than to take somebody to the station.

Before an ASBO is issued, we expect to see a sustained period of antisocial behaviour that cannot be dealt with by fixed penalty notices. It does not apply to somebody who is merely picked up, drunk, on one Saturday night; there have to be other factors. That goes for other antisocial behaviour as well. I hear what the hon. Lady is saying about alcohol, and she will be aware that we are considering how we can develop our services for dealing with drug treatment—particularly those for illegal drugs—and how we can better bring them together with measures on alcohol. A number of drug action teams have become drug and alcohol action teams. We must try to deal with the issue without making any commitments that we cannot meet. We chose April 2006 because we need to have time to set up the mechanisms to enable the measure to work in communities. However, we wanted to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to obtain the support in principle for the measure. That will allow us to go back into communities to develop the services.

For now, the powers in respect of drug-related antisocial behaviour will be attached to ASBOs. We shall keep the measure under review and the Secretary of State will have the power to add other matters, as appropriate. In general, ASBOs are used for other antisocial behaviour offences, not just drugs. A lot of people who do not necessarily have a drug problem commit antisocial offences in the community. The Home Office and the Department of Health have worked together on the matter and we believe, despite the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, that the measure will be used relatively rarely, given what I have said about young people being covered in other ways. In order to get it right, we need a lead-in time, working with agencies across Government, to work up what will be done in practice. We have an opportunity to ensure that the new civil order is helpful. I hope that we can develop it; it is about having a carrot and stick, specifying what people should and cannot do, and getting to the underlying reasons behind antisocial behaviour, although drugs are not always the reason.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Inclusion of mushrooms containing

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 21, page 21, line 8, leave out 'A' and insert 'C'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in clause 21, page 21, line 9, leave out 'A' and insert 'C'.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who tabled the amendments, is not present. I move the amendments in his stead, because they raise important issues on which I would like to hear the Minister's views, but I am not inclined to support them—[Interruption.]

Mark Todd (Labour, South Derbyshire)

We have all afternoon.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The classification of these drugs, and the way in which it has been approached, is a matter of some significance. The Minister should be prepared to put the Government's thinking on record, and I am surprised that she regards the subject with some levity. It is incumbent on her to explain why the Government have chosen to classify these drugs as class A. What was the reason for the current law? Why were magic mushrooms—if I may use the vernacular—classified as class A drugs only in a prepared form and not in their fresh form?

My view, which I put on record on Second Reading and which grows stronger every day, is that this issue highlights the inadequacy of current classifications in the 1971 Act. On what basis has the Minister decided to classify these substances as class A? Is she trying to draw a parallel with other class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine? Is she looking at harm to the individual or to wider society? Why do the Government suddenly feel it necessary to act on this?

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggests that we should classify these substances as class C, but I do not think that they sit well in class C or in any other classification under existing law. It does not make sense to put them in with substances such as anabolic steroids, temazepam, and diazepam, which make up the bulk of class C drugs—but I thought that about cannabis too. Will the Minister tell us why the Government are making these substances class A drugs? What was the original reason for the current law?

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

The clause, small though it is, has created more controversy in my mailbag than all the other clauses put together.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Let us get the ground rules right. I am perfectly happy to have the stand-part debate now and to embrace it with the debate on the amendments, but at the moment we are debating the amendments only.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I apologise, Mr. Gale. I would prefer to address this issue in the stand-part debate.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister was on the Front Bench, next to the Home Secretary, on Second Reading. She may recall that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) asked the Home Secretary about this issue, and that the Home Secretary was, unfortunately, unable to answer him. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has asked similar questions, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what her response to the amendments is. I also hope that she will be able to satisfy us as regards the clause stand part debate that we shall have in a moment.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I was amused at the start of this discussion because we have an opportunity to discuss the whole clause in a clause stand part debate, but the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had to move an amendment that he did not actually support.

On the amendments, we must be aware of the fact that the clause does not reclassify these mushrooms; it is about clarifying the law. I shall try to explain to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee where we started, where we have got to and why we have some problems, and I am sure that those points will be picked up in the clause stand part debate. There are problems interpreting the law, and the courts feel unable to adjudicate on the issue. Prosecutions have been brought to court, but the police and others feel that the law is being circumvented in different ways. People might have their own views about that, but I hope to explain in the next few minutes why we need to clarify the law. Of itself, that does not change the position on classification, and we could have another debate about that; we are trying to make sense of the law because we have got ourselves between a rock and a hard place in terms of the current interpretation of the law.

Clause 21 clarifies and extends the law on so-called magic mushrooms to remove any doubt that the importation, exportation, production, possession and supply of fresh mushrooms, as well as prepared ones, is an offence. On Second Reading, there was cross-party support for the measure, although there were those on both sides who queried why we were introducing it. Some hon. Members said that they felt it was inappropriate to classify hallucinogenic mushrooms as class A drugs. There is a debate to be had about that, and people have their own views on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West obviously felt quite strongly that the classification was inappropriate, and he probably continues to do so.

The amendments would reclassify magic mushrooms as class C drugs, but they do not seek to reclassify the active ingredients, psilocin and psilocybin, which would remain class A drugs. I am unable to accept the amendments.

The clause is not about the classification of magic mushrooms, and as my right hon. Friend Home Secretary said when he presented the Bill, the active ingredients are already class A drugs. I accept that people may not feel that they should be, but they are. Therefore, when mushrooms are prepared or in the form of a product, they are already class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

On Second Reading, several hon. Members said that much of the debate was about the signals that we send out. Is the Minister content that the signal that she should send out is that magic mushrooms are somehow the same as heroin and cocaine?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am not saying that they are exactly the same as heroin and cocaine, but when the issue was discussed it was felt that the harmful effects of their active ingredients, psilocin and psilocybin, were such that those ingredients should be classified as class A drugs. We know that heroin and cocaine can have a different effect on the individuals who use them, but that was the classification into which it was felt these ingredients should be put. I will talk more later about the international treaties that we have signed and their effect on this aspect of the matter.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister has been generous with her time. She will know that different drugs in different forms and preparations can be classified differently, as happens with amphetamine. Surely the mere presence of psilocin in psilocybin should not necessarily automatically place magic mushrooms in class A?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The debate offers us a chance to explain what has been happening. A legal loophole has been created enabling fresh mushrooms to be sold and imported with the idea that people will prepare them—at which point they come within the classification. A problem has been the development of outlets where an attempt is made to get round the law by selling fresh mushrooms, in packets or otherwise. The sellers expect people to prepare the mushrooms, and eventually to be affected by the ingredients that are classified A.

The clause is a response to a relatively new phenomenon of the importation of fresh mushrooms, which are currently not held to be a product or preparation; that practice leads to an anomaly in the system.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I was saying before the Division, the measure deals with the relatively new phenomenon of imported fresh mushrooms that may not be held to be a product or a preparation. It ensures that magic mushrooms, even when fresh, are class A drugs, and the Government hope that that will act as a deterrent for those wishing to sell or import hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Officials informed the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that the provision would be included in the Bill, and the ACMD agreed that the law would benefit from clarification in this area. Not all Members will be aware that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of outlets selling imported fresh magic mushrooms in the past two years, and there is growing concern about their impact on public health. I have recently had several letters from Members of Parliament whose constituents have expressed concern about the open sale of the mushrooms. Some constituents have reported very negative effects from taking them or have expressed alarm about their sale to minors.

The Government estimate that more than 400 establishments in the United Kingdom sell these drugs, and it is estimated that hundreds of kilos are being imported, predominantly from Holland. I believe that members of the Committee will agree that it is not right for these drugs to be sold openly on the high street.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I know that this point was made on Second Reading, but will my hon. Friend clarify yet again the position on mushrooms growing wild in woods and the ownership of those woods? Do the people who pick those mushrooms become instant criminals, if caught?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We do not believe that someone would be committing an offence solely because a naturally occurring substance—a magic mushroom—was growing in their garden or on their land, or if they came across it in some woods. If necessary, we will consider bringing in regulations when this provision comes into force to make it clear under what circumstances it will not be unlawful to possess magic mushrooms. That will include mushrooms growing without the owner's knowledge in a garden or on land. A farmer might own woods on which these mushrooms may be growing without his knowledge, and we would not want him to be caught by the provision. Imported mushrooms and their sale are a particular problem.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister said that anyone growing magic mushrooms unknowingly would not be committing an offence. That is absolutely right, but surely a person in that position would be guilty of possession the second they became aware of the mushrooms, unless they immediately destroyed them. The two elements of possession under section 5(2) of the 1971 Act are knowledge and control. If the mushrooms are on someone's land and they know that they are there, they are guilty of possession.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will check that. One of the questions is whether a person is picking the mushrooms. I understand that as soon as someone starts picking the mushrooms the active ingredient that creates psilocin starts to formulate itself, although psilocybin is present in fresh and prepared mushrooms. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that, because he is right that we need to clarify the circumstances, while dealing with what we think has become a problem for law enforcement and the courts.

There has been a lot of debate about what exactly the harms and potency of such mushrooms are. Perhaps the name ''magic mushrooms'' makes them sound quite harmless, but they are hallucinogenic. Psilocin and psilocybin are class A drugs because they are similar in effect to LSD and have hallucinogenic qualities. They can trigger psychosis and are very harmful to those with mental illness, and can also be harmful to those with a heart condition. Because of the hallucinogenic effects, users are vulnerable to self-harm while under the influence and, as with LSD, those using mushrooms may experience negative flashbacks.

The international position on mushrooms is as follows. The 1971 United Nations convention on psychotropic substances places both psilocin and LSD in schedule 1, the highest level of control. There is an international consensus that such substances present serious harms. For those reasons it is our view that magic mushrooms should remain a class A drug.

I think that the hon. Gentleman asked why fresh magic mushrooms, which are not a product and not prepared, seem to be excluded from the 1971 Act. The short answer is that we are not really sure and we do not even know if that was the intention. However, we can say that the problem has since worsened. Thinking back over the past 30 years, I can only say that marketing fresh mushrooms in the new way was perhaps not a problem then and that it was felt that defining the drug as a prepared product was enough, without creating problems to do with naturally growing, fresh magic mushrooms.

That said, although magic mushrooms have for a number of decades not been a huge problem, the emergence of 400 outlets in the past few years is an example of the direction in which we might be headed. We must be mindful of that. We do not know for certain, but the problem may have been less of an issue when the 1971 Act was drafted and not at the forefront of the drafters' minds then.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I understand that under the Vienna convention 1971 fresh mushrooms are considered legal, and that there is a case before the European Commissioners. Does my hon. Friend have any information about that? What bearing does that case have on our discussions?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will look into the case that my hon. Friend cites. I should like to say something about our European Union colleagues and their respective mushroom controls. In Belgium, the possession and sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms is prohibited, in Denmark psilocybe cubensis is listed as a controlled plant, and Germany has comprehensive legislation banning possession and supply of substances where abuse for the purposes of intoxication is envisaged. In Poland, mushrooms are treated as psychoactive substances. Thus any general rules on possession, cultivation and introduction to the market also apply. We do not have a relevant list of all the EU countries, but Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and the Slovak Republic have controls in place. In Holland, prepared mushrooms are illegal, but fresh mushrooms are legal.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I said at the start of this debate that I was fairly relaxed about whether or not we had the stand part debate with these two amendments, or separately. One or two hon. Members, however, indicated that they wished them to be held separately. We are straying very wide of the amendment, Minister.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I apologise for contributing to the widening of the debate, Mr. Gale.

The International Narcotics Control Board has recently written to the Dutch health ministry, expressing concern about the open sale of mushrooms in Holland. There are clearly some outstanding issues about this, and how one country is potentially contributing to the problems of another. As I understand it, most of the importation of these fresh mushrooms is from Holland.

As to fresh mushrooms growing on land, if the person does not know the mushrooms are growing, they benefit from a defence, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. We will look at some further regulations to ensure that those who know that mushrooms are growing on their land will not be committing an offence if they are not picking them, and therefore preparing them. There are some issues there, and I will look into that matter further and examine different scenarios to ensure that we are getting that right.

We would be willing to consider advice on mushrooms from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and will consult it when considering any reclassification, which is what these amendments attempt to do. We already have a power to change the classification of substances in schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act, following such a consultation. We keep the ACMB informed of developments. Regarding our plans for the measure in this clause, it too feels that the law needs to be clarified. That said, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I may seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). However, I thought it would be helpful to have a fairly focused debate on classification. I am a Liberal Democrat, and I realise that one does not always get what one wants in life. Unfortunately, we have not really had the debate that I had hoped for. The Government's case on classification is generally not particularly robust. I am surprised that nobody in the Home Office, during the drafting of this Bill, thought to ask why the distinction was made in the first place, and to go to Hansard for 1970 or 1971 for an answer. If one is minded to change something, it is always a good idea to know the reason for it being in the shape it is. I cannot believe for a second that Parliament unintentionally created this distinction between prepared and unprepared mushrooms.

The Minister has given no proper explanation of the parallels being drawn between mushrooms and other class A drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. She just seems to shrug her shoulders and say ''We are not saying that they are the same''—except that when the same penalties are imposed on them, then, effectively, to many people, that is saying that they are the same.

As I said, this has not been the debate that I had hoped for. There are other issues that have been raised in the course of the debate that I will not respond to at this stage, because I shall seek to catch the Chairman's eye again in the course of the stand part debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not want to delay the Committee because I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Minister is trying to do. However, I have had an unprecedented amount of post, from individuals and from the most extraordinary number of organisations. I had no idea that so many people were concerned about mushrooms in a way that I did not envisage when thinking of the humble mushroom.

It all sounds terribly innocuous, but having read quite a large amount of the scientific background I do not think that it is as innocuous as it at first appears. That is why I have sympathy with the Minister in trying to sort out the anomaly that has arisen—regardless of the debate about whether the correct classification is A or B. We shall have a debate along those lines later if there is time.

I want to give the Minister the opportunity to comment on a series of questions that has been asked by another organisation. I should also say that the London Drug Policy Forum, which is the London community against drugs, was almost in isolation in writing to me to welcome the provision. It welcomes the fact that the Bill seeks to improve the range of responses available to the police and courts to deal with drug-related crimes, and to address areas such as the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms, which are currently not covered in criminal law. I thought that that was rather nice, and I wanted to give the Minister a little support, because it appears that everyone is arguing against the provision, and I cannot imagine why.

A wonderfully named organisation, the Magic Mushroom Consumers Group, which says that it is protecting the rights of magic mushroom consumers in the UK, asked several questions. I do not want the Minister to dwell on them, but she should have the chance to bat back. To be fair, its points should be heard. I have often been in the position of putting across points made by organisations with which I do not agree, and this is one of them, but I would like her to have the chance to respond.

The group believes that adding unproblematic magic mushroom consumers to the statistics detailing class A drug users, whom they believe to be problematic users, which is interesting in the light of the report on heroin taking that was released this morning, would falsely exaggerate the level of problematic drug use in the UK. The Minister should respond to that point.

The group also believes that there will be an increase in the number of wild mushroom poisoning incidents in which eating the wrong sort of mushroom can make one seriously ill or even cause death. I hope that that is not the case, because there are some terrible toadstools or mushrooms such as fly agaric, which is a red toadstool with white spots that is used to illustrate fairytales. It is not a true psychodelic drug, but it can kill if ingested, so I hope that the group is wrong about the provision increasing the number of wild mushroom poisoning incidents.

The group's argument that there will be a decrease in the perception of the dangers of addictive class A drugs sits alongside the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that people will be inclined to consider drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine to carry a similar risk. Magic mushrooms really will have gone to its brain if it believes that heroin or crack cocaine will do little harm.

The group's argument that there will be a reduction in respect for drug laws and policy among young people really worries me, because it means that magic mushrooms have been marketed so widely that it openly admits that they are being sold to young people, presumably to minors. That is a serious problem, which the Minister is right to address. Indeed, the report that I obtained from the Library on the Bill said that there were some 300 outlets, but the Minister says that there are 400 shops and market stalls throughout the UK acting as outlets. It is alarming to think that they are selling magic mushrooms to children.

The group made another point about the loss of revenue to the Treasury and an increase in revenue for illegal drug dealers. Fortunately, it has not put a value on the prohibition market, but it believes that the price and the illicit attraction will increase. I honestly do not believe that. There are so many other illegal drugs around that I cannot believe that the coffers of illegal drug dealers will swell enormously, ostensibly because the people who deal in magic mushrooms are illegal dealers without the routes into the supply that legal shops have. There is, however, a pertinent point to be made. Given that there are about 400 outlets selling these mushrooms illegally, the Minister must clarify when the clause will take effect and how long the shops will have to dispose of their stocks. Indeed, she should clarify whether those stocks should be destroyed, whether there will be any inspection regime, whether the dealers will be convicted immediately of an offence the day after the legislation comes into force, and how notification will be made to the outlets.

I hope that the Minister will tell me that there is a mistake in clause 24, entitled

''Short title, commencement and extent''.

It states that clause 22 will come into force on the day on which the Act is passed. I hope that she will add section 21 to that provision.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I, too, have received representations from organisations such as Cactus Trading Wholesale Ltd. and the Magic Mushroom Consumer Group, along with individuals from as far away as Scarborough, Streatham in London and Collyhurst in Manchester. The clause has raised a lot of interest. I am amazed by that because I did not think it would be such a big problem. I make that admission from the word go.

It is true that concern has been expressed about the clarity of the law, and I agree that it should be clearer, as do DrugScope and Turning Point—and, incidentally, Transform, which is against the prohibition of all drugs. Transform, of course, would not prohibit psilocin or psilocybin or the magic mushrooms themselves. It is significant that DrugScope and Turning Point both argue that they ought not to be class A drugs.

I am reminded that the Runciman committee and the Select Committee on Home Affairs asked the Minister to ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider the reclassification of drugs. It has also been suggested that LSD and ecstasy should not be class A drugs, although I have some doubt about that. Nevertheless, the matter should be referred to the advisory council, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say this afternoon that that will be the case. The consensus seems to be that drugs ought to be classified according to the harm that they present to individuals. I hope that all hon. Members agree; it seems a common-sense view. That is one of the things that worries me about the clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West tabled a question asking in how many deaths drugs had been a factor between 1993 and 2002. The table accompanying the answer, in Hansard for 31 January 2005, at column 593W, shows figures for heroin and morphine, for cocaine and crack cocaine, and for psilocybin or magic mushrooms. The table shows only one death for 1993 and none for the remaining nine years resulting from the use of psilocybin or magic mushrooms. Incidentally, thousands of deaths resulted from heroin and morphine, and hundreds of deaths from cocaine and crack cocaine. The harm presented by magic mushrooms, and psilocin and psilocybin, cannot be compared with the deaths presented by the other class A drugs, but that is how those compounds will be listed.

Other evidence has been provided to us on safety. I should tell the Committee that my PhD thesis, based on three years' research, was done on 5-Hydroxytryptamine when it was hardly known. It is now better known by the trivial name serotonin, the brain hormone that modifies our mood swings. The spectrum of levels of activity of serotonin in the brain is such that those who have a low activity will be at the depressed end of the spectrum, and those with a high activity of serotonin in the brain will be at the highly active, or even schizophrenic, end of the spectrum. Somewhere in the middle is the band of those who are considered to be normal—at least most of the time.

My PhD thesis was about trying to synthesise brand new organic molecules to act as agonists or antagonists of serotonin in the brain. I have been interested in brain chemistry for a long time, and psilocin is related to serotonin. I will not give its full chemical name, although I have it here in a scientific paper. Psilocybin is an ester of psilocin. They are inter- convertible. When psilocybin gets into the body, it will turn itself into psilocin, so we cannot talk about psilocybin without talking also of psilocin.

Both of the compounds found in magic mushrooms interact at one of the serotonin receptor sites in the brain. Interestingly, tranquilisers and anti-depressants act at the same receptor site; that is what we are dealing with in terms of physiology. The paper was produced recently by the Heffter research centre at the psychiatric university hospital in Zurich, and covers the acute psychological and physiological effects of psilocybin in healthy human beings. It is a double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-effect study. I shall not read out the names of the researchers, but their conclusion in the abstract is significant for this debate. They found

''no cause for concern that psilocybin is hazardous with respect to somatic health.''

That concurs with the number of deaths that we have not seen related to magic mushrooms and the two important chemicals in them.

Hon. Members will have received the study on psilocin and psilocybin by the co-ordination centre for the assessment and monitoring of new drugs that was presented to the Dutch Government. In its executive summary, it stated:

''This drug is not associated with physical or psychological dependency, acute toxicity is largely limited to possible panic and anxiety attacks and, in terms of chronic toxicity, the worst that can happen are flashbacks. Consequently, use of paddos (hallucinogenic mushrooms) does not, on balance, present any risk to the health of the individual.''

We have just moved cannabis from class B to class C on the ground of the harm that it presents to society, yet here we are being tempted to put fresh magic mushrooms into class A, along with psilocin and psilocybin, which are already there. I have a problem with that. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which comprises scores of experts in the area, should consider that before any statutory instrument places such substances in class A.

Magic mushrooms do not produce any addiction, they are not considered to be toxic and I can find evidence of only one death. We have also received the Powell report. That is interesting. It gives the species of magic mushrooms—there are many—and the range of districts in Great Britain in which they grow. I shall not read it out, but I can tell the Committee that one quarter of a mile from my house there is a small wood near a school. The children there well know the months during which the mushrooms grow. A few silly individuals, silly because they are under age and their brains are still developing, trip up to the woods—[Interruption]. Yes, they trip. I shall leave it at that.

Psilocin and psilocybin have been compared with lysergic acid diethylamide. That compound is definitely a hallucinogen. We know that it can create in people a panic so great that individuals have been known to jump out of the window and kill themselves. There is no doubt that LSD is a dangerous compound. I do not advise anybody to take it. However, psilocin and psilocybin have been classed as hallucinogens, although they are compounds that produce psychedelic effects. The Powell paper coins the term ''emphyogenic'', meaning that the compounds give people a deep, spiritual feeling. That is precisely why the Aztec and Mayan civilisations in south America used those compounds in their religious ceremonies. I do not see many accounts of those people dying in large numbers as a consequence of using the compounds in the course of worshipping their gods. Therefore, I question whether the compounds are so dangerous that they need to be classified as class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I hope that the Minister has some evidence to that effect.

As the Minister has just said, the Home Office is getting worried about the increasing numbers of traders selling these mushrooms throughout London and elsewhere in the country. They even sell them on market stalls, and there are special shops in which one can buy all the gear. I gather that some strange people—I do not actually know any of them—visit these places quite frequently.

My fear is that if we ban something, those who use it, but who do not want to break the law, will merely try to find something else. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned one such compound, and many other mushrooms and fungi contain compounds like psilocin and psilocybin. People may well try to find other, more dangerous substances if we ban magic mushrooms.

Of course, there is khat, too, and there is an amendment on it. People might well discover that the Somali community uses khat, and its use may spread. However, there are many other such naturally occurring plants, vegetables, berries and fruits from trees. All one has to do is invade the internet to find out about them; all this stuff is on the internet, and children, in particular, surf the internet. I am concerned that we will drive people away from substances that, although not completely harmless, are certainly not as harmful as the clause makes them out to be. I therefore have some difficulty with putting magic mushrooms in class A or even banning them altogether.

Finally, I think that we are acting a little soon. We should gather more evidence, because not enough research has been done on many aspects of drug misuse. We also need far more research on magic mushrooms before we consider passing Acts of Parliament, as we are in the process of doing this afternoon.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I do not seek to emulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and his scientific expertise; he and I are at opposite ends of the scientific spectrum. He did his PhD on serotonin, but I was politely invited by the head of science at Islay high school not to bother the science teachers after the end of my second year. I did not understand half of what the hon. Gentleman said, but he said it with great authority, so I hope that somebody here did. I certainly could not help but believe him.

In our earlier debate, the hon. Gentleman asked about possession by virtue of land, and the Minister said that it could be excluded by means of a statutory instrument. While the Committee was adjourned, I had a brief conversation with some of the Minister's officials, and I accept that that route is open to the Government. However, I am not persuaded that such an exclusion will be any easier to achieve in secondary legislation than in primary legislation, and I hope that the Minister and her officials will consider the problem between now and Report, because the law of unintended consequences dictates that some people will be mistakenly caught by the provisions. Furthermore, there are always those who go out of their way to put themselves on the wrong side of the law because they feel that some point of principle is at stake. All of us have no doubt had people come to our constituency surgeries who fall into that category.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a case that is, I think, currently before the European Court of Justice. The basis for it is that fresh magic mushrooms are not illegal under the Vienna convention, so their prohibition would constitute a breach of free trade rules. Such a novel and ingeniously constructed argument would never have occurred to me. Perhaps that is why I was never a very successful lawyer. However, if such a case is on the go, the Committee should be made aware of it and of the Government's ingenious and creative lawyers' assessment of it. If the Minister would write to the Committee about that, I would be exceptionally grateful.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that other substances would be sought if we excluded this species of hallucinogen and referred to the internet. For once, I am ahead of him, because I made short use of the internet yesterday. We have all spoken about the range of briefings that we have received, and I have received as many as anybody else, but one of the most remarkable things has been the number of researchers from all parties who have sidled up to me at different points and expressed their concerns about the subject.

It was pointed out to me that the most widely identified alternative is Salvia divinorum, the leaves of which are smoked—it says here—and contain another powerful hallucinogen, salvinorin. Relatively little is known about the possible harms of salvinorin use, but it is widely available online and in what the briefing calls ''head shops'' in a variety of preparations. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation's briefing states:

''The spice nutmeg also is also psychoactive when consumed in larger quantities.''

That was news to me, and no doubt dishes will be proscribed from women's institutes the length and breadth of the country now that we have discovered the possible uses of nutmeg.

Having been made aware of Salvia divinorum, I typed it into Google and, sure enough, there is a ream of websites selling such things. The first site contained five pages of alternative substances. Salvia divinorum is there; so is the fly agaric mushroom and Mexican tarragon, Tagetes lucida, which is described on the site as

''a beautiful, bright green perennial herb from the Sierra Mandre Mountains of Mexico.''

We would not want to proscribe something like that, would we? It goes on:

''It is used by the local Indians recreationally as well as in the kitchen.''

Of course, such substances will be the next fall back. Will we then include them in the schedule?

The point that I am making is that the piecemeal approach to the classification of drugs—taking cannabis from class B to C and clarifying, as we are today, the question of fresh magic mushrooms—is unsatisfactory. All that we will be doing is getting involved in a rolling programme of reclassification. The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that we should be classifying drugs according to the harm caused. If there is an argument for the prohibition of anything, it must surely be to prevent people from doing harm to themselves and others. That should be our starting point.

On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's analysis, it is difficult to see why magic mushrooms would be classified as class A. However, having said that, it is equally difficult to see what other classification they would properly fit under. The fact is that we have had the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for 34 years this year. Surely the time has come for a comprehensive review. Such a Drugs Bill would be useful in the run up to an election, and it is a great pity that we have not had it. We have had a running repair and sticking plaster approach.

The arguments raise as many questions as they answer. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned the magic mushroom consumer group; I must gently chide her for coming close to misrepresenting its position sometimes. As for whether ''young people'' should automatically mean minors, there are many young people who are not minors, and clearly the market in question is more popular with young people.

The market already exists. The history of prohibition over the 34 years in which the Misuse of Drugs Act has been in force has not been one of unmitigated success. There was an opportunity to consider how to deal with this matter differently. That does not mean that we would not eventually have concluded that we had to classify the substances in question as the clause does, but I fear that the rather rushed approach that is being used—and the fact that we have not yet concluded the details of all the defences suggests that it is a rushed approach—means that we are missing an opportunity for a wee bit of creative or lateral thinking. Such thinking might enable us to make the relevant drugs law more effective, because it would have more credibility among those likely to interact with it.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Magic mushrooms fall into two categories, essentially. The first category is indigenous to the United Kingdom and is known as liberty cap. It has a short harvest in autumn. The sale of those mushrooms is not known to be significant or systematic. The second category is Psilocybe cubensis. Types available are usually Mexican, Indian and Colombian, and they are often grown in Holland and imported to the UK. They are cultivated specifically to be turned into a marketable product.

Hon. Members have suggested that we are making an act unlawful. The problem is that the Government were pretty clear about where we thought the law on magic mushrooms stood; we thought that capturing mushrooms, in the sense of preparing or producing them to be acquired and used for their hallucinogenic qualities, was enough. However, in one way or another people have tried to find a way round the law, which is what we are trying to deal with.

In many respects we are not really suddenly making magic mushrooms illegal. I spoke earlier, on the amendments, about the legal position. People might have a different point of view about the classification, but the law is clear about the properties of the mushrooms when fresh and when prepared. We are trying to deal with people who try to find a way round the law, which has made law enforcement difficult. The judge in a case in a case in Gloucester Crown court on 14 December recommended that Parliament consider new legislation to clarify the legal position and put matters beyond doubt.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the industry has asked the Government to consider regulating the sale of the products and licensing them. Would not that be a more acceptable way forward, and would not it protect young children from using magic mushrooms?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

If I were to accept that, it would be tantamount to accepting that the properties of the mushrooms in use present no problem. I shall expand in a moment on the relative harm of the products. We should be aware that it is because of their hallucinogenic properties, and the consequences of those when the mushrooms are used in the same way as LSD, that they have been placed in class A by previous UK Governments and internationally. That is not to say that the effects are exactly the same as heroin or crack. One is very much a stimulant; the other has a much more ''downing'' effect on individuals. It is recognised, however, that these mushrooms have harmful properties. To go down the route of regulation is not, therefore, a direction that the Government are minded to take.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister is outlining a very interesting and important line of reasoning here. There are all sorts of substances and preparations that have harmful effects. On the basis of what she knows about these substances, how would she rate the harm caused by them as against that caused by alcohol or tobacco?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We could have a discussion on every single substance this afternoon. There is a problem with the hon. Gentleman's line of argument.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It was a question.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Question and line of argument, then. In his earlier contribution, one could almost infer that he was saying the failure of our system of classification and prohibition meant that we should legalise all these drugs. I understand that some people hold that view.

I am not saying for one instant that navigating our way through the issues of substance abuse is easy. It is not. One of the things we must constantly look at is the way in which substances are used and abused. I do not know what synthetic drugs might come on to our radar in five or ten years' time. The fact that there is no perfect answer to all these situations does not mean we should not do something about some of the substances of which it is felt, in the national and international arena, Governments need to be mindful. I will talk about some estimates of the use of these drugs, and the escalating problem due to the nature of the selling of these fresh mushrooms in some of the 400-plus outlets I have described, a little later.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is a great deal of controversy over the use of the word ''hallucinogen'' attached to psilocin and psilocybin. With hallucinogens, there is a great danger that people will harm themselves. I have mentioned one of the effects of LSD—it was fed to some members of the Army at Porton Down more than 30 years ago, and they developed tremendous energy and even chopped down trees while under its influence.

Psychedelics do not fall into that class, however. They do not give people that urge to have great strength or to harm themselves. I mentioned that these two compounds, psilocin and psilocybin, give people a deep feeling of spiritual contentment. I know the Minister has been in correspondence with Professor David Nichols, who has also objected to her frequently using the word ''hallucinogen'' attached to psilocin and psilocybin. He has admitted to her that, occasionally, a person will have an hallucination while on psilocin or psilocybin, but that it is very rare indeed.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am not a scientist, but I have looked into some of these areas. My hon. Friend talked about the entheogenic properties of these mushrooms, which literally means ''the god within''. In that sense, people who apply this term are talking about the effect of any drug creating an uplifting spiritual experience. I have had a letter or two from people who clearly refer to this experience they have when they are partaking of magic mushrooms.

The harm of magic mushrooms may be disputed but, as far as I understand it, their hallucinogenic properties are not. Hallucinations are one of the main effects that make the drug user want to use these mushrooms. Hallucinations are one of the main effects that make the drug user want to use these mushrooms. A recent Dutch government study in 2000, to which my hon. Friend referred, states that a usual dose of 10 g

''leads to illusions and hallucinations . . . LSD and psilocybin work according to the same pharmacological principle.''

A recent Swiss study in 2003 refers to hallucinogenic mushrooms. Dr. Sam Bonnet of Bristol university accepts that there are hallucinogenic effects among users.

There is clearly a body of evidence that recognises that hallucinations are part and parcel of the experience of using these mushrooms. For certain people, that can be incredibly harmful. The Dutch report refers to the impact of people using mushrooms if there is an underlying heart condition, or mental health problems.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have been listening to what the Minister has been saying on this subject. Although I did not touch on it when I made my remarks, I looked into some of the alleged effects of these drugs.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Just before we were interrupted, I was going to support the Minister. I, too, used the same tried-and-tested means as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and went on to the internet, because I needed to understand what we were dealing with. I found relevant descriptions of the psychedelic experience, as it applies to mushrooms, at www.thegooddrugsguide.com. In some cases, the effects are very alarming and include strong hallucinations, with objects morphing into other objects, and some loss of reality—time becomes meaningless and senses blend into one. [Interruption.] I think that that sounds absolutely terrifying. It is said that that experience is rare, but it involves an almost total loss of the visual connection with reality. The senses cease to function in a normal way and the loss of reality becomes so severe that it defies explanation.

I hope that the Minister agrees with that description, knowing what the effects are on people who may have a disposition to mental illness. We are talking about the severe outcomes of taking such drugs.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that hallucinations are dangerous. There is an increased risk of self-harm, paranoia attacks and highly disturbing experiences, because hallucinations distort people's sense of what is around them. Depending on where someone takes drugs that cause hallucinations, the dangers can be very serious.

It is easy to say that because some substances have been used in some cultures and in certain situations, they can be applicable to our society, but that is not always the case. For instance, there have been debates about what is appropriate with khat and whether it is a stimulant. In certain societies and under certain conditions, a wraparound culture applies to the use of certain substances, but it is not necessarily applicable in the UK in the 21st century, given how we work, live and socialise. Let us think about the issue—if somebody was having hallucinations and got inside a car, I would be very worried if I was driving down the same street.

The proprietors of the outlets, which are sometimes in the head shops that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, or in street or market stalls, believe that they have found a loophole in the law, in that an offence is committed under the 1971 Act only if the mushrooms are prepared in any way, such as being frozen or powdered. Those who have prepared mushrooms in that manner have been successfully prosecuted, so the law is clearly seen to work. However, mushrooms that are packaged and preserved are technically fresh at the point of sale and therefore not caught by that legal definition. That has caused problems with law enforcement and for the courts, which is why we are trying to tackle the situation.

The legislation makes it an offence to make the active ingredients of mushrooms—psilocybin and psilocin—into a product. Psilocin and its ester psilocybin are both controlled under the 1971 Act as class A drugs. Magic mushrooms can contain both of those properties, but are not controlled; it is not illegal to possess, supply or cultivate them in their raw state. That was partly because it was not seen to be a problem. However, the British crime survey of 2002–03 shows that about 180,000 of 16-year-olds and upwards—the definition in the survey is usually those aged 16 to 59—have taken mushrooms. All the indications are that that trend could be going up due to the massive expansion of sales in the form that I have described. Clearly, that is of concern.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham talked about fly agaric or Amanita muscaria mushrooms. For those who do not know those terms, they are the red and white mushrooms that we have seen as children in our fairy-tale books, sometimes with a little elf sitting on top of them. The fly agaric, or fairy, mushroom does not contain psilocin or psilocybin, but produces a powerful hallucinatory effect. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the substance muscaria is highly poisonous if taken in its raw state, and that has been a sufficient deterrent to prevent drug users from experimenting with it. Its prevalence in the UK is extremely low, and there are no plans to control it because the fact that it is highly poisonous has, thank goodness, been enough of a deterrent. When I was growing up, we did not pick or take any mushrooms, but relied on local supermarkets or market stalls to provide us with ones that could be eaten safely.

The hon. Lady also asked when the measure will come into force. The answer is as soon as we have made the regulations. As I said, we have to consider the situation with indigenous mushrooms growing in the wild and on people's land. I hope that we can sort that out a short time after Royal Assent, so that there is no delay.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It would help if the Minister could assure us that the commencement order under clause 24 will not be made until the other relevant orders relating to possession arising from the ownership of land are made.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I think that that is all right, but I will have a closer look at it to double check.

From what has been said by many members of the Committee, it is clear that retailers are fully aware that we are trying to close this loophole, so their awareness of what is going on is pretty much there. In relation to compensation, I do not think that it is right to compensate people for trying to find a way around the law. I think that such people are breaking the law. We need to ensure that it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I agree. I do not think that anybody's business is going to turn on whether they continue to trade in this substance, but it is fair that whatever order is made should specify a time by which they should be aware of it. It would be unfortunate if the time limit were a matter of days. Obviously there is a large lobby, as the Minister said, but the substance is sold by what I think are called head shops, and news of legislation sometimes takes a little longer to reach such places. We should be fair to the traders rather than bringing the axe down immediately. A definite date should be set.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Yes, it is important to have a date of commencement.

In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, clause 21 will not commence until regulations are made providing for exceptions to the offence of possessing magic mushrooms. People are following our debate avidly, and through the normal channels, our Home Office websites and the newspapers, we will let them know when that clarification of the law comes into effect.

I should clarify something that I said earlier as I would not want to mislead the Committee. When citing a Dutch Government survey, I spoke about a usual dose of 10 g of fresh mushrooms, but there will be only 10 micrograms of psilocybin in the mushrooms. I wanted to clarify that because 10 g of psilocybin would almost certainly lead to allusions and hallucinations; I meant 10 micrograms of psilocybin.

When answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, I referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. However, I did not say that we were asking the council to review the classification of the properties of magic mushrooms. I said that we are in touch with the council about developments in the production and marketing of the mushroom.

I know that people feel that we should clarify the situation, but we are not minded to reclassify for the reasons that I outlined earlier, especially our commitment to the conventions that we have signed and the fact that the chemicals that we are talking about are hallucinogenic. We therefore think it right to keep them where they are. None the less, the council keeps drugs under review and will continue to do so. I hope that I have made it clear that it is not a new classification. We are trying to clarify the existing classification, and to deal with the way in which some people have chosen to get around the law. It is important to recognise that.

I hear what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham says about young people. I am pleased to have support from some quarters for what we are doing. I have received letters from people concerned about the matter, and I know that the police are worried about it. I have said before that the open trading of those mushrooms in a way that misleads young people is potentially dangerous.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland cited a number of substances that he found on his internet searches. Many different plants and flowers can have negative effects, but we have to deal with the situation as it is—how the substance is being marketed and where it stands in relation to the law. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support clause 21.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Financial provision

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have a couple of points that I want to put to the Minister. I would like her to explain paragraph 55 of the explanatory notes. It states:

''This will be implemented once the expanded workforce is in place and frontline efficiencies have been achieved. There are downstream costs to the Criminal Justice System but these are expected to be balanced by savings arising from reduced offending.''

As we are examining the detail of the Bill, an explanation would be useful of what front-line efficiencies are expected, who will achieve them, and where the cuts will fall in order to create the expanded work force. I am not sure that I fully understand the provisions, and others have raised the matter with me.

I want to look at the implications for public sector manpower, which also fall as a burden. Paragraph 61 says:

''Clauses 1–6 and 8 will have a minimal impact on manpower'',

but clauses 8, 5 and 6 all have manpower implications. Indeed, even the estimate that police forces will require one additional supervising officer per day—presumably, on a 24-hour shift basis—represents quite an additional burden.

Rather than that, however, I would like the Minister to explain the suggestion that

''The extended detention provision will allow police forces to equip a custody suite''.

Do we have the correct financial provision to provide for custody suites? If not, there will be enormous issues about detaining people for a long time in police cells. In Operation Safeguard, police cells were used as prison cells because the prisons were overflowing. We must ensure that we have the correct safeguards and balances in place before the provisions bite and people can be detained for an extended period in police cells. Someone who is in a cell for the first time will be more vulnerable and susceptible to self-harm and suicide, and we do not want to inflict greater trauma on the individual or on police officers around the country. I would therefore like the Minister to explain those financial provisions.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

On the efficiency savings to be achieved, I am pleased to say that because of the record resources we are putting into initiatives such as the drug interventions programme, we already have the basic structures in place in many areas with high levels of drug-related crime to meet the needs of those coming through the system. As we know, people are being tested on charge, but they are also voluntarily being assessed. One issue that we have addressed is how to make better use of the resources provided under such schemes and of arrest referral workers. However, a large number of the people who are currently being charged are likely to be seen anyway, although we are now moving that forward to arrest.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Annexe A of the regulatory impact assessment states:

''Benefits are derived from the reduction in individuals' offending (and therefore of crime more generally) as a result of entering treatment.''

I hope that the Minister will not wait for the reductions to feed through before she increases resources.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I said, we are already putting in a huge amount of resources anyway. Our estimates indicate that about 200 extra drugs workers will be funded under the spending review 2004. That will accommodate not only the additional assessments that result from the mandatory assessment provisions, but the follow-up appointments. As I said, we have already made substantial efficiency gains as a result of the better management of the different schemes. In fact, we have done appraisals of arrest-referral and drug-testing arrangements in a number of force areas, and we have produced guidance for those areas so that forces can improve their operation of these schemes. That has helped with a recent renewal of contracts. That experience is certainly helping.

We have tried to ensure that there is a better fit between, for example, the hours of drugs workers and the demands of clients. Sometimes, by simply changing the working of some of the drugs workers, we have made significant improvements in the number of cases dealt with by individual workers. However, we have built estimates into the spending review 2004 to accommodate some of those issues.

The hon. Lady talked about the implications for police forces of extending the power to detain persons, and we debated custody suites. We think that about 20 to 30 police forces will choose to use the power to detain persons suspected of swallowing drugs, at a cost of about £15,000 to equip one custody suite. The total cost, therefore, is between £0.3 million and £0.45 million. In some respects it is for forces to consider how best they can deal with the type of criminal in question, having regard to the management of their capital and personnel resources. As I have said, I do not think that the facility is needed at every police station. It is something to be worked out locally, and it would be difficult for us to work it out nationally.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have two worries. First, I am concerned about the scarcity of suitable accommodation at a police station to detain someone for that extended time. Secondly, I seek an undertaking from the Minister that the individual subject to the extended detention provision would never be taken to a prison to complete that period, because of the lack of suitable accommodation at a police station, with the result that they would in effect be on remand without having been charged.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I do not want prison places to be taken up by people from whom an attempt is being made to obtain evidence to help with the charging process. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady in more detail about some of the issues.

Our aim is to shut down loopholes—I know that I used the phrase about magic mushrooms, but it is also relevant to enforcement powers—that allow suspects to slow down the system, use up court time, prevent the law from being enforced efficiently and effectively, and interfere with the judicial process. We want to shut down those opportunities for people to block the process of the law unnecessarily, and to introduce a deterrent factor.

Those initiatives have been discussed with the police, including through the Association of Chief Police Officers, and the police support them. I am pleased to say that the police have a very good funding settlement and record numbers of officers, and money to achieve what we want them to—catching criminals and achieving successful prosecutions and convictions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Amendments and repeals

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I join DrugScope, Turning Point and others in applauding the Government for repealing section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which extended section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include all illegal drugs, and which caused, at the time, great concern to those in the caring communities. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to people in the caring communities—particularly those who care for drug misusers and addicts—that section 8 still applies as it did previously? Will she point out the consequences of the Bill, assuming that it is passed? I think that that should be made clear.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Yes, I shall make that clear. We did not want people who work with drug misusers to be prosecuted for committing an offence because a drug user ends up using drugs in a care environment or on other premises, and it is important to clarify that. The Government's antisocial behaviour measures and powers to shut down crack houses have allowed us to ensure that there is a more appropriate way of dealing with illegal drug use on premises, and I understand that section 8 will continue to apply.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

New clause 1 - Inclusion of khat as a Class A drug

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Classification of cannabis as Class B—

'(1) Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971[2] (which specifies the drugs which are subject to control under that Act) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (a) of Part I of that Schedule, insert at an appropriate place ''Cannabinol, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin'' and ''Cannabinol derivatives''.

(3) In paragraph (a) of Part II of that Schedule, insert at an appropriate place ''Cannabis and cannabis resin'' shall be deleted.

(4) In paragraph (a) of Part III of that Schedule, ''Cannabinol'', ''Cannabinol derivatives'' and ''Cannabis and cannabis resin'' shall be deleted.

(5) In paragraph 1(d) of Part III of that Schedule, ''cannabinol or a cannabinol derivative'' shall be deleted.'.{**we**}

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

New clause 1 has been referred to in anticipation of reaching it because it seeks to focus the Minister's mind on the classification of khat, which contains cathinone or cathine. Khat is a green-leaf shrub that has been chewed for a long time by people who live in the Horn of Africa on the Arabian peninsula, but unfortunately it has recently turned up in Europe, including in the UK. It has been particularly prevalent among immigrants and refugees from countries such as Somalia, Ethiopia and Yemen. Khat is imported and sold at greengrocers in areas such as east London in a very similar way to magic mushrooms. It sells at about £4 a bunch, but remains potent for only a few days after it is picked. It is strongest when the fresh leaves are chewed, but it can also be made into a tea or chewable paste.

The khat plant is not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but its active ingredients, cathinone and cathine, are class C drugs—a condition that is similar to magic mushrooms. Cathinone may not lawfully be possessed or supplied except under licence for research, although cathine may be prescribed.

Khat is illegal in America, Canada, Norway and Sweden, and I understand that it was controlled in Tanzania, Kenya and Somalia. It is a stimulant drug with effects similar to those of amphetamines. Chewing it makes people talkative, suppresses their appetite, and can cause insomnia, anorexia and anxiety. It makes people irritable, angry and possibly violent, and if hon. Members have time to cruise the internet, like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, there are horrible stories about domestic violence being brought on by it. I am aware of the Government's measures to relieve domestic violence problems in this country. Psychological dependence can also result from regular use of the drug, and users become hooked and get very depressed and low if they do not use it.

Reports among the Yemeni population indicate that khat is consumed by three in four Yemenis. In Yemen, fairly accurate research shows that khat use accounts for more than 40 per cent. of the average family budget, which is an alarming statistic, especially as chronic khat abuse results in all the symptoms of amphetamine addiction. It also results in hypertension and gastric disorders, which cost our national health service more and more. We also export it. There are real problems, because I understand that some 18 tonnesof it were seized on flights from the UK to the US in 1998, which is the last time for which I could find figures available.

I know from the Minister's earlier answer that the Government have no plans to control khat at the moment, but that the advisory council is keeping its legal status under review. I understood that the Home Office's drugs and alcohol research unit was to embark on a detailed study to assess the level of harm caused by khat. It was expected that the final report would be completed in September 2004, with the interim findings being available in April 2004. I hope the Minister will give us the progress of that, because I have not seen that report, and I am not aware whether the promise made in her answer of 8 September 2003 was actually kept. The reference is the answer to Question 127515 at column 60W. Apparently, this report was going to inform future decisions on whether khat would be controlled. It is absolutely correct that khat misuse is part of a wider diversity issue. I would have hoped, however, that, having made that promise, the Minister would come to this Committee and tell us exactly what the Government are going to do about it.

New clause 4 is familiar ground for the Minister, and I think we have been around the houses on this debate several times. I am sure that she is not going to agree with me, but it is the classification of cannabis. Back in October 2001, the previous Home Secretary, who has had to step down, announced the change to the classification of cannabis when he was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. He had to go through the hoop that required him to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and he was going to look at the results of the so-called Lambeth experiment, which, if the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is anything to go by, was nothing but a complete and utter disaster.

Despite the adverse results from the Lambeth experiment, cannabis was reclassified in January 2004. The message went out, up and down the country, that the Government believed that we should not tolerate cannabis. At best, it was tolerance of possession and dealing, and at worst it was that the taking of it was legal. There is no point in the Minister pretending otherwise. I have even had children say to my face that taking cannabis is legal. The confusion was, I suppose, accepted by the Minister, because she had to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money on a campaign to try to clarify the situation, solving the problem of public confusion on the legality of cannabis.

The cursory evaluation of the campaign said that a survey of a representative sample of 14 to 70 year olds showed that 81 per cent. agreed that smoking cannabis was harmful. Although those results were evaluated for a campaign on or around 17 May 2004, even if we just start to cruise the internet and pick up the odd article, we will find that—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The Chairman is finding it rather difficult to hear the debate.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Observer—not necessarily a friend of those who think as I do about this drug—admitted:

''Not for the first time, the Police Federation is confused. As we report today, the union representing beat officers believes that the downgrading of cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug has left its members unclear about what to do about the rise in the numbers of people openly smoking marijuana on the street. They say that declassification has led to a casual culture of lawlessness and that police officers are provoked by people smoking joints and believing they are above the law.''

Reclassification has led to confusion over the status of cannabis, and it is now in the same category as tranquilisers and steroids.

Another problem was that the drug was downgraded at a time when all the evidence seemed to be rolling in of there being more dangers. Professor Robin Murray, the professor of psychiatry at Maudsley hospital, showed that cannabis consumption exacerbates the symptoms of schizophrenia-like psychosis and can lead to panic attacks, paranoia and long-term mental illness. Smoking cannabis is worse than smoking a cigarette. The Minister is familiar with the arguments about additional costs and the extra damage caused by tetrahydrocannabinols. Cannabis is getting stronger. Whereas in the '60s and '70s I gather that the strength was about 10 mg in the average spliff, it is now about 150 mg.

The new clause gives the Minister the opportunity to admit that she was wrong and reclassify the drug to class B. That would send out the right message on this dangerous drug, and ensure that the damage that has occurred and the confused messages that she and the former Home Secretary have been responsible for will be repaired.

There was a letter today in The Daily Telegraph—I hope that the Minister reads The Daily Telegraph because it carries the odd useful article—from someone whose name and address was supplied, entitled, ''Cannabis is turning our youth into dopes.'' The letter stated:

''I agree entirely that 'cannabis is a 'ruiner' of young men'. I have witnessed this in my sons who, now in their mid-twenties, are just recovering from the loss of 'drive, motivation and concentration' as they ruefully and belatedly establish their careers, having almost missed out on successful higher education.

We parents, in our innocence, thought they were just being teenagers when they were paranoid, apparently unable to move faster than a slow shuffle and had a total lack of concern for their future. Oh, how Harry Enfield's Kevin helped us keep a sense of humour.

They, in turn, have witnessed friends slide into depression owing to excessive dope smoking. I have a friend whose daughter ended up in a mental hospital for dope-induced depression.

As for the dope-smoking parents . . . they are encouraging an illegal activity that ruins young people's lives. It is to be hoped that the children of such parents will do what so many teenagers do and reject their elders' lifestyle.''

That is a timely reminder of what can happen.

I would also like to pay tribute to Mrs. Mary Brett, who many hon. Members know is a teacher at Dr. Challoner's grammar school in my constituency. She has always been scrupulously fair in the information that she provides, and her fears for our young people are based on many years of teaching experience. I hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider, and I am giving her that opportunity today.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I should first apologise to the Committee for being unable to remain here beyond 5.15 pm—I will not hear the Minister's response and I will not be present at the conclusion of the Committee's business. Therefore, without incurring your wrath, Mr. Gale, I shall stray just for a second and express my gratitude to you and Mr. Illsley, other members of the Committee, officials and others who have made our deliberations so smooth and, for the most part, enjoyable if not always exciting.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was right to draw parallels between khat and magic mushrooms—my thinking is informed by the same parallels. My argument in relation to magic mushrooms is that the classification of drugs is due a review. For us in this Committee to classify khat in this way without proper consultation would not be particularly helpful. For that reason, I fear that there is an element in this of making policy on the hoof, so I am not minded to support the new clause.

I was struck by the description that the hon. Lady gave of the effects of khat—from my past life as a director of a women's refuge in Aberdeenshire, I recognised them as being not very different from those of alcohol. When we think about the classification of drugs, and the way in which we treat them, we have to look at them in the round, rather than considering just those that we currently regard as being controlled.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The fundamental difference is that we know the problem that this drug causes and we have the opportunity to place it in the same category as that in which the Minister has placed magic mushrooms. Why lose the opportunity at this stage? It seems logical to me.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It would not be wise for us simply to do that at the end of the Committee stage, without the proper consultation or the proper advice from the relevant Government bodies. We shall have to agree to differ on that point.

With regard to the new clause seeking the reclassification of cannabis as a class B drug, as I indicated earlier, I was not particularly impressed—although my party supported it—with the reclassification to class C. Reclassifying it along with things such as anabolic steroids and painkillers, and tranquilisers such as diazepam and temazepam was not helpful and I feared that it would cause confusion. I should bring to the Minister's attention the words of Sheriff Douglas Cusine, sitting in Aberdeen Sheriff court last Friday. He said—I am quoting from memory; I do not have it in front of me—that he found it difficult to see exactly what the Government sought to achieve with that reclassification. In his view it had led to significant confusion among people who were appearing before him in a very busy court. The sheriff is an eminently sensible, well qualified lawyer, who, in an earlier incarnation, had the misfortune to try to teach me conveyancing when he was Professor Cusine. Otherwise, he is a man to whom the Government should be prepared to listen.

Given the danger of confusion, I would not be minded to support the hon. Lady's amendment. To reclassify a reclassified drug would merely heap confusion on top of confusion. I must stress again that, rather than mucking around with categories that are no longer fit for purpose, we should look at classification as a whole.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk West)

I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham had to say on new clause 4. On one level, much of it was simple common sense. She was right about the effect on users of khat and cannabis. However, that the purpose of a classification system is to make it clear that there are different grades. If we were to upgrade both those drugs back up to B, it would create additional confusion. There are three levels: we understand that class A drugs are very serious, B is a bit less and C is a bit less again. It would send out the wrong signals to change it the other way. The three grades work well.

It is also important to say that the drug of choice of most older adults, probably most of us here, is alcohol. The abuse of alcohol creates far more trouble in our high streets and our homes than does the use of khat or cannabis. If we think about the things that take up police time, alcohol abuse takes up far more police time and leads to far more offences than khat or cannabis. The latter tend to keep people relatively quiet. Very few people commit violent offences when they are taking khat or cannabis.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

In the spirit of helpfulness, does my hon. Friend believe that we should classify alcohol as category B?

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk West)

I would be very reluctant to classify alcohol as category B.

This debate goes on when we talk about how we should classify any type of drug. Ultimately, one of the most serious drugs is one that we tolerate enormously in society—everyone is this Room uses it, in moderation, of course—and it is alcohol.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Police Federation and its view that the policy would lead to confusion. My instinct would be that the Police Federation would welcome any policy that would enable them to direct the resources appropriately towards the use of alcohol, which leads to other offences. I suspect that the net effect of getting it right would be not just to reduce the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but to reduce the total number of offences in the high street, in our homes and in all our communities.

I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head, but I believe that there has been a substantial net gain in terms of thousand man and woman hours that police officers saved by directing efforts properly towards far more serious and important offences. That is not to say that we should be casual about any kind of drug abuse, but we want to direct the police to the more serious offences. I am thinking about the kind of thing that I see when I walk about my constituency on a Friday or Saturday evening downtown. It is alcohol that causes most of those offences.

I am thinking not only about the abuse of alcohol but about the offences that lead on from it. A couple of months ago I was burgled by some guy who just happened to be walking past my house. He climbed in through the front window and thought that it would be a good idea to steal a few things from the living room and then to walk out of the front door. He was drunk, and I had left the front window off the latch. That is the kind of thing that people will do when they are high and excited. Alcohol does that. Young men are much more likely to get into fights and to commit violent offences when they are drunk late on a Saturday night or early on a Sunday morning.

I believe that the classification system that we have is right. I recognise that the abuse of any drug is a bad thing, but the particular drug that concerns me is the drug that causes violence on the high street and causes far more serious offences than people using khat and cannabis. New clause 4 is therefore a bad idea.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I do not want to detain the Committee for very long, so I will not refer to new clause 1, but I want to say a quick word about new clause 4 and the reclassification of cannabis. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She made it quite clear that the main concern is about what signal that sends to the wider community. In the Government's document ''Tackling drugs. Changing lives'', on page 9, under the heading ''Reducing availability: putting drug dealers out of business'', there is a big tick next to a paragraph that states that the Government have been:

''Focusing efforts against Class A drugs by reclassifying cannabis. Arrests for cannabis possession have fallen by 30 per cent. since reclassification, enabling police time to be released to deal with Class A drugs.''

It does not give any evidence that that has been achieved; it is simply a general statement. I would question—

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I wish to make progress.

My hon. Friend referred to what has been going on in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—the so-called Lambeth experiment. I have spoken to police officers in Vauxhall and Lambeth who have made it absolutely clear that they are extremely unhappy about what has been going on, especially in Brixton, where there has been a proliferation of street dealers who are using the reclassification of cannabis as a Trojan horse to peddle more hard drugs. That is the main concern and it is a great pity that the Government have not looked very carefully at what has been going on in Lambeth and Brixton. Why have they not done a proper assessment and analysis of what has been going on? Why have they not listened to what the Police Federation has been saying?

I find it interesting that the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the other day that he would bear down very hard on middle class cocaine parties. He made no mention at all of cannabis. The recent report by the Royal College of Physicians makes it clear that persistent and regular cannabis use can inflict substantial damage, including damage to the brain. Youngsters, at a time when their brains are developing, are particularly vulnerable to that.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Gentleman is right that cannabis is harmful, but does he not accept that cocaine is a far more serious drug? The commissioner is quite right, and I am sure that the Royal College of Physicians would also say that cocaine has an even greater impact on the health of the individual. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I entirely agree, but that is not really the argument. The question is: should the Government have reclassified cannabis? Have they sent the right signal in doing so? Have resources been refocused and redeployed in a way that enables the police and the Government to bear down on hard drugs? I am not convinced about that, but I am convinced that the wrong signals are being sent.

I am convinced that a lot of youngsters are confused. I have spoken to a lot of teachers and youth groups in my constituency, people who work in drug treatment and members of the primary care trust. They are also concerned that the signal being sent to recreational cannabis users is that it is okay to smoke cannabis, as it has been reclassified. People are confused and the police are confused. I would like far more analysis of those areas where we know a problem exists and where there has been a focus on that problem but no proper analysis.

On that basis, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who spoke to the new clause extremely competently. I hope that we will have a vote on it and that it will be the start of a campaign for the reclassification to be reversed.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the spirit of the new clause, because the Government have a case to answer on the mixed signals that have gone out with the reclassification of cannabis.

A good example is what happened in Scotland last year. A number of ''entrepreneurs'' read the news about reclassification and decided that it would be perfectly in order for them to open a cannabis café in Edinburgh, simply by reading not what the law was but what the media reported the change in the law was. I might be wrong, but I remember that the café was called the Purple Haze café, and that it opened its doors to much publicity and did brisk business for almost 30 seconds before the police closed it down. There was talk of the same people opening a similar café in Glasgow, but fortunately Strathclyde police and Glasgow city council made it quite clear that that would of course not be allowed.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

That is a similar problem to that which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) had in his constituency, where people thought it perfectly legal to open a cannabis café.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am sure that many hon. Members have suffered from the crossed lines that resulted from the Government's announcement. However, I do not think that the fact that people decided to take the wrong message was the Government's fault directly. There was a certain degree of deliberate misunderstanding of the message on the part of people pursuing their own purposes.

This is not the first time that it has been necessary to explain legislation rather than change it, and I am sure that the same arguments will be made in the House tomorrow. Sometimes it is better to explain and clarify existing legislation than it is to introduce a new clause and change it. When people deliberately misunderstood what the Government were trying to do, they did so for their own selfish reasons. They were a bit dishonest in claiming that the Government, in reclassifying cannabis from B to C, were somehow instituting the same kind of drug culture that exists in Amsterdam. That was clearly never the intention. It was never the effect in law. People who came to those conclusions are not being entirely honest.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) claimed that there is no evidence so far that a change in police priorities to focus on hard drugs has had any major effect. I do not know what discussions he has had with his own chief constable, but I have received positive feedback from Strathclyde police about the measure that the Government introduced in 2003. I represent a part of Glasgow that has the highest heroin usage figures in western Europe, not just in the United Kingdom. It is a small city geographically and it has 16,000 chaotic drug users. Those are not cannabis users. They are certainly not khat users. They are heroin addicts who are responsible for the vast majority of theft, burglary and shoplifting.

As someone who holds regular surgeries and has to listen to people who have been the victims of drug-related crime, I am more than happy for the police to focus far more of their resources on the people who deal in and use hard drugs—although that is a slightly different matter—than on focusing disproportionate amounts of resources on those who deal in and use cannabis.

Mark Todd (Labour, South Derbyshire)

Would my hon. Friend be surprised to find that although my constituency is very different from his, I have received no representations from my local police about confusion over this issue? Admittedly, I have not had entrepreneurs seeking to set up shops in Swadlincote to serve cannabis users in my area, but the police have said that they have a clear focus on the drug problems in South Derbyshire and are satisfied with the way that the law seems to function. We clearly get different messages from different people, with different motivations.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The experience of other hon. Members leads to the same conclusion. In Scotland, the Government's message was even further confused because the police cannot caution people. The situation for anyone who possesses cannabis in Scotland is exactly as it was before. They will be arrested and charged because they cannot be cautioned. The message came from the British media that this was a reclassification, but in practice nothing has changed in Scotland, which made the whole café fiasco even more bizarre.

The new clause is well intentioned. I would not seek to make party political capital here. Every Member wants the same ends. We all want to see a drastic reduction in the use of cannabis, heroin, khat or whatever, although we may disagree on the means of achieving that. I hope that over the next few months and years we can continue to have that dialogue. Part of that dialogue must surely be to consult on measures and to reclassify in either direction rather than simply to use the opportunity of this Bill without that consultation, which has helped us and informed us in the past. I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw the new clause in the spirit of co-operation and in acknowledgment that the Government are trying to achieving the same ends as her party, albeit by different means.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham on new clause 4, as I entirely share her views on the declassification of cannabis. The Government's policy is highly misguided. Cannabis is accepted as causing psychosis and depression, and it has a demotivating effect on students and in the workplace. One of its most harmful properties is the fact that it leads users on to other, harder drugs. I know that not every cannabis user progresses to harder drugs, but police say that almost every hard drug user started on cannabis. Notwithstanding all the other reasons, that reason alone should be sufficient to stop it being reclassified downwards from class B to class C.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk drew attention to the drug strategy progress report, which, in a paragraph headed ''Focusing efforts against Class A drugs by reclassifying cannabis'', says that arrests for possession of cannabis have fallen by 30 per cent.—of course they have, because people are not being arrested for possession—and that it has

''enabled police time to be released to deal with Class A drugs.'

That is the main focus of policy. I can think of no other offence where that could be used as a yardstick. For example, one would not say that because burglary was so prolific, one should no longer bother to enforce the law against it except when violence was used. I draw the comparison because cannabis use is so prolific and uses so much police time; the reason given for withdrawing the previous policy of arresting for possession was simply that there were so many cases.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham drew attention to a letter in The Daily Telegraph today, and I noticed a small article about cannabis use in today's edition of The Times. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the United Kingdom, France and the Czech Republic have the highest incidence of cannabis use in Europe. The French Government are so concerned about the rising use of cannabis that they announced today that they have allocated €10 million to publicise its harmful effects. I hope that the Minister will compare that message from France with the message being given to young people here, many of whom believe not only that it is legal but, even worse, that it is harmless. That is the most difficult problem to overcome—they think that it is all right, that it does not matter, and that nothing will happen.

I am concerned about the comparative classification of drugs, even the classifications that we have given them in today's debate. Magic mushrooms are classified as class A. We learned in Tuesday's debate that codeine is classified as class B. We now have cannabis being classed as class C, along with steroids and valium. The comparative classifications are rather puzzling, and especially odd is the fact that cannabis is two classifications lower than magic mushrooms.

I ask the Minister to consider carefully the range of drug classifications—and particularly of cannabis, because it is now considered to be harmless and legal by so many young people who, if they develop the habit of taking it, are in danger of being introduced to other, harder drugs. We all know that many drug dealers are poly-drug dealers and have drugs other than cannabis for sale. Young people using cannabis will be offered harder drugs when they are buying. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham in her quest for the reclassification of cannabis. I hope that new clause 4 will be put to the vote.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

I rise to address the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. He said that the Government's drugs strategy is not working as set out in the document he referred to. I want to make him aware that in my constituency and the other two constituencies across Barnsley the local crime and disorder reduction partnership commissioned Sheffield Hallam university to carry out a study, mapping the drug market. In so doing, it found that the drug market in Barnsley is basically made up of three levels: there is heroin, and most of our addicts are on heroin; we have a small group who use cocaine, but crack cocaine has not yet taken off; and we have a well embedded cannabis culture.

When the police were able to concentrate their efforts on the class A drug, rather than being tied up by concentrating efforts on the class C drug, cannabis, they were able to bring down crime. Much of the crime in Barnsley was acquisitive crime, generally carried out by class A drug users—heroin users. That concentration of police effort has reduced crime across the piece, but particularly burglary. Burglaries have fallen by 31 per cent. over this last year. Stealing from cars has been reduced by more than 22 per cent. Therefore, the concentration of effort away from cannabis to class A drugs in my crime and disorder reduction partnership locality has brought those improvements forward.

We have something in the region of 1,500 problematic drug users. They are heroin users. We find little in the sense of problematic use of cannabis, although I have no doubt that when it is mixed with alcohol, it may well fuel antisocial behaviour. The big problem, however, is heroin. The focusing of effort by the police on tackling that class A drug has reduced crime enormously, and has made people feel safer on the streets. So I say to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that the Government's drug strategy is working.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

One of the things that is emerging from the drugs debate—not only this debate, but from all debates currently going on across communities—is that we need to look at the classification of drugs. I strongly agree with that. I assume that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be the correct authority to do so.

The Co-ordination Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of New Drugs Report—the so-called CAM report—that the Dutch produced when they were looking at the risks of psilocybin and psilocin carries out a very important risk analysis. We need to develop a system of risk analysis along these lines in this country, if we have not already got it. I do not know what the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs does itself. We need risk analysis that ladders drugs, from the top to the bottom. Then we tailor the punishment according to the harm that the drugs produce.

For example, with the two compounds that we discussed earlier—psilocybin and psilocin—the report gives four categories. ''Health of the individual'' got a 1.8 score, which is no risk. ''Risk to public health and society in general'' got a 2.9 score, a low risk. ''Risk to public order and security of the general public'' was given a score of 2.5 for those chemicals, again a low risk. ''Criminal involvement''? There was none in the case of psilocybin and psilocin. That was given a score of 1.8: no risk. Psilocin and psilocybin cannot be differentiated from each other, in the same way in which it is hard to differentiate between heroin and morphine, because one is converted into the other in the body. That puts paddos, which is what the Dutch call those two drugs, way below gammahydroxybutrate, which has caused concern in this country, and it puts it way below drugs such as heroin and morphine. We could adopt a similar procedure and risk analysis on all the illicit drugs that are classified according to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and could punish people accordingly.

I speak against both new clauses for the following reasons. I admit that I do not know much about the use of khat, but it worries me that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has tabled new clause 1, which seeks to classify khat as a class A drug equal to morphine and cocaine. I say that I know nothing about khat, but I am sure that I would have known about it if it had been as harmful as morphine and cocaine.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am simply taking the lead from the Minister, who put magic mushrooms into class A.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

The hon. Lady heard what I had to say about that earlier, which is why I am arguing, as other Members such as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have argued, that we really need to reconsider the classification of drugs and, as I say, develop some sort of risk analysis process to do that.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Would the hon. Gentleman consider including in that risk analysis the results from the Brixton experiment? I do not want to knock any results that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has had in his area, but the hon. Member for Vauxhall stated that the experiment in Lambeth led to drug dealers pushing harder drugs into the area using their cannabis client base. That would need to be part of the risk assessment, which completely defeats the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I shall discuss Brixton and will answer that point in a moment.

The Government argue that all their legislation should be based on evidence and consultation. I ask the Minister and the hon. Lady what consultation we have had with the community that largely uses khat. Khat has been brought into this country by another culture, just as the West Indians brought cannabis into the country as part of their culture, music and traditions. We should consult widely, and not only with the Somalian community. We should also consult the ACMD and others who know far more about khat than any of us do on this Committee.

I do not accept the hon. Lady's suggestion that the Brixton experiment was an utter disaster. The problem was that it was conducted here in the capital in the full glare of publicity. There were television cameras, radio, and all the international media. It was an experiment that could never have succeeded in the way in which the hon. Lady wanted it to, because it received so much publicity that it sucked dealers into Brixton. It was not carried out on the quiet in a drug-using area of Manchester. Things were wrong with it, but so far as I could tell, things were also right with it. The police, for example, could concentrate on hard drugs, and they had some success, even in Brixton.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the Metropolitan Police chief, Sir John Stevens, said that he regretted the Brixton experiment?

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I do not want to comment on everything that the hon. Lady throws at me, because time is short.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

If I am correct, Sir John Stevens was actually making the point that my hon. Friend is making, which is that it might have been better on reflection to conduct the experiment across boroughs so that there was no displacement, rather than focusing on Brixton, because the media focus created problems. The experiment itself was not a problem; it was the way in which the media treated it, and the fact that it was conducted in isolation from other London boroughs. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Many myths have been quoted this afternoon, such as that cannabis causes mental illness and is a gateway drug to hard drugs—[Hon. Members: ''Where is the evidence?'']

It is not so much about where the evidence is, but about recognising that such statements are largely mythical. Let us take the issue of mental illness. The all-party group on drugs misuse carried out a dual diagnosis inquiry in which we discovered that about 42 per cent.—that figure is higher now—of the people in this country who misuse drugs are also mentally ill. Mentally ill people are predisposed to the use of drugs; it is not just that drugs make people mentally ill. Some drugs do make some people mentally ill, but that cannot be quoted as a generalisation, even with cannabis.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions. I want to give the Minister time to respond to all my points.

I recommend a book by Zimmer and Morgan called ''Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence'', which is published by the Lindesmith Center. Bearing in mind the hon. Lady's current position on the Opposition Benches, I think that she ought to read that book if she has not done so, and consider the evidence that it presents. It presents a very balanced argument.

I shall try to deal with one final myth: cannabis is getting stronger. To which species of cannabis is the hon. Lady referring? There are 23 varieties. I made this point on Second Reading. She is referring to skunk, in which the tetrahydrocannabinol content is very high, but there are 23 varieties of cannabis, starting with ones with low THC content. In the Netherlands, the use of proper education allows people to start at the lower rather than the higher end of that spectrum. The problem with the sale of cannabis in Britain is that people do not know what they are buying on the street: one can even buy cannabis from Morocco that is full of camel dung.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will deal first with new clause 1. I understand the desire to protect families from the serious consequences of the misuse of khat. I recall that on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) spoke about his experiences of dealing with that problem in his constituency.

The misuse of khat is a particular problem in the Somali and Yemeni communities. Last year, I dealt with an Adjournment debate on khat, which was attended by representatives from those communities, and I had the chance to speak to them afterwards about their concerns. Linked to those communities is the geographical issue of where khat misuse is a problem, which is mainly in Liverpool, Cardiff, and west and east London. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) caught me in the Corridor the other day to talk about some of the problems there. Her concern, which is based on anecdotal evidence following her discussions with the police, is that khat use may be extending beyond those traditional ethnic cultural communities.

There is little evidence that khat misuse is widespread, but that should not prevent us from considering its use as a matter of general concern, and as constituting a social problem. Usually, when we consider the issues surrounding controlled drugs, we look at them in the context of the wider population, but we should be mindful that khat use might be taking a hold within communities and causing severe problems.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Minister for looking on this matter sympathetically. In 2003, Customs and Excise estimated that between seven and 10 tonnes of the plant was being imported into the UK, but there is evidence that that figure is growing. Has the report that she promised been produced?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I understand that the report will be published in May. We have asked the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders to deliver on that, but I will say more about that later. I am conscious of time, and want to have time to speak about the cannabis issue.

Khat is a leaf that is traditionally chewed, but it can be made into tea. It is grown only in east Africa and southern Arabia. It gives the user a mild, amphetamine-like euphoria, and usually takes about half an hour of chewing to take effect. It is typically used by the older males in the family, for whom its use was traditionally a social activity. There are associated physical health problems, such as lack of sleep, food intake, related oral infections and an increase in levels of aggression. Colleagues have raised with me the issue of domestic violence associated with men using khat in a prolonged way.

The impact of khat is more social than physical. Not only is there the issue of domestic violence, but because of regular usage, men are unable to sustain themselves in work. There are therefore high levels of unemployment and such men are likely to be dependent on state benefits. That can create huge domestic tension, especially when spending money on khat becomes an economic drain on the family's income, and as I have said, it can cause increased aggression in the home.

We are keeping a close eye on the matter. Two pieces of separate research—one by Turning Point and the other by NACRO—that we have supported are being carried out into the impact of khat misuse. We look to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for advice on classified substances and controlled drugs. I am not in a position to say whether khat should be classified as a class A drug or at all. The question was last considered in 1988, and the ACMD has discussed the matter several times in more recent years.

Khat does not fit neatly into the usual profiles of drug misuse. We have spoken about a link between heroin, cocaine and crime, but there is no evidence of such a link for khat because it is not an illegal drug. That is not to say that there is not a good case for controlling khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The best way ahead is to request the ACMD to undertake a comprehensive study on khat, especially in light of the latest research. I shall write to the chairman of the ACMD, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, asking him to undertake such a study and to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on its findings before the end of 2005.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am disappointed because the Home Office's drugs and alcohol research unit was supposed to embark on a detailed study to assess the level of harm in September 2003, and a final report was due by September 2004.

I notice that we are getting towards the close of the Committee, so while I am on my feet I hope that the Minister agrees with me that we have been well served by all the members of the Committee and the staff who have been keeping watch over us, including the Hansard reporters, the Clerk, our two Chairmen and the Minister's officials, who were helpful to me during the initial stages of the Bill.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall get my thank yous in quickly to you and your officials, Mr. Gale, to my officials and everyone who has served on the Committee for a stimulating and exciting debate on drugs, which I hope has been a learning curve for some. I am minded to ask the ACMD to advise us and go into detail on classification, but that should not stop what we are doing in the Home Office to engage with the communities concerned and carry out our own research.

As the hon. Lady indicated, I am not prepared to accept the new clause. I have listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), for Bolton, South-East and for Barnsley, West and Penistone, and it is clear from their experiences, which match our data, that the reclassification of cannabis has not resulted in the doom and gloom predicted by the Opposition.

The reality is that there has been approximately a one-third decrease in arrests for cannabis possession, and we have saved some 199,000 hours of police time nationally. There has been a rise in possession figures because street warning and confiscation are easier and more efficient than arrest. Reclassification has not stopped the police engaging with people using cannabis in the street; it has led to them confiscating more cannabis from people. As the police do not have to go through the process of arrest if it is not a case of flagrant abuse in the street, they have been eager to deal with it quickly there and then. In terms of young people's understandings, our evaluations show that 93 per cent. of under-18s understood that cannabis was illegal.

As long as the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) continue to peddle their distortions on what we have done in relation to cannabis—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I should like to vote on new clause 4. Could you advise on how best to achieve that?

It being five minutes to Six o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [27 January] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

New clause 4 - CLASSIFICATION OF CANNABIS AS CLASS B

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I thank members of the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which they have conducted proceedings. On behalf of the Committee I offer my thanks to the officers of the House.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at three minutes to Six o'clock.