Recommendations & Conclusions
17 items
3
Conclusion
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We conclude the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 require reform.
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the conclusion, stating it has no plans for fundamental reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, believing current legislation is appropriate and compatible with a balanced approach.
Read full response →
Home Office
4
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We recommend that the UK Government reform the 1971 Act and 2001 Regulations in a way that promotes a greater role for public health in our response to drugs, whilst maintaining our law enforcement to tackling the illicit production and supply of controlled drugs.
Read more
We recommend that the UK Government reform the 1971 Act and 2001 Regulations in a way that promotes a greater role for public health in our response to drugs, whilst maintaining our law enforcement to tackling the illicit production and supply of controlled drugs.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for reform, stating it has no plans for fundamental changes to the 1971 Act or 2001 Regulations, believing existing legislation supports a balanced public health and law enforcement approach.
Read full response →
Home Office
5
Conclusion
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We welcome the ACMD’s work reviewing the status of drugs controlled under Schedule 1 to the 2001 Regulations. However, we conclude a wider review is required.
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the conclusion that a wider review is required, stating it has no plans for a broad review and is satisfied with the current classification of most commonly used drugs, though it has acted on nitrous oxide.
Read full response →
Home Office
6
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We recommend that the Home Office commission the ACMD to review whether the most commonly used controlled drugs in the UK are correctly classified under the 1971 Act and correctly scheduled under the 2001 Regulations based on the scientific evidence available. The Home Office must reform the classification system and …
Read more
We recommend that the Home Office commission the ACMD to review whether the most commonly used controlled drugs in the UK are correctly classified under the 1971 Act and correctly scheduled under the 2001 Regulations based on the scientific evidence available. The Home Office must reform the classification system and the scheduling system based on the findings of that review. We recommend the ACMD conduct updated assessments every 10 years, or in circumstances where a review is required, to take into account the emerging scientific evidence on controlled drugs.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for a broad, commissioned review of drug classifications and scheduling, stating it has no plans for such a review and is largely satisfied with current controls, noting the ACMD can also self-commission reviews.
Read full response →
Home Office
14
Conclusion
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
The ACMD seeks to provide scientific, evidence-based recommendations to support the development of evidence-based drug policy. We note that the Home Office appears more likely to adopt advice to increase the classification of a controlled drug than it is to adopt advice to reduce the classification of a controlled drug. …
Read more
The ACMD seeks to provide scientific, evidence-based recommendations to support the development of evidence-based drug policy. We note that the Home Office appears more likely to adopt advice to increase the classification of a controlled drug than it is to adopt advice to reduce the classification of a controlled drug. For example, we note that in the cases of cannabis, MDMA, khat and nitrous oxide, the ACMD recommended a lower classification, or no classification based on a review of the evidence. We acknowledge that scientific evidence should remain a key driver but not the main driver in the development drug policy in all cases, including when the scientific evidence supports reducing the level of control placed upon a drug.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the essential role of ACMD advice but asserts its prerogative to make alternative decisions, taking into account other relevant factors to protect the public, even when differing from ACMD conclusions.
Read full response →
Home Office
15
Conclusion
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We are disappointed that the Home Office has repeatedly refused to publish the ACMD’s 2016 report, including to this Committee on a confidential basis. No other ACMD report remains unpublished and withholding this one contravenes established practice and undermines the ACMD’s transparency.
Read more
We are disappointed that the Home Office has repeatedly refused to publish the ACMD’s 2016 report, including to this Committee on a confidential basis. No other ACMD report remains unpublished and withholding this one contravenes established practice and undermines the ACMD’s transparency.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly refuses to publish the 2016 ACMD paper or provide a confidential copy, explaining that the ACMD itself marked the paper as confidential and it would be inappropriate for the Home Office to publish it.
Read full response →
Home Office
16
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We, once again, request that the Home Office publish the ACMD’s 2016 report. At the very least, we request that the Home Office provide us with a confidential copy of the document within one month of receiving this report. Failing that, the Government must explain in its response to this …
Read more
We, once again, request that the Home Office publish the ACMD’s 2016 report. At the very least, we request that the Home Office provide us with a confidential copy of the document within one month of receiving this report. Failing that, the Government must explain in its response to this Report why this ACMD paper, and no other, deserves to be withheld from public view. (Paragraph 55) The 10-Year Drugs Strategy
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the request to publish the 2016 ACMD report or provide a confidential copy, explaining that the paper was marked confidential by the ACMD itself and its publication would be inappropriate.
Read full response →
Home Office
41
Conclusion
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
An evidence base for a safe consumption facility in the UK is needed.
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation, stating it does not support safe consumption facilities, that there is no legal framework for them, and anyone operating one would be committing offences.
Read full response →
Home Office
42
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We recommend that the Government support the piloting of safe consumption facilities in areas across the UK where there is deemed to be a need by local government and stakeholders.
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to pilot safe consumption facilities, stating it does not support them and has no plans to create a legal framework due to existing offences.
Read full response →
Home Office
43
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
In particular, we recommend the Government support a pilot in Glasgow by creating a legislative pathway under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that enables such a facility to operate legally. The pilot in Glasgow must be jointly funded by the Government and the Scottish Government. The Government must work …
Read more
In particular, we recommend the Government support a pilot in Glasgow by creating a legislative pathway under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that enables such a facility to operate legally. The pilot in Glasgow must be jointly funded by the Government and the Scottish Government. The Government must work with the Scottish Government and local partners to establish and operate the pilot. The pilot must be evaluated in order to establish a reliable evidence base on the utility of a safe consumption facility in the UK. We repeat the recommendation made by the Scottish Affairs Committee in 2019 that, if the UK Government is unwilling to support this, the power to establish a pilot be devolved to the Scottish Government.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to support and fund a pilot safe consumption facility in Glasgow and create a legislative pathway, citing its lack of support for such facilities and the absence of a legal framework.
Read full response →
Home Office
44
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We recommend that the Home Office and Department of Health and Social Care jointly establish a national drug checking service in England to enable people to submit drug samples by post anonymously. We recommend the Home Office consult stakeholders on how best to implement the service. In particular, we recommend …
Read more
We recommend that the Home Office and Department of Health and Social Care jointly establish a national drug checking service in England to enable people to submit drug samples by post anonymously. We recommend the Home Office consult stakeholders on how best to implement the service. In particular, we recommend that it learn lessons from the Welsh Government and Welsh partners on the experience of WEDINOS. We believe that, ultimately, a UK-wide drug checking service would provide the most effective approach, and we therefore encourage the UK Government and devolved Governments to consider jointly establishing such a service.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to establish a national drug checking service, stating it implies approval of illicit drug use and is contrary to their zero-tolerance strategy, though it highlighted existing systems for detecting new psychoactive substances.
Read full response →
Home Office
45
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We recommend the expansion of on-site drug checking services at temporary events such as music festivals and within the night-time economy. We recommend that the Home Office establish a dedicated licensing scheme for drug checking at such events before the start of the summer 2024 festival season. The scheme must …
Read more
We recommend the expansion of on-site drug checking services at temporary events such as music festivals and within the night-time economy. We recommend that the Home Office establish a dedicated licensing scheme for drug checking at such events before the start of the summer 2024 festival season. The scheme must devolve the power to grant licences to local authorities.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to expand on-site drug checking services and establish a licensing scheme, arguing such services imply approval of illicit drug use and conflict with their zero-tolerance strategy.
Read full response →
Home Office
50
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We are concerned by reported shortages of prescribed diamorphine, particularly because of the serious impact they may have on the health and lives of patients. As prescribed diamorphine is a viable form of treatment in England, the Government must work with suppliers to ensure that a sustainable supply is available …
Read more
We are concerned by reported shortages of prescribed diamorphine, particularly because of the serious impact they may have on the health and lives of patients. As prescribed diamorphine is a viable form of treatment in England, the Government must work with suppliers to ensure that a sustainable supply is available to patients whom clinicians deem suitable for it.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to ensure a sustainable supply of prescribed diamorphine, stating ongoing manufacturing issues, clinical advice to use morphine as a first-line alternative due to no clinical advantages of diamorphine, and reduced NHS usage.
Read full response →
Home Office
51
Conclusion
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We support the use of DAT supported by wrap-around psychosocial support. The impressive Middlesbrough DAT programme that we witnessed held benefits for both the public health and criminal justice sectors. We are most disappointed that joint local funding from both the health and criminal justice sectors could not be secured …
Read more
We support the use of DAT supported by wrap-around psychosocial support. The impressive Middlesbrough DAT programme that we witnessed held benefits for both the public health and criminal justice sectors. We are most disappointed that joint local funding from both the health and criminal justice sectors could not be secured for the programme. That said, we recognise the cost of the programme and the difficult decisions that need to be made by local stakeholders when allocating funds to services. Given the rate of opioid-related deaths in England, it is not further consideration that is required from central government, it is swift action.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation, stating that local authorities are responsible for commissioning drug treatment interventions and deciding on funding based on local need and priorities.
Read full response →
Home Office
52
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We repeat the ACMD’s 2016 recommendation that the Government provide centralised funding to support the provision of DAT for people with a chronic heroin dependency for whom other forms of OST have not been successful. The centralised funding should first be provided to Foundations Medical Practice in order to re-establish …
Read more
We repeat the ACMD’s 2016 recommendation that the Government provide centralised funding to support the provision of DAT for people with a chronic heroin dependency for whom other forms of OST have not been successful. The centralised funding should first be provided to Foundations Medical Practice in order to re-establish its DAT programme in Middlesbrough as a matter of urgency. The Government should then work with local authorities to identify other locations in England where a DAT programme supported by holistic and wrap-around care is needed.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation for centralised funding for DAT, reiterating that local authorities are responsible for commissioning and funding these interventions based on local needs.
Read full response →
Home Office
65
Conclusion
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
We support cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPMs) where there is an evidence base that it can be an effective form of treatment for managing conditions or symptoms. We welcome the ACMD conducting a further assessment of CBPMs following on from its 2020 report. However, we are concerned that there …
Read more
We support cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPMs) where there is an evidence base that it can be an effective form of treatment for managing conditions or symptoms. We welcome the ACMD conducting a further assessment of CBPMs following on from its 2020 report. However, we are concerned that there is currently a lack of access on the NHS for patients with a genuine medical need. Access continues to be a problem despite the high-profile cases of Billy Caldwell and Alfie Dingley—two children with severe and rare forms of epilepsy who have received medical cannabis to treat their conditions.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the committee's underlying sentiment for greater access to unlicensed CBPMs, stating that prescribing medicinal cannabis is a clinical decision, not a matter for government policy. It maintains commitment to an evidence-based approach, encouraging research and establishing clinical trials to build the …
Read full response →
Home Office
66
Recommendation
Third Report - Drugs
Rejected
Pending the outcome of the ACMD’s review, we recommend that the Government widens the accessibility of unlicensed CBPMs on the NHS before the end of this Parliament.
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the recommendation to widen accessibility of unlicensed CBPMs, stating it is a clinical decision and that more evidence is needed to support routine prescribing. They encourage manufacturers to conduct research and are working to establish clinical trials.
Read full response →
Home Office