here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
279WH<br />
Drugs<br />
6 JUNE 2013<br />
Drugs<br />
280WH<br />
[Diana Johnson]<br />
officers, probation officers, social workers and a range<br />
of medics and support officers, which works very well,<br />
but I share the Committee’s concerns about how such a<br />
set-up will fare in the new frameworks. Such facilities<br />
will depend on the co-operation of the new police and<br />
crime commissioners, who will have some responsibility<br />
for funding, and the new health and wellbeing boards.<br />
In the case of the facility that I visited, the PCC will<br />
have to liaise with nine different health and wellbeing<br />
boards, each of which has a huge number of priorities.<br />
We need to keep an eye on how well such facilities<br />
continue to be funded under those new PCCs and<br />
health and wellbeing boards.<br />
I am also concerned about the level of co-ordination<br />
between health and wellbeing boards and the criminal<br />
justice system. I am pleased that in my home city of<br />
Hull the police have been co-opted onto the health and<br />
wellbeing board, but I do not think that is the norm. I<br />
support the Committee’s recommendation that more<br />
information be collected from health and wellbeing<br />
boards on w<strong>here</strong> their money is being spent and who is<br />
involved in that decision making. The Home Office<br />
should ensure that that includes information on<br />
co-ordination with criminal justice partners. Drug treatment<br />
is not sexy, but for it to keep working a huge number of<br />
local politicians will have to continue to prioritise drug<br />
treatment and the spending that it needs. I question<br />
whether, in the financing regime they have set up, the<br />
Government have put enough in place to incentivise<br />
local politicians to recognise that.<br />
Quite rightly, much of the Committee’s report addresses<br />
how we can improve treatment and increase recovery<br />
rates, and I particularly want to mention prisons. The<br />
Committee makes a number of recommendations about<br />
improving provision in prisons, and that seems sensible.<br />
Will the Minister tell us how far the Government have<br />
started to implement some of the recommendations? In<br />
particular, I echo the Committee’s concerns about the<br />
importance of treatment and the availability of support<br />
at the prison gate to prevent recovering addicts from<br />
relapsing, especially because of the recent changes in<br />
the NHS. I understand that in-prison drug treatment is<br />
being commissioned not in the locality but by a national<br />
agency, but that what happens when the person leaves<br />
prison and returns to the community depends on the<br />
commissioning arrangements of the clinical commissioning<br />
group and the health and wellbeing board.<br />
Keith Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for taking part in<br />
the debate. Given the state of her voice, she probably<br />
needs a prescription, so I am grateful to her.<br />
What is the Opposition’s position on compulsory testing<br />
on entry and exit? Everyone wants to help people, but if<br />
we do not know who needs help we cannot really give<br />
that help.<br />
Diana Johnson: The Chair of the Select Committee<br />
makes a powerful argument for having data that allow<br />
us to understand the number of people affected and<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore how to treat them. I am sure the Opposition<br />
would want to consider that, recognising that the issue<br />
has been raised by the Committee, which sees it as an<br />
important part of tackling some of the problems in<br />
prison.<br />
Will the Minister also address an issue that has arisen<br />
since the report was published, which is the use of the<br />
private sector in the probation services provided to<br />
people leaving prison? What thought has been given to<br />
ensuring that appropriate drug treatment and support<br />
is available through the new providers?<br />
At the start of this <strong>Parliament</strong>, t<strong>here</strong> was a lot of<br />
political rhetoric from Government Members about<br />
what constituted recovery, to which the hon. Member<br />
for Cambridge referred. The view at first appeared to be<br />
based on ideology and not on looking at the individual<br />
needs of each person. For some people a life of abstinence<br />
would be appropriate; for others, a life supported by<br />
methadone or another drug. When people want to<br />
move to abstinence, it is important that they have the<br />
necessary support to do so, and that a range of programmes<br />
are available to support them.<br />
The Committee’s report highlights the large variations<br />
in the success of different programmes, which is of<br />
concern, because we want to ensure good value for<br />
money and that we get the right outcomes. An average<br />
success level of 41% could obviously be improved upon.<br />
Payment by results should help to improve standards,<br />
but I echo the concerns expressed by the Committee,<br />
and this afternoon by its Chair, about how that method<br />
of funding might hamper small providers. It is also<br />
important that support is given to a range of commissioning<br />
bodies to enable them to sort through the data on what<br />
is effective. Given the multitude of different commissioners,<br />
can the Minister explain what role Public Health England<br />
will play in guiding commissioners?<br />
Of course, we all want to see fewer people taking<br />
drugs in the first place, and I will concentrate for a few<br />
moments on the need to have more effort directed at<br />
prevention. I agree with the Committee that drugs<br />
prevention and education are the strands of the drugs<br />
strategy to have had least work and least interest. In the<br />
review of the drugs strategy, the Government could<br />
identify just two areas of progress: they had relaunched<br />
the FRANK website, and they were reviewing the<br />
curriculum for schools. Since then, the curriculum review<br />
has finished, but my understanding is that t<strong>here</strong> will<br />
now be even less drugs education in the science curriculum.<br />
That cannot be seen as progress. At the same time, the<br />
Government have abandoned Labour’s plans to make<br />
personal, social, health and economic education a statutory<br />
requirement for schools and have closed the drugs education<br />
forum.<br />
Figures from Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity,<br />
show that at present 60% of schools deliver drug and<br />
alcohol education once a year or less. That education is<br />
often poor, incomplete or totally irrelevant; pupils aged 16<br />
seem to get the same lessons as pupils aged 11. An<br />
example given was of sixth-form students being required<br />
to colour in pictures of ecstasy tablets as part of their<br />
drugs education. Earlier this year, Mentor told me:<br />
“Drug and alcohol education should not be disregarded as a<br />
trivial add-on. It should be fundamental to pupils’ education. The<br />
links between early drug and alcohol use and both short and long<br />
term harms are clear, and t<strong>here</strong> is compelling evidence showing<br />
longer term public health impacts of evidence based programmes.<br />
The cost benefit ratios are significant, ranging from 1:8 to 1:12.”<br />
The Committee’s report is clear:<br />
“The evidence suggests that early intervention should be an<br />
integral part of any policy which is to be effective in breaking the<br />
cycle of drug dependency. We recommend that the next version of