here - United Kingdom Parliament

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