WRITTEN ON February 25th, 2008 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Foundation of Trust, What do we want?

Given an important social topic like drugs an “ideal” government would look at the evidence, share its own views and findings, and bust a gut to work out how to reduce the harm done to society. Now the Government is due to release a new drugs strategy on Wednesday. It’s a great opportunity to listen and make a difference with the participation of those involved.

Trouble is, the consultation process that precedes it seems to have been far from Ideal, warns Transform.

The government’s own Advisory Council on the misuse of drugs is reported saying

It is unfortunate that the consultation paper’s ‘key facts and evidence’ section appears to focus on trying to convince the reader of success and progress; rather than providing an objective review and presentation of the current evidence. The ACMD found the consultation paper self-congratulatory and generally disappointing”.

David Rhind of the Statistics Commission wrote to Home Office Perm Sec David Normington about presentation of statistics

“[the] general criticism – that presentation of the figures in the annex is designed to present Government policies in the best light – appears to have some substance…We think that most people would expect it [the annexe to the document] to provide a balanced presentation of the relevant statistical and other evidence…This particular annexe is more like a briefing document. Where a target has been met or exceeded, as is the case with the target to increase participation of problem drug users in treatment programmes, this is highlighted … but where the target has been missed or seems likely to be missed the relevant information is presented in a low-key way without acknowledging that a target exists.

Prof Rhind (former CEO of Ordnance Survey) reminded Sir David that “issues of public trust in official statistics” had been considered by Parliament and suggested the Home Office should “carefully consider” the criticisms.

The Drugs Health Alliance wasn’t too impressed either. The nub of their reply (full version here) is

After 10 years there is no comprehensive evidence based review of progress with the drug strategy:
• The consultation document is analytically and conceptually weak, poorly written, and selective in the use and interpretation of evidence and lacks clear aims, objectives and outcomes.
• The document does not accord with the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation which requires that a consultation should be ‘clear about what your proposals are, who may be affected, what questions are being asked…’
• There are no clear proposals in the document: rather there are many questions which are either in the nature of polling opinion, or could be answered by reference to the scientific literature.
• There is a lack of transparency about how submissions to the consultation will be analysed, collated, weighted and presented.
• The Prime Minister has made a series of announcements on drug policy issues specifically covered by the consultation, including cannabis classification and drugs education in schools, whilst ruling out entire swathes of policy options supported by many stakeholders making submissions, before the consultation process has even closed.
• Finally, the consultation document has some serious omissions. It fails to mention the most harmful consequences of problem drug use such as the risk of HIV/AIDS, and Hepatitis B and C. Harm reduction is mentioned only briefly and there are no questions about this key area of public health and drug policy

There’s also a serious FoI problem here. The startling work done by the PM’s strategy unit under Geoff Mulgan never properly saw the light of day. See Transform’s FoI saga here.

So – not much optimism for Wednesday, but loads of ground for improvement! We want change! Yes we can! etc all (c) B. Obama