Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs
Rapporteur: Mrs Hedy d'Ancona
11 November 1997

At the sitting of {11-118-1996}11 November 1996 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Mrs Aglietta and 60 other Members on the harmonization of the Member States' laws on drugs (B4-1238/96) to the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs as the committee responsible and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for its opinion.

At its meeting of {3-12-1996}3 December 1996 the committee considered the proposal for a recommendation and decided to draw up a report.

The Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs appointed Mrs Hedy d'Ancona rapporteur at its meeting of {3-12-1996}3 December 1996.

At its meetings of 21 May, 30 June, 15 September, 9 October and 3 November 1997 the committee considered the draft report and adopted the proposal for a recommendation at the last meeting by 17 votes to 11, with 4 abstentions.

The following took part in the vote: d'Ancona, chairman and rapporteur; Reding, vice-chairman; Vinci, vice-chairman; Bontempi, Brinkhorst (for De Luca), Blokland (for Jean-Pierre), Cederschiöld, Cohn-Bendit (for Orlando), Colombo Svevo, De Coene (for Crawley), B. Donnelly (for De Esteban Martin), Deprez, Elliott, Fabre-Aubrespy (for Buffetaut), Gebhardt (for G. Schmid), Goerens, Le Gallou (for Le Chevallier), Lindeperg, Matikainen-Kallström (for Lucas Pires), Mohamed Ali, Nassauer, Oostlander (for Posselt), Pirker, Pradier, Roth, Schaffner, Schulz, Stewart-Clark, Terrón i Cusí, Van Lancker (for Ford), Wilson and Zimmermann.

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection decided on 17 December 1996 not to deliver an opinion.

The report was tabled on 10 November 1997.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.

A

The European Parliament,

In November 1996, at least 60 Members of the European Parliament signed a proposal for a recommendation on the harmonization of the Member States' laws on drugs. In December 1996, the Council adopted a Joint Action concerning the approximation of the laws and practices of the Member States of the European Union to combat drug addiction and to prevent and combat illegal drug trafficking.

Central to the proposal for a recommendation are the decriminalization of cannabis and the supply of drugs on medical prescription. The Council's Joint Action lays its emphasis on a reduction in illegal drug trafficking.

In principle, these views should be able to complement each other; it is possible to argue that combating illegal drug trafficking and decriminalizing cannabis can go hand-in-hand.

However, that view is undermined by the Council's insistence in the Joint Action on strict compliance with the UN conventions on drugs. It is perhaps because of that fact that the proposal for a recommendation argues in favour a review of those international conventions on drugs.

This report considers whether it is possible to harmonize legislation and policy at present, given the divergence of views on drugs. In order to secure an answer to that question, we shall review developments taking place within the European Union in the field of drugs. The extent to which those developments are influenced by international agreements is another issue for debate. Finally, on the basis of the various findings, we shall propose a few guidelines for the future.

In recent years, not a single Council Presidency has run its course without the Heads of Government solemnly declaring that the problems involving drugs must be tackled effectively. In practice, however, it seems more difficult to translate the political will into a consistent policy. The complex nature of the matter is part of the problem. The drugs issue involves not only the pursuit of profit, social impoverishment and marginalization but also curiosity, prosperity and fashionable trends.

The authorities are faced with the task of developing a consistent policy that takes account of such diversity. Measures in the fields of social welfare, public health and public order must be integrated with each other. That is not a simple undertaking even at national level, let alone when agreements have to concluded between Member States. In 1989, a national drugs coordinator was appointed in each Member State with the task of promoting such a policy. The idea was that, in this way, contacts between the Member States could be better structured. Interministerial committees were also established for the implementation and coordination of various aspects of the drugs policy.

The basis for cooperation has been further strengthened since 1989. The Treaty of Maastricht provided a specific legal basis for the European Union to take action in the field of drugs. Article 129 of the EC Treaty lays down that the Community shall act to prevent drug dependence, and Article K.1(4) of the TEU lays down that combating drug addiction is a matter of common interest. However, even a treaty provision as clearly expressed as that does not necessarily result in a straightforward policy. The official attitudes of the national governments are far too divergent for that. Some Member States take a total ban on drug consumption as their starting point, while others tend towards accepting drug use as a fact of life in today's society, the risks of which must be reduced as much as possible.

Despite this difference of opinion, a European policy is slowly but surely taking shape. In actual fact, most national governments seem in practice to be less strict than official policy guidelines would have us believe. There are indications from various quarters that a more pragmatic approach to the drugs problem is gaining ground within the European Union.

That is shown, for example, in a comparative study into drug laws which the European Commission had drawn up and published in 1996. That study demonstrates that there are more similarities than disparities in the way in which Member States apply national laws. Accordingly, the use of drugs is everywhere regarded primarily as a medical and social problem. In addition, all the Member States have provisions for drug addicts to be given appropriate treatment rather than being simply locked up. Furthermore, the judicial authorities in most of the Member States have the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to prosecute offenders. Practice also demonstrates that priority is given everywhere in Europe to combating large-scale trafficking in hard drugs. In general, use of and dealing in small quantities of cannabis are largely ignored.

It is hardly surprising that the authorities establish priorities in the fight against drugs. Ever-increasing efforts to combat the trade in drugs have not resulted in any shortage on the market. That was also demonstrated in the recently published UN world report on drugs. According to the authors of that report, the drugs trade currently accounts for 8 per cent of total world trade, i.e. it is bigger than trade in iron and steel and as big as trade in textiles. In order to reduce the profit margins in heroin and cocaine, the authors of the report conclude that at least 75% of the drugs involved would have to be seized. The UN estimates that currently less than 30% are seized.

And although the figure relating to seizures is too small to have any real impact, the cost and the effort required to seize that 30% are inordinately high. Just take European prisons: about half of all the inmates are serving sentences in respect of drugs-related crimes. That is one of the reasons why a number of German Chief Commissioners of Police recently declared that alternatives would have to be found to the prosecution policy. In addition, they emphasized that the drugs problem would have to be tackled primarily as a public health issue.

The European Parliament, too, recognizes the limitations of detecting and combating drugs. Two years ago, in a resolution on combating drugs, the European Parliament said that a preponderantly repressive policy had not brought a solution to the drugs problem any closer. In addition, a majority of the Members of the European Parliament took the view that drugs policy would have to be targeted on prevention, not repression.

We can see the first signs of movement in that direction. The first annual report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon notes that the Member States are devoting more and more resources to drug prevention. And in the European context, too, more attention is being given to preventive policies. One example of this is the recent start on the programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence (1996-2000). In addition to recommendations concerning information and education, the programme includes a number of far-reaching provisions. This makes it possible to apply for European funding for projects involving methadone and needle exchanges.

The impression that a pragmatic approach to the drugs problem is gaining ground is strengthened by the amendment to the article concerning public health made in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The amended Article 129 of the EC Treaty lays down that the Community shall complement the Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention. That text provides a solid foundation for further European measures in the field of risk reduction.

That is not to say that there has been a sea-change in European drugs policy. Opting for a pragmatic policy does not seem to have prevented the Council from taking measures of a more repressive hue as well. The official line is that the basis of the European drugs policy is the striking of a balance between reducing the demand for drugs and reducing the supply of drugs.

It is no easy matter to achieve such a balance while there are differences of opinion between Member States and even within one and the same Member State as to what is the best approach to the drugs problem. The complicated organizational structure constitutes another obstacle to the devising of a balanced policy. Take the European Commission. More than ten of its directorates-general are concerned with drugs. Or then again, take the Council. There, too, the subject is discussed in the most disparate groups. The need for an improvement in coordination became clear in early June of this year when the Council of Health Ministers met. The Ministers present asked to be involved more closely in decisions on drugs taken by the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs.

Given the diversity of views and the cumbersome structure of the European drugs policy, we can understand only too well that the Council needs a harmonized approach to the drugs issue. On the other hand, however, we must ask whether the Member States are willing and able to undertake such harmonization at present.

The Joint Action concerning the approximation of the laws and practices to combat drug addiction adopted by the Council in December 1996 should be able to lead us in that direction. But closer inspection shows that the text includes no single obligation on the Member States to harmonize their policies. Article 10 actually includes a provision which leaves it up to each Member State to determine its own policy to prevent or combat drug addiction and drug trafficking.

And what can we say about the Schengen Agreement? That lays down that the participating states must ensure that policies pursued at national level do not have any repercussions on countries which pursue a more restrictive policy. But Schengen does not lead to a harmonization of legislation in practice, either. The Final Act of the Agreement enshrines the right of governments to pursue a national policy on the prevention and combating of addiction. That Final Act allows individual countries to decide not to prosecute offenders in certain cases.

In addition to European agreements, the Member States are bound by UN conventions on drugs. Those conventions contain detailed lists of substances which are prohibited for all but medical uses. In addition, they contain agreements on combating money-laundering operations, on the confiscation of profits made from the drugs trade and on the controlled import of drugs. Here, too, there is no automatic provision for the harmonization of laws and practices. Accordingly, the signatory states are free to make a distinction between various types of drugs if they so wish; where they do make such a distinction, they may enshrine that distinction in the national scale of penalties to be imposed upon offenders.

Harmonization of laws and practices is, therefore, currently no more than an informal project of the Council. And, for the time being, it will remain so. There is no point in discussing harmonization until the Member States have a common final objective in view and until they are in agreement as to what measures must be taken in order to attain that final objective. It is clear that the European Union is still a long way off from meeting those requirements.

Given this situation, the Council should for the time being aim to set up practical cooperation projects. That view is supported by the European Commission. It implies that the national authorities have enough power under existing laws to reduce the supply of and demand for drugs and that the harmonization of laws would in practice achieve very little. The Commission takes the view that specific measures are necessary to ensure more rapid extradition of suspects, to combat the laundering of drugs money and to classify synthetic drugs.

In addition, the European drugs policy must allow more scope for experiments at local and regional level, since it is clear that the current policy is failing to tackle the problem successfully.

The programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence already provides a suitable framework for that. That programme makes provision for a network of test areas in order to promote technical cooperation on ways and means of reducing the demand for drugs. In addition, the programme offers support for transfrontier exchange of grass-roots experiences acquired with the prevention policy at regional level.

Urban areas should be allowed more scope to pursue a specific drugs policy tailored to the local situation. That means, for example, that experiments involving the supply of heroin on medical prescription must not just be prohibited by national authorities out of hand. That notion is underpinned by the very positive results of a test in Switzerland where heroin was supplied on medical prescription.

Furthermore, national governments would be well advised to take the practical application of the drugs policy at local level as their starting point for further action. In this connection, we might think of practical measures designed to regulate dealing in and use of cannabis. Toleration of the use of and dealing in small amounts of cannabis results in practice in grey areas where local authorities have to bear the brunt of inconsistent action taken by the national authorities. In the recent past, the European Parliament rightly criticized the discrepancy between the official policy of national governments and the policy as it is applied in practice.

The drugs issue will benefit from the search for new ways of clarifying the problems. The increase in synthetic drugs demonstrates this once again. But it is difficult to prohibit those drugs because their chemical composition is continually changing. Furthermore, they are easy to manufacture, and that makes it even more difficult to combat their supply. Whether a ban on these substances is the best way forward will be discussed in Brussels in late November at a joint conference involving the Luxembourg Presidency, the European Commission and the European Parliament.

In international terms, the time is ripe for an open debate. The recent UN world report on drugs shows that the obstinacy which, in the past, stymied every debate on policy liberalization has made way for a more tolerant attitude. The authors of the report point out that the international conventions are not carved on tablets of stone. They can be altered if the political will exists to do so. Whether or not that will exists will be seen in June 1998 at a UN General Assembly on Drugs. At that Assembly, various strategies, methods and specific measures will be debated with a view to giving a fresh impetus to international cooperation on the drugs issue.

At that Assembly, the European Union should argue that the pragmatic policy it advocates is not incompatible with the spirit of the UN conventions on drugs. It should also call for greater scope for local experiments within the overall drugs policy. While problems involving drugs are increasing from year to year, no one benefits from strict requirements which frustrate any changes in policy. That view would also accommodate an independent assessment of the UN conventions on drugs with a view to ascertaining the extent to which those conventions thwart policy innovations. Two years ago, the European Parliament called for such an assessment to be carried out.

Local experiences and cooperative associations currently form the basis of a more straightforward European drugs policy. Attempts to achieve harmonization at central government level will also founder in the near future because they are based on inflexible attitudes and largely ignore the reality of the situation. It must be possible within Europe to use practical experience as the basis for the development of a number of Community policy options.

11 November 1996 B4-1238/96

C O R R I G E N D U M

The European Parliament,

As regards production and trafficking

As regards social and health aspects and consumption

As regards legal and prison-related aspects