Mr. Nick Glynn:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to it this morning. For the past eight years, I have led work on police accountability and reform in the UK and across western Europe at Open Society Foundations, a global human rights organisation. I am a board member of the independent scrutiny and oversight board for the police race action plan leading on use of police powers. I am a retired senior police officer having served for 30 years in a variety of operational and management roles. I was the College of Policing lead for stop and search from 2012 to 2016 and led reforms to stop and search across England and Wales. I am a former vice president of the National Black Police Association. I have a law degree and a master's in applied criminology from the University of Cambridge.

My interest in drug policy flows from my policing experience and my personal experience of the ways in which police powers that emanate from the so-called war on drugs impact people, notably the disproportionate affect on black people and other people of colour. I listened to the previous two statements and in particular, really agree with every word of the last one. I believe that the so-called war on drugs is built upon race and class issues and that from that perspective, it has been successful. The war on drugs is often a disaster and a failure but my view is that it was designed to put certain communities down, to criminalise them and to exacerbate the structural inequalities that already exist in society.

The so-called war on drugs ignores the evidence from academics and from history that people have always used substances and I do not make the distinction between drugs and substances. People have always used substances, they still are doing so and they always will. On that basis, the tricky path towards decriminalisation and legalisation of drugs with all of the challenges and checks and balances needed along that route is needed urgently to stop the harms caused by drugs prohibition because it is prohibition that causes the harms not really the drugs themselves. Overdose deaths, violence, criminalisation, addiction and many other harms besides can be avoided if a new approach to drugs use is taken. Continuing in the futile quest of ridding society of drugs is the definition of madness. Carrying on doing the same things over and over again - since 1977 in Ireland and since 1971 in England and Wales - and expecting different results is madness.

I have seen first hand how police powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act are used, abused and misused by police officers. Changing drug policy could be transformational for policing, for communities and for community safety if the police did not spend so much of their time, resources and energy fighting this futile unwinnable war. Trust and confidence in policing in the UK is at an all time low and declining. One of the most contentious police powers is stop and search. Between 60% and 70% of stops and searches are for drugs - not weapons - with consistently low find rates. If policing was empowered to stop wasting time and resources trying to find tiny bits of cannabis, officers could use their time more productively detecting and preventing violent crime and other crimes that have a direct impact on communities. Starting on the path towards decriminalisation and legalisation with cannabis the obvious first choice will take drug supply and demand out of unregulated markets where criminal interests outweigh a desire to keep people safe. It will allow drug issues to be dealt with as a health and education matter rather than a matter for the criminal law and ensure that people who need help with addiction receive such help.

It should be noted that the vast majority of people who use drugs have no problems with addiction whatsoever. It should be acknowledged that people use drugs for pleasure and that no amount of criminal sanction has prevented or will prevent this. This approach would free up police resources or enable resources to be diverted towards alternative community safety solutions that have never been given the opportunity or the resources needed to thrive and succeed. It could potentially provide tax revenue and ensure that a safe supply is available so as to avoid the most serious harms created by prohibition. I look forward to the committee's questions.