My Lords, I never said that the consultation would not be beneficial. I said that it would be beneficial, but that the impact assessment—to which I think my noble friend referred—or the Explanatory Memorandum said that it would not be necessary. It was not necessary or beneficial because of the ACMD process, the activities of the MRHA and consultation with the manufacturer.
I did not answer her question about why it has taken so long for the UK to control amineptine when it was scheduled under the UN convention. Amineptine came to light following an audit carried out to ensure that the UK was fulfilling its international obligations. As soon as this came to light, the Government consulted the ACMD, as required under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and, following its advice, have moved swiftly to bring amineptine on to the 1971 Act. However, at no time during this period were the public exposed to any risks from this drug, as amineptine has never been available or licensed in the UK. The ACMD has confirmed that there was no evidence of illicit use of amineptine in the UK. I hope that that answers my noble friend’s questions.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2011
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Attlee
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 February 2011.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2011.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c13-4GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:21:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711649
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711649
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711649