Sitting of 9 November 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
MR. SPEAKER[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Drugs Strategy
[Relevant documents: The Second Special Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2000–2001, on Drugs and the Law: Government Response to the Police Foundation's Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, HC 226.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell]
9.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The House knows that the Home Secretary has called for an adult debate on drugs and recently announced in evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs his intention to ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the arguments for reclassifying cannabis from B to C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This is a timely moment for Parliament to have a direct opportunity to participate in that debate, and to listen to the views expressed on the issue and the wider subject of drugs policy.
Drugs misuse poses serious problems for society. It causes misery for the users and their families and can destroy communities. It stops many young people reaching their full potential in life and fuels much of our crime. It is estimated that up to half of all property crime is committed by users of heroin and cocaine. The cost to the criminal justice system is estimated to be about £1.2 billion a year. There are the costs, too, of related ill health, absenteeism and social problems, to say nothing of the cost to individuals, the wasted lives and the lost opportunities.
The causes of drugs misuse are complex and deeply rooted and there is no simple solution. Our strategy therefore recognises the need for action on a wide front. Experience in other countries supports that. National drug policies and strategies have developed according to local needs and priorities, but in general the trend is to a balanced approach, in which supply, demand and harm reduction strategies are all important components. The differences between countries are not as great as is sometimes suggested. For example, much is made of the strong harm reduction orientation of Dutch policies, but the Dutch have not legalised the use of any controlled drug. Like us, they prioritise their enforcement effort against the drugs that cause the greatest harm.
Our strategy has four main aims: first, to help young people resist drugs misuse so that they can achieve their full potential; secondly, to protect our communities from drug-related antisocial and criminal behaviour; thirdly,
476
to provide treatment services to help people with their drugs problems; and, finally, to attempt to disrupt the supply of drugs.
We recognise the scale of the problem we face in tackling drugs misuse. We also know that there are no quick and easy answers. That is why our strategy is supported by major long-term investment that is focused on proactive measures to tackle drugs misuse directly. The main aim of the strategy is to stop people taking drugs in the first place. However, there will always be some people who continue to take drugs even if they are aware of the dangers. We therefore have a duty to ensure that they have as much information and help as possible to reduce the risks that come with that behaviour, such as providing information on and services for needle exchanges and making people aware of the dangers of injecting and using shared needles.
Much good work has been done at national, regional and local levels. We are reaching out to young people in a variety of ways. Some 93 per cent. of secondary schools and 75 per cent. of primary schools now have a drugs education policy in place, compared with 86 per cent. and 61 per cent. respectively in 1997. The positive futures initiative set up in March 2000 aims to divert vulnerable young people away from drugs and crime through involvement in sport. So far, 24 projects have been set up. The initial results are encouraging, showing reductions in criminal activity and truancy and improved community awareness.
Paul Flynn: Can my hon. Friend give an example of an anti-drugs education scheme on either legal or illegal drugs in any country in any century which reduced drugs use?
Mr. Ainsworth: It is difficult to single out an issue, but I have little doubt that unless we manage to get an effective message through to young people, drugs use will increase. A large part of our motivation is to improve the message and our ability to get it across, which is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided to reclassify cannabis.
The Connexions initiative, which was set up in March 2000, provides a service to all young people aged 13 to 19 to help them to achieve in education and to make the transition from adolescence to adulthood. All drug action team areas are developing young people's substance misuse plans based on central guidance to ensure that all young people requiring drugs services receive them.
We are clear about the need to warn young people that all drugs, including cannabis, are dangerous, but that class A drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, are the most harmful. Experience shows that preaching to young people does not work. The message must be credible and informative if they are going to listen. A communications campaign will be launched in December to spell out the risks and dangers of taking drugs. It will highlight the national drugs helpline, which provides young people, their parents and carers with access to straightforward, clear and credible information. The campaign will also support existing work being done to help young people tackle problems of drug misuse.
Michael Fabricant: The Minister rightly points out that all drugs are dangerous, particularly if

477
taken to excess. That might include cannabis, too. However, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the message to young people that cannabis taken in excess might be dangerous would be more credible if it were conjoined with the message that taking alcohol and tobacco.—they are also drugs.—is equally, if not more, dangerous when they are taken in excess?
Mr. Ainsworth: I have little doubt that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to get the message through to young people that taking any of those substances in excess is dangerous. It will put them at risk in the short term, because of the intoxication that results from taking cannabis or alcohol. It can also seriously damage their health over the longer term. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman says is outwith Government policy or, indeed, previous Government policy in that regard.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend's response to the intelligent question asked by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) was acceptable. Alcohol is probably the single most dangerous drug for young people. However, although my hon. Friend is trying to spell out the Government's strategy for certain types of drugs, is not the fact that an alcohol strategy is not in place and will not be for some time a major failing in marrying together the attack on all drugs?
Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. We need a strategy for alcohol and we are working with the Department of Health to produce one. We hope to go to consultation on such a strategy in the spring of next year. We need it to underpin and provide focus to our work in explaining the dangers of alcohol.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend comment on my belief and that of many others that the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse should take all substance abuse, including alcohol and tobacco abuse, under its control? Is it not time that we brought everything together?
Mr. Ainsworth: We now at least have the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that it represents a potential major step forward. We are looking to it to increase the amount of expertise that we have on the issue of drugs. Many people who work in this sector have also advised us that, if we try to deal with drugs in isolation from alcohol, the potential for failure will be greater. Such issues need to be debated, and my hon. Friend has considerable expertise in the subject.
Research shows that for every £1 spent on treatment, £3 is saved in criminal justice expenditure as a result of reduced drugs use leading to reductions in crime. The challenge of breaking the link between drugs and crime is to identify drug users earlier in their drug-using career and to get them effective and appropriate help.
We have good evidence now that treatment can work and is cost effective in achieving a reduction in drugs use and related offending. It can also improve the health of drug users. We have developed a number of interventions in the criminal justice system to maximise engagement with drug misusing offenders. Our most recent
478
intervention is the new drug testing powers introduced by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. That allows for the drug testing of persons aged 18 and over for specified class A drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, when they are charged with trigger offences such as property crime, robbery or class A drugs offences. It also provides for the probation supervision of offenders under drugs abstinence orders. The new powers are being piloted in three sites—Nottingham, Staffordshire and Hackney—until March 2003.
The annual increase of 8 per cent. in the number of people attending treatment services is encouraging. We established the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse in April this year to expand drug treatment services and to ensure the delivery of high-quality services across the country. At the point of arrest, arrest referral schemes seek to reduce drugs-related crime by encouraging problem users who are arrested to take up appropriate treatment. The schemes now cover 86 per cent. of all police custody suites across England and Wales.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In the light of what the Minister has said about the piloting of drugs treatment and testing orders, will he at least be prepared to consider the views of the many commentators who, since the Home Secretary's sudden announcement to the Home Affairs Committee about the reclassification of cannabis, have suggested that it would be much wiser for reclassification to wait until the results of the pilots and of the policing changes in Brixton in south London have been assessed?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman. The three pilots are concerned with two class A drugs—cocaine and heroin—where there is a proven link between the use of those drugs and acquisitive crime. I am not certain how that connects with a decision to ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—ACMD—to advise on the reclassification of cannabis. I accept that that decision has a far closer correlation with the trial on policing that is taking place in Brixton, but that is due to conclude at the end of the year. A full evaluation will be available in February. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not announce to the Home Affairs Committee the reclassification of cannabis; he announced that he would ask ACMD to consider its reclassification. All that, and the debate that we are holding, are going forward in tandem. There will not be a definitive decision on the reclassification of cannabis—if that happens—before Easter next year.
Simon Hughes: The House welcomes this debate, because it is sensible to hold it while the Home Affairs Committee is carrying out its work.
I do not want to press the Minister to move other than gradually, but are the Government prepared to recognise that policy to date has been a total failure? We have had some of the harshest policies for drugs misuse in Europe, but drugs use has increased more and is at a higher level than almost anywhere else in Europe. Although it is true to say that no other countries have legalised drugs, they are increasingly decriminalising them. If we spend far more on prevention than we do on the criminal regime

479
and do far more to help addicts than to punish them, we might have a far more comprehensive approach than the Home Secretary's rather limited response so far.
Mr. Ainsworth: I am not prepared to accept that. The hon. Gentleman has given us a caricature of the Government's policy. There is a lot of good work, and the targets in the drugs strategy debate have enabled people to focus on the need to work together to achieve their aims. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there will be dramatic changes in a relatively short time or that there is a magic bullet to solve the problem, he is deluding himself, but I do not believe that he does think that. There is, potentially, a need to refine and re-balance the policy, but to say that our whole policy is oriented towards criminal justice and crime prevention, and does not focus on health, harm reduction and education, is to give the House a caricature of it.
Lembit Öpik: I am very interested in what the Minister is saying. Does he accept that the evidence from the pilot schemes that he mentioned and the experience of organisations such as Transform seems to show that we should focus more on what drives people into addiction, and less on mere prohibition? To achieve harm reduction, would we not be best advised to find out what it is in people that causes them to become addicts in the first place?
Mr. Ainsworth: The two are not mutually exclusive. There is no need to legalise or decriminalise to try to focus on education and harm reduction. If we are having an adult debate, instead of evangelising or propagandising for a particular point of view, we should note that most countries are moving towards a balanced approach. That includes countries that have been severe in their drugs policies and focused on law and order, as well as those who are regularly held up as being soft on drugs. They are drifting towards a more central position, in which they are taking every kind of action to solve the problem. That is true in Holland, as it is in this country.
Dr. Iddon: May I respond to my hon. Friend's point about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? Page vi of the Government's response to the Runciman report notes:
"ACMD recommended, as the Police Foundation notes in support of their own recommendation, that cannabis should be transferred from Class B to Class C."
I find it astonishing, therefore, that the Home Office needs to refer the matter back to the ACMD, which has made the same recommendation as Runciman.
Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend ought not to find that astonishing. Some people would be upset if they thought that the Home Secretary had effectively bounced people into that decision by simply announcing that he was reclassifying cannabis, full stop. He announced to the Home Affairs Committee that he was going to ask the ACMD to consider reclassification. Yes, he did so in the expectation that the council would agree, but it is right that such important decisions are not made on the spur of the moment—everybody must have the opportunity to have their say.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Government deserve a great deal of praise for taking a brave step forward in their drugs policy. However, hon. Members have been asking the Minister to acknowledge that, on an evidence base—and new Labour, at its best, is evidence-based—the policies carried out to date are not working. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that, and we are moving towards policies that might work a bit better, as they do in almost every other country in which they have been tried.
Mr. Ainsworth: If we are to say that our policies are not working, we must measure them against policies that would work much better. I think that my hon. Friend veers in the direction of legalisation. I do not know how far he goes in that direction, but if he catches the Speaker's eye, we will hear his views in detail. The Home Secretary has called for a debate, and if my hon. Friend believes that legalisation will lead to lower levels of drugs use in this country, he should use the opportunity of this debate to spell out the logic behind that view.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Minister said that, when addressing the Home Affairs Committee, the Home Secretary did not say that he was seeking to recategorise cannabis. However, according to all the evidence and the commentary, including the Minister's comments in this debate, that is the expected policy. What is the Government's policy today? Is it to change the category of cannabis or not?
Mr. Ainsworth: As I have said clearly, and as the Home Secretary said, the policy is to ask the ACMD to consider the reclassification of cannabis from B to C. There should not be any confusion about that. I understand that the media are a difficult animal, and that messages get twisted, but everyone in the House ought to know exactly what the Home Secretary said.
Michael Fabricant: Can the Minister envisage a situation in which cannabis is not reclassified, and remains in class B?
Mr. Ainsworth: There is a theoretical possibility that the council's advice will be that we should not reclassify cannabis. However, given the statements that have been made and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about the council's recommendation, I doubt very much that it will give that advice.
Mr. Hawkins: What a shambles.
Mr. Ainsworth: If the Home Secretary had simply said, "That's it; I have decided to reclassify cannabis," the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain. However, my right hon. Friend asked the ACMD to look at the matter and it will make a decision after that consideration, to which Opposition Members, along with everybody else, are entitled to contribute.
All prisons in England and Wales now provide counselling, assessment, referral, advice and through-care services, which create a care plan to meet the needs of the great majority of prisoners during their time in prison. More than 37,000 assessments were undertaken in 2000–01. Detoxification programmes are available in all

481
local and remand prisons in England and Wales, and more than 32,000 prisoners entered detox in 2000–01. There has been a significant fall, from 24.4 per cent. in 1996–97 to 12.4 per cent. in 2000–01, in the number of positive drug tests in prisons under mandatory drugs-testing procedures.
Drugs misuse is a threat not only to individuals but to whole communities, because of the antisocial behaviour, crime and fear of crime that it can generate. We are therefore concerned not only to educate and treat individuals, but to empower and strengthen local communities in their efforts to tackle those problems. Our efforts are aimed particularly at those communities where deprivation is most acute and drugs use most firmly entrenched. In tackling drugs misuse in those areas, we seek to integrate action into neighbourhood renewal programmes.
The creation of the drugs prevention advisory service means that local drug action teams, who are at the forefront of local action to reduce drugs problems, can now access a range of expert services developed and provided in response to their specific needs. Through the confiscated assets fund we are supporting a number of projects aimed at providing a bridge between the end of treatment and access to the labour market.
In the March Budget we also provided additional financial support for the Employment Service, to enable it to identify and help claimants with a drugs problem, and to help ex-users to re-enter the labour market once they have successfully completed a course of treatment. I should also highlight an innovative prison-led project that will pilot five post-release hostels for short-term prisoners with a history of drug-driven offending. The hostels will provide intensive support through the crucial period of the first few months after release.
Action to disrupt the supply of illegal drugs remains a high priority. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will enable us to seize more cash from the criminals, threatening directly the profits that motivate the trade. We are bringing together law enforcement and other agencies in a concerted attack on the drugs trade, and we have put in place a comprehensive joint agency strategy to tackle heroin and cocaine supply from the source in countries abroad to the United Kingdom's streets.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. On the confiscation of drugs profits, can he tell us how much money has been confiscated? In particular, what proportion of the total profit does that amount represent? Given that the trade in this country is estimated to be worth more than £6 billion, how much of a dent are the Government making in those profits?
Mr. Ainsworth: I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure now, but I can tell him—and I acknowledge this—that it is a very small proportion. That is why we have introduced the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The existing law is disjointed. There is an obligation to prove the origin of the funds—irrespective of whether it is drugs money or the result of other crime—even though that presents a problem to the law enforcement agencies in terms of seizing the proceeds of crime. Confiscation orders can be
482
applied by the courts, but they are not often enforced, so only a small percentage of the confiscation orders that are agreed actually lead to confiscation. All that provides the justification for the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will be debated shortly in Committee. That Bill is intended to make that process more effective.
Lembit Öpik: On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), what evidence do the Government have to show that confiscation and the prosecution of drugs suppliers have made any difference to the amount of drugs use in this country?
Mr. Ainsworth: As the law to date has been so relatively ineffective, I doubt whether it has made much difference at all, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that logic points to the need for the Proceeds of Crime Bill—to which the Liberal Democrats gave a reasonable response on Second Reading—and to the principle that attacking the profits made by the organisations that supply our communities with such substances can be a very big tool, which has been massively underused historically in this country.
We are seizing increasing amounts of class A drugs, including multi-tonne seizures of cocaine upstream. Police forces in the west midlands are piloting a project from which we will be able to develop a model for tackling the supply of drugs between the ports and the local communities. The project is funded with money confiscated from drugs traffickers.
We continue to play a leading role in the international campaign to combat the world trade in illegal drugs. We are concentrating on heroin and cocaine as the drugs that cause the greatest harm. During the year 1999–2000, we contributed some £8.5 million to overseas anti-drugs assistance.
As a major contributor to the United Nations international drugs control programme, we support alternative development projects such as those in Colombia. We are working closely with our European partners to drive forward an EU drugs strategy, and we continue to assist EU applicant countries on drugs issues.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know that Afghanistan is by far the largest single supplier of heroin. It produced 70 per cent. of the world's opium in 2000, and 90 per cent. of heroin in the United Kingdom originates there. Although it is true that the cultivation of the opium poppy all but ceased last year in Taliban-controlled areas, levels of trafficking remained high throughout that period and significant stockpiles exist. In the light of the current military situation in Afghanistan, we are keeping a close watch on changing circumstances and the possible effect on supplies of heroin to the United Kingdom. Although some people seem to think that the Taliban's decision to discontinue cultivation was due to some high motivation, there is absolutely no evidence that the amount of drugs leaving the country tailed off during the period when cultivation stopped. That may have been an exercise in getting rid of an over-extensive stockpile.
Paul Flynn: It would be only fair to say that our brothers-in-arms in the Northern Alliance have trebled their poppy and heroin production. Is it not nonsense to believe that if one country's crop of drugs is destroyed,

483
the gap will not be filled by another's? At the moment, Burma, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are doing so. If we have a war on drugs, we are in danger of turning central Asia into a vast new Colombia, where warring armies will fight each other in drugs wars. That is what we did in south America, and we are now likely to do the same with a vast area of central Asia.
Mr. Ainsworth: I do not know to what degree I differ from my hon. Friend. I had rather hoped that he would use the opportunity of his intervention to withdraw the allegations that he has made in two letters that he has sent to me since we discussed this issue last time in the House.
Paul Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
I do not think that what is happening in Afghanistan is the result of the heroin supply trade, but there is no doubt about the misery on our streets currently and for a considerable time. Yes, the Northern Alliance have produced opiates, but since the Taliban have been in control, they have been the major contributor to heroin supply on our streets.
Paul Flynn: The very minor dispute that I have had with the Minister, which I regard as a closed issue, was covered in the letter that I sent to him two days ago. He will note that Hansard editors have agreed to alter the record of what the Minister said in a debate because the Hansard record was different from what he said. My argument was that the words that he actually used happened to be untrue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It would be helpful to the House if this debate could be confined to the broad issues, rather than entering into areas to which all hon. Members are not privy.
Hon. Members: Tell us more.
Mr. Ainsworth: If my hon. Friend wants to bandy allegations around, he is free to do so. My boredom threshold has been reached on the matter, so I do not intend to take it any further.
Good progress has been made on programmes and short-term targets that underpin the four strategy aims, but we recognise that there is much more to do. As I have said today, all controlled drugs, including cannabis, are dangerous, and it is essential that we warn young people of those dangers in a commonsense and credible way. We need to focus more effectively on hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, which cause the most harm, and on getting people into treatment. That is why the Government are currently reviewing progress against the drugs strategy targets to ensure that we still have the right balance and focus.
Against that background and the very clear difference between cannabis and class A drugs, the Home Secretary has decided to consult the advisory council about reclassifying cannabis. The council has been has been asked to provide advice within three months, and the Home Secretary intends to take a decision next spring. Some of the coverage of my right hon. Friend's
484
announcement has been quite wrong and confusing—it does not equate to decriminalisation or legalisation. Cannabis, as a class C drug, will remain controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and using it will still be a criminal offence. However, if reclassification is warranted by an honest scientific assessment of the relative harms, it would enhance the credibility of our drugs laws as a whole, and it would help us to deliver our message on drugs to young people and better to align public policy and criminal justice practice.
Tackling drugs misuse is not something that the Government can do alone. We need to engage with communities and individuals across the country. I know that many hon. Members are actively involved in our own communities in tackling drugs misuse, and I welcome the opportunity to hear their views first hand.
10.10 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a subject as serious as this, it is perhaps incumbent on those who wish to address the House to say whether their professional expertise has involved any contact with the scourge of drugs. During the late 1970s and more or less the whole of the 1980s, I had the opportunity to practise as a barrister in the west midlands, an area with high drugs use, especially in the inner cities. In that time I prosecuted and defended in a great many drugs cases.
The drugs problem has got still worse in our inner cities during my years in the House, and for pretty well the whole of my adult life, and certainly all of my professional career, both as a practising barrister and as a Member of this House, I have regarded drugs as the most serious scourge of our society.
When we consider the possible changes that the Home Secretary is now considering, we must look carefully at the unanswered questions. One of those, which none of the media commentators has focused on, is the fact that the simple reclassification of cannabis would not merely completely alter the sentences of, and the police response to, those found in possession of it; it would have a much more significant effect on the sentencing powers of the courts over those who supply it.
Although the Minister talked in general terms about the need to control supply, he did not advert to the other point at all. The practical effect of the reclassification of cannabis would be as follows. At present, with the current classification, if someone is convicted of the offence of supplying cannabis, the maximum sentence open to the courts is 14 years' imprisonment. There is usually a reduction in the sentence to take account of a guilty plea, but large-scale supplying of cannabis regularly attracts sentences of long years of imprisonment. It is fairly commonplace for large-scale suppliers who are caught and convicted to be sentenced to eight, nine or 10 years.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins: I will give way to one of the two most ardent legalisers on the Labour Benches, but only when I have finished my point.
The practical effect of a reclassification would be to reduce the maximum sentence dramatically. It is most likely that, in return for a guilty plea, even the largest-scale

485
suppliers of cannabis would face sentences of only two years' imprisonment, of which they might serve one year or even less.
That would be a huge change, I do not think that there is much difference of view between the parties about the serious evil of those who supply drugs, especially to young people—although we will hear in a moment whether the hon. Gentleman disagrees. If the result of the change is that many of the large-scale suppliers will serve only about a year in custody, there are serious questions to be answered about whether the Home Secretary's proposed changes will lead to a massive increase in the number of young people subjected to the dangers of cannabis, which everybody accepts can be a gateway to the use of harder drugs.
Paul Flynn rose—
Mr. Jones rose—
Mr. Hawkins: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), I ask him to say whether he can claim that there is a single user of class A hard drugs who did not start with cannabis.
Mr. Jones: I do not know whether I should thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, but may I correct one thing that he said? There are more than two ardent legalisers on the Government Benches, and a damn sight more than two on the Opposition Benches behind him.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the evil of people selling cannabis, but while he was prosecuting them, did it ever cross his mind that there was an enormous hypocrisy in the law that categorised those people as deserving 14 years in jail, while someone who sold tobacco, which kills huge numbers of people, got, if he was successful, a peerage or a Queen's award for industry?
Mr. Hawkins: I know one thing about the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the rearmost of the Government Benches—who are sitting so far from the Minister as is possible within the confines of the Chamber that it is clear that they wish to detach themselves from Government policy—and that is that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for legalising drugs is matched only by his hatred and contempt for anyone who runs a successful business. I do not accept for one moment his totally fallacious assertions.
Mr. Jones rose—
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman and I will never agree on these matters, and he knows that. It would be pointless for him to seek to persuade me.
Paul Flynn rose—
Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
Mr. Hawkins: I give way to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).
Mr. Lloyd: There is an important point here about the role of the criminal justice system and the length of
486
sentences. My experience, as a constituency MP and in life in general, is that the use of cannabis has grown astonishingly during the past 30 years. At what point has the criminal justice system had a real impact on the supply chain?
Mr. Hawkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis; one of the reasons why I was happy to give way to him is that I know that he thinks quite deeply about these issues. I take the view that whenever a large-scale supplier of drugs is imprisoned, it takes him off the streets for a long time. I know that those in favour of legalisation will say that someone else will fill the vacuum. That may well be so—
Mr. Jones: It is so.
Mr. Hawkins: Even if it is, if one takes the view that the purpose of the criminal law is to try to catch and punish those who are guilty of serious wrongdoing, serious criminal penalties must be available for those who participate in what most Members, and certainly the vast majority of the public, regard as an evil trade
Paul Flynn rose—
Mr. Hawkinsdebated these issues many times. I know his views. I know that he will never persuade me, and I am aware, from the many times that we have debated the matter, that I shall not persuade him.
Ms Oona King rose—
Lembit Öpik rose—
Mr. Hawkins: I shall give way a little later, but I have already given way a couple of times, and now I want to make some progress.
The view from the Opposition Benches—certainly from the Opposition Front Bench—is that the Home Secretary has to justify, with evidence, the major changes that he wishes to introduce.
In parenthesis I should say that the Opposition are highly suspicious about the timing of the Home Secretary's announcement, and the reasons that underlay that timing. As the Minister will know, the Home Secretary's recent appearance before the Select Committee on Home Affairs took place only one day after a Home Office Question Time at which the Minister himself had given an answer completely inconsistent with what the Home Secretary said the following day to the Select Committee. It was apparent to all of us that the Minister knew absolutely nothing about the Home Secretary's planned announcement.
I do not criticise the Minister for that, because I do not think that the Home Secretary had any intention of bringing forward his announcement to the Select Committee until the Government spin machine realised that on that day the big running story was the appalling e-mail in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—the Jo Moore scandal. That was what the Government spin machine wanted to bury, so the Prime Minister's chief press adviser cast around for an announcement that could suddenly be

487
brought forward that would wipe the Jo Moore story from the media for the rest of the day, and erase it from the front pages the following day. The answer was to ask the Home Secretary to make a startling, half-cocked announcement to a Select Committee that had only just begun an inquiry. That is what the Opposition think lay behind the timing of the Home Secretary' s announcement.
The announcement was bizarre because most Secretaries of State appearing before a Select Committee that is carrying out an inquiry would have the courtesy to tell the Committee that the Government would wait until the Committee had finished its inquiry, that they would consider the report and recommendations, and that only then would they decide whether to change policy.
Dr. Iddon: Those of us who are pro-legalisation of cannabis were utterly dismayed because the Home Secretary's announcement and all other announcements made that day were wholly overshadowed by a much more important announcement, of decommissioning in Ireland.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Double-banking.
Mr. Hawkins: As my hon. Friend says, that was probably simple double-banking of other stories by the Prime Minister's spin machine. I read the newspapers the following day and listened to the broadcast media for a great part of that day. Only two stories ran: one, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) says, was decommissioning; the other—which took up almost as much space in many newspapers, and more space in some of the tabloids, was the Home Secretary's sudden, half-cocked, rushed announcement. The hon. Gentleman knows the reasons perfectly well, because he has seen the Prime Minister's spin machine in operation—I seem to recall that he has complained about the misuse of that spin machine in other debates.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: If one believes what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it is possible to accept that the decommissioning of arms was also invented in Downing street. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wanted to let the Select Committee know what he was minded to do at the outset of its inquiry, so that it was not halfway through that inquiry when the announcement was made. That was his motive in telling the Committee when he did. It had absolutely nothing to do with the cloud-cuckoo nonsense that the hon. Gentleman is coming out with.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hawkins: I think that I should respond to the Minister's intervention before I give way to my right hon. Friend. The Minister's interesting explanation of events that did not conform with the usual process whereby Secretaries of State wait for Select Committee reports before responding to them does not answer the point I made earlier. It was apparent not only to me but to the whole House that the Minister's response to a question only the previous day was entirely inconsistent with the Home Secretary's announcement.
Mr. Lilley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary could and should have informed the House
488
rather than a Select Committee, either the day before at Home Office questions, or afterwards by means of a statement, and so allowed the whole House to participate and cross-question him? I say with all respect to the Minister that it is the Home Secretary who we would like to hold to account, and we should have been given the opportunity to do so. That would also have allowed the Select Committee to cross-question the right hon. Gentleman in great detail the next day.
Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend, who has given long and distinguished service as a Secretary of State, is absolutely right. That reinforces our belief that the previous day the Home Secretary had had no intention of saying what he subsequently said, and that he was influenced by the Government's spin machine, which was concerned about getting rid of the Jo Moore story from the media and the airwaves.
Simon Hughes: I agree with the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) about the process, but I do not accuse the Government of having the motives that he ascribes to them. May I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) two direct questions about Conservative party policy? First, do the Conservatives believe that any drugs should be reclassified as recommended by Runciman—yes or no—and if the answer is yes, which ones? Secondly, do they believe that it should be criminal to possess cannabis for one's own use? [Interruption.]
Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister says from a sedentary position, we are keeping those matters under review. However, it is for the Government to answer the question that we, the official Opposition, put to them: will the Home Secretary's proposed changes result in fewer young people becoming victims of drugs? That is the question that we are posing today. We, the Opposition, are putting the Government under pressure to answer that question and to justify their answer by evidence. In an intervention that made Opposition Members smile, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said that "new Labour, at its best, is evidence-based." I doubt that new Labour has a best in the hon. Gentleman's terms, but any sensible Government should ensure that any step that they take is evidence-based.
One of the Opposition's concerns is that the Government do not appear to have taken into account much of the evidence that they have collected of the influence of drugs on road accidents. I hope that those who participate in the debate will consider the fact that all the evidence that I have obtained from the Library, which has been drawn from studies carried out all around the world, shows that all sorts of drugs, both soft drugs such as cannabis and harder drugs, are having a serious and increasing effect on the number of road accident fatalities.
Before the Government reach a final decision on reclassification—the Minister might be rowing back a bit from what the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee—I hope that as well as considering the implications for sentencing for supplying class B and class C drugs, the Government will seriously examine the worldwide evidence of the increasing number of serious injuries and fatalities caused in road accidents which

489
coroners' investigations and police investigations later reveal were caused, or seriously contributed to, by one or both drivers driving under the influence of drugs.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Hawkins: I have given way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) once and I shall not do so again, because he will make his own speech in a little while. No doubt, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) will simply repeat the questions asked by his hon. Friend, so I will not give way to him either.
The Government have to answer some serious questions. The Opposition will continue to level the charge that Government are not thinking these matters through. They have not addressed the serious concerns that I have raised today. We hope that the Government will stick to the sensible comment that the Minister made at the outset of the debate, that all drugs are dangerous and that all drugs should remain illegal. The Government will have our support only if and when they demonstrate that they have thought through the issues properly and sensibly. We do not think that they are doing so now.
10.29 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am astonished by the lack of policy detail in the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Drugs strategy is an serious issue, and it is important that people articulate their opinions and views in debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that, because we need to have the education debate for which the Home Secretary has called. Although my views differ from those of the Government in some respects, there is no doubt in my mind that we must start a more efficient debate—one that examines the practical aspects of drugs use and abuse.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the use of drugs makes other activities dangerous. Given the nature of the debate on classified drugs, it is sometimes difficult to debate the issue rationally. I have an anecdote that the hon. Gentleman might find unpalatable. Some years ago, I spoke to a senior police officer about the rave scene. Interestingly, he said that the crashing of cars following raves, many of which were stolen, was not a major issue. His view—I do not know whether it can be substantiated—was that ecstasy was not linked to the rise in dangerous car use. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we must have regard to the wider consequences of drugs use.
Neither the Minister nor the hon. Gentleman referred to one of the consequences of the black market in drugs —gangsterism. Killings in my constituency and nearby areas are, sadly, a common phenomenon. It is a long time since I have been able to say to people with shock that there has been another death in my constituency, or in Manchester as a whole. Last week, a 36-year-old man was killed. Nobody knows exactly why the killing took place, but the strong suspicion is that it was linked with the drugs trade. Successive Governments have failed to deal with the linkage and have taken a one-dimensional view of the drugs trade.
490
There is a strong argument that we should try to break the link between the supply of different types of drugs. If we are to have an intelligent debate about drugs, we must consider the dangers of all drugs and accept that the use of all substances in that context is potentially dangerous. We must disaggregate different types of substances, as their impacts are different. If we view legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco as being all right, and all illegal drugs as being bad, we make a profound mistake about the damage that drugs do to society.
Our drugs laws have criminalised a huge section of society. Some of the most ruthless criminal gangs in Manchester and in other major cities are way beyond being driven by the motor of drugs activity. The use of firearms in Manchester, for example, is a direct result of our failure to get to grips at an earlier stage with the way in which drugs are sold. These issues must be taken seriously. One of the problems that I confront in my constituency is the view that anyone who is the victim of such violence is expendable. I have attended too many funerals where mothers have cried about their sons dying, even if those sons were sometimes involved in activities of which I and others would not approve.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is raising some interesting points about gangsterism and drugs. Has he considered the prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the 1930s and the growth in gangsterism? Would he care to draw an analogy between gangsterism in the US and the scene that he is describing?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The history of the United States teaches us that prohibition was ended too late easily to dismantle the criminal problems that had grown from it. Even if we were to alter our controlled drugs policy overnight, criminality and organised crime would still exist in my constituency and in others. As I have said, it goes beyond the drugs trade.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Let me take up the interesting point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Is my hon. Friend aware that during the period of prohibition in the United States the murder rate doubled? Immediately after prohibition ended, it went down to its previous level. He might want to consider the effect of the prohibition of drugs in Manchester and in other major cities.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. When I came to Parliament 18 or 19 years ago, deaths of the sort that I have described were fairly unusual. Unfortunately, some types of extremely violent crime are now tolerated. I blame our drugs policy for the growth of such crime. I wish that we could return to a less violent society, but alas we shall not easily be able to do so. If the motor for drug-related killing were to disappear, it would have an impact on deaths in Manchester and more widely, if nothing else.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many of the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland have been directly funded from the proceeds of illegal drugs? That has persisted because the industry is primarily demand led, not supply led.
Mr. Lloyd: I agree. The hon. Gentleman's last comment was the most important. What he says about the paramilitaries applies not only to Northern Ireland but to

491
the rest of the world—for example, Colombia, where the astonishing civil war has displaced 1 million people from their homes. The number of people dying is, by any standards, outrageous. Almost all the violence stems from the demand for cocaine in western Europe and, more importantly, in the United States. Yes, there is such a link.
A central point about drugs policy, which is often overlooked, is that it is convenient to dismiss those who are involved with drugs on the basis that they are on the fringe of society and do not matter. As we invest in attitudes that lead to a tolerance of the most violent types of crime, the issue spreads beyond drugs to wider aspects of society. We must regard drugs as a motor for violent crime and consider how to break the link. The Minister has not dealt with that this morning. I hope that he will reflect on the issue.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. He appears to suggest that the legalisation of certain drugs would do away with the present levels of crime. It is true that certain levels of crime—often serious crime—are associated with the supply of drugs, but a high level of crime is associated with the behaviour of people under the influence of drugs. If we move towards a policy that increases the use of drugs, such crime could well increase.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not follow my hon. Friend's logic. When we talk about drugs users, we are talking not about cannabis, which is probably still the most widely sold illegal drug, but about heroin, cocaine and crack. My hon. Friend referred to cannabis being behind 50 per cent. of the economic crime that is driven by drugs. That figure might be on the low side; it might be as high as two thirds. The pattern probably varies from place to place.
My constituents live in a relatively high crime area of a relatively high crime city. They know that when their homes are broken into, when their cars are broken into and when they are mugged on the street, half the time or more that is the result of drugs use. The Minister suggests that such crime might increase if we were to change policy on drugs, but I do not agree.
I do not advocate the decriminalisation of heroin or crack. Crack is a phenomenally difficult drug, even in treatment terms. There are no easy substitutes for it, as there are for heroin. Heroin is still the biggest motor for such crime, so we should allow regular users to obtain heroin or heroin substitutes—sometimes the most efficient method is to prescribe heroin itself—in a way that takes the dealer out of the equation. In that way, we would begin to remove the economic motor, cutting out the mugging, housebreaking and car theft.
My constituents are not as conservative as society generally is thought to be. They have begun to realise that, even though they may have nothing to do with drugs directly, they have a strong vested interest, as victims of the drugs trade, in a review of policy We need a lot more radicalism in our approach.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath may get very animated about cannabis, but it is a long time since I have thought that it was even worth discussing seriously. I welcome the Home Secretary's moves, but they do not go far enough. Cannabis is not an issue. There is a generation
492
in this country that looks askance at our laws on cannabis and considers them irrelevant. They are not only outdated but honoured totally in the breach.
Mr. Hawkins: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is considering the issues seriously. How does he respond to the Government's drugs tsar, who said:
"The pro-legalisers who have said that cannabis isn't a gateway drug will have to look at this hard and long. I can say now cannabis is a gateway drug. I have not found any evidence anywhere that cannabis is not harmful, is not carcinogenic, or that its usage will not lead to harder drugs"?
The hon. Gentleman supports a Government who gave Mr. Hellawell his drugs tsar powers. Why does he think him so wrong?
Mr. Lloyd: I have enormous respect for Keith Hellawell. I know him reasonably well and have listened to him on many occasions. He says many intelligent things, but no individual is the sole expert on these matters—there are many different views. The argument that cannabis has dangerous physical properties must be taken seriously, but a highly emotive campaign saying that it is somehow on a par with drugs such as heroin and crack is simply misguided, because for the overwhelming majority of people under, say, 45—
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Fifty.
Mr. Lloyd: Well, I am 51, so I tower loftily above the age division—or perhaps I am a child before my time.
Young people do not regard cannabis as being even remotely on a par with heroin and crack. The more the gateway argument is pursued, the more damage we create in the minds of young people, because instead of having an intelligent debate about the properties of drugs and their potential dangers we suggest that there is a common thrill from all illegal drugs, which is nonsense.
Ms Oona King: As the youngest Member in the Chamber today, let me point out that it is when young people go to get cannabis that they are forced into contact with the peddlers of hard drugs. That is a fact. Does he understand that?
Mr. Lloyd: Is my hon. Friend asking me? Yes, I understand it.
Let us talk honestly about dealer mechanisms. Dealers themselves are not all of a kind. There is a world of difference between the Mediterranean "beyachted", ultra-rich centre of the whole operation and some kid on a street corner selling a bit of cannabis to some friends. I do not want to sound like the dealer's friend. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), those of us who advocate decriminalisation are probably the dealers' bigger enemies. Those who want to maintain the status quo are keeping the dealers in business, to be brutally honest.
Drugs are not all the same, and if we maintain that they are, we send out a confused message. The notion that alcohol is less dangerous than cannabis is bizarre. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath invited me to consider the dangers of cannabis as a gateway drug, but the biggest gateway drug is alcohol, which is amazingly easy to obtain. It is illegal to sell it to people under 18, but that law is often breached, too.

493
The use of multiple drugs exposes young people to dangers that range from teenage pregnancy all the way to death by overdose. We need to disaggregate the debate and educate young people in a way that fits in with their own experience. As long as we continue to say that drugs are undifferentiated, other than illegal ones being bad and legal ones okay, young people will treat our message with contempt, because their experience tells them that the world is not like that.
The Minister talked about dealing openly and intelligently with young people. We know that 1 million ecstasy tablets are taken every weekend. Some of them are cut with substances that are effectively poisons. It would make more sense to get round the problem by allowing the ecstasy to be tested against a proper pharmacological standard and prevent harm from being done not by ecstasy per se but by the things that it is cut with. That is practical, but very controversial.
It would also make more sense to recognise that some heroin users do not present for treatment on the basis that they want to give up immediately. It may make sense to prescribe heroin for the user who would otherwise get it on the street. If we reorder people's lives during a period of crisis, we do a lot to remove both the criminality and the social disruption. We need to consider radical ways in which treatment can be given. It is not all that long since there was moral outrage at the idea of needle exchange, but we went beyond that, because it worked. We have to get past the moral outrage and do what works.
Treatment is still alarmingly patchy in this country and it is still massively underfunded. Some estimates say that we should spend twice as much on it. I urge the Minister to tell his Government colleagues that unless we tackle the role of treatment we will fail in our duty to tackle drug-induced crime and to allow many of our citizens to lead decent, productive lives.
We need the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to develop a national strategy, delivering treatment where it is needed. I know, for example, that it is very hard for people to get into a detoxification unit in the north-west. Very few people can get into detox units, which gives rise to a serious problem. Heroin addicts have told me that they reach a point in their own use when they want to get out. They want to get into a detoxification unit there and then, but often are told to come back in three or six months, which means that we have invested in a further three or six months of crime, social havoc and disruption. We must deal not only with the patchiness of treatment, but with the lack of resourcing for the key points in the treatment system that will allow us to move people out of drugs use and into a more productive way of life.
Finally, there have been successful experiments in the role of proper rehabilitation—re-education and getting former drugs users into productive activity and work. We need the equivalent of a new deal for drugs users. Conservative Members may not like the term, and it is a controversial idea. Why should that despised minority demand resources at the expense of the rest? The pragmatic response is that is it in the interests of us all to make sure that that despised minority is brought back to a lifestyle that allows them to live in harmony with the rest of society. It would save all of us much heartache and a great deal of crime, and in the end we would he a more decent society.
10.51 am
Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), with whom I largely agree. He put the case carefully but persuasively. Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents an inner-city seat where the community is plagued by the drugs menace, and where the hardest and most serious implications of that are the number of people who deal in serious drugs for profit and produce a huge amount of crime and social disruption as a consequence. We share that analysis, and I am grateful that there seems to be increasing agreement about what is going on out there in the real world, on which we can base our policy reactions in Parliament.
On the Liberal Democrat Benches, as the Minister knows, we welcomed the Home Secretary's referral of the cannabis classification issue to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That was long overdue, but it was none the less welcome in the early days of a new Home Secretary. We believe that that announcement and its logical implication, which is the reclassification of cannabis, is only the start of the reform that is urgently needed. It must not be the end. There is a case for much wider reform as a matter of great urgency. Now that the Government are willing to have the debate that the new Home Secretary called for, I hope that they will listen to the voices and, on the basis of the evidence, move on quickly.
The United Kingdom is increasingly out of step with many neighbouring countries in drugs policy. Much of the world and much respected opinion here at home has moved on in recent years in terms of thinking through responses, but we are only just beginning to have the open and honest debate for which many people have been calling for several years.
As I commented to the Minister, we continue to have one of the most punitive regimes for drugs use in the world, and certainly in Europe, yet our drugs problems continue to get worse, not better, and the law clearly is not working.
We could spend some time sharing facts and experiences, so I shall simply summarise the current British position from material provided by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which has a clear continent-wide view. Its most recent report states that the UK has one of the highest levels of drugs use and misuse in Europe. More than half of our 16-year-olds have already tried an illegal drug. The annual number of convictions for cannabis use has gone up from 15,000 in 1980 to 78,000 just before 2000. Between a third and a quarter of people aged between 16 and 29 have used cannabis in the past month.
More worrying than the cannabis issue—which is why I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central—is the finding that the number of hard drugs addicts has gone from about 1,000 in the UK 30 years ago to more than 200,000 today. The number of deaths attributed to heroin or morphine use in England and Wales has risen by more than 100 per cent. in four years—a terrifying edge to the drugs problem. The average age of heroin users is going down, whereas in many other countries it is going up. The greatest increase in hard drugs use is among the under-21s. If that is not a statement of the need for radical action, I do not know what is.

495
I reiterate the figure in the recent Library note, which is generally agreed: the drugs market in this country is estimated to be worth £6 billion. Before the drugs tsar was first appointed—when he was still chief constable of West Yorkshire in the mid-1990s—he said:
"The current policies are not working. We seize more drugs, we arrest more people, but when you look at the availability of drugs, the use of drugs, the crime committed because of and through people who use drugs, the violence associated with drugs, it's on the increase. It can't be working."
That has not changed over the past seven years. That is why we need a much more radical response.
I commend to colleagues in all parts of the House—the more people we can carry with us, the better—the work of Drugscope, which is regarded as the most impartial collector and disseminator of information. The organisation happens to be based in my constituency, and is a well known, well established and well respected charity. I hope that hon. Members will contact Drugscope for advice or to check facts and figures.
If we are to be honest and open, we need to look at the difficult questions that politicians have shied away from. We may have to make some hard and controversial choices, but that does not mean that they are the wrong choices. The House must be brave enough to say that, and increasing numbers of voices are doing so.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is laying out the evidence on which we should make our decisions. Further evidence comes from the MORI poll commissioned by the News of the World a couple of weeks ago, which showed that 65 per cent. of the population supported the legalisation of cannabis. As regards the House making brave decisions, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House has been cowardly, and that it is the public outside who are changing the opinions of the House, rather than the other way round?
Simon Hughes: I agree. Public opinion is clearly ahead of Parliament on the cannabis issue, and the credibility of politics is losing out because we are less and less in tune. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) pointed out that she was the youngest Member of the House. One of the problems is that we are not a balanced Parliament in terms of age. We do not have lots of young people helping in the formal process of policy making. It is therefore even more important that we listen to what they say.
One of the reasons why young people do not vote is that they increasingly think, that we do not understand at all what goes on in their lives. We can change the form of voting and enable people to vote by post or by telephone, but if they do not hear a debate that reflects the reality of a Friday night or a Saturday night on the Old Kent road or in the middle of Manchester, we are not likely to win their respect, their confidence or their participation in the democratic process.
I agree that we must take account of the opinion poll evidence on the cannabis issue, which is clear. There is much other creditable recent evidence, including the two important reports of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Psychiatrists, and the Police Foundation inquiry, now a year and a half old, chaired by Dame Ruth Runciman. A report was published this week by the former chief constable of Gwent, which makes it clear that someone
496
who was a senior police officer believes that the way in which we deal with heroin use has been entirely unhelpful, and that we need to give people legal access to a place where they can go openly and have heroin prescribed, to get them away from the sordid backstreet operation through which that drug has been obtained in the past.
I make a further potentially controversial point, which does not assume a particular opinion on the issue. Parliament came to a view 30 years ago that we had to legalise abortion, not because everyone thought that that was morally right, but because unless we did so, we were perpetuating the sequence through the generations and condemning women who did not want to go through with the birth to being at the hands of the racketeers, the exploiters and those who were not validated as professionally competent.
There is a parallel with drugs. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, we condemn many young people to going to traffickers, dealers, exploiters and pedlars who are not interested in their future. They want only money and reward for their activities, although the result, one, two or three years later, may be pain, suffering and death for those young people. I hope that we establish a policy in this Parliament that breaks the link between the young person who experiments with drugs simply because young people experiment and those who make money, irrespective of young people's interests.
Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not whether cannabis is a gateway drug but whether prohibiting it leads individuals to be exposed to alternative gateways and to people who can introduce them to other drugs?
Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow made that point clearly. 1 do not accept the gateway view. To reinforce the point, the person who provides cannabis often wants the purchaser to buy something else at greater cost. People thus become reliant on those who are literally pushers—they push others into buying drugs that make them return because they are addictive. Pushers create a dependency market for which they have guaranteed customers who have less and less money and thus go thieving, burgling and nicking. Serious crime follows: blackmail, intimidation, harassment and the gun crime that has already been mentioned.
Pete Wishart: If cannabis is removed from the market, does not the hon. Gentleman worry that more dangerous drugs will be pushed more vigorously?
Simon Hughes: No. The Runciman report clearly states that all drugs are not the same, and we must educate people to understand the difference. Just as the consequences of drinking low-alcohol lager and high-alcohol spirits are different for most people, there is a difference between using cannabis and heroin, and between taking one or two ecstasy tablets and regularly using crack cocaine. I do not accept that using one makes people likely to progress to the other when they can be educated to understand the difference. Education is vital.
A classification system is a good idea. Cannabis has some harmful consequences, but it is not especially harmful. Ecstasy is more harmful. It is a relatively new

497
drug, and we do not know all its implications. However, taking ecstasy leads to a handful of deaths a year, whereas smoking causes 120,000 deaths a year and alcohol-related diseases account for 30,000 deaths a year. We must give people the facts and counter the prejudice. We must also ensure that we have a system that keeps people up to date.
We must establish an authoritative body that works in the open to keep up to date with events. Since 1994, my party has called for such a body. We originally proposed a royal commission, but that is a one-off exercise. We subsequently argued for a standing commission. I hold to the view that we need an authoritative, independent body that can say, "These drugs are available. Ecstasy has just arrived; these are the implications, this is our advice." It should be able to take evidence and give advice. With great respect to Keith Hellawell, whom I do not know well, someone who is under the Government's umbrella and is perceived as a Government person will not have such authority. That is the weakness of such a job.
I accept the policy aims that the Minister outlined. We must help young people to resist drugs misuse and protect our communities from drug-related antisocial and criminal behaviour. We must enable those with drugs problems to overcome them and live healthy, crime-free lives. We must stifle the availability of illegal drugs on our streets.
I do not advocate taking drugs; most people are better off without drugs, and using natural, not artificial remedies. Changing the law does not mean advocating drugs use or making drugs more acceptable, beneficial or preferable.
We should divide society into three groups. We should treat recreational drug users as normal people who use such drugs in the same way as alcohol or tobacco, which are also used, for better or worse, as recreational drugs. We should treat addicts as victims because they need help. That is clear from talking to people who have been to prison for a drug-related crime and have benefited from a regime that has helped them to deal with their problem. The pushers, dealers, profiteers and traffickers are criminals. Like hon. Members from other parties, I hope that, at the end of the review, we will distinguish between those who should be regarded as criminal and those who should not. For example, the personal use of recreational drugs should not be criminal—it is different from dealing in serious drugs, an activity that should be criminal. We must categorise those activities differently.
The key recommendation of the Runciman report is that if differences exist in the amount of harm caused, it is important to educate people about that. There is evidence that cannabis is harmful, but less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. It is therefore not logical to treat the personal use of cannabis as a crime when we allow people to use tobacco and alcohol. Many people now say precisely that and act accordingly, and that brings the law into disrepute. Policies must be credible as well as intelligent.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has already raised the next point, which I hope that the Government will tackle, and I have no reason to suppose that they will not. We are constrained by international legal obligations. I accept that international conventions require trafficking in narcotic drugs to be regarded as an offence. We cannot alter that unilaterally; we have to work within that parameter. However, the Portuguese
498
have recently decriminalised possession of all drugs. It is therefore possible, even within the international parameters, to treat possession, the personal production of drugs such as cannabis, which can be grown, and social, non-commercial supply differently from commercial supply. The Portuguese have only recently made their decision, and we therefore do not know the result. However, I hope that we will consider policies that are intellectually and practically coherent.
We also cannot say that it is acceptable to use cannabis without an explanation of its source being equally acceptable. That is not sensible law. The weakness of the Government's policy is that they are prepared to change the status of cannabis to a class C drug, but people might be prosecuted for using it, depending on the day of the week, the location and the officer on duty. Someone may or may not be charged. We cannot have an arbitrary policy; there should be certainty and clarity.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the international convention, would the hon. Gentleman agree that a consensus is emerging across Europe and elsewhere—in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, for example—that the conventions should be altered? We drew them up in the 1920s, when we made a list of the drugs that were relatively unknown or not widely used in the west and said that they should be illegal, while those that were widely used should be legal. That was the rationale, and it is time to change it.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is a bit like the prompter at the side of the stage, but 1 had not forgotten my next lines. I was going on to say that, although we are constrained at the moment, there are good reasons why we should seek to move on. One is that Europe is moving on, and in the context of the European Union there is an opportunity to consider the evidence, to share the development of the policy and, in some cases, to move from criminalisation to decriminalisation.
An argument also exists for examining the conventions as a whole and considering whether they are still appropriate. I believe—as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) clearly does—that conventions such as these should not stand for all time; they need to be revisited. It is now time for us to open the debate about whether, in this day and age, with 30 years' extra evidence available, it is appropriate to treat all drugs, from the most serious—the heroins of the world—to the least serious in terms of health effects, in the same way with regard to what countries are required to do.
Commentators regularly get these issues wrong. People must understand that there is a debate about what should be legal, and a second debate about what should be criminal. We must distinguish between the two, but both be on the agenda. It is nonsense to argue that—in the case of cannabis use, for example—we should replace one whole set of criminal sanctions with another whole set of what are administrative sanctions, so that people get a fine instead of other penalties. To replace one by the other would fundamentally change very little.
In relation to drugs such as heroin, I ask the Government seriously to consider the arguments put by Francis Wilkinson and others. Over the years, the Home Office has had pilot schemes at work to give people the opportunity to go to registered, recognised, publicly

499
available centres—at doctors' surgeries and elsewhere—to receive their supply of heroin, if they are addicted. That seems to be a far safer option.
We must adjust the balance of spend between the two thirds of the money that we spend trying to control the supply of drugs and the lesser amount that we spend trying to deal with people who have become caught up with drugs and become addicts. Any prison governor will tell us that they often have to discharge prisoners who have been inside for offences prompted by drugs without having been able to do anything to deal with their drugs problem. When those discharged prisoners get out, they will say that they have not got the support that they need to be able to return to the ordered lifestyle that they would like, away from the temptations and pressures of drugs.
I do not intend to get involved today in the debate about driving-related issues. Drug-related driving offences must be dealt with in the same way as alcohol-related driving offences. Many people who should not be, are on the roads causing danger and death to other people.
Tinkering with the law is not enough. We need a thorough review not only of classification but of the appropriateness of criminality in relation to various offences. We need to ensure that those who are doing the dealing and distributing are the criminals. We need to educate our young people, in particular, about the differences between different drugs. Above all, we need policies that will be hugely more effective in stopping people getting into regular drugs use in the first place, or, if they do, that will allow them to get out of that afterwards. We could do it, but it will require a bold Government over the next few years, and it will require other people and parties to be equally supportive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If all hon. Members present are seeking to participate in this quite intense debate, brevity will be their friend.
11.14 am
Paul Flynn: First, I apologise for the fact that because of a constituency engagement, it will be impossible for me to be here for the wind-up speeches. As an old lag in these debates—I have taken part in every one since 1987—it is pleasant to feel less lonely than I have in some of the previous ones.
These matters are of great importance—they are literally matters of life and death. Because of decisions that we have not taken, and because of acts of omission in this Chamber, there have been at least 5,000 avoidable deaths in the past 10 years, and if we do not alter our policies there will be at least 10,000 in the next 10 years.
Ten years ago, I introduced the first Bill on medicinal use of cannabis. All that was required was a simple change in the law, so that cannabis could be treated in the same way as heroin and prescribed to people on a named-patient basis. Such a measure could have been passed by any Government with an ounce of understanding or compassion. There is no change: Ministers come and go; Governments come and go; and the same delusion goes on, and has done since 1971.
During the past 10 years, the House has imposed quite unnecessary additional anxiety on tens of thousands of people suffering from multiple sclerosis and who are in
500
serious pain. Many of those people have taken cannabis while waiting for the knock on the door, because most of them were growing it themselves and knew that they were—according to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—"evil" people who could go to jail for 14 years for what they were doing. Since then, the public, the police, the courts and the juries have said that the laws that we have been supporting command no respect—that the law is an ass.
The control over the laws on cannabis has parted from this House, and it would now be impossible—especially after the announcement on the use of recreational cannabis—for any police force to arrest a seriously ill person for using cannabis medicinally. No jury in the land would convict; indeed, no jury has convicted for the past 18 months. We have allowed the law to pass into disrepute. We now know that the public and the police, who have been leading this move—police in Cleveland and Brixton, and the ex-chief constable of Gwent—are much more far-sighted than many of the politicians here, and particularly any Government. I am optimistic that, having taken this decision to go ahead and change the status of cannabis, we have reached a turning point. We have said that 30 years of prohibition have not worked, and that they have made the position far worse.
I serve as a rapporteur for the Council of Europe's Health Committee, for which I write reports about drugs. I want to reinforce what has been said there. I have examined the policies on drugs in the 43 Council of Europe countries, and carried out a precise analysis of the outcomes in the two most pragmatic countries—Switzerland and the Netherlands—and the two most strongly prohibitionist countries, which are Sweden and the United Kingdom. The picture is clear. Much has been said about the effects of legalisation or decriminalisation, as has happened in Holland. In spite of that, in every category—young, middle-aged and old—in Holland today, there is less use of drugs than there is here. We are by far the worst country in Europe. We have had 30 years of harsh prohibition, while Holland has had 20 years of intelligent decriminalisation.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) asked about people going on to harder drugs. The success of the Dutch scheme lies in the fact that the two markets are separate. Young people can use drugs. They do not have to smoke them—they can take them in safer ways such as in food or drinks. They are not exposed to the pushing of hard drugs users. Another great success of the Dutch drugs policy is that the use of hard drugs has gone down every year for the past decade. Three quarters of the heroin addicts get their heroin in a clean supply from the medical profession and do not have to go on to the streets for it.
Prohibition in Britain is killing young people. The figures vary, but those that I have seen show that before 1971 there were fewer than 500 registered addicts. They were virtually all being maintained by the health service. Many of them, believe it or not, were veterans of the first world war. They had operations on the battlefield and became addicted to morphine. They were supplied with morphine by the health service for the length of their lives and many of them lived to be old contemptibles.
The case of Enid Bagnold is often cited as an example of the old British system. She was the greatly revered and respected author of "National Velvet", but throughout her adult life she injected herself with prodigious quantities

501
of heroin, to which she had become addicted after a hip operation. She died, eventually, a peaceful, serene death at the age of 91.
Last year in this country, in just one incident, 59 young people were killed by prohibition. They were not killed by heroin, because they injected a far less powerful dose of heroin than the one that Enid Bagnold took under the old British system. They were killed because the heroin was contaminated. It was contaminated because the market that supplied it was an irresponsible criminal market and 59 lives were wiped out as a result.
As a constituency MP, I found it distressing when, a fortnight ago, a mother rang me up and said, "I don't know wether you will be shocked by what I say, but I am buying heroin for my son." Another mother said on the "PM" programme that to save her son's life, she told him to go out and commit a serious crime. Those are the actions not of evil people, as was suggested earlier, but of loving parents. They are actions that many of us, if we were in such a dreadful situation, might take ourselves.
In Britain in 2001, we have failed those young people who have the misfortune to be addicted to heroin. Like those who fall into alcoholism, their problems are caused by the way their brains work. Their brain chemistry gives them addictive brains. We know far more now about brain chemistry and we can say that addicts are not evil people. They could be our sons or grand-daughters. They are not wicked or evil people, but people who deserve to be treated as patients, not criminals. More than any other country in Europe, we treat addicts as criminals.
A report in the Western Mail yesterday about Peter Black, the Assembly Member with responsibility for these matters, mentioned an 18-month waiting list for treatment for heroin users. I did not know the wait could be so long, although I knew it could be six months. For those addicted to drugs, it is often a major life event—such as a bereavement, falling in love or relationship breakdown—that gives them an opportunity to get off drugs and break the daily routine of committing a crime to get the money for drugs, taking the drugs, sleeping it off and then going out the next day to begin again. They might get the money through prostitution, mugging or robbery, but the major event gives them the chance to break the cycle. To do so, they need treatment immediately, but they are almost always told to wait for six weeks, or six months, or even 18 months. We should hang our heads in shame that we have a smaller proportion of addicts getting treatment from the health service than any other country in Europe.
A new mythology is growing up about drugs-driving. It is a serious matter and none of us would suggest that anyone should drive under the influence of drugs. However, I have rarely heard such a vacuous speech from an Opposition Front Bencher as that from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who did not do me the courtesy of giving way. I had thought that his predecessor was as bad a Front-Bench spokesman on this subject as we could get, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was a disgrace.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider the conclusions reached by the Transport Research Laboratory on the effect of cannabis and other drugs on driving. Speed improves drivers' perceptions and reactions—it was used for training fighter pilots—but it is dangerous because it also increases their sensitivity to other distractions.
502
It makes drivers worse. Alcohol convinces drivers that they are more skilled, but it impairs their reactions, and that leads to accidents. The effect of cannabis is to impair the reactions of drivers, but it convinces them that they are worse drivers so they drive more cautiously or not at all. That is the scientific evidence.
I do not want to continue the disagreement I had with my hon. Friend the Minister, but we need to consider the world situation. Prohibition started in the 1920s. Virtually every country has an Act prohibiting drugs dated 1921. Thankfully, we did not follow the fundamentalist philosophy that held sway in America and prohibit alcohol, but most countries prohibited drugs. In the 1960s, again under the influence of America, the United Nations spread the view that harsh penalties and imprisoning lots of people would reduce the use of illegal drugs. Very few countries still believe that. The best that we can achieve is harm reduction.
Before the debate, I read what has been said on the issue in the House over the years. We have heard a change of tone today, with a more pragmatic influence coming to bear on the policies, and that is welcome. However, I found a speech by David Mellor, the Minister responsible in 1989, in which he announced to the House:
"We can take some comfort … from the fact that heroin has moved towards its peak".—[Official Report, 8 December 1989: Vol. 163, c. 593.]
It would be a salutary lesson for my hon. Friend the Minister to read the speeches made by his predecessors.
Our record on drugs prohibition disgraces us as politicians. The problem is not the drugs themselves but prohibition. The last two meetings of the Health Committee have been extraordinary. The Government—like the previous Conservative Government—maintained their view of the great dangers of heroin. However, the evidence was rewritten two days later and significant changes were made. The Government were asked to say why heroin was dangerous and they gave a long list of reasons. The worst aspect of heroin is that it is addictive. If it is prohibited, people have to break the law to get it—except the few, barely 300, people who get it from the health service. The list of problems which it was claimed make heroin a dangerous drug included aneurysms and abscesses, but they are all the effects of prohibition.
In Britain, the people who die from heroin use are those who take it in the back lanes, in foul conditions with dirty needles. Under the old British system of health service provision, death from heroin use was very rare. No country's approach is perfect, but other countries in Europe are adopting more pragmatic policies and we are now taking the first steps too. In Rotterdam in Holland, I visited a place called. Paulus Kerche with a journalist and we saw people who had been registered as addicts for a long time getting clean heroin, of a known strength, and clean needles. There was a supervised shooting-up room, but the project also supplied lessons in IT, job interview techniques and CV writing. The community also produced its own newspaper. The addicts were not excluded or despised, or told that they were evil people. They were also given a chance to get off drugs.
We should emulate the practice in other countries. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in his task. In his post, he has the ability to institute great reforms that will save many lives and greatly reduce the levels of crime in the country.
11.30 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I too, must apologise to the House, as I have constituency engagements that I must fulfil. Coincidentally, one is at a neighbourhood law centre, where the subject of drugs abuse is almost certain to come up. I shall also visit the local police station, where a similar matter is likely to be raised.
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who has long been known for his campaign on drugs. Although I do not intend to follow his path, as I am sure he will understand, I hope that one or two points of agreement will emerge from my brief comments, which are much more related to my constituency than to national policy.
However, I have one point to make on national policy. I should be grateful if the Minister would either put his answer on the record or write to me, as I shall not be present for the winding-up speeches. The debate about cannabis use focuses on the legal and criminal implications, and makes only passing reference to the health implications, The hon. Member for Newport, West referred to the good that cannabis can do for multiple sclerosis sufferers. I hear similar evidence from my friends in the health professions, but they also tell me that long-term cannabis use leads to chest and heart problems, cancer and mental health problems, which is much more worrying.
I seek an assurance that the full weight of medical views on the effect of long-term cannabis use on people's health will be taken seriously into account in any decision by the Home Office and the advisory council.
Michael Fabricant: Could I tempt my hon. Friend to agree with me that, if one or two doctors agree that cannabis should be prescribed for medicinal purposes—I repeat, for medicinal purposes—it should be prescribed now?
Mrs. Lait: I am not an expert, but I understand that a Government-sponsored research programme is finding out what the effects are. I am a great believer in not doing anything until we have discovered all the evidence, which is possibly why I have criticisms of the Home Secretary's statement to the Select Committee, which was perhaps taken the wrong way. He announced a change in drugs policy before all the evidence was properly examined. We must consider the evidence, and I hope that the full weight of the medical evidence on the effects of long-term cannabis use will be taken fully into account in any decision.
The charity ADAPT is based in Bromley. ADAPT is short for "addicts are people too", and it concentrates on long-term, high-dependency drugs users. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are well aware of that charity. The problem of longer-term, high-dependency users in the current regime instituted by the Home Office is that the treatment they require to stabilise themselves is not being provided.

High-dependency users—there are 45 in Bromley borough alone—have been attending the Laybourne clinic in the east end of London. The clinic has had great success in stabilising those people. As we all know, one problem for drug addicts is their disordered, chaotic lifestyle.
504
As high-dependency users grow older, they recognise that, to bring some stability to their lives, they need to reconnect with their family and friends and with society in general. They need to be able to write the CVs that will get them the jobs that will bring them back to the mainstream. That requires them to keep their drugs use stable as well.
According to ADAPT, under current Home Office policy, those particular users are often told that they must not only reduce their intake by 70 per cent., but go from injecting to oral intake. That may seem simple to those of us who are not drug addicts, but it is an insuperable barrier for many users, and they go straight back to the disordered and chaotic lifestyle that they have been trying desperately to get out of. Since the Laybourne clinic has lost its inspiring light, Dr. Garfoot—the hon. Members I mentioned may expand on that case—four members of ADAPT have died in Bromley alone.
I want the Minister to give an assurance—I did not hear him do so in his introductory comments—that older, high-dependency, injecting users will also be taken into account in the treatment programmes that are being promoted. All the Minister's comments, with the best will in the world, focused on young people, but this group of older people needs to be treated differently.
On 21 August, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), wrote to me saying:
"Treatment is therefore provided on the basis of clinical need."
No one argues with that—it is all we are asking for—but the hon. Lady continued:
"Hence, treatment of adult drug misusers should not vary according to age per se."
Therefore, under current Home Office and Department of Health policy, age is not recognised, nor are the needs of longer-term drugs users. Unfortunately, many users who were being stabilised and who were coming back into the community as valuable members have to go back on the streets, and they add to the crime that we all deplore because they cannot get the treatment from the Home Office and Department of Health programmes that is necessary to keep them stable.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I shall consider the hon. Lady's comments, but that is not what I am told. I do not pretend that our treatment facilities are adequate, and we are trying to improve them. I am told that they are oriented towards opiate users, most of whom have used those drugs for a long time. We need to develop policies that will reach out to people from ethnic minorities and cocaine users. We have practically nothing in that area, as was exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). I am not certain that what the hon. Lady says is borne out by the facts, but I shall certainly consider the points she made.
Mrs. Lait: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. I was not for a moment suggesting that other groups should not have treatment available to them. All the evidence from ADAPT, of which I am a local patron, is that the treatment those people have been offered is being withdrawn. That is the crucial point.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, who has made an

505
excellent point. Is she aware that there were 270 patients in the Laybourne clinic a couple of months ago, and between them they had spent 600 years in jail, yet the clinic has a recidivism rate of just 7 per cent. compared with 50 per cent. for the Prison Service? Unfortunately, the clinic is threatened with closure.
Mrs. Lait: I was not aware of those figures, as I have concentrated on the people from Bromley who attended the clinic. However, I was aware of the recidivism figures, and I congratulate the clinic on its success. It is very sad that the General Medical Council struck off Dr. Garfoot.
The Under-Secretary said in her letter that she hoped the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse would soon be in a position to start issuing guidance on model treatment services. If the treatment services have been geared so much to long-term users as the Minister says—I do not doubt him; I am sure he has been advised correctly—why are those users finding that the services to which they were accustomed are being withdrawn? Furthermore, why do I find that four members of ADAPT who lived in Bromley are sadly no longer with us—the ostensible reason being that they took brown heroin as opposed to the heroin needed to stabilise them and allow them to remain in the community?
I hope that the Minister will comment, or write to me, on Government policy regarding the treatment of high-dependency, long-term injecting users.
11.41 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: This debate, which I welcome, is the first major drugs debate that we have had since 2 July 1999. Much has happened since then, and I think the mood of Parliament and, especially, the people has changed.
I congratulate Lady Runciman's committee and the Police Foundation. They have, in part, catalysed the change of direction. The Government, fortunately, have accepted 24 of the 81 recommendations, and 20 are still under consideration, including the one on cannabis reclassification. However, I want to move the debate on to new ground, beginning with the proposed legislation arising from the consultation document "New National Minimum Standards for Care Homes", published by the Department of Health last July, and the likely impact of the proposed new regulations on drug and alcohol treatment centres. Because of the summer recess, we have had little time to debate those proposals.
The background to today's debate is the dire shortage of treatment and rehabilitation beds in residential homes throughout the country. I welcome the establishment of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse in April this year, and wish it well. I hope that it will have a major impact not only on the quantity but on the quality of treatment places available.
Single lockable bedrooms, preferably with en suite bathrooms but at the very least with adjacent bathrooms, are proposed as a minimum standard for care homes. Communal facilities for catering and other activities for clusters of between eight and no more than 16 bed spaces are also recommended. The report contains other recommendations, but I shall not dwell on them today.
506
The cost of treatment is already very high. If those minimum standards are accepted, many homes for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug and alcohol addicts will have to close, at a time of great need. The owners cannot afford the conversion costs, and would price themselves out of the market as a result of the much-increased unit costs arising from such a reduction in the number of bed spaces. It is estimated that 50 per cent. of existing bed spaces would be lost in the sector, and there would be little incentive for the provision of new ones. That is sheer madness at a time like this. Many treatment places are provided by charitable organisations, which already find it difficult to raise the necessary money.
The idea of locked rooms is also unacceptable. The vulnerable people involved might accidentally overdose, or attempt suicide under the pressure of treatment in the centres. Treatment can be very unpleasant, causing the withdrawal symptoms that we know about. Patients and their professional carers therefore prefer at least two people to be in each room, so that one can support the other through a difficult and emotional time. Indeed, sharing is seen as part of therapeutic treatment.
The recommendation for access to visitors to be available 24 hours a day is an open invitation to drug dealers to visit the premises. In any case, it is often better to isolate drug addicts from their peer groups and friends during the detoxification programme. Even close family members are best kept away in certain instances, because they too can exert emotional pressures.
When clients are consulted—we do not consult drug addicts often enough—they are most interested in access to treatment, the quality of staff, structured treatment programmes and well-linked service provision. They rarely mention the quality of accommodation, and the quality of accommodation in this sector is quite high anyway.
I recognise that minimum standards for other care homes will be welcomed, but I ask the Government to think again about the impact of the proposed regulations on drug and alcohol addiction and rehabilitation services. After all, the closure of homes in this sector would have a major impact on the Government's crime reduction strategy. Has my hon. Friend the Minister had any discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Health? If not, may I ask him to do so?
Surely, the minimum standards set out in the consultation document published in July are intended mainly to improve the quality of life for long-term residents in homes, for example the elderly. Are they really meant to affect homes in which people dwell for only a short period? Would it not be better to allow the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to determine care standards for residential homes in this sector?
It strikes me that drug treatment in the past has consisted of methadone, methadone, methadone, and little else. Although methadone is useful as an opiate substitute, I have long argued that addicts should be given a choice of treatment. I am told that methadone is often harder to give up than heroin. For many years, I have advocated the use of other opiate substitutes such as buprenorphine and LAAM—laevo-alpha-acetylmethadol. Fortunately buprenorphine, the drug of choice in France and Australia and easier to give up than methadone, is now more readily

507
available on prescription in this country than it used to be. I have also advocated the availability of abstinence programmes such as the 12-step programmes, and the use of clinically pure heroin—or diamorphine, as the medics prefer to call it—for long-term addicts who have developed high tolerance levels to that addictive drug.
As has been said, the former chief constable for Gwent, Francis Wilkinson, published a paper only this week in which he suggested that we should try to secure clinical treatment with pure heroin for as many as possible of the estimated 300,000 heroin addicts in order, initially, to stabilise their lives before offering further treatment or even detoxification. That would constitute a return to the old British system that we left behind in 1971, under pressure from the Americans, when there were far fewer heroin addicts than there are today. In 1960, for example, there were only 685 registered heroin addicts in this country.
When he bravely announced the reclassification of cannabis, the Home Secretary gave notice that he would make an announcement in the spring about heroin prescribing. Let us hope that he sees a role for the registration and treatment of heroin addicts in the same way. That would constitute a huge harm-reduction programme, not to mention the serious impact that it would have on criminal behaviour. I estimate that up to 70 per cent. of crime in metropolitan areas is drug related.
As other Members have said, the current war on drugs is not working as a strategy. I am pleased that the Home Secretary is prepared to review it, and to think radically. None of us are soft on drugs, but some of us believe that the time has come—as in other European countries—to conduct some experiments in policy.
With regard to the amendment to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, many of us who are interested in drug addition were concerned about the outcome of the so-called Winter Comfort case in which John Brock and Ruth Wyner were imprisoned for allowing drugs to be used on premises that they were running in Cambridge to help drug addicts. The verdict has had a ripple effect throughout organisations that have known drug addicts on their premises on a care basis, including housing authorities. Since then, section 8, which deals with drug-related incidents on premises, has been amended by a section in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, although I understand that no guidance has been issued by the Home Office on that change. It would be helpful if the Minister were to update the House on that.
The Government say that the amendment of section 8 is unrelated to the conviction of the Cambridge two and that it was introduced to deal with crack houses, which are prevalent in London. There are several concerns about that amendment, but shortage of time allows me to refer to only a few of them briefly.
If, as in the case of several European countries, we eventually introduce supervised consumption of heroin for known addicts, which some hon. Members have called for today, the amendment could conflict with that policy. If possession of cannabis is to be a non-arrestable offence and the amendment to section 8 is implemented, ironically the owner of the premises on which people are in possession of cannabis could be arrested, but not the person in possession of the cannabis, which is silly.
The amendment to section 8 conflicts with the Government's policy of reducing drug-related deaths because drug users will he driven out of premises and
508
forced into the open air to inject where they are known to be at greater risk. In addition, providers of supported housing are unlikely to provide such housing for vulnerable drug addicts under those circumstances.
My final point relates to something that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said. I was recently made aware of a number of doctors who have been subjected to disciplinary action in relation to their treatment of drug users. Those doctors fall into a group of people who believe that drug addicts are victims and need specially tailored treatment and counselling, rather than criminals who should be punished. They are something of a rare breed because the majority of general practitioners—94 per cent. in fact—are unwilling to treat drug users, which leaves the addicts with no alternative other than to continue to use street drugs. Indeed, budding doctors in our medical schools get little training in drug addiction.
I have been closely involved with the case of Dr. Adrian Garfoot, who has long been treating long-term drug addicts in London, many of whom were extremely chaotic and even dangerous when they approached him for help. He has treated such people for more than 24 years. In 1991 he opened the private Laybourne clinic. which has also been mentioned. His method of treatment involved prescribing pure substances such as injectable methadone at an adequate level so as to enable the user to move away from the street drugs that can have a detrimental effect on the user's life.
A new patient would be subjected to a series of tests to determine their individual tolerance level. The prescription would be dispensed on a weekly basis. Throughout the treatment, the drug users would become more stable because of the regular supply of the drugs that they desired. As the prescribed drugs were of a purer form, they were not subjected to the differences in quality of street drugs. As their treatment progressed, it was often possible to reduce the level of drug use. In addition, as the addicts were attending a clinic on a regular basis it was possible to assist with the treatment of drug-related illnesses, such as those caused by HIV and the hepatitis C virus, from which many addicts suffer without their knowledge.
Most of Dr. Garfoot's patients have been able to lead normal lives again following their stabilisation. Many have worked and many have rejoined their families. Without his or a similar doctor's help, a considerable number of them would be dead. I am not a great fan of private medicine, but the public sector seems unable to cope with those long-term patients. I never thought that I would live to see the day when I would be defending private medicine in the House, but since 1982 Dr. Garfoot's activities have been scrutinised by the Home Office drug unit, now known as the action against drugs unit, because he was found consistently to be prescribing high levels of drugs to his patients. For the majority of doctors, that would be seen as irresponsible prescribing, but it is important to remember that his patients were long-term and often chaotic addicts with a high tolerance threshold that required a high dose. Had he prescribed smaller doses, his patients would have gone out on to the streets to top up to get the same high.
Dr. Garfoot was eventually brought before a Home Office tribunal in 1992. The process from inception to a verdict took five years and the conclusion was reached that he should be cleared of wrongdoing. A verdict of abuse of process was recorded in 1997, the last time that

509
that Home Office procedure was used. Since then, such disciplinary investigations have fallen under the remit of the General Medical Council. I recently asked the Home Office in a written question why its procedures were no longer in use. Its response was:
"They are cumbersome, time consuming and inflexible."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 287W.]
However, the measures introduced by the GMC in the wake of the Harold Shipman case would be draconian by comparison if applied to doctors such as Dr. Garfoot. I understand the Government's concern when such doctors lose a patient or two because of an overdose—usually, incidentally, by topping up from suppliers outside the clinics—but that is not a reason to consider them in the same light as a Dr. Shipman. Far more of their patients die on the streets when they are not receiving any treatment.
Mr. Bellingham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Garfoot case there was no evidence of any diversion of drugs from patients or of any harm that came to patients? The hon. Gentleman made a good point about GMC procedure. Is he also aware that under the old Misuse of Drugs Act tribunal procedure the punished doctor could go back to his mainstream GP practice? The new GMC procedures mean that he cannot do that and is, struck off for perhaps five years and loses his livelihood.
Dr. Iddon: I am aware of those issues.
The sweeping new measures that operate through the GMC's interim orders committee have allowed it immediately to suspend or put sanctions on a doctor who is suspected of misconduct. Dr. Garfoot was subjected to that procedure after it was discovered that he was prescribing high dose levels to his patients and was accused of irresponsible prescribing. The IOC ruling meant that he was forced to reduce the number of patients he was treating and could not accept new patients. In the aftermath of the decision, taken only a few weeks ago, two of the doctor's patients have died, and I heard today that it could be as many as four. Of the cases which I am aware, one died from an overdose after being forced back on to the streets, and another tragically committed suicide.
The GMC's case against Dr. Garfoot dates back to 1996. Since then, he has been subjected to two preliminary conduct committees, three interim order committees and one professional conduct committee. That is the harassment of a doctor who is trying to do good deeds in the community. In any case, such a legal process is incredibly costly; I believe that a similar case cost £500,000 to conduct. As the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, the procedures are not simple. The appeals process leads to the Privy Council, so the cost of an appeal must be prohibitive.
John Marks practised the old British system similar to the Garfoot treatment in Widnes. His practice was forced to close in 1995, and by 1997—just two years later—40 of his patients had died. That is an incredible indictment of our drug policies, and it also shows the level of dependence that the addicts have on such doctors.
I am aware that 15 doctors have now been subject to such procedures. And what happens when they are struck off? Some 200 to 300 addicts are precipitated on to the streets of our major towns and cities, and, as the House has heard, many of them die.
510
When John Marks practised in Widnes, the local crime rate went down by an astonishing 50 per cent. He was driven out because health authorities refused to fund him, and he had to go to New Zealand to practice the old British system.
Dr. Garfoot has helped 1,200 addicts, and I submit to my hon. Friend the Minister that many them would have died if Dr. Garfoot had not been allowed to treat them. Indeed, may I be so bold as to request my hon. Friend to seek a meeting with his counterpart in the Department of Health so that they can review the General Medical Council's procedures as they affect doctors who are willing and able to treat long-term drugs addicts who no other general practitioner and not even the health service are willing to take on board?
When the Home Office special tribunals were set up, James Callaghan, who was Home Secretary at the time, spoke of
"irresponsible, careless, or negligent prescribing or unduly liberal prescribing with bona fide intent, which may justify curtailing the doctor's authority in relation to controlled drugs in order to stop a supply for misuse, but not justify the drastic course of disqualifying him altogether".—[Official Report, 25 March 1970; Vol. 798. c. 145.]
I have been in contact with the GMC to express my concern about the way in which the interim order procedures are currently implemented and to ask it what alternative arrangements it is making for the 200 to 300 patients who have to resort to street drugs when doctors are struck off. I am sad to say that no arrangements are being made, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine that issue.
I have tried to show how Government policies across the different Departments of State can have an unexpected impact on the way in which we deal with drug addiction if those policies are not thought through carefully. I hope that my contribution has been constructive and that my hon. Friend will take account of my points.
12.2 pm
Michael Fabricant: The Garfoot case is, indeed, a scandal. I hope that the Minister will examine it in much more detail.
This has been a particularly informed debate. Although it is invidious to pick out individual contributions, those of the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) were especially valuable.
I am afraid that I have to leave the Chamber at about 12.30 pm, for which I apologise. I have a constituency engagement and there is a lack of trains to Lichfield. I hope that I will be in the Chamber to hear the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) but, if I am not, I promise him and the Minister that I will read their remarks in Hansard.
The Minister said that he welcomed an adult debate on the drugs issue. He was right to say that, and this has been an adult debate. Drugs are a dreadful scourge, and not just in Manchester, Central; they are a problem even in the leafy lanes of Lichfield. Market traders there have told me that syringes are often found first thing in the morning in the city square. The scourge faces us all nationally.
We are debating not whether drugs are a scourge, but how the problem can best be dealt with. It is revealing that when the hon. Member for Newport, West asked the

511
Minister which of the Government's strategies have worked, he was unable to answer. That is simply because there is evidence that prohibition in the broadest sense does not work.
I asked earlier whether an analogy could be drawn between prohibition in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s and the prohibition that exists now in the United Kingdom. I do not advocate that we lift the prohibition on all drugs because I do not believe that we know what the consequences would be. From now on, I shall address my comments solely to soft drugs, and cannabis in particular.
I reiterate my earlier point that all the evidence shows that prohibition in America in the 1920s and 1930s bred not only gangsterism but alcoholism. If one were to draw an analogy with the United Kingdom, one could strongly observe that, under prohibition, gangsterism in drug pushing has led to greater numbers of people taking drugs and becoming addicted. The Government and academic bodies need to consider that in far more detail.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one could extend the analogy and observe that, under prohibition, unregulated production meant that the alcohol itself caused death, as well as blindness? Are there not strong parallels between those circumstances and the present situation in Britain?
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. We have heard about the number of deaths caused by people taking impure ecstasy. I am not advocating the free availability of ecstasy, but clearly one could argue that if it were available under controlled conditions, at least deaths would not be caused by contaminated tablets.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Nobody would argue with the assertion that prohibition in America had dreadful consequences, but, in the interests of a serious debate, may I ask where the hon. Gentleman acquired the evidence that alcoholism increased during that period? Instances of liver cirrhosis fell considerably, and although the alcohol consumed was probably stronger than before because hard liquor was easier to smuggle, overall alcohol consumption fell too. I do not deny that prohibition caused massive problems, but from where did the hon. Gentleman get his evidence?
Michael Fabricant: From the United States Senate inquiry in 1941, and I refer the Minister to its report, which supports my argument. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman and I are arguing about the general principle of the issue, but there are important analogies to be drawn.
If we had known hundreds of years ago of the consequences of consuming alcohol and tobacco, might we not have made those substances illegal too, because it is becoming clear in this debate that they are also drugs? It was said earlier that cannabis can be a gateway to harder drugs. One could argue that the gateway exists because cannabis, like harder drugs, is illegal, and alcohol and tobacco are not necessarily gateways to harder drugs simply because one can acquire them legally and does not have to come into contact with pushers. The House and the Government must consider those arguments in detail.
The Minister rightly, said that the Home Secretary's announcement during evidence to the Home Affairs Committee did not constitute an official change of policy,
512
although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that its timing was very suspect indeed.
The Minister was also honest, as is his wont, in answering my question. He said that he would perhaps be surprised if cannabis were not reclassified—I think that I summarise his words correctly. In the light of that perfectly legitimate answer, it is worth stating the present position on taking cannabis.
I shall quote a Drugscope briefing paper, which several hon. Members have been given. Interestingly, it states:
"Britain still has some of the toughest drug laws of any European country. Britain also has one of the biggest drug problems and the highest addiction rates."
Sadly, it states:
"Around half of young people (16–24) have tried illegal drugs, 29 per cent. in the last year. Over a third (34 per cent.) of all adults (16–59) have tried drugs, 11 per cent. in the past year."
The key point is:
"Cannabis is the most widely consumed drug in all age groups and 70–85 per cent. of offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act are cannabis related—mostly possession."
As we have heard, some constabularies have chosen to take a view about how they will handle people found in possession of small amounts of cannabis that is solely for their own use. That is an enlightened and important policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, who speaks from the Front Bench, spoke about road accidents. I agree that it is wrong to drive a vehicle when under the influence of alcohol or any other drug, including cannabis. I hope that the Minister will say how the Home Office will assist police forces to detect those who drive under the influence of cannabis, just as they are equipped to detect those who drive under the influence alcohol. I strongly believe that there is no defence for driving under the influence of any drug, be it alcohol or cannabis.
I simply want to say in conclusion that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) only on the medicinal prescription of cannabis and other drugs. I understand her argument that a review is being undertaken of whether drugs should be prescribed for specific purposes, but we should not hide behind that. Some health authorities hide behind the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. In south Staffordshire, anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs are not being prescribed to people with rheumatoid arthritis because it is argued that the issue is currently being investigated by NICE. That is an excuse: those drugs are not being prescribed because South Staffordshire health authority does not have the money to do so; other health authorities are prescribing them, even though NICE is reviewing their use.
Similarly, we should not use the review of whether doctors should be allowed to prescribe certain drugs for medicinal purposes as an excuse not to consider their use. Overwhelming evidence shows that those who suffer from multiple sclerosis and certain forms of cancer benefit medicinally from being prescribed those drugs. It is absolutely wrong that people who suffer from such diseases are threatened with criminal prosecution, as are their doctors for making the drugs available to them. I would be prepared to say that if we are to be cautious, perhaps two general practitioners should sign the prescription.

513
I urge the Minister to ensure that, as quickly as possible, the law is changed, or guidance issued to police forces, so that if two doctors believe that any drug ought to be prescribed to alleviate suffering or to cure people of drug addiction, they are allowed to prescribe it now, without fear of prosecution. I do not believe that the House—or even the Home Office—knows better than medical practitioners.
12.15 pm
Ms Oona King: Why is this debate so important? It is because, as we all know, drugs misuse ruins lives and fuels crime and anti social behaviour. In Tower Hamlets, where I live, everyone is affected by drugs, whether they have ever taken a drug in their lives or not.
The starting point is clear—how do we protect individuals and communities against drug abuse? We must take an evidence-based approach that prioritises harm reduction above everything else, and that means putting harm reduction above our human tendency to moralise and judge.
I want our drugs policy to target the drugs that harm us most and cause the greatest destruction in our communities. Which drugs harm us most? Every year in Britain, 10 people die from taking ecstasy and 2,100 from taking other illegal drugs; 30,000 die from alcohol use; and 120,000 die from smoking. No one in Britain has ever died from taking cannabis. It is instructive to consider the fact that although cigarettes kill the most people, they do not destroy our communities as some other drugs do. In my view, the drugs that do most to destroy our communities are heroin, crack cocaine and alcohol. Those are the drugs that we need to do most to deal with, using well thought out and well funded harm reduction strategies.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that supply, demand and harm reduction strategies must be more balanced, and that that is what the Government are trying to do. He also said that we must get an effective message across to young people. Again, I am pleased that since 1999 the Government have increased the proportion of secondary schools with drug education programmes from 86 to 93 per cent. Sadly, however, we have to accept that the drugs policies of successive Governments have sabotaged the attempt to send an effective message to young people. Worse than that, they have criminalised many young people, 42 per cent. of whom have tried cannabis at some point.
I cannot help mentioning the glaring contradictions raised by the speech of the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Since entering the House, I have not heard such a weak speech from any Front-Bench spokesman. That genuinely saddens me, as on this subject we need strong and intelligent debate. The hon. Gentleman's speech showed a complete absence of intellectual rigour. He spoke with passion about cannabis suppliers getting up to 14 years in jail, but completely failed to answer the telling point that those who supply drugs that cause much greater harm, and kill far more people, often end up with a peerage instead of a jail term. Why is that? Mainly, it is because most members of the establishment choose to relax with
514
a glass of wine or a cigarette. They do not, on the whole, roll themselves a joint. Their choice of recreational drug is considered acceptable, but the choice of millions of other people in Britain is criminalised.
The problem was well set out in an extremely thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). He points out that the problem is not recreational drugs use, whatever drug is used, whether it is alcohol, tobacco or even cocaine—although not crack cocaine. It is not recreational drugs use that is the problem; it is addiction.
Mr. Prisk: Despite not being a member of the establishment and therefore not knowing whether or not they gently roll a joint, or whatever the terminology is, may I ask whether the hon. Lady thinks we can ever strike a balance between what she defines as recreational drugs use and addiction? Where would she draw the line? Where does recreational drugs use end?
Ms King: It is not possible to draw a line in the sand. I consider that if I have had more than three glasses of wine, I have crossed the line and tipped from recreation into drunkenness. That is my view, but down in the Bars I regularly see many other Members of Parliament tanking up on pint after pint or bottle after bottle of alcohol. There will never be an obvious or simple answer to that question. The question to ask is, when does drug use start to ruin one's life? When do one's usual daily activities start to suffer? At what point does one become unable to carry out other functions?
I pay tribute to two organisations, Addaction and Transform, and to the authors of the Runciman and the Police Foundation reports. Everyone involved with them has argued for an evidence-based approach, so let us look at the evidence.
There is a strong relationship between hard-drugs use and crime. It is estimated that between 50 and 70 per cent. of street and house crime is drugs related. Nowhere is the effect more devastating than in an area such as Tower Hamlets; no one suffers more than low-income groups. A Home Office study revealed that 13 per cent. of criminals in custody were convicted of drugs offences—that is twice the proportion recorded 10 years ago. Of all those arrested, 65 per cent. tested positive for one or more drugs. It is estimated that goods to the value of £1.3 billion are stolen each year by people who use class A drugs.
Given those facts, it is easy to understand the temptation to try to deal with addiction from a criminal justice perspective, but I believe that sending people to prison is not always the best answer—although, obviously, it depends on what else they have done. Sending people to prison does nothing to rehabilitate them or to protect society. Of all male offenders aged between 17 and 21 who were discharged for original drugs offences, 49 per cent. were reconvicted. That is a stunning indictment of the system. The evidence shows that the system does not work. It is estimated that one in five inmates take drugs in prison. Mandatory drugs testing revealed that 18.3 per cent. of inmates use drugs inside prison, and many experts fear that in some prisons the proportion is nearer 60 per cent. The drugs treatment strategy in prisons has been reviewed as part of the Government's 10-year strategy and more money is being

515
directed to treatment in prisons, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister stated in his closing remarks, or in writing, what further measures the Government will take to improve treatment and rehabilitation in prisons.
I want the House to reflect on the situation in what has been described as the heroin capital of London. I and other residents of Tower Hamlets are greatly distressed that the borough in which we live and which has so many positive characteristics has acquired that terrible tag. The price of heroin in Tower Hamlets is the cheapest in London. There are kids in Tower Hamlets who can buy heroin for less than it costs them to buy chocolate. Drugs agencies in Tower Hamlets have seen a 50 per cent. increase in heroin abuse in two years. The greatest increase in that abuse has been within the Bengali community, where drug use has risen from about 10 per cent. of those coming in to 40 per cent. A further rise is expected.
Previously, hard drugs abuse was mainly confined to young white men. However, the situation is changing rapidly. Is our response changing rapidly to deal with that? More than 50 per cent. of the increase in heroin smoking among the under-20s can be attributed to the rise in the reported incidence of drugs use in the Bangladeshi and Asian community. There is speculation among service providers that that could be an underestimate of the true picture.
The influence of ethnicity on illicit drugs use is an under-researched topic. I ask the Minister to take that up when he replies. There is a degree to which ethnicity overlaps other social variables such as unemployment and deprivation. I understand why there is that correlation, but we must undertake further research. Black and minority ethnic drugs users are less likely to use drugs agencies. Their reasons include a lack of awareness about the agencies. They complain that there is little cultural sensitivity or understanding once they get to an agency. Another factor is the ethnicity of the drugs agency staff. In particular, there is a lack of provision for women who may have a drugs problem. The number of women in that position is set to increase.
The national context is one of increasing drugs use among black minority ethnic communities. That is not unexpected given the concentration of these communities in areas of high unemployment and deprivation, coupled with experience of both overt and covert racism. However, that is not the issue with which we wish to concern ourselves today. We want to think about how we can help such people break drugs addiction.
We should consider how other European countries are dealing with the problem of drugs abuse. It is obvious that we have much to learn. We have the highest level of drugs use and misuse and the largest prison population in Europe. In contrast to our policy, many other EU countries have effectively decriminalised the possession of all drugs to focus resources on treatment and the supply side. Logic dictates such an approach, and I support it.
The average age of heroin users in the Netherlands is 36, and rising. The average age in the UK is 26 and falling. The Dutch are widely and wrongly believed to have legalised cannabis. In fact, cannabis is illegal in Holland. The Dutch policy has, in effect, created a regulated market for the small-scale supply of cannabis to adults through coffee shops. The Dutch have a similar
516
level of cannabis use to other countries but there is a lower prevalence of the use of cannabis than in the UK, especially among young people aged 16 to 19.
The Dutch have a stable population of problem drugs users with a rising average age. A high proportion of those users are in touch with treatment agencies. The ratio of drugs-related deaths to other deaths is the lowest in Europe. I want our ratio of such deaths to become lower.
Mr. Mark Hoban: We can all trade figures on drug use in the Netherlands. Is the hon. Lady aware that there was a 50 per cent. increase in heroin addiction in the Netherlands between 1988 and 1997 and that the level of cocaine use by Dutch people aged between 14 and 16 is the highest in Europe? The evidence that she is presenting about the benefits of Dutch policy seems to be in doubt.
Ms King: I see the former Cabinet member, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), shaking his head and suggesting that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. I cannot respond to them here and now, but let me repeat that the proportion of people suffering drugs-related deaths is lower in Holland than here. That is something we should want to replicate.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend at least accept that the argument is more complex than is sometimes acknowledged? For instance, someone said earlier that we and the Swedes had the most restrictive, law and order oriented policies in Europe, and cited that as the reason for our high levels of drugs use, but Sweden has lower levels than Holland.
Ms King: Of course, I take my hon. Friend the Minister at his word, and I would want to consider that evidence. The whole point is that we need an evidence-based approach, and we have not had that up to now.
We can draw important lessons from how other European Union countries have dealt with the problem. There is benefit to be had from treating demand problems as primarily health problems and minimising the social exclusion of young people through drugs offending. It would also be beneficial to separate the market for cannabis from that for heroin. If those members of the establishment about whom we were talking earlier—Members of Parliament must accept that they are in the establishment—had to go to a heroin dealer to get their glass of port, they would be extremely distressed.
Finally, I want to consider the issues of addiction and treatment. In Britain, on average, drugs use commences at the age of 15. It becomes a problem at 17, but help is not sought until 22. It is in that window between 17 and 22 that the drug users lifestyles deteriorate and problems become monumental, putting the users and others at risk. They may enter a life of crime to feed their addiction or compromise their health by using non-safe injecting practices, resulting in hepatitis C or HIV infection. Their behaviour will have led to a loss of stability, of family and friends, and the natural maturation processes are slowed. Many put themselves outside the normal routes to progress through stability in family life and through education and work.
The Government have invested substantially in treatment services and believe that treatment works, but will they consider changing the proportion of spending on

517
treatment and on prevention? Unfortunately, the money spent on prevention, sending messages to young people like me throughout the 1980s on campaigns such as "Just say no"—I do not know whether it was Nancy Reagan who put us off—was simply wasted. It did not work. The Government still spend a lot of money trying to get the message across, but young people simply reject it. They do not believe the message, because their personal experience shows them that part of it is flawed. Cannabis is not good for you, but they cannot accept that it is worse than cigarettes or alcohol, so they throw the baby out with the bathwater.
My plea is that we tackle drug abuse from a health rather than a criminal justice angle. In so doing, I believe that we will reduce crime and restore some integrity and security to the communities that need it most.
12.34 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and I largely agree with what she said so lucidly. I shall endeavour to be brief, as I know that other hon. Members who have taken a consistent interest in the subject for longer, perhaps, than I have, wish to speak.
I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that I raised the issue of alcohol prohibition in my maiden speech, when I quoted the shortest-ever maiden speech to the House, which was given during the 1920s, when prohibition was in force in the United States. It was made by a Labour Member representing a coal-mining constituency, who was incensed by Lady Astor banging on from the Conservative Benches about the need to ban the demon drink and outlaw the sale of alcohol. Eventually, as I said in my maiden speech, he could stand it no more, so he leapt to his feet, caught the Speaker's eye, and in six brief words gave his maiden and only speech:
"No bloody beer, no bloody coal."—[0fficial Report, 24 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 498.]
Then he sat down again. I cannot promise to be that succinct, but I shall try to be brief.
One thing I learned when I was in the financial markets that is true also in the political world is that when something is inevitable, it happens sooner than one expects. In July, I published a pamphlet that began with the words:
"The decriminalisation of cannabis is inevitable".
I should not have been surprised that the Government made a move in that direction rather more speedily than most people thought likely and than I expected. I give due credit to the Home Secretary for that move and for having the courage to eat not only some of his own words, but a large meal of the Prime Minister's words in making that U-turn. It is welcome as far as it goes, but I shall explain why it does not go far enough.
First, however, I shall explain how I became convinced that reform of the cannabis laws was both inevitable and desirable and, discuss the extent to which the change announced by the Home Secretary will end the damage done by attempts to prohibit the sale and use of cannabis.
The subject is characterised by a threefold confusion, between the immoral and the illegal, use and abuse, and soft and hard drugs. On use, I should say that I have never
518
used cannabis and have no desire to do so. As far as I know, I am the only Member of either party who has been a Front Bencher who has emphatically and convincingly denied ever using cannabis. That is probably why 1 have a clear enough head to realise that the attempt to prohibit it is inevitably doomed to failure.
On a more serious note, with reference to morality and legality, as a Christian, I have a profound moral objection to drug abuse, by which I mean abuse of anything, be it alcohol or cannabis, to the extent to which it deprives one of one's self-control and undermines one's conscience, thereby leading one to other acts that may be damaging to one's neighbour or ultimately to oneself and society as a whole.
There are many things, however, that are immoral but not illegal and which it would be foolish to make illegal. Adultery is immoral, but none of us would seriously suggest that the state make it illegal. If we were more willing to teach and do what the Minister said we should not do—preach what is right and wrong and what is moral and immoral—we would need less recourse to the law and have a freer and more responsible society.
Before I thought through all those arguments, I used to rehearse fairly mechanically, as one does, the line to take and the arguments for the status quo in constituency meetings with young people and their parents and grandparents. I hope that I am so sufficiently convincing and experienced an apologist that I convinced some that the status quo was sustainable, but each time I became less and less convinced. The arguments seemed to crumble in my hands when I was faced with the evidence.
The two main arguments that have been used to sustain the policy of prohibition are that cannabis is damaging to one's health and that it is a gateway drug. I read a great deal of medical research on the health issue. Instead of relying on my assessment, I quoted The Lancet review of the evidence in my pamphlet, which is available from the Social Market Foundation at £5 or from my website free of charge. The Lancet published the evidence in 1998 and concluded:
"On the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill effect on health, and decisions to ban or to legalise cannabis should therefore be based on other considerations."
I have argued that in public, and the comeback was similar to Hegel's response when his disciples pointed out that his theories were refuted by the facts. He replied, "So much the worse for the facts."
There has been a tendency to dismiss the evidence. People say, "That's just The Lancet; I found an article in an obscure journal that says there is such and such a health risk." I prefer to rely on a review of all the evidence, published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, rather than picking a study by a lay person who has not subjected it to peer review. Almost all the comprehensive reviews of the evidence, not only that by The Lancet, show that the health risks of moderate use are not great.
I do not want simply to win the argument. In the past two or three months, I have tried to single out the most difficult arguments to tackle, and I shall speak about the two strongest counter-arguments. The first concerns schizophrenia. There is evidence that cannabis can precipitate psychotic episodes in those who are liable to

519
schizophrenia, but it is disputed and not strong. It is based on the medical records of Swedish army conscripts, and half those heavy cannabis users who were subsequently diagnosed schizophrenic had taken amphetamines, which are known to precipitate the condition.
Schizophrenia affects only slightly more than 1 per cent. of the population and appears to be genetically preconditioned. Those who rely on the evidence I described effectively acknowledge that the health risks for 98 per cent. of the population are those that The Lancet found. However, there is a risk to the 1 or 2 per cent. who are liable to schizophrenia. Cannabis use will not cause the condition, but it may induce it earlier.
We must acknowledge that hundreds of mentally ill people die every year from paracetamol and aspirin overdoses. Nobody gives that as a reason for outlawing their sale. I cannot help believing that people seize on the schizophrenia argument to try to outlaw cannabis for the other 98 per cent. of the population. We should make people more aware of the health risks for schizophrenics; legalisation will make that possible.
The other strong health argument involves cancer. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) pointed out, no one has died from a cannabis overdose, but if people smoked as much cannabis as ordinary cigarettes, they would probably be more likely to contract cancer than regular tobacco smokers. However, almost no one smokes cannabis as heavily as heavy smokers smoke tobacco, so the argument is somewhat artificial. We must acknowledge that the health risks exist and we should try to ensure that people know about them. That will be possible only if we move to a system more liberal than the current one or that proposed by the Government.
The other key argument is that of the gateway—taking cannabis leads to using hard drugs. There is clearly no chemical predisposition caused by taking cannabis that leads people to take hard drugs. That is essentially the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that, because people do one thing first and another later, the first caused the second. It is like saying that most people who ride motor cycles previously rode bicycles, but that if bicycles did not exist, they would never have got on a motor cycle or that we could stop people moving on to motor cycling by banning bicycles.
The underlying gateway argument is that cannabis leads to hard drugs and that we therefore need to prohibit cannabis, but that is the reverse of the truth. Making the supply and possession of cannabis a criminal offence drives people through the gates of the law into the illegal world in which they must acquire their supplies from people who may also push heroin, cocaine and other hard drugs.
The simple fact is that, so long as the possession and sale of cannabis remain criminal offences, that reverse gateway effect will apply. Legislation is the only way to overcome it, which is why I propose that we should empower the magistrates in each area to license one or more outlets to sell cannabis in small quantities for retail use to those over 18 from premises which would carry no alcohol, which would lose their licence if there were the slightest reasonable suspicion that they handled any hard or illegal drugs and which would be bound to carry a health warning on what they sold and in their premises.
Unless or until we do that, we shall not break the link between the supply of cannabis and the supply of hard drugs. That has been the great success in the Netherlands
520
and one hears a great deal of information about it. Indeed, people frequently tell me what I must have seen when I went over to Amsterdam with the BBC, but they are wrong. I saw some fairly disgusting sights in the red-light quarter connected to the sale of women's bodies and the abuse of women through prostitution; I saw rather less that had to do with drugs.
Dr. Iddon: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a close link between prostitution and drugs in that many women have to exploit their bodies to pay for their drugs?
Mr. Lilley: That is true, if the drugs are illegal. So far as I know, it is not a correlated factor in the Amsterdam red-light quarter. The two happen to be adjacent because of the layout and policing of the area, just as lots of rather sordid things go on in Soho, and it seems to be traditional that they are linked in that area. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.
The great success in Holland has been to break the link between the supply of cannabis and that of hard drugs. I visited the police, the drug rehabilitation clinics and the Salvation Army hostel for derelict users of hard drugs, and everyone agreed that going back, criminalising cannabis and restoring the link between the two supply routes would be a terrible loss to Dutch society. It should be emphatically put on record that no one wanted a return to that. In Holland, the age of heroin addicts and those addicted to other hard drugs is increasing, because they constitute a declining pool that receives relatively few new recruits from young cannabis users, who do not come into contact with the suppliers of hard drugs.
The greatest good that could be done by liberalisation is breaking the link between the supply of hard and soft drugs. Sadly, the reclassification proposed by the Home Secretary will not achieve that. It will, however, achieve one and a half of the four benefits that could be obtained by moving to legalisation. The authorities will be allowed to focus on tackling hard drugs instead of wasting so much effort on cannabis. Hard drugs are the real issue; they can enslave through addiction, drive people to crime and kill.
In this country, 80 per cent. of drug use is cannabis use. Most of the £1 billion to £2 billion spent on the attempt to prohibit drug use goes on trying to prohibit cannabis use. Two thirds of drugs arrests are cannabis related and three quarters of drugs seizures, by weight, are of cannabis. The change that the Home Secretary proposes will stop the cannabis tail wagging the hard drugs dog. It will allow us to focus on tackling hard drugs, not only by reinforcing the prohibition effort, but by allowing more creative effort to be put into policy formation and the health of users.
The change will half help in restoring respect for the law. Currently, the law is unenforceable, because it is indefensible. As a result, millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens break the law from time to time and use cannabis. Some 10 million people in this country claim to have done so, with 4 million doing so in the past year and probably 1 million in the past month. Some 100,000 people a year are arrested as a result.
All that increases the contempt for the law felt especially by young people, who see the differential treatment of cannabis, alcohol and nicotine as essentially

521
hypocritical and demeaning. That effect would be diminished by the changes, although the Home Secretary will not alter the fact that the sale and use of cannabis will still be a crime. Those will not be arrestable offences, and that fact was spun to the media to suggest the end of any contact between cannabis users and the police, but they will remain prosecutable offences, although the police will have to prosecute by summons instead of by arresting people on the spot.
The change will mean that the police will have the option to enforce the law, but, in practice, they will not do so. They will no longer have to indulge in 300,000 stop-and-search operations on the street every year as they do at present. Those cause great friction between the police and some ethnic minority communities, which assume that they are being singled out. Only 12 per cent. of those 300,000 stop-and-search operations find evidence of drugs on the people concerned.
We will be left with an improved, but still odd, position, in which the police may arrest people, but will probably just issue a warning that falls short of a criminal caution. If someone is arrested a second time, they will be warned that, if they do it again, they will be warned again. That will still undermine the respect that young people feel for the law.
Pete Wishart: Is it not important to retain some societal disapproval of the use of soft drugs and cannabis?
Mr. Lilley: Society can disapprove of things without making them against the law. Most of us disapprove of adultery, but we do not try to make it against the law. We must end the belief that there is an identity between morality and legality. Only in totalitarian societies is the state seen as the author of the moral law. In free societies, the moral law springs from within our conscience and our religion, not from the state.
The change will improve the situation, but the law will remain in a contemptible state. That will undermine respect for it among the law-abiding, who will ask why we have such laws on the statute book if they are not enforced in practice.
The change will not achieve the other major gain that would stem from legalisation: it will not prevent the enriching and enlarging of the criminal underworld. We have made an important area of economic activity illegal, so the fruits of that activity are enhanced and the profitability increased, and all goes to the criminal underworld. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) pointed out, that also increases violence and lawlessness among those dealing in cannabis.
New studies show that much of the rise in violence that tends to occur when a substance is prohibited—for example, alcohol in the US in the 1920s and 1930s and cannabis in this country—is down to the fact that the people involved in the trade can no longer resolve disputes by resorting to the law, so they resort to the gun and to force. A legalised system would undermine that and siphon off a great source of wealth for the underworld. I hope that, instead of being attracted to such
522
wealth-creating activities, many such people would join the free and legitimate economy, get proper jobs and become integrated in normal life.
Ms Oona King: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the increase in violence and the criminal underworld. In the light of events of 11 September, does he agree that removing the supply side from those groups would undermine their ability to fund terrorist activities, which depends to a large extent on drug supply remaining illegal?
Mr. Lilley: That is a powerful point, although I have focused my attention on cannabis, not hard drugs. There is a distinction between the two, and it would be a much bigger step to legalise hard drugs. We should take the first step and legalise cannabis, but that would not have any impact on the Afghan situation.
Prohibiting the sale of cannabis has an effect on criminality. The counter argument that is always put is that if we stop people selling cannabis they will push hard drugs even harder, but the contention that criminal gangs do not push the high-margin, addictive substances as hard as they can and are distracted into selling cannabis instead is ludicrous. If it were true, we should prohibit the sale of ice cream so they would all be diverted into that activity, but no one proposes it, because it is nonsensical. Those gangs push hard drugs as hard as they can.
The fifth and final benefit to be gained from legalisation brings me back to where I began: it would leave people greater freedom for personal responsibility in these matters. I believe that the state should intervene only when an activity does clear social damage, when there is widespread support for trying to prevent that activity by law and when the law can achieve some practical purpose. None of those three is true in the case of cannabis.
In general, the more responsibility over their lives we give to people, the more responsibly they will behave—not all of them, but more of them. The more we nanny people and treat them like children, the more infantile will be their behaviour.
Mr. Bellingham: Like the Labour party.
Mr. Lilley: That is an important point, but not one I wanted to make at this juncture.
We should err on the side of liberalisation unless there are strong arguments to the contrary. The change proposed by the Home Secretary is welcome, but it is a first chapter, not the end of the story. The right hon. Gentleman will have to move further in due course, and I hope that he will be encouraged to do so by the general tone of this debate.
12.58 pm
Laura Moffatt: I am pleased to take part in the debate. I have learned an awful lot from the contributions of all hon. Members who have spoken. The House is better able to take the drug strategy forward as a result of this proper debate.
I never believed for one moment that a 10-year plan had to be set in stone and never reconsidered or altered. The welcome decision to examine the issues around cannabis is very important. Arguments have been advanced by many organisations that work with people

523
with drug dependency problems, such as Drugscope. They greatly assist the all-party drug group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), and I am one of the deputy chairs. For a long time those organisations have been calling for a reclassification. They welcome the debate, and I hope that we come to the right conclusion, as I am sure we will.
My interest in drug addiction came from a purely personal interest in the people whom I looked after in my ward when I was a night duty nurse. I was able to spend a long time with people suffering from medical difficulties related to their drug addiction. Profound things have been said by Members about the personal problems of such people, and the humane response that they need from us. That is important, and should be kept at the heart of the debate.
We must never vilify people who run into difficulties with drug addiction. Sadly, too many of us in the House of Commons alone are addicted, I suspect—although we do not know for certain—to drugs, not just prescribed drugs, or to alcohol. It is therefore right for us to give careful consideration to those who have encountered huge drug problems.
In the short time available to me—I know that others are keen to speak; I also know that many of us would like to ramble around the whole issue of drugs strategy—I want to concentrate on my particular interest, which relates to those needing treatment for their drug addiction. Many of us welcome the changes that have taken place. Enormous stability has been brought into the whole issue, and has affected all those involved in helping people with drug addiction. There has been a huge sea change in our approach as professionals, volunteers and politicians to those in our communities. The drug action teams have been instrumental in no small part, sharing good practice, and ensuring that the programmes in our communities are properly validated and are giving the very best service to those who need it.
Let me put a serious point to the Minister. I am involved with several groups, and am keen to support our drug action team in West Sussex—which, incidentally, has achieved beacon status, and works closely with voluntary groups in and around Sussex. What constantly sends us mad is the continual drive to attract money into the service. Programmes may be good and well validated, and I entirely agree that we must be careful to ensure that the work in our communities is valid and having a reasonable effect. We do not expect everyone to be able to come off hard drugs just like that; it is a long process for many people, who may falter and fall several times before managing to remain clean. We cannot expect instant success from such programmes. The need to scrabble around for money and bid for it, however, is a distraction, taking the minds of those involved off the valuable work that they are doing.
I am involved in, and am honorary president of, a group in Brighton called the Oasis project. It is a particularly good project, working entirely for women. Health societies pay for women who have been through the criminal justice system to attend the project. The benefits are enormous: the project prevents women from having to undergo custodial sentences, and allows them to keep their children with them. The children can go to a lovely crèche where they are properly looked after, while their mothers enter a programme that challenges them enormously but also gives them complementary therapies.
524
They are given help and support through information technology and all the other things we have heard about this morning, which are important in allowing people to get back on to their feet and reject drug use. We could debate the legality and illegality of drugs for as long as possible, and this morning's debate has been superb.
When I talked to those people who were addicted to drugs—their lives were chaotic and they had lost their families—it was obvious that they did not want to be taking them. Irrespective of whether their drug use was supported by the NHS or they had to commit crimes to get the money that they needed to feed their addiction, they would rather not be on them. That is very different from how they felt when they started to use drugs. We cannot get away from the fact that the initial experience is good. I am told that the first hit is amazing. How do politicians counter that?
Mr. Mark Field: We all recognise the experience that the hon. Lady describes. I represent one of the few inner-city constituencies held by the Conservatives and I assure you that the concerns of drug-related agencies have been brought to my attention. Does not that undermine what the Government are trying to do elsewhere? The Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 are geared towards supply. Much of what you say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language. He must not use the word "you." I think that he has finished his intervention.
Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I suspect that he will realise that I believe that spending on treatment and care for addicts should be increased. I make no secret of that. However, enforcement is important. The drug strategy can be used as a basis, but it should evolve. I hope that the Bill to which he referred will help.
We must ensure that there is stability for those who can be treated in the community. Residential detoxification is important, but people have to return to their communities and the people around whom the drug culture developed. It is important that they are supported. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on supported tenancies. Sussex Oakleaf housing association has a supported tenancy scheme to keep ex-drug users in their own homes. It is crucial to ensure that the bills are paid and they do not go back to chaotic drug use. It is difficult to say that that is necessarily part of a drug strategy, but we should think of the strategy in the context of the wider community.
Other issues also need our attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) rightly pointed out what a load of old duffers we are for the most part. Perhaps we do not understand that our well meaning messages are badly received by young people. Will the Minister consider greater use of youth forums to take part in partnership discussions with the Home Office on issues such as the messages that we send to young people on drug education? My main concern is to keep young people safe from drug use. The debate on legality and illegality is important, but safety is crucial. Will the Minister consider using young people to help the Home Office, through its agencies, to get the right message to them to stop drug use starting? We have a chance of doing that if we get the emphasis right.
1.9 pm
Pete Wishart: This has been a fine and informative debate. It is useful that we have used the Runciman report as a reference, but I am surprised that it has not received the commendation that it deserves. It is a fine document that suggests several realistic ways forward.
There is no doubt that drugs are one of the most contentious and eagerly debated issues in society. If the public are asked to name the issues that most concern them, drugs invariably and inevitably come in the top five in any list. However, the debate on drugs is one of the least defined and least informed, and that is surprising because drugs as we understand them in their contemporary sense have been with us for four or five decades. As a society, we are experienced in dealing with drugs, but that experience seems to have taught us absolutely nothing.
In the past few decades, drugs use has spiralled out of control to the extent that drug taking among young people is now almost routine. On the darker side of the drug-use spectrum, the economies of some of our most deprived inner-city communities have become almost completely drugs dependent. Drugs are big business. The revenue generated by the illegal drugs trade accounts for probably more than the GDP of small and even medium-sized nations.
Strategy after strategy has been employed to try to deal with drugs problems, but without success. Targets are set but are never met. We employ drugs tsars to achieve absolutely nothing. New campaigns are launched but are sunk beneath an ever-increasing tidal wave of new and impending problems.
As the Minister and the Secretary of State have suggested, we need—I think the Runciman report provides it—an inclusive debate that takes young people, in particular, on board. We need an inclusive and informative debate to which young people think they can contribute.
Two different debates appear to be happening at the same time. The first is held by adult society and particularly by the politicians, who like to legislate and take decisions. We have our preconceptions about drugs use; we come to the issue in a completely different way. We like prescriptive solutions; we like to make laws, launch campaigns and develop strategies and approaches.
The other debate is held by young people. Their terms of reference are sometimes a million miles away from ours. Their understanding of drugs issues is entirely different from ours. As I said, drug taking has become routine for many young people—it is just something that they do. Some of them are amused at our efforts to legislate, but many are irritated by what they see as the hypocrisy at the heart of our debate. We are prepared to legislate and launch campaigns on illegal drugs, but are not prepared to deal with the much more serious problems caused by alcohol abuse and alcohol dependency. At best, what we do inconveniences young people; at worst, we give them an unwarranted police record. The debate held by young people would probably not even be begun to be understood by the majority of people in the House.
Then there is the sinister side of drugs use. I refer to the drugs use that is fired by desolation, despair and depression; that inhabits our socially excluded inner-city communities; and that finances the drugs economy with
526
all its connections with the criminal underworld. This is the drugs use that is responsible for all the drugs-related crime that affects nearly all communities in the United Kingdom; this is the drugs use that must become our priority because it sucks the life out of our very communities.
Drugs legislation must be determined to deal with such drugs use and strategies arid approaches must be determined to tackle the dangerous drugs that bring so much misery to so many of our communities. Drugs legislation must become focused on the most dangerous drugs and on those that do the most harm.
The idea of forming one all-encompassing strategy to deal with all types of drugs is almost too absurd to contemplate. What we need are a number of strategies to deal with the different drugs problems and issues that society faces. For example, the inner-city despair that heroin causes is entirely different from middle-class after-dinner cannabis use. The routine taking of ecstasy by young people out clubbing at the weekend is entirely different from the desolation and despair of the crack dens. Different problems and different issues require different solutions and different approaches. There is not one distinct problem just as there is not one distinct solution.
To underpin all the different strategies we need a legal framework that is credible, particularly for young people, so that it will not be routinely broken, making the law look foolish. Current drugs laws are not easily understood by young people. They do not understand or are hopelessly unaware of the A, B and C classifications and the legal sanctions and penalties attached to them. For example, cannabis is currently a class B drug, but some cannabinoids are class A, which would seem utterly bizarre to many young people.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's experience is slightly different from mine. I have found that young people understand the categorisations but simply regard them as unreasonable, which is one justification for ignoring them.
Pete Wishart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remark, but that is certainly not my experience. Young people taking ecstasy in nightclubs are completely unaware of the legal tariff associated with that drug. Ecstasy is a class A drug, which means that we have decided that it is one of the most dangerous, but young people are not aware of the legal sanction that can be applied if they are found guilty of possessing it.
I find little to disagree with in the Runciman report on reclassification. The SNP suggested reclassification several years ago, and we are pleased to see that the idea has been taken on board. An important element of the report, which I mentioned earlier in an intervention, is that we must be serious in expressing our societal disapproval of drug taking. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) gave an example, pointing out that through application of the law on driving offences we express society's disapproval of those offences. That idea is applicable in drugs legislation.
Too often, the debate about soft drugs, particularly cannabis, is a legal one. Should we legalise cannabis or continue to impose legal sanctions and penalties? A possible third way, suggested by the Runciman report

527
and by the comments of the Home Secretary and the Minister, is to consider reclassifying cannabis as a class C drug. We can continue to express societal disapproval without criminalising young people, and we can discourage them from starting a career of drug taking and experimenting. However, we must acknowledge that drugs use is likely to be a feature of our society, so we should offer as safe an environment as possible.
It is a tenable position to question our current drugs laws without giving wholehearted support to legalisation or even decriminalisation. As I said earlier, I would be concerned that if we legalised or decriminalised cannabis tomorrow, the people who supply and push drugs would remain in place and would make more vigorous attempts to sell more dangerous drugs. We should begin to place less emphasis on the legal debate by reclassifying cannabis, and then we could assess whether we needed to go further and introduce full decriminalisation or, indeed, legalisation.
There is an issue of resources. The public would be satisfied if we spent the bulk of the resources at our disposal on the drugs that are doing damage.
Treatment is as important as prevention. In the 1999 Scottish elections, the SNP suggested creating drugs courts for people whose drug taking was out of control and dependent on crime. We looked at successful American models and came to the conclusion that they could be used in Scotland. The Scottish Executive now agree and are prepared to pilot drugs courts experiments throughout Scotland.
Drugs courts are important because they compel the dependent criminal drug user to confront his lifestyle, and the regime includes treatment programmes for drugs problems as well as addressing criminal activity. The courts are not a soft option; the treatment is rigorous. In some communities drug-related crime accounts for almost 70 per cent. of recorded crime, and we need solutions that address that underlying cause. Drugs strategies will not work unless treatment programmes are available to keep problem users on the straight and narrow.
A drugs strategy—or, more appropriately, a series of drugs strategies—should be realistic and achievable. It should be clearly understood and properly defined. We have been told consistently over the past decade that we are fighting a drugs war. If that is so, we have definitely lost. The language of the debate should be changed. Let us enter new territory and have an inclusive debate. Only then we will be able to start to get on top of our drugs problems.
1.20 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: This is one of those debates in which everything that needs to be said has been said, but not everyone has yet said it, and I want to add my few words to this debate, which, as hon. Members have said, has been very interesting.
I can fairly claim credit for being, I think, the first Member elected since 1983 to suggest in a debate in the Chamber the legalisation of cannabis. I did so by way of an amendment to a criminal justice Bill, some 12, 13 or 14 years ago, when the climate was totally different. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and I shared the same view when in opposition, but those then on the Opposition and Government Front Benches had a completely different attitude. Those on the Labour Front Bench were terrified because they felt that there was a
528
stigma attached to the issue and that it would convey itself to the Labour party itself. Of course, the then Conservative Government were trying to make that connection. I was faced with Ministers saying, "This is really Labour party policy coming through," which forced those on the Labour Front Bench to jump up and disown me completely.
I welcome the fact that we can now debate this issue seriously. One of the reasons why we can have a proper debate is that, on this issue, the Conservative party has grown up, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) for escalating the seriousness with which the subject is being taken. Of course, with this issue, it is very true that it is not what is said, but who actually says it. When I said it, such views could be easily dismissed as those of a subversive and somewhat eccentric and outspoken Member.
Mr. Lloyd: Surely not.
Mr. Banks: I am afraid so. When a distinguished ex-Minister says it, commentators start to take it seriously, and a number of commentators and journalists have done so. For example, The Economist has long been a strong advocate for the legalisation of cannabis, and it is good to see that the weight of argument wins through in the end. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the real world. I wish that I could say the same of his colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
If the hon. Gentleman wants to make speeches against the change in the categorisation of cannabis or against legislation on it, he must come up with a much better speech than the one he made today. A bit of party political knockabout—it was not even good party political knockabout—is no way to address the issue seriously. I say that because I have some regard for the hon. Gentleman.
To those on my own Front Bench, I say that I understand that when one is in office, one sometimes has to trim the comments that one makes. During my short, but distinguished and glittering career as a Minister, I was forced to remain silent on this issue because I could understand how my views would be exploited, but it is good to see that the House has grown up and that we can now discuss an issue that is serious for many millions of our citizens who are law-abiding people in all other respects.
The Government are not going anywhere near far enough—indeed, they are still trying to hold the line. probably because of the Prime Minister's reluctance. I do not know what my right hon. Friend did at university, but he clearly did not get up to any naughty things, and we are all glad about that, of course. There comes a time when we in the House cannot stand against the tide of events. Millions of citizens in this country are doing something that we say is illegal; we are criminalising their personal activities.
I shall finish in a few moments, because I have made this speech several times before. We are trying to stand against the personal choices of millions of our citizens, which is not the role of Government. Indeed, I am a great believer in, and devotee of, John Stuart Mill's attitude: that we should not legislate on that which does not hurt other people.
I have been hurt by drugs, and so have many other people, but it is the violence associated with the trade rather than the use of drugs that hurt me: I was mugged

529
and robbed at knifepoint in my own street. I would like to think that the chaps who did that were trying to raise the money to go and watch West Ham—but I suspect that they were doing it to fund their habit.
A couple of months ago—I was about to say I was knocked up; I should be so lucky—I was woken up at ten-past two in the morning by two police officers saying, "Excuse me, but have you heard any gunshots?" I said, "No, I'm afraid I haven't. What's happened?" Three doors away, someone had been assassinated in a car. It was all to do with drugs, and it was a real assassination, because whoever did it legged it; the police never found them and I do not think they will. The serious crime squad came round, and it was all clearly connected with drugs and yardies.
What really affects us is the impact of drugs on law and order in our areas. That is another reason why I think that the sooner we move—
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: This is a debating Chamber, not a buffet. I have been watching the hon. Gentleman, and he keeps nipping in and out—but I will give way to him, on one ground only: the fact that he has signed my early-day motion in favour of Barney the lobster.
Mr. Rosindell: In view of the appalling circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, including his own experiences of the violence associated with the drug culture, why does he seek to legitimise it instead of fight it?
Mr. Banks: The violence is not associated with the drug culture as such. The drug culture is the millions of people who use cannabis, cocaine and other drugs. The crime is associated with the drug trade—supplying drugs that are currently illegal. If, for example, the Government were to say that smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol is far more harmful to an individual's health than smoking cannabis or snorting cocaine, they would be right—but they would be mad to do so, because the violence that would then be associated with supplying those substances, which people want but which would be illegal, would be enormous, and would make the present trouble associated with the supply of drugs look like small beer.
It is because drugs are criminalised that violence is associated with them. Extremely violent criminal activity is not associated with the supply of alcohol or cigarettes, yet—I am about to say something that I did not intend to say today—on health grounds one could well argue that nicotine and alcohol should be banned before cannabis or cocaine. That is what the hon. Gentleman has to understand.
There is another point too, which I shall respond to as the hon. Gentleman has raised it, albeit in an oblique fashion. As the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said, if this is a war against drugs, it is a war that has been lost—probably before we even joined battle. In the United States some of the most restrictive laws are being used against drugs, and the fight against drugs sends people down into south and central America to napalm coca plantations and so on. What is the result? More
530
people are doing drugs in the United States now than ever before, the quality has gone up and the price has gone down.
When people realise that they have gone into a war that they are totally and utterly losing, because they are up against people who simply want to pursue their own habit, they have to start thinking about their tactics and their strategy. That is what I hope the Government will do.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: No, because I am about to finish.
The Government have to do that, because in 50 years' time we will look back on this and wonder what all the fuss was about. I commend them on the small and timid step that they have taken, and I hope that I can encourage them to go much further in future.
1.29 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). I was interested to hear his libertarian arguments, which I hope he will now extend to country sports and other such issues.
We have heard a lot about the number of property crimes that are drug related. The chief constable of Norfolk said the other day that he reckoned that more than 70 per cent. of crimes in Norfolk were in some way drug related. We have all had our own experiences. About a fortnight ago, my wife and I suffered a burglary at our house in London: the burglar started to rummage around the house, the alarm went off and—greatly to their credit—Lambeth police appeared within two minutes and apprehended the burglar about 10 minutes later in our neighbour's garden. That happened on a Monday. The lad, after spending two years in prison, had come out of prison the preceding Wednesday, since when he had committed four crimes, all burglaries—ours was the fourth. He is a drug addict. That poor soul needs help, not more prison.
The Department of Health has recently issued statistics on the number of drug misusers in treatment in England and Wales. It says that there are 118,522—a staggering number, although I am convinced that the true number of drug addicts in this country is far greater. The Minister pointed out that the national treatment outcome research study estimated that for every £1 spent on treatment, £3 is saved in the criminal justice system. The NTORS also monitored 276 clients who had been admitted for treatment and found that of those who were treated, 30 per cent. were free from all target drugs a year later. That shows how important treatment is.
One important group of specialists and experts is being largely precluded from taking part in the war against drugs: general practitioners. Of 118,522 misusers in treatment, only 8,180—a paltry number—are being cared for in the community by GPs. The Minister knows that "Tackling Drugs Together" stated:
"GPs are encouraged to address the needs of drugs misusers",
but as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) pointed out, GPs are being discouraged by the General Medical Council. I would go further and say that, in fact those brave GPs who are committed to helping drug addicts through appropriate prescribing, are being targeted by the GMC.

531
Currently, 15 GPs are involved in various stages of disciplinary procedures, from preliminary procedures and interim orders to professional conduct committees. All 15 have been arraigned for irresponsible prescribing, but it would appear that no account has been taken of the clinical needs of their patients, many of whom have long and complicated histories of drug taking, as well as dire medical conditions that invariably justify larger prescriptions and sometimes require a combination of drugs.
I, too, wish to talk about Dr. Adrian Garfoot and the Laybourne clinic. Dr. Garfoot originally lived in North-West Norfolk; his father is a distinguished Methodist minister in my constituency. Dr. Garfoot started the Laybourne clinic in 1992. His philosophy, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East says, is to try to return addicts to the mainstream. He tries to stabilise them through a tight prescribing regime, helps to rebuild their self-esteem and works to return them to the community.
In an intervention, I pointed out that Dr. Garfoot's success rate is extraordinary: the recidivism rate among 1,200 addicts in his care was a mere 7 per cent. after two years, compared with 50 per cent. of those leaving the prison service system. His most recent group of patients said that their average daily spend on feeding their drug habit had been £100— money that was raised through burglaries, street crime and other crimes. Seventy per cent. of his male patients have previously spent on average four years in prison.
I have been to the clinic, and it is a centre of excellence that has achieved a remarkable amount in a short period. Many of those receiving treatment were refused treatment elsewhere. They had been to drug dependency units and detoxification centres, which had failed them. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said, it is so sad that the clinic is threatened with closure as a result of the entirely blinkered and short-sighted attitude of the GMC.
Dr. Garfoot has been subjected to two preliminary proceedings and three interim orders, and has recently been before a professional conduct committee of the GMC. He has been struck off for irresponsible prescribing. As I said in my intervention, there has been no evidence of diversion and no evidence of any harm coming to his patients. A doctor of 25 years' unblemished service has now been struck off. It is a disgrace.
As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said, two of Adrian's patients have died since the summer. Terry Hold died in August from an injection of illegal street heroin. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham explained that ADAPT is an organisation in her constituency. It issued a press release the other day that makes sad, depressing reading. Terry Hold spent the last moments of his life dumped, like any piece of garbage, in a south London garden. The local treatment unit made no provision for treating this long-term addict. He was denied treatment locally, but he was receiving treatment at Dr. Garfoot's clinic.
Mr. Hold's death was directly attributable to the lack of addiction management provision for chronically long—term drug injecting addicts. Under Dr. Garfoot, Terry had stabilised his drug use. His family life blossomed and he was working and becoming a self-reliant and productive member of the community. He is now tragically dead. A female patient of Adrian Garfoot committed suicide the other day.
532
As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said, Dr. John Marks's clinic in Widnes was closed. Within two years 40 of his former patients had died.
I am concerned about the 270 or so patients in Dr. Garfoot's clinic. I am also concerned about Dr. Garfoot's professional position. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said, his only right of appeal is to the Privy Council by way of petition. He cannot afford to pay the costs of that himself, even though he has raised some private funds for his defence.
Dr. Garfoot applied to the Medical Defence Union. His application was refused and the case is now going to the MDU board of management. When the Minister has considered the details of Dr. Garfoot's case and has read my speech and those of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, I hope that he will see fit to write to the MDU to point out that there has been a breach of natural justice. Surely a man's livelihood should not be destroyed without any right of appeal.
The GMC must be concerned about its professional image. It must be concerned also about its self-policing of the profession. Obviously, an extra onus has been placed on it since the wretched Harold Shipman affair, but I strongly believe that there must be a better alternative for examining the cases of doctors who are accused of wrongly prescribing drugs. There must be a better procedure under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Dr. Iddon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a procedure, the Home Office tribunal procedure? It has not been used since Adrian Garfoot was before it in 1997. Is it not rather sad that for five years he went through Home Office tribunals but now has to go through the entire saga with the GMC and eventually be struck off? This doctor has suffered for nearly 10 years.
Mr. Bellingham: That is 100 per cent. correct. Under the Home Office procedure, there is an appeal to the advisory body. The key to the argument is that, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, if a doctor is disciplined and prevented from prescribing drugs, he can go back to his mainstream GP practice, but under the GMC procedures, Dr. Garfoot has been struck off and has lost his livelihood until further notice. The Minister must explain why the procedure under the 1971 Act has not been used in the past four years.
I have been reading Hansard and I see that the Bill that became the 1971 Act was first introduced in 1969. In 1970, towards the end of Labour's period of office, James Callaghan referred to
"irresponsible, careless or negligent prescribing or unduly liberal prescribing with bona fide intent, which may justify curtailing the doctor's authority in relation to controlled drugs in order to stop a supply for misuse, but not justify the drastic course of disqualifying him altogether."—[Official Report, 25 March 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1458.]
I urge the Minister to examine very carefully the way in which the procedure is currently being used, and to look into Dr. Garfoot's case specifically.
If we are to win the war against drugs—and we all feel strongly about the appalling harm being done to our youngsters—surely we must harness one of our most obvious and crucial resources: GPs, who are closest to the community and really care about their patients. Far from

533
being encouraged, GPs are being discouraged as much as possible. I urge the Minister to consider our pleas very carefully.
1.42 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who delivered his speech with passion and a deep sense of injustice. I am sure that the case deserves to be heard and answered by the Minister. Indeed, it is a privilege to follow so many excellent speeches in this debate. That is the privilege; the downside is that most of the things that I intended to say have already been said, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, that does not stop me saying some of them again.
I congratulate the Government on an enormous step forward. The Home Secretary and his team have moved the debate on drugs policy forward after it had been stuck for the past two decades. That has made this debate possible. It is perhaps the Minister's desire that, having made that move, the whole world will now settle down, but, to paraphrase the Prime Minister, now that the kaleidoscope has moved, it will be some time before the colours settle down in a regular pattern. We cannot rely on the most recent change in policy to be the last one, because today's debate has shown that, although we have improved our drugs policy, it still does not meet the demands of evidence or of rational argument.
The least rational argument presented today—it was almost no argument at all—came from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). He did his party a great disservice by the paucity of his arguments, especially as that party has done a great deal in recent years—in the past year, in particular—to open up the debate. Probably nobody has done more than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I do not think that she intended the debate to go in that direction, but she certainly made an enormous contribution. All her colleagues who then sat on the Front Bench—some of them still do—and who admitted their cannabis use did us all a great service. I admit that I was cowardly, and it was only after the Tories had begun to admit their cannabis use from the Front Bench that I admitted that when I was a student I, too, took cannabis and enjoyed it.
I am no longer a young man, alas, but I still recall what I felt like when I smoked cannabis as a young man. Almost all the people around me smoked cannabis. I grew up in the 1960s and I was a teenager and went to university in the early 1970s—rather like the Prime Minister. I was keen on popular music at the time, like the Prime Minister—but apparently unlike the Prime Minister, I participated in cannabis use, together with the vast majority of my university colleagues. I thought at the time that those who legislated were entirely hypocritical because of the way in which they tolerated—indeed, promoted—drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, but prohibited the drugs of choice of young people like me.
Mr. Hawkins: I am curious. Is the hon. Gentleman a teetotaller?
Mr. Jones: No, I am not a teetotaller. I do not see the relevance of the question. I am against the prohibition of
534
alcohol as well. My point is about hypocrisy. 1 am not a hypocrite. I do not believe that alcohol or cannabis should be prohibited.
In the early 1970s, I thought that the old people who were the politicians of the day did not understand, and that they were ignorant, which they probably were. We do not have the defence of ignorance, do we? There cannot be any of us under 50 who do not know of people who took cannabis. Where is the testament from those people that it did a great deal of harm to others whom they knew, even if they did not use it themselves? Where is the evidence? We have heard none today.
I have spoken of my personal experience, and I have other personal experience. I come from a small mining village at the top of the Rhondda valley. There was very little cannabis use there when I left, and there was no harder drug use, as far as I knew. Unfortunately, that is not the case now. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister has a family connection with that mining village. I must tell him that a few months ago I went to visit my elderly mother, taking my three young children with me. One of my children went out to the garden and came back with a used syringe. I tried to hide it from my mother. I then went out to the garden and came back with 12 used syringes.
Some people will want to cast me as some sort of libertine who believes that drugs use is fine. I do not believe that drugs use is fine, but I believe that I must speak out. The evidence has been quoted, and I would have quoted it if that had not already been done in the debate. The evidence is damning, and it could not be clearer about the policies that we have been carrying out in this country and in other countries, but almost uniquely badly in the UK, which has the worst drugs record of any western country. The drugs records of other countries are pretty bad, but we have the worst in Europe.
Our policies clearly do not work. We can all agree that it is dreadful that there are people addicted to drugs which alter their mind, and that in order to feed that addiction they do awful things to get money. The argument must be about what we do to stop that, or at least to mitigate or reduce it. Surely that argument must be based on evidence.
Instead of basing their arguments on evidence, hon. Members on both Front Benches have put up false tests as Aunt Sallies and hidden behind them. The Opposition spokesman said that, just as drinking and driving causes accidents, taking drugs and driving will have the same effect, and that therefore we should not consider legalising drugs. He tried to hide behind that false test. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) dealt with that well by citing evidence on the effects of drugs.
My hon. Friend the Minister used another test. He asked whether legalising cannabis would increase its use. It is possible that legalisation would increase use, but is that the only test of whether a law should be changed? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that it is one test, but there are many more. Prohibition may slightly reduce the number of people who take cannabis—we do not know whether it does—but is that a sufficient benefit to justify criminalising millions of people, including those who supply small amounts to friends and neighbours?
Mr. Banks: And family.
Mr. Jones: Yes. Is it a sufficient benefit to give criminal gangs a market worth £1.5 billion?
Lembit Öpik: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I agree with him. Does he accept that, to achieve the outcomes that the Minister rightly said we all support, the Government must consider supply objectively? Decriminalising a drug while supplying it remains criminal deals with less than half the problem.
Mr. Jones: I agree.
The scale of the trade is enormous. It is worth billions of pounds throughout the world, and it dwarfs the budget that almost any country can provide to fight it. To say that is not to be defeatist; it can lead to rational consideration of the problem, the evidence and the possible solutions.
We are currently locked into an international convention that is not based on evidence. Movement in the civilised world is overwhelmingly towards legalisation. I am sure that, without the convention, countries in Europe would have legalised already. Many European countries have all but legalised drugs.
Until now, I have talked about cannabis. I want to consider a different drug. On Wednesday, I had the privilege of meeting several people who had suffered grievously because members of their families had been addicted to heroin. Some families had lost their sons and daughters from the effects of taking corrupted forms of the drug. Others told more heartening tales of going through difficult and testing times but managing to get their sons and daughters off the drug. A few methods had worked, but the main method of getting their children off that dreadful habit was tremendous family support and mothers and fathers going out to buy heroin, bringing it back and giving it to their children in controlled doses, thus helping them to get off the drug. That is what had worked. Those addicts and former addicts told me that the systems that the state uses do not work because it takes so long—six months or more—to get on to the drug rehabilitation programme. What do the drug addicts do in the meantime? Also, the methadone that is prescribed to them can create a habit that is far more difficult to kick than heroin, which is perverse in itself. It is also much more dangerous than heroin and kills proportionally more people.
Why do we not give addicts heroin in controlled circumstances, and try to treat them and get them off the habit? Why can we not do what the families of those lucky ones are doing for them? If we could, we might end up not having the worst heroin problem in the western world, which is what we have now. I say to my own Government: we have been in office for nearly five years and our record to date on drugs policy is nearly as bad, if not worse, than that of the people we took over from, and their drugs policies were rubbish as well. We have made changes. We have to make more, but I welcome the changes that we have made.
1.57 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I am aware that time is short in what has been an excellent debate on both sides of the House. I shall do my best to make a number of new points as well as to reiterate some that have already been made.
536
I particularly want to draw attention to the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who has shown many of us the way forward on this subject. As a new Member, I have had a number of opportunities since my election in June to learn more about this problem. First, I had the chance to go on patrol with our police in Bishop's Stortford and to see at first hand the problems that they deal with, week in and week out. It is clear to me from that experience alone that it is alcohol that causes the principal social problem, rather than illegal drugs. I saw the very patient and professional way in which those policemen and policewomen dealt with often difficult and antagonising circumstances.
I also had the chance to observe the difficulties that head teachers and teachers face in schools, in holding the line and maintaining discipline. Similarly, a parent whose child has been expelled from a school is naturally anxious about where that child goes and whether he or she might fall even further off the rails.
Perhaps my most important experience in learning about this issue in recent months has been to visit Vale House in Hertford, one of the leading rehabilitation centres in the United Kingdom, which is led by the excellent Chris Hannaby. Every day, she and her team help another person to turn their life around. What struck me as important was that alcohol featured in 42 per cent. of the cases with which her team has to deal. I was impressed by the comments made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about the difficulties that would be faced by centres such as Vale House if there were to be an arbitrary imposition of the new rules on independent health care. Many centres would suffer as a result, and the hon. Gentleman made that point well.
At Vale House, I was also struck by how we can move away from the stereotypical image that we all perhaps have of a drug addict. I met a professional man in his 30s, a mum in her 40s and a young man in his late teens or early 20s who had been brought up by parents who were addicts as well. What possible hope does someone like that have starting on the straight and narrow? If I learned anything from Vale House, the police and others, it was just how widely drugs in all forms affect our society. Indeed, the British crime survey 2000 showed that a third of all adults have taken drugs in one form or another.
The debate today is on drugs strategy, but it is not clear that the Government have a strategy. In recent months, we have seen a series of conflicting statements and short-term fixes.
Lembit Öpik: When the hon. Gentleman has finished criticising the Government, could he explain his party's strategy? I understand from the Front-Bench spokesman that the current Conservative strategy is to maintain the status quo.
Mr. Prisk: Our party's strategy is clear: it is to take a long and sensible look at the matter, and not to make instant, off-the-cuff comments in Select Committees. The Government have a 10-year plan, and that is welcome, but three years on, it is not clear whether many of the targets that have been set are still to be met. For example, is it still the case that a strong attempt is being made to reduce the use of class A drugs—perhaps the Minister could tell us when he winds up—or has that target been adjusted or changed?

537
What caused the demise of the drugs tsar? Was it because he disagreed with some or all of the policies, or was it because he was not involved in many of the decisions that the new Home Secretary and his colleagues have taken? Then we come to the decision to announce a change of Government policy at the Home Affairs Committee, which the Minister was kind enough to try to explain to the House earlier. I shall not rehearse that in detail because it has already been discussed, but it was either slip of the tongue or it was a deliberate attempt to move the debate on without undergoing the traditional consultation process. In any case, it is not the way to develop an effective, long-term and coherent drugs strategy.
In the muddle, the Government are sending out confusing signals to the millions of families involved—I mentioned some of my constituents earlier—about the exact Government policy on drugs. How are the policemen and policewomen in Bishop's Stortford supposed to know where to draw the line on cannabis possession and use? How are schoolteachers and heads meant to be able to hold the line on discipline? What are parents to say to their children about drugs use and possession?
Sadly, the strategy seems no longer to be driven by the long-term needs of our society but by special advisers' need for good news stories in tomorrow's papers. I say that with regret, because drugs are a fundamental issue for all of us. We need to reform our approach to them. Hon. Members have mentioned Drugscope and its extraordinary analysis that the UK has many of the strictest laws on the use of cannabis and at the same time the highest usage. That is an unsustainable position.
What is needed? We have to begin by recognising that good laws will only work because the majority of people naturally accept them. That is why it is right that we should address the hypocrisy—as it seems to most young people—of the way in which we deal with alcohol, prescribed drugs, tobacco and cannabis. We must also ensure that any drugs strategy is founded firmly on a balance between an informed freedom of choice for adults and the promotion of personal responsibility. We need to ensure that people understand the need to accept the consequences of their actions.
If we are to liberalise the laws on cannabis—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made a powerful case for that—that should be based on robust and independent information about the implications for health, the addictive nature of cannabis and whether it leads to harder drugs, as some evidence in New Zealand has suggested, or whether it is, as some hon. Members have suggested, the circumstances of its current supply that make it a gateway drug.
Most important of all, we need to learn far more about people who have an addictive personality, because they are most at risk. As I said, at Vale House I met three people of different ages, different backgrounds and different circumstances, yet they all had an addictive personality. If we are to reduce the destruction that drugs cause, we should consider much more carefully that vulnerable group and their addictions, whether it be to alcohol, tobacco, valium, cannabis or heroin. What makes someone a natural addict? Is it a state of mind,
538
a biochemical reaction, a personality flaw or a combination of all three? If we can identify those people early on, we can help them to avoid getting hooked.
Drugs in all their forms affect millions of people across our society. To shape a coherent and sustainable strategy, it is essential to balance informed freedom of choice for adults with enhanced personal responsibility, while seeking to protect children and those most vulnerable to addiction. I am in no doubt that it will take time to get the right strategy: it should not be worked out on the hoof. It is worth taking that time, because we cannot afford to get it wrong.
2.6 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: In the time left, I want to raise a couple of brief points. The first is about the treatment of drug addicts. There are three Kainos wings in prisons: at Verne, Swaleside and Highpoint. They are run by the Kainos community, and since their creation have been funded by charitable donations. Before the Kainos wing opened in Verne in March 1997, the prison had suffered from one of the highest levels of disruption and problematic behaviour, yet it now scores well in those areas. The governor and staff of Verne are happy to ascribe some of the credit for that to the success of the Kainos wing.
The way in which the wing works is straightforward. Any prisoner can volunteer to move into the Kainos wing, but to do so they must sign a compact that commits them to live by community rules. They include renouncing drug use, which is enforced by a voluntary testing regime. Some rules are simple, such as being polite and respectful to other inmates, but they often represent a huge step forward for the prisoner concerned.
Contrary to the belief of some in the prison sector, the regime does not include intensive religious intervention, but rather encourages inmates to assess their criminal habits, kick their drug dependency and become people with something positive to contribute to society. Since the wing in Verne has become operational, the atmosphere has changed from an unsafe, hostile environment to one that is much more supportive. The wing is free of drugs, violence and criminal damage—that is what all prisons should be. Reoffending rates of those who serve their sentence in the wing are lower than the national average.
It is impressive that Kainos wings are often used as a last resort for the most violent prisoners in the system. Independent research has described the wings as a
"signpost to the Prison Service in terms of promoting standards of decency, humanity and order in prisons."
Therefore it is particularly disappointing that by March 2002 those wings will be closed down at the insistence of the Prison Service management board.
The reasons for that are confused. Lower reoffending rates have been described as statistically insignificant, but the fact that the Kainos wings have only had a short time to work has been ignored. Their purpose seems to have been misunderstood by the Prison Service, although they have received the support of governors, staff, the Prison Officers Association, boards of visitors and inmates themselves, all of whom want the wings to continue their excellent work. I ask the Minister to ask his colleague the Minister with responsibility for prisons, to whom I have written about this, to reconsider. I believe that the wings can make an important contribution to the reform of drug users in prison.

539
Let me return to the main topic of today's debate—the legalisation of cannabis, about which many Members have spoken. Although the philosophical arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) sounded attractive, there is conflicting evidence about the practical implications of legalisation. We need a proper debate on it before such a move is made; certainly I have yet to be convinced by my right hon. Friend's arguments.
I am concerned about the message that the reclassification of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug would send to young people. It might give the impression that cannabis is safe, and I think that we all recognise that it has its dangers. If we suggest, by reclassifying it, that it is safe, more young people will be encouraged to use it, and more young people will go to dealers. I was impressed by what was said by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who suggested that pushers often deal not just in cannabis but in other drugs. By encouraging young people to go to dealers, having given them the impression that cannabis is safe, we may encourage them to use other drugs as well.
Lembit Öpik: I think there has been a misunderstanding. I was not arguing that that was a reason to criminalise cannabis; I was arguing that we should seriously consider decriminalising the supply side, to maintain consistency in the system.
Mr. Hoban: I take the hon. Gentleman's comments on board. He and I have a difference of opinion on this. My concern is this: reclassifying cannabis as a category C drug, and giving young people the impression that it might be safe to use, may encourage them to use it more often, and to go to dealers who sell more than one type of drug and will introduce them to class A drugs. An unintended consequence of the Minister's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug may be the ability to obtain class A drugs much more easily.
Mr. Hawkins: For a certain proportion of young people, is not the feeling of doing something dangerous and illegal part of the appeal? Might not the decriminalisation of cannabis tempt more people to go straight to hard drugs in order to have the same feeling?
Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Members on both sides of the House have bandied figures about, suggesting that millions of people use cannabis. Let us not forget that only 14 per cent. of those between the ages of 16 and 29 used it in the last month. While many may use it once, perhaps to enjoy the experience of illegal behaviour, that may not be a consistent pattern. It may not appeal to all young people. Not all young people are regular cannabis users. What worries me is that decriminalisation, and the sense that the drug might be safe, will cause more young people to try a wider range of class A drugs. We do not want them to do that.
2.13 pm
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: This has been an excellent and well-informed debate, although it was slightly skewed towards the side in favour of legalisation. It would be
540
difficult for me to respond to all the points that have been made, but I will write to all those who have asked substantive questions that I have no time to answer now.
I do not want to send a message to anyone that we are not prepared to listen to what is said. We have shown that we are trying to lift the debate and to listen as a Government, and today's discussion has, I believe, contributed to that impression.
I want to give the Government's perspective to balance the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has been involved in the issue for a long time and encapsulated some of the opinions on the Back Benches when he congratulated us on our timidity. We want to keep to an evidence-based debate. He said that if the fight against drugs is a war, it was lost before we started it. He cited the United States and the tremendous effort there to fight the war against drugs, which has been extended to source countries. Someone in the US departments with responsibility for alcohol, drugs and tobacco, the FBI or the CIA might be doctoring the statistics from America. Perhaps there is an evil person in the Home Office who does the same thing, because I have not gone around with a clipboard to compile the figures. According to the statistics from the US national household survey on drug abuse, there has been a substantial fall in drug use in the past 20 years. Cannabis users have fallen from 23 million to 11 million and cocaine users have fallen from 4.4 million to 1.5 million. That is a substantial decline. The figures fly in the face of the arguments that the Dutch model works and the models here, in the US and Sweden, which has far lower levels of drug use—
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: No, I have little time to respond.
We can all throw around statistics to support our opinions, but we must be careful and ensure that we listen to other people. I just hope that my hon. Friends are as prepared to listen to me as I am prepared to listen to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham also cited a couple of personal experiences that proved to him the need to legalise drugs. Let me tell him about a couple of personal experiences that make me a little worried about that approach. The only time that I was confronted by drug-related violence, I escaped without difficulty because it was not a serious attempt. It had nothing to do with the supply of drugs. I was confronted by someone who was clearly out of their head on cocaine and, as a result, decided to threatened me. It was frightening. That problem would not be solved by the legalisation of that substance.
Many people who advocate decriminalisation and legalisation say that there would be no increase in the availability of drugs, but that is not true.
Mr. Jones: I did not say that.
Mr. Ainsworth: Will my hon. Friend calm down and listen to me, as I listened to him, because that would be conducive to a good debate.
Many people who advocate legalisation and decriminalisation accept that availability would increase. They bluntly say that it would be a price worth paying.

541
I started to smoke when I was 10 because cigarettes were freely available and I knew no better. I steadily progressed to a serious nicotine addiction that took a great deal to lose. I did not manage that until my mid-20s and in the meantime did a lot of damage to my health.
I know that I grew up in a different age when illegal drugs were not as available as they are now. I take seriously the point that my hon. Friend made about needles in the streets, but if the availability of drugs such as cocaine and heroin increases substantially, the chances of children aged 10 developing the problems with those drugs that I had with tobacco must increase. That is something, although not the only thing, that must be put into the calculation when we consider where and how far we go with any changes in policy that we might want to advocate.
Our drugs policy has been described as an abject failure, but our strategy is relatively recent. People might think that we will get change overnight, but we will not. I have no desire to turn this into a party political issue—Opposition Members made some good speeches—but I remind my hon. Friends that we had a Conservative Government for 18 years. Some of the initiatives that are now being taken were massively underfunded as a result.
I am surprised that, until the past couple of years, no strategic customer group was working on the supply side of drugs to bring together the work of Customs and Excise, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and other groups to try to cut off the supply of drugs. That simply did not happen. Relationships between those organisations left a lot to be desired until they began to work together. They have become a bit more effective since.
I am sorry that I have to depart from the main issue before us, but I must deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). He made only two substantive points. The first was that the Home Secretary must have come out with his statement at the Select Committee on the spur of the moment to cover up something else. The hon. Gentleman suggested that that was dreadful and said that no thought or strategy was involved.
The main evidence that the hon. Gentleman had for that extraordinary load of nonsense was an answer that I had given in Home Office questions. He claimed that it proved that the Home Secretary had not shared his idea with me and that I knew nothing about it. Let me make it clear what I said at Home Office questions the day before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his announcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) asked:
"What proposals he has to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971".
My answer, which supposedly proves the hon. Gentleman's point, was:
"The Government keep the misuse of drugs legislation under continual review."—[Official Report, 22 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 11.]
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is not representing me in any capacity, because that answer shoots a great big hole in his argument.
The hon. Gentleman's other substantive point was about the reclassification of cannabis. He expressed the fear that that would lead to an increase in its use and
542
would damage severely the efforts of law enforcement officers to take effective action against the traffickers of the drug. That is a serious point, which must be considered.
However, a couple of days ago, I answered a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West and the figures that came out surprised me. They showed that arrests for purely the possession of cannabis had risen from 14,857 to 22,303 between 1996 and 2000. However, arrests for supplying or offering to supply cannabis went down in that period from 1,559 to 1,001 and arrests for possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply had gone down from 2,765 to 2,194.
As I tried to tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the Home Secretary has several motives for making the change. First, the Government are trying to improve the message that we are sending out. Several hon. Members have said today that if that message is to be credible, it must differ according to circumstances. Young people will not listen to us if we try to tell them that cannabis is every bit as bad as heroin or cocaine. Our message is that although we do not want people to take cannabis, it is much more dangerous to take heroin or cocaine, and we put them in a different category.
A second consideration is our desire to bring the law into line with the practice of police forces the length and breadth of the country. We also want to make the best use of police time and focus their attention on what we consider to be important. Those were our reasons, and they were thought out during the recess, which was why the announcement was made at that time. It was not done on the spur of the moment to cover something up.
Mr. Hawkins: How does it assist the Home Secretary's message if law-abiding members of the public see that, under his proposals, large-scale suppliers of cannabis may face only 12 months in custody, instead of eight years, as at present?
Mr. Ainsworth: The Home Secretary is not trying to bounce anybody into anything. We now have a period in which hon. Members and people outside the House can discuss all the ramifications of what he said and come to a conclusion, and the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will be part of that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made a high-quality contribution, as usual. Like me, he has a significant constituency problem, and I am sure that that is true of many other hon. Members. My hon. Friend urged us to consider, among other things, the availability of heroin prescription. The Home Secretary has said that we want to reconsider the guidelines on heroin prescription, which say at the moment that heroin should not be prescribed unless the doctor concerned has considerable experience of doing so. We want to make absolutely sure that our policy is correct, and that doctors feel able to prescribe heroin where that is appropriate.
I must point out to my hon. Friend that we have not moved away from heroin prescription as a matter of political policy; there has been a move by GPs out in the field towards prescribing methadone. We anticipate that methadone will continue to be the main drug of choice used by GPs in dealing with heroin addicts. However, we want to consider the matter because we feel that a lack of confidence may lie behind the reluctance to prescribe heroin. If the guidance can be clarified, that can only be to the good.

543
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made points that must be taken up. He described the problems that care homes are facing. I know that he has a number of contacts and a great deal of credibility in that sector, so perhaps he can assist us in considering those problems. I am told by the Department of Health that it has repeatedly consulted on its proposals for care homes, and tried to get the owners to gather evidence so that it can seriously consider their claims. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can help in that process, so that any decision is evidence-based and its likely consequences are considered.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion of the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Drugs Strategy

  Mental Health (Racism)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Keith Hill.]
  2.30 pm
  Mrs. Helen Clark: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject. I became involved in it due to the tragic death of a constituent who was a patient in the Norvic secure unit in Norwich. I should like to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) in pursuing the case and the issues it raises.
  David Bennett—"Rocky" as he was known to his friends and family—was certified dead in the early hours of Saturday 31 October 1998, after being restrained and held down by at least three, possibly five, staff for 25 minutes.
  David's sister, Dr. Joanna Bennett—a lecturer in mental health—her legal representatives from the organisation Inquest, my hon. Friend and I have had a series of meetings with Ministers and officials at the Department of Health in the past three years, the most recent of which was held this September.
  We have consistently stressed the need for a public inquiry as the most appropriate means to investigate all the circumstances of David's death in a way that will highlight the more general issues and the occurrence of similar cases in the mental health services.
  The Minister was generous with her time and listened sympathetically. In her subsequent letter, she confirmed a number of the steps that the Department will take, offering Dr. Bennett considerable input into an inquiry, which will have a broad remit but will not be a full public inquiry. Only parts of the inquiry will be public, over which the chairman will have discretion.
  Although grateful for such progress as has been made, David's family, through their representatives, have expressed a number of reservations about those proposals, especially about which issues will be heard in public. They naturally think, as I do, that racism should be one of them, as should be the use of control and restraint. There are other concerns about the membership of the inquiry panel; how the results of the inquiry will be made public; and how they will be fed into future policy and practice.
  Dr. Bennett has also stated her concern that the black and minority ethnic mental health strategy lacks definition, especially in its use of terms such as "culturally appropriate non-drug therapy" or "culturally sensitive". Such terms are hard to put into practice and do not therefore lead to real changes for service users. The strategy group has not adequately consulted black service users, providers and families, and so may be unsupported by key stakeholders.
  An inquest into David's death was finally held in May this year, and it returned a verdict of accidental death, aggravated by neglect. The coroner, William Armstrong—a specialist in mental health—took great pains to ensure that the circumstances surrounding David's death were explored in depth and made public a number of recommendations that he felt the whole NHS should take on board.
  Of particular relevance to this debate is the fact that he stated that many NHS trusts do not take racism seriously and that all trusts should have a written and active policy on dealing with racial abuse, which the Norwich trust has now addressed.

  545
  It has been established that David was racially abused by other patients on several occasions before the incident that caused his death—there was no indication of that being addressed by staff—and that he wrote a letter to the ward manager suggesting that more black staff should be employed at the clinic, as there was a significant number of black patients. He complained to the family that he felt he was being treated unfairly because he was black, and he told staff that he felt white people were treated better.
  The trust's internal inquiry identified a case in which a member of staff had racially abused another patient, and an incident of racial abuse against Rocky by another patient started the chain of events that resulted in his death.
  William Armstrong said:
  "There seemed to have been a feeling that here was a man who was big, black and dangerous, would always be big, black and dangerous and would not respond to medication."
  As he also noted, David had the advantage of a family who were very caring and well informed about mental health issues.
  The recommendations following the inquest reflect many of those following previous inquests and inquiries. For example, 10 years ago, following the inquiry into the deaths of three other black men at Broadmoor hospital, similar recommendations regarding medication, the use of restraint and racism were made.
  The organisation Inquest has drawn national and international attention to the disproportionate number of deaths of black people in custody following the use of force or gross medical neglect. Following deaths in police and prison custody, there have been detailed coroners' recommendations on the use of restraint and the dangers of positional asphyxia, yet prone restraint continues to be used in other settings, including psychiatric settings, without regard to the potential dangers.
  In February, the report of the ethnic issues project group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which it kindly sent to me, stated:
  "African-Caribbean individuals are over-represented among admissions to psychiatric hospitals, especially as compulsorily detained patients. Various reports have shown that"—
  such patients—
  "on the whole receive a more coercive spectrum of care. Among offender patients, African-Caribbean men were 26 times more likely than white men to be detained on criminal sections."
  It also cites research that suggests that psychiatrists tend to overpredict dangerousness in black people, and that such bias leads to a more restrictive outcome.
  I am grateful to MIND for the information in a 1997 study called "The Black Experience of Detention under the Civil Sections of the Mental Health Act". It shows that more than 75 per cent. of professionals from all agencies interviewed felt that black clients were more likely than white clients to be perceived as dangerous, and black patients were twice as likely as white patients to be detained on a longer section 3 order. White patients were more likely to be on the shorter section 2 orders.
  The research also showed that 85 per cent. of black people were being given medication, compared with 72 per cent. of the white group; 61 per cent. of the black group were being given at least two types of drug,
  546
  compared with 39 per cent. of the white group; and 35 per cent. of the black group were in receipt of three types of drug, compared with 39 per cent of the white group; and 35 per cent of the black group were in receipt of three types of drug, while that was true for 22 per cent. of the white group.
  I understand that evidence of racial inequality in mental health services has been available for 20 or even 30 years. All this together shows that black people are more likely than whites to be removed by the police to a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983; retained in hospital under sections 2,3 and 4 of the Act; diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia or another form of psychotic illness; detained in locked wards of psychiatric hospitals; and given higher doses of medication.
  The research also shows that black people are less likely than white people to receive appropriate and acceptable diagnosis of, or treatment for, possible mental illness at an early stage, and to receive treatments such as psychotherapy or counselling.
  There is no legal requirement to report sudden deaths in custody to a central body, but I am told that in the past 10 years there have been at least 12 cases of black people with diagnosed mental health problems who have died in this tragic way—12 lives lost which, with more appropriate treatment in the widest sense, might have been saved.
  Last year the Health Committee report on the provision of mental health services made the following recommendations. The Department of Health's requirement that all NHS trust boards should undertake training on management of diversity should be expanded, so that all front-line NHS staff receive training on race awareness. All educational bodies providing pre-qualification training to health professionals should be required to include training on cultural and racial issues as part of their curriculum. All NHS trusts should designate a board member to take the lead on issues of race and culture within their trust and to ensure that active policies are in place to champion the needs of the ethnic minority groups in their areas. The Department of Health should ensure that trusts have access to a comprehensive network of interpreting services, if necessary providing grants to the voluntary sector to enable the services to be developed. Priority should be given to early intervention services, such as providing easy access to counselling.
  The Health Committee believes that it is crucial that users and carers are involved in all aspects of service delivery, and that user involvement in setting the outcomes that services aim to achieve should be central to service planning. As that would be a new way of working for many professionals, the Committee recommends that both pre-and post-qualification training of all health and social care professionals should include structured input from users as part of the national programme.
  All mental health service providers need to acknowledge the importance of social factors, including race. They need to understand how what MIND calls "mental distress" is differently experienced and expressed in different cultures, and that prevailing white, western concepts are not always appropriate to understanding the behaviour of patients.
  I was glad to read that the Royal College of Psychiatrists is undertaking an independent review of race equality issues, to identify and tackle institutional racism

  547
  in its structures, policies and procedures. Indeed, I note that it is the first medical royal college to do so. The report to which I referred states that
  "all patients have the right to equal access to services, that is, services must be equivalent not necessarily the same"
  since the needs of a diverse population are likely to be equally diverse.
  A national expert on ethnicity and mental health, Professor Sashidharan of Birmingham university, has consistently demonstrated the need to tackle inequalities in mental health services. In his paper on institutional racism in British psychiatry, he says that
  "despite efforts…to provide ethnically sensitive…services, the overall experiences…by black and south Asian people remain largely negative."
  He suggests that the practical emphasis placed on improving services has distracted attention from the more fundamental task of addressing racism within mental health services. To achieve real change, we need to understand how the procedures and practices of those services affect black people's experiences of mental health care and the outcomes of treatment; therefore we must closely examine the experience of which David Bennett provides a tragic example.
  I am aware that I am skating over many topics that require detailed consideration, but time is short, so today I have focused on the extent and the seriousness of the problems that policy makers and practitioners must resolve if they are to end the pernicious effects of racism in mental health policy and practice. It is because those problems are so pervasive and so serious that the Bennett family and those of us who have worked with them continue to say that a full public inquiry is the best way in which to collect and examine the evidence and arrive at proper evidence-based recommendations for future policy and practice, which can then be implemented nationwide.
  2.43 pm
  (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on securing a debate on this important subject. The Government have made public their commitment to delivering a health service that is truly inclusive, available to everyone on the basis of need and without prejudice, and delivered in a way that is not only accessible to everyone but is appropriate to the communities that it serves.
  To provide such a service, the NHS has to understand the obstacles facing ethnic groups in Britain today. As well as racism and racial harassment, those obstacles include institutional discrimination that arises not necessarily from malice, but from ignorance and a lack of understanding between people from different backgrounds and cultures. To deliver the service that we all want and that our communities deserve, we need both to tackle racism and to ensure that the NHS develops services that recognise cultural differences and are of a high standard for all people.
  My hon. Friend raises the specific issue of the untimely death of David Bennett, which has rightly focused attention on the wider issue of the experience of people from black and ethnic minorities who have mental health problems. First, I take the opportunity to express in public my sincere sympathies to the family of David Bennett,
  548
  as I have already done in private. I have met David Bennett's sister, Dr. Joanna Bennett, and have been impressed by her commitment to ensuring that lessons are learned from this tragic event and that they are translated into real change in mental health services.
  My hon. Friend has called for a public inquiry into the death of David Bennett. I hope that the action that I shall outline in relation to this case and in the wider development of our mental health policies will persuade her that I share her and the Bennett family's commitment to improving mental health services for black people. As I have already explained, I am not convinced that holding a public inquiry is the best way to achieve changes and improvements.
  I have already proposed a range of actions that will lead to a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding David Bennett's death; address the issues raised in the coroner's inquest; tackle wider issues of concern regarding the care and treatment of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds in mental health services; and provide an appropriate platform and gravitas for this important issue.
  These measures include the health authority undertaking a local independent inquiry, with Department of Health officials working with the authority to ensure that the inquiry's remit addresses concerns that the family has raised, that there is full access to the inquiry by family members and others, including decisions as to the membership of the inquiry panel, and that the findings are made public.
  Furthermore, I have given a commitment to write to ministerial colleagues in other Departments to ask them for their support in considering the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend again today concerning restraint of people with mental ill health. I am commissioning research to address issues of supporting and informing families through traumatic events such as those experienced by the Bennett family, and ensuring that the lessons learned from this inquiry, and other similar inquiries, are taken fully into account in the developing of a mental health strategy for black and minority ethnic groups.
  As my hon. Friend has ably outlined, there have been specific concerns for some time about the care and treatment of people from black and minority ethnic groups with mental health problems. I accept that there is still much to be done. However, there is much that we have already done to start tackling these serious issues.
  The report of the Select Committee on Health on mental health services raised important issues involving challenging institutional discrimination in the area of mental health. In the Government's response, we acknowledged that challenging institutional discrimination is the responsibility of those who lead and deliver mental health services, as in all other areas of public service. In its report earlier this year, the mental health work force action team highlighted the need for the work force to represent the ethnic diversity of the community that it serves. We are committed to supporting the NHS locally to deliver this diverse work force, and to address some of the important training and education issues that my hon. Friend raised.
  Through NHS Direct, we have begun taking action to overcome some of the language barriers to which my hon. Friend referred. NHS Direct sites are now engaging with

  549
  their local black and minority ethnic communities to scope out their needs, promote NHS Direct and raise awareness of the service to the local community. Sites have systems in place to ensure access to advice and information in languages other than English. Currently, help is available in more than 30 languages.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, professional bodies need to be active in tackling racism and discrimination. I welcome the fact that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for example, has set up a committee to examine ethnic minority issues and stated that it will make training in cultural competence, including racial sensitivity, mandatory, for psychiatrists. It has initiated an internal audit to examine its policy and practice on ethnicity. However, as my hon. Friend also rightly said, more needs to be done.
  We are pleased to be making progress, but we are not by any means complacent. The mental health taskforce, set up to drive forward the NHS plan and the national service framework for mental health, has been given a specific remit to consider the mental health needs of black and ethnic minority service users. Taskforce member Professor Sashidharan, rightly referred to by my hon. Friend as a leading expert on ethnicity and mental health, who is also the medical director of North Birmingham mental health trust, is leading the development of a strategy that will address head on many issues of concern surrounding the provision of mental health services to people from black and minority ethnic groups.
  I take very seriously the points made by Dr. Joanna Bennett and by my hon. Friend. Both the timing and the way in which we engage users in the development of our strategy will be absolutely crucial in ensuring that it makes the difference in practice that we intend. A strategy is no good on its own unless it affects service and the treatment that people from black and minority ethnic groups receive in the mental health system.
  Many of the services that Professor Sashidharan pioneered are now part of the improvements that we have set out in the NHS plan and the national service framework for mental health services. It is very important that, as we improve our mental health services—which is clearly very necessary—we bear in mind the range of services available. Among other initiatives, early intervention, crisis resolution and assertive outreach services are to be made readily available in all parts of the country.
  My hon. Friend rightly said that a range of high-quality services must be in place to respond to the different needs of different individuals, and black and minority ethnic communities in particular. I agree with her analysis that the provision of a uniform service is not necessarily the best way of responding to the varying needs of people from different communities. We need to ensure that the views and needs of minority ethnic users are at the centre of our service development.
  To take one example, Professor Sashidharan has shown that black people are far more likely to seek help if they can have access 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to crisis resolution teams. The teams respond immediately and whenever possible treat people at home. Such a service is much preferred by many service users, but is particularly welcomed by black people, whose experience of hospital care has often been negative.
  550
  I have also asked the new National Institute for Mental Health to examine the issues of ethnicity and mental health as one of its first priorities. It will be developing a specific work programme on black and ethnic minority mental health, with a remit to include communications with black and ethnic minority groups and interests; the development of targeted programmes such as those on cultural competencies, outcomes and research; and the involvement of black and ethnic minority groups in the development of the institute. I am aware that words are not enough to improve the services for users, and that we need a vehicle to implement change and ensure that that becomes a reality in the services offered by the NHS. The National Institute for Mental Health will ensure that the recommendations from the strategy will be given substance and taken forward.
  The consultation document for the black and minority ethnic strategy will be issued next spring, and the final strategy will be published later next year. I am confident that the strategy will be a major step forward. It will provide a coherent and clear direction for mental health services and highlight the key issues that mental health services must address to tackle inequality and injustice. The problems experienced by black and minority service users in mental health cannot be put right overnight, but I believe that our actions already speak louder than words. The actions we have already taken, and those that we plan to take, show the priority that we have rightly given to tackling racial discrimination.
  The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will help to ensure that public services, including the NHS, promote racial equality across the board. It will demand that all public sector bodies implement and audit race equality strategies, and that any major proposal to change service provision is assessed for its impact on black and ethnic minority service users. We have already taken action from the centre to ensure that all parts of the NHS recognise the significance of the racial equality agenda that is at the centre of the NHS plan. The plan sets out our vision for health services and our commitment to ensuring that, both as an employer and as a provider of services, the NHS works to eliminate discrimination and promotes equality across all parts of society.
  We have moved from years of neglect by giving mental health a firm footing in the NHS plan and the national service framework. For the first time ever, we have a broad vision that is acceptable to and supported by service users. Now we must target areas of concern, which is why we have instigated the first ever national black and minority ethnic mental health strategy.
  We have a particular duty in mental health to ensure that when people are ill and at their most vulnerable, they receive services that are respectful and address the diversity of their needs. To achieve that, we must acknowledge and understand those needs. Racism cannot he tolerated, and neither can ignorance. I will do my utmost, as will the Government, to ensure that these changes transform the experience of all those who use mental health services, across every community in the country. Everyone deserves the best that the NHS has to offer, and we are committed to ensuring the widest possible access to the best possible services for all our communities.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bribery and Corruption
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the incorporation into UK legislation of the OECD convention on bribery and corruption. [12909]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom ratified the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) convention in December 1998 and a review of its legislation was published by the OECD in 2000. The Government's White Paper "Raising Standards and Upholding Integrity: the Prevention of Corruption", issued in June 2000 (Cm 4759), took account of that review and made two major proposals which reflect OECD recommendations:
  to put beyond doubt that the law of bribery applies to acts involving foreign public officials. Ministers, MPs and judges; and to take jurisdiction over crimes of bribery committed by United Kingdom nationals and United Kingdom companies overseas.

  International corruption contributes to the conditions which breed terrorism. I am, therefore, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, including these measures in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which will be introduced shortly.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft her Department recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (A) within and (B) outside her Department. [13135]

  Clare Short
  There were no reported cases of either computer hacking or computer fraud in DFID during 2000 to 2001.

  In 2000, four cases of laptop computers being stolen from DFID premises or personnel were reported, and in 2001 five laptop computers were reported stolen. The total value of the loss amounts to about £9,900.

  DFID is not aware of any occasions during the last two years of computer systems being accessed illegally by hackers from either inside or outside of the organisation.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental
  432W
  publications and (g) photographs/photographers by her Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if she will make a statement. [6930]

  Clare Short
  Expenditure in relation to publications, opinion polling and photography in the years in question is as follows.

  £000

  Publications1

  Opinion polling

  Photography

  1995–96

  352

  —

  4

  1996–97

  318

  —

  4

  1997–98

  166

  43

  21

  1998–99

  347

  —

  23

  1999–2000

  570

  45

  10

  2000–01

  639

  58

  5

  1 Including design costs

  We do not hold a separate advertising budget. However the bulk of our advertising is in relation to recruitment, on which we spend around £1 million to £1.2 million per year.

  It would involve disproportionate effort to calculate the total cost of catering services in the years in question since these are not charged to a single budget.The majority of the expenditure set out in the table is charged to programme budgets, and so it is not possible to make a meaningful calculation of its share of our running cost budget.

  TRIPS
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. [12903]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made on 7 November 2001, Official Report, columns 256–68, covering the UK's position on the fourth ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Doha, which covered our policy on trade-related aspectsof intellectual property.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of(a) military and (b) civilian casualties as a result of coalition forces bombing in Afghanistan. [11436]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: It is impossible to know for certain how many casualties, either military or civilian, there have been as a result of coalition action in Afghanistan. The Taliban's claims of casualties cannot be taken at face value.

  Military action inevitably carries risks, but as I have made clear in the House, our targeting and weapons selection processes are rigorous. Every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties.
  433W

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason HMS Ocean has been recalled to the UK; if it is being sent to Devonport for repair; what the(a) nature and (b) cost is of the repair; and to what extent the repair is (i) planned maintenance and (ii) a consequence of failure while on its last operation. [13127]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Ocean is returning to the UK as part of the drawdown of forces following completion of Exercise Saif Sareea 2.

  Due to current operational circumstances, the docking period planned for January next year has been deferred. HMS Ocean will, instead, return to Devonport for a shorter assisted maintenance period (AMP), during which some maintenance and defect rectification work will be carried out. The only repair work arising from failure during her last operation will be to some aviation fuel pumps. At this time it is estimated that the AMP will cost in the region of £0.8 million to £1 million.

  Army Radios
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the failure rate was of Clansman radios on Challenger II main battle tanks during exercise Saif Sareea 2 in Oman; [13118]

  (2) what the failure rate was of army radios during Exercise Saif Sareea 2 in Oman; and if he will make a statement. [13119]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The limitations of the Clansman radio are well known, hence the current action on procuring a replacement. Information on failure rates of individual radios employed during Exercise Saif Sareea 2 is not available. But indications are that Clansman performed somewhat better than we might have expected during Saif Sareea 2, despite the harsh environmental conditions experienced during the exercise.

  Sea Harrier Ferry
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Sea Harrier ferry will leave Yeovilton; what discussions he has had with the RAF Association about the move; what the overall cost of the move will be; and how many Sea Harrier pilots resigned their commissions in(a) 2001, (b), 2000, (c) 1999, (d) 1998, (e), 1997 and (f) 1996. [13422]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: Following the strategic defence review, the Sea Harrier force is scheduled to relocate to RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering in the second half of 2003. The Ministry of Defence has had no discussions with the RAF Association about the move. The cost of the move is estimated to be approximately £21.5 million. The number of Sea Harrier pilots who have taken premature voluntary retirement (PVR) are set out in the table:

  Year

  Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR)

  1996

  5

  1997

  2

  1998

  2

  1999

  6

  2000

  4

  2001

  4

  434W

  NBC Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what types of vehicles are used by the armed forces in connection with NBC defence; and of these, how many are operational. [13283]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: There are three types of vehicles currently in use by the armed forces that have a specific NBC defence role. The current vehicle holdings are as follows:

  Vehicle type

  Vehicles held

  FUCHS NBC survey vehicle

  11

  Prototype biological detection system (PBDS)

  9

  Multi-purpose decontamination system (MPDS)

  17

  There are other, mainly armoured, vehicles that have a defensive NBC capability. Soldiers can operate within these vehicles in a "collective protection" environment thus avoiding exposure to external biological or chemical threats for a set period of time.

  I am withholding the information relating to operational availability under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to government information.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 662W, on drug testing, if he will make a statement about the actions that follow when a service man or woman tests positive to a compulsory drugs test. [13123]

  Mr. Ingram
  Each compulsory drug test case is treated on its own merits and the individual concerned may make a representation about the circumstances surrounding the positive result. If it is concluded that the individual misused drugs knowingly, he or she would normally be discharged unless there were exceptional grounds for retention.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of compulsory drugs tests in the armed forces were positive in 2000. [13124]

  Mr. Ingram
  The percentage of compulsory drugs tests in the armed forces that were positive in 2000 were:

  Service

  Percentage

  Royal Navy

  0.36

  Army

  0.52

  Royal Air Force

  0.12

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on ballistic missiles on 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 129W, if he will place a copy of his draft international code of conduct on ballistic missiles in the Library. [13698]

  Mr. Hoon
  Yes.

  Military Maritime Graves
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions have been drawn on the consultation process into the protection of wrecked military vessels, with special reference to military maritime graves. [14305]

  Dr. Moonie
  The consultation process on the protection of military vessels, in particular, military maritime graves, ended in August. Following that consultation process it was decided that a small number of wrecks within UK jurisdiction, which are representative of all those lost, will be designated as controlled sites. This means that any activity within a controlled area will require a licence. All other military vessels which meet the criteria as set out in the consultation document, including those in international waters, will be designated as protected places. Those who contributed to the consultation process have been informed of this. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  September 11 (Financial Consequences)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will itemise the additional direct current financial year costs arising from decisions in response to the events of 11 September; and if they will be met from the existing defence budget. [13472]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 114W, to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what formations will be responsible for securing the logistical echelon for the Apache helicopter; and if he will make a statement regarding US studies of this matter in Kosovo. [9677]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Apache helicopter will be deployed as part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, the UK Army's Air Manoeuvre Formation. Responsibility for protecting units in support of Apache operations will fall to the operational commander. The composition of 16 Air Assault Brigade includes Infantry and Air Defence units, both of which may be used for this purpose.

  We always maintain close liaison between US and UK forces. Lessons learned from operations are studied and refinements, where necessary, are made to the way our armed forces operate. Specific lessons learned from US Apache operations in Kosovo are being considered and, where appropriate, used to refine the British Army's doctrine and operating procedures for the training and deployment of Air Manoeuvre units.

  Service Personnel (Sex Discrimination)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is applicable to service personnel serving on sovereign bases overseas. [12733]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate on sex grounds against an employee in relation to employment 436W
  at an establishment in Great Britain. In this context sovereign bases do not form part of the territory of Great Britain.

  Sections 6 and 10 of the Sex Discrimination Act provide that employment will be regarded as being at an establishment in Great Britain unless the employee does his work wholly outside Great Britain.

  Balkans
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security is offered to UK forces in the Balkans to protect them from possible asymmetric assault. [13280]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: Appropriate measures are in place to protect all deployed UK forces. These measures are kept under constant review in order to respond to emerging situations on the ground, but are not made public for reasons of operational security.

  Air Traffic Control (West Freugh)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military and (b) civil air traffic control movements have been handled by the air traffic control centre at MOD West Freugh, Wigtownshire, in each of the last five years. [13686]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total air traffic control movements are set out in the table:

  Total movements

  1997

  11,640

  1998

  11,844

  1999

  8,388

  2000

  5,976

  20011

  3,540

  1To date

  The split between military and civil movements over the last five years is not available as the information is not held in the form requested. It should be noted, however, that civilian flights make up only a small portion of the overall number of movements at the airfield each year.

  No-fly Zones
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to provide for the enforcement of no-fly zones around nuclear power stations. [13834]

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to enforce no-fly zones around nuclear installations. [13476]

  Mr. Ingram
  Security of nuclear installations is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The Royal Air Force has an established and well-practised air defence capability which is ready to detect, deter or destroy aircraft intending to attack any target within the UK, including nuclear installations. Adjustments have been made to our air defence posture since 11 September, but, for obvious reasons, I do not propose to go into detail on the nature of these changes.

  Charm 3
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of the armour piercing Charm 3 round are held. [13763]

  Mr. Ingram
  Charm 3 is the armour piercing round fired by the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank. Information relating to the stock levels of operational ammunition are withheld under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Exercise Saif Sareea 2
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if local overseas allowances were made available to all personnel in Exercise Saif Sareea 2; [13837]

  (2) if concessions were offered in lieu of local allowances overseas in Exercise Saif Sareea 2; and what these concessions were; [13838]

  (3) how many of the personnel in Exercise Saif Sareea 2 who were entitled to local overseas allowances or concessions in lieu received them; how many did not and to what units they belonged. [13839]

  Mr. Ingram
  Personnel deploying on Exercise Saif Sareea 2 were not entitled to Local Overseas Allowances (LOA) or to concessions in lieu of them. Although neither a concession nor a substitute for LOA, a comprehensive Operational Welfare package was made available to deployed personnel. This was in accordance with my predecessor's announcement on 19 March 2001,Official Report, column 12, which covered the welfare arrangements for exercises lasting for two months or more. The package included shower and laundry facilities, 20 minutes of free telephone calls a week, access to free electronic aerograms and free e-mail, television, videos, DVDs, newspapers, books, sports equipment and a Combined Service Entertainment show.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to review the eligibility criteria for pensioners' cold weather payments. [13840]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Cold weather payments provide extra help towards heating costs for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society in periods of exceptionally cold weather. Pensioners on low incomes are not the only people to benefit from the payments. They are also paid to people receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance who have children under the age of five or who have a premium for disability or long-term sickness. We have no plans to change the eligibility conditions.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to increase the pensioners' Christmas bonus. [13842]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have no plans to increase the level of the Christmas bonus.
  438W

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to review the eligibility criteria for pensioners' winter fuel payments. [13841]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are no plans to change the existing regulations.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what response he has sent to the RNID report "Can't Hear, Can't Benefit" in relation to take-up of disability living allowance by people who are deaf or have hearing difficulties. [11313]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: We have noted the issues and concerns raised by the RNID in this report. On 19 October, the president of the Appeals Service and a number of senior officials from the Department for Work and Pensions attended by invitation the RNID' s "Breaking The Sound Barrier" Conference. They took part in a session on the "Can't Hear, Can't Benefit" report, and discussed many aspects of it with delegates, including the question of DLA take-up.

  Benefits
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his latest estimate is of expenditure during the financial year 2001–02 on working families tax credit; and what expenditure was on(a) family income supplement and (b) family credit during their final years of operation at (i) current prices and (ii) 2001 prices; [11674]

  (2) how many households are in receipt of working families tax credit; what the take-up rate is; and what the take-up rate was of (a) family income supplement and (b) family credit, in their (i) first and (ii) final years of operation. [11673]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of families in receipt of working families tax credit (WFTC) is published in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library.

  Estimating the take-up rate for working families tax credit requires, among other things, detailed household survey data for 2000-01. These are not yet available for analysis.

  Estimates of take up rates for income-related benefits for Great Britain are published in the annual statistical series "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up", which is available in the House of Commons Library. Family income supplement (FIS) was introduced in 1971. Estimates of its take-up rate for 1986 and 1987 are available in the 1987 publication, combined with selected earlier combined years back to 1974–75. FIS was replaced by family credit in 1988. Estimates of its take-up rate in 1988 and 1989 were published in the 1989 edition. Estimates for the final year of family credit were published in the 1998–99 edition.
  439W
  Table C14 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report contains projections of expenditure on the working families tax credit (WFTC) and disabled person's tax credit made at the time of the Budget, including for 2001–02. Approximately 94 per cent. relates to expenditure on WFTC in Great Britain.

  I understand from the Department for Work and Pensions that expenditure on family income supplement in 1987-88 and expenditure on family credit in 1998-99, both in Great Britain, can be found on their website, www.dss.gov.uk/asd/asd4/Expenditure.htm, tables 8 and 9. There are various ways of converting these amounts to constant prices, including adjusting for movements in the gross domestic product deflator, which is published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Minimum pay for lecturers, senior lecturers and principal lecturers in pre and post–1992 universities and colleges

  £ per annum

  Pre–1992

  Post–1992

  Lecturer A

  Lecturer B

  Senior Lecturer

  Lecturer

  Senior Lecturer

  Principal Lecturer

  1992

  13,400

  19,352

  25,969

  10,902

  19,755

  23,841

  1993

  13,601

  19,642

  26,359

  11,067

  20,052

  24,189

  1994

  14,756

  20,133

  27,018

  12,756

  20,553

  24,804

  1995

  15,154

  20,677

  27,747

  13,100

  20,381

  25,474

  1996

  15,593

  22,143

  29,464

  13,480

  21,720

  26,213

  1997

  16,045

  21,894

  30,318

  13,871

  22,350

  26,973

  1998

  16,045

  22,332

  30,924

  14,148

  22,797

  27,512

  1999

  18,185

  23.521

  31,563

  14,398

  23,199

  27,998

  2000

  19,482

  24,227

  32,510

  18,769

  23,880

  29,847

  2001

  20,066

  24,954

  33,485

  19,191

  24,417

  30,519

  2002

  20,470

  25.455

  34,158

  19,575

  24,906

  —

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the impact of the local cost of living on teacher recruitment and retention. [11125]

  Mr. Timms
  These factors are under constant review as part of our on-going interest in teacher recruitment and retention. They are also kept under review by the School Teacher's Review Body, which makes recommendations to the Government on school teachers' pay and conditions. London area allowances increased by 30 per cent. in April this year, and schools have wide discretion to pay recruitment and retention allowances.

  We are aware of the effect that high accommodation costs, especially in the south-east of England, has on the recruitment and retention of teachers. To help develop a solution, last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in what was then the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, set out policies on home ownership, including proposals for a new initiative to help certain key public sector workers, including teachers, into low cost home ownership. The Government recently announced details of the starter home initiative, funded by £250 million over the years 2001–02 to 2003–04. This scheme will benefit over 10,000 key public sector workers, including 3,500 teachers, helping them to buy homes in urban and rural areas where high prices would otherwise prevent them
  440W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education Lecturers
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average starting pay for higher education lecturers was in each year of the last 10 years. [10913]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not held centrally. Available figures from the Universities and Colleges Association for the minimum pay of lecturers, senior lecturers and principal lecturers in the pre-1992 universities and in the post-1992 universities and colleges are shown in the following table. However, starting salaries do not necessarily equate with minimum pay, and not all appointments are made to the Lecturer and Lecturer A scales.

  from living in or near to the communities they serve. Registered landlords, local authorities and other interested parties were invited to bid for a share of this funding.

  Teachers (Early Leavers)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many qualified teachers left the profession, having completed between three and seven years of service in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [12687]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: About 6,200 qualified full and part-time regular teachers (headcount), who had completed at least three but less than seven years service, left the maintained schools sector in England in 1999–2000, the most recent year for which data are available. The figures exclude 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-time teachers not included on the Teacher Pension Scheme records. Some teachers who left service will return after a career break.

  Parental Choice (Siblings)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is given to education authorities on the rights(a) parents and (b) step-parents have to send their children to the same school as older siblings. [13653]

  Mr. Timms
  None. Local education authorities are responsible for setting and publishing the admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools, following local consultation each year. These
  441W
  arrangements must include the criteria for allocating places if a school is oversubscribed. There is no requirement for local authorities to use sibling links as an admission criterion, although many choose to do so, deciding their own definition of 'sibling'.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what work the social exclusion unit has carried out in relation to child homelessness. [13756]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Prime Minister has asked the social exclusion unit to make recommendations to reduce the number of young people running away and ensure that runaways' short and long term needs are met. Approximately 129,000 young people run away each year and one quarter sleep rough. Running away is also a strong predictor of later homelessness. The project will report its recommendations to the Ministerial Committee on Children and Young People at the end of the year.

  The social exclusion unit report on rough sleeping published in 1998 found that there were very few rough sleepers aged under 18. None the less, it identified a range of measures specifically aimed at young people. Many of these have now been taken forward by the rough sleepers unit, set up in April 1999 as a result of the SEU report. Examples of this have been work on the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and the setting up, in partnership with the Department of Health and funded by the National Children's Bureau, of a 'Care Leaving Support Service'.

  In addition, part of the SEU report on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal—the Policy Action Team 12 on Young People—looked at how Government could improve co-ordination of policies affecting children and young people and improve services, developing them to help prevent social exclusion. This led to the establishment of the children and young peoples unit in July 2000, based in the Department for Education and Skills. This unit supports cross-Government work on child poverty and youth disadvantage, looking across the full 0 to 19 age range, and is also responsible for implementing and managing the children's fund.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Code of Practice (Retailing)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what meetings her Department's officials and Ministers have had since March about drawing up the code of practice for retailers' behaviour in relation to their suppliers; what the dates of meetings with external organisations and companies were; and who attended the meetings; [12098]

  (2) when the latest version of the draft code of practice for retailers' behaviour in relation to their suppliers will be circulated for consultation; to which organisations and companies it will be sent for comment; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [12097]
  442W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Director General of Fair Trading consulted with the major supermarkets and over 100 representatives of suppliers on the drafting of the code of practice on supermarkets' relations with their suppliers earlier this year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 31 October that she had accepted the Director General's advice on the code and had asked him to seek to obtain undertakings from the four leading supermarket chains to comply with the code. Copies of her announcement and the code have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ministers and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry have had no meetings since March with interested parties about drawing up the code of practice on supermarkets' relations with their suppliers.

  The Director General of Fair Trading was given responsibility for drawing up the code.

  Stop Now Orders
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what guidance and training has been given to trading standards officers to enable them to implement Stop Now Orders; and if she will make a statement; [12989]

  (2) how many Stop Now Orders have been issued since June; and if she will make a statement; [12987]

  (3) what extra resources have been given to local authorities to enable trading standards departments to implement Stop Now Orders; and if she will make a statement. [12988]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Stop Now Orders require traders to cease conduct which is contrary to a wide range of consumer protection legislation and harms the collective interests of consumers. The Orders were introduced in June of this year.

  Two local authorities have secured written undertakings under the regulations, and other cases are under consideration.

  DTI has agreed with the Department for Transport. Local Government and the Regions, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales a transfer of resources to cover the additional costs associated with the enforcement of the Stop Now Order Regulations.

  DTI has also funded a series of seminars to train trading standards officers in the legal and administrative requirements of the regulations. Six events were held across the country during September and October.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements have been made to consult on the OFT report on the legal profession; how many representations have been received(a) in support and (b) against the OFT recommendations; and if she will make a statement. [12621]
  443W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No final arrangements have yet been made to consult on the OFT report. The Government remain committed to ensure that the professions are properly subject to competition.

  Patents (Genetically Engineered Animals)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what UK patents relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for creating such animals have been(a) applied for and published since 9 July 1999 and (b) granted since 28 July 2000. [12568]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since 9 July 2000, 17 UK patents relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for creating them have been applied for and published. These were GB 2358865 A, GB 2358400 A, GB 2357768 A, GB 2355718 A, GB 2355459 A, GB 2353282 A, GB 2351496 A, GB 2351494 A, GB 2351152 A, GB 2350613 A, GB 2349885 A, GB 2349150 A, GB 2348701 A, GB 2344344 A, GB 2344107 A, GB 2340493 A and GB 2337519 A.

  Since 28 July 2000 there have been 10 UK patents granted relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for creating them. These were GB 2351496 B, GB 2351494 B, GB 2351152 B. GB 2349150 B, GB 2348701 B, GB 2344344 B, GB 2344107 B, GB 2335193 B, GB 2331752 B and GB 2331301 B.

  This information does not include applications filed at the European Patent Office which may have the effect of UK patents if granted by that office.

  Fireworks
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to ensure that fireworks are not sold to those under the age of 18 years. [12374]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibit the supply of most fireworks to persons under the age of 18 years. The exceptions to this prohibition are low hazard fireworks, that is caps, cracker snaps, novelty matches and party poppers, which, under the Explosives Act 1875 can be sold to persons over the age of 16 years. We provide information to consumers and retailers reminding them of these restrictions. We also work closely with local authority trading standards departments whose responsibility enforcement is.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to review the law on the sale of fireworks; and if she will make a statement. [13184]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced new controls on the types and sizes of fireworks which can be sold to the public. The situation regarding firework safety continues to be carefully monitored.

  South West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public money the South West Regional Development Agency has received in each of the last three years. [12298]
  444W
  Alan Johnson
  The South West Regional Development Agency received grant in aid of 344,514,000 in 1999–2000, £62,951,000 in 2000–01 and has a grant in aid allocation of £84,663,000 in 2001–02.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 18 July and 20 September, concerning the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. [7971]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment replied to the hon. Member's letter on 18 October 2001.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of correspondence received by her Department from hon. Members did not receive a substantive response within(a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) four months, (e) five months and (f) six months in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [9953]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: The specific information sought by the hon. Member in relation to DEFRA could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, since the creation of DEFRA in June 2001 to the end of October the average length of time taken for the Department to provide replies to letters from hon. Members was 29 working days. Although this is longer than the departmental target of 15 working days we are working hard to ensure that this record is improved and the target met. The Department has suffered severe disruption due to allocating top priority to defeating the foot and mouth epidemic. I accept this is not an excuse for not giving hon. Members good service, and now that normality is returning to the Department one of our urgent priorities is to rectify any weakness in our service delivery.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 6 August from the hon. Member for North Shropshire concerning the extension to the burning of cattle at Sleap, Shropshire. [12630]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: I replied to the letter from the hon. Member for North Shropshire on 7 November 2001.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the letter of 26 June from the hon. Member for North Shropshire concerning his constituent Mr. Michael Hendry; [12634]

  (2) when she will reply to the letter of 12 August from the hon. Member for North Shropshire regarding the access inquiries into foot and mouth will have to confidential documents; [12635]

  (3) when she will reply to the letter of 6 August from the hon. Member for North Shropshire concerning his constituent, Piers Bratton. [12631]
  445W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 6 November 2001]: I replied to the letters from the hon. Member on 7 November 2001.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 5 September from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), on the creation of a large disposal site in Norfolk. [13238]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: I replied to the right hon. Member on 7 November 2001.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to identify the source of foot and mouth imported into the United Kingdom. [9429]

  Mr. Morley
  A great deal of epidemiological research has been conducted into the origins of this outbreak. The current epidemic has been caused by a specific strain of the foot and mouth virus (PanAsian Strain O) which has occurred in a number of countries around the world. The precise means of introduction of the virus is unknown and subject to continuing investigations, but is most likely to have been introduced in illegally imported meat or meat products. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the specific question of the source or sources of the outbreak until all investigations are complete.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis she formulated her policy on implementing a public and independent inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [9268]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have already announced the independent "Lessons Learned" inquiry chaired by Dr. lain Anderson and the Royal Society Study chaired by Sir Brian Follett. along with the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food chaired by Sir Don Curry.

  We are satisfied that these two inquiries and the Policy Commission will provide rigorous investigation of the issues in the foot and mouth outbreak and will allow us to identify the best wary forward, quickly and efficiently and that this approach is in the best interests of the public.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the contribution that livestock markets made to the spread of FMD infection. [12295]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Prior to 23 February 2001, infected sheep are known to have been traded through a number of markets in England and Wales resulting in the initial dissemination of disease to farms, dealers and slaughterhouses. Epidemiological investigations indicate that potentially infected sheep passed through six auction markets between 13 and 23 February. Investigations into the role of other markets have not been conclusive but are continuing.

  Chemicals Charter
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress he has made on adopting the regulations based on the Copenhagen charter on safer chemicals. [8316]
  446W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The Copenhagen charter is a set of principles that a group of European environment and consumer organisations believe should form part of a new European Union chemicals policy. The UK is working to ensure that the regulations which implement the EU Strategy achieve the improvements in protection of people and the environment that the Copenhagen charter seeks.

  While the Government support the aims of the charter, we do have reservations about the practicality of some of its proposals. For example, we believe that a system which involved approving all uses of all chemicals should not delay action on the chemicals of most concern. The charter also does not take into account other issues that are important to the UK, such as the need to minimise the extra animal testing that will result from the EU Strategy.

  The UK and other EU member states agreed a set of conclusions at the Environment Council in June which incorporated many of the elements of the Copenhagen charter. A copy of the Environment Council conclusions is available in the Library of the House.

  River Management
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of arrangements made by British Waterways to manage flood control on its rivers; and if she will make a statement. [11554]

  Mr. Meacher
  Where appropriate the Environment Agency has agreements in place with British Waterways on the operation of the latter's navigation infrastructure for flood control purposes. I understand that these arrangements have operated satisfactorily.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish data on volatility and volumetric flows on rivers managed by(a) British Waterways and (b) the Environment Agency. [11556]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is not collected by this Department but comprehensive information on river flows is published by the centre for Ecology and Hydrology (formerly the Institute of Hydrology and British Geological Survey) in their publication "Hydrological Data UK: Hydrometric Register and Statistics 1991–95". Information covering the period 1996–2000 will be published next year.

  Farm Plastics Waste
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to introduce a compulsory system for dealing with the issue of waste non-packaging farm plastics. [11780]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will be addressing the question of how to deal with waste non-packaging farm plastics in the forthcoming consultation document on agricultural waste. We will consider whether a statutory scheme should be introduced in the light of responses to this consultation exercise.

  Hunting
  Lembit öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
  447W
  she has made of damage to livestock by fox predation during the suspension of hunting with dogs due to foot and mouth disease; what account has been taken of this in the determination of the time scale for the publication of the Veterinary Risk Assessment report on hunting; and if she will make a statement. [12024]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has received no evidence of such consequences from the suspension of hunting. Consideration of the time scale for resumption of hunting is based entirely on the veterinary risk assessment and how best to help the countryside return to normal while doing all we can to eradicate foot and mouth disease.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial help she gives to farmers who wish to switch to organic production. [12078]

  Mr. Morley
  Aid is available under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS), which is part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), to help farmers convert to organic farming. £140 million has been committed to funding the OFS over the life of the ERDP.

  Aid under the OFS is paid over five years according to the category of land being converted. The rates of aid are as follows:

  £ per hectare

  Land eligible for arable area payments and land in permanant crops

  Other improved land

  Unimproved land

  Year 1

  225

  175

  25

  Year 2

  135

  105

  10

  Year 3

  50

  40

  5

  Year 4

  20

  15

  5

  Year 5

  20

  15

  5

  Total

  450

  350

  50

  In addition, each organic unit being converted under the OFS is eligible for payments totalling £600 towards the initial cost of advice and training.

  As well as financial assistance for conversion, we also provide other support, for example, through the Department's R and D programme, which includes a large component dealing with research on organic farming, and through the provision of free advice to prospective organic farmers by the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS).

  EU Enlargement
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her counterparts in central and eastern Europe concerning the effect of enlargement of the European Union on agriculture in the United Kingdom. [12805]

  Mr. Morley
  So far this year, my ministerial colleagues and I have had meetings with our counterparts from Poland, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania. Over the next few months we hope to build on these, and to have dialogue with our counterparts in Hungary and Estonia

  Regional Office (Exeter)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the complement of staff working at her Department's regional office at Exeter was on(a) 1 November 2001 and (b) 1 August 2001. [12826]

  Mr. Morley
  Two parts of the Department operate from Clyst House, Exeter: namely the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and the Foot and Mouth Disease Office.

  The RPA office at Exeter had 395 staff on 1 August 2001 and 429 staff on 1 November 2001. The staff numbers were increased over this period to deal with work that was transferred to Exeter from RPA offices at Bristol, Worcester and Reading.

  Precise figures for the number of staff at the Foot and Mouth Disease Office at Exeter on the dates specified are unavailable. However, the number of staff was broadly unchanged over the period in question at around 300, approximately two thirds of whom were casual appointments.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide aid for the English fishing industry in similar terms to that operated in Scotland. [12811]

  Mr. Morley
  Grant aid is available in England for similar schemes to those available in Scotland, under the terms of the EU Structural Fund for fisheries including grant for decommissioning fishing vessels.

  Countryside Stewardship Schemes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the area of farmed land subject to Countryside Stewardship schemes. [12810]

  Mr. Morley
  Our plans for a major expansion of the Countryside Stewardship budget are well known. As part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), expenditure on agri-environment schemes is scheduled to increase from £119 million this year to £197 million in 2006–07. From the total ERDP budget of £1.6 billion, £500 million has been allocated to the Countryside Stewardship Scheme over the period. As a result, each year we will be accepting roughly double the number of applications compared to 1999 and we expect to add over half a million hectares of land to that already covered by the scheme (currently about a quarter of a million hectares) over the last 10 years.

  BSE and Scrapie
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to publish scientific advice to Ministers relating to BSE and scrapie. [12798]

  Mr. Morley
  In all matters relating to BSE and scrapie, the Government have been open and transparent. We will continue to put scientific advice to Government in the public domain, encouraging a culture of openness, trusting the public and stimulating informed public debate. To this end the Government's advisory committee on BSE matters
  449W
  (the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC)) publishes summaries of all its meetings. These aim to explain the reasoning behind SEAC advice.

  Southern Water Supplies
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will conduct an inquiry into Southern Water Services Ltd. supplies to Fulston Manor and Higham grammar schools since November 1999. [12423]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Any customer who has a complaint against a water undertaker should refer it to the Ofwat Customer Services Committee for the appropriate region, although I understand that the problems at Fulston Manor and Higham grammar schools relate not to the supply of water to the premises by Southern Water, but to pipes within the premises, which are the responsibility of the customer.

  Domestic Refrigerators
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage environmentally friendly disposal of domestic refrigerators; and if she will make a statement. [11664]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The disposal of domestic refrigerators is subject to waste management controls, under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which are designed to prevent harm to human health and the environment. From 1 January 2002, the EC Regulation on Ozone Depletion Substances will require "controlled substances" (including CFCs) in coolants and in insulating foam to be removed before recycling or reclamation of domestic refrigerator units. The Department will finalise shortly guidance on CFC extraction plant and guidance on the storage of waste refrigeration equipment, prior to CFC extraction.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial assistance she makes available for livestock movements; and if she will make a statement. [12350]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The current foot and mouth disease movement controls require that all animals to be moved are inspected by a local veterinary inspector (LVI). These veterinary inspections are carried out at DEFRA's expense.

  Movement Licences
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigation she has made into the operation of the single occupancy movement licences scheme; and if she will make a statement. [12347]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001].: Sole occupancy movement licences were introduced on 8 October to provide for the regular movement of livestock between premises in the same ownership and occupation within a maximum diameter of 20.0 kms. Licences are issued under the authority of the divisional veterinary manager only after an assessment by a local veterinary inspector. These arrangements were welcomed
  450W
  by the industry and demand for licences was high in the first month of operation. After some initial delays applications are being processed within four to five days and often more quickly.

  Flooding
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public money was spent on flood(a) defences and (b) prevention measures in the last 12 months, brokendown by (i) county. (ii) local authority and (iii) in London. [12886]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not collected in the format requested and could not he obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public money has been spent on flood warning systems in the last 12 months. [12887]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is responsible for flood forecasting and dissemination of warnings in England. I understand the Agency spent £23.4 million on this during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Environment Agency regarding flood(a) prevention and (b) defences. [12884]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has asked the Government to recognise and commit to meeting the need for a significant further increase in funding on a planned basis to (a) improve flood warnings and (b) maintain and improve the overall standard and extent of flood defence. This will be considered alongside other evidence through the Spending Review 2002 process. Current plans are for this Department's spending on flood and coastal defences for all operating authorities to increase from last year's outturn of £66 million to £114 million in 2003–04.

  The Agency has also asked the Government to consider alternative institutional arrangements for delivering the flood and coastal defence service. We are already doing so as part of the present review of funding arrangements.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much private money was spent in the last four years on flood defences and flood prevention. [13021]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not collect information on the work undertaken by private individuals to protect their properties against flooding. In some cases beneficiaries of flood defence works undertaken by the operating authorities will make a contribution to those works. Comprehensive information on such contributions is not available in respect of works undertaken by local authorities or internal drainage boards but contributions to the Environment Agency in England were as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  1997–98

  0.2

  1998–99

  0.3

  1999–2000

  0.5

  2001–01

  0.3

  451W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public funds were spent, broken down by local authorities, agencies and other relevant organisations on flood defences and flood prevention in the last four years; how much public spending on flood defences/prevention is planned for the next two years; and how much additional money she promised in 2001 for flood defences and flood prevention on top of that pledged in the last spending review. [13102]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is provided by the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. The following table shows expenditure, from all sources, by the different operation authorities.

  £ million

  Year

  Environment Agency

  Local authorities

  Internal drainage boards1

  Total

  1997–98

  255.2

  13,0

  40.0

  308.2

  1998–99

  247.2

  15.0

  40.3

  302.5

  1999–2000

  260.3

  15.4

  40.7

  316.4

  2000–01

  270.4

  220.1

  41.0

  2331.5

  1Estimated

  2Provisional

  The great majority of this expenditure is provided by Government in the form of DEFRA grant (for approved capital and other works) and by DTLR through revenue support grant (which is used by local authorities to fund levies to the Environment Agency, special levies to internal drainage boards and to finance their own spend on flood and coastal defence).The Spending Review 2000 provided for an increase in DEFRA grant of £10 million in 2002–03 and £20 million in 2003–04. It also provided for local authority Standard Spending Assessments for flood and coastal defence to increase by some 4.4 per cent. annually over the period.

  A further £51 million of DEFRA support was announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 November 2000. This was allocated as follows: £2 million in 2000–01; £17 million in 2001–02; £17 million in 2002–03 and £15 million in 2003–04. A further £6.6 million to assist the Environment Agency to meet its emergency costs was announced in January 2001 and allocated in 2001–02.

  The following table sets out total Government funding of flood and coastal defence for the last four years and forecast expenditure for the current and next two years:

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  312.4

  1998–99

  315.9

  1999–2000

  326.3

  2000–01

  331.7

  2001–02

  376.9

  2002–03

  393.5

  2003–04

  414.2

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to streamline the agencies that have a responsibility for flooding matters, with particular 452W
  reference to (a) the Environment Agency, (b) the internal drainage boards, (c) local authorities, (d) British Waterways and (e) other boards. [13415]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are considering this issue as part of the current review of funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to ensure that flood prevention is not paid for exclusively from council tax. [13385]

  Mr. Morley
  It is already the case that the great majority of expenditure on flood and coastal defence is currently met out of general taxation.

  In the current year DEFRA expects to provide direct funding of some £92 million to the operating authorities while some £264 million is provided to local authorities through DTLR's standard spending assessments which are largely supported by central grant and non-domestic rate income. Local authorities use this to fund levies to the Environment Agency, special levies to internal drainage boards and their own spend on flood and coastal defence.

  Warm Front Grants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the level of Warm Front grants in England; and what plans she has to change the level of the grant. [12438]

  Mr. Meacher:
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, marketed as the Warm Front Team, is managed under contract by the Eaga Partnership Ltd. and TXU Warm Front Ltd. Both companies provide regular advice to the Department about the average cost of work under the scheme. This is then used to review the appropriate maximum level set for grant paid to individual householders.

  Sovereign Harbour (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations the Environment Agency has made with respect to the building of homes at Sovereign Harbour, Eastbourne. [12891]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Environment Agency has responded to consultations by Eastbourne borough council about planning applications for proposed residential development in the area between the sea defence and the inner harbour. The Agency's responses to such consultations can be viewed at Eastbourne borough council's offices.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground (SPADs)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many signal passed at danger events there were on the London Underground lines in the past five years for which figures are available. [7448]
  453W
  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground take SPADs very seriously and are constantly working to reduce the number on their network. Information on the number of SPADs is regularly placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The most recent information, which includes data for SPADs since 1993, was placed in the Library on 7 November.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how

  £

  Advertising

  Television

  Radio

  Press

  Other1

  Total

  1995–962

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,300,000

  1996–97

  3,836,887

  461,937

  1,741,197

  1,178,979

  7,219,000

  1997–98

  3,154,027

  926,232

  1,559,001

  860,740

  6,500,000

  1998–99

  3,449,938

  1,048,951

  861,097

  640,014

  6,000,000

  1999–2000

  7,457,172

  661,303

  1,059,974

  2,821,551

  12,000,000

  2000ߝ01

  13,475,335

  1,932,364

  971,796

  1,314,395

  17,693,890

  1e.g. posters, leaflets

  2A breakdown into separate categories would only he possible at disproportionate cost

  The increased expenditure on advertising in 1999–2000 resulted from:

  (i) An increase of £3.6 million on the "Are you doing your bit" campaign to help people to take action to protect the environment; and

  (ii) £2.9 million spent on a campaign to encourage voting in the Greater London Authority elections.

  The increase in expenditure in 2000–01 resulted from:

  (i) An additional increase of £2 million on the "Are you doing your bit" campaign; and

  (ii) A £4 million increase on the campaign aimed at further reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

  (iii) Advertising aimed at providing information to the general public on access to the countryside during the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to ensure(a) Arriva in West Yorkshire and (b) other train operating companies recruit and retain sufficient drivers to fulfil their timetable commitments. [12533]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) expects all train operators to recruit sufficient staff, including drivers, to run a reliable train service and meet their timetable commitments.

  The SRA has in place performance regimes under which train operators are penalised if they fail to meet certain standards. The SRA can also issue enforcement orders and penalties against operators for continuing poor performance, as it proposes with Arriva Trains Northern.

  Kane v. New Forest DC
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implications of the judgment in the case of Kane v. New Forest DC. [12968]
  454W
  much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12259]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department's financial year starts 1 April and runs to 31 March. For each financial year from 1995 the advertising spend, broken down by category, is set out in the table.

  Ms Keeble
  The case was an appeal against the summary dismissal of a claim for damages for personal injuries caused by negligence. The appeal succeeded, so that the substantive claim can now proceed. Pending its conclusion, the matter is sub judice and I cannot comment.

  Light Rail Schemes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the investment outlined in the Government's 10-Year Plan is allocated to Light Rail schemes. [12750]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Light Rail schemes account for about 1.7 per cent. of total spending in our 10-Year Plan for Transport.

  Suburban Train Lines (Waterloo)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on how and when the proposed extension of trains and platforms on suburban lines into Waterloo will be financed. [12749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Investment in new trains for the Waterloo suburban lines is being made by Angel Trains under a £1 billion deal, announced on 24 April 2001, between the company, Stagecoach Holdings plc and Siemens. It will be recovered through leasing charges paid by the train operator, South West Trains, which will be in receipt of franchise payments from the Strategic Rail Authority. No agreement has yet been reached with Railtrack or with other private investors on the financing of station improvements, including platform extensions, but the investment is similarly likely to be recovered through access charges paid by the train operator.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant
  455W
  to his answer of 25 October 2001, Official Report, column 395W, on Railtrack, it he will list the actions that will be required to secure investment grade ratings for the debt of the company limited by guarantee. [12986]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 671W.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 94W, on Railtrack, when he met Mr. Alun Evans to discuss release of the document proposing changes to the Parsons Brinckerhoff report; and to what extent the propriety of the conduct of Ms Jo Moore in respect of the release of this document was discussed with Mr. Evans. [12993]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is exempted from disclosure under Part 2 of Section II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the crossrail project of Railtrack being placed into administration. [12695]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Work on the development of a crossrail project will continue on the same basis as before Railtrack administration. It has always been expected that a special purpose vehicle would be created to take forward any scheme which might be developed as a result of the current project definition work.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on the rail services to and from the Beckenham constituency of the decision to place Railtrack into administration. [12670]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rail services will not be affected by the process of administration. The Government will ensure that the administrator has the funds to maintain the full operation of the network.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the value of the railway stations within the ownership of Railtrack on 4 October was. [13214]

  Mr. Spellar
  The balance sheet valuation of all of Railtrack Group plc's tangible assets as at 31 March 2001 is shown in their 2000–01 annual report and accounts. Separate accounts for Railtrack plc are held at Companies House.

  Railways Act
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the occasions since 1997 when section 54 of the Railways Act 1993 has been used. [12740]
  456W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1997, section 54 has been used five times as follows:

  March 2000 in respect of 120 vehicles for Connex South Central

  March 2001 in respect of 818 vehicles for South West Trains

  July 2001 in respect of 240 vehicles for South Central/GoVia

  October 2001 in respect of eight new trailer cars and five new four-car units for Arriva Trains Northern

  November 2001 in respect of five two-car vehicles for Arriva Trains Northern.

  Light Rapid Transport Scheme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contribution his Department is making to the light rapid transport scheme for Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth; how the estimated cost of the scheme is to be financed; and if he will make a statement. [12664]

  Ms Keeble
  The agreement that the Government have reached with the authorities promoting the scheme provides for the public sector contribution to be shared between central Government and the authorities. This is in line with our general policy that about a quarter of the costs of a major public transport scheme of this kind should be met from local sources. The precise amounts involved will only be determined once the tendering process has been completed.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what checks are made to ensure that affordable housing building takes place by house builders on former English Partnership land. [13004]

  Ms Keeble
  Each provider of affordable housing on English Partnerships land is contractually obliged to provide an agreed number of units, the delivery of which is confirmed upon practical completion of a particular development site or project.

  Special Advisers
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from civil service unions about the conduct of his special advisers since 7 June. [12992]

  Mr. Byers
  None.

  Airlines (Security)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on(a) the deferred payment of air passenger duty, (b) the extra costs of airline and airport security and (c) maintaining insurance cover to airlines, since 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [R] [12975]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received various representations from the air transport industry on all of these issues. The Government moved quickly to underwrite, on a temporary basis, third party war risk insurance for UK airlines and service providers to the airline industry. The initiative has subsequently been widely copied elsewhere and was recently extended until
  457W
  23 November. The European Commission has set out guidelines on emergency aid measures which were endorsed at the meeting of European Transport Ministers on 16 October. We will take these guidelines into account in considering whether further aid should be provided to the British airline industry.

  Flood Plains
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure that house buyers are aware of the risks of purchasing a house built on a flood plain. [12889]

  Ms Keeble
  In September 1999 the Environment Agency published indicative floodplain maps using the best available current information. These were supplied to local authorities to inform the planning process and are updated annually. In December 2000 the Environment Agency placed these maps on the internet on their website www.environment-agency.gov.uk in the section entitled "What's in your backyard". Prospective home buyers can interrogate this site by postcode to see the area at flood risk. Further, more detailed information can be obtained by writing to the local Environment Agency area office.

  Under the Government's proposals for sellers' packs. prospective buyers will be provided with key information about homes marketed for sale. Flood risk information is one of the items being considered for inclusion in the seller's pack. In the meantime, the Environment Agency is engaged in advanced discussions with the Law Society on making an 'Environment Agency Property Search Report', a standard part of the domestic and commercial conveyancing process in England and Wales. A pilot trial is running in North Wales and work is under way to extend this. Each Environment Agency report will include information on flood risk as well as other environmental data for which the agency has responsibility.

  Local Government
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received about the effectiveness of local authority standards committees; and if he will make a statement. [12323]

  Table A: Number of waste management or recycling schemes in London SRB schemes during 1999–2000 and 2000/01

  £

  Name of Scheme

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  SRB Lifetime Value1

  Connecting Communities

  1

  3

  2,099,800

  Forest Gate and Plaistow

  0

  1

  21,769,208

  Stratford and Temple Mills

  —

  1

  7,834,664

  Creekside Renewal

  —

  2

  8,273,500

  Canning Town

  1

  1

  21,501,000

  Time for Greenwich

  —

  107

  26,969,300

  Hackney Wick

  1

  1

  19,234,999

  Mile End Park

  —

  1

  2,330,000

  New Horizons for Harold Hill

  —

  1

  3,819,378

  Northern Wards

  —

  6

  2,814,851

  Releasing Local Potential

  —

  1

  29,920,000

  South Wandle Regeneration Partnership

  —

  26

  6,397,010

  King's Cross Partnership

  —

  1

  37,173,806

  West Euston Partnership

  —

  4

  6,546,000

  Aylesbury Plus

  1

  3

  4,798,237

  Developing Park Royal's Offer

  —

  17

  26,721,833

  458W
  Dr. Whitehead
  I have not received any representations about the effectiveness of local authority standards committees.

  Recycling (London)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which London-based organisations have received grants from(a) the single regeneration budget and (b) other sources to promote waste recycling in the past two years; and what the value was of grants in each case. [13277]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: Information on individual London-based organisations that received funding to promote waste recycling through the single regeneration budget is held by the SRB partnerships who distribute the funding. However, the London Development Agency, who are responsible for administering the SRB programme in London, have provided details of London SRB schemes that included waste management or recycling projects in their outputs in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. These are at table A. In addition, a SRB round 6 scheme "Re-engineering Secondary Materials for Thames Gateway" was awarded £5.4 million lifetime funding in summer 2000 but did not incur any project expenditure during 2000–01. This is run by London Remade, a strategic partnership between waste management companies, statutory authorities, London boroughs and community organisations, with the principal objective of promoting new markets and secondary industries based on reprocessing and reuse of London's recyclable materials.

  The Environmental Action Fund, operated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), is designed to help voluntary groups advance the Government's environmental policies to London-based organisations to promote recycling and raise awareness of waste management issues. Table B lists the grants that were issued during 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  The Spending Review 2000 established a fund of £140 million specifically for local authority waste management and recycling. DEFRA will be consulting shortly on proposals for the distribution and use of this fund.
  459W

  Table A: Number of waste management or recycling schemes in London SRB schemes during 1999–2000 and 2000/01

  £

  Name of Scheme

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  SRB Lifetime Value1

  A New Future for Finsbury Park

  —

  1

  25,000,000

  New Opportunities for Walthamstow

  —

  1

  13,997,990

  Bridging the Divides

  —

  48

  28,136,192

  Cross River Partnership (SBEG)

  —

  1

  7,589,237

  1Total award of SRB funding is for all the activities within the scheme

  Table B: Grants from the Environmental Action Fund

  £

  Organisation

  Project title

  Amount

  1999–2000

  Hackney Community Recycling

  Learning from Scrap

  48,743

  Safe Neighbourhoods Unit

  Estate Recycling Support Project

  13,534

  Waste Watch

  3Rs for the 3rd Sector

  21,413

  Waste Watch

  National Waste Awareness Initiative

  59,860

  Waste Watch

  Supporting action on 'Less Waste More Value'

  99,000

  2000–01

  Elephant Jobs

  Community Composting

  14.500

  Elephant Jobs

  Office Furniture Fittings

  26,108

  Hackney Community Recycling

  Learning from Scrap

  49,439

  Safe Neighbourhoods Unit

  Estate Recycling Support Project

  13,529

  Waste Watch

  3Rs for the 3rd Sector

  21,819

  Waste Watch

  National Waste Awareness Initiative

  55,465

  Waste Watch

  Supporting action on 'Less Waste More Value'

  110,000

  2001–02

  BioRegional Development Group

  An integrated Tree Station for London

  59,860

  Elephant Jobs

  Community Composting

  14,500

  Elephant Jobs

  Office Furniture Fittings

  26,108

  Hackney Community Recycling

  Learning from Scrap

  33,250

  Waste Watch

  National Waste Awareness Initiative

  71,680

  Waste Watch

  Supporting action on 'Waste Strategy 2000'

  198,000

  Correspondence
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the questions of 22 October from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. [13873]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I replied to the hon. Member's questions about the Working Time Directive on 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 133W and on 7 November 2001, Official Report, columns 287–88W.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's Flats over the Shop initiative. [13752]

  Ms Keeble
  The scheme for 100 per cent. capital allowances for flats over shops was introduced in the Budget. Spending on the renovation or conversion of vacant or under-used space above shops or other qualifying commercial premises, to provide flats for rent, can qualify under the scheme from 11 May 2001.

  Information about the amount of spending qualifying under the measure will not be available until 2003, when property owners and occupiers who have incurred expenditure have sent in their tax returns for the first tax year in which the scheme has been in operation.
  460W

  Homelessness
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many children were made homeless in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001 to date; and what proposals the Government have to counter this problem. [13754]

  Ms Keeble
  Summary information on activity under statutory homelessness provisions is reported to the Department by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and identifies those households containing dependent children.

  The latest information is as follows:

  Homeless households accepted by local authorities in England

  1997

  20011

  Total households accepted

  102,410

  59,530

  of which containing dependent children

  58,780

  33,800

  Estimated number2 of dependent children

  105,000

  58,000

  1January to June

  2 Rounded estimates-precise data are not collected

  Source:

  DTLR Quarterly P1(E) housing activity returns

  Families with children who are accepted by a local housing authority as unintentionally homeless are provided with accommodation.
  461W
  Under the Children Act 1989, social services have a duty to assist any child under 16 who is in need. Monitoring by the rough sleepers unit by outreach workers shows there are very few under 18-year-olds sleeping rough. Children under 16 found on the streets by agencies, including police or homelessness workers, are helped from the streets and referred to social services. The social exclusion unit is currently leading an exercise looking at improving services available to young runaways.

  Homeless acceptances represent households in need who are helped by local authorities into accommodation. The provisions of the Homelessness Bill will require housing authorities to take a more strategic, multi-agency approach to the prevention of homelessness and the rehousing of homeless households; ensure that everyone accepted by housing authorities as unintentionally homeless and in priority need must be provided with suitable accommodation until they obtain a settled housing solution; and allow housing authorities greater flexibility to assist non-priority homeless households, principally through a new power for housing authorities to secure accommodation for such households where they have the scope to do so.

  To support these provisions, investment in new affordable housing through the Housing Corporation will rise to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04—about double the current level.

  The Government are currently developing a national strategic framework to help prevent and tackle homelessness throughout the country.

  The Code on Guidance on Allocations and Homelessness will be strengthened to ensure that the health needs of children in temporary accommodation are met.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will publish(a) a response to the homelessness consultation, (b) the Vulnerable Groups (Definition) Guidelines, (c) proposals to deal with rogue landlords in the social housing sector, (d) proposals to license houses in multiple occupation, (e) proposals on the future of the Rough Sleepers Unit and (f) new regulations to extend the right to priority temporary social housing to those with an institutionalised background. [13758]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government have recently consulted on proposals for a national strategy to tackle homelessness. A summary of responses will be placed on the DTLR internet site on 7 December. The consultation responses are being considered and the Government will announce their response in due course.

  We have consulted on a draft order which would extend the groups of people who have a priority need for housing, under the homelessness legislation. This includes applicants who the local authority are satisfied are vulnerable as a result of an institutionalised background. We are considering the public consultation responses to the order, and will take decisions on implementation shortly. Guidance relating to the priority needs categories will be issued alongside the order.
  462W
  I believe that the hon. Member has in mind our proposals on dealing with unsatisfactory private landlords, rather than landlords in the social sector. We published on 20 October a consultation paper on selective licensing of private landlords.

  We aim to publish around the turn of the year details of our legislative proposals on houses in multiple occupation, taking account of the responses to consultation.

  The rough sleepers unit has just completed a written consultation exercise on its future role. An announcement on the conclusions will be made in due course.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent research has been carried out by his Department on the causes of homelessness in relation to (a) violence in the home and (b) drug abuse. [13755]

  Ms Keeble
  This Department has carried out no research recently on the causes of homelessness in relation to violence in the home or drug use.

  Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown>
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning decisions the Secretary of State called in from local planning authorities, and in what categories, during the last year. [13751]

  Ms Keeble
  127 planning applications were called in between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001.

  Type of development

  Number of. applications. called-in

  Community, health and education

  3

  Recreation and leisure

  14

  Industry

  1

  Mineral extraction/exploration

  1

  Offices and studios

  1

  Residences

  48

  Retail

  35

  Transport, utilities and communication

  12

  Wholesale, storage and distribution

  3

  Others

  9

  Total

  127

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) planning appeals before the Planning Inspectorate and (b) planning appeals being considered by the Secretary of State there were in (i) June 1997 and (ii) June 2001; and what was the average length of time taken to determine them in each case. [13750]

  Ms Keeble
  The figures for each are shown by financial year. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Planning Inspectorate

  Appeals received

  1997–98

  14,182

  2000–01

  15,336

  463W
  Target 1997–98: issue 80 per cent, of appeals decisions within 20 weeks for written representations, 33 weeks for hearings, 44 weeks for inquiries. The Inspectorate's performance for each was 21, 40 and 52 weeks respectively.

  Target 2000–01: issue 80 per cent, of decisions within 17 weeks for written representations, 23 weeks for hearings, 33 weeks for inquiries. The Inspectorate's performance against appeals targets for each was 17, 21 and 31 weeks respectively.

  Secretary of State

  Appeals recovered

  1997–98

  208

  2000–01

  163

  Target 1997–98: issue 80 per cent, of decisions within eight weeks and 100 per cent, within 13 weeks from receipt of Inspector's report. Performance: 51 per cent, in eight weeks and 76 per cent, in 13 weeks.

  Target: 2000–01: issue 80 per cent, of decisions within eight weeks and 100 per cent, within 13 weeks. Performance: 56.4 per cent, in eight weeks and 66.9 per cent, in 13 weeks.

  We intend to make dramatic improvements in the time taken to decide recovered appeals.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation there were in the first quarter of(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; what plans he has to reduce this number; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this accommodation is of a reasonable standard. [13761]

  Ms Keeble
  There were 4,100 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the end of the first quarter of 1997 and 10,830 in 2001. Over the next two years the newly established bed-and-breakfast unit will work with partners to reduce the need to place families in B and B. The unit will be hosting a conference on 20 November to consult on targets and actions for reducing B and B use.

  Local authorities are required by law to ensure that any accommodation secured for people accepted as statutorily homeless is suitable. In considering whether accommodation is suitable, local authorities will need, among other factors, to have regard to whether it is of a reasonable standard. Statutory guidance issued by my Department also makes it clear that if authorities do have to use bed-and-breakfast accommodation they should ensure that the accommodation meets statutory standards for houses in multiple occupation.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local authorities that are(a) debt free and (b) in debt, indicating their level of debt in (i) June 1997 and (ii) June 2001. [13753]
  464W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The 106 English local authorities listed have reported that they had debt-free status as at 30 June 2001:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedford

  Bracknell Forest UA

  Breckland

  Broadland

  Bromley

  Bromsgrove

  Broxbourne

  Chichester

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  City of London

  Congleton

  Corby

  Cotswold

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Dorset

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Hampshire

  Eden

  Elmbridge

  Epsom and Ewell

  Forest Heath

  Fylde

  Hambleton

  Harlow

  Hart

  Havant

  Hertsmere

  Horsham

  Huntingdonshire

  Kennet

  Lichfield

  Malvern Hills

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Sussex

  Mole Valley

  North Devon

  North Dorset

  North Wiltshire

  Penwith

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Runnymede

  Rushmoor

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Sevenoaks

  South Buckinghamshire

  465W

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Hampshire

  South Northamptonshire

  South Oxfordshire

  South Ribble

  South Shropshire

  South Somerset

  South Staffordshire

  Spelthorne

  St. Edmundsbury

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stevenage

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Swale

  Tandridge

  Tewkesbury

  Three Rivers

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Tunbridge Wells

  Tynedale

  Uttlesford

  Vale of White Horse

  Watford

  Waverley

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Berkshire UA

  West Wiltshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead UA

  Worthing

  Wychavon

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest

  Cambridgeshire Police Authority

  Authority

  Date of transfer

  Number of dwellings

  Cotswold district council

  28 February 1997

  4,282

  South Staffordshire district council

  7 March 1997

  5,273

  Lichfield district council

  19 March 1997

  4,921

  South Oxfordshire district council

  7 July 1997

  5,018

  Eden district council

  22 September 1997

  1,510

  London borough of Lambeth (Moorlands)

  5 January 1998

  515

  London borough of Bexley (partial)

  9 February 1998

  4,118

  London borough of Bexley (partial)

  9 February 1998

  4,097

  Congleton borough council

  2 March 1998

  4,061

  Oldham borough council (Limehurst)

  9 March 1998

  642

  Liverpool city council (Windermere)

  19 March 1998

  493

  London borough of Merton (Pollards Hill)

  23 March 1998

  1,018

  London borough of Tower Hamlets (Poplar)

  23 March 1998

  1,852

  Kerrier district council

  23 March 1998

  3,732

  London borough of Hackney (Kingsmead)

  30 March 1998

  951

  London borough of Brent (Fortunegate/Church End)

  30 March 1998

  1,481

  Basildon district council (Vange)

  30 March 1998

  708

  West Somerset district council

  30 March 1998

  1,869

  Stoke-on-Trent city council (Bentilee)

  31 March 1998

  917

  Tewkesbury borough council

  27 April 1998

  3,066

  Rother district council

  1 May 1998

  3,058

  London borough of Lambeth (Lansdowne Green)

  20 July 1998

  681

  London borough of Tower Hamlets (Poplar II)

  7 December 1998

  2,431

  Wirral metropolitan borough council (Leasowe)

  25 January 1999

  1,082

  Tameside metropolitan borough council (West Ashton)

  1 February 1999

  901

  West Devon borough council

  22 February 1999

  1,446

  South Somerset district council

  1 March 1999

  8,883

  466W

  Dorset Police Authority

  Kent Police Authority

  Merseyside Police Authority

  Suffolk Police Authority

  Sussex Police Authority

  Wiltshire Police Authority

  Dartmoor National Park Authority

  Exmoor National Park Authority

  Lake District National Park

  North York Moors National Park Authority

  Northumberland National Park Authority

  Peak National Park

  The Broads Authority

  Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority

  North London Waste Authority

  Note:

  An authority is debt-free if (a) at 30 June 2001, the authority's credit ceiling was nil or a negative amount and (b) at 1 July 2001, the authority had no money outstanding by way of external borrowing other than short-term borrowing or hard to redeem debt, as defined in Regulation 154 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997.

  Source:

  Capital Payments and Receipts (CPR1) 2001–02.

  I am placing in the Library of the House the relevant figures on levels of debt for each local authority in England reported as at 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2001.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those housing authorities that have transferred all or part of their housing stock in a large scale voluntary transfer in the last five years, together with the number of units. [13759]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is as follows.
  467W

  Authority

  Date of transfer

  Number of dwellings

  East Lindsey district council

  1 March 1999

  5,102

  Liverpool city council (Pinehurst)

  5 March 1999

  646

  Manchester city council (partial)

  8 March 1999

  1,030

  London borough of Hackney (Morningside)

  15 March 1999

  1,084

  South Hams district council

  22 March 1999

  3,096

  London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Old Oak)

  17 March 1999

  668

  London borough of Hackney (Upper Clapton)

  22 March 1999

  1,000

  Telford and Wrekin council

  25 March 1999

  13,081

  London borough of Enfield (partial)

  29 March 1999

  1,194

  Worthing borough council

  29 March 1999

  2,525

  Bath and North East Somerset council

  29 March 1999

  9,887

  Manchester city council (East Wythenshawe)

  29 March 1999

  6,667

  London borough of Greenwich (Charlton Triangle)

  29 March 1999

  1,280

  London borough of Hackney (Haggerston)

  29 March 1999

  661

  Allerdale borough council (partial transfer)

  31 March 1999

  3,704

  Allerdale borough council (Salterbeck)

  31 March 1999

  727

  Preston borough council (Avenham)

  4 June 1999

  1,121

  London borough of Lambeth (central Stockwell)

  5 July 1999

  2,358

  Birmingham city council (central areas)

  21 June 1999

  2,813

  London borough of Islington (Barnsbury)

  26 September 1999

  647

  London borough of Islington (10 estates)

  26 September 1999

  739

  Liverpool city council (Speke Garston)

  4 October 1999

  4,382

  West Lindsey district council

  18 October 1999

  3,929

  London borough of Lambeth (St. Martins)

  25 October 1999

  1,033

  Boston borough council

  29 November 1999

  4,871

  Tynedale district council

  20 December 1999

  3,564

  Newcastle under lyme borough council

  31 January 2000

  9,887

  Restormel borough council

  7 February 2000

  3,577

  Manchester city council (Colshaw Farm)

  14 February 2000

  600

  North Devon district council

  21 February 2000

  3,293

  London borough of Hackney (Stamford Hill)

  6 March 2000

  1,095

  London borough of Hackney (Pembury Estate)

  6 March 2000

  1,241

  Burnley borough council

  8 March 2000

  5,330

  Manchester city council (Sale estate)

  20 March 2000

  1,655

  Weymouth and Portland council

  20 March 2000

  3,105

  Huntingdon district council

  20 March 2000

  6,650

  Elmbridge borough council

  27 March 2000

  4,894

  Test Valley borough council

  27 March 2000

  5,495

  Wyre Forest district council

  27 March 2000

  6,056

  Manchester city council (Whitefield Estate)

  27 March 2000

  1,033

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Tower Hamlets Community Housing)

  27 March 2000

  1,551

  Tameside metropolitan borough council (north)

  27 March 2000

  8,532

  Tameside metropolitan borough council (south)

  27 March 2000

  7,934

  London borough of Richmond

  17 July 2000

  7,139

  Coventry city council

  22 September 2000

  20,125

  Fylde borough council

  2 October 2000

  1,905

  Chester city council

  27 November 2000

  7,096

  Horsham district council

  11 December 2000

  4,650

  London borough of Tower Hamlets (partial)

  12 February 2001

  196

  East Northamptonshire district council

  19 February 2001

  3,495

  Torbay district council

  19 February 2001

  2,947

  Staffordshire Moorlands district council

  23 February 2001

  3,132

  Calderdale metropolitan borough council

  6 March 2001

  12,759

  Chichester district council

  13 March 2001

  5,321

  Mendip district council

  19 March 2001

  4,326

  West Wiltshire district council

  26 March 2001

  3,284

  West Oxfordshire district council

  26 March 2001

  3,643

  East Staffordshire borough council

  26 March 2001

  5,637

  Manchester city council (Handforth Estate)

  26 March 2001

  659

  Sunderland city council

  26 March 2001

  36,356

  Blackburn with Darwen borough council

  28 March 2001

  9,886

  Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council

  1 October 2001

  5,500

  Mid-Bedfordshire district council

  5 November 2001

  3,084

  Total number transfers—90

  Total number dwellings transferred—359,883

  Runway Capacity
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to increase runway capacity at(a) Heathrow and (b) Gatwick. [13695]
  468W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 476W.
  469W
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the commercial use by regional air services of private and military airports in the London area with runways of at least 1,800 metres. [13692]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 1998 my Department commissioned a three-part study of business aviation in the south-east. Part 1 (Demand and Capacity studies) was published in 1998 and Part 2 (The Economic impact of Business Aviation) in 1999. These reports cover a number of airports with runway lengths of at least 1,800 metres. Copies of both are available in the House Libraries.

  Work on the final part of the study, Future Capacity for Business Aviation, has been subsumed into the on-going South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS). The study will include an assessment of the contribution that smaller airports might make to short haul and domestic services.

  Airport Slots (London-Inverness Route)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with the Scottish Executive about the use of a public service obligation on the Gatwick to Inverness air route. [13694]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DTLR has received a proposal from the Scottish Executive outlining the case for the imposition of a public service obligation on the Inverness to London route. This proposal is being analysed by the DTLR, while taking European Regulation 2408/92 into account. Informal discussions at ministerial level about protection for this route have taken place. In addition, DTLR and Scottish Executive officials recently met to discuss the proposal.

  Terminal 5
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department will determine the application for terminal 5 at Heathrow. [13696]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State will make and announce his decision once he has completed his full and careful consideration of all the issues. The applicants for planning permission and other interested parties will all be told of the decision in the usual way, and an oral statement will be made to inform Parliament.

  Air Movement Restrictions
  Mr. Whittingdale>
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what restrictions on air movements in the vicinity of nuclear power stations are in force. [13475]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Restrictions on overflying are in place in the vicinity of all nuclear power stations.

HEALTH

  Care Standards (Young Adults)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the national care standards for younger adults will be introduced. [9499]

  Jacqui Smith
  The standards for younger adults will be introduced on 1 April 2002, when the National Care Standards Commission starts work. Some of the more challenging standards will not be implemented until some time after that for existing providers to be given realistic timescales in which to meet new standards.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the report findings from the consultation on national care standards for younger adults will be published. [9496]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has received 500 responses to the younger adult and adult placement standards and is in the process of reviewing the standards in the light of the comments that have been received. A summary of these findings will be made available in due course.

  Haemophilia
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent decision by the High Court to award damages under the Consumer Protection Act 1988 to 114 people infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusion; and what implications this will have for haemophiliacs who have been infected by hepatitis C after receiving blood transfusions. [9501]

  Jacqui Smith
  The recent decision by the High Court has no implications for anyone infected with hepatitis C before the Consumer Protection Act came into force in March 1988. This includes the vast majority of haemophiliacs who were probably infected before that date.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the Royal Prerogative for the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9374]

  Ms Blears
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the Royal Prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have been tested for cervical cancer in Leicestershire in the last 12 months. [10581]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2000–01, 65,712 women underwent cervical screening in Leicestershire health authority.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many pilot areas there are in England for cervical screening; and what the time scale is for these pilots; [10582]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the thin prep pap test; [10583]
  471W
  (3) what representations he has received on increasing access to the thin prep pap test beyond the pilot areas. [10584]

  Jacqui Smith
  The pilot of liquid based cytology (LBC) and human papilloma virus testing as triage for women with mild or borderline abnormalities is taking place at three sites; Newcastle, Norfolk and Norwich, and North Bristol. The pilot began in April 2001. The LBC arm of the pilot is being evaluated from October 2001, and results of the evaluation are expected in 2002.

  ThinPrep and AutoCyte Prep were the only liquid based slide preparation systems available at the time the pilot was developed. ThinPrep is being used at two of the sites, and AutoCyte prep at the third site. The evaluation of the pilot will gather data on the effectiveness of both systems.

  The NHS cancer plan set out the commitment that if evaluation of the pilot is successful we will fund the introduction of LBC across the national health service.

  We have had no representations on increasing ThinPrep beyond the pilot areas.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of the treatment of a cervical cancer patient. [10585]

  Jacqui Smith
  The cost of treating different patients varies by the type of treatment they receive. The elements of the total cost incurred depend upon the individual components and treatments within the care pathway for that patient. For cervical cancer, a hysterectomy might be performed (£1,861 average cost for elective in-patient in 1999–2000) and/or a course of radiotherapy undertaken, which would vary dependent on the type and classification of the type of cancer involved.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funds allocated to the treatment of(a) breast cancer, (b) cervical cancer and (c) prostate cancer. [11867]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect figures on the cost of national health service services in a way that enables an accurate figure to be calculated for the cost of or investment in a particular disease.

  We made available an additional £280 million in 2001–02 for the development of cancer services. This will rise to £407 million in 2002–03 and £570 million in 2003–04. Local health authorities and primary care trusts, with cancer networks, are responsible for determining local priorities in implementing the NHS cancer plan.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pieces of Government-funded research there have been on the subject of abuse of disabled children in the last five years. [11414]

  Jacqui Smith
  There have not been any Government-funded studies which look specifically at the abuse of disabled children.

  However, the Department has recently commissioned a study to consider the symptoms of abuse in people who have severe learning disabilities. The study will examine the nature of the psychological harm caused to people with learning disabilities who are subject to physical
  472W
  and/or sexual abuse. Its aim is to improve the ability of staff and carers to identify and act on abuse, to identify the needs of the victims and to assist them in obtaining access to the judicial process.

  We have identified three other current or recent studies from the National Research Register, which are considering or have considered the abuse of children with learning disabilities. Further details of all these studies have been placed in the Library.

  There are a number of other studies that look more broadly at all children who are the victims of abuse which also encompass children with disability.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much related training material has been funded by the Government since the publication of the ABCD Pack in 1992. [11412]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available United Kingdom evidence on the extent of abuse among disabled children suggests that disabled children are at increased risk of abuse, and that the presence of multiple disabilities appears to increase the risk of both abuse and neglect.

  That is why the Department funded, in partnership with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a second training resource pack entitled "Turning Points". It is also why in our "Working Together to Safeguard Children" child protection guidance and in the practice guidance and training pack underpinning the "Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families" we have been careful to refer to this evidence base and to the need for particular attention to be paid to promoting a high level of awareness of the risks to this group of children and to high standards of practice.

  Residential Services (Special Needs)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish a consultation document on national standards for residential services for adults with disabilities and special needs. [11551]

  Jacqui Smith
  Draft national minimum standards for care homes for younger adults were issued for consultation on 29 June 2001. The Department is looking again at the national minimum standards for younger adults and adult placements in the light of the comments that have been received during the consultation process. The standards will be published in due course following completion of the review process.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was, from diagnosis to treatment for heart disease in each of the last four years. [11866]

  Jacqui Smith
  The diagnosis and treatment of heart disease may take place within primary, secondary or tertiary health care services. For those patients who require drug therapy to treat their condition, treatment will follow directly on from diagnosis. Patients requiring treatment in hospital who are not diagnosed as an emergency requiring immediate admission will go on a waiting list for in-patient treatment. The average median waiting times, from the date of a decision to admit a
  473W
  patient for treatment for heart disease to the admission date, for the last four years for which data are available, are in the table.

  Year

  Median waiting time in days

  1996–97

  57

  1997–98

  55

  1998–99

  60

  1999–2000

  57

  The figures are based on hospital in-patients admitted with an OPCS4 procedure code in the range KO1 to K71 (heart procedures).

  Pharmaceutical Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expenditure per capita was on pharmaceuticals in each of the OECD countries for the most recent year for which figures are available. [11893]

  Ms Blears
  Expenditure per capita on pharmaceuticals and other medical non-durables in each of the OECD countries for the most recent year for which figures are available is shown in the table.

  £

  Country

  Last available year

  Expenditure per capita

  Australia

  1998

  118

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  Belgium

  1997

  203

  Canada

  2000

  212

  Czech Republic

  1999

  64

  Denmark

  1999

  155

  Finland

  1999

  160

  France

  1999

  323

  Germany

  1998

  206

  Greece

  2000

  108

  Hungary

  1999

  56

  Iceland

  1999

  258

  Ireland

  1999

  105

  Italy

  1997

  179

  Japan

  1998

  226

  Korea

  1999

  42

  Luxembourg

  1999

  198

  Mexico

  n/a

  n/a

  Netherlands

  1999

  149

  New Zealand

  1997

  115

  Norway

  1997

  157

  Poland

  n/a

  n/a

  Portugal

  1998

  133

  Slovakia

  n/a

  n/a

  Spain

  1997

  126

  Sweden

  1997

  172

  Switzerland

  1998

  176

  United Kingdom

  1997

  149

  Turkey

  1994

  16

  United States

  1999

  296

  n/a = Not available

  Notes:

  1. The table displays figures for the "total expenditure on pharmaceuticals and other medical non-durables", comprising "pharmaceuticals such as medicinal preparations, branded and generic medicines, drugs, patent medicines, serums, vaccines, vitamins and minerals and oral contraceptives plus a wide range of medical non-durables such as bandages, elasticated stockings, incontinence articles, condoms and other mechanical contraceptive devices".
  474W
  2. The data have been converted from US$ terms into UK£ terms using the exchange rate series published in the same OECD database.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from OECD Health Data 2001

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the role of overhead powerlines in causing breast cancer. [12068]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those associated with power lines, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The board of NRPB has set up an independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation (AGNIR)
  "to review work on the biological effects of non-ionising radiation relevant to human health and to advise on research priorities".
  In March this year, the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation (AGNIR) published a report on the potential risks of cancer from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Overall AGNIR concluded that
  "Laboratory experiments have provided no good evidence that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are capable of producing cancer, nor do human epidemiological studies suggest that they cause cancer in general".

  In June, the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) based in Lyon, France brought together an international team of experts to review the evidence for the possible carcinogenic effects of exposure to static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. The IARC working group evaluated ELF magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" based on the statistical association of higher level residential ELF magnetic fields with increased risk of childhood leukaemia. In contrast, there is no consistent evidence that residential or occupational exposures of adults to power frequency magnetic fields increase the risk for any kind of cancer.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the California Health Department report on the possible health risks associated with power frequency electric and magnetic fields published in April 2001. [12385]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those associated with power lines, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The NRPB's independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation was set up:"to review work on the biological effects of non-ionising radiation relevant to human health and to advise on research priorities".

  In March this year the advisory group reported that there is some epidemiological evidence that prolonged exposure to higher levels of exposure to power frequency magnetic fields is associated with a small risk of leukaemia in children but this is, however, not conclusive. They also noted that laboratory studies and human adult studies do not suggest that they cause cancer in general.
  475W
  This view has been supported by a similar opinion expressed in a recent review of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer by the International Agency for Research in Cancer, which classified extremely low frequency magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic" on the basis of the statistical association noted for children.

  The advisory group discussed the report from the California Department of Health Sciences on possible risks from exposure to power frequency electromagnetic fields at its meeting on 30 October 2001. The group has commented that they know of no further scientific evidence published since their most recent report that would alter their opinion regarding evidence concerning exposure to power frequency electromagnetic fields and the risks of cancer as set out in their published reviews. They noted, however, that the California report also examined the possible effects of power frequency electromagnetic fields on a number of other diseases. NRPB is shortly to publish a review by the advisory group on electromagnetic fields and neurodegenerative diseases.

  Special Care Baby Units
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government initiatives there are to recruit and retain qualified nursing staff for special care baby units; whether there is funding available to recruit and train such staff; what his guidance is on the criteria for closing special care baby units; and if he will make a statement. [120101]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the first year of the NHS Plan period, the number of nurses employed in the national health service increased by 6,310. We are committed to increasing the number of nurses and are increasing training places, encouraging former staff to return, and increasing international recruitment. The NHS is also changing to become a modern flexible employer.

  The staffing of all services should inform a trust's recruitment and retention strategy.

  It is for local health communities to decide on the pattern of service provision, including services provided by special care baby units, taking into account the needs of local people, evidence of effectiveness and available resources. The maternity and neonatal work force working group that we set up earlier this year will make recommendations on work force issues and models for configuring maternity services. Its work will feed into the development of the forthcoming national service framework for children and maternity services.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the effect on NHS mental health services of restrictions imposed by councils on the number of placements to be made by social services in nursing or residential homes; and if he will make a statement. [12052]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been no specific assessment of the effect on national health service mental health services of restrictions that any local authorities may have chosen to impose on the number of placements to be made by social services in nursing or residential homes. Most people with mental health problems are able to live in the 476W
  community, and many of those people who are admitted to hospital with mental health problems are able to return to their own homes, or to families, on discharge.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) voluntary and (b) independent sector groups have been involved in the planning and implementation of the national service framework for mental health. [12053]

  Jacqui Smith: Many representatives of charitable and voluntary organisations, including representatives of service user and carer groups, were involved in helping to develop the national service framework for mental health through the external reference group and many continue to be involved in implementation, either through project work led by the Department and/or the mental health taskforce.

  Care of the Elderly (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding for the care of the elderly in Buckinghamshire. [12390]

  Jacqui Smith
  I recognise the importance of ensuring that appropriate health and social services are available for older people. Buckinghamshire health authority's spending on packages of care for older people has risen significantly year on year for the past three years. Spending on older people's services within Buckinghamshire social services department is slightly above the average spent on other client groups. The joint review of social services, carried out by the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission, will be reviewing Buckinghamshire shortly.

  On 9 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £300 million extra funding for local authorities to tackle bed blocking. Buckinghamshire was recognised as a local authority needing extra help and this year was given over £700,000 from that extra funding.

  Dry Rot
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has given to local councils on the treatment of dry rot and on which chemicals are permitted for its treatment. [12893]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has issued no such guidance to local authorities. Pesticide approvals for the treatment of dry rot are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultation documents were issued by his Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12902]

  Jacqui Smith
  During the period 1996–2001, the following number of consultation documents were issued by the Department.
  477W

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  15 January to 14 April

  0

  3

  2

  0

  11

  12

  15 April to 14 July

  2

  0

  4

  3

  7

  7

  15 July to 14 October

  2

  0

  3

  4

  7

  25

  15 October to 14 January

  3

  1

  1

  6

  7

  14

  Total

  7

  4

  10

  13

  32

  48

  1 For the period 15–31 October 2001 only

  Percentage

  Year and Quarter

  Eastern

  London

  North West

  North and Yorkshire

  South East

  South West

  Trent

  West Midlands

  1995-Q1

  93.7

  87.2

  92.0

  93.4

  93.3

  95.1

  92.4

  92.7

  1995-Q2

  93.6

  86.5

  91.0

  92.08

  92.9

  94.5

  93.1

  92.1

  1995-Q3

  92.4

  86.5

  90.1

  91.8

  92.3

  94.0

  93.2

  91.6

  1995-Q4

  92.7

  86.7

  90.6

  90.8

  91.9

  93.7

  92.0

  92.5

  1996-Q1

  92.6

  86.6

  90.9

  91.1

  92.6

  94.1

  92.7

  93.0

  1996-Q2

  92.8

  86.2

  91.1

  91.3

  92.4

  93.8

  93.1

  92.8

  1996-Q3

  92.6

  85.9

  90.8

  91.9

  92.4

  92.9

  92.6

  92.7

  1996-Q4

  93.3

  85.8

  91.4

  92.4

  92.0

  93.2

  93.4

  92.2

  1997-Q1

  93.3

  86.0

  91.2

  91.6

  92.2

  93.4

  92.8

  93.0

  1997-Q2

  92.8

  85.0

  90.2

  91.5

  91.4

  92.8

  89.5

  91.8

  1997-Q3

  92.9

  84.9

  90.5

  91.2

  91.4

  92.0

  88.5

  91.7

  1997-Q4

  92.4

  84.4

  90.5

  91.5

  90.8

  92.2

  87.7

  92.2

  1998-Q1

  90.7

  83.7

  89.7

  90.7

  90.1

  91.0

  88.7

  91.5

  1998-Q2

  89.3

  82.2

  88.3

  89.8

  88.6

  90.1

  88.4

  90.1

  1998-Q3

  89.0

  81.6

  88.2

  89.4

  88.2

  90.0

  88.9

  90.7

  1998-Q4

  88.1

  79.8

  87.6

  88.8

  87.9

  89.5

  90.8

  89.5

  1999-Q1

  88.7

  79.7

  87.6

  89.4

  88.3

  89.9

  90.4

  89.3

  1999-Q2

  88.4

  80.0

  87.3

  88.5

  87.8

  89.0

  91.0

  89.4

  1999-Q3

  88.9

  79.3

  88.3

  89.1

  87.9

  88.9

  91.0

  89.2

  1999-Q4

  89.0

  81.6

  88.9

  90.0

  87.5

  88.3

  90.7

  89.4

  2000-Q1

  89.9

  80.0

  88.4

  89.4

  87.6

  88.6

  91.6

  89.3

  2000-Q2

  89.4

  79.2

  88.9

  89.8

  87.3

  89.1

  91.1

  89.3

  2000-Q3

  89.3

  78.8

  88.7

  89.5

  87.5

  87.9

  91.7

  88.7

  2000-Q4

  87.4

  76.4

  86.5

  88.5

  85.9

  86.6

  90.4

  87.8

  2001-Q1

  85.9

  72.3

  85.6

  85.9

  84.0

  85.7

  88.2

  85.7

  Note:

  Data collected through the PHLS CDSC's cover programme. Data are presented by quarter of the financial year (that is, quarter one runs from 1 April to 30 June, quarter two from 1 July to 30 September and so on).

  Consultants
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many more consultants, broken down by specialty, will be appointed by 2004, above the number in post in 2000. [13059]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: The NHS plan stated there would be 7,500 more consultants in post in 2004 than in 1999. By September 2000, the number of consultants in post had already increased by 1,100 to around 24,300. The national health service is currently drawing up plans by specialty to deliver the rest of the increase, a further 6,400 posts by 2004, which will be targeted towards the key specialties needed to deliver the commitments in the NHS plan. Information for the year to September 2001 will be available in February 2002.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which sources extra consultants will come in accordance with targets for 2004 detailed in the NHS Plan. [13060]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: Around 6,500 of the 7,500 increase will come from doctors currently working in the national health service,
  478W

  MMR Vaccine
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the levels of uptake among two-year olds of MMR were in each NHS region in each quarter of the last five years. [12728]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Data on measles, mumps and rubella uptake collected by the Public Health Laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre are shown in the table.

  not in consultant posts. The rest will come from international recruitment and improved retention of existing consultants.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects the assessments to be completed on those patients who were receiving nursing care on 1 October but had not yet been assessed for free nursing care; [13151]

  (2) how many patients were estimated to qualify for free nursing care on 1 October; and how many had been assessed for free nursing care by 1 October; [13152]

  (3) what reason he has placed (a) an upper fiscal restriction on free nursing care in care homes and (b) no fiscal restrictions where the NHS provides nursing care in other settings; [13155]

  (4) what (a) measures he has taken and (b) guidance he has issued to minimise delays in making advance payments in respect of self-funded residents in nursing homes; [13156]
  479W
  (5) he will make a statement on the processes and procedures that have been adopted to assess people for free nursing care; [13161]

  (6) when he expects all of the patients who are expected to have qualified for free nursing care on 1 October to have been assessed for free nursing care; [13162]

  (7) what estimates he has made of the number of patients who will have to contribute to the cost of their nursing care because it costs more to provide than the banding system permits. [13241]

  Jacqui Smith
  The guidance on free nursing care in nursing homes was published on 25 September. This, and the accompanying directions to the national health service, set out the arrangements for health authorities and primary care trusts to carry out determinations of registered nursing care contribution (RNCC) for those eligible for free nursing care from 1 October. They should use their best endeavours to ensure that these are completed by the end of December and should agree the arrangements for making payments to nursing homes in respect of self-funding residents with effect from 1 October. The guidance also emphasised the need to process invoices from nursing homes as promptly as possible.

  A survey carried out over the summer by the Department revealed that there were over 42,000 people in nursing homes responsible for funding their own care. While a small number of determinations were planned to take place before 1 October, the vast majority will have taken place after then.

  The guidance acknowledges that, in some cases, individuals will be identified through the assessment and RNCC process who have exceptional long term needs for nursing care, both in amount and type, that do not meet local criteria for NHS continuing health care. The national health service has a similar responsibility to arrange or fund the services that individuals in nursing homes need as they would if they were receiving treatment in any other setting.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the type of training being given to nurses responsible for carrying out assessments for free nursing care; and how long the training lasts; [13153]

  (2) how many nurses will be required in England and Wales to assess patients' eligibility for free nursing care; [13157]

  (3) who, other than a state registered nurse, will be(a) involved in and (b) responsible for determining whether a patient is eligible for free nursing care; [13159]

  (4) how many nurses will be (a) involved in and(b) responsible for determining each patient's eligibility for free nursing care. [13160]

  Jacqui Smith
  A programme of nurse training began in every region of England at the beginning of September and, by the end of October, a total of approximately 800 nurses had received training in carrying out the registered nursing care contribution (RNCC). The training lasted a full day and was supported by a practitioner guide published by the Department.480W
  Apart from these national health service nurses, the guidance on free nursing care in nursing homes sets out the roles of lead nurses and nursing home co-ordinators who will also be involved in the process for implementing free nursing care. In some cases, nurses employed by nursing homes may also be involved in the determination. A single nurse will usually carry out the RNCC unless the individual has specific and special needs. In certain cases, a separate continence assessment may need to be carried out by a continence adviser at a later date.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons those suffering from dementia and Alzheimer's are not eligible for free nursing care. [13242]

  Jacqui Smith
  Anyone currently in a nursing home with a need for care from a registered nurse and who is paying towards that care should have it paid for by the national health service following a determination carried out by an NHS nurse under the arrangements for free nursing care introduced on 1 October. This applies equally to those with Alzheimer's disease and dementia as it does to other conditions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the definition of equal and free access to sexual and reproductive health care as included in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's document, "Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland". [12313]

  Mr. Browne
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission consultation document refers to:"… the right to have equal and free access to sexual and reproductive health care and to information and education relating to sexual and reproductive matters at all levels, free from coercion, discrimination or violence".

  Full consideration will be given to the final recommendations made by the Commission when they are presented to the Government next year. If any clarification is needed on any of those recommendations, the Government will seek such clarification at that time.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to assist the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission reconcile different views on abortion in the proposed Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [12314]

  Mr. Browne
  In the consultation document published by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on 4 September this year, the Commission specifically excluded the abortion issue from any potential Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who the line manager is for an authorised officer of the Parades Commission. [11934]
  481W
  Jane Kennedy
  Authorised officers are self employed individuals contracted to the Parades Commission. Co-ordination of the authorised officers is carried out at Deputy Principal level within the Secretariat.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many authorised officers have been remunerated over the past 12 months; how they are appointed; under what terms; and what has been their individual remuneration. [11932]

  Jane Kennedy
  Over the course of the past 12 months the Parades Commission has remunerated 15 authorised officers. Recruitment was carried out by the Mediation Network for Northern Ireland on behalf of the Parades Commission. Authorised officers are contracted for a minimum of 100 days per annum and their remit includes mediation, education and community development. Remuneration for authorised officers is currently £10,200 plus expenses per annum.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who decides the appointment of the Parades Commission commissioners, the length of contract and level of remuneration. [11930]

  Jane Kennedy
  The appointments process is carried out in accordance with the Peach principles, and includes an external scrutiny element.

  The posts are publicly advertised in the press and a selection panel meets to consider the applications received and a decision is taken whether to shortlist the candidates or invite all candidates for an interview. Candidates are interviewed by a selection panel, and a suitability submission is prepared for the Secretary of State's final approval of prospective commissioners.

  Under the terms of Schedule 1 of the Public Processions (NI) Act 1998 the Chairman and other members of the Commission shall be appointed for a term not exceeding three years subject to the provisions within the Act.

  Also under the terms of Schedule 1 of the Public Processions (NI) Act 1998 the Secretary of State may pay to the Chairman and other members of the Commission such remuneration as the Secretary of State may determine.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Parades Commission commissioners indicating their background prior to appointment, their other remunerated public or private posts and the time they are expected to commit to the Parades Commission over the period of one year. [11931]

  Jane Kennedy
  A list of the Parades Commission members and their backgrounds is available in the Parades Commission's Third Annual Report which was published in June, a copy of which is available in the Library of this House.

  An update of Parades Commission members' backgrounds and interests is currently being compiled, and will be available at a later date.

  Subject to provisions under paragraph 3, Schedule 1 of the Public Processions (NI) Act 1998, a person shall hold and vacate office as a member, or as chairman of the

  482W
  Commission, in accordance with the terms of his appointment. Remuneration as a member of the Parades Commission is for an average of two days per week.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the travel expenses of the Chairman of the Parades Commission have been since his appointment, broken down by(a) his first year in office, (b) the year to date, (c) travel to/from Northern Ireland and (d) internal travel in Northern Ireland. [11929]

  Jane Kennedy
  During his first year in office (February 2000–February 2001) £18,546 was incurred on travel. Up to and including 26 October 2001 the figure was £12,449. The amount spent on travel to and from Northern Ireland from the date of his appointment until 26 October 2001 was £21,398. The cost of internal travel in Northern Ireland for the same period was £9,597. These figures do not include travel in London which was unavailable in the format required and would incur disproportionate costs to compile.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the procedure for complaint with respect to the work of an authorised officer of the Parades Commission. [11933]

  Jane Kennedy
  Any complaints about the work of authorised officers should be made, if necessary in writing, to the Parades Commission.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nights the Chairman of the Parades Commission has spent in Northern Ireland; and what the estimated cost of the provision of overnight accommodation is. [11928]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since his appointment the Chairman of the Parades Commission has spent 126 nights in Northern Ireland. Rented accommodation is provided at a cost of £8,340 per annum.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Chairman of the Parades Commission was appointed; what his(a) length of contract and (b) level of remuneration is; and what criteria will be used to assess whether his time in office has been successful. [11927]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chairman of the Parades Commission was appointed on 19 February 2000 for a period of two years. Remuneration for the Chairman is £50,400 plus expenses per annum. The normal range of factors applying to public appointments will be taken into account in assessing the chairman's contribution.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people the Parades Commission employs, broken down by levels of remuneration. [11926]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Parades Commission consists of six members each earning £26,000 plus expenses per annum and a Chairman earning £50,400 plus expenses per annum. The Commission is assisted by a Secretariat currently staffed by a total of 11 seconded civil servants. The cost of the Secretariat salaries in 2000-01 was £285,000.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) punishment beatings, (b) punishment shootings and (c) murders there were in Northern Ireland in each (i) week and (ii) month from 1 April to 30 September; and if he will indicate for each

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks and murders by attribution 1 April to 30 September 2001 (weekly)

  Paramilitary style shootings

  Paramilitary style assaults

  Murders

  Week

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  1 April

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2–8 April

  4

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  9–15 April

  2

  3

  3

  0

  1

  0

  16–22 April

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  23–29 April

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  30 April–6 May

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  7–13 May

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  14–20 May

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21–27 May

  2

  1

  4

  4

  1

  0

  28 May–3 June

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  4–10 June

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11–17 June

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  18–24 June

  5

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  25 June–1 July

  5

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2–8 July

  1

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  9–15 July

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  16–22 July

  2

  2

  7

  0

  0

  0

  23–29 July

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  30 July–5 August

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6–12 August

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  13–19 August

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  20–26 August

  5

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  27 August–2 September

  2

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3–9 September

  2

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10–16 September

  3

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  17–23 September

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  24–30 September

  3

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Note:

  Statistics for the 2000–02 financial year are provisional at this stage and may be subject to minor amendment at a later date.

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks and murders by attribution 1 April to 30 September 2001 (monthly)

  Paramilitary style shootings

  Paramilitary style assaults

  Murders

  Month

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  April

  12

  4

  6

  3

  1

  1

  May

  8

  3

  7

  7

  1

  1

  June

  15

  5

  5

  2

  1

  0

  July

  8

  5

  13

  1

  2

  0

  August

  10

  11

  3

  1

  0

  0

  September

  8

  11

  5

  3

  1

  0

  Note:

  Statistics for the 2001–02 financial year are provisional at this stage and may be subject to minor amendment at a later date.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [10841]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the National Asset Register (Cm5221 July 2001), which gives full details of departmental asset holdings. A reference to the Northern Ireland Office's pure heritage assets. may be found on page 808 of that report.
  484W
  week and month how many of those crimes were committed by (A) republican, (B) loyalist and (C) other groups. [11992]

  Jane Kennedy
  Statistics on paramilitary style attacks and murders as a result of the security situation between 1 April 2001 and 30 September 2001 are given in the following tables.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (A) within and (B) outside his Department. [13131]

  Dr. John Reid
  There was one case of computer hacking in the Northern Ireland Office in 2000, and there have been two to date this year. Of these, two were perpetrated by insiders, and one was an attack by an outsider on one of the Department's web pages.
  485W
  There were no cases of computer theft (including fraud) in 2000, and there have been two to date this year. Both of these were perpetrated by outsiders.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12266]

  Dr. John Reid: The advertising campaigns for each of the past six years incurred the following costs:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  1—

  1996–97

  135,938.07

  1997–98

  477,726.16

  1998–99

  887,303.00

  1999–2000

  330,630.95

  2000–01

  85,827.00

  1Not available

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Overtime)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what overtime costs have been incurred each month during 2001 by the RUC dealing with public disorder. [11072]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table details the monthly overtime cost for the current year to 30 September (regular and full-time reserve). The Police Service of Northern Ireland cannot readily identify that part of the overtime costs which relates to police officers dealing with public disorder. It is intended to introduce activity analysis data collection but this will not be implemented until April 2002.

  In the absence of a database, the task of ascertaining definitive figures would represent a major undertaking and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £000

  Month

  Overtime

  April

  3,531

  May

  3,035

  June

  4,232

  July

  4,520

  August

  7,809

  September

  5,160

  Total

  28,287

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department has recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (A) within and (B) outside his Department. [13134]
  486W
  Mr. MacShane
  The number of recorded cases is as follows:

  2000

  2001

  Hacking

  2

  3

  Fraud

  0

  0

  Theft

  7

  2

  Of the five cases of computer hacking in 2000 and 2001, one was carried out by an insider and the remaining four by persons outside the Department.

  Euro
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is being provided to British travellers about the effect of the introduction of euro notes and coins. [14306]

  Peter Hain
  Euro notes and coins will be introduced on 1 January 2002. They will replace national notes and coins in the 12 countries that participate in the single currency. We estimate that in 2002 British citizens will make 40 million visits to those countries. So I am today launching a leaflet that provides basic factual information for UK travellers on the transition to euro notes and coins in the relevant countries. Copies of the leaflet have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The leaflet is a joint production with HMT and DTI. It will supplement the information already available on the FCO website www.fco.gov.uk.

  San Francisco
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ministers from his Department have visited San Francisco since May 1997; and how many have stayed at the consul general's house. [13526]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our records show that there have been no FCO ministerial visits to San Francisco since May 1997.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Permanent Under-Secretary of his Department has visited San Francisco since his appointment. [13532]

  Mr. MacShane
  Sir John Kerr has not visited San Francisco as Permanent Under-Secretary, but of course did so when Ambassador to the United States.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serving Prime Ministers have visited San Francisco since 1979. [13527]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since 1979, there have been no prime ministerial visits to San Francisco.

  Mr. Wyatt:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has undertaken with (a) the local chamber of commerce and (b) other business organisations in San Francisco with respect to the impact of the sale of the consul general's house there. [13529]

  Mr. MacShane
  Issues relating to the sale of the current house have been covered in correspondence this year between FCO Ministers and officials with the British
  487W
  American Chamber of Commerce, Northern California, which represent many British business organisations in the San Francisco area.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to sell the consul general's house in San Francisco. [13525]

  Mr. MacShane
  The consul general, in conjunction with Estates Strategy Unit at the FCO, is seeking alternative property opportunities that will not only provide better value for money than the present house, but will also fully support the wider, especially commercial, objectives of the consulate general.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has consulted the DTI on the forthcoming sale of the consul general's house in San Francisco. [13530]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [10838]

  Mr. Wills
  The stocks of antiques, paintings and fine wines held by the Lord Chancellor's Department are as follows:

  Antiques: 484 items valued at £1,405,062,65

  Paintings: 78 items valued at £395,000

  Fine wines: nil.

  There have been no disposals in the last three years and no disposals are planned for the next three years. It is not the Department's policy to capitalise non-operational antiques such as paintings and works of art. Such items are not therefore included in our National Asset Register entry. The information given here is taken from a recent valuation exercise, undertaken both to assess the materiality of such items and for stewardship purposes.

  Operational antiques are included in the register under furniture and fittings.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12255]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the information has been collated.
  488W

  Community Court Order Warrants
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which agency has responsibility for the enforcement of warrants following the breach of a community court order; and if he will make a statement. [13830]

  Mr. Wills
  According to the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority and other magistrates courts committees, the numbers of community penalty breach warrants issued between 1 April 2001 and 31 August 2001, which were not executed or withdrawn before 28 September 2001, are:

  (a) London—907

  (b) West Midlands—494

  (c) Greater Manchester—613.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many warrants for breach of a community court order issued after 1 April remain unexecuted in(a) the London probation area, (b) the West Midlands probation area and (c) the Greater Manchester probation area; and if he will make a statement. [13833]

  Mr. Wills
  Warrants are usually addressed to both police constables and persons authorised by the court to deal with enforcement.

  Lead responsibility for execution of community penalty breach warrants was transferred from the police to magistrates courts committees on 1 April 2001. Each magistrates courts committee decides its own enforcement strategy. Some committees have elected to employ civilian enforcement officers or approved enforcement agencies to execute warrants; others have contracted this work back to the local police force.

TREASURY

  EU Prospectus Directive
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the Government's policy is on the proposed EC prospectus directive; and if he will make a statement; [12978]

  (2) what representations he has received about the proposed EC Prospectus Directive; and if he will make a statement; [12977]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total cost to business of the proposed EC Prospectus Directive; and if he will make a statement; [12979]

  (4) pursuant to the answer of 1 November 2001, Official Report, column 798W, on the EC Prospectus Directive, if he will quantify the likely increase in the disclosure costs of small and medium sized companies. [13218]

  Ruth Kelly
  An effective single passport for issuers was identified as a priority for completion of the single European market in financial services at the Lisbon Council in spring 2000. The UK Government's policy is that the prospectus directive should achieve this goal; and that it meets the aim of reducing the cost of raising capital for EU companies, especially SMEs.
  489W
  The directive, as currently drafted, could lead to an increase in the disclosure costs of issuers, and an increase in the cost to UK businesses of accessing capital by issuing securities. However, negotiations are at an early stage, and there are a number of issues that are as yet unclear, such as the directive's relationship with other existing directives, and the way that its provisions will be used. As the negotiations continue, the likely impact of the directive will be kept under close review.

  HM Treasury has actively sought the views of interested parties, has received a significant number of submissions from the UK financial services industry, and is engaging with industry practitioners on an ongoing basis through round—table consultation meetings.

  Rating Appeals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps are being taken by the Valuation Office to reduce delays in rating appeals; [13233]

  (2) what the average delay is in valuation officers considering rating appeals (a) in each Valuation Office area and (b) nationally; [13232]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the time taken before rating appeals are considered by the Valuation Office. [13234]

  Ruth Kelly
  So far during the current financial year, a total of 132,847 appeals against the 2000 rating lists have been settled and they took an average of 314 days to settle. The average for each group valuation office area is not readily available.

  Rating appeals received by the Valuation Office Agency are considered immediately and categorised accordingly. Where there is a question of hardship (including foot and mouth related appeals) they are given priority. Others are allocated to published programmes, whereby they are dealt with by category and chronology.

  The position is continually under review to ensure that appeals are considered as quickly as possible.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action he took in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 to assess whether the Financial Services Authority was in compliance with the service level agreement concluded on 18 December 1998; [12818]

  (2) how many people in the Treasury are involved in supervising the service level agreement with the Financial Services Authority, dated 18 December 1998. [12819]

  Ruth Kelly
  Until the implementation of the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, interim arrangements have been in place. These are designed to create the benefits of the new regime as far as possible under existing legislation. Under these arrangements, the Treasury has contracted out to the FSA the prudential supervision of insurance companies.

  Staff in both the financial regulation industry and corporate services directorates are involved in the service level agreement. Formal quarterly meetings are held to discuss insurance issues. In addition, Treasury and FSA officials meet frequently, either with other colleagues, or
  490W
  bilaterally, to discuss a wide range of issues about the stability and competitiveness of insurance and other markets, and relevant regulation and legislation.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if her Majesty's Government plan to issue a gold sovereign of new design in celebration of the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. [14307]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that next year a design showing the Royal Arms within a wreath of laurel should appear on the reverse of the gold sovereign.

  The design is inspired by that on sovereigns struck during the first 50 years of the reign of Queen Victoria and for numismatists there will accordingly be a pleasing link between Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee of 1887 and next year's Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. The new design, whose use will be extended to half-sovereigns, double-sovereigns and five-pound pieces, will be adopted only for the Jubilee year, after which the regular design of St. George and the Dragon will be restored.

  It is expected that coins with the new design will be available for sale from early next year.

  Treasury Supervision (Money Outlets)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to supervise the regulation of(a) bureaux de change, (b) cheque cashers and (c) money transmission agents. [14473]

  Ruth Kelly
  Regulations are today being laid before Parliament to implement a regulatory regime for bureaux de change, cheque cashers and money transmission agents as recommended in the June 2000 PIU report "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime". The regime will come into force on 12 November.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, and for what reason, he suspended the publication of job vacancy statistics; and when he expects to resume publication of such statistics. [12656]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 9 November 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question relating to the publication of job vacancy statistics. (12656)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) issued a press release at 9.30am on 11 September 2001 announcing the deferral of Jobcentre vacancy statistics from 12 September 2001. This was due to discontinuities which arose from changes in the Employment Services's methods for recording job vacancies.
  'Employer Direct' is being gradually introduced across Great Britain to modernise and enhance the way the Employment Service deals with vacancies to provide a more flexible and convenient service for employers. It involves transferring the vacancy taking

  491W
  process from local Jobcentres to regional customer service centres. Research by the Employment Service shows that it has the following effects on the Jobcentre vacancy data from May 2001 A temporary reduction in the recorded level of outflows and placings owing to some delays in following up vacancies with employers associated with the introduction of the new arrangements.
  An increase in the recorded level of newly notified vacancies.
  Both the above effects lead to an increase in the recorded stock of unfilled vacancies.
  ONS and the Employment Service are continuing to monitor and review the data with the aim of resuming publication as soon as it is possible to produce consistent statistics.

  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there are in(a) South Shields, (b) Tyne and Wear and (c) the north- how many there were 12 months ago; and what is the national vacancy rate per 1,000 of population. [13263]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Miliband, dated 9 November 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for the number of job vacancies in South Shields, Tyne and Wear and the North East 12 months ago; and the national vacancy rate per 1,000 of population. (13263)
  Statistics on Jobcentre vacancies are available up to April 2001. Later statistics have been deferred due to discontinuities which arose from changes in the Employment Service's methods for recording job vacancies.
  The table below shows the number of unfilled Jobcentre vacancies (not seasonally adjusted) for April 2000 and April 2001 in the South Shields and Tyne and Wear Jobcentre areas, the North East region and Great Britain.
  Jobcentre vacancies represent only a proportion of all vacancies in the economy just those vacancies notified to the Employment Service. The proportion is likely to vary over time, across geographical areas and between different skills and occupations. Expression of such figures as a rate per 1000 population is therefore not appropriate.

  Unfilled Jobcentre vacancies

  Jobcentres

  April 2000

  April 2001

  South Shields

  618

  1,032

  Tyne and Wear

  8,153

  11,662

  North East Region

  17,654

  23,586

  Great Britain

  332,511

  362,504

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the future for Equitable Life Assurance of the society compromise due to be voted on; and if he will make a statement. [13255]

  Ruth Kelly
  This is a matter for the board of Equitable Life and the members of the society.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Insley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of student loans. [11347]
  492W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced on 4 October that she is leading a review of student funding. This will examine the appropriate balance between the contribution made by students, their families and the state to support our ambitions to widen access and participation in higher education.

  Limited Companies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances he will provide security for the debt of a company limited by guarantee. [12739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 195–97W, and to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 671W.

  European Crime Convention
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the draft protocol to the 2000 convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the European Union (10076/01; Council) and UK banks; and for what reason Article 50 of the Schengen Convention is repealed thereby. [13001]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  This draft Protocol builds on the European Union (EU) Mutual Legal Assistance Convention 2000. It imposes obligations on member states to respond to requests from other member states for information on bank accounts in the context of criminal investigations. There is a further obligation to establish the ability to monitor transactions within a specified account or accounts. Consideration is taking place as to the practical implications of this draft instrument for the banks and others.

  Article 50 of the convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 relates only to assistance in the investigation of fiscal and excise offences. It is therefore of narrower scope, and will be superseded by this instrument when it comes into force.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  International Sporting Events (Special Needs Funding)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sources of funding are available to enable young people with special educational needs to participate in international sporting events. [10542]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: At present, the main source of funding to athletes with a disability is provided by UK Sport through its World Class Performance Programme (WCPP) for elite athletes. Young people with special educational needs may be eligible for world class funding, provided they are named members of a national governing body's world class performance plan.
  493W
  Funding is available within each sport's WCPP award for athletes to compete in a programme of international sporting events. These events usually include World Championships, European Championships and any other international events considered to be an important competitive opportunity for the athlete.

  The athletes nominated on the WCPP receive individual support through their athlete personal awards. There are learning disability athletes included in two world class performance programmes—swimming and athletics. At present there are five athletes in athletics and six in swimming with learning disabilities. These athletes receive APAs and have access to funding to cover the costs of attending major international competitions, agreed with the performance and technical directors of the sports, within an agreed programme of events for the individuals and the squad.

  As part of the world class funding initiatives, Sport England provides the world class start and potential programmes. These are designed to identify and nurture young athletes so they can receive the best possible training and services to enable them to achieve future success. The programmes aim to assist athletes with genuine hopes of success in the future.

  Both UK Sport and Sport England have prioritised paralympic competitors for world class funding. Therefore, funds for non-paralympic sports are limited and rely on the network of volunteers and charitable organisations that exist throughout the country.

  The Sports Aid Foundation gives awards of £500 to individual athletes nominated by national disability sports organisations who are of international standard although not included on the world class performance programme. The award is intended for domestic training costs but may be used for international travel events if applicable.

  Individual governing bodies of sport directly fund athletes and teams to take part in international events. For example, the Football Association funds the England learning disability team and covers costs associated with squad training and major competitions. UK Sport also provides core funding to UK National Disability Sport Organisations such as the UK Sports Association for People with Learning Disability.

  National Lottery (Sales Licences)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many shops in England are licensed to sell lottery tickets; and how many of these have had a sales turnover in the last 12 months of less than £52,000; [12763]

  (2) if she will prevent lottery licences having a minimum sales requirement included as a condition of those licences; [12761]

  (3) if she will make it her policy to prevent retail lottery outlets being required to increase substantially their sales as a condition of renewal of their licences; and if she will make a statement. [12762]

  Mr. Caborn
  The terms of the contracts between national lottery retailer outlets and the National Lottery operator, Camelot Group plc, are a matter for Camelot.494W
  I understand from Camelot that 24,751 retailers have on-line lottery terminals, and a further 10,439 sell national lottery scratchcards only. Of those retailers with on-line lottery terminals, 1,936 had lottery turnover of less than £52,000 over the last 12 months.

  Culture and Audiovisual Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the outcome was of the Culture and Audiovisual Council held in Brussels on 5 November; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [13269]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for the Arts represented the UK at the Culture and Audiovisual Council.

  The Commission presented a communication on the legal aspects of film and audiovisual works which clarified the application of state aid rules in the film and audiovisual sector, and proposed further studies on the legal deposit of audiovisual works, registration of films and a rights—holders database. The Commission also presented a communication on the application of rules on state aids to public service broadcasting which clarified what the Commission expects of member states.

  Resolutions were adopted on: encouraging the development of the EU audiovisual sector; the role of culture in a knowledge society, including the need to take advantage of new technologies to increase access to the EU's cultural heritage; a report on the exportation of cultural goods and the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from a member state; and the role of culture in the development of the European Union.

  During a public debate on the role of culture in European development the UK emphasised the importance of culture in promoting social inclusion, cultural diversity and community cohesion, and reinforced the significant economic impact of the creative industries.

  Public Sector Broadcasting
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Government will fulfil their obligations under the treaty of Amsterdam to define the role of public sector broadcasting. [13223]

  Dr. Howells
  The treaty of Amsterdam does not impose an obligation to define the remit of public service broadcasters and the interpretative protocol introduced by the treaty makes it clear that such a definition is a matter for member states. In its recent communication on the application of state aid rules to public service broadcasting, the European Commission considers that it is necessary to establish an official definition of the public service remit. The Government believe that the existing broadcasting legislation and licensing system and, in the case of the BBC, the Corporation's Charter and Agreement, clearly set out the remit for United Kingdom public service broadcasters.

  British Films
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what European Union funds are available for(a) the production and (b) the distribution of British-made films. [13382]
  495W
  Dr. Howells
  The "i2i" Audiovisual Initiative will make funding of approximately 600 million euros available to the European audiovisual industry over the next few years. The initiative was launched by the European Commission, the European investment bank and the European investment fund in December 2000 and will support a wide range of activities, including production and distribution. Support will be in the form of loans for medium and long-term investments in infrastructure (such as studios); production of film packages and distribution; global loans to the banking sector specialising in audiovisual matters to fund small firms which create or use audiovisual technology and shareholdings in risk-capital funds specialising in the audiovisual sector.

  The EU's Media Plus programme runs from 2001 to 2005 and will provide funding of 400 million euros to the European audiovisual industry. At the outset of the programme just over 200 million euros was earmarked for distribution. Media Plus does not provide support for production but is aimed at supporting training, development, promotion and pilot projects, as well as distribution. The "i2i" Audiovisual Initiative has, in part, been developed to complement the Media Plus programme in respect of production.

  Table 1: Number of offenders convicted at all courts for money laundering offences, by type of offence, England and Wales, 1991–20001

  Code

  Offence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Drug money laundering offences

  93/49

  S49 Drug Trafficking Act 194 (previously S14 Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1

  4—

  4—

  4

  4—

  12

  5

  93/50

  S50 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (previously S24 Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986)2 Assisting another person to retain the benefit of drug trafficking

  6—

  6—

  4

  4

  3

  2

  11

  9

  9

  16

  93/51

  S51 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (previously S23A Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 as inserted by S16 Criminal Justice Act 1993) Acquisition, possession or use of other proceeds of drug trafficking

  5—

  5—

  5—

  4—

  4—

  3

  13

  7

  9

  5

  93/52

  S52 Drug Trafficking Act 1994. Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering

  5—

  5—

  5—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  93/53

  S53 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 Disclosure of information likely to prejudice an investigation ("tipping off")

  5—

  5—

  5—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Total drug money laundering offences

  4—

  4—

  4

  5

  3

  5

  28

  16

  30

  26

  Offence of laundering proceeds of other crime

  53/26

  S93A Criminal Justice Act 19883 as inserted by S29 Criminal Justice Act 1993

  5—

  5—

  5—

  4—

  4—

  2

  10

  4

  4

  9

  Assisting another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct

  53/27

  S93B Criminal Justice Act 19883 as inserted by S30 Criminal Justice Act 1993

  5—

  5—

  5—

  4—

  4—

  6

  4

  2

  5

  6

  Acquisition, possession or use of proceeds of criminal conduct

  53/28

  S93C Criminal Justice Act 19883 as inserted by S31 Criminal Justice Act 1993

  5—

  5—

  5—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1

  4

  4—

  9

  Concealing or transferring proceeds of criminal conduct

  53/29

  S93D Criminal Justice Act 19883 as inserted by S32 Criminal Justice Act 1993

  5—

  5—

  5—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Disclose of information likely IO prejudice an investigation ("tipping off)

  Total for offences of laundering proceeds of other crime

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  8

  15

  10

  9

  24

  Total for all offences

  4—

  4—

  4

  5

  3

  13

  43

  26

  39

  50

  1 Excludes any convictions in Staffordshire

  2Court Proceedings data prior to 1993 cannot separately identify offences under S24 Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (since consolidated and replaced by S50 Drug Trafficking Act 1994) from other drug offences. For the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, a special exercise was undertaken to identify this specific offence. However as a 100 per cent, response from courts was not achieved 'estimates' for these three years were made.

  3 Sections 93A to 93D Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force in February 1994.

  4 Nil return

  5 Not applicable

  6 Not available

  Note:

  All data are given on a principal offence basis

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of how many convictions there have been for money laundering in total across the EU, and in each individual member state, in each of the last 10 years. [12393]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The term "money laundering" refers to a number of different offences. Information taken from the Home Office court proceedings database showing the number of persons convicted for money laundering offences during the period 1991 to 2000 in England and Wales is given in table 1.

  Data for other European Union (EU) states are not collected regularly. The data in table 2 have been produced from a paper produced by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and was collected from the mutual evaluations of FATF members of which two rounds have occurred since 1991.
  497W

  Table 2: Number of convictions for money laundering offences, in certain EU countries

  Country

  Year

  Convictions

  Belgium

  1994–99

  182

  Denmark

  1994–99

  88

  Germany

  1994

  16

  1995

  15

  1996

  30

  Ireland

  1995–99

  11

  Italy

  1994

  125

  1995

  1996

  Source:

  Financial Action Task Force

  Overstayers
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made under the regularisation scheme for overstayers; how many applicants have had their cases decided; and how many cases are(a) under consideration and (b) awaiting action. [12870]

  Angela Eagle
  A total of 17,120 applications were received for consideration under the regulations of overstayers scheme. Of these 858 applications have so far been decided. Work is under way to validate the status of cases currently under consideration, though early indications are that there are now 4,300 cases in action within the integrated casework directorate. The remaining 12,000 cases are awaiting action.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many caseworkers in the integrated casework directorate are engaged in considering applications under the regularisation scheme for overstayers; and if he has set a target date for the completion of consideration of applications under the scheme. [12804]

  Angela Eagle
  A dedicated unit in integrated casework directorate (ICD) north, currently comprising a senior caseworker and seven caseworkers, has been trained to

  consent Applications and Prosecutions Since 1988 Under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986—England and Wales

  Year

  Number of Attorney-General consent applications (per defendant)

  Withdrawn

  Not granted

  Prosecuted

  Convicted (Not necessarily in the same year)

  1988

  3

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1989

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1990

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1991

  4

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1992

  5

  —

  2

  3

  2

  1993

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1994

  2

  —

  2

  2

  1995

  8

  1

  7

  6

  1996

  13

  1

  —

  12

  9

  1997

  12

  2

  10

  9

  1998

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1999

  4

  —

  4

  3

  2000

  5

  —

  5

  12

  2001-to date

  8

  —

  8

  2—

  1Two results outstanding

  22 Results awaited

  Source:

  Attorney-General's Office
  498W
  consider applications under the regularisation scheme for overstayers. The resources allocated will be monitored closely as details emerge of the complexity of these cases and the productivity of this team. A target date of April 2002 has been set for the identification and consideration of cases where leave to remain can be granted under existing policy concessions. During the next financial year (2002–03) more caseworkers and resources will be devoted to the consideration of the remaining cases. The target date for the consideration of all cases is April 2003.

  Incitement to Religious Hatred
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place(a) for acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Public Order Act 1986 and (b) under the Race Relations Act 1976; how many convictions resulted; and what were the (i) minimum and (ii) maximum sentences imposed. [12659]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information, provided by the Attorney-General's Office, relates to England and Wales for the years 1988 to date and is contained in the table. This relates to the number of applications for consent to prosecute for each year and the number of convictions resulting from the prosecutions. The whole of Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 is covered in the table, therefore including section 23 in addition to those sections requested.

  The records relate to the year that the application for consent to prosecute was dealt with and so it is not possible to state with any certainty how many prosecutions resulted in convictions in any given year. Also, there are no centrally held records that can provide reliable information as to the minimum and maximum sentence imposed in any given year.

  The Race Relations Act 1976 no longer includes provision for prosecuting offences of incitement to racial hatred, this having been transferred to Part III of the Public Order Act 1986.
  499W

  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the conclusions of his review of his decision not to award the Golden Jubilee medal to the police; and if he will make a statement. [12667]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The matter is under consideration and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Passports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many newly issued passports were lost in the post in each of the last five years; how many were subsequently recovered; and how many duplicates were issued. [11959]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The United Kingdom Passport Service only has information available for 1999 onwards on issued passports lost in the post. The figures for passports lost in the post and total passports issued are as follows:

  Year

  Lost passports

  Passports issued

  1999

  2,359

  5,134,172

  2000

  3,851

  5,495,704

  2001

  11,474

  14,890,941

  1To September 2001

  Information on total recoveries of passports is currently not routinely collected.

  The figures for passports lost in the post are derived from reports of losses from members of the public and therefore all of these passports should have been replaced. There is an upward trend in the number of passports reported lost and this is of some concern to us.
  500W
  The new digital passport has enhanced security features. These features would make it extremely difficult for someone who is in possession of a stolen passport to alter the document for use in a false identity.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 9 May and 12 July, from the hon. Member for Putney, with regard to his constituent Mr. Rachid Boujelouah (Ref. R349629). [12686]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 8 November 2001. I am sorry it has taken so long to reply.

  Incitement to Religious Hatred
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the leaders of different faiths with whom he has consulted concerning the proposed law on incitement to religious hatred; and if he will place a copy of their responses in the Library. [13690]

  Angela Eagle
  I have had a number of discussions on this issue with leaders of different faith groups. However, the importance of acting rapidly in the context of the events of 11 September has meant that a formal consultation process could not take place.

  The following Questions should have appeared in the
  Official Report for 16 October 2001, Volume 372

  Police Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce central purchasing of police vehicles; [6080]

  (2) what guidance he issues to police forces concerning the purchasing of UK-made police vehicles. [6081]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 648W.s