§ Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)I am sure that those extra three minutes will be put to good use.
At the election, I assured the people of Christchurch that a parliamentary priority would be responding to the scourge of drugs, which is every parent's nightmare and the cause of so much crime. I was not alone in highlighting that issue. In its manifesto, the Labour party stated:
The vicious circle of drugs and crime wrecks lives and threatens communities. We will appoint an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate our battle against drugs across all government departments. The 'drugs czar' will be a symbol of our commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs in our communities.In January 1998, Keith Hellawell was appointed for a three-year period at an annual salary that is now reported to be £106,000. His first action was to review the position and, in April 1998, the Government produced a strategy document entitled "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain". When progress was debated in the House, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Jack Cunningham), then Minister for the Cabinet Office, spoke of the Government having astrategic vision in place and resources allocated to support it.He concluded:the targets have been set. It is time for us to start delivering."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 545–49.]We are debating the matter today because the Government are not delivering. The use of illegal drugs is increasing from a base point at which drug abuse in the United Kingdom was already up to five times higher than that in other European countries and by far the worst in Europe. The British people now realise that that is yet another policy area in which the Government's comfortable words have not been translated into action. Whitehall is alert to the hunt for scapegoats. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has complained to the press about a whispering campaign against her from No. 10. Mr. Hellawell has complained that he is also a victim of a whispering campaign. For example, on 31 January, The Guardian reported Mr. Hellawell as challenging his critics at Westminster toput up or shut up".He feared that the "negative spinning" directed at him was undermining his strategy. A similar story appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 1 February.Meanwhile—no doubt in desperation—the Prime Minister responded by preaching to us through the internet last Friday. Perhaps he used the script that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, will use in response to this debate. I hope not, because the right hon. Gentleman has a better record of using words of substance than the Prime Minister. I take issue with the empty expressions used by the Prime Minister in that broadcast. I wish to focus on one matter, in particular. He proposed to extend the "rat on a rat" scheme, so that children could telephone the police if they saw someone peddling drugs "near their school".
342WH What about schoolchildren using or passing drugs to each other at school? What action should schools take? Some have requested the use of random searches and/or random testing. As a lawyer, the Prime Minister must know that there is no purpose in having a command without a sanction and that a sanction will be of no effect unless there is a likelihood of detection. Although the expressions "discipline" and "self-discipline" do not feature in the Government's drug strategy, teachers realise that firm boundaries have to be set in schools. The certain knowledge that anyone committing a drugs offence on school premises will be automatically excluded concentrates the minds of pupils and reinforces the behaviour of the law-abiding majority.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment undermined the ability of individual schools to maintain such a zero tolerance policy against pupils using or being in possession of drugs. I have heard of the despair of head teachers in my constituency and elsewhere at the obstacles placed in their way. Mr. Hellawell said that he wanted a reduction in the number of young people excluded from schools because of drugs-related incidents, and he has made that a specific objective of his strategy. People assumed—wrongly, it turns out—that that would be achieved by reducing the incidence of drug activity inside schools rather than going soft on those who break the rules.
By concentrating on what is happening outside schools, the Prime Minister is again avoiding one of the key aspects of the problem. The problem is wider, because fundamental ambiguity and confusion lie at the heart of the Government's policy towards cannabis. That is well illustrated by a short quotation from Mr. Hellawell that was reported in The Times on 17 February this year. He said:
We are concentrating on the drugs that cause most harm though this does not mean we are going soft on cannabis.What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.The Government's confusion over cannabis is also reflected in Dorset. On 15 February, our local paper, the Daily Echo, reported that cannabis smokers are more likely to be convicted in Dorset than in any other county in Britain and that 37 per cent. of people arrested for possession in 1997 were cautioned, while 63 per cent. were charged and found guilty. Although the number of arrests is still very low, the police seemed to be sending out a clear message that cannabis was not to be tolerated. However, the bad news is that the newly appointed assistant chief constable for Dorset has announced that a different and less strict approach has been adopted to bring Dorset more into line with other areas of the county where cautioning for cannabis is the norm. It is none other than the Government's drug tsar who is held up as the person responsible for that softer line.
Last week, the Daily Echo's editorial under the heading Softer line? Go to Pot!" reflected the views of my constituents, when it stated:
The area has a real problem and a softer line will only make it grow.343WH The chance of a young person being arrested for possession of cannabis is very remote. When that is coupled with a feeble system of penalties for those who are arrested, a clear message comes across that the police cannot be bothered about enforcing the law against cannabis. More seriously, young people's respect for the law is being undermined. The law seems to be enforced on only a random, spasmodic, arbitrary and inconsistent basis. That is given credence by announcements such as the recent one by the Cleveland constabulary—the police force in the area represented by the Minister for the Cabinet Office—that it would like cannabis to be legalised. We have also received persistent leaks to the effect that the Police Foundation will recommend a softer line on cannabis. The Government have said that they would never agree to that, but in the absence of firm leadership, the policy vacuum is being filled by conflict and counterclaim.A further contradiction comes from the national crime squad, which warns that easing or ignoring the laws on cannabis possession for personal use would free up the drugs market and might make matters worse. At the root of the problem is the omission of any Government target for reducing cannabis use. That has sent the signal that cannabis has been degraded and, because there is no national target, local police forces are abandoning local targets for reducing cannabis use.
Cannabis use is not only unlawful, but anti-social, and those who still regard it as victimless are deluding themselves. The use of cannabis by motorists and motorcyclists contributes to a rising and significant number of deaths and injuries on our roads. Dorset experienced a graphic example of that when five young people were killed in a car crash near Puddletown after the driver had used cannabis. Road accidents are still the largest cause of premature death among young people, and drug use may already be the largest single contributor to that avoidable carnage.
What is the response of the Government's drug tsar? On 21 October 1998, The Times reported that he had spoken in favour of drug-drive tests on motorists to match spot checks on pilots and train drivers, yet the law has not been changed. We know the response of our magistracy. At October's annual general meeting of the Magistrates Association, the 700 representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution to the effect that there should be a new, specific offence of driving with prohibited drugs in the body, leading to mandatory disqualification. Such an offence would be analogous to that of driving with excess alcohol. The motion was proposed by Hilda Brownlow JP, the chairman of the Dorset Police Partnership Trust and the Dorset youth court. She spoke in the presence of the Lord Chancellor and the resolution was circulated to Ministers, but nothing has happened since October, so far as I can ascertain.
Although a reliable roadside test for the presence of illegal drugs in the body is not yet possible, that is not a valid excuse for inaction. A simple roadside screening test is already available and could be used as a basis for establishing suspicion, which could lead to arrest and the obtaining of further evidence by blood or urine sample.
344WH We need an urgent response to the statistics, which show a sixfold increase in the numbers of drivers and passengers killed in road accidents after taking drugs. The Royal Automobile Club reports that the figure has now reached 18 per cent. Breathtakingly, more than 750,000 passengers in cars in the past year have been driven by someone under the influence of drugs. That is an alarming statistic, to which there has been no response from a Government who, to judge from their words, should be eager to do something about it.
The subject is relevant to the issue of young people and drugs, because young people have a good record of compliance with drinking and driving laws. When I was Minister for Roads and Traffic, it was apparent that young people took the laws much more seriously than many middle-aged people did. I do not think that young people comply with the law because they are inherently more law-abiding, but because they realise that there is a high chance of detection if they offend and the certainty of a painful penalty if they are caught. No young people want to be disqualified from driving and subject to financial penalties on their insurance as well as court fines. If a similar regime were applied to driving with illegal drugs in the body, there is every reason to believe that young people would respond similarly. Would it not be better if the Government legislated to remove driving licences from those who drive with illegal drugs in their bloodstream rather than extending that penalty to those who do not meet their Child Support Agency payments? That is another example of the Government getting their priorities totally wrong.
We often hear the refrain from the police that it is difficult to prove evidence of possession of drugs because people discard substances before being searched by the police. Fundamental to that problem is a weakness in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As interpreted by the courts, if someone has drugs in his pocket, he can be convicted of possession, but if he has them in his bloodstream or urine, he cannot. Possession needs to be redefined in law so that the presence of illicit drugs in the body would become prima facie evidence of the offence of their possession. That principle already applies to drugs in athletics and to the detection of drugs in prisoners. That simple reform could revolutionise the ease with which possession of drugs could be detected and offenders prosecuted.
It is not only the Magistrates Association that wants such changes in the law. RoadPeace, the national charity for road traffic victims, reports that a number of their members have the impression that drugs played a significant part in the crashes in which their relatives were killed or injured. It draws attention to the problem of obtaining sufficient evidence to ensure that those involved in accidents that cause fatalities as a result of drug-taking are penalised to the same extent as those in similar circumstances with an excess of alcohol in their bloodstream.
The No. 10 performance and innovation unit recently chided the Government for putting emphasis on processes rather than outcomes. The Government's drug policy is another example of that. I believe that the time has come for action. We all know about the way in 345WH which the use of illicit drugs has brought personal tragedy into the Minister's life—no one is better qualified to get a grip on the subject—but it is clear, even from the Government's internal memorandum, that action has not happened. I wish the drugs tsar well—I know that he does not like that title, but that is what he was announced as in the Labour manifesto. He is fast becoming a symbol of the Government's failure in that all-important policy area.
The subject touches all of us, particularly parents. The Prime Minister referred to that in his internet broadcast last Friday, but the time has come for him to deliver something more than easy words. He said:
So not just as a Prime Minister, as a parent too, we want to support hard working families and make sure that we engage in a real battle to combat the scourge of drugs in our society.That is almost a mirror-image of what I said in my election manifesto. He went on to say:If we hold our nerve, we carry on with the strategy, tougher punishment"—yet all the evidence shows that at what is for many people the point of entry into the illegal drugs trade there is weaker, less effective punishment and less enforcement. That must change if we are to get a grip on that worrying aspect of Government policy.
§ The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney)I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I was hoping that we would have a serious debate about an issue that has been a growing menace in society for many years. The problems that exist in every town, village and city in Britain have the potential to affect every family in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned my personal circumstances. It is five months to the day since I had to go to a mortuary to identify my son's body. It is not only because of that or because of my having been involved for 10 years with young people with substantial problems relating to abuse, that I do not approach or debate the subject lightly. Nor does anyone in the Government. Nor was I given my portfolio because of my personal family problems. I received it last July, as a measure of the Government's committing additional resources to the ministerial team to support my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Mr. Hellawell, the drugs tsar. I hoped that we would debate how to create a healthy and confident society through activities in the community involving young people and their families. I hope that in the remaining minutes I shall be able to discuss that.
The hon Gentleman raised several issues. I shall write to him with a full explanation on some of them because I doubt that we have the time left for the intricate discussions that I should like to have on some legitimate issues that relate to all circumstances in which difficult decisions must be made about personal liberty, available resources and attitudes towards dealing with young people in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned cannabis, and tried to imply that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Mr. Hellawell have gone soft. I reject that imputation entirely. The Government have absolutely no intention of relaxing the legal status of cannabis, or any other 346WH controlled drug, and nor do we recognise a need for a royal commission to review the law. All drugs are harmful. The strong evidence available on the toxic effects of cannabis justifies maintaining the ban on recreational use. The risks involved include impairment of concentration, short-term memory and manual dexterity, and respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and lung cancer, which are associated with smoking the drug, and are all too prevalent. The potential value of cannabis-based medicinal products does not support the argument for legalising cannabis. It is a medical issue that can be settled only through proper scientific research, and the Government have licensed projects to assess any benefits of medicines derived from cannabis.
The co-ordinator's annual report sets targets for the Government in supporting police trials for drug recognition training and for field impairment testing in respect of drug driving. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the progress of that work.
The hon. Gentleman became rather political. If that is his approach, perhaps he will talk to his colleagues on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) wrote a book entitled "Saturn's Children" in which he said:
The only completely effective way to ameliorate the drug problem, and especially the crime which results from it, is to bring the industry into the open by legalising the distribution and consumption of all dangerous drugs".He went on to say that drug use is not an especially threatening health problem and that there is no reason to suppose that the number of consumers would increase if dangerous drugs were legalised. That is not merely soft on drugs, but irresponsible. That person is now on the Front Bench, and that is an open encouragement. Young people are being offered not Smarties and sweets but dangerous drugs. He says that drugs present no health threat, but the first time could be the last—as it is for many young people. People in public life should be more careful about what they say and write in influencing young people. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will withdraw what are perceived as scandalous remarks, especially by bereaved parents who have lost a child through drug abuse.
§ Mr. ChopeI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will complete the record by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has omitted from the latest edition of his book the references to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. That may reflect a change of view, and should be placed on record.
§ Mr. McCartneyIt should never have been written in the first place. People do not distinguish between version one and version two. The book is widely available, and was promoted to be read. As a result, information is available that tells young people that taking drugs does not constitute a danger to health. But drugs kill, and the Tory party should take action when someone like that, on the Front Bench—a man of influence—makes such comments.
The recent Home Office drugs seizure and drug offender statistics show that Customs and Excise and other enforcement agencies play a vital role in preventing drugs from reaching United Kingdom streets. In 1998, we seized drugs with a total value of £710 million and dealt with 127,900 drug offenders—an 347WH increase of 13 per cent. on the previous year. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are not true; the Government have not gone soft on dealing seriously with drug offenders and those who peddle drugs to young people.
Keith Hellawell was appointed in January 1999. His remit was to review existing Government policies and make recommendations for their development, to ensure a coherent national and international strategy, and to explain Government actions to the widest possible audience. Since then, we have launched a new 10-year strategy, in which our aims are to help young people resist drug taking, have a positive life style and realise their full potential; to protect communities from drug activities and anti-social or criminal behaviour; to provide treatment to overcome addiction; and to reduce drug availability by the pursuit and seizure of drugs.
The 10-year strategy represents a shift from a reactive to a preventative strategy and involves new, shared objectives across Government. All Departments with responsibility for such matters will effectively coordinate their response to the menace of drugs. Until recently, the strategy had had the full support of all political parties, but I am not sure whether the Conservative party still supports it. I hope that it does, because it is absolutely shameful when we are fighting a war against drugs, drug criminals and the effects of their activities that a major political party is not on side or all square with the strategy—a non-partisan, non-political approach to one of the most difficult issues facing the country.
§ Mr. McCartneyNo. The hon. Gentleman spoke for about 20 minutes.
An extra £217 million has been pledged for action against drugs. That money is delivering new treatment services, supporting schemes to reduce drug-related offending and helping education and prevention work—an issue raised by the hon. Gentlemen. Some £6 million has been committed to research so that we adopt effective policies and find solutions. Drug action teams and drug treatment and testing pilot schemes have begun, and we are working with business. The Government have put in place a range of effective measures.
The Government want to work with every hon. Member to ensure that our 10-year strategy is effective. For every part of the strategy that is successful, a young person will not die, a young person will not be injured, or a young person's family will be able to see a child grow up and realise his or her dreams. When someone is lost, the hole can never be filled, and to lose someone because of drugs makes that hole deeper, wider and blacker. We politicians can debate such matters, score points and say, "We are stronger on drugs than you were", but the truth is that none of us has got the answer right. If we had, 3,000 young people in Britain would not die every year and we would not have inherited from the previous government a lack of strategy, and drugs and drug dealers out of control, communities across Britain living in fear of drug-related crime and a generation of young people being affected by drug abuse.
348WH We have a long way to go. Drug addicts are human beings with a recurrent chronic illness and strategies are therefore difficult to implement, but the Government and all those involved in the strategy are absolutely committed to succeeding because when we do we shall have saved the lives of many young people. I just wish my son's could be one of them.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam)Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make another speech but he can intervene.
§ Mr. McCartneyWill the hon. Gentleman make his intervention?
§ Mr. ChopeIt relates to what the Minister said about the previous Government not having a strategy. Does not the Government's own document state:
The last Government's strategy for England, "Tackling Drugs Together" was an important step in the right direction. It has been implemented with some success. For the first time, Drug Action Teams set up partnerships to tackle the problem. We will build on that valuable work."?Does not that quote from his own Government's new strategy document bear out that the Minister was slightly over the top in what he said about the previous Government?
§ Mr. McCartneyI am not over the top, for the following reason. Individual actions were indeed taken but there was no comprehensive UK-wide strategy. I will give a classic example of that. The Home Office was presided over by a Home Secretary who would do nothing about the industry, which operated protection rackets and had the most effective sales and distribution supply chain in Europe. After 10 years, that led to every club, pub or any other place to which a young person in Britain would go being utilised by these organisations for the distribution of all sorts of drugs, including ecstacy. The previous Government did nothing about it because they favoured deregulation instead of concentrating on crime prevention. Consequently, Britain now has an industry and a supply chain that are pumping out drugs worth millions of pounds designed for one simple reason—to attract our young people, make them addicts and commit them to a life of of drug-related criminal activity which, for so many of them, ends in the loss of their life. The Conservative Government had 10 years to do something about it, but they did nothing, even though people were crying out for help. The Tories did nothing because they took a partisan view of what was happening out there. My Government do not do that. For the first time a comprehensive plan is in place. I beg Opposition Members to get behind the plan because when it succeeds it will stop the carnage of 3,000 young people dying each year in Britain.
§ Mr. ChopeI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Drug action teams involve local police, probation services, social workers and all 349WH Departments of Government. Can the Minister explain how Cleveland constabulary, which forms an important part of the Cleveland drug action team, is able to publicise its wish to see cannabis decriminalised?
§ Mr. McCartneyThe hon. Gentleman has moved his ground again. I cannot stop individuals giving their views about cannabis. Drug action teams take a coordinated approach, working with every organisation in the community to deal not only with offending but to stop young people offending and to take them into rehabilitation and treatment. That is the important aspect of the new proposals. For the first time, people are being diverted into treatment and rehabilitation, not only in prison but out in the community. If we do not do this, young people will become abusers of drugs and there will be no way back for them from a criminal life style and—equally important—towards a healthy life style. The drug action teams offer a fundamental 350WH improvement on what went before. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse the comments of individuals, with which I disagree fundamentally, with the Government's policy. The hon. Gentleman has heard what I and the Government have had to say. Those comments do not alter the requirement on all of us to ensure that there is an co-ordinated, effective plan through which we work in the community with young people to prevent their becoming involved in drug abuse and, where they have abused drugs, to put treatment and other systems in place to assist them in ending the abuse and to deal with some of the criminal activity that arises in the community from their abuse of drugs. If we can achieve that, surely even the hon. Member for Christchurch must agree that it is a fundamental step forward and an improvement on what we inherited two and a half short years ago.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock.