House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Jun 1995

Column 411

constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newham, North-West have a drugs project in their area which has a good reputation. I hope that, where appropriate, those organisations will not only be incorporated in the system, but will continue to receive support for their excellent work.

Mr. Newton: I did not think it right, not least because of pressure of time, to seek to intervene to comment on all the hon. Gentleman's arguments. However, perhaps he will turn to page 30 of the White Paper, where he will find that there is provision for rather greater flexibility than he has implied. For the police, there will be the ranks of chief constable, assistant chief constable or equivalents, or superintendent. Paragraph 5.6 states:

"The Teams will have the discretion to co-opt additional members with special skills, commitment or expertise."

I think that the necessary flexibility is there.

Mr. Howarth: I was not criticising a lack of flexibility. I accept that there is flexibility. It is important sometimes, however, to ensure that flexibility is available at all levels, and especially at lower levels. That is the point that I am making, and I think that the Lord President accepts it.

It is important that the debate is taking place. We are discussing a crucial issue. I hope that we can get things right. If there are mistakes and faults in the mechanisms that are being set up, I hope that the Government will be willing to be co-operative. I hope that they will be able to monitor how the strategy works as it unfolds. If it is seen over time that improvements can be made, I hope that the Government will make them. It would be entirely wrong to set in place a strategy, welcome though it is, on the assumption that we can all complacently sit back and assume that everything in the garden is rosy when manifestly that may not turn out to be so.

It is right and responsible that the debate is taking place. It is right and responsible that the Government have taken the steps that they have. I hope that it is right and responsible that we, the Opposition, have supported the Government. I hope also that the rest of the debate reflects the consensus-building approach that we have all adopted, so that the message goes out from the House that things are happening, that drug taking is wrong and that it is not an ineluctable process that cannot be reversed over time.

10.31 am

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes): As my right hon. Friend the Lord President and Opposition Members have said, drug-taking is a tragic threat to all our families and communities in this country, in the rest of Europe and throughout the world. Everyone is a potential victim, and I think that people are becoming aware of that. More drugs are more readily available nowadays than ever before, but too few people appreciate the real dangers of drugs misuse. Drugs misuse is costing the taxpayer huge sums in tackling crime and in providing treatment. Even more important, it is costing individuals their health.

It is against that background that the White Paper was produced. Like others, I welcome it. I do so especially in the awareness, as I have said before, that Governments find it extremely difficult to tie themselves down to any strategy on any subject. The strategy and co-ordination of

Column 412

effort that the White Paper reflects are what the all-party drugs misuse group, which I am proud to chair, has been arguing now for many years.

I offer my congratulations on the consultation process--not something always associated with government. The process, the reactions following it and the changes that have been incorporated in the White Paper following the production of the Green Paper in the autumn of 1994 are extremely welcome.

I welcome this full day's debate, for which I thank my right hon. Friend the Lord President, wearing his other hat as Leader of the House. In anticipation of a Department of Education Minister winding up the debate, I strongly welcome that ministerial presence, which gives added emphasis to the importance of good health education in the process of more effective prevention.

To take up the point made in an intervention by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I welcome the reference in the White Paper to the single regeneration budget, which shows the Government tipping their hat towards the broader aspects of policy, such as housing, employment and training, in the confused area of drugs misuse.

At the forefront of our minds, and running throughout the White Paper, is the importance of activities directed towards the young. I offer my praise to local efforts in Sussex, particularly the East Sussex Drug Advisory Council and, more recently, the Home Office drugs prevention team, the first unit of which was established in Brighton and covers the whole of East Sussex. I welcome the additional accent that the White Paper gives.

Colleagues will have noted on reading the White Paper that the Department of Health is providing £1 million to fund new initiatives to develop services for young people, especially those at special risk of drugs misuse or in the early stages of drug taking. I understand that the standing conference on drugs misuse has received bids totalling about £10 million. That reflects the innovative and creative approaches that can be applied to the horrible problem with which we seek to deal and the widespread threat of drug taking among the young. In this area of government, as in others, we must watch carefully to assure that sufficient funds are being applied. The marketing of home drug-testing kits has come to the fore. This form of testing is not mentioned in the White Paper, but it could be encouraged by it. I have deep reservations about the use of such kits by parents, with or without the knowledge of their teenage children to whom they are applying such tests. This testing may seem practical and immediate, and a way in which parents can come to grips with the problem. However, I fear that the risks inherent in eroding the trust and the overall relationship which should exist between parent and child, and without which the parent is incapable of helping his or her child to resist or come out from the problems of drugs misuse, could be exacerbated. As ADFAM National said recently, it is better to talk than to test.

References have already been made to a new prison policy, and I will take them up because of the well-known Lewes prison in my constituency. I fear that there is real potential for resentment if testing is not matched equally by the availability of counselling and treatment. There is a risk that prisoners will be reluctant to seek help from drug workers in prisons, especially if they feel that such

Column 413

a resource would finger them as people who should be tested, or targeted for testing. As the chairman of the Prison Governors Association has said:

"Testing must be balanced with measures to assist prisoners cope with this problem, and assistance in getting out of the habit is just as important."

I welcome the £10 million that the Prison Service is making available for support programmes. The voluntary agencies are already preparing bids to meet that requirement. I believe that the service can draw knowledge from the marvellous operations already being undertaken by the Addictive Diseases Trust and by Phoenix House. They have set a good example in terms of the services that should be provided.

I also advocate the better use of boards of visitors, which sometimes have a capacity to help with the institution of new processes in prisons. That capacity is sometimes overlooked. Are the Government giving any consideration to investigating, and perhaps even piloting and evaluating, what seems to be an interesting and successful initiative in the United States with the establishment of specialised drug courts? That alternative to the criminal justice system seems to be successfully and satisfactorily diverting misusers into treatment under the control of the courts instead of going to a medical centre. The establishment of those courts and their operation in the United States has already indicated that they are more effective than the criminal courts. The Miami initiative, which was where it started, is already being picked up in other states. I believe that that would be a worthwhile initiative to try here. Within the constraints of time, perhaps I may briefly identify some problem areas which I believe need to be tackled within the context of the White Paper. The first has to do with the operation of social services departments. I question whether sufficiently widespread and proper services, appropriate to local needs of drugs misusers, are being made available through the new community care responsibilities. Services should be strategic and needs-led, but I fear that they are sometimes more revenue-led or resource-led. That was identified as a problem in a recent report from the social services inspectorate in five representative departments around the country. Not only were they thought to be too resource-led, but all too often they also seemed to be too inaccessible. That, too, needs looking at. This country also needs, as do other countries, a better understanding of the process of health and drugs education to prevent young people from being lured into drugs. I am certain that generic health education is the proper way to approach drugs prevention. The educational value and the interest and appeal to pupils is in little doubt with schemes such as those mounted by life education centres or by TACADE--the Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Education--but I believe that we need a more precise measurement of efficacy. I believe that research is planned, and I hope that it will be instituted soon to measure that efficacy and see where we can get the very best health education for our children. May I say in parentheses that, despite what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said, I still worry about the ability of the schools inspectorate to do its job properly in the regular monitoring of health education without having more special training.

Column 414

In health education, misusers are often used as peer educators and advisers on how best to plan and deliver services to drugs misusers. They can be extremely useful, particularly among groups of new problem drugs users, such as crack users, which tragically are developing now. The use of crack is not widespread, but it is growing. The users are generally young and mainly white. Two thirds of users are male. Almost all are poly abusers--mostly mixing with heroin--and all too often they are completely out of control. It can be of immense value in planning how best to reach those people and to help them out of that problem if one taps into the knowledge available among their own peer group.

We are still faced with the problems of whether teachers in our schools are sufficiently trained to do their job, not only in terms of health education but in being able to aid and advise the pupils with whom they have to relate. As the Professional Association of Teachers has pointed out:

"Neither the levels nor the quality of training available to teachers in respect of drug education are currently"--

that is, this very month--

"adequate."

The White Paper identifies £5.9 million in grant for the education and support of teachers, and that is extremely welcome. As others have pointed out, however, I wonder whether that will be sufficient. I also wonder whether the whole question of health education is not still too closely tied to the science sector of the national curriculum.

On training and information, there is still the risk that all medical staff, particularly general practitioners, are inadequately informed and inadequately trained to assist to the best of their abilities in providing not only drugs treatment but assistance in the Government's efforts on international prevention.

My next concern, which is touched on too lightly in the White Paper, is whether the Government are giving sufficient support and encouragement to international agencies, and the Government's activities within them, particularly in Europe but also in international agencies, to help control production and to tackle international trafficking and money laundering and the crime that goes with it.

A matter which has been touched on already is the continuing advocacy of drugs legalisation by too many people who I believe should know better. Organisations such as Release support it as part of what they see as human rights. Individuals such as the director of the National Youth Agency advocate it as being in the interests of young people, although I am glad to say that that has been firmly sat upon and I believe that she is moving on to other areas--a bit late, in my view. Others claim that the legalisation of drugs would rob the Mafia of its markets and profits and would cause the crime rate to fall, but the truth is that it would automatically create millions more drug users, seeking stronger and stronger drugs for bigger and bigger highs. Yet others claim that no harm is done by some drugs, such as cannabis, but the opposite is true in both medical and psychological terms. Still others, out of desperation, say that there is no other way out; yet there is a growing recognition, as identified in the White Paper, that prevention does work and that treatment can be effective.

Column 415

I believe that there is a need for better public understanding, not just of the Government's position and, indeed, that of the Opposition on this, but of the reasons for that position. Agencies such as the London Drugs Forum, and the City of London, in its co- operation in "Cities Against Drugs Around the World", are doing a great deal. It has been debated in the Council of Europe, but I believe that the Government have a responsibility to collect together the information and to promulgate it more effectively than ever before.

There is no doubt that there is an ever greater need for more resources and stronger leadership. The Government have given a lead, at least, with the White Paper and the funding identified in it. That must continue. I still believe that seized assets from drugs dealers should be recycled into tackling the drugs problem. The White Paper is the proper, strategic beginning of nationally co-ordinated efforts to tackle drugs misuse in Britain, but leadership must be encouraged and it must be forthcoming from businesses, non-profit organisations and voluntary organisations not yet involved in this work, locally, in the regions, nationally and internationally.

The White Paper shows the way--I am confident of that. The good works have started. The drugs prevention teams are operating and will be expanded. The expansion of all that effort must be the motivation for the Government's drugs co-ordination unit in the next few years. I warmly welcome the reassuring words of my right hon. Friend the Lord President in his opening speech about its future. If that unit, which has done a magnificent job, continues to operate in the intelligent way that it has done, if it is given a truly United Kingdom remit and not just for England, and if it is supported by proper Government funding for the demand reduction efforts of prevention, intervention, treatment and research, we can be assured of safer and healthier families and communities in Britain. That is what the White Paper is really all about.

10.49 am

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) ended with the decriminalisation issue, I shall start with it and say that my right hon. Friends and I are not in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis and consider that the most appropriate place for such an issue to be considered is a royal commission. I would take a lot of convincing and a lot of evidence before I would be prepared to take the risk of signalling public approval of what is dangerously described as recreational drug-taking, as that signal could readily increase the use of other drugs. Changing the law in that way will not stop the dealers. Organised crime, so much of which is tied up with drugs, will either move to an opened-up cannabis market or take up the increased demand for other drugs that may result from such a change.

Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Column 416

Mr. Beith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence. There is a danger, however, that if the issue of decriminalisation is viewed as some sort of virility test of whether organisations and individuals are serious about the commitment to a drugs strategy, the views of many people who have relevant experience will be inappropriately dismissed. The Leader of the House has served us well by seeking to raise the debate to a higher level than one of simply testing people according to whether they fit a pre-defined set of criteria, of which decriminalisation is the principal one. He moved it to a level at which we may make some objective examination of the issues involved.

Mr. George Howarth: I am, however, genuinely confused. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this to me? If he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are all opposed to the legalisation agenda, why does he want to set up a royal commission?

Mr. Beith: I wish to continue my argument. A number of initiatives in relation to this matter, which I shall come to later, although that may be interrupted by a private notice question, have not been addressed in the White Paper. They are fundamental issues about why young people take drugs and about what sort of things are likely to stop them taking drugs. The White Paper does not begin to deal with that. It is about the structures and procedures by which we can proceed with roughly the sort of strategy for which consensus now exists. It does not deal with what we do if some of that fails or with the great doubts that exist.

The only body that would have any chance of convincing me that we should have a change in where the boundary of the law should fall would be one that assessed evidence carefully and objectively--rather more objectively than some of those who take part in this public argument. The royal commission is the proper body to do that. Over the years, we have used such bodies sensibly when there are major areas of controversy to consider.

I welcome the interdepartmental approach that the White Paper represents and the fact that the Leader of the House has personally put considerable effort into it and has, as I said in an earlier intervention, listened to criticisms that were made at the Green Paper stage and responded to them. I hope that a great deal of good, in the form of commitment and co-ordinated effort in dealing with this scourge of our society, will emerge from the White Paper, but I have some doubts and anxieties and I shall refer to some of the anxieties of others.

One is bound to ask whether we are simply creating a new bureaucratic structure that is not locally accountable and that is primarily health-led. The lack of real local accountability is a problem because we need to take communities with us on this issue; we need to build up the support of local communities. People identify more closely with their local authority than with health organisations which have changed their names, status and functions and are surrounded by controversy over matters that are nothing much to do with the issue.

The Government's reason for using the Department of Health and the health authorities as the lead is precisely that they are directly accountable to them. They are part of the centralised aspect of Government. The Government see that as a virtue; I see it as a potential weakness. The local community commitment might be better reflected if the lead were taken by locally accountable organisations.

Column 417

Mr. Newton: Again, I do not want to interrupt every time someone says something with which I do not agree, but it is important for me to restate that the reason for asking health authorities to do this is simply that someone needs to take the lead in setting the scheme up. That is not the same as saying that they must have the lead role in the on-going action. It is important that there should be direct accountability to central Government because, frankly, as everyone knows, local arrangements vary enormously in their effectiveness and in some cases have not been effective.

Mr. Beith: The Leader of the House is more convincing if he is saying that this is just the process of setting it up; someone has got to set the scheme up, so let the health bodies set it up, rather than this being done as a means of centralisation. I also hope that his remarks suggest that the involvement of a central Government appointee or someone responsible to central Government will produce more funding and readier access to Government funds. If we can draw that advantage from the arrangement, it would be fine, but a serious disadvantage exists.

I am still unclear, even from reading the White Paper, where the existing Home Office drug prevention teams will fit into the process. There is considerable potential overlap in the many areas where those teams exist. They may not even have the same boundaries as the new areas and they will operate over similar matters.

It is important to involve voluntary organisations. The Government have sought to do that through the drug reference teams, but, again, I hope that the process will not be too bureaucratic. We want both specialised voluntary organisations and the more general community organisations such as churches, the rotary organisation and all bodies involved in giving practical help to projects to raise money, find facilities, provide accommodation and, in all sorts of practical ways, help to keep things moving. We do not want matters to get bogged down in committees, meetings and the exchange of papers all the time.

The second area of anxiety involves resources. There are three areas where I fear that key resources may not be available or may not be sufficient. One of them is schools. It may sound like a lot of money, but it is £193 per school and it is going to schools that have serious resource problems. Even the Government and the Secretary of State for Education recognise that schools are severely stretched. There is not the extra teaching time. Staff time is not available to give the effort in each school which the White Paper requires. Whatever supplementary training provision is made out of these funds, it cannot replace the need to find someone who can spend some hours outside the immense commitments of the national curriculum and the introduction of testing to do the job that is called for. A serious resource problem exists which is primarily to do with the existing resource problem of schools. We are asking schools to do a difficult job when they are hopelessly overstretched. It will not work. Secondly, I can see no evidence of resources going into rehabilitation centres, which need to be an important part of the strategy. I gather that there is to be an announcement today about treatment services for young people. I do not know how far that is going to go, but it is important that resources go into rehabilitation centres for addicts.

Thirdly, I am not clear that there will be adequate resources in prisons. Some of the drugs problems in prisons have resulted from lack of prison resources. Prison searches

Column 418

have been withdrawn. That has happened in prisons in my constituency where staffing has not been available for adequate searching.

Incredible ingenuity is used to get drugs into prisons. They come in babies' nappies and are concealed within the persons of visitors. All sorts of tricks and techniques are used. You would be surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, how many friends and family of prisoners are happy to take part in the provision of drugs to feed the drug addiction of those in prisons, which is on a serious scale. We need resources for constructive programmes of work and activity for prisoners. We will not wean people off drug dependence unless they have some sort of constructive activity in which to engage in prison. That is costly.

The Prison Service is instructed to include in its business plan action to reduce the level of drug misuse. Again, there is no clear indication of the resources that will be available, even for that, let alone for more adventurous treatment, such as the scheme undertaken at Downview prison in Surrey with the Addictive Diseases Trust, where prisoners are being brought into a programme, consenting to urine testing, signing a contract or taking part in a programme that is designed to make the prison 100 per cent. drug free. If more of that work is to go on, we need the resources for it.

We must consider one of the more fundamental issues that plagues the White Paper. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has sought to deal with it in response to the criticisms in relation to the Green Paper. That issue is the tension between harm reduction strategies and strategies designed to promote abstinence. I am perfectly familiar with that problem. I do not drink alcohol, but, at the same time, I must recognise that schemes to deal with alcohol cannot simply be based on the preaching of abstinence. Real problems exist, which are described in paragraph 4.1 of the White Paper. Harm minimisation is embraced as an objective secondary to that of encouraging abstinence. Many who are involved in the treatment of drug misusers are cautious about the claim that we can cure people of their drug addiction readily. Some people say that drug addiction is a chronically relapsing condition. Often addicts come from social conditions where drug dependency has become normalised and accepted, and where opportunities for self-betterment are extremely restricted.

The White Paper specifically endorses needle exchange schemes to fight against HIV infection. That is an example of a harm-minimising strategy that might appear to be in conflict with preaching abstinence. Problems arise, for example, in dealing with Ecstasy. The Government recognise that water should be available at raves, but they are not so keen on the idea of chill-out rooms, which some of those involved in dealing with the problem consider to be necessary. The Government believe that the provision of such rooms might seem to imply approval of drug taking. We must recognise that unavoidable tension exists between the two different strategies aimed at combating drug misuse. A Government decision to opt for a certain strategy should not be seen as a virility test.

It being Eleven o'clock, Madam Speaker-- interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Column 419

PowerGen and National Power

11 am

Mr. Gordon Brown (Dunfermline, East) (by private notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will make a statement on the inquiry into the sale of shares in PowerGen and National Power.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): The stock exchange yesterday released a letter from its chief executive, Michael Lawrence, to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Terence Burns. The letter enclosed the initial findings of the stock exchange's inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Genco 2 sale and asked the Treasury to examine further the circumstances surrounding the sale, including the dissemination of information between various parts of the public sector and between the public sector and the market. Sir Terence Burns replied that the Treasury is taking this work forward and will respond in substance to the stock exchange in due course. Since the release of that exchange of letters there has been a great deal of misinformed, inaccurate and hysterical comment. It would be helpful if I clarified a number of issues. First, there is nothing sinister to be read into the release by the stock exchange of its letter to the Treasury's Permanent Secretary, Sir Terence Burns; nor is it the case that release of the letter signifies that the stock exchange has found criminal or unwarranted behaviour by the Treasury or other Departments. Stock exchange initial reports are normally passed to the appropriate regulatory body. Only in a small proportion of cases do stock exchange reports result in action by the regulatory or prosecuting bodies. In this case, the Treasury and the stock exchange agreed that the letter should be released. It is important that the procedures are open and are seen to be open.

Secondly, the stock exchange report of its initial inquiry does not criticise the Treasury or any other party. The Treasury does not have the authority to release the exchange's initial report--that decision is for the stock exchange. The report has, I understand, been compiled in line with normal practice under confidentiality undertakings given by the stock exchange.

The stock exchange has asked the Treasury to examine further the circumstances surrounding the sale, and we are prepared to do so. The Treasury's response will be published for all to see. Moreover, despite assertions to the contrary, neither the Treasury nor other Departments have immunity from insider dealing under the Criminal Justice Act 1993. It is entirely open to the prosecution authorities to investigate if they believe that there is a case to be answered. The Treasury will, of course, co- operate fully with any requests. The Treasury is taking forward the work requested by the stock exchange urgently. Sir Terence Burns has asked a senior Treasury official, who was in no way involved in the Genco 2 sale, to lead the work. He will examine in detail the events surrounding the share sale and the actions of all the parties involved. Having done so, he will draft the Treasury's response, which will be sent to the stock exchange and then published.

Mr. Brown: While I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House this morning, is not his response wholly inadequate not simply to a letter from the stock

Column 420

exchange, but to the new and serious charges made this morning by the chief executive of the stock exchange? Does he accept that the Government's proposals are no answer to the charge that damage has been done to the City's financial reputation and that there is an urgent need to repair our reputation? When serious allegations are made about the Treasury, no one would agree that the Treasury should be put in charge of investigating the Treasury.

What is new is that, this morning, the chief executive of the stock exchange said that, but for the Treasury's position in relation to the Crown immunity, he would have referred the matter to the prosecution or regulatory authorities. Will the Minister now join me in asking the stock exchange to publish the initial report of its inquiries and the reply sent yesterday by the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury? Will he join me in asking the Serious Fraud Office and the Securities and Investments Board to carry out investigations into the matter? Does he agree that an independent inquiry, under a judge, should be set up into the matter? Even if he agrees that the stock exchange is not in a position to take the matter further, does he accept that section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 contains powers to appoint investigators where allegations about market manipulation have been made? Does he therefore agree that no further privatisation sales should be carried out until those matters are cleared up?

Is not this inquiry the mark of an increasingly desperate Government, who are gambling to raise money, short-circuiting their own rules and running away from an open and public investigation of the consequences of their actions? That goes for the Chancellor as well, who ran away this morning to his country house, when he should be in the House answering questions on this matter. Is not this a Government whom no one will trust to investigate themselves?

Sir George Young: I entirely reject any accusations made by the hon. Gentleman that the Government have acted improperly in any way. The Government are doing exactly what the chief executive of the stock exchange asked us to do in his letter. He has asked the Treasury to take the matter forward and that is exactly what we are doing. As for the stock exchange report, as I said in my initial reply, it is a matter for the stock exchange. It was compiled under the normal rules of confidentiality which apply to the stock exchange. It is entirely a matter for it.

I dealt with the SFO in my original reply. Its course of action is entirely its concern as it is an independent body.

What the Government are now doing represents the right way forward. A factual report will be compiled into what happened and that will then be made available to the stock exchange. That is exactly what we have been asked to do by the stock exchange and exactly what we are going to do.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members believe that the investigation is being carried out in a totally appropriate manner? Where the stock exchange feels that there are legitimate reasons for raising questions, it is totally normal for it to ask the selling shareholder to answer them. It is totally reasonable for the Treasury to reply to those questions in a proper manner. It would be inappropriate for a judge to reply to those questions since that person would not have access to the Treasury papers

Column 421

and all the detailed information required for the reply. The matter can properly be dealt with in the way in which my right hon. Friend has identified, which satisfies Conservative Members.

Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. No new information has come into the public domain which in any way disputes the version of events that the Treasury gave at the time. We co-operated in full with the stock exchange in its initial report into the matter. We propose that the Treasury will do exactly what it has been asked to do by the stock exchange.

The report will be prepared by a senior official of the Treasury, who was in no way involved in the sale. A response will be made to the stock exchange which will then be put in the public domain for any further action that is then called for. I believe that that is a responsible and proper way to respond to yesterday's letter from the stock exchange.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): Does the Minister accept that satisfying his hon. Friends will not satisfy the public or the stock exchange? Does he accept that people cannot take seriously the idea of Treasury officials investigating Treasury Ministers? That is too cosy by half.

The Government have lectured the country and the House about the values of privatisation in the marketplace, notwithstanding tax write-offs, discounts and discounted shares. They, too, should be bound by the rules of the marketplace that they suggest other people should follow. The right course of action is not a cumbersome, independent inquiry, which could turn into a witch hunt of the Government, but an inquiry carried out by the stock exchange. It is the appropriate body to do that because it is independent and it has the power to do so. It would want to do that if the rules of Crown immunity did not debar it from doing so. Will he not allow the stock exchange to do its job?

Sir George Young: Perhaps it would be best if I read the last sentence of the letter from Michael Lawrence of the stock exchange. It says:

"In the circumstances, the Exchange believes that the best way forward is for the Treasury itself to determine how to examine further the handling of this privatisation, including the dissemination of information between various parts of the public sector and between the public sector and the market."

That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): Is my right hon. Friend surprised to hear the integrity of distinguished public officials at the Treasury questioned in the way that they have been? Does he agree that those challenges are wrong, unfair and misguided and that they should be withdrawn?

Sir George Young: I very much hope that no suggestion is being made that will in any way compromise the integrity of the senior civil servant who will carry out this exercise. That would be a very serious matter and I hope that no suggestions along those lines will be made this morning.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): Does the Minister accept that his reply will be widely seen outside the House as disingenuous? He said that the Government are doing only what the stock exchange has asked them to do. He quotes from the letter in which the chief executive says that "in the

Column 422

circumstances" he is asking the Treasury to conduct an investigation. Is not it the case that "the circumstances" are the fact that the stock exchange believes that the Treasury has Crown immunity from the relevant sections of the Financial Services Act? The stock exchange is only asking the Treasury to conduct that inquiry faute de mieux. It is not a question of criticising the integrity of individuals, but that the Treasury investigating the Treasury cannot carry any credibility with the public.

Sir George Young: Two issues arise from that. First, our response to the stock exchange report will be sent to the stock exchange and published. Of course it will then be open to the stock exchange or anybody else to comment on the report or, indeed, to take any further action. Secondly, the stock exchange does not normally carry out investigatory actions. Indeed, the letter from the chief executive says:

"The Exchange is concerned with the maintenance of an orderly and fair market, but, in most instances, is not a formal investigatory or prosecutory body."

That is not its role. It does not normally carry out investigations and that is why it will not in this case.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the constant call to bring in a judge at every twist and turn of public events has become farcical? Such a distinguished figure takes minutes, wastes money and frequently does not produce the result for which the Opposition hope. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the privatisation programme, which the Government have in place, will in no way be delayed?

Sir George Young: We will certainly be proceeding with our privatisation programme as planned. I agree with my hon. Friend. Nothing has been said this morning or yesterday which would in any way justify bringing in a judge, for which some people have been asking this morning.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Does the Minister believe that those shareholders who lost money over the purchase of shares in National Power and PowerGen will be satisfied with the explanation that he has given this morning?

Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Financial Times today, he will see that the shares are now standing at a premium over what investors paid at the beginning of March. So the question of a loss by those investors does not arise.

Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East): Hon. Members must have some sympathy for the Minister having to come to the House instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor is on record as accepting that price- sensitive information was available to the Treasury before the sale began. In view of that, how can the Minister defend the Treasury examining itself and its own behaviour? How can the Minister expect the thousands of small shareholders who lost money on this sale--and the large institutions which lost millions--to accept such self-regulation by the Treasury?

Sir George Young: Professor Littlechild did not decide to undertake his review until the afternoon of Monday 6 March, after trading had begun in National Power and PowerGen shares. We took financial and legal advice on 3 March about the possibility that Professor Littlechild

Column 423

might make an announcement on initiating a consultation about reopening the distribution price caps on the regional electricity companies--not the Genco companies. The advice that we received was that no change was required to the prospectus. The prospectus refers to a confirmation by the regulator of his position on the regulatory regime applicable to the generators. On 3 March, before the flotation, the regulator's office confirmed that that remained accurate.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): Does the Minister accept that the Government are being foolish in asking the Treasury to inquire into the Treasury? When the Treasury report is eventually prepared, what access will there be to the background documents on which that report is based?

Sir George Young: I explained that the response would be published when it is made available to the stock exchange. The background papers would not normally be published at the same time. Of course it would be open to the various bodies in the House, including--I assume--the body of which the right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished servant, to take the matter further if it so decided.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury): Is not the real key that in all the privatisations of former nationalised utilities, the regulatory risk has been well known? Indeed, it was clearly spelt out in the memorandum attached to the particular flotation about which we are talking. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government did not ask the regulator to undertake an investigation, but that the regulator did it off his own bat under the powers given to him under the previous privatisations?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have an independent regulator, independent of the Government. The stock exchange and investors are now getting accustomed to buying and selling shares in a regulatory regime, where regulators are independent of the Government and rightly independent of the companies concerned. Those adjustments are being made and will go on being made.

Column 424

Drug Misuse

Question again proposed , That this House do now adjourn. 11.16 am

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Before I was so interestingly interrupted, I was talking about chill-out rooms. They are not for indignant shareholders of privatised power companies, or even for hon. Members, but for people at rave parties who are exposed to the risk of dehydration and fatigue in a context where drugs such as ecstasy are frequently taken. The Government find it impossible to encourage the provision of that particular facility, although they are allowed to encourage the provision of plentiful supplies of clean water, because to do the first would appear to condone drug-taking, whereas somehow to do the second is accepted from a health and safety point of view. That illustrates the tension between strategies designed to promote not taking drugs at all and those designed to deal with the fact that many people are taking drugs. That tension runs through the whole problem, including the issue concerning prescribing.

I find it particularly difficult that we receive quite conflicting advice from those who are dealing with addicts, or simply users of drugs, as opposed to those who are primarily involved in promoting a different approach to the issue and promoting abstinence. That is illustrative of the underlying questions which the White Paper does not even ask, let alone answer. Why do people abuse drugs? Why do so many young people abuse drugs? There are different answers for different age groups. How much is social and cultural? How much is in response to despair and hopelessness? The Scottish White Paper expressly admitted the link between such social and cultural factors. It said:

"Drug misuse tends to flourish in conditions of deprivation, alienation and poverty of aspiration. It is particularly prevalent in some of the peripheral housing schemes in Scotland's cities." Since that is true in Scotland, it cannot simply be untrue in England.

Next Section

Home Page