| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.9 am
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North): This is a welcome and timely debate. We should not only continue to monitor the developments of the Government's strategy, which we have consistently supported, but we should consider developments that have taken place in the 12 months since we last debated the subject--also on a Friday morning--assess the scale of the problem and keep it permanently under review. The Leader of the House was right to discuss those issues so thoughtfully.
The Leader of the House quoted some statistics on drug abuse and associated crime. Although both are often highly organised, a large volume of drug-related crime takes place at a very low level, which is nevertheless intolerable in many local communities. People commit burglaries and various other offences simply to obtain money to sustain their habit. That is a problem for all communities.
The Leader of the House rightly says that this is not an inner-city or urban problem. Many rural communities--towns, market towns and villages--suffer from the problems that beset urban communities in terms of drug abuse and all that goes with it, including crime.
We must be realistic about the extent of drug abuse, but it would be wrong to assume that, because there is a large-scale problem, we are being overwhelmed by it. We should not give in; the consequences would be far too serious.
Drug abuse wrecks young lives. Some lives are even lost as a result; some of the more publicised cases have been mentioned. I identify the Opposition with the remarks by the Leader of the House about the parents of Leah Betts and their great efforts since her tragic death. It is important that people realise that, although her case rightly received much publicity, very many young lives are lost, and many more young lives are wrecked, as a result of drug abuse.
We are right to worry about such highly publicised cases, but we should also worry about the effect on the lives of people who have nothing to do with drug abuse.
I shall hold a surgery in my constituency tonight, and I guarantee that two or three--perhaps one or two more--of the cases will be a problem related to drugs. I am sure that that is the case at other hon. Members' surgeries. It may be a couple living in a block of flats, the communal areas of which are used at night by young people abusing drugs. Problems result. They leave debris behind. Young mothers have spoken to me who are rightly concerned about coming out of their front door in the morning to find, in a communal area, used needles, the debris from heroin abuse, silver paper and so on. Drug abuse has a marked effect on the quality of the lives of innocent people who just happen to live in the area where it is going on.
Similarly, I have received complaints--and taken them up with the police and the local authority--from people who, night after night, have had to endure dealing going on at their gates or across the road in a shopping precinct. When it is drawn to their attention, the police--Merseyside police in my local authority area--respond magnificently, but people are made miserable by having to live cheek by jowl with dealing.
My local authority, Knowsley borough council--not uniquely, as many others do it--has adopted a firm policy, which I support. Anyone who is convicted of drug dealing in a council property is evicted. It is now routine. Whatever difficulties in the local process that might cause, I support the council in that, because it is intolerable for people to live cheek by jowl with drug dealing.
Last summer, a head teacher showed me around a school, not in my constituency but in Liverpool. There was a discreet area at the back of the school, out of view from the main road, which young people were using to abuse drugs at night when the school premises were closed. It was a primary school. Young children were coming into school every morning to find, in the back entrances to their school and around the play area, discarded needles, silver paper and all the horrendous debris that goes with drug abuse. They are the realities of the lives of innocent people who are affected by the problems.
In common with other Members of the House, I have received a copy of a briefing paper by the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, which makes some interesting points. It welcomes, as we do, the strategy set out in "Tackling Drugs Together", but it draws attention to three areas of concern. I hope the Minister will comment on them.
First, SCODA says that the resources available to tackle the growing drug problem might not be adequate. The Leader of the House mentioned some additional resources, which we would join in welcoming, but there should be continuing evaluation to ensure that all the resources are in the right places so that we may continue to tackle the problem effectively.
Secondly, SCODA argues that the balance of priorities and expenditure between control and enforcement measures and the provision of education, prevention, treatment and care needs more thought. I would welcome any comments that could be made about that, if not this afternoon, in the coming months. That needs further consideration.
Thirdly, SCODA mentions the absence from drug strategies of the contribution that might be made by Government programmes in training, employment and housing. I do not want to make too much of that--I certainly do not want to use it to be overly critical--but obviously there are links between lack of opportunities in the economy, lack of a decent place to live and other social disadvantages, and drug abuse. It is not uniquely the case, but if people do not have much of a stake in life, it is much easier to drift into drug abuse than if they clearly have a stake.
I am not trying to get into a debate about the stakeholder economy, but I am often struck by the difference between my generation, who were teenagers in the 1960s, and the generation who are teenagers today. In those days, people of my generation had props, a stake in life--in my case, an apprenticeship. The expectation was that, if we behaved ourselves and did not get into too much trouble, life would gradually improve each year. That is not always clear in every community today. I do not say that to make a major political point, but there are connections between the extent of people's opportunities and their expectations of a career or even a family--in some cases even the possibility of family life is excluded. All those factors were powerful disincentives that stopped people getting involved in drugs and crime. In many communities those disincentives no longer exist as comprehensively as they did in the 1960s.
The Leader of the House has repeated the argument about legalisation and decriminalisation. I firmly place on record again the fact that we support his argument.
Lady Olga Maitland:
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman supports my right hon. Friend on the issue of the decriminalisation of drugs. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore condemn the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who has clearly hinted that she favours the decriminalisation of drugs? I say "hint" because I give her some benefit of the doubt, but the truth is that she has said that there should be
Mr. Howarth:
As I recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) argued, and then retracted--[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) should listen to what I have to say--she has asked me a question. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood argued that a royal commission should be established. The Opposition's position, which I have consistently maintained, is that there is no point in establishing a royal commission because that implies that, if it argued in favour of decriminalisation or legalisation, we would be willing to accept it. I can see no circumstances in which the Labour party would accept that, so I see no argument for a royal commission.
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has chosen to introduce my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood into the argument, perhaps she will tell me whether she
agrees with the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who said in his book, "Saturn's Children":
Hon. Members:
He is not the vice-chairman.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. I think that the House knows my views on seated interventions. It would be appropriate if each hon. Member sought to advance his or her own arguments.
Mr. Howarth:
It was not I who chose to introduce the note of discord into the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. To make it clear: that quote that I gave is contained in a book that the parliamentary private secretary to the chairman of the Conservative party wrote less than two years ago. Does the hon. Lady agree with him or is she willing to condemn him?
"taxing and selling"
of
"cannabis in a separate place than hard drugs".
She said that we should look at that possibility.Will the hon. Gentleman utterly condemn the hon. Lady because it outrageous that a public person should make that statement when so many young lives are at risk?
"Logic suggests that 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, or at the very least decriminalising their consumption."
Does the hon. Lady agree with the vice-chairman of the Conservative party?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |