| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: Just before we leave what is, I suppose, the inevitable outcome of such a debate--party-political point scoring--may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman accepts that we gain nothing by identifying differences of view within parties on such a subject? There are differences of view within each party represented in the House. He has clearly put the view of the Labour Front Bench, the Government have put their view, and I shall put my party's view. It would be a nonsense society if, when the Front-Bench team of each party put its view, every member of that party had to hold and express the same view. If that were the case, we might as well live in a totalitarian state where democracy and debate were not allowed.
Mr. Howarth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is up to him to defend his party's position; I am putting the Labour party's official position. It had not been my intention to give that quote; I was seeking to be as consensual as the Leader of the House, but as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam chose to introduce one of my colleagues into the debate, I thought it wise to introduce one of hers. I agree that the more consensus on the issue that we have across the House, the more likely we are to make progress--it is as simple as that. For that reason, the Leader of the House was generous enough to acknowledge that, on behalf of the Opposition, I have consistently supported the Government in that. We shall continue to do so as that is the only way in which we can deal with the problems.
I should like to say a few more words about the case against the legalisation and decriminalisation. We should not underestimate the power of the argument for legalisation and decriminalisation. It sends entirely the wrong message to young people--it tells them that it is
okay to do this. Officialdom, represented through Parliament or the Government, is seen to be saying that it is okay--it is not okay. It is a serious problem.
Mr. Flynn:
To follow the logic of my hon. Friend's views on the main killer drugs of society, is he in favour of prohibiting alcohol and cigarettes?
Mr. Howarth:
I have been down that path with my hon. Friend before and I have said on more than one occasion that, on this issue, he shows an uncharacteristic attachment to market forces. There are problems with alcohol abuse and with tobacco abuse, but there are different ways of dealing with them. Unfortunately, both those activities are long established and legal--if the starting point was different, we might deal differently with the problems. Although at some points in history some drugs that are now illegal were legal, most drugs that are in general use have been illegal for a considerable time. We have to deal with the position as it is rather than as my hon. Friend might prefer it to be.
Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is well known among professionals that the thrill of illegality is part of the attraction of drugs to some young people? The difficulty is that decriminalisation removes the thrill of illegality for a certain sort of young person who could be tempted to use harder and yet more dangerous drugs.
Mr. Howarth:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we could extend that principle to almost anything. We could say that stealing cars and joyriding produces a thrill--I know that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that--so we should think of decriminalising that activity. People get a kick out of all sorts of illegal activities, but that does not necessarily justify decriminalising them.
The experience of areas where there have been experiments with decriminalisation shows that it causes confusion in policing. If some substances are decriminalised while others remain illegal, police forces and those responsible for dealing with the problem find it confusing. If some substances are dealt with on a legal basis while others are dealt with on an illegal basis, it becomes difficult to keep track of who is selling what to whom, where and when.
Those who support decriminalisation must recognise that, if we decriminalise in one country, one city or one area, we inevitably produce a magnetic effect. That is the experience in Holland. I would not support the argument, but those who do so must understand that unless they are prepared to support it on a co-ordinated, almost international basis in order to prevent the magnet effect, the inevitable consequence would be that the city or area of decriminalisation would attract more and more people because they would know that they could indulge in drug abuse with relative impunity. That would be true were London or any of the constituencies represented here to introduce decriminalisation. That is the experience in other countries, but it is certainly not an experience that I would recommend.
I acknowledge that there are considerable problems in getting the message across to young people. I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds
(Mr. Spring) a few moments ago. Fashions change and young people's perception of what is acceptable or not changes. There are many pressures on young people now, from the media, from the music they listen to and from the clubs to which they go for entertainment, which make it seem acceptable for them to do certain things. The argument advanced about Ecstasy by the Leader of the House illustrated that point.
Young people need to be aware that whatever the dictates of fashion in certain areas and whatever the music might say, drugs such as Ecstasy are very dangerous. The case of Leah Betts is not the only example of the damage that drugs can do; in her case, the result was fatal.
There is a case--I know that there is consensus on this--for explaining to young people who are liable to find themselves offered drugs how they can reduce the harm that they might do to themselves. It is, for example, important that water is available. But we should not explicitly encourage young people, either through fashion or by other means, to believe that everything is all right if they take Ecstasy in a certain setting. It is not because it can lead to horrendous consequences.
The Leader of the House rightly referred to the problems of drug abuse in the Prison Service. I am sure that he is aware that when mandatory drug testing was introduced--
Mr. Newton:
I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably talking about the problems of drug abuse in prisons rather than in the Prison Service.
Mr. Howarth:
I stand corrected. I am not sure what evidence my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has for saying that I was absolutely right. I apologise if my remark was misleading. I of course meant that drug abuse was a problem in prisons and, for that reason, we supported the introduction of mandatory drug testing. It has been useful in identifying the scale of the problem within individual prisons.
I tabled a question for written answer to which I received an answer on 22 May 1996 at columns 243-44; it makes interesting reading. The number of drugs tests carried out between February and October 1995, on a month-by-month basis, went from 207 to 717. In February 1995, the number of tests that proved positive was 78, of which five showed the presence of opiates and 70 showed the presence of cannabis. By February 1996, the number of positive tests for cannabis had risen to 791 and the number of positive tests for opiates was 178.
I do not use those statistics to be alarmist, but because they give us an idea of the scale of the problem. I know that the Home Office and the Prison Service monitor the results regularly to ensure that mandatory drug testing and the procedures for arresting the supply of drugs in prisons are going well. What worries me--the statistics show this--is that there is a problem with mandatory drug testing in that cannabis can be detected in the bloodstream for much longer than opiates. It may well be--the figures are too small to say this conclusively--that some prisoners are shifting away from cannabis, which can be detected for longer, towards opiates. I do not say that as
a political point. However, it is important that the results are monitored and if that shift is taking place, we must consider what routines need to be introduced to try to monitor the problem slightly differently.
Mr. Flynn:
I raised the matter with the Home Office 10 months ago. As a result of the huge choice of drugs in prisons--illegal drug use is endemic in almost all our prisons--prisoners can move freely from soft drugs to hard drugs. There is evidence from prisoners themselves that the drug examinations are persuading them to come off cannabis and to go on to heroin.
Mr. Howarth:
I agree with my hon. Friend up to a point. However, I am not sure that the evidence is clear enough to enable us to make further conclusions. That shift could be going on and my point--I know that the Prison Service and the Home Office are concerned about this--is that we must keep a clear eye on the situation. If it becomes apparent that there is a need to change the procedures and to consider using different kinds of test, we should keep an open mind.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |