| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bellingham: I am always pleased for the Opposition to correct me when I criticise them, and I stand corrected. However, that does not mean that the Opposition did not vote against virtually every other tough measure that the Government have introduced.
Let me turn briefly to Norfolk, where the challenge of the drugs problem has been picked up by the Norfolk constabulary, which is operating a number of excellent schemes, the local education authority and the probation service. I should like to congratulate the Norfolk constabulary on its efforts. The police are well aware of the problems in Norfolk.
I mentioned the figure given to me by the deputy chief constable relating to the number of crimes that involve drugs in some respect and I hope that what is happening in Norfolk is being reflected elsewhere in the country. A concerted effort is being made by the police, the probation service and the education authority to bring drugs education into schools and local communities. Whenever there is a presentation on home watch, crime prevention or anything else, the Norfolk constabulary makes sure that a key expert is on hand to give a presentation and explain what Norfolk constabulary is doing and how it is working with other agencies and the drug action team. I welcome that action and the resources that are going into it.
One of my constituents who lives in Norfolk for some of the time, runs Fairways, a drug treatment centre in Docklands that was set up four years ago. I have been privileged to visit Dr. Adrian Garfoot, the medical director, James West, the practice manager and Gary Sutton, the drugs field researcher.
The centre opened four years ago. Dr. Garfoot's father, the Rev. John Garfoot, is a minister in Kings Lynn in my constituency. Dr. Garfoot began his career as a general practitioner, but he was so concerned about and committed to people who suffer from drug addiction that he wanted to do more for them. Therefore, he moved from general practice to treating drug addicts on a permanent basis. The clinic has a unique prescribing policy: Dr. Garfoot believes in providing sufficient prescriptions to wean addicts off their habit for street drugs.
Presently 261 patients attend the clinic and they had spent on average £100 per day feeding their habit. About 70 per cent. of the male patients had spent an average of four years in prison. We all know the costs associated with incarceration and the ill health that flows from drug addiction. Many of the patients had been refused treatment by other doctors--that fact was brought home to me when I visited the clinic recently--and many had attended drug dependency units and detoxification centres that had failed to help them. It is a classic example of short-term treatment simply not working.
The clinic aims to try to return such people to the mainstream. It aims, first, to stabilise drug habits through a tight prescribing regimen and, secondly, to rebuild
people's lives and try to help them back into the community. An integral part of the programme is the Lost Talents charity, which was set up by Dr. Garfoot. It tries to rebuild the talents and the skills that have been lost during the period of addiction.
In 1994, my constituent Dr. Adrian Garfoot was charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 with prescribing in an irresponsible manner. The charges related mainly to the prescribing of amphetamines. The case went before a tribunal, which reached its conclusions in October 1994. However, it is now June 1996 and there has been no ministerial view regarding the tribunal's ruling. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment about that delay. My constituent continues his work, day in and day out, treating cases that were considered to be hopeless. He seeks to return his patients to the mainstream community, to give them hope for the future and to help them to rebuild their lives. However, Ministers have not got their act together and reached a decision about the tribunal's conclusions.
Worse still, on 22 May this year there was a raid on the clinic. The conduct of that raid is particularly disturbing. Seven police officers arrived at the clinic and arrested my constituent and his partner. They removed virtually all the documentation and the confidential records held at the centre. It was an extremely unfortunate incident which took place without warning. Examination of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and relevant sections of other Acts reveals that, if my constituent had not been arrested, the police would have had to obtain an order under section 9 of the 1984 Act and a search warrant.
It appears that the police were on a fishing expedition and I wonder whether the drugs inspectorate and people in the Home Office knew what was going on. I find it extraordinary that, before a Minister has made up his mind about a tribunal decision--there is no evidence against my constituent; I would not say that in the House unless I had checked my facts very carefully--seven police officers from No. 3 area intelligence unit at Ilford police station should raid the clinic, creating mayhem and causing much concern among patients.
I am pleased to report that most of the documents have been returned to Dr. Garfoot. However, some material--particularly computer records and bank statements--has not been returned, and obviously my constituent is seeking a full explanation. I wrote to the Home Office Minister about the matter approximately three weeks ago and I have not yet received a reply. I also wrote to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, but he has not replied to my letter. This is a specific constituency matter and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could discuss it with his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) and arrange for speedy replies to my correspondence. I would also be grateful if my hon. Friend would comment generally about whether a raid of that nature should take place before a Minister has made up his mind about the case.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey):
I welcome the debate. I hope that we shall continue to have an annual debate about drugs for as long as it continues to be a huge national issue. It is appropriate that we should return to it a year after the debate that followed the introduction of the Government's report by the Leader of the House.
I hope that hon. Members can contribute to the drugs debate. I said earlier to the Leader of the House by way of intervention that possibly the media make the greatest contribution to that debate. For example, I believe that in the past year the film "Trainspotting" probably made the most dramatic contribution in that regard. It depicted real-life incidents in a breathtaking manner. When I saw the film at the cinema, I remember how the audience collectively drew breath during several scenes. It certainly did not pull any punches.
The film was particularly effective in drawing attention to the high incidence of illegal drug taking in Scotland, which is where the film was based and where its characters came from. Although the debate principally concerns England and Wales--there are no Scottish Members of Parliament in the Chamber today--I do not think that we should fail to mention the fact that hon. Members from Scotland across all political parties are trying to ensure that the debate also takes place in a Scottish context. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) went on a train trip around Scotland, taking the drugs message to all communities. Their action is to be commended.
One could cite many figures in this debate, but I shall be selective and refer to only two documents--both of which I welcome. I refer first to the updated document from the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse which, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said, was prepared as a briefing for hon. Members. The organisation is based in my constituency and I pay tribute to its work. Secondly, I draw attention to the excellent report produced recently by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. I pay tribute to that body, to our colleagues who serve on it and to the staff who work with them. They do the most excellent work. I regret that I was not able to find time to serve on that body when I was asked to do so.
That body produced a report in May this year, which I commend to hon. Members and to the wider community. The report on cannabis, Ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD is an up-to-date and accurate scientific analysis of the current situation. I shall cite several statistics from that report and from SCODA's document, which I hope will put the issue into context.
As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, illegal drug abuse among young people is currently at its highest recorded level. The report says that between one third and one half of 16-year-olds have experimented with illegal drugs. According to the report, lifetime experience of drugs is more than one in
four of the adult population; perhaps as many as 7 million people in this country have tried cannabis at some point in their lives, while between 250,000 and 800,000 young people may have tried Ecstasy; and about one in five young people use drugs on a regular monthly basis. Equally important is the last statistic on its list. Drug taking, of course, is not just one way--many people stop of their own volition. In one survey, of the 32 per cent. of 17 and 18-year-olds who had tried an illegal drug,10 per cent. no longer took it.
We should recognise that the statistic for those who stop drug taking is just as important--and certainly more encouraging--as the one for those who start to take drugs. According to the POST report, there may have been 50 to 100 acute deaths over the past five years as a result of taking Ecstasy. I shall quote, for the purpose of being absolutely accurate:
"Those seeking to down-play the risk could compare it with the risks of being killed in a traffic accident (of a similar magnitude)".
It is, of course, more difficult to opt out of traffic-related accidents than it is to opt out of taking Ecstasy, where people opt in by taking it. The report continues:
"Others would compare a tolerance of 20 deaths a year with society's reluctance to accept even slightly enhanced risks in other fields--whether contraceptive pills or beef."
We must get the balance right, as the Leader of the House has carefully tried to do in all his public statements, and ensure that we neither over-exaggerate nor underplay the risks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |