| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hughes: I accept the validity of that point. The body could do exactly the same job on the limited issue of the misuse of drugs, but could also consider the wider issues--not merely illegal drugs and misuse, which is the relatively limited brief of the advisory council, but the safety of food and drugs, as the American Food and Drug Administration does. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition made a similar commitment on food in his speech in Harrogate yesterday.
I do not think that there is a lot between us. I am arguing that there should be a body to consider such matters, away from Government and politicians. The issue will not go away. Let me make it absolutely clear. The fact that, as a party, we believe that such a body should look into those matters does not mean that we believe that the answer is either yes or no. I am with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and the Leader of the House when they say that they do not want to give signals that suggest that drug taking is--
Mr. George Howarth:
That is what doing that would do.
Mr. Hughes:
No, it would not. Setting up a constitutional body of the type that exists in the United States, Sweden and other countries does not mean that it would give us a different answer. It would simply review the evidence on a regular basis and give Parliament the opportunity to decide what to do. For the moment, I am not persuaded that the law ought to be changed, and that is my party's position.
Mr. Howarth:
I realise that the hon. Gentleman has a difficult position to defend, but if one established a royal
Mr. Hughes:
Those who read the report of the debate can make their own judgment. I do not think that there are inconsistencies. There are committees on broadcasting standards and on all sorts of other areas of public life. They act independently and give advice. I do not know why we are so nervous on this issue. There are different academic, scientific and medical views.
Mr. Flynn:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flynn:
My vote is in the balance.
Mr. Hughes:
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a constituent of mine, but if I have not won his vote by now, I shall probably not win it by the next election.
Does criminalising and prosecuting producers and sellers imply that users should be dealt with in the same way? Does one benefit from calling the users criminals? Does one benefit from calling prostitutes criminals? Those are real questions. One has to be honest, and it is not necessarily helpful to put people into different categories.
Finally, as is recognised on both sides of the House, education is the way forward, particularly that of young people at school. More than anything else, I must commend the section of the POST report that makes what we need to do so clear. It states:
The Health Education Authority got it absolutely right in its drugs campaign last year, by dealing with the health implications. Sixty-one per cent. of drug users say that worries about health are the biggest reason to stop using drugs. The HEA publicity:
I have been playing around with other slogans. The best that I could come up with--I apologise for the plagiarism--was, "Ask not whether you should do drugs, ask rather what drugs could do to you." That is the issue. It is a question of giving young people the education, so that they can decide.
I hope that we can build up the resources and effectiveness of the Health Education Authority, which did a good job under the right hon. Member for Sutton
Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when AIDS and HIV were thought to be a big risk; we have become complacent about those problems and we need to build up that campaign again. We need effective campaigning on television and big posters using simple advertisements that do not say no to drugs but ask the sort of questions that young people can ask themselves. By way of a postscript, I believe that the dance industry has suffered. There could be a supplementary poster that said, "Raves yes, drugs no." Not everyone who goes dancing at weekends wants or uses drugs. It is a proper recreational activity from which drugs do not necessarily follow.
It is clear that social policy is relevant. The more that young people have jobs and training, and feel valued and wanted, the less they will need to find escape. I strongly support the Prime Minister's initiative to maximise opportunities for sport and recreation. The more healthy activity that young people can take part in, the better. That includes dance, a popular and worthwhile activity for people of all ages.
I represent a constituency as urban as that of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, and he was right that the bane of the lives of many council estate residents--and I represent more of them than any other English Member--is the groups of young people who say that they are bored and have nothing to do. They are not necessarily into drugs, but they may get into them. They then become anti-social, threatening and difficult to control. They need sport and recreational opportunities to take the football, basketball and hanging around away from the middle of estates. I ask that we add to the money that we give the youth service and not only that given to big sports projects, but that given to Sports Council-funded projects in urban estates. I am about to put in such a bid for my area. We need to win the battle at the grass-roots, not nationally.
Customs and Excise needs to be supported. There have been moments when it has not felt supported. Its headquarters is in my constituency, though it has not briefed me for the debate. As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North said, as with many other matters, whatever we do nationally, it is difficult to influence the worldwide pattern because of international trends. We need effective Customs and Excise activity.
The police and the prisons need our support. I agree with the aim of making prisons drug-free. Prison is not very effective in dealing with drugs. The Americans have learned that locking people up is more expensive than dealing with them outside prison. Prison allows drugs to be spread around. I have two propositions. First, the Leader of the House and the Home Office should consider recycling the drug profits seized under the powers that the Government put through Parliament into dealing with drugs, by linking them to drug rehabilitation or education.
Secondly, the Government should examine the idea of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who leads for us on home affairs, for drug courts. That again involves American experience. They would take drugs crime out of the common court system--47 per cent. of drugs issues go to court rather than being dealt with elsewhere by cautions or suspended or deferred sentences. If such cases could be dealt with more imaginatively and effectively, we would make progress.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon):
The hon. Gentleman finished with two interesting points. Knowing the tortuous business of the hypothecation of funds, I shall be interested in the Government's reaction to the recycling of funds derived from drug crimes.
It would have been all too easy for the cynics to condemn the publication of "Tackling Drugs Together" as mere posturing: the sort of document that many Departments would put their names to, after which precious little would be done. The reverse has been the case. Once again, the Government have pioneered a brave and far-sighted initiative for which they have received minimal recognition and thanks outside the House. I was fascinated by the arguments put forward so coherently by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North(Mr. Howarth) for the balanced way in which he endorsed my right hon. Friend's sensible proposals, which are being tackled on a cross-party basis.
In my constituency, the police, acting in close co-operation with the drug action team, could hardly have adopted the Government's policies with greater enthusiasm. Their success has been endorsed and encouraged by visits in the past few weeks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as co-ordinator of Government policy, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. They have seen at first hand the added value of agencies talking and working together: the police, health authorities, schools, the probation service and the voluntary sector. For once, the whole picture is being seen in the round and the best strategies have been followed.
There have been three major themes: enforcement, education and treatment. Enforcement, as we know, has concentrated on tackling dealing and trafficking. Education has involved parents, teachers and governors and has extended, I am delighted to say, into licensed premises--the pubs and clubs. Treatment has broken away from the old cycle of the criminal system circulating offenders round and round so that counselling and referral to caring authorities happens sooner rather than later.
In the wider context, I suspect that we and our successors will be discussing the best way of tackling the menace of drug abuse for many years to come. The constant need to educate and warn young people of the threats that drugs pose to their health, livelihoods and happiness will never change. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the youth awareness scheme that he witnessed in Merton.
"Children learn most about drugs from Television, next most important are friends",
with school education coming third. It points out that youth culture, such as advertising and magazines, is the way to get through to children. As has been said, we cannot win by saying that drugs are dangerous, because young people want to take risks, so that argument is not a winner.
"The most dangerous thing about drugs is what you don't know about them."
is the way to win the argument. That is a very effective campaign.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |