House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Nov 1997 (pt 48)

'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.

The Chairman Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, page 1, line 10, leave out 'separately' and insert 'directly'. No. 17, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'an' and insert 'a directly'. No. 28, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'a separately elected assembly' and insert

'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.

Mr. Ottaway: Anybody who listened to the speeches on Second Reading and tonight would feel that some Labour Members wished to bring back the GLC. They expressed a nostalgic feeling that the good old days of the GLC should be allowed to return. I remind Labour Members of what the Green Paper says--I presume that the Minister endorses it--in paragraph 1.09:

"This is not an exercise in bringing back the Greater London Council."

Any Labour Member who thinks that the Bill will bring back the GLC is wrong, and any Labour Member who appeals for its return is out of line with his party. I have been struck by the number of Labour Members who seem to lament the passing of the GLC. Indeed, I thought at one point on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) was about to grab a box of Kleenex. That is extraordinary when we remember that the GLC cost Londoners some £2 billion a year to run, and all the more extraordinary when we remember that it squandered thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money so readily on the most invidious cases--such as the £30,000 it gave to the Camden Policing the Police group and the £38,000 to the Campaign against the Police Bill. I do not for one moment lament the passing of the GLC. Labour Members say that we abolished it without any consultation with the people of London. They are wrong. We fought the 1983 general election in London on an abolitionist commitment. We won just over half of London seats in 1979. By 1983, we had won exactly two thirds of London seats. That was our mandate from the people of London. They had had enough, and Labour Members would do well to remember that. Even the Labour party manifesto in 1983 demonstrated concern at the state of local government at that time. The section on local democracy stated:

"We are examining how best to reform local government. . . and we aim to end, if we can, the present confusing division of services between two tiers of authority."

19 Nov 1997 : Column 425

Those are words that Labour Members would do well to remember. Let me remind Labour Members of the reaction to our abolition proposals at the time. The Confederation of British Industry, an organisation that they are not usually shy of endorsing, supported our view that reform of metropolitan government was necessary, and that the GLC should be abolished. It supported devolution of most functions to lower-tier authorities, possibly in the form of a district joint board. Moreover, in its business leaders manifesto in 1983, the Institute of Directors urged local government reform, including abolition of the GLC. It was not as if there was no comment at the time; it was not as if there was a void into which we stepped. A proposal for the abolition of the GLC was in our manifesto, business leaders wanted it, and the community wanted it. The GLC was a dinosaur running out of control, but we recognise that things have moved on since then. After all, 10 years is a long time in politics. The world has become a global village, and it is essential that London's representative is prepared and able to move around in that village. I will take no lectures from those on the Government Benches on changing policy. They are already old hands at going back on manifesto commitments. In only five months, they have changed their mind on tobacco advertising and tuition fees. That gives me hope that it is not too late for the Government to change their mind on the nature of the assembly that they are offering Londoners. The Government are offering the people of London the chance to vote in a referendum on their plans for a Greater London authority. The authority has two parts: a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. The House will know of Conservative support for a mayor. Let us have a mayor. The Government, the Conservative party and much of London agree on the need for a directly elected mayor for London. I look forward to the election of a mayor--not least to the election campaign, and the election of a Conservative candidate as the mayor for London. We need a mayor who will be an ambassador for our great city, a strong voice for its people and a champion of Londoners, promoting London on the international stage. The mayor will be able to publicise the capital's case on issues ranging from inward investment and regeneration funding to the bidding for sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympic games. However, the last thing that London or the mayor needs is a directly elected assembly, a kind of GLC mark II. On this proposal, opinion is divided in the Labour party

19 Nov 1997 : Column 426

--we have heard the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and London borough leaders expressing their doubts--in the boroughs and among the people of London. That is why, on this proposal, the Government have decided not to put a separate question to London's electorate. That gesture demonstrates the Government's doubts about their own proposal. It is proof that a directly elected assembly is the weak link in Labour's plans to reform London government. The House will know of Conservative concerns about the Government's plans for a one-question referendum. That is a point of great relevance to the amendment, because it illustrates the Government's own lack of confidence about the assembly. They want to lump it into a single question about a directly elected mayor. That is because the disadvantages of a directly elected assembly far outweigh the advantages. I have been canvassing opinion in my constituency and in London as a whole. I have found that there is wide support for a voice for London, but hardly anyone agrees with the detail of the Government's proposals. That is why, perhaps, something curious has happened to the single question. That must be because the Government are nowhere near as confident as their case suggests for a directly elected assembly for London. It appears that the Government have changed the wording of the proposed--

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.--[Mr. Betts.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the permission of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

10 pm

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): I am glad to have the opportunity to talk about illegal drugs, and especially their long-term harmful effects. Those drugs are deemed to be illegal substances because they damage the individual to such an extent that what seems to be a private choice to begin with becomes a public choice. That happens when their use leads either to anti-social behaviour or long-term damage to the individual, so that society as a whole deems such use to be unacceptable.

There is a continued increase in the incidence of drug taking. The evidence shows that between 1989 to 1995 nationwide drug usage increased by two and a half times, but in Birmingham it increased ninefold. We find also that young people take drugs in increased numbers and that such young people are getting younger and younger. Drug incidents in primary schools are by no means unknown.

The debate was sparked by yet another piece of research on the permanent brain damage that is caused by Ecstasy, which is often referred to as a recreational drug. I find that terminology extremely misleading and dangerous, and that is not merely a matter of semantics.

I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to several press reports. The most recent one appeared in the New Scientist. It tells us that the brain scans of drug users reveal the first direct evidence that Ecstasy or MDMA can trigger long-lasting changes in the human brain, which cause memory impairment and depression.

The year before the article to which I have referred appeared, an article--again in the New Scientist--in June reported, following a study among students, that a weekend dose of Ecstasy can lead to forgetfulness, poor concentration and midweek blues that are severe enough to qualify the sufferer for clinical treatment.

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology made an important observation in March when it told us that, in contrast to such drugs as cannabis, on which there is research literature stretching back 25 years or more, the relatively recent emergence of Ecstasy means that there is much less research on its potential psychological and health effects.

We have information on long-term drug damage that is fairly generic. Prolonged exposure to most drugs can lead to tolerance where the user develops a form of immunity and needs higher doses to produce a given effect. Most drugs cause some dependence if taken for prolonged periods. I am particularly concerned about their psychological effects, because those are much more difficult to measure. If drug use leads to long-term psychiatric effects, we as a society should be extremely concerned. Long-term use of Ecstasy causes a massive release of the neuro-transmitter serotonin by causing the stored neuro-transmitter to be released and inhibiting its re-uptake, so that its effect is increased and prolonged.

I shall make a point that we often tend to forget. Young people, who are most at danger, make very rational decisions. They make much more sophisticated risk assessments. We have a problem because, as parents, we encourage our children as they grow up to take risks,

19 Nov 1997 : Column 428

to try things. When a child will not eat spinach, we say, "How do you know that you don't like spinach if you've never tried it?" Five or six years later, we say, "Here's something that you mustn't try." We need very good evidence and facts to convince our children when we warn them about the long-term danger.

I talked to DASH--the drugs and sexual health project in Birmingham--and asked for its experience of Ecstasy. In the first two years it recorded face-to-face contact with 3,400 drug users, particularly in clubs. Thirty-one per cent. of inquiries came from Ecstasy users wanting more information about the drug. The standard profile of an Ecstasy user is likely to be male, but we should not underestimate the number of young women who take Ecstasy; they simply seem to use it less.

Users are likely to be in their early twenties and use Ecstasy in addition to a range of other drugs, notably alcohol, cannabis and amphetamines. They make choices about the substance on which to get high on a particular night. They will consume one or two Es one or two nights per week, almost every week, for much of the year. Usage may continue for between two and four years. It is a social group activity which they grow out of. However, if it results in long-term or permanent brain damage, we cannot take it as something that is part of the club scene and just tolerate it.

Young people express concern about the long-term effects of drug usage, but when they assess the risk they have difficulty in finding the facts. I sent my researcher to a library yesterday to find some facts about the various long-term effects, and asked her to pretend to be a member of the public. She came back very surprised and said, "I found some very old medical text books with information on LSD, but I knew that it was not telling me the whole picture." We tend to overlook how difficult it is for youngsters and parents to find the facts, unless they are already in certain schemes.