| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Drug Misuse
3. Mr. Don Touhig (Islwyn): If she will make a statement on progress towards achieving the Government's targets on combating drug misuse. [96781]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the Government are making good progress in meeting the targets that are outlined in their drugs strategy. For example, we have introduced the confiscated assets fund to channel money that is seized from drug traffickers back into anti-drug activity, and launched the arrest referral challenge scheme, which will provide a further £20 million over the next three years to get drug misusers into treatment. The Independent reported that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition. We need to do all we can to deal with it.
Mr. Touhig: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and wish him well. I thank him for answering my question.
Statistics show that one third of all property crime in Britain is drugs related. How will the Government strategy impact on that?
Mr. McCartney:
I thank my hon. Friend for his best wishes.
The Government have set tough targets, short, medium and long term, and all Government Departments are bound by them. We must start at base camp. We must reduce the number of young people who are using heroin and cocaine. We want to reduce that number by one quarter, by 2005, and by 50 per cent., by 2008; and to reduce the level of re-offending by drugs misusers by 25 per cent., by 2005, and by 50 per cent., by 2008.
We have set ourselves those tough targets because, as I said, drug misuse is a chronic and relapsing condition. Consequently, great resources must be provided to enable individuals to deal with their own particular circumstances--their self-confidence, self-awareness and self-worth--and a range of measures must be introduced to enable people who have completed a drug misuse programme to be sure that their drug misuse has ended and that a new life is before them.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the British crime survey, which was published at the beginning of September? Does he agree with me that Mr. Hellawell was complacent in his response to that crime survey--which showed that half of all young people have used drugs, and that some drug use was increasing--when he said that he and the Government were on course to deal with drugs use?
We subscribe to the view that tough, challenging targets have been set, but none of the targets apply, or may be measured, before 2005. What action is being taken now
to achieve them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should not think that setting targets is an achievement in itself?
Mr. McCartney:
I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman's comments about Mr. Hellawell and the Government. Perhaps I should remind him that, for 10 years, Conservative Members who served as Home Office Ministers, for example, refused to co-ordinate and regulate the security industry, in which front organisations were established to distribute and sell drugs in clubs across Britain. Consequently, at the end of this decade, not one club or pub in Britain is not at risk of drugs being sold in them, and young people who go to those clubs and pubs run the risk of drugs misuse.
We have come a long way, but we need to go further in dealing with Conservative Members' 10 years of inaction in government. That inaction put a whole generation of young people at risk from those who would sell them drugs on the streets, in pubs and clubs, and in school playgrounds. Although we have made a start, we need to do better, and there is a long way to go. We should do everything that we can to save every single life, because every life saved will mean saving one more family the trauma of losing a young person, and those young people will be able to fulfil their dreams, rather than dying before reaching maturity.
The Government are in no circumstances complacent about drug misuse, and I hope that there will be all-party consensus on dealing with it. The issue is difficult and complex, and addressing it will involve communities, individual and families. We have to do everything possible to challenge drug traffickers and to get them out of our society. We must also invest in dealing with young people who have fallen into drug misuse and cannot get out of that trap, and we must co-operate across communities, to rid them of the drugs scourge. If we take that action together--rather than making ping-pong points--we could save more young people.
4. Ms Jackie Lawrence (Preseli Pembrokeshire):
If she will make a statement on the work of the regulatory impact unit. [96783]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer):
I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for his earlier welcoming remarks.
The regulatory impact unit helps the Government to find the right balance between proper standards of protection and unnecessary impact on business. It scrutinises proposed regulation to ensure that it has been properly assessed and identifies spheres in which existing regulation is unnecessary or needs simplification.
Ms Lawrence:
That response will be welcomed by small businesses in my community for which regulation is a very important issue. Does my hon. Friend accept that small firms in particular are often at a competitive disadvantage because of the disproportionate cost and
Mr. Stringer:
I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point, which is why we are setting up the Small Business Service to provide user friendly advice and support. The regulatory impact unit will work alongside the service to tackle the pressures facing small businesses. We are concerned that they should not suffer disproportionately from red tape. That is why regulatory impact assessment requires Departments to think about the particular problems facing small businesses, using a small firms litmus test.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury):
Last Friday, I was at a meeting of the North and Mid-Cheshire chamber of commerce, where about 100 small and medium-sized businesses were represented. We discussed the 1998-99 annual report of the Better Regulation Task Force, which was distributed by the Minister's predecessor the day before he left office. Consternation was expressed at the costs that such businesses are having to bear. The representatives asked whether it might be sensible to rechristen the organisation the deregulation task force, not the Better Regulation Task Force, to show a commitment to removing the regulations and costs on their businesses.
Mr. Stringer:
The most important thing about regulation is getting it right. The previous Administration were obsessed with numbers and did not get the balance right with better regulation and benefits outweighing the disbenefits. What is also important is that the Government are committed to minimising the extra costs to employers and creating a climate in which enterprise can thrive. That is why we have lowered the tax rate for small companies twice since May 1997 and abolished advance corporation tax, creating a £1 billion cash flow advantage to companies in general. The hon. Gentleman has to judge regulation and improvements to it according to the overall context of the business environment.
Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire):
To develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), will my hon. Friend the Minister focus on the needs of micro-enterprises? There are hundreds of thousands of such sole traders, who are grappling with the burden of bumph and the other overheads that are the bequest of the past 18 years. Will he consider their interests as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Stringer:
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and remind him that during the previous Administration a small business went to the wall every three minutes. That is why we are going to ensure that the regulatory impact unit looks into all regulation and that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits.
5. Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey):
What steps she is taking to promote public confidence in the independence and political impartiality of the civil service. [96784]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam):
The Government are committed to maintaining a permanent and impartial civil service and to upholding the principles of integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity set out in the civil service code. That commitment is reinforced in the ministerial code.
Mrs. Bottomley:
I join those who have welcomed the right hon. Lady to her new job. Will she look again at the remarks of the head of professions of the Government Information and Communication Service, who told the Neill committee that career civil servants were feeling vulnerable under the Government, who are obsessed with presentation?
A growing number of people with Labour party histories have moved into the career civil service. The right hon. Lady has spoken much of the importance of special advisers. The Labour party also frequently refers to the previous Conservative Administration. Can she find one example of someone who worked in the Conservative party press office who was then taken on as a civil service press officer?
Marjorie Mowlam:
I have looked into the matter, as this is not the first time that the right hon. Lady has raised it. Yes, there have been a great number of changes among press officers, and when one looks at the detail, one finds that there were not as many under the previous Government, but many press officers have retired or moved with their Minister. When one studies individual cases, however, one finds that the situation is not as odd and bizarre as Opposition Members have tried to portray it. The appointments have been open and have been made on the grounds of merit. Those are the criteria that have been followed. If the right hon. Lady informs me of specific cases of concern, I will look into them. In all the months that this question has been asked, however, there has not been one such case.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
I wonder whether I could introduce a bit of balance. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that some special advisers are not socialist enough? I want somebody who is totally and utterly dedicated to the cause; somebody who wants to redistribute power and wealth and will advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for next year as well; somebody who is dedicated to saving the coal industry and taking it away from the grasp of Richard Budge. I have the names of a few redundant miners who could fit the bill.
Marjorie Mowlam:
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. If the people he is thinking of would like to put their names forward as special advisers to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I am sure that they would be considered.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire):
The civil service code is clear. It says that the Government have a
"duty not to use public resources for party political purposes"
and
"to uphold the political impartiality of the civil service."
10 Nov 1999 : Column 1119
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Government have done that at all times?
Marjorie Mowlam:
I do not have any doubt that that is the case. Let us be clear about the specifics that other Governments have adopted. When you were in government before us--[Interruption.] I beg your pardon Madam Speaker. When the Conservatives were in government, there were three or four Ministers who did campaigning work for the party. The situation is not unique to this Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I think that the impartiality of the civil service is crucial to good government. We are proud to work with an impartial civil service.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |