House of Commons
Wednesday 29 November 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
- That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Falkirk, West in the room of Dennis Canavan, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.--[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Oral Answers to Questions
CABINET OFFICE
The Minister was asked--
Drugs
1. Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South): What recent discussions she has had with other departments regarding public information on the long term effects of designer drugs, with specific reference to ecstasy. [139175]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office apologises to the House for her absence. She is unwell and will not be undertaking ministerial duties today.
My right hon. Friend regularly meets ministerial colleagues to discuss various aspects of the Government's anti-drug strategy, including the need to raise public awareness of the potential harm that drugs, including ecstasy, can cause. Since 1994, ecstasy has been associated with nearly 80 tragic cases in which people have died as a result of taking those tablets. Short-term effects of taking ecstasy include anxiety, panic attacks, confused episodes, first-time epileptic fits and paranoid states. Longer-term harm includes memory loss.
Miss Begg: Although the drug of choice for many in the older generation is alcohol, many in the younger generation choose designer drugs such as ecstasy, and they often use the two drugs interchangeably. My fear is that there might be long-term psychological effects of taking ecstasy, even after using it just a few times, so are
the Government carrying out research or other work to highlight those psychological effects, which people might not experience at the time of taking the drugs?
Mr. McCartney: I, like my hon. Friend, am worried that that might be the case. Such issues are closely monitored by the Government. As a consequence, I can set out the effects of taking such drugs.
We need to involve young people in an awareness campaign. In Liverpool a few weeks ago we launched a campaign involving club owners because most ecstasy and so-called designer drugs are sold or used in a drug-related environment in clubs. For the first time, we are asking clubs to take medical action on the premises to ensure that if young people get into trouble through using drugs, we can sustain them and get them off the drugs. That is vital. As well as getting the message across, we must ensure that facilities are available when young people get damaged, as they will be, by ecstasy.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Will the Minister pass on our best wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office? We hope that she makes a speedy recovery.
What can the Minister do to remove the appeal of ecstasy as a so-called designer drug? He is right that in many areas it is associated with clubbing. Many people who take ecstasy do not mix it with alcohol but take it with water. Young people need to be better educated on the downside of taking the drug, so that they know not only that it tragically and instantly kills many young people, but that it has long-term effects. What research is being done into the long-term effects of taking ecstasy, and what can the Minister do to get that information to young clubbers?
Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious words. I am sure that my right hon. Friend perked up as soon as she heard them. No doubt all my hon. Friends would join us in wishing her well.
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is critical that information be provided to young people, but it must be done in a way that is acceptable to them. It is okay for a fuddy-duddy 50-year-old like me to prattle on about drug abuse, but young people do not necessarily listen to fuddy-duddies. The "Check Your Life" campaign involves young people's peer groups talking to them about the danger of drugs. The programme also provides advice about not taking drugs, and what to do if young people are taking drugs, so that they can get help to come off them.
Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East): Does the Minister agree that, given the nature of profit- hungry pharmaceutical companies with shareholders, if we were foolish enough to legitimise designer drugs we would be in danger of those companies spending more and more of their research and development budgets on such drugs, looking for big profits, rather than on pharmaceuticals that would benefit the whole population? Will he assure the House that it is not in his mind to go down that route?
Mr. McCartney: Absolutely not; in no circumstances would we do that. During the next three years we shall spend substantially more on tackling the drugs that
come into this country, and the criminal gangs who use criminals with scientific qualifications to prepare such drugs so that they can be sold for profit. The Government want to smash such organisations, put those who sell such drugs behind bars and throw away the keys.2. Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): What priorities for action she has identified following publication of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's second annual report. [139176]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Our priorities are to build on the successes that we have demonstrated in the annual report. Our new investment will bring total annual expenditure on tackling the root causes of drug misuse to nearly £1 billion in 2003-04, targeting young people, and doubling spending on drug education and prevention from £63 million this year to £129 million in 2003-04; raising funding for treatment services from £234 million to £401 million, enabling us to expand and improve those services; doubling spending on safeguarding communities from £45 million this year to £95 million; and raising funding to prevent availability through conservative law enforcement activity from £353 million to a projected £380 million. That will help us to meet the strategy's challenging targets for 2008.
Mrs. Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman alarmed by figures recently released by the Office for National Statistics that show that, contrary to previous predictions, the number of children aged between 11 and 15 taking drugs continued to rise last year? As the Government's 10-year strategy appears to be failing to deliver for those youngsters, what further measures will be taken to address that deteriorating situation?
Mr. McCartney: I, like the hon. Lady, read the report with interest, and a number of factors emerged from it. First, the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds who used drugs in the last month was 7 per cent.--the same as in 1998. The fact is that 85 per cent. of teenagers aged 11 to 15 have never tried drugs, and that is a credit to their common sense and the quality of the anti-drugs education that they receive at school.
However, we are not satisfied with that, so alongside the £21 million invested in schools education programmes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced a fortnight ago another £7 million to be spent on anti-drugs education in schools. We are not resting on our laurels. The Government will take further action if there is change of any sort. Our 10-year strategy--a 10-year struggle against drugs--is supported throughout Britain. It has achieved results so far, and it will continue to do so.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): The annual report contains little information on drug fatalities resulting from misuse of drugs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the report on reducing drug-related deaths produced for the Home Office in the summer. Are the Government making any attempt to sharpen up the information on the precise number of drug-related deaths, which is a mystery at the moment?
Mr. McCartney: I assure my hon. Friend that he will receive an answer in response to Question 11, whether we
reach it this afternoon or not, stating that we are considering the report on drug-related deaths, which covers what my hon. Friend describes as sharpening up the information about the causes of drug-related deaths. In addition, research is under way into what happens to people in the first year after leaving prison in terms of drug-related damage and deaths. We shall use that information to hone and improve our programmes further to provide stability and opportunities for people to come off drugs.Ombudsman System
3. Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): What steps have been taken to improve the ombudsman system. [139177]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): In April this year, Phillip Collcutt and Mary Hourihan produced a survey of the services provided by the ombudsmen, which the Government used as the basis for a consultation document released in April. At present, the Government are considering the 250 responses to that document and we hope to give our views early in the new year
Mr. O'Brien: I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to try to review the system of ombudsman services for individuals in our communities. While my hon. Friend considers responses to the consultation exercise, will he pay particular heed to the fact that the ombudsman service to citizens would be greatly improved if people were allowed to contact the ombudsman direct? Will he also take up with ombudsmen the question of correcting mistakes in published responses to submissions to their offices?
Mr. Stringer: Both the review and the Select Committee on Public Administration recommended that the MP filter be removed, as did virtually every consultee who wrote in to the original review. The Select Committee also asked Members of Parliament for their views, and they differed from the other consultees, as a majority of them wished to retain the MP filter--although in the latest survey, the number who wish to do so has fallen compared with the numbers in previous surveys. The Government will take into account all the views expressed in both consultations.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Why is there no ombudsman for Members of Parliament? What can we do when Ministers consistently take too long to reply, give inaccurate replies or cannot even be bothered to put their names on the bottom of their letters?
Mr. Stringer: If the hon. Gentleman requires the assistance of an ombudsman, he should consider his position in the House. Most Members of Parliament are elected by the people whom they represent. Members on both sides of the House do their best, and do not need help from anybody outside to do their job. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that he does need help, he should consider further.
Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): Does my hon. Friend accept that there are real difficulties with the ombudsman schemes? As we try to get closer working between
different services, especially health and social services, complainants are faced with the difficulty of dealing with ombudsman systems that work quite differently. If we are to get joined-up government, we need joined-up complaints systems. I welcome the review, but will my hon. Friend make sure that its results produce legislation as soon as possible?
Mr. Stringer: Obviously, I am not going to pre-empt any decisions on the legislative programme. My hon. Friend is right, as provision for each of the three ombudsmen--the health service ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the local government ombudsman--is made in three different pieces of legislation. The consultation document and the report by Collcutt and Hourihan point out that, as my hon. Friend says, there are overlapping areas, especially in health and social services, where the ombudsman's remit is not clear, or to which it does not extend. The changing nature of local government means that certain services have been taken out of local government and others have been put in, so some of the provisions of the Act that set up the office of local government ombudsman in 1967 are probably now inappropriate. That is why the reviews recommended a single commission, with generic ombudsmen covering the whole area of public services.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What are the trends in the numbers of complaints to the ombudsman schemes? Is the hon. Gentleman content with the average time that the various ombudsmen take to make decisions? What is the proportion of cases that ombudsmen decide do not come under their aegis, notwithstanding the fact that prima facie there appear to be good grounds to consider them?
Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. The local government ombudsman is currently dealing with 15,000 to 18,000 cases a year. On average, cases dealt with by the health service ombudsman take two years to complete. The local government ombudsman takes six weeks to three months to deal with a case. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration deals with only slightly more than 100 cases a year. The review will consider areas in which the overlap in matters under investigation causes a problem. It will also examine what inhibits ombudsmen from doing an even more effective job than they do at present, and will look at their efficiency. The report expresses the belief that the ombudsmen will be more efficient and effective if they are all in one commission, even though there will be more cases. The Public Administration Committee cast doubt on that assertion, but there is little doubt that removing the MP filter would lead to an increase in the number of cases.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |