| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Licensed Premises
3. Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen): If he will allow police officers to raise money from licensed premises to pay for additional police officers and community support officers. [134160]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): We are concerned about the costs of policing late-night entertainment venues, and we believe that partnership working with the industry is the key to tackling crime and disorder. There are some excellent examples, such as "City Centre Safe" in Manchester. The Home Office is working closely with the Prime Minister's strategy unit to
develop an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. The strategy will tackle a wide range of issues, including managing the costs of crime and disorder.
Mr. Denham : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. The Government have achieved a remarkable increase in the number of police officers, but is not the problem the fact that too much of a police officer's career is likely to be spent policing town and city centres on Friday and Saturday nights, not out in the communities where people also wish to see them? Do we not need a statutory scheme to enable police authorities and local authorities to raise extra money from the licensed premises that make huge profits from binge and heavy drinking to fund extra police officers and community support officers in every community that needs them?
Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend is right about the cost to local communities of the disorder caused by crime—47 per cent. of violent incidents are committed under the influence of alcohol. As I have said, we are embarking on a strategy with the Prime Minister's strategy unit to tackle the issue among others, and hope to report later this year. Community support officers can be given designated powers to assist in this area. I understand that Hampshire police, who cover my right hon. Friend's constituency, have so far not bid for community support officers, but there will be another opportunity to do so in spring 2004.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): If police authorities are allowed to raise additional revenue, can it be used to pay special constables? They perform an invaluable role, yet their numbers have been cut dramatically under this Government.
Caroline Flint: It will be open to the force to determine the use of any funds so raised. However, there are already a number of schemes that local authorities and the police, working with club owners and publicans, can use to try to address those issues. In fact, the Licensing Act 2003 includes new powers to shut down rowdy premises within 24 hours and review licences instead of waiting for the point when they are up for renewal, which will help to tackle some of the issues.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): May I welcome on behalf of my constituents the total of nearly 300 additional police for south Wales since 1997 and the community support officers who have recently been added? However, echoing fellow Members' queries, when the strategy review is complete, can it be rolled out as soon as possible, particularly to places such as Ogmore, where police are being pulled out of remote communities for duties in town centres as well as in the fantastic Millennium stadium?
Caroline Flint: I support my hon. Friend's view that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. It is an issue not only for the police but for local authorities, health services and others. Earlier this year, guidance
was published for crime and disorder reduction partnerships on ways in which they could tackle the issue as part of their remit.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Does the Minister accept that the experiment in New Earswick, where the Joseph Rowntree fund paid for a police officer for a two-year trial period, did not work? The Opposition want to replace two-year time-limited grants for community support and rural support policing with long-term funding for our police.
Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I do not know the details of the experiment that the hon. Lady mentioned, but there are issues relating to an end-to-end attitude to the process that involve all sectors of local authorities. If individuals are pulled out to take part in other assignments, that does not necessarily help the problem that they were urged to tackle from the outset. We want collaboration between the police, local authorities and people in the industry to try to find solutions to this challenging problem.
Illegal Drugs
4. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): What new proposals he has to reduce the use of illegal drugs. [134161]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government's updated drug strategy was launched in December 2002. Recent achievements in reducing drug use and supporting communities include the introduction of the young people's substance misuse plan in April 2003. Since then, we have launched the Frank anti-drugs awareness campaign, and have announced funding for a two-year anti-stigma campaign for relatives of drug misusers. On Thursday, the Prime Minister announced a pilot arrest referral scheme for young people in 10 sites across the UK.
In addition, the criminal justice interventions programme is now fully operational in 30 basic command units. The Home Secretary is due to announce further expansion of the programme in early November. We have also achieved a reduction in waiting times and an 8 per cent. increase in numbers accessing treatment.
Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the harshest prohibitionist policies against drugs in Europe for 30 years have, perversely, led to our having the worst drug problems in the entire continent—less than 1,000 drug addicts in the UK in 1970 and more than 250,000 now, and no recreational use of cannabis in this country until after it was prohibited? Is not the Government's stand on the reclassification of cannabis a courageous, practical and intelligent one? Although it is a first baby step, is it not likely to lead to a new direction of policy that will reduce all drug harm?
Caroline Flint: The overall aim of our drug strategy is to reduce the harm caused by drugs and, importantly, to reduce the crime caused by those who have drug problems. We do not believe that legalisation is the right step forward. I reaffirm to the House that the reclassification of cannabis in no way legalises cannabis.
We are trying to have a mature debate about a highly complex issue. One of the reasons that drugs strategies have failed in the past is that there have been too many gaps through which the people who suffer from addiction fall. Through the criminal justice system and drug action teams, and by working with schools and others, we are trying to make sure that we get the best output from the money that we put in, and above all that we reduce the harm to individuals, their families and the wider community.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): If the Government win the vote on Wednesday, will cannabis be an illegal drug?
John Mann (Bassetlaw): Sweden does it, Australia does it, and now, after years of prevaricating, Bassetlaw is doing it, with GPs taking the lead in treating drug addicts effectively. Would my hon. Friend prefer to wait the two or three years it will take to train more specialist GPs before copying our success, or would she rather give us more money now to evaluate the success and fast-track effective treatment?
Caroline Flint: We are keen to see best practice across the country. As Bassetlaw is a near neighbour of mine, I shall study closely what happens there. One thing is sure: we need to look at a range of people working in the field, from the clinical specialists to others who can make sure that we support people as a way of getting them off drugs and out of drugs. I always have an open ear to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): Does the Minister accept that by reclassifying cannabis on Wednesday, the Government will not be doing what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) would like—fracturing the relationship between hard and soft drug dealing—nor will they be taking the kind of tough measures against all drugs, which the Opposition argue for? Is this not one more example of the fact that the third way is no way at all? Instead of sending out mixed and confusing messages on Wednesday, why does the hon. Lady not provide more drug rehabilitation places?
Caroline Flint: I do not accept that. We are providing more places for various forms of treatment. It is not just a matter of residential treatment; it is a matter of what happens to people when they come out of that treatment and how we sustain treatment in the community. That includes dealing with issues such as employment, housing and education. We are not seeking to legalise cannabis by reclassifying it; we are trying to have an important debate based on scientific evidence that looks at the relative harm caused by different types of controlled drugs. The hon. Gentleman and others are guilty of sending out mixed messages, which do not help children, young people and others who expect an honest, frank and realistic attitude to such an important issue.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |