| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): We have had this debate for countless decades. There have been endless reports. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Runciman committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs all made this recommendation? How many more committees must we have before we make a rational decision based on scientific evidence?
Mr. Letwin: I do not think that a thousand committees will ever diminish the fact that when this order—I realise that the Government will use their majority to get it through—and the accompanying legislation have gone through the two Houses of Parliament, young people will be enticed to buy more, or more often, a substance from dangerous criminals, and
they will then be led into hard drug use. That is not a rational policy and no number of committees will persuade me that it is.
Mr. Gordon Prentice : The right hon. Gentleman has not read the report.
Mr. Letwin: Of course I have read the report.
Mr. Oaten : The right hon. Gentleman has given us a critique of the system and outlined all the problems, but he has not once said what the Conservative party would do to tackle the issue.
Mr. Letwin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and the House if that is not clear. I have made my position clear. I believe that there are two rational possibilities, one of which—
Ian Lucas (Wrexham): Which is the right hon. Gentleman's?
Mr. Letwin: I will say which in 15 seconds, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.
There are two rational positions—one is total legalisation and the other is a Swedish-style effort to prevent use. I prefer the latter. If I need to spell it out, that means that I believe that Sweden is right—that it has a better policy than the Netherlands—but I accept that either of those positions can be argued for rationally, and the Government's proposals are the sole middle ground which cannot be argued for rationally. Indeed, the Minister put up no rational defence of it; she was all over the place. I continue to believe that the Home Secretary does not want to make the argument because he does not have an argument. What he is seeking is short-term popularity, and that is a very bad thing.
David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Letwin: I was about to end my speech, but I will of course give way to the Chairman of the Committee.
David Winnick: I am grateful. If it is only the Home Secretary and his team who are in favour of these proposals, why is it that when the matter came before the Home Affairs Committee and the Committee divided on the motion:
- "We do not, therefore, support the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug",
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman will obviously have to ask them, not me. I am very clear in my mind—and I think that over time the British public will be very clear—that this is not a sustainable system. There are hon. Members in the House who see this as a stepping
stone on the way to full legalisation. I can understand their logic, although I think that the number of young people who will suffer on the way is intolerable. However, the Minister does not even make that argument. She has not even made the argument that this is the greatest political courage the Government can currently summon up on their way to full legalisation. I think that she has not made that argument because the Home Secretary does not believe in it—I think that he believes that this is a resting point, and a popular resting point. That is irresponsible.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time for the debate is limited and many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
2.34 pm
John Mann (Bassetlaw): If I were to be persuaded by one of the arguments—I am sad to see that, entirely inappropriately on an issue such as this, there are three-line Whips all round the place—the Government's argument is not the one that would persuade me.
I remind myself that in any vote in this place it is important to look at the text and the substance of the vote rather than the arguments posed, and at the heart of this debate is the question, why cannabis? Why is there this obsession with cannabis? I surmise that probably it is because it is the only illegal drug that a majority of Members have sampled in the past and therefore feel most competent to speak about. However, cannabis is not the only drug used by Members—tobacco is used far more widely, and I confidently predict that the main drug that will have been misused by Members is alcohol.
The Swedish policy on drugs for young people is straightforward. It does not distinguish in any way between behaviour in respect of alcohol or of cannabis, because the health risks are increasingly evident, and are great, from both. Where the Government have failed, with a good opportunity—
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) rose—
John Mann: I wish to develop my argument, but then I will give way.
The Government have failed to take the opportunity to reclassify all class B drugs, not just cannabis. There is no logic that says that amphetamines and methamphetamines should be class B rather than class A. They are the main drugs in respect of criminal behaviour and hard drugs in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and they are spreading across America. Therefore, they should be in class A.
That codeine is a class B drug is also nonsensical. The main problem with opiates in New Zealand comes from over-the-counter codeine-based prescription drugs that people then bake and turn into morphine. The Government and their advisory council have got themselves into a bit of mess, and a presentational mess,
by picking out cannabis as opposed to all the class B drugs, and instead of reclassifying and removing class B drugs.We should have three classifications of drugs. The first should be hard drugs—drugs that in themselves will seriously damage health and may kill, and the taking of which leads to criminal behaviour. For example, the taking of amphetamines and crack cocaine leads to a range of criminal behaviours, including violent crime. With heroin, because of the nature of the addiction, the result is acquisitive crime. That should be the first classification—hard drugs that lead to both ill health and crime.
The second classification should be illegal drugs such as anabolic steroids. In the headlines tomorrow and in the playgrounds of Britain, the talk will be not about cannabis, but about another class C drug: anabolic steroids, and the decision made or not made by the Football Association today on the use of, or the avoidance by top sportsmen of testing for, anabolic steroids. We call those drugs class C at the moment. They should be, and can be, called soft drugs—the taking of which does not lead to criminal behaviour, but will cause a serious health problem. Cannabis is one—the new and hydroponic forms of cannabis, skunk in particular, even more so. Anabolic steroids, and things like codeine, should similarly be class C drugs.
The final classification of drugs should be tobacco and, in particular, alcohol. Tobacco kills millions, and alcohol—which, in terms of drug misuse, causes greater policing problems and probably greater criminal activity than any other single drug—is, of course, misused more by Members and by the general public than any other drug.
Those should be the three classifications, and the Government should get out of the muddle of having classes A, B and C by removing class B.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his case. He has accidentally misled the House about the position in Sweden, where they take a tough line on alcohol abuse, as he said, and on binge drinking. They also regard all cannabis taking as illegal, while the moderate and sensible consumption of alcohol is legal. The Swedish model seems very successful to Conservative Members.
John Mann: For young people, the Swedish model is the same as that in this country—the taking of alcohol by young people is illegal. As regards health, in Sweden they have in-patient detox. Conservative policy on rehabilitation is based on the Swedish model. Regardless of whether it is cannabis, alcohol or any other drug, if people are taking drugs irresponsibly and have health problems they are automatically sectioned. They are put into detox centres compulsorily and treatment follows.
That is a good model and we could develop it here. It will be difficult to sell to the British people the idea that young people who are falling over in the streets because of excess alcohol consumption should be treated on an in-patient basis for five days in a secure detox centre. We are a stage away from taking the general public with us.
An improved classification of drugs that identifies alcohol as a major problem along with other drugs is fundamental.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |