"DANGEROUS DRUGS" - HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES RECLASSIFICATION

TOM LEVITT (HIGH PEAK) 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.

JOHN MANN We need to have a system that is credible to young people, but an
expanded litany of classifications will confuse them. I have talked to
young people in my constituency-it is not just 40 or 50 per cent of them
using cannabis; in most of the schools in my constituency recreational use
of cannabis is 100 per cent. among 16-year-olds. It is the main drug of
recreational use, even more than alcohol. The reason is the price. At the
moment, it is much cheaper than alcohol and much more easily available.
That has some serious health consequences, and it is the health issues that
we need to address.

Will we treat young people as fools? There are 600 heroin addicts in my
constituency. I have mothers whose sons have died from overdoses and
constituents whose brothers have hung themselves because of heroin. I am
not soft on drugs. We try to suggest to young people that these drugs are
all the same and that they should say no to drugs. Say no to which drugs?
We do not mean alcohol, because that is legal at 18. The problem is that
drugs will create health problems, and some drugs will create far more than
that. That is why in my constituency there are 600 heroin addicts whose
lives have been ruined-although increasing numbers are in treatment, I am
pleased to say. There were 12 deaths from overdoses last year, there are
mothers who fear the deaths of their sons, and there are individuals who
fear for their own health and lives and who do not see such a separation or
difference in the drugs market.

We need to separate the drugs market in people's eyes. That is not a
weakening of drugs policy. I appeal to my colleagues who are thinking of
voting against that model to look at the detail and think of the
precision-rather than a weakening of drugs policy, it is a clarification
and a strengthening. If we can move on from our obsession with cannabis, we
can deal with the fact that treatment for those addicted to class A drugs
remains wholly inadequate compared with the rest of the world, and we are
only slowly getting people into effective treatment.

I will not take up the time of the House. I will write to hon. Members to
expand on my views and my experience of how what we are doing in Bassetlaw
with a GP-led treatment procedure is beginning to work. That is the model
that should be used in the rest of the country. That should be the mainstay
of drugs debate in this House.

MR. MARK OATEN (WINCHESTER) I will try to be brief as a number of hon.
Members wish to speak. It is a pity that we have only an hour and a half to
debate such a fundamental issue, because we could have expanded many of the
arguments during a longer debate. That said, I welcome today's opportunity
because the Liberal Democrats have argued for many years that we should at
least have a grown-up debate on drugs in this Chamber. I welcome the fact
that the Government have decided to move away from focus groups to an
evidence-based approach, having heeded the work of the Home Affairs
Committee, the advisory groups, and the Runciman committee. Our view is
that although there are issues about the way the Government plan to operate
the process, we will support them this afternoon because what is on offer
is a step in the right direction.

The Liberal Democrat party has been a lone voice for far too long arguing
that drugs policy should be reconsidered and, over the years, we have
received horrendous press headlines when we have talked about the subject.
At last the Government now seem prepared to face up to some of these hard
issues, as do many Conservative Members, in particular the right hon.
Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who has very progressive
views. It is members of the public, not politicians, who also need to face
up to those issues. Five or 10 years ago, they may not have been prepared
to consider decriminalisation or legalisation but now they are very engaged
with the problem indeed. I am talking about parents in particular. They do
not want to be hard on drugs; they want the right policy in place to tackle
what they see as a growing problem.

The extent of that problem has been acknowledged by the report of the
European drugs monitoring centre, to which reference has already been made,
which shows that this country has the biggest problem in Europe, but that
we also have some of the toughest laws. Clearly, our policy is not working.
That is why I say to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)
that it is important that we engage in this debate. The status quo is
clearly not satisfying the public demand that we should tackle the issue
and that approach is causing major difficulties on the streets.

The Minister's remarks are important because she stressed that the proposed
change does not represent a softening-up on drugs. That is important for
two reasons. First, we have to send a strong message that if we reclassify,
the gain to be had is that we will get much tougher on the harder drugs and
the dealers. That strong message must come through. It must be coupled with
strong education aimed at our youngsters about the harm caused by harder
drugs. Secondly, we should not allow this to be seen as a green light for
taking cannabis. It is important that we get that message across, too. The
Liberal Democrats support that approach.

MR. LETWIN In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about an
evidence-based approach and the growing problem-that is common ground-will
he agree that there is something wrong with his policy if cannabis and hard
drugs use is increasing rather than diminishing two or three years after
the proposals have been enacted?

MR. OATEN Absolutely. I have no problem with that. We have learned from the
approach that has been taken in Lambeth and that has informed this debate.
Similarly, we will want to learn from this experiment. I think that there
could be a number of outcomes. As has been said, moving towards some form
of legalisation may be the way forward. The evidence may well suggest that
we have all got it wrong and we need to think again. One option that is not
acceptable is a do-nothing approach. However, I certainly support the idea
that we should reconsider the matter in two years' time. On a cautionary
note, which contradicts the approach that the Liberal Democrat party has
taken, there is a slight danger of our taking a middle-class approach-that
of The Guardian or The Independent reader. On some estates and in some
areas the arguments that are being propounded do not make any sense.

Three years ago, I spent 24 hours in a drug rehabilitation centre-not for
personal reasons, but because I was interested. I went in my jeans and
T-shirt and I slept the night. No one knew who I was-one of the advantages
of being a Liberal Democrat is that one can go under cover. None of the 17
folk I chatted to, who had serious drugs problems, favoured the
legalisation of cannabis or relaxing the law on cannabis. I had gone in
there with my cosy and comfortable upbringing, thinking that that was the
solution. I left with some serious doubts and I have struggled with them.
However, I have looked at the evidence and I have listened to some of the
arguments that have been put forward. I have come to the conclusion that
this re-classification is a step in the right direction.

I want to consider some of the arguments. Let us deal first with the
critical argument about whether the proposal will result in a redirection
of resources to dealing with hard drugs. The Minister could have told us
more about that, and I would have welcomed hearing more about how the
Government want to redirect police time. We did not hear enough about that.
At the moment, 40,000 individuals are apprehended, which involves a lot of
police time. If there is a fall in the number of those apprehended, where
will the resources then be spent?

It is quite disgraceful to put through something as important as this
measure in one and a half hours. I do not blame the three Front-Bench
spokesmen-the Minister gave way-but it is wrong to allow only half an hour
for Back-Bench speeches. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not
here. A very important issue is being debated, and it would have been nice
if he had been here today.

I have heard so much rubbish talked today about the Lambeth experiment that
it would take me a very long time to deal with it all. I will not refer to
that experiment other than to say that it was not a success. It was one of
those schemes that was doomed to success from the beginning because the
Home Office had decided that it would be successful whatever the outcome.
As for the statistics, you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we can all say
about statistics.

We keep hearing about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the
implication is that it is made up of most eminent and respectable people-I
do not disagree-and the font of all wisdom. It is important to point out,
however, that it is part of the Home Office, it is not a scientific
advisory panel, and many of its members have no scientific qualifications.
It has about 32 members, of whom a substantial number-about 13-are
committed to liberalisation of the drugs policy. It has no members from any
organisations that have publicly said that they are not in favour of
liberalisation. I therefore treat with a little bit of caution the
assumption that everything that it says is right. [Interruption.] It has
been suggested to me that I treat that assumption with a big bit of caution.

Reclassification is sending out a mixed message. It sends out a signal to
our young people-whatever the Minister says, and whatever she wishes-that
taking cannabis is not harmful and that it is legal. We have seen already,
since the Home Secretary's statement in the House, that increasing numbers
of young people are taking cannabis, and when confronted by teachers,
parents or police, they simply say, "But it's legal." The message that that
gives to young people-especially to those whose parents are keen to urge
their children not to be involved with drugs that can be harmful-is to
challenge their parents on the grounds that the House of Commons and the
Government say that it is okay. We are sending out a very wrong message,
which is also being sent out to the hard criminals and the real drug
dealers. Whatever we say about people growing cannabis in their homes not
having any dealings with such people, many people in my constituency would
not even have the capacity to grow it in their own homes, so the only way
that they will get it is through the criminal drug dealer.