---

Drug Classification

Indeed—entirely. However, I think that there is a sense of desperation. I have spoken at committee meetings for many years and I treasure memories from about 12 years ago of speaking in a debate in the Chamber at which both Front-Bench spokesmen had to leave the debate at a certain point because they were in need of a fix—both were chain-smokers. After denouncing the terrible drugs that young people were using, they would probably go down to the Bar and have a whisky in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and a couple of paracetamols in their pocket for later in the night. Neither of them saw the irony in the fact that they could not last three hours in a debate without having a fix of a drug to which they were addicted—a drug which is in many ways a great deal more dangerous than the drugs covered by the classification system. In the new classification that we have seen, nicotine comes very high when it is smoked; when taken in other ways, its classification is lower. Our system is entirely irrational. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) was extremely generous about the Drugs Act 2005 in saying that there was not much of an evidence base for classifying magic mushrooms as a class A drug. It is an act of insanity to give magic mushrooms the same classification as heroin. The only reason why the legislation went through, with the support of the two main parties—and their cowardice—was that a general election was fast approaching. No party—the Liberal Democrats were relatively silent on the issue—had the courage to say, ““This is absolute nonsense. You’re sending completely the wrong signal by giving magic mushrooms that classification.”” I have never heard of any deaths because of magic mushrooms. My hon. Friend said that there had been one such death. If there have been deaths because of magic mushrooms, they have certainly been very rare. Some evidence given to the Select Committee was very compelling. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation argued very persuasively in its evidence that the present policy is based on false assumptions and the underlying historical prohibition—we are talking about an act of prohibition of drugs, which has never been effective; the problems are the same as those associated with the prohibition of alcohol—rather than evidence of the efficacy of the classification system at reducing drug harm. Can the Minister tell us of any major reduction in drug harm? Let us think back to before 1971, when the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed. The number of cocaine and heroin addicts—it was mostly heroin in this country—was fewer than 1,000. After 35 years of the harshest drug laws and penalties in Europe, we now have not 1,000 addicts, but 280,000 addicts. Holland, after 25 years of regulated, policed decriminalisation has a fraction of the drug use that takes place in this country. Probably the most spectacular evidence of all comes from Portugal, where, in 2005, a courageous Government took on the prejudice of the time, without the support of the press or even many of their parliamentary colleagues, and depenalised drug use. As a result, Portugal has halved the number of drug deaths in that country. The evidence has been independently verified by people from another state. Can the UK Government not get it through their head that what they have been doing, sitting in their comfortable armchair of traditional policy—so that they do not have to think about anything; they just make the same mistakes as their predecessors—is killing people? This is our responsibility, because it is not people outside who are causing these deaths. We are causing them through our failure to examine rationally policies that work. The policies that work are those that involve health outcomes—for example, needle exchanges. The Conservatives, to their credit, introduced one pragmatic policy on needle exchanges, but why not have the shooting-up galleries as well? We know that they have been effective when they have been tried in Europe and elsewhere. They keep people away from street heroin, allowing them to use heroin of known purity and quality in controlled conditions, and help is available afterwards. In our country, addicts take heroin of unknown quality using dirty needles in foul surroundings—no wonder they have a short life expectancy. In contrast, countries such as the Netherlands have homes for geriatric addicts who have become addicted for life. We as politicians have a terrible record in this area. I heard the optimistic comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about the possibility of our getting an answer today that contains some evidence of the Government’s policy. I have no hope that that will take place. I remember labouring for years trying to persuade this House to ban bull bars. I managed to bore the nation stiff about that subject for many years. I introduced a Bill, as did many other hon. Members—I am going back to 1994 and 1996 here—and although we now have a ban on the manufacture and sale of bull bars, it came not from this House, but from Europe. In a fortnight’s time, I shall be before the Council of Europe as rapporteur on a report that seeks a new convention on drugs. The report says that relying on the criminal justice system does not work, is hugely expensive, causes a great number of deaths and increases the amount of drug crime. We need to heed the health outcomes of needle exchanges and treatment. I should give the Government some credit because they have done something on treatment. Progress has been made in that regard but not in any other area, because the mindset remains the same. Where are the politicians? In 40 years, not a single politician has stood up and agreed with all these reports—as I have said, this is the latest of many. We have been shown the rational argument and the way to reduce the number of deaths and drug crime. No rational argument is presented by the Government response, and that is a disgrace. The Ministers who continue in this job are not ones who deserve the respect of this House. This House has not behaved in a reasonable way for many years. We have let down the families of the tens of thousands of people who have died as a result of drug use since 1971. When I have put that argument before the present Minister and many other Ministers in the past, it has never been heeded. There is a way of reducing the harm of drugs, but that way is not MPs, politicians and parties behaving in a way that ignores rationality, ignores the evidence and ignores the truth.