---

Drug Strategy

With respect, I do not think there is time to take interventions. People are smoking far less, so people are smoking cannabis far less. I have seen no evidence of any diversion towards people baking cannabis cakes or anything like that. Cannabis use is decreasing. That does not mean that where someone does use cannabis, it is more or less of a problem than it was before. The information is there. I am sure that all hon. Members have read my 2002 report to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, in which I described in great detail hydroponics and cannabis, the experience of the Vietnamese ex-pat community in Australia, in Melbourne in particular, and what would happen here when those techniques were used. In essence, people would grow for profit in their houses, using the latest techniques, on an industrial scale. That happened in Australia, because a market existed, and it has happened in the UK. Wherever the new markets in drugs emerge—the most difficult markets will be in chemical concoctions of one kind or another that are created not abroad but here in the UK—the drugs involved will be the new wave that will come into this country. The drugs I am talking about are already here, but their use will grow. We can see all this from the evidence of what has happened elsewhere. However, monitoring outcomes would give the Government some good news. They would be able to declare, as they will at some stage, that cannabis use has declined. More importantly, analysis of school exclusions in respect of drugs and alcohol demonstrates absolutely that drugs and alcohol are not a major problem in schools. There is no evidence of such a problem; minor numbers are being disciplined. If my schoolkids are asked, they say, ““A few teachers come in the worse for wear for alcohol, but do you think we would be stupid enough to buy or use drink or drugs in school? We know where to get it outside if we want it.”” Let us examine one of the great myths, because the Government have the statistics to quantify things. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is wrong about overdose deaths. On the basis of the classifications used by coroners' courts, the number of deaths from heroin overdose in this country is falling. Nowhere is that more the case than in my constituency, where the fall has been huge. In 2002, 11 of my constituents died because of heroin, but only two have done so in the past four years. The matter is quantifiably provable. As for accident and emergency admissions, I recommend that every hon. Member ask their local hospital whether the drugs strategy is working in their area and monitor the situation. The figures on accident and emergency admissions for an overdose of injectable drugs give a clear trend line. In my area, a fourfold reduction has taken place, which means that the drugs strategy, particularly with regard to heroin, is working there. Strangely, the biggest reduction in Britain in the number of house burglaries has occurred in my area—and I suggest that there is a correlation. In monitoring those outcomes, the Government should be pulling those correlations together. I do not care who takes the credit—the police, the Government, the health service or charities. Everyone can have some credit. If anyone asks me what has happened about drugs in my constituency, I can tell them. If they had walked down Bridge street in Worksop five years ago, they would not have got five yards without being accosted by a young person on heroin. Now, although there are one or two problems with the Tory council, lots of cars are being parked illegally, the Tory leader drove illegally the wrong way when he made his fleeting visit, and the police are failing to tackle cyclists, someone walking down Bridge street would struggle to find a drug addict. That is what is happening in the real world, so quantifiable proof exists: I recommend cost-benefit analysis. The other thing that I strongly recommend to the Government—this concurs with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said—is to examine causation. My analysis of my constituents who have been on heroin is that the vast majority have now come off it since my heroin inquiry in 2002. By far and away the key factor in young people getting involved with drugs is major trauma. That can be identified in different ways. For example, it might be a major change in economic circumstances, but it is more likely to be the death of a parent, often a father—my amateur research base tells me that—or a messy divorce, a split in the family situation, abuse or attacks. Those are by far and away the factors that lead young people into drug addiction. Such things can be identified. It is now far more acceptable to talk about things such as child abuse within a family in society and societal organisations than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Such things can be addressed, but we do not pull the two issues together. That is where the improvement to the Government's strategy can be tweaked in a big way. We can use the data on outcomes, but we must put them together more cleverly. We must examine the question of causation, and in particular, the role of major trauma among children and young people in leading to addiction. We know what the Government's drugs strategy is, and we know that not all Labour Members have agreed with it. I generally do agree with it, because it generally works. We know what the Conservative policy is, because it has been outlined recently: before, everyone would have been put into residential rehabilitation, but now they will be put into secure residential rehabilitation. The proposal has not yet been costed, although my costings of it show that it would be quite expensive, and the definition of ““secure”” has been left a little vague. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) did not outline it further. I am sure that he and his colleagues will take the opportunity to explain about the 280,000 secure residential places—or however many the number is; a figure has not yet emerged. The Conservatives' recovery policy has also been clearly outlined, even though their leader repeatedly and consistently took totally the opposite approach—his was more in line with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West; it could have been the same speech. The Tory leader is out of synch, but I am sure that he is accommodating himself to the current policy and learning it. There will be some interesting tensions there. We know, from a speech made by Fergus Ewing today, that the Scottish National party has stolen lock, stock and barrel the Tory party policy of recovery and abstinence. We know that Mr. Souter, who has helped the SNP in various ways, has inspired its new policy in his recent meetings with the party. At last the SNP has a policy! It is identical to the Conservative party's policy, which will make for some interesting debates. We still do not know what the Liberal Democrat policy is—individuals have different views, not least on cannabis—but we do know about the proposal by its new leader. His one statement on the matter was made on 21 December 2002 on the European Parliament proposal for a recommendation—B5 0541 is the paper—in which he makes it clear that he is in favour of the legalisation of drugs. We are beginning to see a policy emerge; it is in process. I hope that the Liberals will give us more of an opportunity in the near future to let us know—