DRAFT GENERAL FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT SPECIFIC FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT GENERAL FOOD LAW (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 General Committees

[Mrs Hodgson]

I do apologise. If we leave with a deal, all this will have been for naught. We have some of the highest food standards and regulations, and they would continue to exist. That is all the more reason why it is such a disappointment to us all that we are at the eleventh hour and the 58th or 59th minute and we still do not have a deal. I sincerely hope that one is brought before the House next week that a majority of the House can vote for.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that the pages of regulations that we are trying to transpose into UK law have never had parliamentary scrutiny. They are regulations, so as soon as the ink is dry in Brussels, they become the law of the land whether we like it or not, with no debate in this place. Uniquely, in future, we will have the opportunity to shape our regulations.

As the hon. Lady is aware, the EU operates a precautionary principle. Many think that the standards that come out of Brussels are somehow gold-plated holy writ, but she will be aware of the problems that we have faced in past years, such as the Fipronil scandal in August 2017, which affected eggs. That happened under the regulations that are meant to be the gold standard, but I certainly hope that the UK will be able to do better in future. Can she comment on the fundamental principle that it is better that this place decides food safety, rather than it being decided by regulations over which we have no authority?

[The Chair]

Order. I would like us to concentrate on the detail of the regulations, rather than straying into the territory of whether we should be leaving the EU.

[Mrs Hodgson]

With that advice in mind, Ms McDonagh, I would say that, given that the hon. Gentleman had quite a lot to say, perhaps he should have considered making a full speech and graced us with his further thoughts on these matters. I am sure that we would all have enjoyed that immensely. However, I disagree with the fundamental principle of what he said, which is that these regulations were passed in Europe with no scrutiny here.

As a new MP, as I am sure a number of us were at one time or another, I had the huge pleasure of serving on the European Scrutiny Committee. Week in, week out, we would be sent reams of documents containing EU directives and regulations that our esteemed Clerks would have rated as politically or financially sensitive. They gave us advice, but we had to read all those documents and sit and scrutinise them all, week in, week out. We could then refer them for further debate in a European Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, if we thought something needed scrutiny. I know for a fact that we scrutinised all EU directives that came to this House. Nothing was passed without proper scrutiny. It is a shame the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to serve on that Committee, because he might never get a chance.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I have.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Oh, he has; because I was going to say, the hon. Gentleman has missed a treat.

I hope the Minister will respond to my concerns, either now or in a letter. I know he always sends a letter if he is unable to respond on the day. I know, too, that many others, not only in this room but across the country, will be looking forward to his response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I will always welcome any research designed to improve the treatment of asthma. Certainly, from a public health perspective, we must do much more to prevent asthma and reduce the likelihood of life-threatening attacks.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to improve mental health service provision.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

Under the NHS long-term plan, there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, with at least an additional £2.3 billion in real terms by 2023-24. That builds on our ambitious targets for improving community and crisis care, with extra treatment for 370,000 adults per year, and for 345,000 children and young people by 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to feel any sense of social exclusion.

[Craig Mackinlay]

One of my constituents, Mark Verrion, is a patient of Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust. He was first admitted on a temporary basis following an unfortunate but mild episode. He has now been institutionalised for 11 years, and he has been moved over 100 times during that period, often out of area. The trust has 289 out-of-area placements for adult mental health services, which is an increase of 100 over the past year, and the cost to local health budgets is obvious. Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituent and all the other out-of-area patients deserve local health provision to enable them to remain within the trust area?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, I am horrified to hear the account he has just given. We have made a priority of getting rid of out-of-area placements, because we know that patients do better when they are among family and friends. Clearly the case he has just outlined, which has lasted the past 11 years, is totally unacceptable. I will give it my personal attention and meet him to discuss it.

Department of Health and Social Care and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

We have heard some fantastic speeches from Members on both sides of the House about adult social care. I am not sure that we have been given the solution, but I think we have realised that there is a problem that needs to be solved.

Housing represents, potentially, a great asset for people in later life, which can help to pay for adult social care and other services that people need as they age. My worries are about house-price-to-earnings ratios and house price inflation. In 1996 the Nationwide house-price-to-earnings ratio was just 2.8, which means that 2.8 times someone’s earnings could buy that person the average house in the United Kingdom. Over the past 40 years, house price inflation has averaged 5% a year. That affordability gap is now extremely wide throughout the country. It is bizarre. One would have thought that the areas with the highest house prices would have the lowest ownership, but the reverse is the case. In the north-east, 60% of people are owner-occupiers, and the house-price-to-earnings ratio is just over 5. In the south-east, where house prices are obviously higher, 70% of people own their homes, but the ratio is now close to 10. That does not quite follow the pattern that we might expect.

Back in 1995, it would have cost first-time house buyers 17.5% of their incomes to service their mortgages. According to the figures that are available, in late 2016 the proportion was 33%. At the peak in 1989, base rates were approaching 14%, and it was costing 56% of income to maintain a mortgage, so we are not living in unusual times.

Thankfully, we are narrowing some of the gap between housing requirement and provision. It has been running at an estimated rate of 230,000 a year for some years, and will continue into the future. We built 217,000 houses last year, which is all to the good, but we have a fundamental problem: we do not seem to want to live together as generations any more. We seem to want independent living, and that can often lead to lonely living. There is a potential solution there, which might also solve some of the adult social care problems.

Is it time that we had a debate about a further loosening of planning law? Let me put some questions—not solutions—on the table. Are we allowing a degree of timidity in relation to development? Are we just trying to add little bits to existing conurbations, thus increasing pressure? Are we not thinking clearly enough about the building of completely new towns, with proper infrastructure—road, rail, health provision and schools—as part of the plan, rather than simply adding to the edges of existing communities?

Should we be trying to unlock brownfield sites? I can think of a perfect 5-acre derelict site that used to be the gasworks in the middle of Ramsgate. No one wants to develop it because of the remediation costs. Should legislation be introduced to force what are often utility companies to regenerate on pain of, perhaps, an additional business rate charge, or should the Government provide loans with a clawback provision to inject the seed capital to get developments moving?

We do have an existing stock, and I think that two measures would be helpful. Capital gains tax and inheritance tax are a problem, particularly for older people with holiday homes. Let us suppose that an elderly couple have had a holiday home for many years. One of them might become a widow or widower. They have fond memories, and do not want to rent out the property because of the aggravation that it would involve. Most people will not face an inheritance tax charge. Why on earth would they want to sell an asset that is hugely pregnant with gain, paying capital gains tax at 18% or 28%? They would rather leave it in their estate until they die, and perhaps pay nothing at all. As for those with a chargeable estate, why should they pay a 28% capital gains tax charge, and then a 40% inheritance tax charge on the £72 that is left in cash after that tax has been paid, which would represent a total tax charge of 57%?

The second measure I present is downsizing relief for stamp duty. Often, again, this would affect the elderly person, perhaps on becoming widowed. There is a north-south divide in this of course: in parts of the country it will be perfectly possible to buy that downsized smaller property for within the £125,000 stamp duty threshold for paying zero, but for many in the south, particularly in London, there will be a huge stamp duty to pay. My proposal is that we should have a downsizing relief for people moving to a smaller floor-area property—the threshold could perhaps be 75%. The Treasury might say it would lose money, but it forgets that for every seller there would be a new purchaser, so we would be creating stamp duty on purchases that might not otherwise have happened at all.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that housing is also a key determinant of health and that is an additional aspect that we must think about, especially in housing for older people? We must see housing as part of that bigger picture in creating a healthy nation.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Older people often stay stuck in a house that is not right for their future needs and is further from help they would so desperately require in their later years.

To conclude, housing is a scarce resource, particularly in some parts of the country, and we must maximise its use and maximise mobility.

Drug Addiction

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the human and financial costs of drug addiction.

This is an expansive subject, with a huge number of facets, and is covered by a huge amount of UK and international data. Pleasingly, two Members raised drugs issues at Prime Minister’s questions today. They probably sought to steer us towards their views about liberalisation and legalisation, which I must say are somewhat the opposite of mine.

I thank the Minister for being here to respond to the debate. This issue cuts across many Departments. It is not just a health issue; it cuts across policing, justice and home affairs, health, border matters and education, and it is even an issue for the Treasury. I thank the many organisations that supplied data and their interpretations in advance of this wide-ranging debate, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Release and the House of Commons Library, which has considered data from a huge variety of sources.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He talks about data. Does he agree that the information from the Library about the increase in male mortality from drug misuse, particularly in the past five years, is alarming and demonstrates the urgent need not only for this debate but for action to be taken after it?

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Gentleman highlights one of the key tenets of my speech. I am most concerned about death rates.

I thank the Library for its diligent service; it is an invaluable source of information. I also received information from Smart Approaches to Marijuana, or SAM, a US agency that has done a lot of work on how decriminalisation of cannabis in particular has affected various states in the United States. I consulted papers by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the National Audit Office evaluation of the Government’s 2010 drugs strategy, which is a seven-yearly document. I also consulted the Government’s July 2017 drugs strategy.

The real trigger for me calling this debate was the rising death toll in the USA due to the use of opioids and their derivatives—notably fentanyl, with which I am sure many hon. Members are familiar—whether they are legally obtained or illicitly produced. Some 64,000 drug-related deaths were recorded in the US in 2016, an increase of just over 21% from the year before. There was a 33% rise in one year in the state of Ohio alone. There were 4,050 deaths in Ohio, which has a population of just 12 million. To give Members an idea of scale, the entire US military losses over the 20 years of the Vietnam war were a fraction under 60,000. Scaled up to the UK population, Ohio’s current death rate would represent 22,000 deaths in the UK each year. Thankfully, the figure here is lower; according to the last reported data, there were 2,677 deaths in 2015.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that Wales is disproportionately represented? Wales’s population is 5% of the United Kingdom’s, but 10% of those drugs deaths took place in Wales. Will he join me in asking the Minister whether changes to UK legislation are needed to allow devolved Governments to introduce harm-reducing measures, such as safe injecting facilities, in areas with a high concentration of injecting drug users, such as Wrexham?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She has put that issue on the record, and I am sure the Minister will address it later. I will provide some data for Wales that may assist her.

My concerns are somewhat summed up by that old adage, which is usually used in relation to financial markets: when the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold. I am concerned that we may be on the brink of a fentanyl epidemic here in the UK. I want to highlight both the human costs and the financial costs of drug addiction to the UK economy and to the people of this country.

The human costs are fairly obvious. Everyone will have their own points to add to this list, but they include: physical and mental health issues; disruption to families; the effects on children and their life chances, including the increasingly clear link between drug use during pregnancy and various autism spectrum conditions and physical deformities in children; the obvious spread of disease; the often desperate measures that people take to try to raise cash, resulting in prostitution and all manner of human degradation; forgone opportunities and the essence of all that someone could be in life being extinguished; and, of course, premature death.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that our drugs policy in this country is failing. Does he not think that now might be the time for a shift in drugs policy and for us to focus not on criminalisation but on care and health? Should that not be the focus of our drugs policy?

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I have an expansive speech to make, which I think will cover all the issues well. Perhaps he would like to come back in with those points later.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the harmful effects of cannabis on developing brains and have a long interest in that topic. The APPG’s principal aim is to raise awareness of the continued and growing danger to children, teenagers and their families of cannabis use in particular but also of wider drug use. I will publish a detailed paper on that subject later. The effects of the early use of skunk cannabis on youngsters’ mental health are increasingly recognised, as is the additional human cost of the significant rise in other effects, such as traffic-related deaths, in some of the US states that have gone down the route of decriminalisation.

I do not just take an abstract, desk-based approach to this topic. I have been a magistrate in Kent for 12 years. For too long, I have seen people go through the same revolving door of committing crimes, coming to court and going to prison. The same drug-related issues come up time and again. On one occasion, someone’s appearance in court arose from offences committed on the day of their release from a custodial sentence. That revolving door has to stop. Too often, I have seen youngsters in their late teens or early 20s who are on employment and support allowance or similar disability benefits and are incapable of holding down work brought to court after bouts of acquisitive crime. Nearly all of them are on long-term anti-psychotic drugs to deal with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. In my experience, practically every one of those people gives the same mitigation in court: “I’ve had a long-term addiction to cannabis from an early age”—often from the age of 13.

The 2014 NHS National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse paper was particularly useful in advance of this debate. It highlights that there are 306,000 heroin and crack users in England, with disproportionate heroin and crack use in lower-income areas compared with wealthier parts of the country. Drug use and poverty are linked. More than 1 million people are affected by family members’ or friends’ links to drug addiction. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs found a substantial increase in the number of people dying from drugs in the UK in recent years. That is mainly down to opioid substances, which, as I mentioned, caused 2,677 deaths in 2015. Opioid-related deaths have increased year on year. A massive increase in the 1990s followed a marked increase in heroin use. Thankfully, the number of deaths flattened and declined in the late 1990s and early 2000s—that was often put down to lower grade and more highly cut heroin being sold—but it has risen markedly since 2004.

Let me move on to fentanyl and various synthetic opioids, which are cited as the reason for the increase in deaths in the US. Fentanyl is a fairly normal pharmaceutical product. It is widely used, often in operations. It was first created in the early 1960s as a pain management drug, and it is very effective at that. It has a fairly easy formulation, but illicit supply increasingly comes from China, hence its street name of China white.

The epidemic of drug overdoses in America is killing people at almost double the rate of both firearm and motor vehicle-related deaths. Between 1999 and 2015, it is estimated that fentanyl and derivatives killed about 300,000 people in the US—the numbers are of virtually biblical proportions.

We regularly hear the argument for legalisation of cannabis, with those demands often coming from our Liberal Democrat friends—I see the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) in his place. Let us examine a real case study. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington states voted to legalise the private use of marijuana. In those two states, marijuana use exceeds the US national average and has risen significantly post-legalisation—more rapidly than in states where it is still illegal. We have also seen increases in teen arrests, accidental ingestion by children, marijuana-related poisoning, teenage admissions to treatment, and crime.

According to the Associated Press:

“In Washington, the black market has exploded since voters legalized marijuana…with scores of legally dubious…dispensaries opening and some pot delivery services brazenly advertising that they sell outside the legal system.”

Rather than putting a lid on matters, legalisation has taken the lid off. Marijuana-related traffic deaths—where a driver tested positive—have more than doubled, from 55 in 2012 to 123 in 2016, and there has been a 72% increase in marijuana-related hospitalisations since legalisation.

With that backdrop, let us look at the UK. The Library suggests that drug misuse in England and Wales has fallen in the past decade. That has got to be good news. However, I view some of those figures with a little scepticism; I will refer to such matters later on. Of course, 95% of heroin on the streets originates from Afghanistan, and cocaine invariably comes from Peru, Colombia and Bolivia; it is not manufactured in the UK. For that reason, I very much hope that as we leave the European Union and exercise more diligent control of our borders, we will be able to implement a more rigorous approach to border security, particularly on the smuggling of drugs.

The number of people in drug addiction treatment in the UK is at just a little under 300,000, with opiate dependency involved in more than 52% of cases. More than 100,000 under-18s are living with people in drug treatment. Those are some of the human costs. What are the financial costs?

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the debate. Before he moves on to financial costs, will he say something about another side of the human cost—the extent to which prisoners are taking drugs and the efforts being made to try to stop that in prisons?

[Craig Mackinlay]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We in the judiciary often feel that we put people in prison as a last resort and hope that that is a place where they may seek relief from drugs and get the treatment they need. However, all too often we hear of many examples where that is far from the case.

I want to mention the financial cost, because it is hugely relevant to our economy. Figures I have put together suggest that the financial cost now amounts to a fairly reasonable chunk of our annual deficit. It is very difficult to pull figures together, but one that I have derived from headline data is £20.3 billion a year. That does not include some of the more unknown and abstract costs, such as opportunity costs of lost economic output from a potential workforce who are economically inactive due to drug dependency and the physical and mental effects of drug use.

To break the figure down, drug-related crime is estimated at a fraction under £14 billion a year. The cost to the NHS of ongoing health issues resulting from drug addiction is half a billion. The benefits and treatment cost is estimated at £3.6 billion—£1.7 billion in direct benefits, £1.2 billion in the cost of looked-after children of drug addicts, and £700 million in addiction treatments such as methadone and Subutex. The cost to the courts, the Prison Service and the police in 2014-15 was £1.6 billion. An addicted person not in treatment and committing crime costs on average £26,074 a year. A somewhat dated Daily Telegraph report shows that a problem drug user could cost the state £843,000 over their lifetime—and that was in 2008.

Some of the other human costs are obvious, such as depression, anxiety, psychosis and personality disorders. Some 70% of those in drug treatment suffer from mental health problems. We might ask which follows which, but I think there is a clear link between drug use and psychotic episodes. Cardiovascular disease is also an issue after a lifetime of drug misuse. Muscular and skeletal damage are commonplace among injecting drug users. Lung damage following the smoking of various drugs and derivatives is also prevalent. Poor vein health and deep vein thrombosis is common among injectors. Then there is liver damage, which is expensive to treat, with hepatitis C causing cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer and death.

Deaths can come in many forms, including through accidents, suicides, assaults and simple overdose, as well as misadventure from drug poisoning, and drug abuse and drug dependence. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 2016 saw the highest number of deaths down to illegal drug use since records began in 1993. That fact is worth bringing to the table. Fewer than 1% of all adults in the UK are using heroin, but about 1% of heroin addicts die each year—10 times the equivalent death rate of the general population—and those deaths are predominantly from heroin and opioid use.

I will give the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) some figures for the UK. Between 2012 and 2015, opioid-related deaths in England rose by 58%. She will be pleased to know that in Wales the rise was only—if that is the right word—23%; in Scotland it was 21% and in Northern Ireland, 47%. We now see an ageing cohort of drug users who began their drug-taking lives in the ’80s and ’90s coming through the system with increasingly complex health and social care needs, which have contributed to a recent spike in deaths.

A typical heroin user is likely to spend £1,400 a month on drugs—two and a half times an average mortgage. More than half of all acquisitive crimes—crimes including shoplifting, burglary, robbery, car crime, fraud and drug dealing, whether at a lower or higher level—are down to those on heroin, cocaine or crack. Those crimes have victims. To bring that down to a micro-level, figures from Kent County Council’s road safety team show there were 59 incidents of known drug-driving on Kent roads in 2016, with 16 resulting in serious injury and three in road accident deaths. Those figures are rising. In the last 10 years, Kent has seen 18 fatal, 70 serious and 142 slight accidents due to drug-driving incidents.

When budgets are stretched nationally and locally, the temptation is to reduce treatment, but that is entirely the wrong approach. NHS figures suggest that for every £1 spent on drug treatment, there is a saving of £2.50 to general society. We have a good record on drug treatment in the UK, far better than many other countries in the world. In England, 60% of heroin users are in treatment, compared with only 45% in Italy and 37% in the Netherlands. We have fewer injectors now than we did some years ago. We have an advanced needle-sharing procedure, and that is improving. As I say, it is far better than other countries: 1.3% of drug injectors suffer from HIV, compared with 3% in Germany and 37% in Russia, so we are doing some things very well.

What can drug treatment do to help outcomes for society? Obviously, it stops emergency admissions, as A&E is often the first call, it prevents suicide, self-harm and accidents, and of course it reduces reoffending. Estimates in the NHS document suggest that a city the size of Bristol could cut 95,000 offences a year through effective treatment. The benefit of that to society is some £18 million a year. It is not just the financial effect, however; there are other societal effects: reduced crime, less drug litter and less street prostitution. The area that I used to represent as a councillor in the Medway towns was plagued by street prostitution in the middle of Chatham. With that came the drug litter and sexual paraphernalia literally dumped in the street, costing the council money and being a potential source of infection to others.

Troubled families can be stabilised through effective drug treatment. We can reduce drug-related deaths and blood-borne viruses. I repeat: £1 spent can represent a saving of £2.50 to society.

[Jeff Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is rightly making the case that it is a false economy not to invest in addiction services. Does he share my disappointment that funding for addiction services has fallen by half and that, under this Government, public health budgets are also falling, with councils struggling to fund the addiction services we need?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman: I feel there is a false economy in cutting that type of service. Obviously, they are the sorts of services where we cannot always see what sort of bang we are getting for the pound spent, because the savings come about in a rather disparate way. The hon. Gentleman brings a very powerful case to the table.

The Government have spent vast sums of money over the last few years on the Frank initiative. I do not know whether hon. Members will remember it—“Call Frank”; “Tell Frank”. I have asked many youngsters of late whether they have heard of “Frank”, and they do not have a clue who he is, so I question somewhat the effectiveness of the Frank initiative, which is particularly aimed at teenagers and adolescents. I will be reporting in a detailed paper shortly, so hon. Members should look out for that.

Almost in closing, I want to look at the July 2017 drug strategy. It is a good strategy with recovery at its heart. It looks at the threats and at the actions we can take to reduce homelessness, domestic abuse and mental health issues. The strategies are the usual strategies, which I think are common sense: reducing demand through deterrence and the expansion of education and prevention information, obviously restricting supply through law enforcement responses, supporting recovery and driving international action to reduce the amount of foreign-produced drugs hitting our streets—of course, that does little to stop the ever-increasing rise of cannabis grown in the UK. I believe it is clear that drug misuse destroys lives. It has a devastating effect on families and communities.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is coming to his conclusion. He seems to be saying that we are spending all that money trying to penalise people for drug use and trying to cut off the international supply. He has put horrific figures in front of us today. What will he do to change and affect that outcome?

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Gentleman will hear that in my conclusion.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I was too soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am sure that, as any of these debates progress, there is often a clarion call: “Let’s just liberalise. Let’s just legalise.” I am very pleased that, from what I have heard so far from the Government, they have no intention of doing that, and I massively support them. Drugs are illegal for a reason, because of the clear evidence that they are harmful to human health and associated with the wider societal harms of family breakdown, poverty, crime and antisocial behaviour.

[Ronnie Cowan]

What does the hon. Gentleman say to the Portuguese Government, who decriminalised and legalised and have seen a reduction by half in heroin addiction? What does he say to John Marks, who ran a very successful clinic in Liverpool, where the local crime rate dropped by 90%?

[Craig Mackinlay]

Again, if the hon. Gentleman will hold on for a moment, I will address that point. Where we have big experience areas such as Colorado and Washington, we have not seen just a stabilisation, reduction or more sensible use. We have seen increased rates and an increase in deaths and consequential accidents and results. To address his point, in an operation in Switzerland, which I think was also replicated in London, Brighton and Darlington in 2009, an unresponsive minority of heroin users who seemed not to be affected by normal drug treatment methods were given pharmaceutical-grade heroin under daily clinical conditions. I am not averse to that; it is a way forward for a very hard core of users, to keep their criminality off the street, get them clean drugs at the right time and help them off their addictions.

We often say, “Why should we criminalise the user?” In my experience of the court system, I have never seen somebody go to prison for the use of drugs. They tend to go to prison because of the criminality that results from drugs. There is one country, Sweden, that is very stiff on these things. Sweden has probably one of the most penal criminal codes for even personal use of drugs. It is interesting that it enjoys one of the lowest rates of drug use in Europe.

I have concerns that we are facing a general institutional downgrading of possession, particularly of class B drugs, and for that reason I am not sure that we see the full spectrum of what is happening out there in real drug use, based on the figures we receive from the police. If we were to see those, we would see reductions. Arrests for cannabis possession have apparently dropped by 46% since 2010. Cautions are down by 48% and numbers of people charged are down by 33%.

[Ronnie Cowan]

Is that not symptomatic of the police force taking a different attitude? Many police commissioners have come out and said, “We have to stop arresting people for personal possession.”

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That has been the outcome. I am not particularly keen on seeing youngsters receive a criminal record for the use of drugs. There is perhaps another way, such as a non-recordable early intervention, rather than a criminal record that could be with them for life and weigh seriously against their potential job opportunities for the future. We are seeing police guidelines saying that no arrests should be made for possession. I am worried that we are seeing a normalisation of drug use. If youngsters feel that that is the new norm, there will be very little deterrent and they will feel that taking cannabis is acceptable. Inquiries I have made for my report have shown that youngsters still feel that they are deterred from going into using cannabis by the threat of criminal sanction.

I will come to my conclusion, which I hope will wrap a few things up. I am particularly fearful that this side of the Atlantic will face a potential onslaught of fentanyl and other artificial opioid derivatives, and I feel the Government need to be prepared for that. Action to rehabilitate that current core of class A drug users now will save their lives in the future, should fentanyl become more of a norm on our streets. I feel that we should be upping our game in three strands of work: education in schools, colleges and universities.

I would like to see significantly increased sentences for drug supply. Under current sentencing guidelines, the maximum sentence for the category A offence of suppling 5 kg-plus of class A drugs, which is right at the high end of drug supply, is 16 years, compared with 35 years for attempted murder. As we cope, or potentially have to cope, with fentanyl and similar lethal derivatives, we should perhaps give some thought to creating a new class—class AA—for these truly lethal drugs.

But to me, rehabilitation is the key, and I would not want to see services or that type of expenditure downgraded, because of the £2.50 saving for every £1 of investment. I would like residential rehabilitation to be the norm. We could call them prisons, if hon. Members would like, but they would be prisons or centres with one primary focus, and I think the judiciary would welcome being able to make that choice. They would be abstinence-based rehabilitation centres; people would go in on drugs and come out clean.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

I am conscious that we do not have unlimited time, so I would be grateful if hon. Members kept their remarks brief, so that I can allow time at the end for the Minister and the Opposition Front Benchers to speak and, if possible, call everyone who wishes to speak.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) on securing a debate on this really important issue.

I will start with where I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a father myself, I share the horror at the impact of dangerous drug use; in a sense, my starting point is to be hostile to dangerous drug use, whether legal or illegal. That is a really important point, because according to the evidence the most dangerous drug of all is alcohol, which is used very heavily within these buildings. We must remember that, because there is enormous hypocrisy in the debate on this issue.

For me, the most depressing thing said in the Chamber today was the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation of the commitment to the war on drugs—the catastrophically disastrous war on drugs—in response to a question from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). He raised a totally rational case, which was rejected with what I would say was a rejection of the evidence and an approach based on stigma and an ignorance of the facts of the disastrous impact of the war on drugs.

It was an enormous pleasure just the other day to meet some parents, together with the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), from the Anyone’s Child organisation. Far from what the Prime Minister said about the families of those who have lost their lives through drug use all rallying around to demand ever-tougher sentences, these brave people are powerfully making the case that the criminalisation of drug use has had disastrous consequences for their families and will leave them distraught for the rest of their lives.

In a way, the great irony I found in the contribution from the hon. Member for South Thanet is that he pointed to a whole series of disastrous consequences of drug use—but drug use under a criminal market. That is the extraordinary thing. I am completely with him about identifying and recognising these disasters, but they are happening here and now. There is a false thinking that suggests that, because there are dangers of drug use, the automatically sensible thing to do is to ban drugs, but we should know by now that that does not work. The Home Office’s own study in 2014 confirmed that banning has no impact on the level of drug use in society, so let us start thinking afresh about this issue.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Norman Lamb]

No; I am conscious that time is really tight.

Far from protecting people, the current framework of our drug laws resulted in 3,744 drug-related deaths in 2016—the highest ever level, and a 44% increase over five years. We are not talking only about the United States; it has arrived in this country with a vengeance. Heroin and morphine deaths rose by 109% under a criminal market. It is not working.

On criminalisation, the hon. Member for South Thanet said he does not see many people ending up in prison, but just last year 45,000 people ended up with criminal convictions for possessing drugs, which has a dreadful blighting effect on their careers; we waste human capital in our country. One of the families that talked to us on Monday talked about their son, who is a really clever scientist but who now cannot work as a scientist because of the effect of his conviction several years ago. That is ludicrous, but it is the effect of criminalisation. The Australian study from a few years ago confirms the negative impact of criminalisation on all those people who end up with a criminal record.

Criminalisation also hits many people who self-medicate because they are experiencing mental ill health. It has a massive impact on people who are already vulnerable, and because they choose to use a substance to perhaps take away the pain of what they are going through, we then give them a criminal conviction. It is the most ludicrous response imaginable. There are also those people who suffer from conditions such as multiple sclerosis, and who use cannabis to ease their pain, who we then give a criminal conviction for their trouble. Again, it is a ludicrous way of responding to a real problem.

We hand vast sums of money—billions of pounds in profits—to organised crime, not only in this country but globally. It is the most extraordinary waste of resources and it promotes extreme violence in our communities. Of course, it is always the poorest communities that suffer the most. In the United States, there is very clear evidence that it is poor black communities that suffer the most. In our country, black people are targeted for stop and search, being nine times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than white people.

Instead of those awful consequences of criminalising drug use, let us think about an alternative approach that may be more rational and may be based on evidence, not ignorance and stigma. Let us instead regulate the market for cannabis. The data that the hon. Member for South Thanet raised from the states in the US that have legalised cannabis are highly contested data. Very respected organisations such as the Drug Policy Alliance address some of the misclaims about the impacts of cannabis use in Colorado and Washington. One of its conclusions is that teen marijuana use is unchanged, while its overall conclusion on the impact of legalisation is “So Far, So Good”.

A lot of misclaims are being made about the impact of legalisation in the United States, but a legalised, regulated market has the potential to take the trade away from criminals and instead raise pounds in taxes, which can then be used on health and education and supporting people out of addiction, rather than simply criminalising them. Let us treat it as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. Let us accept across our country the principle of safer drug consumption rooms. They are already saving lives in eight European countries and in Canada and Australia. The principle is endorsed by the BMA. No one dies of an overdose in a drug consumption room. Let us accept that evidence and apply it in this country before we continue the carnage of loss of life that we are experiencing now. Let us accept heroin-assisted treatment where other treatments have failed. I recognise that the hon. Member for South Thanet acknowledged that that may be appropriate in some cases, but it is a policy based on evidence of what works.

Finally, the attitude of this Government. I have mentioned the 2014 Home Office study that was done while the Prime Minister was Home Secretary. Her own Department concluded that there was no international evidence at all to show that tougher drug laws reduce the use of drugs in society, so why do the Government not follow the evidence? Secondly, the evaluation of the Government’s drugs strategy last year raised some extremely serious concerns. It concluded that enforcement expenditure has

“little impact on availability.”

It states:

“Illicit drug markets are resilient and can...adapt to even significant drug and asset seizures.”

Criminalisation does not work. Contact with the criminal justice system for drug offences can

“bring with it potential unintended consequences including unemployment...and harm to families”.

Also:

“Incarceration may also negatively impact on the indirect and unemployment harms that...drug-related enforcement activities”

seek to improve. The conclusion of the Government’s own analysis is that it is not working.

Then there is the real hypocrisy. There will be loads of Ministers in this Government who have used cannabis, and probably other drugs as well, in their younger years, and yet they are prepared to see fellow citizens convicted of offences for something that they themselves did in their younger years, and they have gone on to enjoy good careers. Let us stop the hypocrisy. Let us recognise that we should apply the approach of reduction in harm, not criminalisation, because it has not worked and it has led to awful consequences internationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members very much for their contributions this afternoon—obviously, it is a split debate and a split decision. I will put just one thing on the record now, if I may. We tend to make dangerous things illegal. When firearms are used to commit dreadful offences in the US—

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Social Care

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

Very much so. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is concerning that planned consultations or discussions about future policy should focus so much on older people, when the needs of people with disabilities and learning disabilities are so important. We talked about learning disabilities in a debate last week.

Labour will fill the policy vacuum that exists around social care under this Government. Over the coming months, we will consult experts on how we can move from the current broken system of care to a sustainable service for the long term. We will look at funding options for social care in the long term, such as wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy. Those experts will help clarify the options for funding our planned national care service. Our approach will be underpinned by the principle of pooled risk, so that no one faces catastrophic care costs as they do now or as they would under the Conservative party’s dementia tax.

Our plans are for a national care service. They are based on a consultation—the “Big Care Debate”—that involved 68,000 people. People in that consultation told us that they needed a system that will support them and their families to live the lives they want, that will treat everyone with dignity and respect and that will give them choice and control over their care. I believe those needs remain the same, and they will be at the heart of our ambition for social care.

I urge hon. Members from all parties to vote with the Opposition today so that we can set the foundations for a safer, more sustainable and higher quality care system for the future and reassure those who have become worried about the Conservative party’s dementia tax mess.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I am always very impressed by the hon. Lady’s knowledge in this area, but just to clarify, did I hear her say that she was considering wealth taxes as a means to pay for these proposals? She talked about a policy vacuum, but I would be interested to hear how the money vacuum would be filled. I am also somewhat concerned—I hope she will explain this—that a national care system rather puts families aside.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am obviously coming to the end of my speech, but I recommend that the hon. Gentleman, if he is interested, read a number of documents. The Labour Government produced a White Paper for a national care service; it is still available, and I advise him to look at it. Given everything I have said about carers in this speech, there is no way that we would not include them as an important part of our proposals, but the burden should not just be dumped on them. Carers should be partners in care, and they should be supported so that they have a life of their own. It is said that the only numbers put on the Conservative party’s proposals for a dementia tax in its manifesto were the page numbers. The Labour party has produced the document I have here—“Funding Britain’s Future”—and a fully costed manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman has a bit more time for reading, I advise him to go to our manifesto and to look at how we laid out the options. We laid them out; we did not get into a mess, as the Conservative party did, and try to change things after four days. We will take this issue forward; we will not kick it into the long grass, as the Conservative party is trying to do.