Drugs Policy

Bob Ainsworth Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Thank you for presiding over our debate this afternoon, Mr Walker.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate. I asked for a full day in the Chamber, in prime time, and the Committee gave me three hours in Westminster Hall, on a one-line Whip, on a Thursday—the last sitting Thursday before Christmas—but I am grateful none the less.

We are not so well attended that we will run out of time, so that will not be an issue, but I hope, Mr Walker, that you will use your offices to ensure that everyone gets an opportunity to speak, irrespective of their views. We need what I am, effectively, calling for—a full and comprehensive debate on drugs policy.

As people know, I was in charge of drugs policy for about two years in the early part of the past decade, as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department under my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). My right hon. Friend managed to get agreement from the then Prime Minister and Cabinet giving us a little headroom to make some progress on drugs. Before then, we had the regime of the drugs tsar—a lot of debate but not enough progress—but my right hon. Friend managed to gain some leeway. We ran that whole debate as comprehensively as we could, because we were looking to refresh our drugs strategy. We involved as many people as we could, such as practitioners in treatment, police officers and the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which was enormously helpful in thinking things through.

I am not unproud of some of the things that we did, but we did far too little. We took the policy in the right direction. Yes, the classification of cannabis got all the headlines at the time—we took cannabis from class B to class C, in line with the scientific information—and that appeared to be the only thing in which the press were interested, but we did a lot else besides.

We brought in guidance for clubs, encouraging them to have water fountains, so that young people did not die of dehydration if they had taken ecstasy. We opened the door to heroin prescription in my response to the Home Affairs Committee. That was difficult—some people in the Government were enormously worried—although, if we read the response, we can see that the door was open only a small fraction. However, open it was, and that was one of the most important things. I thought that we could follow that up over time, and use heroin prescription as one of the tools to reduce harm.

We put harm minimisation at the forefront of our policy and we massively expanded treatment. When Members look at the reasons for the fall in crime—acquisitive crime, in particular—in recent years, yes, of course they can look at the increased police numbers paid for by the previous Government or the initiatives on antisocial behaviour, which made positive contributions, but they do not look nearly enough at the huge increase in drug treatment that we brought in. People do not fully appreciate the extent of the link between heroin addiction, in particular, and acquisitive crime and prostitution. Overwhelmingly, prostitutes in our country do what they do because they are addicted to drugs. A huge proportion of acquisitive crime is committed in order to pay for a habit. We also introduced an education policy, Talk to Frank, which is still going. I am glad that the new Government are to continue it, because giving people good advice on the consequences of drugs is so important.

Many people ask, as they did in the media this morning, why on earth I did not do or say the things that I am advocating now when I was in government. I had a choice to make. As people saw this morning, the Minister is straight out, saying, “This is wrong and I can’t approve it.” My own party disagrees with what I am saying, so my choice, had I wanted to go further than what I was allowed to do, within the limitations of collective responsibility, would have been to resign. That was my choice—to resign and make a small splash, which might have dampened my shoes but would not have moved drugs policy far at all, or to stick with it and make some small improvements. I chose to stick with it, and we made some small improvements, which were worthy.

I am saying to the House today—to the Government, to my own party and to anyone else—that we did far too little. We have not dented the huge apparatus that supplies drugs, not only to our country but across the world.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I am the secretary of the all-party parliamentary drug misuse group.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the downgrading of cannabis and the U-turn or about-turn when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) became Prime Minister, but the figures speak for themselves. NHS treatment for cannabis use doubled in the three years after the downgrading, drugs deaths surged by 15% the following year and the number of drugs dealers prosecuted for dealing cannabis in the three years afterwards fell by 29%. Does he not understand that he was sending completely the wrong messages to young people about drug use?

[Mr Ainsworth]

No, I do not agree, and those figures will not bear scrutiny. That is what we ought to do—scrutinise what the hon. Gentleman has just said. We ought to bring some reason to bear, rather than make simple allegations and claims.

Everyone said that, when we reclassified, cannabis use would go through the roof. There is utterly and absolutely no evidence for that—quite the reverse. Cannabis use, according to all the evidence that I have seen and heard—others are far bigger experts than I am—went down in that period. The reclassification had no impact. When we reclassified cannabis back to class B, it had no impact again. All the scaremongering about the reclassification of cannabis was uncalled for and proved to be incorrect.

Cocaine use, however, has gone up, because that has been the fashionable drug in recent years—it is a darn sight more dangerous than cannabis. Cocaine use has gone up, but we never reclassified cocaine. If the hon. Gentleman is positing an argument for reclassification making an ounce of difference to the levels of use, he is in real trouble.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage and vision, and it is a pleasure to be here today. Does he not agree, having heard the nonsensical intervention from the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), that the classifications have almost nothing to do with use of the drug concerned? A huge amount of energy has been spent talking about and legislating on the classifications, but the real tragedy is that in every year of the past 39 years, the waste of lives in Britain has increased, from 1,000 addicts in 1971 to 320,000 now. We have the worst outcomes and the harshest penalties of any country in Europe. Does he not agree that there must be a better way?

[Mr Ainsworth]

I will move on to some of those issues later in my speech. The only point on which I disagree with my hon. Friend is his use of the term “nonsensical”, because we really must get away from flinging insults when discussing the matter. In the days ahead, many insults will be flung at me by sections of the right-wing press, which I knew would happen when I raised the subject, but it will be a great shame if we cannot have a more serious debate on that most serious issue.

I have had some busy jobs in the past few years and so might not be as current as I was a short time ago, but I have always argued that the regulatory framework adopted in different countries makes little difference to their levels of drug use. Sweden has a hard attitude to drugs and relatively low drug use. Italy has a softer attitude and relatively low drug use. We have a very hard attitude and relatively high drug use. Holland has a relatively liberal regime and a high incidence of drug use. That tells us that the regulatory framework has little effect on the levels of drug use in those countries.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his courage in holding the debate today. It is a welcome contribution to the general debate that we should be having on the subject. As he will know, Brighton and Hove has a high rate of deaths related to heroin. Does he agree that drug users are not necessarily criminals and should be rehabilitated and assisted, and that part of that involves the recognition that criminalisation is perhaps inappropriate, particularly for marijuana? Does he also agree that the previous Government’s decision to declassify marijuana to class C perhaps sent the wrong message because it was neither one way, nor the other, and people buying the drugs are still buying them from criminal gangs? Either it should have been legalised, or the message that should have been sent out was that it was a harmful drug. We really need a full, independent review of the whole situation, without the emotion that seems to come from all sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ainsworth]

I intend to move on to what I am proposing shortly and knock down some of the things that have been said that are not true.

During the changes that we made in 2002, a young and newly-elected Conservative Member was a member of the Home Affairs Committee—he is now the Prime Minister. He went along not only with all the changes that we made, but with the Committee’s report, which asked the Government to go further in two particular areas: to reclassify ecstasy from class A to class B, which the Government would not do; and, more important, to have a full debate on the alternatives to prohibition. He supported and advocated that, and he was right to do so. We did not go along with that, nor have the current Government. They have condemned it and ruled it out in the new drugs strategy issued last week. When the right hon. Gentleman became leader of the Conservative party, he felt, for reasons best known to himself, that he needed to recant and said that he had been wrong to support that policy. That shines a light on exactly what the problem is.

This morning, the leader of my party said that what I was saying was not Labour party policy and that he did not agree with me. I am not surprised in the slightest and I expected nothing other that that. The Minister will stand later and say that the proposal is irresponsible, that it is not Government policy and that they will set their faces against it. When the Prime Minister was being commendably brave as an ambitious young Member, however, he believed in it, and I believe that he still does but knows that it would be enormously difficult to take that position. He would not hold the right wing of his party, with which, heaven knows, he has enough trouble, in place. That is why he will not support what he knows to be common sense, and that is the tragedy of drug policy in this country.

The new drugs strategy contains many of the phrases that were used in my refresh of policy in 2002: “overarching strategies”; “joining up the bits”; “let’s get cleverer”; let’s get smarter”; “let’s work with others”, and “let’s work with others abroad.” All those phrases are in the new strategy, yet the Government are trying to claim that it is a huge, new drugs policy, which will have an impact. It is not. Overwhelmingly, it is a continuation of what went before. There is one significant difference: the Government are retreating from the notion of harm minimisation, the only thing that made the difference. They claim that harm minimisation is fine, but that we have to go further and put the need to cure people of their addictions at the forefront of all our thinking. Who would not want to do that? Who on earth thinks that curing people’s addictions is not a good idea? I think that it is a fantastic idea. However, we should not be naive. It will work in some instances, but not in others. It will work at some points in people’s lives, but not at others. The opportunities, where they exist, to move people through drug addiction to becoming drug free ought to be seized and properly funded.

When we talk about an emphasis on cure, we should be mindful that rehabilitation is massively expensive. The Government are not about to start funding mass rehabilitation and are in fact cutting drug treatment programmes. There will be reductions in drug treatment budgets in every constituency the length and breadth of the country. The budget for drug treatment in Coventry and Warwickshire is currently £11 million, but the new budget will be £8 million, which is a huge cut. If we start taking money for rehabilitation out of that £8 million, the funding for many other treatments will be hugely reduced. I have a real fear about that, because we are about to enter a period when unemployment will rise, police numbers will decrease and drug treatment will be slashed, which will result in a massive increase in acquisitive crime. I fear that that is what our country is about to face.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for harm minimisation, as if it were the solution to the problem, but does he not accept that the figures show that 95,000 people in the UK have been on a methadone script for more than a year? Of those 95,000, 25% were still on methadone four years later. I do not know about him, but I am ambitious for people and do not want to see so many living in state-induced dependency. Does he accept that that maintenance is not providing the kind of solution that we are looking for?

[Mr Ainsworth]

I, too, am ambitious for people, and if anyone can be cured of an addiction, I want them to be cured of it. I do not want us to leave one person whom we can get off opiates dependent on them, but, equally, I am not naive. I do not believe that any Government, never mind a Conservative-led coalition Government, will fund the levels of drug treatment that provide the rehabilitation episodes that are needed to get the number of people that the hon. Gentleman talks about off their habit.

Therefore, the choice that we face is to keep those people safe until such time as they can make progress, or to hand them back to the criminal market, put them back into the hands of the dealers, let the guy on the street corner supply them with diamorphine, encourage them to go back to prostitution or to start robbing their mates and neighbours. That is the stark choice . My Government chose to expand drug treatment hugely. We did it not for the benefit of the drug users themselves but for the benefit of the entire community.

[Mike Weatherley]

Were the drug rehabilitation programmes based on methadone or abstinence? I have been to various drug rehabilitation centres, and by far and away the most effective drug rehabilitation was through abstinence rather than methadone. I wonder whether there would be some cost savings in the long run from full abstinence.

[Mr Ainsworth]

We should listen to the experts. I went to see the person who runs the drug treatment facilities for Coventry and Warwickshire in Coventry city centre a few weeks ago, in preparation for this debate. He said that, to some degree—and if they do not go too far—we ought to look at the Government’s policy, because perhaps in some instances we have been complacent about moving people through. We were so pleased with ourselves for stabilising people, getting them safe and keeping them out of crime, but perhaps we should have been more assiduous in trying to cure them of their addiction. I am not opposed to trying everything to cure people of their addiction.

Let me say what I am and what I am not advocating. I am simply saying this, and no more: it is about time we had a debate in this country, and provoked one internationally, about whether the war on drugs can succeed, or whether we ought to be prepared, in a rational way, to examine the alternatives. We ought to look at continuing the current prohibitions, we ought to look at the alternatives, we ought to examine the issue properly, rationally and sensibly. We ought to be prepared to have that debate.

We ought to look at whether we should reintroduce heroin prescriptions as one of the potential treatments for heroin addicts in this country. We used to do that in the 1960s, but we stopped doing it. People, including famous and gifted people, lived with their heroin addiction and continued to make a contribution to our society, but we stopped that under international pressure. We are now part of the international pressure that stops others from moving.

Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalised small amounts of drugs. People do not go to Portugal to get zonked; there is not a huge problem. I understand that there is a huge financial problem in Portugal, but there is not a huge drug problem. People go to Portugal to play golf and to enjoy the sun. Portugal is still there. It is fine, it has saved a fortune, its HIV rates have crashed through the floor, the sky has not fallen in. We have been part of the international pressure to stop that country from doing what it has done.

Portugal has been successful to such a degree that the sitting Prime Minister at the last general election held up his drug liberalisation programme as a reason for his re-election. Would it not be amazing if the Prime Minister of this country could stand in front of the British public and say, “Vote for me because I have liberalised drug policy and it has made a huge difference,” instead of shrinking from what were his clearly held beliefs as he climbed the ladder and became leader of the Conservative party? The war on drugs is not working.

I want the Minister to answer only one question. I know that he will disagree with me today—he has to; he would not be allowed to be the Minister if he were to agree with me—but I want to ask him this one question. I flagged it up on the media this morning, so he should not be surprised by it. He has a new drugs strategy, which he says is different. He says that it will work, that it will make a difference. How many years will he give his new strategy to make a significant difference?

If in two years’ time we have not made any progress, will he agree to the kind of debate and policy shift that I am advocating? Do we have to wait five years, or 50 years? We have been at this, unsuccessfully, for 50 years. We have built international criminal organisations that dwarf the mafia that arose out of prohibition in America. In America, good people with good intentions banned alcohol for 13 years. They created Al Capone and Lucky Luciano and, in the end, they caused the St Valentine’s day massacre. After 13 years, they did not give in—they came to their senses and removed prohibition.

If we do not start looking at alternatives to prohibition, we will continue to have the Pablo Escobars and General Noriegas of this world. Sher Mohammed Akhundzada in Helmand province, the Taliban, the corruption of the Afghan Government and the funding of the Afghan insurgency will continue. If we move production from Afghanistan, it will simply go elsewhere, as it moved from the golden triangle to Afghanistan some years ago. If we spray the entire forest in Colombia and destroy the foliage so that coca cannot be grown, production will move to Bolivia, Peru and, potentially, to Africa. When? That is my only question to the Minister.

I am not advocating a big bang. I do not believe that any political party would dare to propose some huge, instant change in this regard. People are too frightened, and rightly so, by the size of the problem. I am proposing debate, incremental change, pilots and rational thought. I am proposing that the Government do not do what is in their Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which I believe includes a measure to remove the requirement to have scientists on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. How stupid is that? In a modern society, we are about to say that we do not need scientists on the advisory council. Perhaps we should legislate to have witch doctors on it. That is about as silly a thing as I have heard for some long time.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned science, and I saw Professor Nutt on television today, coming to his aid and supporting his proposition. I have listened to his reasoned speech, in which he has set out why he thinks this is important, but he has not mentioned anybody involved in drug treatment who supports his suggestion. Which groups advocate the legalisation of heroin and cocaine?

[Mr Ainsworth]

The hon. Gentleman needs to listen to what I am saying. I am not advocating kiosks on street corners where young people can buy heroin, for heaven’s sake. I am a parent and a grandparent, and I want to make my children and my grandchildren safer. I do not want them to experiment with dangerous drugs. [Interruption.] I have said that it is about time that we had a reasonable debate, but the hon. Gentleman cannot help this yah-boo nonsense. He has asked a question and I will give him an answer—and after today we will give him a load more as well, because there are lots of them.

I am advocating the replacement of the dealer, who has a ready market with addicts putting money in his pocket and who is, in his totally and utterly irresponsible way, prepared to sell heroin to children and anybody else to extend his market, to the extent that we can do so—perfection does not exist—with a doctor. I want to get people into clinics and give them prescriptions and remove the dealer’s market, thereby removing at least some dealers.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to cite a couple of people who support the right hon. Gentleman’s position. Sir Ian Gilmore, the former president of the Royal College of Physicians, argues that decriminalising illicit use could

“drastically reduce crime and improve health.”

The chairman of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green, QC, says:

“A growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences. It can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health. All of this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage.”

We are not short of any allies on this side of the Chamber.

[Mr Ainsworth]

I have been helped in preparing this speech, and in my thinking on this matter, by an organisation called Transform, which is often accused of being a libertarian organisation, although it is not; it proposes good, solid, readily available, well-funded treatment, while saving a fortune and many lives in the process.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having the bravery to initiate this important debate. Drugs destroy lives and wreck families. I suspect, sadly, that few families in Britain today have not been touched by the scourge of drugs—the thieving, lying, deceit, violence and unreasonable behaviour that come from drug abusers. Yet families do not talk about that with friends, for fear, in many respects, of criminalisation and because of the instinctive need to protect loved ones. The situation is difficult. There is no one to talk to and no one who can help, in many cases, and it can be lonely for families dealing with such matters. Nevertheless, it is a killer and we have real problem. I am not in favour of the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals for legalisation, but there are some excellent abstinence-based systems in residential programmes, one example of which is the Kenward Trust, in my constituency, which provides respite for the family and treatment for the abuser.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. I think we need to let Mr Ainsworth respond to the intervention. May I say to all colleagues that interventions are getting a little bit long? I am not picking on one colleague. This is a useful juncture at which to remind hon. Members to keep interventions short.

[Mr Ainsworth]

I thank the hon. Lady for her heartfelt comments. She disagrees with me. Turning the clock back to when I was a relatively new Member of Parliament, I would have said exactly the same as her. When my Government came out with a new drug policy, particularly if I had had the opportunity to have input into it, I would have hoped and thought that a lot of good people were working on it and that it would make a difference. In the period ahead, the hon. Lady should watch what happens. If this new drug policy does not make any difference—I believe it will not—she should keep an open mind and come to another conclusion. I do not know how many years she or the Minister will give it, but she should keep an eye on the policy and stay engaged with this issue. I think that she will, like me, come to different conclusions over time, but that remains to be seen. All I can say is that I hope that she keeps an open mind.

I want to raise one more issue that is not to do with drugs, but I am determined to say this. As I said, I am neither the slightest bit surprised about, nor do I have a problem with, what my party leader said this morning. He distanced the Labour party from what I am saying. I expected that; he was never going to do anything else. However, I am annoyed that an anonymous Labour party spokesperson said that what I am saying is irresponsible. I do not mind that the leader of the party, the shadow Minister or the Labour party spokesperson think that; if they do, they should say it. I will not be the slightest bit upset if anybody disagrees in any terms with what I am saying. But I am upset by anonymous briefings by my party against its members. I used to get angry about that in government. It used to happen to me in government and I am sure that it happens to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, too. I will not allow people anonymously to say these things without my making an issue of it, because doing so is the only way that hon. Members can fight back.

The road of anonymous briefings leads to Damian McBride. My party learnt from that problem once; it does not need to learn the lesson again. Whoever this individual is, they should stop, because if they do not stop and if they say these things about me, I will say things like this, publicly, in television studios and in the Chamber of the House of Commons. We will, between us, damage our party. Stop. If they want to say anything about me and my views, they should give us their name and say it on the record. I will not be offended. Anonymous briefing has been a plague of modern politics. I am determined that people will not do it to me without some retaliation.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr Walker.

It was not my intention to speak today, predominantly because I was due to go back to my constituency this evening, where I was to present awards to 250 drug addicts and recovering drug addicts and their families at an event run by the Burton addiction centre, which I am lucky to have in my constituency. I received a call this morning from one of my constituents, a young man called Jamie, who for many years had been a prolific user of heroin and many different substances. He has been drug free for three years because we in Burton are lucky to have an abstinence-based programme at the Burton addiction centre that aims to help change people’s lives in a way similar to the scheme mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). People’s lives have been changed.

Jamie rang me to say that he had heard on the news what is being advocated by the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). He told me to ask him this: on the day that drugs are legalised, will he arrange for the police van to arrive at Jamie’s house, put on the cuffs and take him to prison? If that does not happen, Jamie guarantees that he will be dead in six months. He said that not as a knee-jerk reaction, but as someone who has experienced the devastating impact of heroin abuse, and has had the ability, the support and the power to get himself clean and to get his life back.

[Mr Ainsworth]

Neither I nor anyone else proposes to force the hon. Gentleman’s constituent to start taking drugs again. As he believes in an abstinence-based policy—the new Government’s policy—I will ask him the question that I asked the Minister. How many years will he give the policy to make a difference? We are at the end of 2010 and he and I might be here in a couple of years’ time. How many years will he give the policy to make a real difference?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. We talk about mixed messages. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the assertions that I made about the impact of downgrading cannabis. I point him to Hansard for 1 April 2009 and the answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), with the reference number 267674. It shows that the number of patients treated by the NHS for cannabis use in 2004-05 was 13,408 and that three years later, that had increased to 26,287.

I think that we need to move on and talk about the impact of the approach that the right hon. Gentleman advocates. He advocates prescription for heroin or for cocaine. Of course there is already the prescription of methadone and similar heroin substitutes, and I think that we all accept that that has been a complete failure. The aims were good, and I recognise the need to minimise harm and stabilise people. That is very important, which is why it remains a key part of the drugs strategy as outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister. However, the public think that our drugs strategy should be fundamentally about getting people free from drugs—getting them off their addiction. We are misleading the public when we say that it is okay to take drugs. It is true that, as was said, some people live a long life as a heroin addict. Some people live for 20 or 30 years on methadone, as I said was the case with my constituent. However, that is not something that I would want for a member of my family or for a friend or colleague. Stabilisation—harm minimisation—should have an impact in the short-term, but we all have to be more ambitious about moving to recovery thereafter.

[Mr Ainsworth]

If a child, grandchild or relative of mine had a serious addiction and was in a place where rehab would help, I would pay for it—I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He should not think that I am naive or devoid of life experience—I am not. However, the Government will not pay for rehab on the scale necessary.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I do not want to steal the Minister’s thunder, but I think he will outline how payment by results and changing the culture of how we treat drugs and drug rehabilitation can deliver the outcome and be more cost effective. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit the Burton addiction centre in my constituency, where the programme is not only cost-effective, but so cost-effective that GPs pay for beds because they see the impact it has on difficult patients, who were in a revolving door, going in and out of their surgery. A proper abstinence-based rehab programme, with support for both them and their families, makes a massive difference to GPs’ health budgets. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he should come and see some of these projects before he dismisses them.

[Mr Ainsworth]

I was drugs Minster for two years.

[Andrew Griffiths]

It is true that the right hon. Gentleman was drugs Minister for a number of years, and I understand that the drug problem increased in every one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Thank you, Mr Walker, for presiding over this Westminster Hall debate on drugs policy, and for giving me the opportunity to speak on a subject that I know is of real concern not only to right hon. and hon. Members in the House, but to communities throughout the country.

It is obviously a timely debate, given that the coalition Government launched their new drug strategy on 8 December. The development of the strategy was supported by a targeted consultation exercise in the autumn, which generated more than 1,800 responses. That shows how seriously people take the matter, and how important it is that the Government get their drug policy right. We have worked hard to achieve precisely that.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) on securing today’s debate. It is right that we should debate these issues. Although we may disagree with the approach, it is, I think, an honest disagreement on the basis of emphasis, priority and what is likely to be most effective. In no way would I impute anything other than honourable intentions to the approach that he seeks to bring this afternoon. None the less, there is clearly a difference of opinion across the House and probably across his own party. Although he clearly brings passion and belief to the debate, I genuinely disagree with him on a number of issues that he has raised this afternoon.

On the issue of the criminal justice system, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on recent developments. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, has just highlighted the issue of legal highs. One of the challenges that the Government have faced was the perception that because a drug was legal it was safe, and the way in which that was interpreted by many young people.

Putting a legal framework around some of the newly emerging psychoactive substances did have an effect. It reduced demand. It telegraphed very clearly that these were dangerous drugs and could significantly harm health. That in itself provided a significant public health message as well as a criminal justice framework around both supply and possession.

This is a changing environment. Issues and challenges are emerging to which the Government must respond. Indeed we need to look at why people become addicted and why they become involved in drugs in the first place. The problem is complex and cannot be resolved by looking at criminal justice in isolation. Other factors must be taken into account, such as intergenerational deprivation and treatment pathways, which we emphasise very clearly in our drugs strategy.

I genuinely welcome our discussion and the approaches that right hon. and hon. Members have brought to it this afternoon. As for the notion that our proposal on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is silly—that was probably the one pejorative phrase that the right hon. Gentleman used during the course of his contribution this afternoon—let me say to both the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow spokesman that its existing framework is a matter that has merited our careful consideration. Our proposal should in no way be characterised as Government not wanting to receive scientific advice.

As hon. Members will know, there are different types of members of the ACMD: the statutory and non-statutory members. We are not convinced that drawing that distinction between the two is necessarily sensible. Equally, the need for scientific and other expert advice has changed over the years. Indeed, the science itself has changed, and it is important to have flexibility in the arrangements on the construction of the ACMD. That was the purpose that lay behind the provisions in the Police and Social Responsibility Bill.

The ACMD was supportive of the proposal. It acknowledged that it is questionable whether the statutory positions in the Act correlate with how the council now operates. It considered that the proposed change was particularly important given the introduction of the temporary bans and the need to provide advice within short timeframes.

The chief scientific adviser to the Home Office, Professor Silverman, has also consulted the wider scientific community and garnered broad support. The flexibility of bringing different expertise to the ACMD as the drugs landscape changed was welcomed. Those consulted were the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the British Society of Criminology, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Pharmacological Society, the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Medicine. The proposals also had the support of Sir John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

I just want to put it on the record that this is in no way seeking to undermine or weaken the scientific approach that we wish to take over the formulation of drugs policy. We very much value the scientific input and the relationship that we have with the ACMD in the formulation of policy. That is very important and I would not wish in any way to give the impression that the Government were, in some way, not looking to scientific advice or input or not having that expert involvement in the formulation of policy. It is important that I state that this afternoon.

There were some good contributions by a number of hon. Members this afternoon, which highlighted the various different treatment providers in their constituencies. I welcome the work that is undertaken in that regard. When I come on to the main body of my speech, I will set out some of the themes that have emerged from the strategy, explaining how we wish to develop them further.

The right hon. Gentleman challenged me on the evaluation and asked how long we are seeking to pursue the policy framework that was set out in the drugs strategy. Let me say that this is the Government’s drugs strategy for this Parliament. None the less, let me draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the penultimate paragraph of the drugs strategy, which makes it clear that we are committed to reviewing the strategy on an annual basis.

Such a review will allow us to respond to new and emerging evidence and to respond flexibly to the changing nature of the drugs trade and the outcomes being achieved. That is something that we have underlined along with the need to ensure that we consider the newly emerging evidence as it moves forward.

[Mr Ainsworth]

I thank the Minister for his firm support for continued scientific input on the advisory committee. In the annual report, if there is no evidence of decreased availability, of an improvement in drug problems in the country next year, is he prepared to consider other prohibition?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not intend to have an annual debate on decriminalisation. What I want to see is the emerging evidence. Some of the issues that are raised are sometimes on the basis of supposition and assertion and we will look at any clear evidence that appears. I have been considering this issue for quite some time, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman has, and the comments that I make this afternoon are made not because I am on the Front Bench or the Back Bench, but because they are honestly held views. We are simply not persuaded by the arguments on decriminalisation because we feel that it will increase supply, that it does not take account of the complexities of the drug problem—why people become addicted to drugs in the first place—and that it could make the situation worse. It is a question of looking at the outcomes of our policy.

The pilots around payment by results will be introduced during the course of this year. It would be premature to expect results over the course of 12 months. This is a five-year strategy—or a four-and-a-half-year one now. We will be considering not only the interim outcomes that will be produced by the strategy, but the evidence and the performance that sits alongside the course of the strategy as it is implemented. That is the responsible and sensible thing to do.

The right hon. Gentleman said that drugs have become a party political football, but I believe that they are becoming less of that. I certainly welcome some of the comments that were made this afternoon by the hon. Lady who speaks for the Opposition in relation to the approaches that have been set out in the new drugs strategy. I also appreciate the welcome that has been given to our proposals for dealing with legal highs and the temporary bans that are suggested in the new Police and Social Responsibility Bill. I hope that even this afternoon we are having a measured debate, even if we disagree on some of the themes and issues that are being debated. It is important that we have a sensible and measured debate, even if we may fundamentally disagree on some issues. At least it sets a measured framework around the discussion of some of these themes, which I know is sometimes difficult to achieve in debating what is a sensitive issue that often provokes a number of passions.

I would also take issue with the claim that the approach on enforcement is not capable of working, especially when one considers that the quality of cocaine on the streets is, in some cases, as low as 10% in purity at the moment. That shows some of the very effective work that is taking place, both in-country and also upstream back to places such as Latin America, where cocaine—from coca production—comes from, as I know that the right hon. Member for Coventry North East will know very well. When I visited Latin America at the end of September, I was very impressed by a number of measures that Governments in that region are undertaking, not only to tackle production but to undermine and take very clear action against the organised crime groups that do harm in this country as well as in Latin American countries. That co-operation between countries on enforcement and on sharing intelligence is a very effective way of responding to some of the organised crime groups, including seizing assets and using such powers more effectively to get at what is driving a number of those groups. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will have seen that that has been a theme that we have developed clearly in the drugs strategy itself.

The new drugs strategy is a critical articulation of our reform programme and work to tackle the key causes of societal harm, which include crime, family breakdown and poverty. It sets out a different approach to tackling drug use and dependence. The difference from previous strategies is the focus on the key aim of supporting and enabling those who are dependent on drugs and alcohol to recover fully, and the strategy places responsibility on individuals to seek help to overcome their dependency. Alongside our holistic approach to supporting people to overcome their dependency, we will also be reducing the demand for drugs, by taking an uncompromising approach to crack down on those involved in the drugs trade and shifting power and accountability to local areas to tackle the damage that drugs and alcohol dependence cause to communities.

The strategy sets out two high-level ambitions; first, to reduce illicit and other harmful drug use, and secondly to increase the numbers of individuals recovering from their dependency on drugs and alcohol. I think that we are seeing a changing pattern in what the experts would describe as polysubstance abuse; drugs are not being taken in isolation, but are being taken together. That is why it is important in the treatment framework to ensure that alcohol is part of that treatment platform. These ambitions will be achieved through activity that will encompass three themes: reducing demand; restricting supply, and building recovery.

On reducing demand, we will focus on establishing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ainsworth]

The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said that I am the only person who is looking for a quick fix. No one understands more than I do how busy Ministers are. I know the work that the Minister will have undertaken in his consultation—writing the documentation and everything else over a period. However, can he find a little time over his Christmas break to do what I did: put our drug strategy refresh together with his drug strategy—eight years apart—and look at the phrases, issues and so-called solutions?

The Minister will find that we had overarching strategies and key principles. I cannot remember if we had three or four themes—he has three themes. He thinks that seizing assets will be part of the solution—I took the Proceeds of Crime Bill through the House in 2001, with all-party support, and it has been on the statute book since 2002. He thinks that upstream interdiction will solve the problem—look at our strategy and see how much emphasis we put on upstream interdiction eight years ago. He thinks that champions are new—look at champions in our strategy. Also, look at action against precursors in our strategy, which is another thing that he is saying will, in some ways, deliver something.

The Minister thinks we are having some success, and that adulterated drugs on the streets of London are an indication that policy is working. The hon. Member for Burton thinks that the war on drugs is not working, while the Minister thinks there is some evidence that it is, but there has been feast and famine in drugs repeatedly over the years. At the moment we have a famine—we have a shortage of heroin and a problem in Afghanistan. However, it will be got over, and we will see availability increase again, because there is too much profit for that not to happen.

The Minister will have an annual review, although he is not prepared to look at the alternatives. His mind is closed—he has his drug policy—but he will have the annual review and participate in it. Let me predict something that I say with huge sadness: when we get to the annual review, heroin will still be freely available in the towns and cities of this country, the price will not have gone up astronomically and, in all probability, the adulteration level will have gone down, because it is at a high point at the moment. We will have lost another year and gained little, and the argument for alternatives will have grown stronger.

I knew before I started that the Minister would not move. I ask him to keep an open mind. I know how hard that is and how very difficult it is for him or for my right hon. and hon. Friends to deal with, but he will find, sadly, that I will be right. We will be saying the same things in a year—if he is still in post, because he might have moved on to greater things—and, sadly, we will have lost another year. However, we will keep up the debate and, hopefully, we will get there.

Question put and agreed to.