Legal Highs

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Anne Marie Morris

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) on introducing this important debate? He set out very effectively the nature of the problem, the size of the market, the number of deaths and the policy challenges.

The debate has been a rather rare one for this place. Many of us have learned a great deal about an issue we were not very familiar with—I was certainly pretty much unaware of it. Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I had the issue drawn to my attention at a meeting with a constituent. Richard Smith came to talk to me a couple of months ago about his son, who had started using legal highs. He talked about the disruption to his life, the cost to the family in terms of relationship breakdown, and the money his son was spending. He drew my attention to the fact that, in the early days, these products were readily available over the internet, and were also available on market stalls. However, like the hon. Member for Chesterfield, he pointed out that these products have become mainstream and are now drifting into the high street.

My constituent drew my attention to a shop in Leamington Spa, a leafy town in Warwickshire that is very pleasant. It is in the main high street—the Parade—with Laura Ashley and Austin Reed nearby. It is called Planet Bong and has an entry in the business improvement district company directory. It is described as

“a funky ethical Fairtrade store specialising in alternative…Fairtrade fashion…All influenced by Fairtrade practices”.

Yet that is where legal highs are readily and easily available. It shows how the issue has moved on.

My constituent also drew my attention to the way in which chemists who manufacture the product stay one step ahead of legislators. The Minister has I think described this as a “race with chemists”, and I am sure that he will discuss how society can start to win that race. After becoming aware of the situation their son was in, my constituents looked for support in the usual places. They went to the health service and looked at what was available through education. Much as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South found, support was lacking, absent or inadequate.

My constituent believes that much of the problem is that the people who use the products do not see themselves as victims in the way that the users of more conventional illegal drugs do. They are enjoying what they see as a recreational product and are often completely unaware of the dangers, or of deaths such as those we have heard about. They do not understand where use of the products may take them, and as a consequence they do not present themselves at more conventional drug treatment centres.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend concerned to hear that a constituent of mine who wrote to me on this issue said that it says on product labels, “not fit for human consumption”? No one seems to read that. People who are not users who go into the shop in Newton Abbot are horrified at the risk to their children.

[Mark Pawsey]

It is part of youth’s belief in its invincibility. People take those products, believing that because they are young, their bodies are resistant, and they can deal with those things without a massively detrimental effect. How wrong can they be?

Another issue is the use of the term “legal high”, and the conclusions that it leads people to. If something is legal, they think it will perhaps do them no harm. If it is legal, why should they not do it? What should prevent them? The long and the short of it is that my constituent, frustrated at the lack of support available to his son, and concerned about others who might be dragged into using those products, identified a gap. He answered the question “What can be done about it?” by doing something himself: he set up his own company offering education and harm reduction advice. He set up five programmes, the first of which is called Legal Highs Game Over. It is a national awareness and harm reduction campaign targeting social media. It has a YouTube video and Facebook page, it is on Twitter, and there are posters. It addresses exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made about where young people now get advice and information.

Small Businesses

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Anne Marie Morris

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris]

That is an excellent idea.

The Department for Work and Pensions also has a role to play. It has done some good things—it has delayed auto-enrolment for pensions, and we heard this morning that there may be a cap on pension charges—but the Work programme needs to offer the potential for proper self-employment. Research undertaken by the all-party group on micro-businesses has found that almost half of the businesses offering the Work programme did not have an adequate skill base to enable people to go back into work as self-employed individuals. The DWP could consider what it might do to help late returners. Organisations such as PRIME—the Prince’s Initiative for Mature Enterprise—help them to return to work, but there is very little else, although that matter is important.

Let us not forget the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It has done some great things for businesses. High-speed broadband is absolutely critical, and the fact that there are now broadband connection vouchers for small businesses in 22 cities is very welcome. However, more is needed, because rural areas are really suffering.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is setting out measures that will enable small businesses to grow. Let us not forget that every big business was once a small business, and, taken together, such measures should provide an incentive for businesses to get bigger.

[Anne Marie Morris]

That is absolutely right.

We need to spread the broadband initiative and encourage Ministers—sooner rather than later—to look at the 4G market. One of biggest concerns of small businesses is that they cannot get mobile reception, which is critical to them.

I ask the Department for Communities and Local Government to work with the LEPs and get them to engage better with the smallest of businesses. Please could it also look at procurement? Although central Government have done a good job in trying to meet their obligation of giving 25% of contracts to SMEs, the picture in local government is rather less rosy.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change also has a part to play. The £90 million scheme for clean-tech entrepreneurs is a very good step. There is a green deal specifically for small businesses, with a pay-as-you-save scheme. However, more needs to be done, including help with switching suppliers. Businesses currently find themselves moved automatically on to new contracts on disadvantageous terms.

What more could UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign Office do? UKTI has done a really good job, but it needs to do more to help the smallest businesses, and there is a call for greater support at embassy level.

Let us not forget the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which after all represents a fifth of our economy in the form of rural businesses.

Private Finance Initiative

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Anne Marie Morris

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I will endeavour to make my contribution brief. This has been a very valuable and worthwhile debate on a number of issues. We need to consider the PFI as quite a complex challenge. Although my hon. Friend the Minister is here to help us with some of the financial issues, it is a challenge not just for her but for her Cabinet colleagues, because it is not just the finances that need to be reviewed. There are issues of complexity that we need to deal with in trying to find a way forward. Those issues are not just about the way in which the contracts are currently structured. There is also an issue about cultural change, because much of what has happened has changed the way in which decisions are made and outcomes are delivered for patients in hospitals and children in schools. That is why, although I support the argument for a rebate, it is only part of the solution. It deals with the existing, financial challenge, but it does not deal with other issues. It is right that we should be looking for a different way to do things, but it is a very complicated challenge.

The PFI was always well intentioned as a concept. It was to deliver quality and it was to deliver projects on time and on budget. In many ways, it achieved that. We have 700 schools, hospitals, prisons and other infrastructure projects that would not exist or would not be in the pipeline but for this initiative. We have £67 billion-worth of expenditure signed off.

The problems fall into at least four categories. First, the risk was overestimated, in part because of the public sector’s inability to deal with a very complex negotiation, as has been said. The consequence was that the taxpayer was lumbered with a very large part of the bill. As has been said, the amount of £210 billion is outstanding. By contrast, the investor is doing extraordinarily well. A number of figures have been cited, and I will add to that list. An EU think-tank tells me that 154 schemes are delivering a 50% return. That is huge. Clearly, therefore, one matter that we must consider is how we simplify not only future contracts, but the existing ones. I believe that we must consider renegotiating not just a chunk of money, but some of the terms.

[Mark Pawsey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a justification for a rebate arises from the effect of the spending review on those Departments whose budgets have been reduced? If the PFI element remains fixed within the budget, by definition the non-PFI element has to reduce by a greater proportion, so budgets that may have been reduced by 2% could end up being reduced by 4%. It is entirely appropriate that those who are making the sums of money that we have heard about should bear their share of the burden of getting our country’s finances into order.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I agree. My argument is that that is part of the problem, rather than the totality of the problem. My second request is that we find a way of delivering transparency and better management of the contracts. One hospital was charged £333 to change a light bulb. I dare say that that changes the hospital’s decision about whether it will change many light bulbs. One school was charged £300 just to install an electrical socket. How many times will the school install a socket on that basis? One Army official was charged £103 for a 1-inch Land Rover screw that actually cost just over £2. That is not the right way of doing things.