18/07/2017 House of Commons

therefore I will take it but if it is a continuation of the debate I

will be pretty intolerant. I hope it is busy and approaching a point of

order. I asked the question of the Minister

on something on the Chancellor's of statement. He did not answer because

he said it was not in his re-met. Can I ask you guidance as to who I

should ask questions of about Treasury document if not Treasury

ministers? If memory serves, the Minister

indicated he would pass the matter on to the relevant departmental

minister. These are not matters of precise facts but of judgment and

also of some discretion so far as the Minister answering questions is

concerned. When the Chancellor delivers either his budget or in

Autumn Statement inevitably he makes announcements that concern

expenditure covering all sorts of different Government departments. If

subsequently Treasury Minister is asked a question relating to

expenditure any particular area, about which, because of their

natural self effacement and modesty, in the case of the honourable

gentleman for Harrogate, he feels another minister would be better

equipped to provide an informative answer, there is nothing disorderly

about that. It may be disquieting for the honourable lady but that is

not the same as the honourable gentleman's behaviour being

disorderly. I hope she will accept that for now and I see the

honourable gentleman, the minister concerned, is a beaming with

contentment. It has to be said, there is nothing new there. If there

are no further points of order, we come now to the urgent question,

Leila Moran. To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the

process for applying for free childcare I was from September 20

17. -- childcare hours. Could I thank you for allowing this

urgent question. It gives me the opportunity to highlight this

Government's determination to invest a record in childcare, supporting

early education and helping parents financially. This will total ?6

billion annually by 2020. My department is committed to ensuring

all 34-year-olds have access to free early education, or parents are

entitled to 15 hours of free other education -- all parents. If those

billions are working to provide access of 15 conditional I was from

September 20 17 -- 15 additional hours. They can access the

application on the childcare choice website which provides information

on all the Government's childcare offers. It takes around 20 minutes

and I recently had a walk-through of the service myself, it is

straightforward and new format will be similar to other Government

services online. It is a complex IT system which checks eligibility of

parent' with other Government systems. The vast majority will

receive an instant eligibility response however there will be a

delay for some those eligibility is not immediately clear, for example

some self-employed people. The services also experienced technical

issues which has been unavailable on a small number of occasions. Each

MRC has worked hard to resolve these issues and now the customer

experience has been proved -- improved. It has been open to the

parents since the 21st of April and today we will make a written

ministerial statement informing the house that has been further roll out

to parents of under five results. They will receive a 30 hours

eligibility called to claim their place. As of today over 145,000

codes have been generated from successful applications, an increase

of almost 5000 tonnes afraid the 14th and almost 25,000 -- 5000 codes

since the 14th. It is great news so many families will benefit from 30

hours from September because as we have seen from early implementation

areas this can make a very positive difference to the lives of

hard-working families. Just before we proceed, I must make it clear I

granted this urgent question because of the particular narrow and

specific focus on the issue of the accessibility or otherwise of the

Government's website. This is not an occasion for a general debate about

childcare policy and people just want, not unknown in politics, to

score political points and ask rhetorical questions, that is not

what this exchange is about. It will last for 20 minutes and focus on the

particular issue the honourable member identified in her

application. I thank the Minister for his

response, but as some may be reading in the end of your reports due this

week, good effort but not good enough. The process for applying for

a free childcare is confusing for both parents and nurseries. One

period said to me, getting the code with them is, located process. I

think many parents would just give up. The explain you get passed from

pillar to post from different areas of the website, each asking you for

a different password. Is this really necessary? As members in this house

will attest, setting up two factor authentication on iPhones was

difficult enough and we have a well resourced IT department. Who is

helping the parents at home? As a result, parents have not been able

to open accounts to pay for their nursery, playgroup or Playschool and

even some of the providers, particularly in the voluntary

sector, cannot register. The Government's roll-out of 33 hours of

childcare is welcome but only if that is of high quality and parents

can access it readily. Why is the website still sending parents a

holding response when they finally do submit an online application? How

long is the department taking for them to confirm eligibility? What

proportion of the children eligible to take up free childcare have been

able to do so? And moreover, with the end of the school term rapidly

approaching, how can nurseries plan for the upcoming year if parents

cannot provide them the details? What support can be a woman provide

to nurseries to plan and budget effectively for an as yet unknown

number of children joining them on the 1st of September. What will the

Government do to review this and the accessibility of the member decision

process so that this does not happen again next year? The honourable lady

asks some very reasonable questions. Can I be Fisher heard that at the

moment 2850 parents are registering per weekday and we are on track to

reach a figure of 200,000 by the end of the month. Can I encourage

parents to get on with it, we don't want a situation for everybody

leaves the till 11:30pm on the 31st of August. The vast majority of

cases are processed very simply. We need to check the person does meet

the eligibility in terms of income, there are sometimes congregations,

self-employed people, people who change their jobs. Could I reassure

her in terms of people who currently use the online system, we have an

off-line process for any parents who experience persistent technical

difficulties and encourage them to take that up. Thank you. I

congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. What resources are

being given to those from disadvantaged backgrounds to make

sure they have access to the free 30 hours childcare? Disadvantaged

children are eligible for free childcare at the age of two and that

continues 15 hours through to the a job for Mac. This additional funding

and 15 hours is for people in work. Some of them may be on low incomes,

a person who is working 16 hours at the National minimum wage qualifies,

and I have mentioned there is an off-line system for people who may

have problems or I cannot use the online for an because of an off-line

system for people who may have problems or I cannot use the online

food and coffee so far is the applications are coming in, they are

being presented to the providers and B have come back to us through the

local authorities. Some local authorities have been tight in

passing because back to us. If anyone goes back over the recess,

ask them if they are getting on with it, that is an area where we need to

see improvement. Thank you for granting this urgent question. What

a shame it is that when we could be weeks away from a great breakthrough

for providers, parents and children, we are discussing a policy that is

riddled with holes. Just yesterday, the Minister's colleagues in the

Treasury admitted in response to one of my written questions that it is

not possible to provide a definitive number of applications not completed

due to technical issues. Could the minister gave us his estimate of

just how many parents suffered these technical issues? What steps are

being put in place to fix the system? What guarantees can he make

to parents that as the August deadline approaches the system will

work for them? How many calls have the hotline received? Of the 30,000

people who applied and were rejected, what were the reasons?

Kante guaranteed those rejections were correct? And not due to system

errors? What about the parents on zero hour contracts who are unable

to guarantee they will work over the minimum weekly hours? How many of

them will be refused childcare they were promised? As the Minister will

be aware, there are huge problems with this offer. There are many

other questions to answer. As the minister likes to refer my written

questions to the national provider childcare works, so will

implementation weeks away, will he accept my request to meet with them

as soon as possible? In welcoming the honourable lady, I have to say

she is very much a glass half full person. This is a great offer.

Yesterday morning I was in the city of your meeting with providers and

parents who were benefiting as one of the pilot areas. I heard from

people who said it means do longer do I had to pass my husband and the

whole week as I go up to my evening job as he comes in from his daytime

job. Eight people in your and accessing employment because of

childcare being available. I am really proud this is being

delivered. Without the glitches in the software, people are registering

and we are on track for 200,000. We don't know how many people we

expect, it is a voluntary system. There will be free tranches, it

would all happen with the Big Bang, they will be another tranche of

parents who qualified in Easter. It is great news for working families,

something is Government is delivering on. Given the amount of

my time that was taken, the amount of time my constituent had to give

up and the technical support people from his department are all as a

consequence of the fact that she had an apostrophe in her name, can he

speculate as to why on earth we were not told that there was a manual

work around? I have made that clear to do. There have been a number of

outages, a number of which were to fix some of the glitches my right

honourable friend draws attention to. The most recent one was due to a

power supply issue between 6pm and 10:20pm, last night, that has now

been fixed and the system is up and running again. I congratulate the

honourable member for Oxford West End Abington for securing this

urgent question and given that this is largely devolved, I will be

brief. Ensuring affordable, flexible childcare is one of the best ways to

narrow the gender pay gap by helping parents back to work, but also best

prepare children for school. In Scotland, the Government is

trialling childcare funding following the child by investing ?1

million to make sure when we expand free childcare to 1140 parent

Everest, parents have the choice to decide what is best for them and

their children. We are going further than the UK Government by helping

the most vulnerable to-year-olds in Scotland to ensure all children have

the best start in life. Quite a contrast to the issue being faced by

parents spoke of the border. If disadvantaged bags are not able to

apply for jobs go by the deadline due to the Minister's website

problems, will be Minister detail how they will be supported

thereafter? I thank him for the party election broadcast on behalf

of the Scottish National Party. The website is up and running, 2850

parents are registering and getting the confirmation codes per day. We

would encourage people to do the same as soon as possible, I am very

pleased we are now on track. 143,000 Valley 30 hour contract could have

been generated and we are on track to reach our target of 200,000 by

the end of next month. I have been through a raft of different child

support schemes, including none when I started, that is why I welcome the

fact there is this support in place. We must not forget that. It is

absolutely essential that parents can have the confidence, that they

can apply. To do Minister give those reassurances for those who are

struggling, we will help them, but not just for the parents but the

nurseries. In my constituency, we rely on them to deliver the service.

Can we have assurances that will work? That is why we ran this

through 12 development areas and 15,000 children are already enjoying

that, including the families I met in Europe yesterday. There is

flexibility, one can use a childminder, a former nursery

setting, mix and match the hours. The hours can be spread over the

holidays. Currently, the hours are available for 30 hours a week for 38

weeks but that can be spread over the year for those who wish to cover

the holidays as well. The Minister says that 120,000 toads have now

been given and he expects that to be 200,000 by the end of the month. But

given the Government's own estimate of eligible families is over

390,000, that is just over a quarter of those eligible have now got their

codes. Given we have had a lot of warnings from providers that this

scheme is an to them and the worry about building sufficient places,

how are they supposed to plan for September when just over a quarter

of families have registered for the scheme to date? The honourable lady

is making a fundamental error. The total number will be coming in three

tranches, one in September, January and after Easter, as the children

turn to the eligible age. This is an ongoing system. The children

starting in September and need to apply by the end of August. There is

no rush for those children in terms of starting in September, January.

We are on track to deliver 200,000 by the 1st of September, subsequent

tranches of children will come in after Christmas and after Easter. A

number of concerns have been raised about providers being able to

deliver for the funding we have provided. We have the additional

funding end. In the city of your queer aye was yesterday, despite the

fact some of the private sector the providers did express disquiet, we

have 100% of the providers delivering on the scheme. Compared

to the numbers that were projected, we have 117% delivery. Dorset was

one of the pilot areas, can he update the House as to the

performance of those pilots, specifically in relation to the

online system? Those in the pilots did not participate in the online

system we have in place now, that was the manually based system. I can

assure the How's that for those in parents were involved in testing the

service and valuable lessons have been learned from Dorset regarding

the operation of the service and provision of free places. In the

light of these additional difficulties in bringing in what is

a very welcome policy, what additional support is the Government

going to give to those narrative is preparing to do this? We need to

make sure the resources are there for delivery. We did increase the

funding to allow that to be delivered. We have no average

funding of ?4 for each and were being provided, that was a direct

response to some of the providers that were concerned about the level

of funding. Even the providers who said that the funding was not

enough, they have now actually managed to deliver at this price.

The nursery I visited yesterday said there were surplus places. The inode

fool. That is great news for them in terms of their funding. A small

preschool community led and not necessarily groups like the one in

my constituency are worried about the process for them and local

parents. Can my honourable friend advise what Government has done so

that all early years providers are able to deliver 30 hours for the

families and keep positivity around this programme? The parents have the

choice whether to deploy those 30 hours of care, with a childminder,

in nursery schools. It can also be with the one of many excellent

providers, including preschool playgroups. My wife used to run

once, I have been briefed on the issue. It is vital people have the

choice of where to sit there lifestyle and the logistics of

getting the children to that setting.

I was chair of the children and families committee when the Labour

Government set us on this path and most of us will welcome this as good

news. I have a vested interest, having ten grandchildren and

hopefully more to come, but could I ask him, there are many people

struggling in my constituency with access, they are not very computer

literate and does he not look at the National nurseries Association in my

constituency and the marvellous children's charities who could help

him? In the shopping I apply this

portfolio I met with the number of organisations and look forward to

meeting with his locally -based organisations. We wish to engage as

widely as possible with a bottle representatives and providers and

representatives of families who benefit from this. We could not

deliver this were it not for the successful economy that Conservative

Government is delivering. As a parent of a one-year-old I am

very grateful for the scheme and I'm sure many feel the same. Could the

Minister up it behoves on prior to the launch of the system what

testing was put in place and specifically how many pagans were

involved? There has been two aspects, the

pilot areas where we tested delivered it working with providers

which has been very successful, particularly in North Yorkshire. In

terms of the system, we have 4000 parents involved and I had a run

through myself which demonstrated how the system worked. There are

some things complications where people change jobs, self-employed,

so there are cases where the telephone service can be used to

back that up. It is important these problems are

resolved quickly. My honourable friend asked some factual questions

which the Minister has not been able to direct answer. Could you perhaps

a right to those who participated in the origin questions by the end of

business on Thursday so we have a full understanding? I will happily

give updates. We have passed 143 -- and 43,000 valid applications and

will be more than happy to give ongoing updates on that. -- 143

valve applications. In a moment I will the right honourable gentlemen

to make an application for leave to pose a debate on the specific and

important matter for consideration under standing order number 24. The

bright honourable gentleman is up to three minutes.

I seek leave to propose the house should debate a specific and

important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely

accepting unaccompanied asylum seeking children into the UK. NBA

this in response to a question in the other place by Vanessa Williams

-- in a recent response she revealed on the 200 unaccompanied asylum

seekers have been transferred to the UK from mainland Europe. Before the

election and the Government said they would dig 400 before closing

the scheme. -- take 400. This in itself was an outrage to many of us

who championed this scheme. The Government's tries to take the

figure as low as 480 was mean-spirited and blatantly

politically motivated and not worthy of this house or this country and we

now know the number of desperate children we have actually received

is less than half of that measly target. If the Government cannot use

lack of capacity or lack of resource as an excuse, a recent Freedom of

Information request show in total local councils of voluntarily

offered to accept 1572 more places than they were currently supporting.

Whether Serbian children, survivors of the Nazi death camps, Ugandan

refugees -- Syrian children. The values of openness and tolerance in

this country give us a moral duty to be the land of sanctity and artist

they showed we are stronger and more successful because of our

willingness to take these refugees, who become proud citizens. Why is it

the Government seems committed to turning its back on the world? Our

actions in this house directly affect the lives of many hundreds of

children with a legal right to come to the UK but who are currently

scared and alone scattered across Europe. I and many others will

strongly this must be debated before the house, before we rise for the

summer recess. The summer months more trips be made to Europe by

migrants on unsuitable boats and I feel we are again likely to see an

increase in news about people drowning, attempting desperately to

reach safely. By the time of talk around there will be many more

children alone and there will be many more children alone an orphan

living a hand to mouth existence in continental Europe. We must examine

their consciences, the Government made an ambitious commitment which

had to be dragged out of it, and then cancelled that agreement before

even meeting half of the terms. I ask this house to get the

opportunity to address this outrage and help those desperate children.

The honourable gentleman ask leave to propose a debate on a specific

and important matter with urgent consideration, namely accepting

jailed unaccompanied refugees. I have listened carefully to the

application, on this occasion I am not persuaded this matter is proper

to be discussed under standing order number 24, order narrowly I am

exalted to say nothing more than that but I will say I am not

insensitive to the very strong concerns he and others has on this.

There is a limitation of time between now and the recess and the

right honourable gentlemen wants to seek other opportunities to hear his

concerns on this matter, to model, on Thursday or indeed both, --

tomorrow, who knows, he may be successful. In a moment I will call

the Shadow Education Secretary to make an application for leave to

propose a debate on the specific and important matter that should have

urgent consideration under standing order 24. The honourable member is

up to three minutes in which to make such an application. Angela Rayner.

I seek leave to propose the house should debate a specific and

important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the

Government's proposed increase in tuition fees, with regard to the

higher education visit, England regulation 2016 number 100 1035.

Mr Speaker, on the 30th of March the Justice Secretary stood at this

dispatch box and promised a debate and vote on their plans to increase

tuition fees. It was scheduled for the 19th of April but then on the

18th of April the Prime Minister announced her plans to go to the

country an early general election. That meant the debate was cancelled.

Oddly, they have been determined not to grab the house a vote since the

election. The shadow Leader of the House has raised the issue of

business questions on the 22nd of June, the sixth and the 13th of

July, she finally received a letter saying we currently have no plans to

schedule these debates and Government time.

What a contrast with the want of the Secretary of State for Exiting the

EU, who last week said, "If a statutory instrument is placed in

front of the House of Commons, the House of Commons decide if it

debates and votes on it." A statutory instrument is before this

house but we are not being allowed to decide on debate and vote on it.

How can he expect us to trust this Government with the sweeping powers

he was under the EU withdrawal bill? It was the first secretary of state

who called only two weeks ago for a national debate on tuition fees, but

apparently the national debate will not include this house. Both

universities and thousands of students across the country are now

uncertain about the rate of tuition fees can be charged, was neither

Government nor opposition time being provided, we have no choice but to

use standing order 24. So, 109 days since it was for as promised by

ministers, I ask the Leader of the House for an emergency debate on

their plans to raise tuition fees. The member ask leave to propose a

debate on a specifically important matter that should have urgent

consideration, the Government proposed increase in tuition fees

with regard to the higher education basic England regulation 2016 and

the higher education higher amount England regulation 2016.

I have listened carefully to the application from the honourable

member, I am satisfied the matter raised by the honourable member is

proper to be discussed under standing order number 24, has the

honourable member the leave of the house?

The member has obtained the leave of the house. The debate I can

therefore advise colleagues, will be held tomorrow, the 19th of July

2017, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for

up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the house has

considered the specified matter set out in the honourable member's

application. Thank you. Point of order.

The BBC, as our public sector broadcaster, paid for by all of us

through the licence fee is to announce details of presenters'

salaries over the threshold of ?150,000 per year,. The campaign to

get this transparency has gone on for around ten years. Some of us

have been heavily involved in that campaign. The BBC firstly avoided

their more recently dragged their feet and eventually agreed to

publish this information which the general public, as their paymasters,

have the right to know. However, they are doing this on the day

before parliament late -- parliamentary scrutiny ends for the

summer recess tomorrow. Have you been informed by the Secretary of

State for culture media and sport of her intention to come to the house

to outline the unacceptable nature of the timing of this announcement?

Both his point of order... The short answer on that last and key point in

his remarks is, no, I have received no indication from any minister of

an intention to make a statement on the matter. I understand the concern

of the honourable gentleman and I appreciate it may well also be

shared by many members. That said, it is not the point of order for the

chair. The decisions made on the timing of announcements or

disclosures by the BBC do not fall within the aegis of the Speaker. I

think it is also fair to say strictly speaking those of judgment

do not, to any significant extent, false within the responsibility of

ministers. Ministers can have views on these matters and that is

perfectly proper, but they are not matters for ministerial decision.

That said, the honourable gentleman has succeeded in putting his concern

on the record and I feel sure that concern will have been heard, not

only by the occupants of the Treasury bench, but by the

broadcasters themselves. The honourable gentleman is an assiduous

denizen of this house and I feel sure he will be in his place

tomorrow and indeed, in all likelihood, I feel sure he will be

here on Thursday. I dare say he will want to get back to Northern Ireland

at some point but I'm sure he will be in his place on Thursday and

springing from it with a view to giving the house the benefit of his

views in the summer adjournment debate. That might be a suitable

opportunity for the honourable gentleman Cuban expatriate further

on this important matter. I seek your guidance and advice. As

you are aware, it is regular and customary for the Government to give

written responses to select committee reports within two months

of the publication of those reports. The foreign affairs select committee

in the last Parliament published a report on Russia in March and

published a report on Turkey in March. Given the topicality of the

anniversary of the coup in Turkey, I was hopeful I would have been able

to read a response from the Government to that select committee

report. I know the house has had a general election and the two-month

period was not continuous, but the period after March and the period

since we resumed in this parliament is more than two months. Therefore,

I would be grateful if you could advise me as to what I can do to

ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides a

response to those select committee reports, which are long overdue. I

am sorry to disappoint the honourable gentleman whose interest

in and knowledge and of these matters are well-known and respected

throughout the House. The short answer is that the best way to

guarantee a timely, or at least less and timely response to that report,

from the committee, will be to reconstitute the committee as as

soon as possible. The honourable gentleman is right that there has

been a longer delay. Ministers can take the view that they are

responding to a report from a committee and that currently that

committee does not exist, it needs to be reconstituted. I think the

honourable gentleman may have been present when I volunteered some

thoughts, if he wasn't, I do say he heard, on the merit of getting on

with the constitution of the select committees. Personally, I am

saddened, although the chairs have been elected, the members have not

been elected across the House. It is a pity if some have not got around

to doing that. There is not much I can do, other than say "aye" am

always looking out for the honourable gentleman and a few bob

up and down with a view to raising this matter, I will try to

accommodate him. If there are no further... It is always a delight to

do the views of the honourable gentleman, I have been accustomed to

them for the last 30 years. Always better when they are offered from

him on his feet rather than his seat. If there are no further points

of order, we now come to the general debate on drugs policy. The Minister

to move the motion. Ministers say the Newton. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

am really pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to open

this debate on drug policy, as many of you will know that the Government

has just published an ambitious new drug strategy, which sets out a

range of new action to prevent the harms caused by drug misuse. The

Government's previous drug strategy, launched in 2010 balanced action

across three strands. Reducing the demand for drugs, restricting the

supply of drugs and supporting individuals to recover from drug and

alcohol dependence. Since the 2010 strategy was published, local

communities have been placed at the heart of Public health, giving local

Government the freedom, responsibility and funding to

develop their own ways of improving public health in the local

population, including action to reduce drug and alcohol use and

support those recovering from dependence. We have already taken

concerted action to tackle new threats, such as the supply of

so-called legal highs through the psychoactive substance act 2016.

There are positive signs that the Government's approach is working.

There has been a reduction in drug misuse amongst adults and young

people, compared to a decade ago in England and Wales. From 10.5% in

2000 to 8.4% in 2015, 16. The issue about drugs and alcohol abuse is a

very difficult issue to deal with. What consultations has she had with

the various groups and communities who are concerned about mental

health problems are related to these abuses? I thank you for your

question. We did consult widely with a range of not only experts and

academics, we are very well served by the ACM entity but also

communities, users themselves, those people who have first line and

front-line experience of tackling these issues. I agree with him that

we have to look at the complexity of the challenges facing individuals

who are drawn into substance misuse in the first place and making sure

we have tailor recovery solutions, which will often include support an

underlying vulnerabilities or mental health issues. The strategy, as I

will outline in some detail this afternoon, it really seeks to have

this multifaceted joined up approach with those people right at the

heart. So they can make a sustained recovery, which is unsure is what we

all want to see. I am very grateful. She says there are signs the policy

is working, but she ever pause for thought when she looks at the blue

significant increases in the number of people who have died from drug

misuse in the last three years? A picture that is not mirrored in

other European countries who have taken a more enlightened approach. I

thank him for his contribution. There is no complacency whatsoever

in the mine and the Government's approach. As I was setting out the

context for the new strategy, it is worth reflecting on some of the

successes we have had in the past so we have got a good evidence base

upon which to build for the future. Like him, I am very concerned by the

increase in deaths of people who have often had long-term substance

misuse problems. If the gentleman stays for the debate this afternoon,

he would hear about our approach is to what we are going to do to really

prevent that from happening. It is a key part of our new strategy and

perhaps when I get to that part of the contribution I am very welcome

to dig further interventions. As somebody who served so well as a

Minister of health and the coalition, who played such an

important role in the Department of Health for some of the successes we

have seen, if you're going to make a speech this afternoon we can

carefully listen and take into consideration in the work we are

going to be doing in the years ahead. In her speech whether she

might come to the point about in 2013 when the rate of drug mortality

started to rise, that was at the very same time that the ring fence

was taken off for drug and alcohol treatment is that local authorities

became responsible for, and whether she thinks her Government's position

to do that is something she regrets? I will come on to talk more about

the situation of more people dying who have had long-term substance

misuse problems. I would remain to be honourable lady that the public

health grant remains ring fenced and it is for local authorities working

with partners in their communities to come up with the best ways of

tackling people's serious and long-term substance misuse problems.

We have seen phenomenal improvement in how we understand the overlap

between mental health problems and substance abuse problems. It is not

just the public health grant that councils and the partnership is the

form in local communities have, they also have the significant additional

funding the Government's has made available into mental health

services and community mental health services, as well as the homeless

prevention funding they get and troubled families funding they get,

and the whole point, as I will hopefully have an opportunity to

come in to make, is what's different about this strategy in part as the

partnership working which we see as the heart of driving forward further

improvements. I thank the Minister for giving way, she is being

extremely generous to the chamber. Parents were very much welcome the

Government's focus on an updated and dined strategy. Cannabis use is

associated mental health impact has been one of the most upsetting

issues that has come through surgery meetings with myself. In particular

of teenagers and young people after cannabis misuse. Would-be Minister

agree that this joined up approach in terms of access locally is

absolutely vital for these families who are affected? She makes a very

important point. I doubt if there is a member in the How's that has not

either had a family member or a member of the constituency come

along and speak to them about the harrowing effect and the huge

concern they have of young members of their family getting involved in

drugs. There is a growing evidence base and a deep concerns about

particularly the development of young minds, the impact of cannabis

on them, and we are seeing a lot of concerns raised the psychosis can be

brought on by even a very modest exposure to cannabis. It is

essential we look at mental health and substance misuse together, I can

assure her that is very much at the heart of what we are going to be

doing. It is worth noting although we have all come across far too

frequently these heartbreaking cases of young people who have had

terrible consequences of taking drugs, including losing lives, but

overall actually fewer young people are taking drugs. For the very

reliable data we have, there was a peak of drug use amongst 11 to

15-year-olds in 2013 and there has been a continual decline since then.

We are not at all complacent and there is going to be more work we

are going to be doing on educating young people about the times. Not

only are we seeing fewer people taking drugs in the first place but

those who are entering treatment services were having good experience

as a treatment services and to the average waiting time to access

treatment remains three days. For those that are under 18, the

treatment within the first is that within two days, 80% of young people

entering treatment leave it successfully. I think we have got

some good foundations to work on here. She is being generous and

making good points about the seriousness of the issue we are

debating today. Does she agree that although total drugs use figures may

be coming down, what we all tend to see in our committees are a small

number of very high profile often murders which do involve drugs and

drug dealing and the stars and settled communities. I would be

interested to see whether she has any hints there is what we can all

do to try and improve that situation. On the business of curing

people, has she had a chance to look at the programmes introduced by the

Nelson trust in Gloucestershire, which has an approach of tough love

that seems to be working very well? I have to say, I have not visited

the Nelson Trust but maybe he will invite me to come along. It is

really important that we continue to build up the evidence base about

what works. We have an open mind to looking at innovation and new ways

of helping people give up their addiction. He raises a very good

point about the overlap between crime and substance misuse, and of

course there is a strong correlation between crime and modern crime

prevention strategy but substance misuse, in terms of alcohol and

drugs, the ice on the key drivers of crime. It is important that as part

of isolation law enforcement has got a critical role to play. We wanted

to make sure that law enforcement have all the tools they need. The

act brought in in 2016 has really had a very positive impact, hundreds

of retailers across the United Kingdom have closed down or are no

longer selling out the leg psychoactive substances, police have

arrested suppliers, and the action by the National crime agency has

resulted in the removal of cycle of active substances being sold by the

UK-based website. First offenders have been jailed. We are seeing

police using their new powers and more people going through the

criminal justice system. I would be absolutely delighted if she would

care to visit Gloucester, have a look at what the troubled families

programme by the county council is doing, Families First, have a look

at the Nelson Trust programme for drug rehabilitation and meet another

trust which are doing a lot to educate people in schools about the

dangers of murder after that lady was murdered herself. He is really

well illustrating how any local community what is needed is a

joining up of services, prevention in schools are right the way through

to the criminal justice system working well, alongside recovery

working well. I will be delighted to visit with him to have a look at how

does different services are joining up so well in Gloucestershire.

Pollies and law enforcement issues in my constituency has also been

raised. Would the Minister Luca legislation where: cannabis use is

impacting on neighbours, where children and young babies next door

to long-term users is impacting on their daily lives? My friend makes a

very important point and what I would be prepared to do is right to

with the range of existing powers. I know from my own constituency

sometimes the police are not always aware of the civil powers they have

in addition to criminal powers to tackle some of the anti-social

behaviour associated with persistent drug use so I do understand and

recognise challenge she portrays but also there is the work of the

troubled families programme that is designed in part to look at those

families where there is drug users or substance misuse problems in

order to help them and in helping them help the children living in

these households. We have already more mentions in the

first ten minutes of the police that we have police officers in my area

but can she can from really mainly country in the world other than the

USA where the Government lead for drugs is in criminal justice as

opposed to health and if it is evidence -based, why is that?

I'm sure there are many more police officers in Bassetlaw and members in

this chamber this afternoon! -- bandmembers.

I am proud of our drug strategy a world leading because we take this

cross Government approach. It is not a simple issue. Tackling substance

abuse is not a simple thing to do and that is why we take this whole

Government joined up approach. Our friends and colleagues from the

Department of Health are firmly involved, as is virtually every

Government department and I think colleagues I will make more progress

so then I can answer some of the questions.

Sensory psychoactive substances act, the Greater Manchester Police would

argue supply has shifted to the streets and the product was more

consistent in the head shops, now it is constantly changing and which you

can read part of the reason for the epidemic of space based in

Manchester which causes huge programmes is because of that shift

-- huge problems. We were all very concerned when we saw those images

of people on these new zombie spice in Manchester and I was very pleased

that the psychoactive substances act proved itself in the case of space

because as soon as we saw those dangers emerging we were able to

take action to ban it through the substances act and then as we did

testing to understand the chemical components and how serious bit words

we were able to shift them into the misuse of drugs act, which give them

proper classification. Only on Friday I was pleased to see a

Manchester that the whole community got together with other cities,

where you have law enforcement, the mayor, civil society, local

authorities, all coming together to do exactly what we are proposing in

the drug strategy, a multi-agency approach, saw those awful scenes we

saw the very vulnerable for most people the Manchester being so

wickedly targeted by drug dealers of that type of space, those issues are

now been properly manage so people who are homeless get the support so

they do not fall prey to that activity. With the stringent

measures for sentencing available under the misuse of drugs act, the

police and Manchester have the full range of tools they need to take

action. In the Netherlands has had a

pragmatic and intelligent drug policy the criminalisation for 50

years. They now have a serious prison problem because there are not

enough prisoners to fill their prisons. Isn't this a problem we are

going -- we would like to have your? I accept there are some members of

the toes and some people in our country that except we should be

decriminalising drugs. I certainly do not agree with that because we

are evidence -based possibly makers and all the evidence shows of the

full harms of the drugs we ban and restricts and it is our job, our

primary job to keep people safe and the way to keep people safe is to

prevent them from taking drugs in the first place. I note the point

about evidence -based but it is clear on the evidence the most

dangerous drug in terms of harm is alcohol so could she explain the

different approach the Government takes to alcohol, the most dangerous

drug, and for example cannabis. I would not agree with the

honourable gentleman, that alcohol is the most dangerous drug, if you

look at the substances which we are restricting, of course there are

those people who take alcohol to such a harmful degree it is

devastating for them and devastating to their family members and the

wider community. I fully accept, as we do in the crime prevention

strategy, misuse of alcohol does have very dramatically harmful

effects and contributes to crime, but alcohol taken in moderation is

not a harmful drug and the Department of Health constantly

keeps under review and is doing research all the time to understand

the health impacts of Argyll and revisits -- of alcohol and revisits

safe doing things -- safe drinking victims which was recently updated

to suggest people should consume less alcohol.

Last week I visited a drug recovery group in my constituency that

expressed some concern about the effectiveness of the drug

rehabilitation requirements, they felt they did not have enough teeth,

took up a lot of staff time and I note on the strategy the Government

is evaluating the framework pilot and I wonder if anyone might be

seeing something on her thinking about current thinking on drug

rehabilitation requirements. I know the member is someone who

takes a deep interest in this policy area and we are very much hoping

when we have the recovery champion up and running they will be taking a

key role in looking at best practice, developing our evidence

base for what works. We clearly set out in the strategy we see sustained

abstinence over a 12 month period getting back into work, playing a

full part in society as key outcomes of recovery. I think that will

address some of the concerns I know my honourable friend has that in the

past too many drug recovery programmes were just a revolving

door, people came in, they were there for period of time, they may

have got clean but what they needed was support on housing, jobs,

education so they could their recovery and those programmes were

not incentivised to actually enable that. We are looking over outcome

frameworks or a longer period of time to ensure people have the best

chance of recovery, including mental health services along with their

recovery services. Who else wanted to ask a question?

I was referring to the point about alcohol and I agree but alcohol is

consumed throughout this house, 15 restaurants and this place serving

alcohol. 90% of recreational drug users are not a problem, 90% consume

the drugs and get on with the life, only 10% is a problem so I cannot

see why you would take alcohol is one problem and drugs as another.

Within the drug strategy published it definitely recognises the

relationship between people taking drugs and alcohol and our recovery

programmes that will be geeky part is to understand the relationship

between the two -- a key part and we have a whole series of actions

around alcohol and public health in England and the NHS do a lot of work

in that area also. We are very understanding of the point the

gentleman is making, that will be part of our joint top integrated

approach. Is that a further question?

An enormous part of the harm done by drugs, particularly to young people,

is done when young people don't know what it is they are actually taking.

Shouldn't we, looking at harm prevention, be looking to make sure

we can protect people and know what they are actually taking and doesn't

that include looking at making drugs are available legally in order we

can test and properly protect people? I think we need to be very

clear, we do not banned substances that we do not have an evidence base

that shows that are harmful to people's health. The recently put in

these protections, without the psychoactive substances act, the

Misuse of Drugs Act, is because the evidence base clearly shows these

substances are harmful, there is no safe way you can take these

products. That would be terrible to say to young people, to confuse them

in some way, you can somehow safely take something that is a legal hi, I

know how difficult it is to have these conversations with young

people, I understand the world and the temptations that they are faced

with what this is why it is so important we have very clear

messages, very effective and invest in those education tools for

teachers, legislating for this so every young person understands the

risks of taking alcohol but also drugs, to make them more resilient

and more able to resist this temptation. What I have clearly said

to my own children, if you cannot go into books or any other reputable

pharmacy and buy something then it is not going to be good for you. It

is very important we have very simple and clear messages for young.

She has been very generous with her pain but I have a challenger. She

said it, that is safe levels of consumption of alcohol but that is

what not what the Nice guidelines say. There is no safe level of

alcohol. We allow it to be legally consumed and provide information and

treatment and recovery but we do not criminalise people consuming alcohol

and white will she not consider the draft I can show her, evidence

available to show just how much more harmful alcohol is there any other

drug. This debate today is about the drug

strategy and I think I have been very generous and answering

questions showing the relationship between drugs and alcohol but I am

not going to be drawn into a wider debate about alcohol and the current

legal framework around that because we are here today to talk about drug

policy and can I just finished my point. Our policy is based on

independent evidence and it is informed by the vast majority of

backs up the position that we are backs up the position that we are

taking. I am going to make some progress. Then I will answer some

more questions. I just want to remind everyone we are not at all

complacent at all, we definitely recognise the scale of the threat

drugs continue to pose to our society, they do destroy lives, have

very serious impacts on families and the cost to society is around ?10

billion a year and a half of which relates to theft and criminal

activity around drug usage. I want to go back to this very serious

point about drug-related deaths. And how they increased by 10% in the

last year. Using the best available evidence we understand in particular

there is a cohort of heroin and crack cocaine users, all the people

taking the substances for some time and that has had a very significant

impact, not only on the mental health but their physical health.

This is what we understand to be the driving factor behind it and why the

strategy is so important, because using the evidence base we are able

to segment better the treatment and recovery programme so we will be

doing that with the firm hope by Taylor making the support they need

is we will see fewer people dying and more people, even if they have

been taking drugs for some time, able to get off them and have

independent and fulfilled life we one for everyone. We are also very

concerned about the synthetic camp and I on our streets, commonly known

as Spies, the way they have been so ruthlessly targeted at the homeless

population. That is something we are really working on alongside our

homelessness reduction programmes and with mental health services and

looking at young people who might be particularly vulnerable to these

types of substances. What we want to do is make sure everybody has the

access to the best possible recovery programme. The strategy builds on

the three strands of the previous one, reducing demand, restricting

supply and building recovery. It is all about a smarter partnership

approach, both locally and nationally. And making these links

between different Government departments and different Government

ambitions. We want to reduce crime, we want to improve people's life

chances, promote better health and tackle homelessness and we want to

protect the most vulnerable people in our society. It sets out the

actions covering the wider range of partners critical to successfully

tackling drug misuse, including those in education, health and

safeguarding criminal justice, housing and employment. The strategy

also introduces a new forward strand of global action to bring out the

critical importance of international cooperation. Madam Deputy Speaker,

we really want to reduce the demand for drugs by acting early to prevent

people, especially young people, from taking drugs in the first place

and then preventing escalation to more harmful use. This starts with

universal action to give all young people the resilience and confidence

they need to make positive choices about their health and well-being,

including resisting drugs. For example, we will be legislating in P

H S E and expanding the alcohol and drugs education and prevention

service for young people. This will be complemented by Mark targeted

action to prevent drug misuse among particularly vulnerable groups,

including young people who are not in education and employment, looked

after children, offenders and the homeless. The targeted approach for

evolving threats, such as performance enhancing drugs, drugs

use, and sadly the misuse of prescription drugs. Tough

enforcement is also a fundamental part of our drug strategy and will

continue to bear down on those who seek to benefit from the misery

caused to others. We will make a smarter approach to restricting the

supply drugs, adapting our approach to changes in criminal activity, for

example we have taken action to close down the mobile phone use by

drugs who are organising dreadful exploitation of young people,

selling drugs. Those mobile phone lines will be closed down. We are

also using innovative data and technology disrupt to supply over

the dark met, and our organised crime team and the National crime

agency has a very important role to be playing here. I just want to take

the minister back to investment and the idea that if this was treated as

a health issue there would be more investment in drug treatment

services. Isn't it the case in France were actually they do treat

it as a health issue, the investment is less than as happened in this

country, where we have treated it as a criminal justice and a health

issue combined. I don't accept the premise of what the lady is saying.

We don't take it in the way she is describing. We very much see this as

a partnership, joined up Government approach. Health and recovery is the

centre of her strategy, this is not a very interpretation to say this is

led by Justice. It is about a whole system approach and recovery remains

a vital part of the Government's approach. I will make more progress.

We are determined to improve this approach for those dependent on

drugs by raising the quality of treatment and improving the outcomes

by ensuring people get the right interventions according to their

needs. This means ensuring that individuals are able to access the

full range of services to help them rebuild their lives, which may

include mental health, housing, employment and training, and a lot

of support to help stable family life, a life free from crime. I am

pleased we are appointing a national recovery champion to drive progress

by visiting different parts of the country, to identify good practice

and ensure collaboration is really happening at a local level. We will

also encourage partnership working and transparency by developing a new

set of outcome measures, which bring further support to local areas

through Public Health England. For the first time, Madam Deputy

Speaker, we are also setting out global action and we already are

taking a global lead in our work cycle active substance work. We are

encouraging data exchange to give us a richer picture of international

trends, and bringing in the global band and the most harmful new

psychoactive substances and will continue our work through United

Nations as we have our balanced evidence approach to drugs. This

will help us by collaborating with partners around the world to have a

better intelligence base and enable us to take better action. I am

hoping that members will see this is a truly cross Government strategy,

which requires the commitment of many departments coming together.

The Home Secretary will be establishing a new drug strategy

board, I will be a member of, and this will include members of all the

key Government departments, Public Health England, national policing,

and then we can all plan together to implement the strategy and hold each

other to account. I am confident this strategy is grounded in the

best available evidence, we consulted extensively with key

partners working in drugs deals and I am sure it is going to make a

lasting difference. But we do know there is no easy way to tackle drugs

and the causes and behind that the cause, and we need to be much more

to do this. I think that our strategy is flexible enough that

with the new emerging threats then we will be able to respond to them.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that by working together

across Government, locally and nationally, we can deliver the sea

for a healthier Britain it free from harm of drugs that we all want to

see. The question is that this House has considered drug policy. Everyone

in this chamber news that drug abuse casts a long shadow over our

society. Whether it is the many thousands of crimes committed by

drug users seeking to fund their habit, 45% of acquitted crime is

committed by regular heroin or crack cocaine users. Whether it is the

chaos caused by drug use in families and communities. Or whether it is

the lives ruined or cut short by drug use, the scale of this problem

is truly shocking. We now have the highest recorded level of mortality

from drugs misuse since records began. There are a record number of

deaths from morphine or a heroine and a recogniser is of deaths from

cocaine abuse. Under this Government, the UK has become the

drugs overdose capital. According to the European monitoring centre for

drug and drug addiction, one in three of Europe's overdose deaths

occur in the UK. That is roughly ten families a day to read as a result

of illegal drugs more than in traffic accidents. We have an

overwhelming economic, moral and public health case for examining

this country's drug problem. We welcome this publication of the 217

drug strategy, even though it is two years after the Government's

self-imposed deadline. Having waited nearly two years for this, we have

to confess to being disappointed. Let us remember what has happened

along the way, drug rehabilitation centres have been closed, budgets to

tackle drug abuse have been cut, key services such as the NHS are under

increasing pressure, and there have been cuts to police officers and

border force guards by the thousands. So in the face of

constrained resources, it is not clear how much of an impact this

strategy, which has much to welcome in principle, will actually have,

because we know officials strategy is always included reducing demand,

increasing awareness and education, restricting supply, improving

treatment and recovery, so these elements, although very important,

are not new. The Government's recognition of evidence -based

treatment is welcome, but what stakeholders want to know and what

families and communities suffering from drug abuse up and down the

country want to know is whether this strategy is not just older methods

in a shiny package. We frequently use the term war on drugs, so I ask

the Minister, how exactly do we expect to win a war with reduced

forces and resources on the front line? When responsible dot-mac

response body was transferred from the NHS to local authorities in 2013

this was a good idea in principle. Local authorities were much better

placed in a central Government is to facilitate cooperation between drug

and alcohol services, local police, social work, youth work, education,

housing and other stakeholders, but sadly local authorities gained these

new responsibilities at a time of bone crunching pressure on their

budgets. This transferred responsibility also meant an end to

ring fenced budgets for drug treatment. Local governments... I

agree with what my right honourable friend as saying, but I also

wondered whether she thinks that with the transferred to local

authorities for this responsibility, the Government missed a trick by not

making clear that the police and crime commissioners of the criminal

justice system should sit on health and well-being board so the input

can be given a red drug and alcohol treatment services? My honourable

friend is exactly right, because if the purpose of transferring

responsibility to local authorities they should be bringing together all

the stakeholders, including police, crime commissioners and the local

police. Will she condemn the large number of Labour local authorities

who in 2013 privatised they are drugs service and dug it out of the

NHS and give it to private providers, including my own

Nottinghamshire and vast number of others across the country. Does she

have a position which stops them from doing this? It is unfortunate

how many authorities, including Labour authorities, privatise these

services and by privatising them you necessarily make it harder to

achieve the coordination and cooperation which is the whole point

of setting these services with the local authorities in the first

place. Local authorities have faced unprecedented cuts to the funding,

anything from 25 to 40% of the entire budget. Is it any wonder that

drug related deaths are increasing? When local authorities don't have

the funds necessary for comprehensive treatment programmes.

I am grateful. She has talked about the war on drugs and how it has been

undermined by a lack of resources. Does she feel just increasing the

resources on the war on drugs or dishy favour a more enlightened

approach which involves decriminalisation, potential

regulation of cannabis markets? So that we take the criminals out of

the market altogether. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his

intervention. I think you can't have a meaningful strategy on drug abuse

without looking at the resources. I will be the first to say that it is

a more complex question than simply providing more money. To give an

overview of what local authorities are facing, Barnsley has cut its

drug and alcohol service by more than a third, from 2015 to 2016, 17.

Some services will be unavailable and key drugs practitioners will be

made redundant. Staffordshire Council was forced to make cuts of

45% to its drug and alcohol treatment budget over the past two

years due to its local commissioning group pulling what was expected to

be ?50 million of NHS funding. And Middlesbrough, which sadly has one

of the highest level of deaths from heroin, cut its budget by 1 million

last year. When the Home Office announced these policies, it said,

correctly, that for every pound spent on public health ?2 50 is

saved. But instead of governments helping local authorities, to follow

this logic, they have obliged local authorities to pursue short-term

cuts. But some local authorities have tried, some have been

innovative in seeking efficiencies in a public health budget. The

reality is that too many are looking at significant reductions to

services and even privatising some services. Because when it comes to

public health, the Government talks a good talk but doesn't follow

through with the resources. I note with dismay that in this strategy

there is nothing about providing more resources for local authorities

who, after raw, on the front line of any strategy against drug use.

Will my friend take an intervention? Thank you very much. Bearing in mind

the figures you have set out that for every pound spent on public

health there is a ?2 50 benefit to the public purse, does my honourable

friend not agree that the overall cuts to local authorities' of health

budgets of ?85 million are actually a false economy that are not serving

our communities, or even Arixtra cap?

I think the cuts to public health are disastrous. The Treasury clawed

back funds that had been promised. It was an extraordinary example of

short-term thinking. So, The King's Fund has shown that local

authorities have been forced to spend more than 5% less on public

health initiatives this year than in 2014. Tackling drug misuse in adults

will face a 5.5% cut, of more than 22 million. So until the government

puts its money where its mouth is on the drugs strategy, they will have

to accept that some stakeholders remain sceptical. There was an

interesting discussion earlier in this debate about alcohol and

ministers seem to struggle with the notion that alcohol is actually a

drug. But the truth about alcohol is that in absolute terms it causes

more harm than any illegal drug. It is shocking to me that this strategy

just manages two paragraphs on alcohol for what is a major killer

in Britain today. Professor Ian Jones, the chair of the alcohol

health Alliance UK said, we need a dedicated strategy on alcohol which

recognises the breadth of harm done by alcohol in the UK. Alcohol was

responsible for over 26,000 deaths a year, over 1 million hospital

admissions, it costs the economy between 27 and 52 billion in 2016

and in 2015 8000 casualties through drink-driving alone. He went on, the

time has come for the government to take an evidence -based approach to

controlling the supply and reducing the demand for a legal drug which is

sold on virtually every street corner, sometimes at pocket money

prizes. Portugal de penalised drugs in 2001 and the result was they

halved the number of heroin users in the country and the number of deaths

has gone down from 80 a year to 16 a year. In the 30 years my honourable

friend and I have been in this House, can she think that any

initiative by any government that produced a result which reduced drug

harm in that spectacular way? Diane Abbott. My honourable friend is a

passionate proponent of decriminalisation, and I think he

makes his own case. On the question of legal highs, the strategy claimed

that the act has been successful in stopping the proliferation of legal

highs. It is true that the first six months after the act came into force

nearly 500 people were arrested. However, as various drug charities

suspected the month despite these measures, demand for these

substances continues to increase. So-called legal highs have simply

been pushed into the black market, or onto the Internet, which I

suspect is why the government has in the same breath claimed that it will

focus on eliminating the vast range of problems these substances cause.

This exposes what we on this side of the House made clear during the

passage of Psycho active substances act, legislation is only effective

if there is a wider strategy in place. The strategy has now been

produced, meanwhile legal highs are more dangerous than ever, affecting

the poorest and most vulnerable in society. It remains the case that

too many people, particularly women, go into prisons without a drug habit

and come out with a drug habit. I believe that ministers working with

the Justice Department could do a great deal more to make our presence

drug-free zones. It is an elementary issue but it is one the government

continues to fail to address. I'm sure most members were as alarmed as

I was last year to see CCTV footage of drones making deliveries to a

prison, only to find that this is the favoured manner of getting

contraband in the shape of phones and drugs and weapons into our

presence. There are no easy answers but if there aren't enough guards to

guard the prisoners, I find it hard to believe they can devote much time

to searching each other, or taking down drug mule drones. The Shadow

Secretary of State for Justice has repeatedly said the decimation of

prisoner numbers under the Conservatives is a key reason for

the government's inability to stem the growing influx of drugs into

presence. So, I asked what specific extra staffing resources will be

given to prisons to enable officers and the prison authorities to meet

the objectives of the new drugs strategy. The Minister referred to

global issues and the International war on drugs. But the Minister will

be aware that the international war on drugs is largely regarded to be

failing, and we would seek to hear from ministers how they would make

the international war on drugs more of a success that has been in the

past. There are some aspects of the strategy we welcome. We think it's

excellent that greater efforts are going to be made to provide

effective evidence -based drug prevention education to young

people. As a parent, I think most parents are unable to keep up with

the kinds of drugs that young people are seeing nowadays. On prisoners,

it's very important, as I said earlier, that they are given more

help for recovery, their progress monitored closely, they need to be

clearer and more explicit guidelines on the value of opiates treatments

properly implemented which allowed people with opiate dependence to

live their lives and prevent overdoses. Another important aspect

of the strategy is when it talks about people who slip through the

cracks of a dual diagnosis from mental health and problem substance

abuse. I am glad that the strategy, at least in principle, wants those

people to be better catered for rather than shunted between services

reluctant to take on complex and demanding cases. There is a tendency

to regard drug use and drug abuse as a personal failure. We on this side

of house would rather it as a societal failure. We on this side of

the House say that any drugs strategy has to look at the broader

picture, including what is happening in society, including the resources

available. So, on this side of the House, whilst we welcome the drugs

strategy in principle, we would query whether the resources or the

will is there to make its very worthy aim is real and manifest.

Crispin Blunt. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect I and the

honourable gentleman for Norfolk North will have dual sympathies for

the -- my honourable friend in the presentation she's had to make the

strategy within the bounds of what she has had to deliver that strategy

and present it to the House. She presented it with candour. My only

concern is she really believes in the strategy that she is presenting,

because I am concerned that, and as I will come onto in the substance of

my remarks, is that the evidence around the world is that our

approach that is within this strategy is profoundly mistaken, and

are simply not working. I rather suspect it's the speech from the

Right Honourable lady from the front bench that perhaps will have

disappointed the people behind her the most. Because, here is an

opportunity for the opposition really to engage in thinking in this

area and to persuade us to think about what the actual evidence is

from around the world, and I rather fear the Right Honourable lady opted

for the safety first routine and will have avoided any disagreeable

headlines in the Daily Mail and everything else about the iteration

of the opposition's drugs policy. I think it's one of the reasons why I

was going to come on to say we need a space where we can properly

consider this, so that the kernel of my argument is that what we need to

assess our drugs policy is a royal commission to get it out and to get

it into the right place. Madam Deputy Speaker, 1971 President Nixon

declared war on drugs, and nearly half a century later I defy anyone

to disagree there has been a global public policy catastrophe. We

desperately need a new approach, a completely different strategy, and

whilst I welcome the emphasis the government strategy puts on

improving treatment and recovery for users, the strategy rehearses the

same failed arguments for probation, criminalisation which have patently

failed. The measure of that family is spelt out in the strategy itself,

which tells us that in England and Wales the number of deaths from drug

misuse is registered in 2015 increased by 10.3% to 2479 following

an increase of 14.9% the previous year and 19.6% the year before that.

Deaths involving heroin, which is involved in around half the deaths

more than doubled from 2012-2015, echoing the critique that the Right

Honourable lady made. It also informs us that each year in the

United Kingdom drugs cost society ?10.7 billion in policing, health

care and crime with drug fuelled theft alone costing 6 billion a

year. Well, I'm delighted the government have published these

figures. When I was the Minister for criminal Justice in between 2010 and

2012 the MoJ would not provide those numbers to me, either directly or

via eight... In the end I got a former minister for drugs policy in

the Home Office, Bob Ainsworth, to table a written parliamentary

question to me as a way of trying to elicit these numbers out of the

government. I find they are now on the public record and we can see

what the actual cost of what we are dealing with in the failure of

public policy in this area. I will give way. I'm grateful for the

candour of his comments and the House respects him. Until 68 when we

had the British system widely known throughout the world as the British

system, GP prescribing drug replacements we didn't have anything

like the number of deaths because the purity of the product was the

issue and the cause of death is impurity and the differentiation of

supplies. With the honourable gentleman agree with me that in the

past it has been all most impossible to have a rational, sensible and

sane debate on this subject and the 1968 legislation came about by a

panicked reaction fuelled by the most reactionary forces? Would he

accept, as a humble individual on these benches, my wholehearted

support for his excellent idea that we consider this as a Royal

commission, because frankly there is not a country in the world that

doesn't have a drug problem and there are certainly no victory in

the so-called war on drugs? I highly agree with the honourable

gentleman's intervention. If the evidence of failure is key clear in

the United Kingdom it is dramatically worse in the stomach

other countries in the world. Even for the United Kingdom one has to

only turn to Page 16 in the strategy where it makes clear that drugs are

a significant threat to our national security. There is a way of dealing

with this. Ever since Prohibition or criminalisation of illicit drug use

was enshrined in the 1961 UN Convention on narcotic drugs, we

have been fighting a losing battle to stem the global drugs trade. As

increasingly recognised, especially in Latin America, where many leaders

are crying out for their societies to be rescued from the malign

fallout from a multibillion-dollar criminal industry, eradication,

interdiction and criminalisation of consumption have failed. We have

left the manufacture and supply in the hands of organised criminals and

treated their victims, many of whom are vulnerable members of our

society, many of whom will have mental illnesses, as criminals,

unable or unwilling to seek medical help due to illegality, exclusion

and stigma. I hope that Right Honourable lady is and gentlemen

might reflect on the simple statistic that in the Mexican drug

war between 2006 and 2013, 111,000 people died. That wasn't of drug

consumption, that was in the war is over the control of this vast

industry. And so, building on the work of the Latin American

commission on drugs and democracy, convened by former presidents of

Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, the global commission on drugs policy

has opened a public discussion about the association between the drugs

trade, violence and corruption and advocated a balanced, comprehensive

and evidence -based debate on drugs and I will give way to the

honourable gentleman. I am very grateful to the right

honourable gentleman for giving way, and I agree with everything he said.

He talked about the number of people who have lost their lives through

violence in South America, but would he also agree that the policy in

gender is violence in our own communities, particularly poor

communities in this country, because the only way in which a supply to a

particular community can be maintained is through the use of

extreme violence. Doesn't this add to the case the much-needed reform?

Unsurprisingly, I entirely agree with the honourable gentleman. I

must declare an interest. I am grateful to my honourable friend

giving way, I used to prosecute national level drug barons. I ask

him this question, what on earth does he think these gun toting

criminals who think nothing of shooting each other and the people

who carry their drugs for them, what does he think are their reaction

will be at the idea that drugs have been regulated? Does he really think

that these awful people are suddenly going to become law-abiding

citizens? I am going to come on to answer my honourable friend's point

directly. We have set up the business model that they use. Why

people go to the extent they do to kill so many people that they do to

try to maintain control of this business. If I can go back to

commending the global commission on drug policy, where they have

advocated a balanced, and evidence to reduce the harm caused. It

succeeded in getting the issue back on the international agenda last

year with the United Nations General Assembly special session, but

tragically progressive voices upholding prohibition and

criminalisation stop the endorsement of a new approach. All the while,

however, more and more countries are starting new policies, whilst we lag

behind. Decriminalisation of personal possession is proving to

have significant effect in reducing harm where it has been trialled. In

Portugal, where the possession of small amounts of drugs has been

deeply analysed since 2001, there is a clear political consensus behind

the policy. It shows decriminalisation has not increased

drug usage rates. In numerous categories, Portuguese usage rates

are one of the lowest in the EU, in comparison to states with stringent

commercialisation regimes. Drug-related pathology, such as

sexually Guzman to disease and death from use have reduced dramatically

as the governor did able to offer treatment programmes without having

to drag users into the criminal justice system, where it becomes

even harder to manage drug addiction. The focus is public

health, penalties are used only if considered necessary, and

productive. My honourable friend has been generous in allowing me to

intervene. Again, my experience of the criminal court, we tried that

experiment in this country when I think it was David Blunkett, forgive

me if I have misremembered, but Labour Home Secretary, he downgraded

cannabis. The impact on the ground in Magistrates' Courts up and down

the country was terrible. We had young people coming into

Magistrates' Courts with very severe mental health problems, and it was

because of their use of cannabis. We tried it, and it's failed. It hasn't

failed. If you are just one part of the system, and go from

categorisation B to C with cannabis, it sends a message about usage to

the rest. If the supply of cannabis is in the hands of people who are

not going to tell you, I am not going to educate you as to the

effect it will have on your mind, it is hardly surprising we see a

massive increase in schizophrenia caused by the use of these drugs,

because people do not know what they are buying, and you are not in a

position to properly educate them about the consequences of their use.

That is a public health issue here, about getting regulated supply into

a place where you can educate people at the point of purchase. And I will

come onto the relationship between the dealer and his interest in how

he deals with his client base, and a regulated and licensed system. Being

very much involved in David Blunkett's change in the

categorisation of cannabis, everyone predicted an increase of cannabis

when the classification was changed. It didn't happen. There was, in

fact, a reduction in the use of cannabis when penalties were less.

Contrary to all the expectations, the great argument in here is not

the drugs killing people, prohibition is killing people.

Whilst I am minded to agree with the honourable gentleman, after the

argument of my honourable friend, and the government are putting

forward in tried to send a message, we do need somewhere to be

considered, and go for the evidence. It is very difficult to do in this

charged environment, where you have the tabloid press who will seek to

send aim message if one is perceived to be weak in this area in terms of

public policy. And the hundreds of thousands of people across the world

that are dying because this policy is in the wrong place globally, and

I rather hope that a Royal commission here could assist the UK

in getting a place, where based on evidence we can lead the

international debate. As well as the decriminalisation of personal

possession, we ought to consider the merits of a legal, regulated market,

taking it out of the control of organised crime. A recent report

makes the case for a legal regular cannabis market in the UK to improve

support, guidance and access to treatment for people experiencing

problematic cannabis use. They found the current illegal and unregulated

market means cannabis users are hidden, fumbling around in the dark

to find them. Among people showing signs of cannabis dependence, only

56% have received help. 5.5% have received this in the past six

months. The report says a regulated market would provide opportunities

for more public guidance, packaging controls, products which vary in

potency, research into cannabis culture and consumption to improve

interventions, and reduce stigma to enable access to services. I am

sorry to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that drug dealers reading the

strategy and watching this debate will simply laugh at us. We are

doing nothing to undermine their basic business model. By ensuring

supply is criminal, we have created a highly lucrative criminal black

market for the distribution and sale of drugs, worth an estimated 4.6

billion per year in the United Kingdom. The UN office on drugs and

crime, and Europol, estimate the global market is $435 billion a

year. That is an astonishing amount of money, and it is hardly

surprisingly people arm themselves and fight, and kill people than to

try to maintain their share of that market. Drugs are believed to

account for some 20% of all crime proceeds, with around 50% of all

organised crime routes to be involved in drugs, and half of

transnational crime proceeds derived from the drugs trade. Hundredfold

increases in price from production to retail, exploited customers,

trapped in addiction, having been encouraged and incentivised thereby

the criminal dealer turned to crime to pay the inflated prices. Those

using heroin, cocaine or crack cocaine are estimated to commit

between a third and a half of all because it of crime. Market

exclusivity in their domains lead to further appalling gang violence.

That is only part of the story. The uncomfortable truth is that respect

for our laws is diminished when large swathes of the population can

seen note difference between their recreational use of drugs, and their

recreational use of drugs and alcohol. Prohibition was an

acknowledged public policy disaster when trialled in the United States

in the 1920s. It became a benign regulated monopoly supply instead.

It would smash the drug dealers's business model. Proceeds from sales

or taxation of sales would pay for treatment and public health

education. We would protect people because they would know what they

were buying. Instead of more of the same, we should be brave enough to

be at the forefront of international thinking. Legislation, licensing and

regulation may be radical ideas for the United Kingdom, forms of

decriminalisation are already being widely put into practice in Europe

and North and Latin America. And the merits of other countries's

approaches and the extensive work of the global commission on drug policy

warrant proper consideration in British public debate and policy

making. A Royal commission would be able to do that. It would be the

most appropriate way to fully and carefully consider the complex

issues involved, and all the policy options, exploring best practice

abroad, and responding to increasing calls here and internationally for a

truly new strategy. Martindale. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It

is great to take part in this debate. It affects every community,

class and Creed in the country. Its associated criminal and anti-social

behaviours have been a blight for far too long. Just last week, I

conducted a home visit to a distraught family coming to terms

with the tragic loss of a young man from drug misuse. A thoroughly

decent family, which had tried to get help for their loved one, which

were not successful in time. I will not go into specific details, but a

grieving mother and sister explained the changes they observed and about

the loved one stealing from other family members and the general

anti-social behaviour which ensued. That is not an uncommon story across

any of our communities. A set of circumstances which brought home to

me why on one hand we need to aggressively tackle forces of

organised crime from making millions, and enforcement against

the dealers. It is my opinion that that is a key strategy in the war on

drugs. We need to address the health and users sympathetically. Rather

than punitive punishments. Once criminalised, these victims can

often face further life challenges and stigmatisation, often resulting

in users finding it harder to recover and move on from problems of

addiction. In some cases, even trapping users in a further

self-destructive cycle. As honourable and right honourable

members will be aware, health and justice, which are obviously key

areas of joint up drugs policy, and areas devolved to Scotland.

Regulation of drugs was -- the Minister herself referred to a joint

policy, easier to achieve in a Scottish context if we had input in

the matter. We continue to work to improve and actions against drugs

misuse in Scotland. It is estimated that drugs misuse costs society ?3.5

billion a year in Scotland. This is a similar figure to the impact from

alcohol misuse, which is estimated to cost ?3.6 billion a year, and

combined it around ?1800 for every adult in Scotland. In 2008, the SNP

published the current national drugs policy the Scotland and that set a

new direction for tackling drug misuse based on treatment services,

promoting recovery, a strategy that continues to receive cross-party

support, and drug-taking in the drug publishing is falling. The approach

taken recognises the importance of supporting families, and the number

of families support organisations across Scotland is growing. In

addition to this, a number of national organisations have been

established or commissions to deliver the strategy, including the

Scottish recovery consortium, which was established to drive apropos it

- drive and promote. And the Scottish Government also works with

Scotland's 30 alcohol and drug partnerships bringing together local

partners, local authorities, police and voluntary agencies. And they are

responsible for developing local strategies for tackling problems,

alcohol and drug use, and promoting recovery based on an assessment of

local needs. A good example of this is the current Glasgow City health

and social care partnership oppose all is, which proposed a pilot of

safer drug consumption and heroin assisted treatment in the City

centre. In its latest iteration of the business case presented to the

HSC P on the 21st June, 2017, facility is designed to service the

needs of an estimated 400-500 people in the City centre and experience

high levels of harm. In particular, it is estimated and anticipated the

facility will significantly reduce the risks of further outbreaks of

blood bone viruses. In 2015, there were 157 drug-related deaths in

Glasgow City Council area alone. Up from 114 the previous year. 132 of

these deaths involved opiates. The rising recent deaths is

concerning and is not unique to Glasgow. I'm grateful to transform

drug policy foundation for their briefing which informed that around

a third of your's drug induced deaths were in the UK so we all need

to address this challenge. The British Medical Association and

advisory council on the misuse of drugs indicated their support for

pursuing safer drug consumption proposals in order to promote a

reduction. Wallace remains a matter for authorities in Glasgow to take

forward at this time the Scottish Government will subsequently

consider any formal proposal brought to its attention for consideration.

As I stated earlier the misuse of drugs act 1971, any proposal is

incumbent on the authorities. I think drugs policy should be

devolved to Scotland to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate on

this and other issues. The Scottish Government has followed the Tories'

approach on recovery -based treatments as opposed to NHS

treatments, why would devolving power make a Halfpenny of difference

when all the SNP has done is adopt Tory policies and the consequential

failures? I thank the honourable member for making that point. The

point I am making is it would be another tool in the armoury that