Ben Gummer MP - Business in suffolk

Business is a priority for me. for this town. I know only too well how hard the last few years have been running a small business, as I have done exactly that for the last 8 years..

I have said before that until red tape is reduced and things made a bit easier for employers, I will never have any staff but choose to use 3rd party virtual assistants and experts if the need for extra resource arises. This means that others benefit from my business as I do from others. Its important that we remain optimistic for the future, as it's not all bad news for this area.

Ben's latest column shows that he is on the ball on this one and also sees it as a priority. I show it here in full:

Business in Suffolk

Back in November I addressed the new Ipswich Chamber of Commerce, which I launched with the Exchequer Secretary David Gauke (a former pupil of Northgate, as it happens) back in 2011.  It is clear that while business people are marginally more hopeful than a year or two ago, there is still much trepidation about the future - in UK but especially in Ipswich.

My impression then was that 2012 was a year of treading water for so many businesses, something borne out by a Barclays survey of their small business customers back in the late summer.  They found that activity had dropped very slightly, although Suffolk had done less badly than Norfolk and - surprisingly - Cambridgeshire.  A great deal of the decline was down to a significant reduction in agricultural revenues, a result of the poor weather and the pressure on food manufacturers at a time when most households are trimming their budgets.

The good news is that new companies in the east of England are achieving the fastest growth of any region other than the south-east, which is only just ahead; both are significantly in excess of the national average.  So we are producing good companies that are growing quickly, which is an encouraging sign for the future.

The trick now is to get some of that dynamism into our town, which was the central concern of the business people I spoke to in November.  As the Borough Council has identified, we have some of the lowest average weekly wages in the country here in Ipswich, a result not of benefit cuts or anything to do with the government but because we do not have enough better paid, high-skilled jobs in the town.  That is something we must all work together to put right.  It will take longer than a year but we must re-make a start in these first few days of the 2013.

Contact Information

phone: 0845 634 9197
email: ben@bengummer.com

Response by PfR re Thorington Wind Turbines

PfR have asked that I show their response to residents concerns as per my previous posts. I am happy to do that as I think it is only fair to see all sides.

Please feel free to add your own comments after this piece in the area shown or contact me direct.

Also please remember there is a meeting tonight Wed 28th November 2012 at Belstead village 7.30pm with the developers. See you there!

Dear Mr and Mrs Daynes, 
  

Thank you for your email. We have addressed your comments and concerns in detail below, however, we would be happy to discuss the predicted effects with you in due course when we have a final design and can undertake the detailed assessment. At that point we will also be scheduling some community surgeries locally which we hope you will be able to attend, these will be advertised both on our website and in the local press.
  

I would like to reassure you that we completely understand your concerns and that as a responsible developer we will be fully addressing issues such as noise and shadow flicker as part of our environmental impact assessment (EIA) prior to submission of any planning application for the project. An EIA is the process by which assessments of all the varying receptors are assessed for significant impacts, for example birds and other wildlife, levels of noise, shadow flicker, archaeology, landscape and visual effects etc. 
 
In addition, as with any new development, the Local Planning Authority (Babergh District Council) has a duty to ensure that the proposal does not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of local residents. It is absolutely standard for any successfully consented planning application to have various planning conditions attached to protect the interests of the local community, covering both noise and shadow flicker. 
  

Shadow Flicker
As part of our EIA, we routinely assess the potential for "shadow flicker" effects. Shadow flicker is when the shadow of the rotating turbine blades is cast onto a building, or a given location, and viewed through a narrow gap such as a window. Shadow effects outside buildings are far less noticeable compared to those seen inside through a window, due to the higher levels of ambient light outside.
 
We can predict the potential for shadow flicker because it requires a combination of predictable conditions to coincide for it to take place. The occurrence of shadow flicker is dependent on the time of day, location of the sun in the sky and how clear or cloudy the sky is. The orientation of nearby residential properties and their windows are then assessed and an assessment is made of all the days and times when shadow flicker could occur at each location.  

The calculation of the potential shadow flicker at is carried out as follows. The position of the sun relative to the turbines and the resulting shadow they would cast is calculated in steps of 1 minute throughout the year. If the shadows of the turbine rotors at any time casts a shadow on any window (or solar panel), then this will be recorded as 1 minute of potential shadow impact.
  

The following information is used: 

.             The position of the turbines (x, y, z coordinates) 

.             The hub height and rotor diameter of the turbines 

.             The position of the house or shadow receptor (x, y, z coordinates) 
.             The size of the windows (and solar panels in this case), their orientation, both direction and tilt (angle to the horizontal). 

.             The geographic position (latitude and longitude) together with time zone and daylight saving time information. 

.             A simulation model of the sun's position in the sky
  

It is important to make clear that these simulations are worst-case scenarios (i.e. calculations which are solely based on the positions of the sun relative to the turbine and the window). If the weather is overcast (reducing shadows) or calm (i.e. the turbines are not rotating), or if the wind direction forces the rotor plane of the wind turbine to stand side-on to the window, the turbine will not produce a shadow although the impact will still be assumed to occur in the simulation.  

A calendar can be produced for any specific point of observation, which indicates the exact days, and time periods throughout the year where shadow impact may occur.
  

As we do not yet have the final positions for the turbines, only a preliminary assessment has been completed to date. The final assessment will be undertaken during the EIA process and the results will be included in the planning application. 

We will ensure that any potential wind turbine development at the Thorington Barn site is designed to avoid any reduction of residential amenity through shadow flicker, including the use of mitigation measures if needed which can avoid shadow flicker occurrence completely. The predictability and infrequency makes shadow flicker a very manageable problem; effects can be curtailed by many mitigation measures for example creating screening features or programming the turbines to cease operation for the short time during which dwellings are affected.
  

Importantly, at distances beyond about 1km (10 rotor diameters) from the turbines, the effect of shadows will be very limited indeed, due to the distance over which the shadow is cast. This is widely agreed as the limit of potential for shadow flicker effects inside a building (as stated above, shadow effects being more noticeable inside buildings with a window than outside), and outside where the light levels are higher shadow effects would be barely noticeable.
 
  

Noise
Well-designed and well-sited modern wind turbines can be quiet enough to cause no disturbance to people living only a few hundred metres away from them. There are also strict environmental health guidelines and noise limits set out in Government guidelines ('The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms' 1996, DTI, ETSU, recently supplemented by additional guidance and confirmed by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) more recently (2007), to be the guidance that Local Planning Authorities should continue to use) and the development will need to operate within these to gain consent.
  

We have carried out a detailed background noise survey to inform our design and to ensure that any future proposal for the Thorington Barn site minimises any potential noise effects for local residents and complies with the strict noise limits, which would be enforceable by planning conditions if we were to obtain planning permission.
 
In order to accurately gain an understanding of any potential noise effects, we undertook a detailed background noise survey using noise monitoring equipment placed at various nearby houses, following consultation with the local Environmental Health Officer. We monitored the background noise levels for 24 hours a day for two to five weeks (in excess of the required survey period, in order to obtain a robust dataset). By correlating this background noise data with the predicted noise levels of the proposed wind turbines at various wind speeds, we are able to gain an accurate understanding of the potential noise associated with the turbines.
  

The results recorded a relatively high background noise regime at each property so we are fully confident that the noise emitted by the turbines would be well within the acceptable noise limits set out in the noise guidelines. For most of the time the noise levels from the turbines are likely to be similar to or lower than existing background noise levels. Once we have finalised our design we will update the noise assessment and confirm that the proposal will indeed meet the noise guidelines. The data and the results of these studies will be included in the environmental statement and will be assessed by the planning officer and the Environmental Health Officer. 
  

Turbine Locations
There will be a maximum of to turbines on the site. There are three locations shown on diagrams as we have yet to define the exact locations and we have been assessing many potential designs. However, only two locations will be selected for the final design.
  

Visuals
Once a layout for the site has been selected, photomontages will be created. These will be put onto the website and also be displayed at public exhibitions and community surgeries.
  

House Values
There is no strong evidence that confirms that the presence of wind turbines has a long term impact on nearby house prices. A report by RICS in 2007  stated that "proximity to a wind farm was simply not an issue". (http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=3524&fileExtension=PDF). A temporary negative impact on property prices can sometimes occur when a wind farm is in planning and construction based upon anticipated negative impact of the turbines, but this quickly readjusts when these anticipated negative impacts fail to materialise.
 
Finally, if you wish to read  some additional information can I suggest a review of the following document (http://www.cse.org.uk/downloads/file/common_concerns_about_wind_power.pdf).  I look forward to the opportunity to speak with you at the upcoming consultation events (TBC).
  

I do hope this address all the points made in your email. However, we are happy to discuss the predicted effects with you when we have a final design. Please do feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions or queries.
 
Kind regards
 
Alice Gill
Communications Manager
Partnerships for Renewables Development Company Limited
Station House, 12 Melcombe Place, London NW1 6JJ 

Vote for Tim Passmore - Here's his Manifesto

This is the last week in which to make up your mind over who to vote for in the PCC elections this Thursday. I have been walking the streets many times to deliver leaflets with Tim Passmore, our Tory candidate for Suffolk and have been impressed with his positivity, hard work, articulate replies to questions by residents and his knowledge about problems in both Suffolk and Ipswich.

Below is his manifesto, which you can also get from his website www.votetimpassmore.co.uk

Vote for Tim - He really will serve us all well in the new role and will have the respect of the police, residents, colleagues and all relevant partners.

Manifesto for Suffolk

Police and Crime

Commissioner

Introduction

In my view the position of Police and Crime Commissioner is all about cutting crime in Suffolk and making our county even safer. For the first time since the police service was formed by politician Robert Peel in 1829 there will be direct democratic accountability for an annual budget of £125 million of our money. The role is not about political interference with operational policing matters, it is about creating the best possible environment to support an effective and efficient police service to meet the needs of people in Suffolk.

Like other public services police are facing cuts in funding due to the parlous state of the nation’s finances. The country cannot continue living beyond its means. We will therefore have to find innovative and practical solutions in Suffolk to reduce crime and maintain Suffolk’s reputation of providing a good police service at low cost to taxpayers.

If elected to the role of Police and Crime Commissioner I will improve the efficacy and efficiency of Suffolk Police through:-

Greater Visibility of Policing
 I will seek to reduce bureaucracy and ensure more time is made available for front-line officers to do the job they trained to do. Time currently spent supervising criminals and offenders in detention centres, hospitals
and behind desks can be carried out by other staff. I will do everything possible to maintain 1200 officers as
a minimum number.
 I will support Special Constables and PCSO’s as an important component of policing.
Improve respect for Law and Order
 I will work with appropriate organisations to improve parenting.
 I will encourage youth to become positive advocates for law and order and will work with schools, youth
groups, youth parliament and other groups as appropriate.

Robust approach to repeat offenders
 A disproportionate number of offences are committed by recidivist offenders. I will use a ‘carrot and stick’
approach. People deserve a second chance but not a third, fourth, fifth etc. Committed criminals who
steadfastly refuse to reform their lifestyles when able to need to face harsher sentences.
 Each prison place costs the taxpayer £40,000 per year. Offenders with mental health problems, low levels of numeracy and literacy and few work skills need support. We must educate prisoners and use prisons with a purpose as well as community payback schemes.
 I also support work with charity and private sector for placements – Sport, Princes Trust, Local authorities etc.

Victim Support
 I support the use of restorative justice where victims feel it will assist them. I would like to see victims able
to track the progress of crime investigations effectively. I support and respect the work of the voluntary
sector which provides practical support to victims. I believe victims who feel their case is being well dealt
with will have improved confidence in policing.
 I support a proactive approach to crime prevention and applaud the work of groups such as Neighbourhood Watch. Preventing a crime stops a victim being created and potentially saves many thousands of pounds
spent investigating crime, prosecuting and incarcerating an offender.

Drugs and Organised Crime
 I support a continued focus on stamping out drug dealing and organised crime in Suffolk. As demonstrated
by the deaths of five young women in Suffolk in 2006 drug abuse leads to many other crimes and social
decay. Drug abuse and organised crime blight an area and make it less attractive for inward investment and
economic growth.
 I would encourage more education for young people on the devastating personal consequences of drug
abuse.

Problem Families
 The Home Office has estimated problem families can each cost up to £250,000 per year to manage. This is unacceptable. If elected I will use the Commissioners powers to support agency collaboration, early
intervention, joined up thinking and positive action to prevent and deal effectively with problem families.

Domestic Violence and Abuse
 This is a serious problem in our communities and one which I will not ignore. I will ensure police work with local authorities, health service and charities to exchange data and information to keep the vulnerable safe.

Motoring and Cycling
 I support positive action to stop speeding in our villages. I would like to see more young drivers taking
advanced driving courses. I strongly support the use of technology to purge drivers who avoid tax and
vehicle insurance and fuel duty. I will work other agencies to avoid major congestion on main roads and
improve engineering design.
 We need more modern and safe truck stops on our major roads such as the A14 and A12 to improve security
and well- being for the haulage and logistics industry
 By working with the Highways Agency and Local Authorities we need to improve Suffolk’s cycle network to help improve safety, encourage exercise and help the visitor economy

Business
 In my view policing can support local business more effectively. If elected I will look carefully at where
supplies are sourced. Wherever possible I will support the use of locally sourced products.
 I will ensure police are working effectively with business to reduce crime. Making Suffolk even safer will
improve the developing visitor economy.
 I will continue to hold regular business forums to hear concerns and share solutions to business policing
issues.
 If elected I would like to see the development of a proper apprenticeship scheme in the police service to
provide employment opportunities for our young people
Rural, Wildlife and Marine Crime
 Ensuring more visible frontline policing, reducing bureaucracy and improving the use of technology should
improve police response times in remote areas. I support the use of target hardening by land owners,
farmers and boat owners and the use of Farm and Marine Watch to prevent and detect rural and marine
crime.

Taxation
 If elected I will do everything possible to ensure there is no tax rise next year by accepting the government’s
precept freeze grant.

Saving Money and Increasing Income
 We need to make better use of the resources available to us. If elected I will reduce costs by cutting
unnecessary duplication. Currently Suffolk spends more than £5 billion every year in the public sector. The
public service owns more than 2500 properties here. I would like to see deeper co-operation between Local
Authorities, CPS, Youth Offending, Health, Probation Service etc. to make more effective use of public assets.
 I would like to see zero based budgeting to coincide with comprehensive spending review (CSR) settlements. I will listen to ideas from the workforce for saving money. I will ensure the best use is made of technology – reports, evidence, DNA, video, I-pads etc. I will need to see proper business plans for all commissioned contracts /areas of work.
 If elected I will ensure the best possible use is made of the Community Infra-structure Levy (CIL) , Tax
Increment Financing (TIF), government and EU grants individually or through partnership working.
Fair share of national resources for Suffolk
 I will ensure that Suffolk has the central government/private funding to meet the demands made on policing
by the national resources sited here. Strategic national assets such as Sizewell, Felixstowe Dock, Orbis
energy, Newmarket racecourse and Wattisham Airbase create policing pressures and it is only right that
Suffolk is properly subsidised for these costs.

Management and Morale
 Suffolk Police have undergone significant change over the last ten years. To improve morale I want to create a stable environment for the members of Suffolk Constabulary.
 Generally I believe in a balanced scorecard approach to management – less hierarchy but more autonomy,
responsibility and accountability to and by staff.

Engagement
 The Police and Crime Commissioner will be directly accountable to the voters in Suffolk. If elected I intend to
remain accessible and accountable to members of the public who will be able to contact me direct.
 More formally I will hold quarterly ‘Meet the Commissioner’ meetings in each constituency with
representatives of interested community groups. I will do the same for Police Federation and Police staff as
required.
 I will host business forums on a quarterly basis. Businesses pay large sums of money through the Uniform
Business Rate and have no direct influence on how the money is spent. I am committed to ensuring the
business community has a prominent influence in fighting crime in Suffolk.
 I will develop a communication strategy to make effective use of technology to deliver an effective channel
for hearing from, and communicating with, people in Suffolk.

Thorington Wind Turbine Latest and What we Must Do

The SW area committee met last night and top of the agenda was the Thorington Wind Farm debate and presentations from both Peter Evans, a founder of Stop Ipswich Turbines, and the developers PfR.

Ipswich Spy summarised nicely on their website as follows:

Peter Evans, the Co-Chairman of Action Group SIT, told the meeting of the damage wind turbines would do to the lives of those living within the affected area, which SIT estimates is up to 2km. He pointed out that many countries do not allow these turbines to be built within 2km of people’s homes, even in Scotland this is an advisory limit. He raised the spectre of “flicker” which has risks for those who suffer from epilepsy, migraines and even for the general public. And he explained why the noise issue was not one that should be ignored, detailing how the turbines will be more disturbing than the A14.

Susanna Miller, spokeswoman for PfR, responded, explaining to the meeting that PfR were developing their plans for a maximum of two wind turbines for the site. The design was being finalised and PfR hope to hold further consultation events before making an application to Babergh District Council. She told the meeting that the worst consequences of flicker can be mitigated during the design process and that the turbines could well be much quieter than residents expect during normal operation.

The exact location of the turbines within the site has not yet been determined, but PfR committed to informing those residents who were likely to be directly affected by the issue of flicker once they have determined which properties these will be, and advising which mitigating factors are likely to be introduced for them. PfR expect a planning application to be submitted to Babergh DC in the Spring of 2013, and an Environmental Impact Assessment will be published at the same time.

I also challenged PfR regarding the fact they stated that 'New turbines' do not make much noise, because if that's the case then are the wind turbines at Kessingland different from the ones they are planning for this site? When asked, the room filled with gasp noises when they confirmed that they did not need to submit the details of the turbines in their planning application to Babergh, just some general information that gives a good brief on maximum and minimum criteria. They also said that Kessingland had a unique problem with noise (sorry didn't they deny there was any noise here? Or have I remembered it wrong?) and that 'noise' was a 'complicated' subject.  Not sure I understood why it should be so and how they would learn lessons in order for it not to happen here.

Oh, and apparently  the Scottish windfarm blew up when it was very windy!!! That's a bit like saying 'it's Ok, my car blew up because I put too much petrol in it'!

Although i have established that  lease will not be signed with PfR until the plans are passed, what IBC has signed is the option to do so within the next 3 years.

IBC as an authority is also not allowed to be seen to go against the proposals in a public way so that leaves us councillors to try to do something.

What we CAN do;

What the Labour administration could do is ask for an expert barrister's advice on exactly how much we would have to pay out in compensation, if we withdrew the options agreement. Perhaps 5 figures is worth paying the price, as we could find ourselves way down the line paying out more in compensation for negative affects to health etc. I think the Labour administration should look into this straight away and I hereby call on them to do so. I will also ask for this by way of e-mail to the leader of the council David Ellesmere.

Secondly we must now get going in readiness for Babergh planning committee. We need proper recorded measurement of the issues in Kessingland to take as proof and shore up the case for Babergh councillors to refuse PfR planning application.

We must go forward with solutions now, not look at how we came to this point, for it's fair to say that most of the people who were FOR windfarms in principal, are starting to feel a little duped and are finding the information and experiences of the Kessingland residents a real eye opener.

So everyone who will be affected by this must start building up petitions, momentum, facts, figures for the Babergh planning application 

because leaving all that just to the developers is like trusting a spin doctor to give all sides of a story.

Snippets of News from Ipswich Conservative Website

From our web pages http://www.ipswichconservatives.com/news/3 including links.

Don't forget to follow the group on @ica_suffolk or myself @stokeparkcllr

Driving the discussion with the people of Ipswich

Sunday, 1 July, 2012

Ipswich Conservatives today launched our very own Twitter account where we hope to engage in discussions with the residents of Ipswich and inform them of our activities in and around the town. You can follow us on twitter @ICA_Suffolk. We have also launched our own YouTube Channel.

Conservatives deliver £21.5 million for Ipswich

Sunday, 1 July, 2012

The Department for Transport have this morning confirmed a financial commitment of over £18m to Suffolk for improving the transport infrastructure in the county town of Ipswich, following an application by Conservative run Suffolk County Council, with support from local MP, Ben Gummer.

‘Yes’ to Cherry Lane Playground Plans

Tuesday, 26 June, 2012

Local Conservative Councillors in the North East of Ipswich have said ‘Yes please!’ to plans to redevelop the play area at the Cherry Lane Recreation ground off Rushmere Road.

Westgate Ho!

Sunday, 24 June, 2012

A strong Conservative Team joined Ben Gummer MP in Westgate yesterday.

CONSULTATION, CONSULTATION...

Sunday, 24 June, 2012

It wasn't only Bryony Rudkin who failed to answer questions at Full Council.

REOPENING DELAYED AT WOLSEY GALLERY, CHRISTCHURCH MANSION

Sunday, 24 June, 2012

In another project overrun, reopening the Wolsey Gallery at Christchurch Mansion has been delayed.

According to Bryony Rudkin, Labour's culture portfolio holder, this is due to the fact that 'asbestos was discovered'.

CROWN POOLS OVERRUNS TO COST TAXPAYER

Sunday, 24 June, 2012

Bryony Rudkin, Labour's Executive member with responsibility for culture, was more than evasive when asked at Full Council why the leisure and competition pools at Crown Pools didn't open on time.

LABOUR FLEECE PRIVATE MOTORISTS WITH NEW PARKING CHARGES

Sunday, 24 June, 2012

The Labour Administration at Ipswich Borough Council has just announced that it intends to end the last area of free car parking serving the town centre.

IPSWICH LABOUR ADOPT CONSERVATIVE PLANS TO CUT COSTS!

Wednesday, 20 June, 2012

The penny has taken some time to drop but at last the Labour Administration at Ipswich Borough Council has decided to take the advice put forward by the Conservative Group at the budget debate in February to protect front line services by reducing senior management costs

The War on Drugs - Part 2

The first person to send me a link on my blog is Anonymous but I thank that person. He or she sent me a link for http://www.drugscience.org.uk
which is an independant organisation that takes no funding from government. It does speak of harm reduction rather than abstension (which I prefer) but let's start with a drug that is not a class A and which seems to be mentioned the most, Cannabis. An extract from a page is here and the section is shown in its entirety.
I think the whole website gives a good balanced view and is up to date so recommend taking a look.

What are the potential harms of cannabis?
Most people consume cannabis by smoking it and most include tobacco in the mixture they smoke. The harms of tobacco smoke are well recognised but the harms of cannabis smoke are not. Analyses of the combustion products of pure tobacco and cannabis have shown them to be similar and cannabis smoke is inhaled more deeply than tobacco smoke (Iversen, 2008).

The potential harms of smoking cannabis are sometimes argued to be less than the harms of smoking tobacco cigarettes because the latter are smoked more regularly and for a longer period of a person’s life. However, cannabis joints are often mixed with significant amounts of tobacco and some regular users smoke tobacco cigarettes in the periods between smoking cannabis joints. The smoking of any tobacco-containing product can lead to dependence due to the addictive properties of nicotine.

It has long been recognised that cannabis (or more accurately THC) can cause temporary psychotic symptoms (Moreau, 1845; Weil, 1970). The risk of this is increased if the cannabis contains a high proportion of THC in relation to another ingredient of cannabis, cannabidiol, which may counteract the psychoactive effects of THC (Morgan & Curran, 2008; Bhattacharyya et al. 2010).

The THC content of cannabis has increased dramatically in recent years. Although it is well established that cannabis can cause transient psychotic symptoms in normally healthy individuals and negatively affect treatment outcome in patients with schizophrenia (Zammit et al. 2008) the idea that it can cause schizophrenia in healthy individuals is controversial (Nutt, 2009). What seems more likely is that cannabis can promote psychotic illness in individuals that are already vulnerable to this. 

Cannabis has a very low-level of toxicity and presents a relatively low risk of dependency (ACMD, 2008). For these reasons, it is typically considered a relatively safe drug (Nutt et al. 2007). This is not to say that cannabis is harmless, only that its harms are relatively less serious than those associated with other drugs.

Studies have associated long-term cannabis use with poor educational achievement and psychological health (e.g., Macleod et al. 2004) but it is difficult to determine whether cannabis is a cause or effect of this. In a survey of 620 cannabis users, 43% reported that cannabis had probably (30%) or definitely (12%) caused or made worse a physical or mental health problem but users also rated cannabis as having the least serious negative effects (Carhart-Harris & Nutt, 2008). The most prevalent negative effect of cannabis reported by users is apathy (see Iversen, 2008).   


What is the current legal status of cannabis?
Cannabis was classified in most countries in the late 1920s. In 1971, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, cannabis was made Class B. In 2002, The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) recommended that cannabis be reclassified to Class C based on an assessment of its relative harms. This was implemented in 2004.

Based on fresh fears about the increasing potency of cannabis and associated mental health risks, at the request of the government, the ACMD carried out two reviews of the evidence on cannabis, in 2005 and 2008, advising on both occasions that cannabis remain Class C. Cannabis was reclassified to Class B in January 2009. Possession of Class B drugs is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and dealing or importation can result in 14 years imprisonment.


References

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2008) Cannabis; classification and
public health. http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/
acmd/acmd-cannabis-report-2008?

The War on Drugs - Part 1

I had a little flurry of tweets from several people totally opposed to my position of zero policy on drugs, and felt the need to do some research, in order to let others come in on the debate about strategy and policy. I suspect we would ALL like to see killer drugs eradicated (apart from the dealers) so it will just be a question of how we can achieve that.

I came into politics because of my concern over increasing drug use and therefore I'm not writing this on a position of proving I am right about anything I have already written. If the research and ensuing policy proved me wrong, I would be just as delighted. All I want is for us to at least be winning the war on drugs, whatever that takes.

I remember vividly the horror of the Ipswich street worker murders and the fact that we were told it was impossible to get prostitution off our streets. Well we proved them wrong with our 5 year strategy and although this long established industry has obviously not gone away, we have at least helped many girls get their life back and helped the residents of London road to have their roads free of street workers and pimps.This was done using partnership working to help them abstain from drugs, get away from the men who were pressurising them and find suitable alternative environments in which to start a new life.

And so the negative statement 'we will never get rid of drugs' just doesn't wash with me. Yes we can win the battles, but it will be a slow, arduous multi-faceted, multi-partnered approach and lessons must be learnt and adopted from best practice around the world.

I  intend to be open, honest and look for evidence that does not support my approach as well as those that do so that I give a balanced view. I invite comments from professionals in the know and people that have lived with a drug problem.

I have never taken illegal drugs but I know how hard it was to give up smoking a few years ago (apparently very comparable with heroin) so I do understand the torture involved in an addiction. I therefore come from the premise that help is needed as well as punishment for those who commit illegal acts.

I will start with a statistic that was confirmed to me at our working group meeting this week. That children whose parents take drugs are 8 times more likely to embark on this journey themselves. This alone suggests that we owe it to them to try and work on abstinence of drugs (not merely harm reduction, which was the strategy under Labour).  Many of the last govts policies were based on the premise that 'oh well, we'll never stop it so let's just educate them and tell them about the harm in the hope that we can reduce it, while they do it'.

This is clearly wrong because at best, it sends out mixed messages and, at worst, appears to condone it. Yes, we should educate but our policies must now be with abstinence in mind or the next generation will bring us even more victims, addicts, destroyed families and huge costs.All those that now find it so difficult to get off the nastier drugs must surely wish they never started it so lets make sure that going forward this regret is not felt by even more of our young people.

Would I have started smoking had I been told the dangers way back in the 70's? Of course not. Nor would a website telling me that if I am going to smoke then at least follow the harm reduction rules! That would also have been a green light to my peers and I.

So my first point is We must stop sending out messages that taking drugs is acceptable.

Some are comparing taking drugs, like cannabis, with drinking. I am not accepting this argument here for various reasons;
a) 2 wrongs don't make a right
b) Alcohol is legal and making it illegal will never happen.
c) Wine is a natural substance that is good for you in small measures. One spliff is not good for you, even if you believe it's not bad for you (to be debated later date)
d) Alcohol dependancy is an illness but other than making drinking illegal also, it has no relevance to the war on drugs which is a stand alone issue and requires a different strategy.


The conclusion in 'The Phoney War On Drugs by Kathy Gyngell, an author and researcher suggests that we must;

Reduce the supply of Drugs
Reduce recruitment to drug abuse
Encourage people with drug abuse to give it up

The Netherlands and Sweden have both adopted the approach of enforcement of their drug laws, prevention of illicit drugs and provision of addiction care with successful results. Interestingly it is the UK that has gone into the realms of normalising drug use, not the Netherlands, according to research, and I think that would surprise many.

So I will firstly use some of the information contained within her research and book before moving onto those from the side of 'legalising drugs', somthing I am deeply opposed to but will nevertheless give opportunity to it's believers here.

part 2 coming soon...