The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse) I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act
1971 (Amendment) Order 2022. It is a great pleasure to appear
before you, Mr Hollobone, albeit a few minutes early. If you are
happy to proceed and it is orderly to do so, I am also happy with
that. The order was laid before the House on 15 December 2021. I
start by thanking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for
its advice on...Request free trial
The Minister for Crime and Policing ()
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act
1971 (Amendment) Order 2022.
It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Mr Hollobone, albeit
a few minutes early. If you are happy to proceed and it is
orderly to do so, I am also happy with that. The order was laid
before the House on 15 December 2021. I start by thanking the
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice on this
matter, which helped to inform the order. That advice, published
on 20 November 2020, recommended that three drugs be moved from
class C to class B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The drugs
are: gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, which is known as GHB;
gamma-butyrolactone, which is known as GBL; and 1,4-butanediol,
which is known as 1,4-BD. I will refer to them collectively as
GHB and related substances—or GHBRS. The Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs recommended that all three substances be
controlled under class B of the 1971 Act because of their
potential harm and the evidence of the prevalence of these drugs
in the UK.
GHBRS are central nervous system depressants. While they have
been used as recreational drugs, they have also been weaponised
to commit drug-facilitated sexual assault and other crimes.
Although this is a misnomer, they are commonly referred to as
date rape drugs. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
provided wide-ranging advice on these substances. Prevalence of
use increased steadily from 2005 to 2015 and has plateaued since.
Gamma-butyrolactone and 1,4-butanediol are converted to
gamma-hydroxybutyric acid on ingestion and are therefore similar
in effect.
The ACMD found that there was evidence of an increasing number of
deaths associated with GHBRS since it had last considered the
harms, including 27 recorded deaths in 2018. It was found that
these compounds can cause profound unconsciousness and that there
is a high risk of overdose and death to users. Other severe
effects include the loss of emotional control, depression,
paranoia, anxiety, aggression and persistent cognitive
impairment. There is strong evidence of GHBRS being used to
facilitate crime, including in high-profile cases. They were used
by the serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga and the murderers Stephen
Port and Gerald Matovu to incapacitate their victims.
Clearly, it is right that we follow the advice of independent
experts and tighten controls on these substances. Moving the
drugs to class B will increase the maximum penalty for unlawful
possession from two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both, to
five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. This will signal to
the public that offences involving these substances are treated
seriously and are subject to appropriate penalties, acting as a
deterrent for their possession and supply. It will ensure that
sufficient punitive measures are available to the courts, and
will mean that the police place a higher priority on action
against offences involving these substances.
The ACMD report recommended not only the control of these three
drugs under class B of the 1971 Act, but also that
gamma-butyrolactone and 1,4-butanediol be placed in schedule 1 to
the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. This is the most
restrictive schedule, which is applied to substances without
recognised therapeutic use in the UK. Currently, GBL and 1,4-BD
have a unique status. Although they have no therapeutic use, it
is it is lawful to import, export, produce, supply or possess
them in circumstances where they are not intended to be used for
human ingestion. That exceptional status was intended to enable
the legitimate industrial use of these substances. However, the
exemption has been exploited to enable illicit supply. The Misuse
of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations
2021, which were also laid before the House on 15 December, will
therefore abolish the exemption for GBL and 1,4-BD, meaning that
industrial users will need to obtain a Home Office-controlled
drugs licence for their use.
Although the 2021 regulations are subject to the negative
resolution procedure and therefore the rescheduling of GBL and
1,4-BD is not under debate, it is a crucial part of the package.
Taken together, the two measures will deter illicit possession
and supply and reduce the availability of GHBRS, thereby
preventing crime. We all know the destructive effect that illegal
drugs have on the lives of not only those who take them, but
their families and wider society. That is demonstrably the case
for GHBRS, which have been weaponised to enable crime. The advice
from the independent experts makes it clear that these substances
are harmful, so it follows that they must be subject to stricter
controls. I commend the order to the Committee.
11.30am
(Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I thank the Minister for his remarks. The Opposition supports the
proposals in this statutory instrument, which will introduce
restrictions around the drug GHB and related substances by moving
them from class C to class B, following recommendations by the
independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The
instrument will also bring forward measures on two substances—GBL
and 1,4-butanediol—that can be converted to GHB on ingestion, as
the Minister suggested, so that those wishing to possess them for
legitimate industrial purposes will require a licence. GHB causes
profound unconsciousness and has been used to facilitate some
appalling crimes, such as those committed by Stephen Port, who
used GHB to incapacitate his victims, and Reynhard Sinaga, who
was found guilty of 136 counts of rape.
We are committed to working with the Government, the police and
other public bodies to tackle drug misuse, strengthen controls on
dangerous substances and widen the availability of treatments to
prevent overdose deaths and get drug users clean. Clearly, where
drugs cause harm, they must be classified and enforcement action
must be taken to better protect victims from criminal abuse. In
recent years, GHBRS have been used by prolific serial rapists,
but rapists are more likely to get away with their crimes than to
be prosecuted. The Government should be working much harder to
reduce the prevalence of sexual violence and improve the
shockingly low charge rate for rape. I have to remind the
Minister of the context of the statutory instrument—that rapists
are getting away with it—to show that this welcome change is just
one part of the solution.
The impact assessment for the statutory instrument states
that
“statistical experiments cannot conclusively state whether
reclassification causes an increase or decrease in
consumption/prevalence of a drug. The evidence base for the
effects of reclassification is mixed.”
Can the Minister set out how he expects the reclassification to
decrease the prevalence of GHB? We absolutely support the change
to reschedule GBL and 1,4-BD from a bespoke status to schedule 1.
The impact assessment tells us that the change
“will correspond to a reduction in the supply of these drugs
because, in practice, the current legislation allows for
unimpeded access to these drugs via the clear web.”
Does the Minister have any plans to tackle the sale of GHBRS on
the dark web?
According to the Office for National Statistics, between 2008 and
2017 there were, on average, 19 deaths related to GHB per year.
The ACMD tells us:
“There is evidence of increasing mortality associated with GHBRS
use”,
and:
“Although the overall number of deaths is relatively low there
was a steep rise in deaths between 2008 and 2015…However,
mortality figures are likely to be an underestimate due to the
challenges in testing for and identifying GHBRS in post-mortem
samples”.
That makes it hard to make pronouncements in criminal cases, as
does the fact that victims sometimes do not remember that they
have been the victim of a crime, or they remember very little
about it.
The withdrawal symptoms of GHBRS are severe and can be
life-threatening, with high relapse rates. The ACMD says that
“more research is needed to investigate effective clinical
management of withdrawal, and effective relapse prevention.”
Survivors of a drug-facilitated sexual assault will experience a
complex combination of harms and require support from various
different services. There are concerns that the reclassification
may make people less likely to ask for help or for an ambulance.
I ask the Minister for some assurances about those who purchase
GHB to use consensually, many of whom are LGBTQ+. How will their
safety be ensured? The ACMD report states that
“there is significant evidence of stigma experienced by LGBT
GHBRS users, which is a barrier to service access. The complex
harms—both physical, mental and social—experienced by MSM require
specialist sexual assault support, and it is reported that users
believe that current services do not meet these needs.”
Will the Government introduce any increased harm reduction
services or victim support alongside the measures in the
statutory instrument?
As the Minister will know, the ACMD made eight recommendations in
its report. Some are reflected in the SI, but some really
important recommendations are not reflected. Clearly, the control
of substances and drugs is extremely important, but people’s
safety and the reduction of harm will not be addressed by tighter
controls alone. As the report’s recommendations suggest, better
data collection and reporting of GHBRS use is vital. We need more
routine testing for it in cases of unexplained sudden death,
better integration of drug treatment and sexual health services,
and better education for frontline staff in the health and social
care system who come into contact with GHBRS users, as well as
improved treatment interventions and more information and support
for those at the highest risk of harms associated with GHBRS.
Will the Minister set out the Government’s response to the other
recommendations in the ACMD report?
We welcome the statutory instrument. It is absolutely right to
update the controls and classification of drugs that are
dangerous and that are sometimes used for sickening sexual
crimes, but we must also acknowledge that this is a small part of
what is needed. So much more needs to be done to reduce the
prevalence of these crimes, to increase prosecutions for rape and
to tackle the perpetrators of sexual violence. We all know the
terrible impact that drugs can have on individuals, families and
communities. Increasing enforcement of drug misuse, and stamping
out the organised criminals and drug gangs that profit from it,
is incredibly important, but it is one part of the solution. The
other part must be drug treatment and preventive services, in
order to properly break the cycle of drug misuse.
11.37am
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.
It continues to be the view of the Scottish Government that, 50
years on, the Misuse of Drugs Act is not fit for purpose and all
aspects of drug policy should be devolved to the Scottish
Parliament—something that even former Prime Minister apparently now agrees with.
The Scottish Government are providing additional funding of £250
million over the next five years to support residential rehab and
better near-fatal overdose pathways, and to get better outreach,
so that more people are helped into treatment and more people
with lived experience are involved in all aspects of decision
making.
The Scottish National party continues to lobby the UK Government
to adopt a public health approach to drugs, to amend legislation
away from criminalisation and, as I have mentioned, to devolve
powers to the Scottish Parliament if the UK Government refuse to
act. However, the statutory instrument implements the ACMD’s
independent recommendations to upgrade the classification of GHB
and related substances, which, as the Minister outlined, have
some legitimate uses but are often used in extremely serious
crimes. In fact, I believe that in the Home Affairs Committee
hearing on spiking, the senior police officer witness
specifically requested that this be hurried up and done, as has
been promised for months. Ultimately, the SNP does not object to
the statutory instrument.
11.39am
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
I think it is a very good move to reclassify GHBRS, and I want to
refer to Deputy Chief Constable Jason Harwin, who gave evidence
to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday calling for this
reclassification. The Minister will know that we are conducting
an inquiry into spiking. Can he comment on spiking and on how the
measure will lead to the putting together of a toolkit for
dealing with it, so that it is taken much more seriously by all,
including the police? On sentencing, will the reclassification
give the police added impetus to investigate and take complaints
more seriously? Finally, will there be additional forensic
capacity for dealing with a rise in spiking complaints,
particularly around the drugs that we are talking about today?
That is an ongoing issue, which was raised with the Home Affairs
Committee yesterday.
11.40am
I am grateful to Members from across the Committee—particularly
Opposition Members and the incoming Chair of the Select
Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North—for
their support of the measure. As I hope people have understood,
the draft order is part of a suite of tools that we are putting
together as a general push against illicit drug use and the use
of drugs in crime across the whole United Kingdom. Just before
Christmas, we launched our 10-year drugs strategy, whose entire
being is about driving down the pernicious effects of illicit
drugs in the UK and the concomitant crime. This is a particularly
pernicious and unpleasant area of business, on which we have
become more focused recently—not least because, as a couple of
Members pointed out, there has been a rise in the prevalence of
the use of such drugs, and indeed in the number of deaths from
it.
To answer the first question asked by the hon. Member for
Bradford West, we do believe that the reclassification will
reduce the use of the drugs, not least because the greater
sentencing indicates a greater sense of priority, which will
therefore attract greater police resource. The police prioritise
their capacity on offences that we in this House deem to result
in the highest harm, and they generally attract the highest
amount of attention. For example, most murder squads will have 20
or 30 officers, while most burglary investigations will have one
or two. By giving the matter such a level of importance, we think
that greater attention will be paid to it. That includes, for
example, sales of the compounds on the dark web, where we do
enormous amounts of work, mostly thorough our National Crime
Agency colleagues, on policing access to illicit
equipment—guns, knives, chemicals or whatever it may be.
Obviously, the draft order will help with that effort in
directing them to where we think the most harm is emanating
from.
The hon. Lady raised an interesting question about the use of the
drugs consensually. Although there might be people who do that, I
hope that everybody would agree that it is profoundly undesirable
for their own health that they should use the drugs, whether they
consent or not, given the effects that such compounds can have.
They are effectively industrial solvents. They are not fit for
human consumption. If we can discourage even that kind of use, we
should.
Nevertheless, as the hon. Lady said, it is incumbent upon us to
ensure that we have the right capacity and facilities in place
for those who are victims of these kinds of sexually motivated
crimes. As I hope she knows, just in the last couple of years we
have expanded the number of independent sexual violence advisers
and the support mechanisms available for people who are targeted
by sexually motivated crime. On the wider response to the ACMD’s
report, I would be more than happy to share that with her in due
course.
I turn to the overall spiking strategy, although I am anxious not
to expand beyond the general remit of the debate. The right hon.
Member for Kingston upon Hull North identified spiking as a
specific issue, and she is right that it is an area of concern.
Last autumn, there was a significant rise in the number of
reports of individuals who thought that they had been injected
with these chemicals, rather than just consuming them in a drink.
As she will know, given that she has spoken to Jason Harwin, a
national gold group is looking at the evidence to ensure that we
have right the capacity, and that we are linking up the right
patterns and looking for the right clues about what might be
happening with that phenomenon. It is widely the case that the
number of convictions for spiking across the country, against the
number of reports, has not been satisfactory over the last two or
three years. I think that we would all admit that. I hope that
the work that Jason is doing, alongside the wider drugs strategy,
into which enormous resource is being pumped, particularly on
health and rehabilitation, will start to drive down the
usage.
The other effect that I ought to outline is that the raising of
the classification of the drugs means that the proprietors of
premises where they may be deployed, such as nightclubs, will
need to be much more on their guard for such compounds as they
arrive through the doors, as they are at the moment for cocaine,
heroin and other drugs that sadly make their way into the
night-time economy. We hope that the raising of the
classification, and of the seriousness with which we take the
issue, will be reflected in the law enforcement effort more
generally across the country, and therefore we will see a
reduction in the pernicious use of the chemicals. I commend the
draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household ()
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I will not detain the
Committee for too long, but I bring it to your attention that the
notifications that were sent out said that the start time of the
meeting would be 11.30 am, not 11.25 am. Also, my hon. Friend the
Member for Aylesbury () received notification to be on
the Committee, but is not a member of it. I wonder whether there
has been some confusion with the hon. Member for Brent Central,
who shares the same surname.
The Chair
On the first point, Mr Andrew, the fault is entirely mine. I
started five minutes early because, in mitigation, quite a lot of
delegated legislation Committees start at 9.25 am or 11.25 am.
However, no decision was taken on the order until well past the
start time. I admit 100% responsibility for starting five minutes
early, but I do not think that the legislation is in danger. The
Clerks will have made a note of your second point. If there has
been an error in notification, I hope that it can be rectified in
future.
11.46am
Committee rose.
|
