The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp) I beg to
move, That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order
2023, which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
The order proposes an amendment to paragraph 1(a) of part 3 of
schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to bring nitrous oxide
under the control of that Act as a class C drug. In September 2021,
following increasing reports of the harms associated with the use
of nitrous...Request free trial
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire ()
I beg to move,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023,
which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
The order proposes an amendment to paragraph 1(a) of part 3 of
schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to bring nitrous oxide
under the control of that Act as a class C drug. In September
2021, following increasing reports of the harms associated with
the use of nitrous oxide, the Government commissioned the
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to undertake an
independent assessment of it. The Government requested that the
ACMD include in its assessment a recommendation on the
appropriate legislative control of the substance. I thank the
ACMD for the updated harms assessment that it published in March
2023. Its work has been helpful, and we are grateful for the time
it spends advising the Government on this and other issues. The
ACMD report did not recommend the control of nitrous oxide under
the MDA, but it did note concerning health harms such as nerve
damage.
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
On health harms, does the Minister acknowledge that the amendment
is just tinkering with an Act that does not address the health
harms of drugs? Does he agree that a wider review of the Act,
which is half a century old, is needed to take drug dealers off
the streets, tackle sinister organised crime, and treat those
with addiction issues with compassion?
I do not agree that the amendment is tinkering; it is an
important measure, as I will outline in just a moment. On action
against drug abuse more generally, we have a whole 10-year drug
strategy that we are a year and a half into. It includes tough
enforcement at the border and action to disrupt criminal gangs
who deal drugs—we had a record level of drug seizures recently.
In addition, we are investing record sums in drug treatment—£582
million extra over a three-year period—and increasing the number
of treatment places by 54,000, so there is a comprehensive
programme of work, both on enforcement to break drug importation
and drug gangs, and, critically, on treatment to help people out
of addiction and into a better life.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for clearly outlining the Government’s
intentions. The amendment deals very specifically with nitrous
oxide, and I welcome it. The Government have recognised the need
to make changes. I would like more stringent drug controls—as, I
think, would the Minister—but, bearing in mind the Government’s
intentions, and the intention of some Members to divide the
House, can the Minister confirm that the amendment will not place
more onerous conditions on those who need to use nitrous oxide,
such as dentists? Will they be outside its scope? At the same
time, the need for the law is clear.
Yes, I can provide that assurance. I will expand on this later,
but those who are using nitrous oxide for legitimate purposes,
which includes the catering industry, the dental sector, research
and even semiconductor manufacture, will be outside the scope of
these restrictions.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the control of harmful drugs more
generally. It is important to control harmful drugs, particularly
where they are very addictive and cause health harms. We have
seen in cities in North America that have liberalised their drug
laws substantially, such as San Francisco, Portland and some
Canadian cities, that it has resulted in widescale public health
problems.
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
I knew that the Minister was going to bring up Portland at some
point. There has been a clarion call to the extreme right wing to
clamp down on drug policies, but we have to look at Portland in
its entirety. Yes, it decriminalised drugs, but it also cut back
all its support services drastically and had a fentanyl crisis at
exactly the same time. That created a perfect storm for the
damage that has been done there. We would not want to undermine
some of the good work that has been done there as well.
Well, if we look at the centre of San Francisco at the moment, it
is not a very happy sight. The de facto decriminalisation of
drugs and, indeed, the failure to police certain criminal
offences such as shoplifting has led to disastrous outcomes, and
I am determined that we do not see the same in our jurisdiction.
I do accept that treatment is very important, which is why we are
investing all that extra money in treatment.
(Southend West) (Con)
The Minister talks about problems in San Francisco. Does he agree
that this legislation will also help to stop the havoc that
nitrous oxide is wreaking in our coastal communities, in
particular by tackling the increased availability of these
higher-harm larger canisters? Last summer, Southend police
confiscated 400 on one day. I welcome this motion, and I thank
the Minister for engaging with me and other Members across the
House and listening to our concerns.
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. The campaigning that
she has done, on behalf of her Southend constituents, is an
important part of why we are moving this motion. I can see my
hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest () in his place. I recall a
Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago in which he and
other colleagues raised the harms that nitrous oxide was doing in
their communities. People may sometimes wonder about the value of
Westminster Hall debates, but I can honestly say that the
contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend
West () and for Wyre Forest and others
were instrumental in bringing about this change.
(Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning that
Westminster Hall debate. Does he agree that campaigners such as
Dr David Nicholl, an eminent neurosurgeon in Bromsgrove, were
also instrumental? He was responsible for raising with me and
many colleagues the unbelievable harm that this does to children,
who think that, because it is called laughing gas, it is amusing,
but it actually causes profound neurological problems for those
who use it too much.
My hon. Friend is right to point to Dr Nicholl’s work, and I
thank him again for his campaigning on this issue, without which
we possibly would not be here today taking this legislation
through Parliament. The evidence we have seen about the
neurological damage caused in particular by large-scale
consumption of nitrous oxide is very worrying. Neurological units
around the country have seen cases of people who have been
paralysed and suffered really quite serious consequences. The
numbers are not enormous, but they are extremely worrying, and
the severe cases, including paralysis, are deeply concerning. I
agree completely with what my hon. Friend just said.
(Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests: until recently, I was an acting
consultant addiction psychiatrist. On the point about other uses
of nitrous oxide—legitimate medicinal and industrial uses—moving
it away from the psychoactive substances regulations to the
Misuse of Drugs Act puts a number of limitations on its use in
its current settings. What consultation has my right hon. Friend
or his Department done with the medical sector as a whole, and
also with other commercial providers or users of nitrous oxide,
in advance of laying these regulations before the House?
We have conducted further engagement and consultation with the
ACMD and others in industry to understand the implications of
this move. I am jumping ahead a little, but we intend to table a
further statutory instrument that will take effect alongside this
one, which will make it clear that the sale and use of nitrous
oxide for legitimate purposes will not be criminalised in any
way—it will continue to be permitted. The definition of
legitimate use will be very broadly drawn in that SI, because
nitrous oxide is used for a wide range of medical research and
commercial purposes, and we are not going to try to
comprehensively list those purposes. A wide-based exemption for
legitimate use will be put in place to make sure that we do not
unintentionally stymie either medical research or commercial use
of this drug.
It is worth saying that the use of nitrous oxide is quite
widespread. Among those aged 16 to 24—
(North West Hampshire) (Con)
Could we have a little clarity on those two SIs? Does that mean
that there is going to be a period in which otherwise legitimate
uses will be illegitimate until the new SI is in place, and is
that new SI needed because people came forward and said, “Whoops,
you’ve missed this use”? I am not quite sure how the two SIs are
going to interact.
No, there will be no gap, and it is not unintentional or
inadvertent; it is just likely that we will have to amend the way
schedule 5 to the 1971 Act works in order to create this new
category, essentially to accommodate nitrous oxide. The two SIs
will be implemented on the same day—there will be no lacuna or
gap. That is just how we have to sequence the secondary
legislation under the Act.
Let me return to the question of prevalence. Some 230,000 young
people inhaled this harmful substance in the year ending June
2022. It was the third most misused substance among that age
group and, as we have discussed already, there is evidence that
it has harmful neurological effects, particularly when consumed
in quite large quantities.
Beyond that, we know that nitrous oxide has a significant effect
on antisocial behaviour—indeed, we announced the measure for
which we are legislating today in the antisocial behaviour action
plan. Again, I thank parliamentary colleagues for raising the
impact that nitrous oxide has had on their communities. It is
fuelling antisocial behaviour and having an impact on the decent,
hard-working majority who want to use their local park or go down
their local high street without being harassed by antisocial
behaviour or seeing the little silver canisters littered all over
the place. To give an illustration of the scale of the problem,
after the Notting Hill carnival a couple of weeks ago, it is
estimated that 13 tonnes of those nitrous oxide canisters and
others were collected from the street by the clean-up crews. That
is an extraordinary amount.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
How many tonnes of beer cans were collected?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the consumption of beer
does not, generally speaking, lead to severe neurological damage
and paralysis in the way that the consumption of large amounts of
nitrous oxide does.
Dr Poulter
I do not wish to be disobliging to the Minister, but the ACMD was
very clear that it did not believe that the medical harms of
nitrous oxide pose anything like the significance of those caused
by many other street drugs, or indeed alcohol. Alcohol-related
brain damage causes much more neurological harm than many street
drugs do, so I think it would be helpful for the Minister to
correct the record on that point.
I have referred to the ACMD advice before, and the ACMD did note
the anecdotal reports of severe paralysis caused by excessive
nitrous oxide consumption to which I have referred already. On
this occasion—rarely, but not uniquely, disagreeing with ACMD
advice—the Government, as we are entitled to do, took a broader
view. We thought about the association with antisocial behaviour
and about the fact that among 16 to 24-year-olds nitrous oxide is
the third most used harmful substance, and that is why we took
the step we did. Of course, I acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend
said, alcohol can have an adverse effect as well, but we feel
that in this particular case the misuse of nitrous oxide merits
action. Many Members have raised concerns about the effect it has
had in their communities, and we are responding at least in part
to the concerns that Members have raised.
Nitrous oxide is currently regulated under the Psychoactive
Substances Act 2016. It is not, of course, currently an offence
to possess nitrous oxide; it is only an offence under the PSA to
knowingly or recklessly sell it for personal consumption. So by
controlling nitrous oxide as a class C drug under the Misuse of
Drugs Act, it will not just be an offence to recklessly or
intentionally sell this substance for personal consumption, but
be an offence to possess it except for the legitimate use
exemptions I mentioned earlier. As I said in response to my hon.
Friend’s earlier intervention, we will be bringing through a
further SI to set out the definition of those legitimate uses. As
I said a moment or two ago, those will be extremely wide-ranging
to make sure we do not inadvertently stymie legitimate
commercial, medical or research use.
In summary, it is clear that drug misuse ruins lives. In the case
of nitrous oxide, it also contributes significantly to antisocial
behaviour. The Government have listened to the public and to
parliamentarians who have been speaking for their constituents,
and that is why we are taking this action.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister.
5.26pm
(Nottingham North)
(Lab/Co-op)
Nitrous oxide causes significant problems in our communities. As
we have heard, it is the third most misused substance among 16 to
24-year-olds, it leads to antisocial behaviour, and the litter
associated with it is a blight on our streets, parks and
pavements. We know from our own mailbags that our communities are
sick of having to literally and figuratively pick up after the
problem that nitrous oxide creates. We feel that what the
Government are proposing is a relatively minor change to how we
approach this, and we do not intend to stand in the way, but I do
have a number of questions that I hope the Minister can
address.
It has to be said that, as a psychoactive substance, nitrous
oxide is already covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.
In practice, that means it is already an offence to produce it,
supply it, offer to supply it, possess it with the intent to
supply it, import it or export it on a similar basis. The only
thing that is not an offence is the possession of it outside
custody. That is in practice what will be different as a result
of this instrument, so I would say, as I did at the beginning,
that this is relatively modest.
I am glad that the Minister has addressed the points relating to
the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, because it is
important when the Government diverge from what their independent
advisers tell them—which they are of course able to do—that they
explain why they are doing so. The Opposition’s view is that we
would have given greater weighting to the creation and impact of
antisocial behaviour than the ACMD did in its report, which is
why taking action is reasonable.
The ACMD did raise other points, and the Minister has covered
them to some degree, but I want to get some greater clarity,
starting with the legitimate use of nitrous oxide. We heard a
couple of answers from the Minister—originally that there would
be no change, but later that there would be a follow-up statutory
instrument to make sure there is no change. Those two things are
slightly different. I think I heard him say that they will come
into force on the same day, so there will be no interregnum, but
I would be grateful for more clarity if he is willing to say that
that is the case.
The ACMD report also discussed a tighter definition of nitrous
oxide so that lawful activities are not disrupted. The Minister,
in his response, seemed to indicate that he was minded to do
that. Could he say what the timeline might be? It also raised the
crucial point about the move from the 2016 Act to the 1971 Act,
and that the impact of that ought to be kept under review. Can he
confirm that will be the case, because we do need to know that
this will not excessively criminalise certain groups, especially
young people?
It is clear that the 1971 Act is vastly out of date and has many
adverse consequences in its application. I wonder whether those
on the Labour Front Bench would welcome the idea of our
committing to review the use of that Act and to update and
modernise it. I am not saying we should scrap it, but we
definitely need to investigate its use. That would give me some
reassurance and enable me to do what those on the Front Bench are
asking later on.
I am afraid that I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend by not
setting such a broad policy while debating a statutory instrument
on a narrow bit of policy, but I know he will continue to make
his case to me and my colleagues ahead of the election down the
road.
Let me address the point about the diversionary work. From what I
understand from the impact assessment, the Government envisage a
relatively small minority of those caught in possession being
charged, with the others instead having conditional cautions,
community resolutions or diversionary activities. I would be keen
for the Minister to state what he has based that assessment on,
and how he thinks it is likely to work in practice.
The Minister, I think rightly and importantly, has coupled this
issue with that of antisocial behaviour, so we must take a
reckoning of the Government’s broader record on antisocial
behaviour. They have had 13 years. The Minister talks about the
antisocial behaviour action plan and the pilot programmes in 10
police forces, but that is less than a quarter of all forces. We
have seen from the Minister and his colleagues a complete failure
to reverse the cuts to neighbourhood policing, and we still have
10,000 fewer neighbourhood police officers and police community
support officers than we did eight years ago. Half the population
say that they rarely see the police on the beat, and that
proportion has doubled since 2010. It is clear that the
Government’s plans are too modest to meet this challenge.
I welcome the shadow Minister to his place. Will he join me in
expressing pleasure at the fact that we now have record numbers
of police officers? As of 31 March, there are 149,566 in England
and Wales, which is about 3,500 more than we have ever had at any
time in history.
I am grateful for that intervention and for the Minister’s kind
words of introduction. As he says, I am new to this parish, but
if I were in his seat and not mine, I might be a little less
gleeful about there being 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police
officers and PCSOs than eight years ago, and about the fact that
the people of this country, whom we serve, are twice as likely to
say that they rarely see police on the beat than when this
Government started in 2010. That should perhaps be a point for
reflection, rather than the grandstanding that we saw.
People will ask—it is important that the Minister addresses
this—what non-legislative actions are being taken alongside this
statutory instrument to ensure it is effective. On enforcement,
this provision has important implications for our police, and I
would be keen to know the Minster’s assessment of the overall
readiness of those who are already busy, and who we will be
asking to enforce this ban. What training does he think it will
take to be effective? Again, we must see this record in its
historical context to know where we are building from. The
Government have weakened powers over the last decade, and brought
in powers that have not been used, such as the community trigger.
They have abandoned the major drug intervention programmes that
the previous Labour Government left, they have slashed youth
service budgets by £1 billion and they have let charges for
criminal damage halve. We did not hear from the Minister what
sort of broader preventive actions he intends to implement
alongside this statutory instrument to make it effective.
We see in the independent report that standalone publicity
campaigns are likely to have limited effectiveness, so what more
thoughtful, community-level approaches are going to be used?
Labour Members have set out a full comprehensive plan, with
13,000 extra neighbourhood officers and PCSOs, paid for by
savings that have been identified by the Police Foundation, but
which Ministers are refusing to make. We would introduce new
respect orders for repeat offenders, hotspot policing to tackle
drug dealing, and strong action on fly-tipping. Those are the
sorts of things we could align alongside the decisions being
taken today to make sure that they are actually meaningful.
Otherwise there is a risk, which the Minister will have to
reflect on, that people think the Government are chasing
headlines, rather than chasing change. To conclude, we will not
stand in the way of this instrument today, but it must be seen
for what it is: a small intervention when we need much bigger
ideas.
5.35pm
(North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the reasons for this
SI. I recognise the impact on communities up and down the land of
this particular substance, not least in littering and antisocial
behaviour. I am anxious, as I am sure is the Minister, that if we
are going to introduce this new measure, we do it properly. I
have a couple of questions for the Minister about the impact of
this instrument, particularly on the criminal justice system.
Looking at the impact assessment, I am surprised by the
relatively low number of individuals it is envisaged will be put
through the system. As the Minister will know, if we are to have
an impact, there has to be a significant deterrent effect. If we
are to have a deterrent effect, there has to be a sense in
people’s minds that there is a very high probability of their
being caught and that when they are caught, there will be a swift
and certain consequence. Can he reassure us that the police are
gearing up to deal with the numbers—even the relatively low
numbers in the impact assessment—and that he has an ambition to
go beyond those numbers? I know he does not want to do something
that is merely performative, but that he wants to have an impact
on this issue. We want to see fewer and fewer of these ampoules
on the street and, indeed, fewer and fewer young people in
particular using this substance.
If the Minister hits his ambition, what impact will that have on
the criminal justice system overall? The estimate is that we will
put, I think, a total of 500-odd people in prison for possession
of this substance. As far as I can see, that is small against a
background number that is running into the hundreds of thousands.
Nevertheless, that will have an impact on the prison system. The
thousands who will be going through the magistrates courts will
obviously have an impact there. The police cost per capita of an
arrest, charge and disposal of any kind by my calculation comes
in at about £880, which seems light to me. Can the Minister
reassure us about the cost, the capacity in the system and the
ability for police forces to do this properly?
When this SI lands, will we see some action out there on the
street? I am concerned we will see broadly what happened after
the Blair-Brown reforms to cannabis possession. If the House
remembers, at the tail end of that particular period in our
political history, the notion was brought in of a cannabis
warning, and then a cannabis penalty of 90 quid for police to
hand out for pure possession. What happened was that we saw a bit
of a bump in numbers, and then it tailed off, because the police
realised there was little effect and it was not cost-effective to
do it. The numbers diminished over the years.
As the Minister will know, a White Paper last year looked at a
different set of consequences for possession, but in the absence
of a response to that White Paper, I am keen to hear from him
what the plan will be once the SI is in place, because as he and
I both know, the policy is not the product; the product is what
happens out there on the street. We are holding out a promise to
our communities up and down the land that they will see fewer of
these ampoules and less antisocial behaviour as a consequence. I
hope there is an action plan.
My second point is to ask about unintended consequences. One of
the characteristics of my youth in Liverpool in the 1970s and
1980s was the groups of young people gathering together to sniff
glue. It was a horrible thing to do and obviously had a serious
impact on their brains. The chemicals are even more noxious than
this particular substance, so how will the Minister ensure that
there is not a diversion towards those kinds of substances and
the resumption of glue-sniffing in parks and playgrounds instead
of taking this gas? If he can reassure me on both those points, I
will be happy to support the SI.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Before I call , I point out that, as
Members can see, there is a bit of interest in the debate. I will
not impose a time limit, but I intend to call the Minister no
later than 6.30 pm. If there are to be Divisions, they will come
when the Minister sits down.
5.39pm
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
It is pretty unusual that I come to a debate entitled “Dangerous
Drugs” where I have direct experience of having taken some of
those dangerous drugs, because I live a very quiet life. However,
for many in the Chamber—women in particular—nitrous oxide will
have been better experienced as gas and air, which, when used
under medical supervision, is generally a very safe drug,
although my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North () would tell us that she
had a collapsed lung as a result of her use of it. It is not
something to be taken lightly, but I would certainly dispute
whether it is a dangerous drug.
As the Minister pointed out, nitrous oxide is not an uncontrolled
substance. Non-legitimate use for psychoactive effects is
currently controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016,
and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs points out that
production, supply and importation is illegal. There is an
offence to supply if the person knows or is reckless as to
whether it will be used for psychoactive effects. In 2015, the
advisory council did not advise control under the Misuse of Drugs
Act, and in March 2023 it advised exactly the same, so I am
curious as to why the Minister was so light on his reasons for
ignoring his expert advisers, who have looked at this in great
detail. We are hardly in the realms of evidence-based policy. He
has decided that he must do something, and that this is
something. That is why we are here.
We do not dismiss the public nuisance of these substances. We
have all seen the silvery capsules littered in the street—they
are a particular hazard to cyclists—and in parts of my
constituency I have also seen some of the larger canisters
discarded, but all of that could be said for other drugs. As the
hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown () said, we see beer cans
littered all over our streets regularly. In parts of my
constituency we see syringes littered about the place, and the
Government do nothing about it because they do not want people to
have safe consumption rooms to take their drugs. Somehow
uniquely, the Government seem concerned by the small canisters
and the public nuisance of nitrous oxide.
Nothing that the Minister said has given me any reassurance on
that. He said nothing really about the supply of these
substances, because clearly they are being sold to people against
the current legal framework, which is illegal. It will be
interesting to hear from the Minister on summing up how many
people have been arrested, charged and jailed for supply of this
substance under the current rules. If it is zero, he has a bit of
a cheek coming here and asking us to agree to further
legislation.
What conversations has the Minister had with social media
companies? One of my members of staff, Mhairi Love, saw an advert
on Facebook for nitrous oxide being sold online. Again, how many
prosecutions have happened for that supply for entirely
illegitimate purposes, which would fall under the current
legislation and be prosecutable?
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about how it is easy
to get hold of this stuff. These little canisters can be bought
in corner shops, and they can also be bought by the pallet-load
for £18,000, which would keep an entire festival going for the
weekend. She is right that those people should be arrested for
supplying it, but it is also important to ensure that we limit
the market to buy it, and if we clamp down on the market where
people buy it, that will dry up the supply.
That is not how the market works. We have had the Misuse of Drugs
Act for 50 years and it has not stopped anybody from taking
heroin, cocaine or anything else. Those drugs are quite moreish
and people tend to keep taking them regardless of the legislation
put before them to deter them. It does not work. What we need to
do is go after the suppliers, but from what the Minister said it
seems to me that the Government have no intention of doing
that.
The Minister also talked about the broad legitimate use and the
regulations he will bring forward on that. Without seeing them,
it is difficult to see how effective this will be. If that
legitimate use is incredibly broad—it must be to allow people to
continue to buy the substance to run their cafés and produce
whipped cream—he will find it very difficult to continue that
enforcement game. We have no sight of those regulations tonight,
so I argue that it would be irresponsible of the House to pass
this statutory instrument without having seen the other part of
the equation.
Is there not a danger that the “broad uses” clause will mean that
good, middle-class white people, with houses where they can
consume this drug in private, will be able to continue to do so
and poor, working-class young people in parks, possibly
predominantly black, Asian and minority ethnic, will end up being
criminalised, as with many other drugs?
That is a legitimate question and a legitimate risk, but I do not
see it in the Government’s impact assessment.
There is also nothing about the preventive actions that the ACMD
talks about in its report. There is nothing about a public health
campaign, education or wider knowledge of the health impacts of
the drug, which the ACMD recommends that the Government take
forward. There are things such as B12 deficiency, nerve damage,
incontinence and erectile dysfunction, but the Government are not
promoting a plan of how to disseminate that information to
people.
I worry—as do the neurologists who have written to the Government
with their concerns about further regulation and
criminalisation—about stigmatising people who have used this
substance and want come forward and get support. Criminalisation
will make them less likely to come forward. By criminalising, the
Misuse of Drugs Act dissuades people, particularly women, from
coming forward for help. The Government have said nothing tonight
or in the impact assessment about whether people are less likely
to come forward for medical support for having used the substance
if they are criminalised.
Furthermore, if kids are using the drug, what support services do
the Government intend to put in place to tackle addiction in that
age group? If that is a problem, what is the Government’s
specific response for addiction support for young people who
abuse the drug? The Minister had nothing to say on that
whatsoever.
Let me come to the position of Scotland on this issue. The
Scottish Government responded to the ACMD report on the use of
nitrous oxide and were crystal clear, saying:
“The Scottish government has and will continue to promote a
public health approach, rather than continuing the failed war on
drugs. It is our view that banning nitrous oxide will further
criminalise people for their drug use, serving only to heap
additional harms on vulnerable individuals, our young people and
communities while doing little to improve the health of these
individuals.”
The point about health is absolutely crucial. The Government have
said nothing about the health impacts of the drug and intervening
on it. What they have outlined in the impact assessment is the
cost. They say, in an incredibly vague paragraph on page 15:
“Total costs across all monetised set up and ongoing costs are
estimated to be between £19.6 to £178.1 million…with a central
estimate of £67.9 million…over the 10-year appraisal period.”
That is an incredibly wide range. The Government, again, are not
explaining exactly why they should pass the legislation. They
also say at the top of page 19:
“There is limited evidence available to estimate how nitrous
oxide misuse may change following the intervention.”
They want to spend tens of millions of pounds and they do not
even know whether the intervention will have an impact.
Framing this issue under the Misuse of Drugs Act does not
recognise tackling addiction as a public health issue. It is a
public health issue. We cannot arrest our way out of a public
health issue. It does not tackle the reasons why people are
taking this drug in the first place, not does it tackle supply or
public health. The Home Affairs Committee recently concluded in
its report on drugs that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the
Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 require reform. The report
says:
“We recommend that the UK Government reform the 1971 Act and 2001
Regulations in a way that promotes a greater role for public
health in our response to drugs, whilst maintaining our law
enforcement to tackling the illicit production and supply of
controlled drugs.”
This SI does nothing about production and supply, and nothing
about public health.
We are here tonight because the Government have decided that
something must be done, and this is something. The Scottish
National party opposes this SI and will vote against it tonight.
It criminalises people at unclear cost. There is no sense of
tackling the source, reducing demand or treating this as a public
health issue. It is bang on form—if I may say so, Mr Deputy
Speaker—that the Labour party is going along with this
unevidenced drivel. In Scotland, we want a humane drug policy. We
have a caring and compassionate human rights-informed drug policy
for Scotland, but we do not yet have the powers to implement it.
Until such time as the Scottish Government have full control over
all our powers as a normal independent country, we seek the
devolution of drug laws to allow us to deal with them as a public
health issue, as they should be.
5.50pm
(Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member
for Glasgow Central (). I do not disagree with
much of what she said. I believe the Government will achieve very
little through these measures, except perhaps to cause
considerable disruption to industry and the medicinal use of
nitrous oxide. I am far from convinced by the changing
reassurances given by the Minister at the Dispatch Box in that
respect.
I once again draw the attention of the House to my entry in the
Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a practising NHS
psychiatrist. Until recently, I was working as an acting
addictions consultant psychiatrist and I have dealt with the
misuse of drugs extensively throughout my medical career.
I believe in an evidence-based approach to policymaking. This
issue has been examined by the ACMD at the request of the
Government. The ACMD suggested very clearly that this was not the
appropriate legislative vehicle to deal with nitrous oxide. It
made that recommendation for two reasons. First, we already have
the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, so if we want to deal with
the illegitimate sale and supply of nitrous oxide there is
already legislation in place to do that. Secondly, we have other
laws that can be used, for example to deal with the unacceptable
littering that sometimes occurs with the canisters used in the
recreational use of nitrous oxide.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the ACMD was asked many years ago to
opine on exactly this point and it was chased up by two Home
Secretaries to try to get a response? It was not until this
statutory instrument was first talked about earlier this year
that the ACMD got around to answering the Government’s request to
make a judgment.
Dr Poulter
I am aware that it takes some time to compile ACMD reports. The
reason is that the ACMD likes to look at the evidence in the
round. There are a number of issues to look at here, such as
harms of use. There is relatively limited evidence and data to
suggest that nitrous oxide is substantially more harmful than
many of the substances we use daily, such as caffeine. Using
caffeine to great excess has very profound and immediate health
consequences, as does alcohol. The point was made by the hon.
Member for Brighton, Kemptown () about the Notting Hill
carnival and the number of beer cans and other forms of rubbish
left there. If we look at the social and health harms of alcohol,
which is a legal drug and one that is misused legally, they are
considerably more profound than what we are talking about or
indeed many other street drugs.
(East Yorkshire) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend clarify to the House what his conclusion is on
this matter? Is he saying that he opposes the measure, or is he
saying that if the measure goes ahead he wants the Government to
keep the matter under review?
Dr Poulter
If the House divides this evening I will be voting against the
measure for the further reasons I am about to outline.
I think it would be helpful to remind the Minister what the ACMD
actually said with regard to legislation:
“Based on this harms assessment, the Psychoactive Substances Act
2016 remains the appropriate drug legislation to tackle supply of
nitrous oxide for non-legitimate use. There is, however, a need
for enforcement of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to be
supported by additional interventions designed to reduce health
and social harms. Based on this harms assessment, nitrous oxide
should not be subjected to control under the Misuse of Drugs Act
1971 for the following reasons”.
Those reasons have been drawn out to some extent during the
debate, but they are neatly summarised by the ACMD in its
recommendations to the Government in its report.
First,
“Level of health and social harms”,
which is relatively limited, and
“current evidence suggests that the health and social harms are
not commensurate with control under the Misuse of Drugs Act
1971.”
Secondly,
“Proportionality of sanctions: the offences under the Misuse of
Drugs Act 1971 would be disproportionate for the level of harm
associated with nitrous oxide and could have significant
unintended consequences.”
Thirdly,
“Impact on legitimate uses: control under the Misuse of Drugs Act
1971 could produce significant burdens for legitimate medical,
industrial, commercial, and academic uses. The current scale and
number of legitimate uses that stand to be affected is unknown
but is estimated to be large.”
I think it is fairly clear that the Government did not carry out
a proper impact assessment before bringing this measure to the
House.
(Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. Does that
mean that he thinks we should do nothing at all?
Dr Poulter
No, I do not think it means we should do nothing. I think that if
we believe, as I think many of us do, that we should control the
illegitimate supply of nitrous oxide, we should look at existing
legislation, such as the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which
was designed and taken through its stages by my right hon. Friend
the Member for Hemel Hempstead ( ). This point was discussed at
some length during its passage. The focus was not on
criminalising use and the potential users, but on controlling the
supply: a clear distinction was drawn. The Minister may correct
this view, but the ACMD made it clear in its report that better
enforcement of that existing legislation to control illegitimate
supply would be a much better and more proportionate way of
dealing with the issue at hand, and the same was suggested more
broadly in the evidence supplied to the ACMD while it was
compiling its report.
So there is already a legitimate means of dealing with this, but
unfortunately there is the potential for unintended consequences,
and I was not reassured when the Minister said earlier that the
Government would introduce another measure—which no one in the
House has seen as yet—to ensure that there would be no such
unintended consequences. If a Government are introducing two good
pieces of legislation, they should introduce both of them
together so that the House can consider them in the round. My
concern is that primary legislation such as the Misuse of Drugs
Act is tightly drawn, and unless it is amended, it is difficult
to introduce another measure to sit beneath it and mitigate its
provisions. I am therefore not reassured by the Minister’s
comments, but in any event it is not good or effective government
not to present the two measures at the same time so that we could
consider the issues in the round.
Because I believe that there is already legislation in place
which needs to be better enforced to deal with illegitimate
supply, and because I do not believe that the Government have
given adequate weight or consideration to the potential
unintended consequences for legitimate users of nitrous
oxide—which the Minister effectively admitted in his opening
comments—I believe that the Government are in the wrong place at
present, and that it would have been better to produce a proper
impact assessment of the legitimate uses to sit alongside this
measure before bringing it to the attention of the House. For all
those reasons, I will vote against the order if it is put to a
vote.
5.58pm
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
To my constituents nitrous oxide is an irritant, manifesting
itself in the plethora of canisters that we see clustering in
certain places—seemingly in never-ending numbers, judging by the
number that my constituents and I collect during our litter
picks. However, for users of nitrous oxide there is a far more
serious side. Picking up on the comments by the hon. Member for
Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), it seems obvious
that the powers of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 have not
been effective, because we are here today talking about this. I
have come to a different conclusion to him, though, on what we
should do with this regulation.
We know from investigations by the likes of Sky News that it is
very easy to acquire this drug. It was described as being as
“easy as buying bread”. It is probably cheaper at the moment as
well. The Sky News investigators found that age verification was
skipped and that balloons were offered in accompaniment to
cannisters, so there was no pretence at all that those sales were
for legitimate purposes. That ease and the apparent openness
about the intended use of the gas is astonishing, especially
given that someone can end up with a seven-year prison sentence
for selling it, but with just 31 and 49 reported convictions in
2020 and 2021 respectively, it is clear that only a tiny fraction
of the transgressions are leading to action.
More than this, it is failing the predominantly young people who
are consuming the substance. It appears that the potential side
effects of the drug are underappreciated. To many, it is
considered harmless and short-lasting, but there is mounting
evidence that there are significant issues, particularly for
those who regularly consume large amounts of the drug. I have
spoken to the families of those who have been affected. Between
2001 and 2020 there were 56 registered deaths involving nitrous
oxide, most of which have taken place in the last decade. While
that figure is relatively low compared with benzodiazepines, for
which over 2,000 deaths were registered in the same period, the
fact that some of those heavy users have developed
myeloneuropathy, which causes damage to tracts of the spinal cord
and nerves, should not be overlooked.
Medical professionals have warned of a notable increase in the
numbers of people requiring medical interventions as a result of
using the drug. Data released by the London Ambulance Service
showed an almost 500% increase in the number of incidents related
to nitrous oxide between 2018 and 2022, with more than a tripling
in the number of calls between 2021 and 2022. If those trends in
London are being reflected across the country, we are in the
middle of a rude awakening about the consequences of this
so-called safe drug. Certainly, my constituent whose son was
admitted to hospital after rupturing his lung following
inhalation of nitrous oxide would attest to the need for greater
awareness of the risks of taking it. She has certainly done her
bit in highlighting her son’s hospitalisation, but it really
should not be up to her to point out the dangers of nitrous
oxide.
There is also the impact of nitrous oxide usage on communities.
As we have heard, it causes a significant amount of litter and
environmental damage. Constituents are fed up with having to see
collections of small containers littered in parks and on street
corners. In my constituency, users are now graduating to the
larger canisters, which are even more unsightly and presumably
cause far more damage than the little canisters. Constituents are
fed up with the antisocial behaviour that often comes along with
this, and there is also a danger when people drive vehicles
having inhaled nitrous oxide. According to the ACMD, that misuse
when driving accounted for 20% of the deaths associated with
nitrous oxide in the last half century.
I support the Government’s motion today but there are questions
that have been left unanswered, which many Members have picked up
on. I know that various options are being considered for the
licensing regime, which the Minister talked about. It is clear to
me that just classifying nitrous oxide under these regulations
without dealing with the licensing regime will not be sufficient.
It will just criminalise those using it instead of tackling the
problem of those supplying the drug for non-legitimate purposes,
which appears to account for the majority of sales. Those glaring
loopholes have raised concerns.
One of my constituents whose family have been impacted worries
that this is a knee-jerk reaction from the Government and that
they have not properly considered the views of healthcare
professionals, addiction services and those with lived
experiences. She also has concerns about unintended consequences
as a result of this legislation. It would have been extremely
helpful if we had had full details of the licensing regime when
we were considering this statutory instrument today. This
legislation is only going to work if we have a properly enforced
licensing regime that is effective in dealing with non-legitimate
sales. If we are going to support this motion, we need to be
assured that there will be an effective licensing regime coming
off the back of it.
Of course, we are cognisant of the fact that criminalising this
substance must be accompanied by other measures, such as
increased community policing. The impact assessment states:
“investigation costs to the Police have not been estimated.”
Surely, if use remains as ubiquitous as it is now, it will have a
huge impact on police resources, unless users are given a free
pass. Given that thousands of kids are currently inhaling nitrous
oxide without any police intervention at all, I wonder what the
approach will be to enforcement, unless we expect the cells to
clog up.
Paragraph 58 of the impact assessment states:
“It is estimated that between 8 and 63…additional prison places
will need to be built.”
This implies that there will be some enforcement action, and it
comes with a price tag of between £2 million and £15.8 million,
which is not an inconsiderable figure. Can the Minister advise us
on where these new prison places will appear? It looks like this
will lead to at least some people ending up in prison.
There also needs to be a campaign to increase awareness of this
new criminal liability, because young people have been inhaling
nitrous oxide without any criminal consequences. That campaign
needs to be accompanied by a better awareness campaign on the
dangers of inhaling nitrous oxide, be it criminalisation or
hospitalisation. People who see it as a bit of harmless fun need
to know that there are consequences.
6.06pm
(Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I refer the House to my outside interests on the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests.
I bear the scars of being on the Treasury Bench in 2016 when, as
my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
(Dr Poulter) alluded to, I took through the primary legislation
on what most people called “legal highs” or synthetic drugs. We
had many a debate, like we are having this evening, on how far
that legislation should go and what it should contain. I learned
an awful lot during the Bill’s passage—I took it all the way
through—about certain habits and certain uses of certain
products. We discussed nitrous oxide, and at the time I was
comfortable with it being exactly where it was until today.
I agree with many colleagues on both sides of the House that the
enforcement envisaged when we passed that legislation has not
materialised in quite the way we would have liked. Corner shops
were selling legal highs and, sadly, there were some really
tragic deaths. People were not only hospitalised but long-term
hospitalised, and parents lost young children, so we had to pass
that legislation. Alongside this statutory instrument we should
have more enforcement, although I know that not everyone in the
House agrees.
Local government could do more, and it is asking for these
powers. My constituents are fed up to the hind teeth with their
parks and streets being turned into dumps. I have many beautiful
parks in my constituency, and I recently spoke to the gardeners
responsible for looking after Gadebridge Park. I was astonished
when they told me of the sheer quantities of these little
capsules—we also have some degree of the larger ones coming
through now. I stand to be corrected, but do not think these
little capsules are for commercial use. They are specifically
manufactured for the predominantly young people who think nitrous
oxide is safe, which is massively dangerous. When we had the
debates back in 2016, we heard that the same language was being
used to indicate that legal highs were safe. Nitrous oxide, or
“laughing gas” as it is called by those who want to undermine the
argument we are making today, is not safe. It is dangerous. Some
people using it will feel, at the stage they have been using it
now—God knows what will happen further down the line—that it is
okay and has had no effect on them. However, like others who have
spoken this evening, I have heard from my constituents of
instances where nitrous oxide has had a devastating effect on
their young children. It appears that younger and younger
children are using this product and it is becoming increasingly
freely available.
I support this measure and will go through the Lobby in support
of it, but legitimate questions have been raised in the House
today. If we pass legislation, we have to feel that it is going
to make a difference and be enforceable. I do not quite know how
my local police force in Hertfordshire is going to be able to
enforce this. I do not know how it enforces the legislation,
which I voted against, on people smoking in their car if there is
a young person there. We all know that that legislation was right
and logical, but it is almost unenforceable and there have been
almost no prosecutions. So there is a lot more work to be done,
and the Minister is going to have some of the scars that I had on
my back as a result of this, but what we are doing is right. Let
me go back to the issue of advice. Ministers get advice from many
different places—colleagues, experts, their civil servants and
their special advisers—but at the end of the day they have to
make the decision. On the decision that this Minister has made,
there will be work to be done when we bring the further secondary
legislation through, and we might need to amend primary
legislation in the distant future. We have heard from both Front
Benchers that there is no intention to do that imminently, which
will disappoint some in the House this evening. However, it is
right to concentrate on what we can do today in this House to
protect our constituents and their loved ones, and I hope that
this legislation will do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
As I said, I will be calling the Minister at 6.30 pm, if not
before. Three Members wish to speak. If you could all help one
another so that everybody gets in, that would be really useful. I
call .
6.11pm
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
I was delighted to hear that there were moves afoot to change the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because if ever a piece of legislation
needed changing, it is the 1971 Act—it is followed closely by the
Gambling Act 2005, but that is for another day. There are so many
things wrong with the 1971 Act. It was bad legislation in its day
and for more than 50 years it has ensured that people are
criminalised, stigmatised and ostracised. It has created
divisions in society and led to unnecessary pain and suffering.
That should not be a surprise to anyone, because that is what it
was designed to do. It was never intended to provide support for
those harmed by drugs. It was never based on compassion. It was
never meant to address the issues associated with recreational
drug use. Therefore it comes as no surprise that in the past 50
years things have simply got worse.
Sadly, today, rather than righting some of the wrongs by
decriminalising or legalising drugs, and rather than striving for
drug consumptions rooms, safe consumption facilities, naloxone
provision, medication assisted treatment, education and support,
we are being asked to make matters worse. We are being asked to
turn a blind eye to the evidence and learn nothing from the
misclassification of cannabis; instead, we now want to persecute
more people with the continued aim of arresting our way out of a
drugs crisis. It is widely acknowledged that given the many
legitimate uses of nitrous oxide, enforcement will be a
nightmare. Currently, the Government have three licensing
proposals but are still in consultation over which to adopt.
Perhaps the Minister can clarify that in his response. Quite why
we are pursuing the reclassification before we have sorted out
the licensing is beyond me. In the meantime, we are being asked
to remove this regulated substance and create a marketplace for
criminals to fill with who knows what—it is absolutely bonkers.
As Steve Rolles said in Conservativehome:
“Empowering”—
and enriching—
“criminal groups will fuel violence and anti-social behaviour,
not reduce it.”
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
I am a bit sceptical, as we are talking about nitrous oxide use
as though it is a much harder drug. A lot of the kids taking it,
certainly those in Wolverhampton, are not hardened drug users,
but young people who do not think they are doing anything wrong.
They do not hear about the medical risks, and this drug is so
cheap and so widely available. Surely the Government are doing
the right thing in nipping this in the bud so that these young
people do not go down the road of falling in with the wrong crowd
and continually moving on to harder drugs.
My point is that the Government are not nipping this is in the
bud. What will happen here is that they will hand this over to
the criminal fraternity, and kids who want to take drugs will
continue to take drugs, but now we will not know what they are
taking and it could be doing them more harm. Meanwhile, they will
be arrested and given a criminal record, which will live with
them for the rest of their days. That is not helping the
situation at all.
I was just going to say that this change will result in people
being arrested and convicted. That conviction will lead to stigma
and damage employment opportunities, housing, personal finance,
travel and relationships. That is what we have been doing for 50
years, and that has been a rolling success, has it not? There is
little or no evidence that says that this action will
address—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for North West
Hampshire () want to intervene?
indicated dissent.
There is little or no evidence that says that this action will
address the problem. Can the Minister provide me with one
example—just one—over 50 years where arresting someone for
personal possession and giving them a criminal record has helped
reduce the misuse of drugs? As has been highlighted already in
this debate, the problems of antisocial behaviour and littering
can be addressed through existing legislation properly
applied.
This change is driven by the Government’s desire to be seen to be
coming down hard on crime and, by doing so, they are ignoring
evidence from their own expert body, the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs, along with the Royal Society of Medicine, the
World Health Organisation and the United Nations. The focus
should be on education, not punishment.
This change does nothing to address the question of why people
fall into addiction, or indeed why they take drugs in the first
place. It does nothing to reduce criminality; it just pushes it
on to the consumer. It does nothing to make people safer. It
creates a vacuum for criminals to fill. It is a wolf whistle to
the “hang ’em high” brigade and it is typical of the lack of
long-term strategic planning that is required. There are no
short-term solutions; no magic wand exists.
Finally, continuing to bolster a policy that has not worked for
50 years will only add to the misery and pain that has already
been inflicted. It is time to think outside the box and radically
overhaul this Act and make it fit for the 21st century, where
drug harm is a health issue and not a matter for the criminal
justice system.
6.07pm
(Wyre Forest) (Con)
Having had a Westminster Hall debate on exactly this subject a
few months ago, I do not propose to take up too much of the
House’s time. I just want to thank the Minister for listening to
that debate and actually taking action as a result.
I got involved in this matter as a result of being lobbied by BBC
Hereford & Worcester and Dr David Nicholl, a Liberal Democrat
councillor in Bromsgrove, who is a neurologist. He highlighted
for me the damage that nitrous oxide does to kids. He likened it
to an electrical appliance that has had the insulation stripped
off the wiring inside it and then expecting that electrical
appliance to carry on working. This is what it does to your
nerves and it is a huge problem for people who take it.
There has been a lot of debate this afternoon about the fact that
the measure will criminalise people and that we should be
attacking the suppliers rather than the users. At the end of the
day, if something is called laughing gas and is said to be a
harmless drug—a harmless and safe high—that misleads people into
thinking that it is perfectly safe to take. But it is not
perfectly safe; it has profound implications for people’s health.
It is absolutely terrible. The hon. Member for Inverclyde () made the important point
that we are going to be criminalising people. Ultimately, of
course, some people will be criminalised, but is it not worth a
small number of people being criminalised to act as a deterrent
for the majority who—
It has not been proven to be a deterrent. Look at the numbers
that we have across the United Kingdom. Has arresting people and
criminalising them ever been proven to be a deterrent?
It is always very difficult to prove a negative. I take the hon.
Member’s point, but I am happy that we will be providing a
deterrent for kids of the generation of my children; that is what
I care about. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for
listening, incredibly grateful to Dr David Nicholl, a
neurologist, for giving me scientific evidence to support his
campaign, and incredibly grateful to BBC Hereford &
Worcester.
As with all these issues, we are reminded of particular
communications that we have from constituents. When I was
preparing for my Westminster Hall debate, I received an email
from somebody who wanted to talk about her brother. He was a very
talented sportsman who was possibly going to play rugby for
England. He was also a talented investment banker—I know we do
not always like investment bankers—with a very good career ahead
of him in the City of London. He found nitrous oxide, thinking it
was a harmless high, but within a year he had committed suicide
as a result of the damage he had done to his system. If we know
that is a possible outcome, I do not think it is right to do
anything other than send a very strong message that this is a
dangerous drug. Criminalising it sends that message to try to put
people off using it.
6.20pm
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
I rise with great scepticism about this measure, because it is
using an Act that is fundamentally flawed. The 1971 Act does not
work. It does not work in criminalising people or in reducing
drug use, drug deaths or drug harms. In fact, the evidence across
comparable countries, especially Portugal and other southern
European countries, is that the Act increases the harm for
people. It drives people away from getting treatment and
support.
I am also sceptical about the slight moral panic. That is not to
dismiss the marginal cases of horrible and acute harm for those
affected, including death in the worst circumstances—by the way,
we have caffeine deaths in this country—and heart, lung and
neurological problems. As the Minister said, this is the most
widely taken drug by young people, but the harms caused do not
even rank in the top 50 harms caused to young people. The idea
that this drug is causing great harm is just not true.
Most people use this drug. I have used it at the dentist. People
have used it in hospital settings. But most people use the drug
recreationally, harmlessly and acceptably. My view is that that
is fine. I have not used the drug recreationally, but I have been
in rooms where top judges from the High Court, lawyers, senior
politicians and celebrities have used these kinds of drugs, and
other drugs, and it causes them no harm. The police do not come
knocking at their doors, because the usage is behind closed doors
by wealthy people, predominantly white, who are out of sight and
out of mind. The state does not mind.
This classification will target poor people, young people, and
predominantly people from ethnic minorities. We know that is the
case because that is what has happened with all other forms of
drug taking, where large numbers of people from different
demographics take the drugs but the laws criminalise a specific
set of demographics. That is the fundamental problem with the
1971 Act—it targets people and communities, rather than helping
them get off the drugs they are addicted to or to move to a safe
space. This measure will make things worse.
The measure will also make things worse in terms of gangs and
criminal syndicates. It should come as no surprise: the
Conservative Government has been giving get-out clauses to
criminal gangs for the last 10 years in many other sectors,
through bungs to their mates or legislation that allows dodgy
dealings. But this measure will move this trade underground. It
will suddenly mean that a premium can be charged on this
particular drug. It will mean that people will not know what is
in the canisters safely. It will mean more deaths and it will
mean profits for criminal gangs—they will go laughing to the
bank. The people who really want this measure are the gangs. The
people who really want the continuation of the 1971 Act are the
gangs. I want the Government and my party to stop being the
cheerleaders of gangs and criminals, because while they continue
to cheerlead for the 1971 Act, that is what they are.
Let us look at the evidence of what the Government’s own Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs says: that this drug has no effect
on crime whatsoever at the moment. There is no evidence that it
causes or exacerbates crime, although there is some minor
evidence that it causes antisocial behaviour. I suggest to hon.
Members that the antisocial behaviour is not really caused by
laughing gas; it is caused by the fact that there are young
people hanging around park and benches with nothing better to do,
because youth services have been slashed in this country and
billions of pounds taken out of support services. People who live
in miserable accommodation, who do not have living rooms to sit
in because they live in horrible, filthy bedsits, who are out on
the streets in the evening trying to while away the hours and
take the edge off their often miserable and difficult lives,
because they are in absolute poverty or they have other social
issues around them, and there is no one in the state to support
them—that is what is antisocial. Yes, for the person in their
nice big house who does not want to be disturbed in the evening
it is a bit of a frustration, but those things can be dealt with,
just as we deal with many other issues.
The same argument can also be made on littering; it is a reason,
surely, to move to producer responsibility, where we have stamps
and marks on the canisters so we can see who is supplying those
canisters and ensure that suppliers of those canisters are
punished properly. Many of my constituents think we should do
that with the plastic cups strewn on our beaches, because we do
not know which bar has given them out and not picked them up. I
agree with that. I think that for waste and recycling we need to
move to a completely different model, but that is not a model of
criminalising young people.
This measure is criminalising young people, because the only
change here is to criminalise young people. If there was a way to
stop this substance being produced, if there was a way to ensure
that people can enjoy themselves—personally, I do not have a
problem with people enjoying themselves with drugs—but in a safe
way that does not cause antisocial behaviour, I would be all for
it. However, I am afraid that all this measure will do is
exacerbate the situation.
Personally, I would like not to have a vote on this measure
today, because I think it would be better for the Government to
go away and rethink it, given the cross-party opposition to it,
and to find a way forward. If there is a vote, I am afraid I
will, very reluctantly, not to be able to support the Government
on this.
6.28pm
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging discussion, and I
will try to conclude relatively briefly. I start by thanking the
shadow Minister for his support for this measure in principle; it
is good to start off on this note of cross-party consensus, which
I hope will continue for the remainder of his tenure in his new
role. He asked some questions, as did my right hon. Friend the
Member for North West Hampshire (), about plans for enforcement and the resources
that will be dedicated to this issue. I can confirm that it is
something we expect the police to be focusing on.
The shadow Minister also asked about the antisocial behaviour
action plan. It is true that we are starting with pilots in just
10 force areas doing the antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols,
but in April of next year that will expand to all 43 police
forces across England and Wales, backed by around £43 million
pounds of extra new funding to make sure those ASB hotspot
patrols are out and about, both dealing with antisocial
behaviours more widely and looking specifically at the issue of
nitrous oxide consumption.
There were a number of questions about prison places. We are in
the process of building more than 20,000 extra prison places. We
expect this measure to have a significant deterrent effect on the
consumption of the drug. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre
Forest () said, reducing consumption
will reduce the incentive to supply the drug as well. We expect
it to be enforced.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel
Hempstead ( ) for his work on the
Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Some Members asked about the
action that followed, and I think my right hon. Friend can take
pride in the fact that 332 retailers stopped selling psychoactive
substances as a result of his legislation, and that there have
been at least 230 prosecutions under that Act, which, of course,
covers nitrous oxide. I think I said earlier that it regulates
nitrous oxide, but it would be more accurate to say that it
covers it.
There has been some discussion about the ACMD. I put on the
record again my thanks to that council for its work advising the
Government. We almost always follow the ACMD’s advice, although
there have been occasions, including under the last Labour
Government, when the Government have taken a slightly broader and
different view, for reasons that many Members, including my hon.
Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, the hon. Member for Ellesmere
Port and Neston () and the shadow Minister,
have outlined. We have taken a slightly different and broader
view in considering the social harm and our concern that the harm
and paralysis the substance causes may get worse if its use is
allowed to spread, but we have also consulted the ACMD on how we
will go about implementing the legislation. We have done a public
consultation on implementation, and the report was published on 5
September, making it clear that there will be a wide-ranging
exemption for legitimate use.
Some Members asked about legitimate use. We will amend the Misuse
of Drugs Regulations 2001 to make it clear that legitimate use is
any use that does not involve inhalation by a human. Inhalation
by a human for research and medical purposes will, of course, be
lawful. I hope that that gives the little extra clarity that
Members asked for.
A couple of Members referred to people who consume the substance
medically. Of course, when people consume nitrous oxide at the
dentist’s or in the context of giving birth, they are being
supervised by a medical professional. In the case of giving
birth, an anaesthetist is typically supervising the
administration of the drug. That is necessary because it is
potentially very harmful.
A few comments have been made about the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
more widely. I do not propose to go into that in detail, save to
say that if we consider jurisdictions where they have taken an
incredibly permissive view, such as San Francisco, it has not
resulted in more people going into treatment; it has led to a
significant increase in deaths as a result of drug overdoses,
particularly from synthetic opioids, and to widescale disorder on
the streets. I do not accept the thesis that we can have
treatment only if we liberalise drug laws and have out-of-control
public consumption, as in some American cities. We do not want
that happening in this country. That is why a combination of
going after drug supply at the border and going after criminal
gangs is important, combined with the funding of treatment, which
we are doing with an extra £582 million for treatment over three
years, and record police numbers. We have 149,566 police
officers—more than ever before.
The measure, which I hope we will vote through this evening, will
help us to combat antisocial behaviour across the country. It
will protect people—particularly young people, but adults as
well—from the medical harm that the drug can do. It is a critical
part of the Government’s battle against antisocial behaviour. I
commend the order to the House.
Question put.
[Division 323
The House divided:
Ayes
404
Noes
36
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 12 September 2023 at
6.33pm](/Commons/2023-09-12/division/25B792BF-B7EF-46E0-87FD-EC4BD2DF5693/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Resolved,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023,
which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
|
