New Clause 2 - Legal highs — offence

Part of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 9:45 am on 16 July 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) 9:45, 16 July 2013

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Deaths are very tragic—they are at the sharpest end of misuse of these products. However, last month, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimated that the number of young people aged 15 to 24 in the United Kingdom who have taken a legal high is 670,000. Within that number, because of the lack of regulation of these products, there are people who will misuse either by taking too much or by mixing with alcohol,  resulting in hospitalisations. That affects their health, but in a wider context also affects the role of accident and emergency and GP surgeries, and has a cost to the state. The products are effectively legal, but are being misused for purposes that must be examined in detail, hence the reviews under new clauses 3 and 21. We could also use the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 as a model, as new clause 2 effectively does.

I am not an expert in such matters, but I am told by those who are that legal highs are actively marketed under a number of brand names, such as China White, Banshee Dust and Clockwork Orange. Such products carry no list of ingredients, no warnings of likely effects, no advice on dosage and no advice on the potential dangers of mixing with alcohol or other drugs. To evade prosecution under the Medicines Act 1968, they are invariably billed as “not for human consumption.” However, ultimately, they are used for human consumption. They often contain unknown, untested ingredients or sets of ingredients. Their psychoactive effect is therefore unpredictable, and in the long term leads to potential hospitalisation or ill health, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford mentioned.

It is interesting that not only are 670,000 young people in the UK estimated by the UN to use legal highs—that is 8.2% of people in that age range, which is the highest proportion in Europe—but there is also a great growth in the number of websites and formal retail outlets selling these products. The European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction estimated that there were 170 websites in 2010, in itself a considerable number, but by 2012 the number was 690. Half of those are UK-based websites. There is no register of the retail shops that sell these items but the Angelus Foundation, which examines this matter in some detail and was set up after the tragedy of a family death, is compiling a list. It is expected to show that there are several hundred retail shops. As an illustration, UK Skunkworks has 14 shops in and around the M25. Another outlet, Dr Herman, has six shops in the north of England.

Those are retail outlets and it is perfectly legal at the moment to sell those legal highs. The model that I have put forward for the Committee to consider is based on the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. It regulates the sale of solvents, butane gas, glues and other substances that are used for a range of legitimate purposes but which in some cases have been misused by individuals and have caused many hundreds of deaths over many years. It was a private Member’s Bill promoted by the then Member for Tynemouth, Neville Trotter, and supported by the Conservative Government. It effectively said that retailers could sell the products for legitimate uses but if they sold them in the knowledge that they were being bought for the purposes of abuse they were committing an offence that is punishable by a fine or imprisonment.

The Act has stood the test of time. It has been enforced by the police and trading standards officers over the past 28 years. There are regular prosecutions. More importantly, it has led to a greater understanding among retailers of the harmful effects of these products if misused. The number of deaths has fallen from a high of around 150 per year 25 years ago down to a still difficult 40 to 60 a year now. On average, 100 young  people a year are alive because of that Act and because retailers are under pressure not to sell for the purposes of abuse.

New clause 2 establishes that it is an offence to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance including, but not restricted to, a powder, a pill, a liquid or a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis, which is likely to be used for the purpose of intoxication. It would still be legal to sell any of these products if they were to be used for non-intoxicating purposes, but if they were being used for intoxication then an offence would be committed with a prison sentence not exceeding six months and a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale of fines. This does not apply to alcohol, tobacco or any drug currently scheduled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Medicines Act 1968. I think that is a reasonable model and I hope that the Minister will support it, given that such a model already operates effectively under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. That has raised awareness, secured prosecutions, reduced abuse and led to fewer deaths.

New clause 3 is a standard measure through which I am trying to get the Government to commit to a review. It is important that in the next 12 months the Government review the impact of psychoactive drugs on antisocial behaviour offending rates and, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford mentioned, the impact on the national health service, policing and local authority resources. Not only would such a review provide the bland definitive statistics, which are appalling in themselves, on the number of deaths and the level of usage, but it would allow us to assess more widely the impact of legal highs on our communities.

New clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, states:

“The Secretary of State, no more than six months following Royal Assent of this Act, shall publish proposals for reforms to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and other relevant legislation, for consultation, to reduce the evidential burden placed on prosecuting authorities when demonstrating that a psychoactive substance has been supplied, or offered to be supplied, for the purposes of causing intoxication.”

Taken as a package, new clauses 2, 3 and 21 would provide a model for legislation under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985; establish a review of such a model in 12 months; and establish a review of the evolution of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, all of which would help the situation.

The Angelus Foundation, led by Maryon Stewart, has developed resources for young people and their parents to help them understand the dangers of legal highs, and those resources are being tested. Resources and awareness alone will not help to reduce the level of usage of legal highs and the level of deaths, however. We need to challenge the source of the substances that are being misused, which means that we need to challenge the websites and retail outlets. The Bill gives us an opportunity to legislate to do just that.

I urge the Minister to consider new clauses 2 and 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham may contribute further on new clause 21, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. We all have a common interest in finding a way to reduce usage and death, to raise awareness and to help to control the growing epidemic of legal highs in this country.