Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider Clause 2 stand part.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

Many hon. Members will be aware of the blight of drugs on our streets. The recent and ongoing emergence of novel synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyls and nitazenes, poses a particular risk to public safety and public health, not least because of their very high potency. It is those drugs that the Bill seeks to address, because with the rapid development of synthetic drugs, it is vital that new controls can come into force at the earliest opportunity to enable the police and other authorities to act in the interests of public safety.

The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power to specify controlled drugs under section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so that the form of statutory instrument is regulations made by the Secretary of State rather than an Order in Council. The statutory instrument remains subject to the draft affirmative procedure and the statutory preconditions of acting after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

For Members who are not aware, the UK-wide Misuse of Drugs Act is the principal legislation to control substances that are dangerous or otherwise harmful. These substances become controlled drugs by being listed and classified as class A, B or C under schedule 2 to the Act, according to their relative harmfulness, or by being specified in a temporary drug class as a drug subject to a temporary control order.

The Act imposes the criminal penalties that many of us will be aware of in relation to offences such as unlawful possession, supply, offer to supply, production, and importation and exportation of those controlled drugs. Currently, any Amendment to schedule 2 to control, remove from control or amend the control of drugs is made by Order in Council—in other words, by the King in Council. Orders can also be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.

For newbies like me who are not aware of what that means, let me explain. If we are looking to add a new substance to the list, we first have to go through the draft affirmative procedure with debates and approval by both Houses of Parliament. A statutory instrument then has to be made at the Privy Council and will come into force on a specified date, which is generally 28 days later. Given that the Privy Council generally meets only once each month, and not at all during recess, this means that it will be an additional four to six weeks following the debates in Parliament for a substance to be controlled under the law. In the interim, that means the police have limited powers to tackle those substances and are not able to throw the full force of the law at individuals supplying or possessing those substances, which, as we know, are very dangerous to public safety.

The Bill is very short. Clause 1 seeks to amend the 1971 Act by removing the requirement for an Order in Council so that any amendment to the list of controlled drugs under schedule 2 would require only debates in both Houses under the draft affirmative procedure. Importantly, the clause continues to state that the Secretary of State can act only following consultation with or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. In terms of its impact and effect, the Bill is limited to that area.

Clause 2 is even shorter, providing that the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which is very standard.

The Committee will be pleased to hear that we are not expecting the debate to be too long, and I recommend that all members of the Committee vote in favour of the Bill.

I support the Bill in the context of my liberalism. For years, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for better access to medicinal cannabis for those who rely on it to manage their symptoms. The current system is too restrictive and necessitates a more compassionate, patient-centred approach to ensure that nobody is left to suffer unnecessarily. The Government should investigate the merits of permitting general practice to prescribe cannabis-based products.

That said, this retired military police officer does not find his liberal values to be at odds with the Bill. In fact, the Bill increases protections for citizens from dangerous substances and simplifies and shortens the control systems set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I welcome this Bill, which, in the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, sheds light on a system that is not working well and proposes an appropriate fix. As a pharmacist, I am well aware of the problems we have with controlled drugs, and novel and designer drugs that are produced at speed pose a risk to patients. I believe this Bill will do exactly what it says on the tin and help us to control a growing problem. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us here today.

After a year of being a Member of Parliament, it is wonderful that not a week passes without my discovering a new arcane practice that seems designed to stand in the way of doing things well and at speed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester for taking the opportunity to get rid of at least one regulatory burden so that we can speed up the process of keeping people safe.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am broadly in favour of the Bill, but I have a few questions that I hope the Minister can answer.

The Home Affairs Committee report of 2023 made a number of recommendations, including the rescheduling of psilocybin and other similar substances under the MDA 1971. I hope the Minister can confirm that, if it is passed, the Bill could be used to speed up the ability to move some controlled substances down the scheduling list and others up the scheduling list. Can she also confirm that passing this legislation will not further intensify the failed war on drugs model, as we hopefully seek to move towards an evidence-based harm reduction drug policy in this country?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on his success in taking the Bill to this stage and on his eloquent speech today. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s support.

I am grateful for the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made an important contribution informed by his professional background in pharmacy. He knows the importance of the Bill and how it will deliver on speeding up the process for dealing with illicit drugs.

The hon. Member for West Dorset said that he has been a Member for just one year, and that he is finding new arcane practices all the time. Having spent 20 years in this place, I feel his pain. He will find many arcane practices during his parliamentary career. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of drugs for some time. I hope I will be able to respond in detail to the particular issues she raised.

I know the Bill appears technical, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, its impact could be great in controlling new dangerous substances in the UK. As we all know, drugs can have a devastating impact on the lives of families and communities. In the UK, we must continue to ensure that we invest in preventing drug misuse, helping people through treatment and recovery, and protecting the public from these harmful substances through legislation. We must continue to be alert to the potential for dangerous substances, especially synthetic drugs, and it is critical that we have the appropriate tools to make any necessary legislative change at the earliest opportunity. The Bill will enable the Government to make timely changes to respond to emerging drug threats.

There were 3,618 deaths related to drug misuse registered in England and Wales in 2023. That is the highest number since records began, in 1993, and 16% higher than in 2022. Furthermore, in 2023, nearly half of all drug-related poisonings involved opiates, and potent synthetic variants of these are emerging at a concerning rate. When the Bill was introduced, at least 284 deaths had been linked to nitazenes, a potent type of synthetic opioid, across the UK. Sadly, that number now stands at over 450.

We are working very quickly to face the ongoing threat of synthetic opioids in the UK. Last year, 20 substances were controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 15 of which were synthetic opioids, with 14 being nitazenes. This year, we went a step further by introducing a generic definition of nitazenes in the 1971 Act, meaning that new variants of these substances that meet the definition are automatically controlled. While it is right that these changes receive an appropriate degree of scrutiny, the rate at which new variants of substances such as nitazenes are emerging demonstrates that pace is of the essence. Until such changes come into force, our law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to pursue the toughest penalties for criminals who are knowingly supplying these dangerous substances to vulnerable users, many of whom do not know what they are taking.

The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power contained in section 2 of the 1971 Act so that the form of amending statutory instruments will be regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than an Order in Council. This will ultimately support our aim to ensure that substances are more rapidly made subject to controls under the 1971 Act.

On a point of clarification, as part of this process will there be reviews of the evidence for keeping drugs within those schedules? We know, for example, that cocaine is class A, and cocaine deaths increased by 30% last year. We all want to reduce drug harms, so at what rate will this be reviewed if the Bill is passed?

My hon. Friend will know that we keep drug policy under review. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs offers advice to the Government. That process is ongoing, but the Bill is specific and technical in its purpose.

As it stands, the process for controlling, removing or amending the control of drugs needs to go through the draft affirmative procedure. Following debates in both Houses of Parliament, the statutory instrument is then made by the King at a Privy Council meeting and comes into force on a specified date, generally 28 days later. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the Privy Council meets only once a month, which can delay the statutory instrument coming into force by an extra four to six weeks. As a result, any new substance listed in the statutory instrument will not be subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act until the Privy Council meets and the order can be made.

In the interim, if the substances are captured by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, there will be no possession offence other than in a custodial setting or with intent to supply. It is also possible that, under the 2016 Act, there will be lower penalties for the supply, import or export of that substance.

On that basis, the Government support the Bill and wish it a smooth passage.

I thank every hon. Member who contributed to this debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for supporting the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, who is a fierce campaigner in this area, for discussing mental health, drugs and related policy areas.

The hon. Member for West Dorset is entirely correct in saying that this place has far too many arcane rules and procedures. If we remove them one at a time, we may be here for a long while, but we should do so none the less.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset brings a wealth of expertise as a pharmacist, and I am grateful for his support for the Bill. I am sure the Minister will have heard what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who is my Constituency neighbour, said about medicinal cannabis, and I am sure that he and his party will continue to campaign on the issue.

In these 15 minutes or so, the Committee has had a good opportunity to debate this short and technical, but none the less important, Bill. It is important to my constituents that we tackle the war on drugs and protect vulnerable people while ensuring that criminals are behind bars.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

I think this is where I am meant to stand up and thank the Clerks, the Committee members, the Doorkeepers and Hansard—I know it has been a long and arduous process to get to this point. I look forward to the Bill’s further progress. I also thank you, Dr Murrison.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose.