Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has formed the basis for the order.
The order relates to methiopropamine, commonly known as MPA. The effect of the order is to permanently control MPA as a class B drug under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This will make it an offence to possess, produce, import, export, supply or offer to supply this drug without a Home Office licence.
MPA is a stimulant psychoactive substance similar in structure to methamphetamine. It has similar effects to other stimulants such as MDMA, amphetamine and cocaine. These effects include stimulation, alertness and an increase of energy and focus. Side-effects reported include abnormally fast heart rates, anxiety, panic attacks, perspiration, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating and sexual dysfunction.
The National Programme of Substance Abuse Deaths reported 46 cases where MPA was found in post-mortem toxicology between 2012 and April 2017. In 33 of these, MPA was implicated in the cause of death. In November 2015, the ACMD recommended that MPA be subject to a temporary class drug order. This followed reports that MPA had emerged as a replacement drug for the methylphenidate-based compounds which were subjected to a temporary class drug order at the time. The increasing number in use and the number of associated deaths and harms, together with the potential intravenous use, led to urgent advice from the ACMD to control MPA by way of a temporary class drug order.
In September 2016 the desired effect of the temporary class drug order appeared to have been successful, as the prevalence and problematic use had declined. However, the ACMD recommended that MPA be subject to another temporary class drug order to allow sufficient time to gather further evidence to recommend full control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
On 16 June this year, the ACMD reported that MPA is a drug which is being, or is likely to be, misused and that misuse is having, or is capable of having, harmful effects. As such, the ACMD recommended that MPA be permanently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class B drug. The ACMD also found no evidence that MPA has any recognised medicinal use beyond potential research.
This order, if approved, will provide enforcement agencies the requisite powers to restrict the supply and use of MPA in this country. It will also provide a clear message to the public that the Government consider these substances to be a danger to society. We expect that the permanent control of MPA will continue to offer the notable impact it has provided following its temporary control under a TCDO. It is for these reasons that my honourable friend the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability accepted the ACMD’s advice that MPA should be subject to the order.
It is intended to make two further related statutory instruments to come into force at the same time as the order, to add these substances to the appropriate schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister—I had not anticipated this debate starting quite so early. I well understand the need to control the supply of methiopropamine, or MPA, and I applaud the Government for seeking the professional opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs and for following its recommendations. As we know, Governments have not always consulted the ACMD, nor have they always followed its recommendations, so that is to be commended. It is unfortunate that the ACMD and the Government have decided that the most appropriate instrument for the control of this drug is the outdated Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, rather than the Psychoactive Substances Act. The main consequence of this decision is that the users of MPA will be subject to a criminal record and criminal penalty if found in possession of this drug. Users are likely to be people with severe health problems and in need of help and support.
The Minister will be aware that I and about 100 other MPs and Peers who are members of the APPG for Drug Policy Reform would be grateful for an indication from her, if at all possible, of when the Government will invite the ACMD or another independent body to review the operation of the 1971 Act and, indeed, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and analyse the consequences of these Acts on: the level of addiction to the many banned substances; the substitution of new and perhaps even more dangerous substances for a banned substance immediately following a ban; and the level of use of alcohol and tobacco in response to the bans on these alternative drugs. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the House whether the Government have any plans to evaluate the efficacy of the 1971 and 2016 drugs laws, particularly in the light of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime proposition at the UNGASS in 2016 that evidence-based public health policies are here to stay.
Does the Minister agree that neither of our drugs laws—neither the 1971 Act nor the 2016 Act—were in any way based on evidence that those legislative propositions would actually achieve the objectives that any Government want? For example, we know that the experience in Ireland of an almost identical law to our Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 was an increase in psychoactive substance misuse and drug deaths—anything but the result that the Government would hope, and that we would all hope, would be achieved by a new drugs law.
The Government refer to monitoring the control measures through the regulatory framework at paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether any analysis of the impact of the ban on this drug, and of the bans on other drugs, will be undertaken. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Lexden (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference to the unusual circumstances in which this order comes to the House this evening. It has not been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments because that committee has not been re-established because of the failure of the other place to provide its members to the committee. I was a member of the Joint Committee in the last Parliament, and I am looking forward to resuming work, I hope, at an early point in this Parliament.
The committee receives advice from a formidable array of legal experts. They invariably find points that need correction—sometimes smaller, sometimes larger. I have just one question for my noble friend. In the absence of the committee, is she satisfied that this order has been subjected to sufficiently rigorous scrutiny by legal experts?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the contributions that they made to the debate, and the helpful points that have been raised. I trust that I made the case based on the available evidence and the advice provided by the ACMD that this order to permanently control MPA as a class B drug, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, should be approved.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly makes the point about the JCSI and the failure to appoint members to the committee. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal apologised for that to this House this time last week. My noble friend Lord Lexden makes the same point and asks if we are satisfied that this order has been given the correct amount of scrutiny before it comes to your Lordships’ House. It has gone to the other place. It has come here on the advice of the ACMD and I am satisfied that, in getting full airing from both Houses, we have given it correct scrutiny. I appreciate that many noble Lords almost did not get here tonight because events moved a lot more quickly than we thought. The timescales for achieving the full control of MPA under the 1971 Act, before the expiry of the temporary class drug order, are very tight. Further delay in attending to JCSI clearance means that there is a significant risk that we would not be able to pass scrutiny and finish debate in time for the Privy Council to make the order at its meeting on 15 November. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point that it is most important that this order is considered in good time. I must reiterate my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal’s apology on this, but I am satisfied that scrutiny is being fully applied to it, particularly as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is in her place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, talked about the outcome of the ban and asked whether we have done any analysis of it. We have seen a significant fall in the use of new psychoactive substances among 16 to 59 year-olds in the past year, from 0.7% in the 2015-16 Crime Survey for England and Wales to 0.4% in 2016-17.
I was asked why this was being done under the Misuse of Drugs Act, not the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Given the reported risks and known harms that this substance has already posed to public health, the ACMD has advised that the MDA is the preferred option for control. Permanent control of MPA under the MDA—this is a real tongue-twister—utilises the stricter offences of production and distribution under any circumstances without a licence. Permanent control of MPA also makes the act of possession an offence under the MDA and increases the maximum penalties for the other offences. The stricter offences and penalties will prove a stronger deterrent to the supply and possession of these substances.
The noble Baroness also asked about plans for the Home Office to review the 1971 Act. We have no plans to do so, but Section 58 of the Psychoactive Substances Act commits the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act, prepare a report of the review and lay a copy of it before Parliament 30 months after commencement of the Act. This review will therefore report its findings in 2019.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asks why MPA is classed as class B when it is believed to be more dangerous than MDMA and cocaine, and he gave some compelling examples of synthetic versions of traditional drugs, if you can call them that. In the past year, cocaine was related to 371 deaths. That confirms its status as class A drug-appropriate. I will write to him on the other points he raised on the comparisons between the synthetic versions of some of the more traditional drugs and the number of deaths associated with them, particularly cannabis, because I know the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is listening with intent.
On that note, I hope I have answered most of the questions. If I have not addressed all of them, I will of course write. I think there was a question from my noble friend Lord Patten about advice from the advisory committee on stronger forms of cannabis. I will write to him on that.