Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026.
Sarah Jones
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft regulations and the draft order, which were both laid before Parliament on 26 February, will address the harms caused by illegal drugs, which do terrible damage to health and to communities. Acquisitive crime and 50% of homicides are linked to drugs, and drug deaths reached 3,500 in 2024.
Although many drug precursor chemicals have legitimate industrial uses, they are also used to make illegal drugs. We therefore control DPCs in two ways. The first, which the draft regulations are concerned with, seeks to reduce the risk of DPCs that are used legitimately in industry being diverted to producing illicit drugs. The second, which the draft order is concerned with, is through measures to tackle the deliberate illicit use of DPCs to produce drugs.
I turn first to the draft regulations. Companies must generally obtain licences or other authorisations to use DPCs. In most cases, they must maintain proper records of consignments, and they must always notify the National Crime Agency where they suspect diversion of DPCs for illicit use. Before Brexit, those requirements were set by the EU; since Brexit, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, while a similar regime operates in Great Britain as assimilated law.
The draft regulations will amend deficiencies in that assimilated law. For example, Ministers lack effective powers to control new DPCs in Great Britain, so no new chemicals have been controlled there since January 2021. The EU has added 10 DPCs and 14 related substances since then; those controls apply in Northern Ireland, but not in Great Britain. The substances are used to manufacture MDMA—commonly known as ecstasy—and fentanyl, amphetamine and methamphetamine. All of them, except amphetamine, are class A drugs. The draft regulations will therefore ensure that the requirements on companies that make legitimate use of DPCs in Great Britain apply to those 10 DPCs and the related substances. They will also provide powers to control additional substances in Great Britain in future.
The draft regulations will also provide a statutory mechanism to control movements of DPCs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such controls help to prevent diversion of DPCs and ensure that we meet our international obligations. We will not require companies to pay fees to do so, however; this is to ensure that there are no unnecessary impediments to free trade within this country.
Lastly, although companies are already required to keep records and report concerns in respect of a wide range of chemicals, the criminal penalties for failing to do so cover a smaller group of substances. The draft regulations will ensure that the rules and the penalties relating to documentation and reporting apply to all chemicals that are controlled under the regulations.
I turn to the draft order, which will add 12 DPCs and 16 related substances to the list of substances that it is a crime to supply or make if the defendant knows or suspects that they will be used to make controlled drugs. As I say, those DPCs are also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine or methamphetamine. The UN controlled those substances between March 2014 and March 2024. The legislation should have been updated sooner; I have written to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to address its concerns about the causes of the delay.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the draft regulations, which corrects two minor typographical errors. First, a reference to “United Kingdom” has now been changed to “the United Kingdom”. Secondly, the original draft referred to the “third place” the phrase “countries of destination” appeared in the text; it should have read “second place”, as there was no third.
I commend the draft regulations and the draft order to the Committee as instruments that will provide the Government with further means to tackle the illicit drugs that cause harm to so many.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this morning’s Committee debate, Ms McVey. I have little to question the Minister on the merits of the draft regulations. It is critical that we control and seize items used in the production of synthetic drugs. As the International Narcotics Control Board’s 2025 report on precursors indicates,
“the future of illicit drug markets seems indivisibly linked to the growing numbers of synthetic drugs and to the related precursors, specialized equipment and materials.”
Having the necessary regulations in place and empowering our enforcement authorities to monitor and seize items used for illicit purposes are clearly the right things to do. Given the second element, to which I will turn in a minute, I ask the Minister whether the Government are confident that the list is as current as possible, and what steps they are taking to monitor the changing substances that are diverted for illicit use.
Although we support any measures that limit the manufacture of these dangerous substances, it is relevant to note the remarks of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about the problems with the time taken to draft the regulations and the alignment challenges with Northern Ireland. These are clearly serious matters that deserve the Home Office’s attention, particularly given the necessity of regulating such substances. It appears to me that there were considerable oversight failures that went unrectified. That is evidently a concern, so I hope that the Government are examining it. Let me be clear: this is not a political point or a criticism of the Minister, but handover documentation, or the lack thereof, is a serious matter.
Separately, I understand that in March the Minister asked officials to provide advice on the appropriate approach to past charging, to be considered immediately after the recess. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline the advice that has been received.
I recognise the serious questions that have rightly been asked about process. It is the responsibility of all Governments to take steps to improve it and to ensure that our legislation can deal with the challenges posed. However, I reiterate that it is right that this change has been made and that we control and monitor the use of drug precursor chemicals.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I want to be really clear: the Liberal Democrats support the statutory instruments, but we wonder why it has taken so many years for them to come forward. Why has it taken two years of this Government for the statutory instruments to reach Parliament? Given that the substances were added between March 2014 and March 2024 but are only now coming into UK legislation, what steps is the Home Office taking to speed up future legislative action? How will the Government make sure that we remain consistent with international agreements in future?
Sarah Jones
I thank hon. Members for their comments, for agreeing with the legislation and for making some helpful points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, is right to say that we must make sure that the list is as current as it can be. He is also right that with all the new synthetic drugs that are sadly becoming more prevalent in this country, we must make sure that we are absolutely on top of their use, which is where the draft regulations will apply.
The shadow Minister mentioned the EU and Northern Ireland, and the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will remove regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because the same DPCs will now be controlled in both, as I hope he will recognise.
The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, both asked why it has taken so many years to get to this point. I wrote in some detail to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in March, and I am happy to provide colleagues with a copy of that letter. Obviously I cannot comment on decisions made by previous Ministers, but we have been working to rectify this matter since the general election. The perm sec is taking responsibility for making sure that we have the right logs in place in the Home Office, so that where legislation needs to be updated over time, we are completely aligned with that and alive to it.
The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills suggested that we have taken our time since the election, but we have worked through these things as quickly as we can. We previously introduced generic controls on nitazenes, which was incredibly important, and we are working through these things as fast as we can.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members. I am very happy to provide my letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee if members of this Committee would like it, but I think I have covered all the issues that have been raised. I acknowledge those issues and hope that hon. Members will support these two very important pieces of legislation.
Matt Vickers
Has any advice been received on the appropriate approach to past charging?
Sarah Jones
On past charging, we are offering repayments. We think the cost of those repayments will be about £3,000 in total. It is quite a small amount, but we are making that available to people.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL) (CO-OPERATION) ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 March 2026.
The United Kingdom was a founding signatory to the Paris memorandum of understanding in 1982 and a member of its predecessor since the late 1970s. The Paris MOU is a well-established international framework for inspecting foreign ships that call at member states’ ports, ensuring that international standards that reduce risks to health, safety and the environment are met. This is known as port state control. It formalises intelligence sharing on substandard ships and issues, and it adds weight to enforcement action taken by the United Kingdom by also impacting those vessels internationally.
The purpose of the draft regulations is to replace the existing 2011 regulations, which currently give effect to the Paris MOU requirements in UK law. The new regulations contain an expanded list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written. Those conventions have separate effect in UK law but are now referenced in the draft regulations in order to ensure that the legislative framework for undertaking port state control inspections is up to date.
The draft regulations also remove references to EU legislation and instead reference the Paris MOU directly. The 2011 regulations were made partly using powers in the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations are made using powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and, to the extent necessary, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers. The Paris MOU uses a risk-based scheme for targeting visiting ships for inspection and includes powers to exclude from ports ships that are persistently substandard. The UK’s participation in the port state control regime is an obligation of the UK under the Paris MOU, and it is also a valuable defence against substandard ships visiting UK ports.
Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI has noted the regulations but provided no further comments. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.
There remains little else to say, other than that I have set out the purpose and scope of the draft regulations, which revoke, replace and update the 2011 regulations. The draft regulations will continue to uphold the UK’s commitments to international standards. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In what has been a week of chaos, psychodrama and endless plotting, it must be a welcome break for the Minister to debate legislation that, as the explanatory memorandum sets out, results in
“no changes to this policy and the regulatory regime associated with port State control is retained.”
As I understand it, the draft regulations do not implement any new obligations, and it is therefore expected that there will be no direct costs to UK businesses or familiarisation costs for existing inspectors. As such, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to this statutory instrument given the support at consultation and the alterations that were made in response to comments.
However, I encourage the Government to explore wider measures that do not merely impose further direct costs but, rather, remove regulatory costs in a proportionate manner. I hope the Government ensure that they keep existing legislation up to date to ensure that port state control can operate effectively.
Of course, one of the factors that makes these regulations necessary is a shipping sector that is able to operate effectively. I understand that our maritime sector is concerned that the Iran war is squeezing bunker fuel supply. We have heard a lot about the impact of jet fuel shortages, but as the Minister is here, I hope the Government have the same focus on the shipping industry’s fuel supplies as they have on the aviation industry’s fuel supplies. One analyst from Aon noted that bunker fuel shortages tend to feed through to shipping costs more quickly than many other cost pressures. I therefore hope that the Minister can outline in more detail, either today or at another time, what the Government are doing to ensure a sufficient supply of fuel at port.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.
We Liberal Democrats also support this legislative tidying up. I hope the Minister is grateful for the opportunity to talk about what I know is his favourite mode of transport, ships, rather than dabbling in railway tedium. I have only one question for him: does he agree that the Paris memorandum highlights the inherently international nature of a lot of our shipping, and that we should be willing to take account of other jurisdictions’ changes to shipping legislation in future as part of that international co-operation?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, particularly in relation to the cost to the maritime sector and, for my constituents, the cost of using ferries. Of course, the increase in fuel costs is a significant issue with which they have to grapple, not helped by the Government’s decision to levy a green tax—an emissions trading scheme levy—on them, which they cannot avoid. That is not to say that the Isle of Wight ferry companies are not hugely responsible for their own costs, which they bring to bear on my constituents who try to cross the Solent, given that they are unregulated, private companies that fund private equity and pension funds abroad.
I am grateful for the opportunity to remark on the costs. I know the Minister is aware of them, and I urge him to do whatever he can to bring down costs in the maritime sector, particularly for ferries on which people rely to connect with the rest of the UK.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister both for his support for the measures and for his concern for my welfare over the last few weeks. To quote one of the five Prime Ministers who graced these halls during the 14 years of chaos and disarray under the Conservative party, he is right to say, in relation to the draft regulations, that “nothing has changed.” He is right to push me further on additional regulatory improvements that can ease doing business for UK shipping companies and seafarers. I am unashamedly ambitious to grow the UK flag to make this country a more attractive place for shipping firms to do business, and I am glad that he will be holding my feet to the fire as we attempt to do so.
The shadow Minister is also right that we must retain the UK’s fantastic reputation for safety and compliance with international obligations, without imposing onerous costs on businesses. He also points to the critical issue of the supply of marine fuel. I reassure him that it was a consistent theme during my week in Singapore for Maritime Week, in my engagement with shipping companies that have large interests in UK maritime and with other Government stakeholders. It is something that teams in the Department for Transport keep under constant review, in collaboration with industry, and we will keep a close watch on developments in the strait of Hormuz in relation to the critical issue of the bunkering of marine fuels.
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, for his comments on international co-operation. I am proud that the United Kingdom hosts the International Maritime Organisation, through which we continue to pursue innovative work towards achieving a net zero framework and ambitious measures on safety, innovation and business-supporting regulation. I am glad that he supports us in those efforts.
I also thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for consistently raising the critical issue of ferry connectivity for his constituents. I am happy to engage with him further on the ETS and the impact that it may or may not have, especially with regard to the tonnage implications of new hybridised ferries procured on the Isle of Wight. I know he is concerned about that, and I am happy to take those conversations forward.
I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations. I hope I have fully answered all the points raised, and that they agree with me that the objective of the draft regulations—to update merchant shipping legislation to ensure it is operable and effective going forward—is highly desirable.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.