Prevention of Drug Deaths

Lillian Jones Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. I associate myself with the comments regarding Christina McKelvie MSP.

I stand here today to address a crisis that has devastated lives, families and communities across Scotland. It is a crisis that demands our attention, our compassion and, most importantly, accountability. I am speaking about the tragic rise of drug deaths in Scotland—a problem that for far too long has been exacerbated by failures in leadership and policy, particularly under the SNP Scottish Government.

At a constituency visit to the Patchwork Recovery Community in Kilmarnock a few weeks ago, I was starkly reminded of the enormity of the crisis during conversations with people who shared their thoughts about and experiences of the deaths of family members and friends due to drugs. They expressed the deep suffering and loss of those individuals.

The Scottish Government must start to deliver a genuinely joined-up approach to tackling the drug-deaths crisis, and ensure that every single person struggling with drug issues can get the care, support and treatment they need. For too long, the SNP Government have failed to address the crisis in a meaningful way. Despite Scotland’s long-standing recognition of its drug-death problem, the Scottish Government’s approach has been too slow, too reactive and too piecemeal. While other countries have taken bold action to tackle opioid crises and improve access to treatment, Scotland’s response has been inconsistent and insufficient. This stems from drastic cuts to public services over the last decade.

Glasgow is at the centre of the drugs epidemic, with the highest rate of drug-misuse death in Scotland in the 2019-23 period. The Thistle facility in Glasgow is the UK’s first official consumption room for illegal drugs. It is being appropriately scrutinised by the Scottish Affairs Committee as to its effectiveness in protecting Glaswegians who are impacted by drug abuse.

The SNP’s approach to harm reduction is inconsistent. There remain gaps in the availability of crucial services such as detox, rehabilitation and mental health support. It is no secret that drug addiction is often tied to underlying mental health challenges, yet too many people struggling with both have nowhere to turn for help. The lack of funding for rehab services and the slow pace of reform shows a Government who are not focused on the drug crisis or on prioritising the lives of their citizens.

Scotland’s drug-deaths crisis is not just about the statistics: it is about people. It is about mothers, fathers, sons and daughters whose lives have been cut short because the response from those in power was inadequate. After 1,171 deaths, how many more lives need to be lost before real change happens? How many more families must be shattered before the Scottish Government take full responsibility for the tragedy?

The SNP has had years to make meaningful change, yet we continue to see preventable deaths and suffering. We can no longer afford to ignore the crisis. We need urgent action from the Scottish Government. It is time for a comprehensive, compassionate and co-ordinated approach to tackling drug deaths that prioritises the health and wellbeing of those affected. We need better access to treatment, more rehabilitation services and a focus on addressing the root causes of addiction.

Scotland demands better from the SNP Government. The families who have lost loved ones, the communities that are hurting and the individuals who are still fighting addiction deserve better. They deserve a Government who are willing to act decisively without hesitation to save lives.

Hughes Report: First Anniversary

Lillian Jones Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate. The Hughes report makes for grim reading, as we have to read about the twin scandals of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Both scandals have one thing in common: the lack of provision of timely, accurate information to patients about the benefits, as well as the risks, of the treatments offered to them.

Many people rely on treatment with sodium valproate to effectively manage their epilepsy, and for many it is a remarkable drug that allows them to control their condition and lead a life free from the worry of epileptic seizures. However, a constituent experienced severe side effects from it, with no warnings and no information on the risk to pregnancy from taking it. In my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, a family approached me to press for action on compensation for families impacted by sodium valproate.

My constituent’s daughter was born with autism as a direct result of the sodium valproate she was prescribed to control her epilepsy. She has been left feeling guilt and self-blame for her daughter's condition, as many mothers would, given the challenges her daughter has had to endure growing up and managing in an education system where getting the right adjustments was a constant battle. My constituent and her family have faced the consequences of the lack of information and advice for pregnant women regarding sodium valproate. It is not fair, it should not have happened and it could have been prevented. 

It is depressing that we have seen an array of similar medical scandals, as well as the scandal of the Horizon system in post offices. All of those have one significant factor in common: information being withheld, with public bodies showing a complete lack of transparency, rather than being open to addressing serious issues from the outset. The latter would have prevented much distress and anguish and, in the case of sodium valproate, many children from being born with lifelong medical conditions.

But here we are again, after the event, looking quite rightly at a public wrong, and with the Hughes report, published in February 2024, outlining options for redress. The previous Conservative Government did what they always did: kicked the cans down the road, leaving impacted women and families in limbo and making no financial provision to pay for the redress that families rightly deserve. It is a scandal that Opposition Members should be apologising to all affected families for.

The Labour Government are faced once again with the responsibility to pick up the mess left by the Tories, by responding to the Hughes report. I will continue to press the Government to do the right thing, which I know they want to do.

[John Glen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lillian Jones]

Sorry, I must go on—other people want to speak.

I know that the Labour Government want to do the right thing. It is in our Labour values to right wrongs and injustices such as sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. But I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Government to do more and to look to change the culture in Government bodies that enables such scandals to happen in the first place. Transparency and accountability are what hard-working tax-paying families demand of the Government. Today, I call for fairness for all those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, and for them to receive recognition and redress to ensure that their needs are met.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lillian Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

It is easier to distinguish between a 16-year-old and a 24-year-old. Usually, the younger the age, the easier it is to make that determination, but it is much more difficult when people are older, yet that distinction will have to be made.

The idea may be that the cost of the licence will be so expensive that many small retailers will be squeezed out of the market, and the only outlets will be bigger stores where there are security guards. However, the sale of tobacco provides an important part of the income of many small retailers. Whether we like it or not, we are putting a burden on people who will find that they are exposed to dangers and difficulties, and will be subject to the law if they make the wrong decision.

The second issue, which has been touched on today, is what happens when people cannot get the tobacco that they want. Where do they go? They go to people who are prepared to sell it to them illegally. We cannot run away from the fact that the sale of illegal tobacco is already lucrative, especially because of the tax increases that we have introduced. It is lucrative for criminal gangs and it funds many of their activities. We have heard statistics that 7% of cigarettes and 33% of rolling tobacco are already sold by criminal gangs. In Northern Ireland, it is probably far higher because paramilitaries were involved in the trade and used it to fund their activities for so long. If anybody thinks, “Oh well, we’ll deal with that problem when it comes,” look at the history of Northern Ireland, where hundreds of millions of pounds found its way into the coffers of terror gangs and action was not taken, because it was sometimes too hard or too difficult to trace the things. Yes, action has now been taken, but do not think that we are going to have an all-out assault on the booming industry that this legislation will produce.

My last point about the Bill being impractical is that it cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as part of the EU single market, we are under the tobacco products directive. The Irish Republic tried to introduce similar legislation and found that it could not because of that directive. That is why we have tabled new clause 3, challenging the Government to amend the Windsor framework so that the legislation will apply across the United Kingdom. This is not a counsel of despair because I believe that there is an alternative, as set out in the amendment. Indeed, the Government’s own modelling suggests that a much more practical way is to set the age limit at 21.

If the figures and the modelling are correct—although there are questions about the tobacco modelling on doing away with smoking in a generation—and if we impose the age limit of 21, which avoids some of the problems we have talked about with the sale of tobacco, we reach zero consumption by 2050, just as we do with the generational model. That avoids many of the problems and difficulties I have outlined and the consequences for retailers, rather than rushing into this. It is a headline-grabbing measure, but it has not worked elsewhere. Why did New Zealand drop it? Because of the booming market in illegal tobacco. I believe that in a number of years, we will find that we made the same mistake.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

For me, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a landmark opportunity to improve health outcomes for people in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, as well as people across the whole United Kingdom. Almost 80,000 people die each year from smoking-related illness, and many of my constituents have told me they wish that they had never started smoking in the first place. With this Bill, we draw a line under the public health tragedy that tobacco has caused over too many decades. On top of the tragedy of 80,000 deaths, every year smoking costs the NHS more than £3 billion and sees our economy lose more than £18 billion in productivity. This Bill is the bold action that our country needs and that my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun will benefit from.

I am proud that this Labour Government are standing up to the tobacco lobby with the banning of tobacco products for anyone born in or after 2009. That radical change will save lives. In my constituency, I have seen people as young as 12 puffing on vapes on their way to school and when returning home. That is a huge concern for the health and wellbeing of those young people, and the ease of access that they have to vapes is simply unacceptable.

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She refers to the risk that young people will increasingly use vapes. Does she agree that the ban on advertising vapes cannot come quickly enough? In my constituency of Rugby, I see shops that look like sweet shops and whose names sound like sweet shops that are clearly designed to encourage and frankly entice young people to take up this unpleasant habit.

[Lillian Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those points.

While some argue that vapes may be less harmful than smoking tobacco products, our new generation should not be encouraged to become dependent on the addictive effects of nicotine. This Bill does exactly the right thing in giving the Secretary of State the power to ban flavoured vapes that are very obviously marketed to children and young people. Researching the flavours on offer, I found cola gummies flavour, pink lemonade flavour, strawberry chew flavour and tropic bubblegum flavour, to name just a few. Can anyone really claim that those flavours and the countless others on offer are not aimed at children? Many Members from both sides of the House would raise more than an eyebrow at that claim.

This Bill will regulate the wild west of vaping, which we have seen expand on our high streets over the last decade. It will also address the issue of poor-quality vapes, which are a safety concern, including single-use vapes, and end the scourge of these products littering our streets and communities. As someone with a background of 23 years in the NHS, I know the difference that this Bill will make; it will save lives and help to save our environment, and I will be proud to vote for it.

[Sir John Hayes]

In our post-spiritual or at least post-religious age, two phenomena are evident. When God is forgotten and faith declines, people do not believe in nothing but, as G.K. Chesterton said, they believe in anything. They find new causes and crusades, and I know the advocates of this Bill believe that they are crusading in a noble cause.

The second thing that occurs is that, as demons are regarded as purely mythical entities, things that were once regarded as normal and regular become demonised. The curious paradox is that while cocaine is widely available—and, I am told, de rigueur among certain elements of the urban liberal elite—pipe smokers are now seen as heretics. Were that not so alarming, it would be the subject of a comic satire. That is the kind of world we live in: we are simultaneously becoming more prurient and more puritanical.

The amendments that stand in my name and those of other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are designed to improve the Bill to avoid unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said— I think I am quoting her accurately—that we need data and evidence. What is clear from the data and evidence is that previous attempts to deal with the issue of smoking have resulted in a huge surge in illegal tobacco. Some 83% of smokers report purchasing tobacco not subject to UK tax in 2024. That number has increased hugely since that earlier legislation. Three quarters of smokers claim to buy tobacco not subject to UK tax from under-the-counter suppliers, who have become legion in constituencies such as mine and, I am sure, in small towns across the whole of the country.

Those are the unintended consequences of well-meaning crusaders who thought they were doing noble things when they passed legislation in this House. That is the data. Those are the facts.