20/01/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.seen shows that the standards have been met. As part of the audit, we

:00:00. > :00:10.will focus on that element `nd see what that information tells us.

:00:11. > :00:18.Order. Presentation of Bill. Mr Christopher Chope.

:00:19. > :00:27.House of Commons members fund bill. Second reading. What day? Friday the

:00:28. > :00:32.22nd of January. We come now to the ten Minute Rule Motion. Mr Owen

:00:33. > :00:36.Thompson. Thank you Mr Speaker. I beg to move that leave be ghven to

:00:37. > :00:42.bring in a bill to make provision on the controls of transportathon of

:00:43. > :00:45.nuclear weapons. I would like to take this opportunity to call on the

:00:46. > :00:51.government to immediately clarify what safety measures they'vd put in

:00:52. > :00:54.place to ultimately put a stop to convoys travelling through towns and

:00:55. > :01:00.cities. It would be my hope that through awareness in this house of

:01:01. > :01:05.these convoys, it would strdngthen calls across the country to rid us

:01:06. > :01:08.of nuclear weapons once and for all. On several occasions since ly

:01:09. > :01:15.election last May, nuclear convoys have passed through my constituency.

:01:16. > :01:21.Along easy routes, these convoys passed with no regard to thd danger

:01:22. > :01:27.it poses to the people in mx constituency. The people were

:01:28. > :01:37.horrified and understandablx so It is a semirural constituency

:01:38. > :01:41.immediately south of Edinburgh, one of the largest towns has barracks,

:01:42. > :01:47.with primary schools in close proximity. You can imagine the

:01:48. > :01:54.scene. It is lunchtime on a bright May afternoon, and children from

:01:55. > :01:58.Maurice B primary schools are playing and enjoying their lunch.

:01:59. > :02:01.Just over the fence set half a dozen weapons of mass destruction. Since

:02:02. > :02:06.then there have been countldss reported incidents where convoys

:02:07. > :02:09.have continued to travel across the UK, regardless of severe we`ther

:02:10. > :02:15.warnings, with the most recdnt incident last weekend in stdrling.

:02:16. > :02:23.With a number of areas of the country suffering from flooding and

:02:24. > :02:26.snow, emergency services ard pushed. Resources are pushed to bre`king

:02:27. > :02:33.point, but the convoys make their trek up and down the countrx.

:02:34. > :02:36.Following the public outcry on the 22nd of May, I wrote to the

:02:37. > :02:40.secretary of defence asking a number of questions on the safety,

:02:41. > :02:46.including what assessment w`s made of the proposed route. The `nswer

:02:47. > :02:52.provided to me, I had to sax, was woefully inadequate. The response

:02:53. > :02:54.from the minister claimed an unbroken safety record for 40 years.

:02:55. > :02:59.The response I received could have The response I received could have

:03:00. > :03:04.been written by Frank dripphng from the police squad, nothing to say

:03:05. > :03:07.here, move along! In actual fact, there have been more than 70

:03:08. > :03:14.individual safety incidents involving convoys recorded by the

:03:15. > :03:22.Ministry of Defence. These figures, provided to me by an organisation

:03:23. > :03:28.that monitors the movement of these convoys, figures provided to them by

:03:29. > :03:33.the Ministry of Defence. Al`rmingly, the movement of convoys has changed,

:03:34. > :03:40.in 2005 MOD rules restricting travel by night were lifted. Moving convoys

:03:41. > :03:45.by night increases the risk of accidents and collisions, and makes

:03:46. > :03:56.security more difficult. Thd Royal Society for prevent -- adding

:03:57. > :04:01.pressure to cruise and safety equipment, where families sleep in

:04:02. > :04:08.their beds. At a time in thhs house, Mr Speaker, where we daily `ttend to

:04:09. > :04:13.see the UK threat remains at severe, these convoys are dangerous, highly

:04:14. > :04:18.visible, and not only a risk to the level of accidents, but are a moving

:04:19. > :04:21.target for terrorists. Some claim it would be being alarmist but it has

:04:22. > :04:25.to be said that such an att`ck has the potential to lead to thd damage

:04:26. > :04:32.or destruction of a nuclear weapons within the UK. The consequences of

:04:33. > :04:36.such an incident are likely to be considerable loss of life, severe

:04:37. > :04:40.disruption to the British pdople's way of life, and the UK's ability to

:04:41. > :04:45.function effectively as a sovereign state. These are not my words, Mr

:04:46. > :04:53.Speaker, but words from the Ministry of Defence. In response to ` Freedom

:04:54. > :04:59.of information request in 2005. Just think about that. Considerable loss

:05:00. > :05:05.of life. And, in ability to function as a sovereign state. If yot still

:05:06. > :05:08.think it is a good idea to have these convoys moving across the

:05:09. > :05:14.country with that as a potential consequence, feel free to do so I,

:05:15. > :05:18.certainly, don't. Given the enormity of these words, we must ask

:05:19. > :05:22.ourselves, our nuclear convoys more of a risk to the British people and

:05:23. > :05:29.their way of lives than terrorism? If it is the case, we have ` moral,

:05:30. > :05:34.ethical and valid compelling mandate to remove that risk from our towns,

:05:35. > :05:38.cities and nations. We only have to look at the effect of social media

:05:39. > :05:44.to understand how powerful the risk is. When convoys travel through

:05:45. > :05:48.Midlothian, I was alerted through Facebook and Twitter. Ordin`ry

:05:49. > :05:51.members of the public pointhng out the nuclear materials passing by

:05:52. > :05:56.their front doors. It is delusional to think a convoy of 20 large

:05:57. > :06:00.vehicles could ever go unnoticed in this day and age. The convoxs are

:06:01. > :06:04.already well documented and if members of the public are able to do

:06:05. > :06:11.so it seems logical to assule others with darker motivations can also do

:06:12. > :06:14.so. I'm sure we are too far aware of the appalling damage and loss of

:06:15. > :06:18.life a terrorist attack can result in. But running convoys of nuclear

:06:19. > :06:23.weapons through the country does nothing to deter that. If an

:06:24. > :06:28.incident of that kind should occur, or if there was a fire, or lajor

:06:29. > :06:31.explosion, members should bd aware that local authorities may not be

:06:32. > :06:38.fully prepared to deal with the immediate aftermath. Police are

:06:39. > :06:42.informed of an approaching convoy but there is no obligation for any

:06:43. > :06:50.other service, including fire and rescue. In this scenario, something

:06:51. > :06:54.has happened. You have leth`l plutonium billowing around xour

:06:55. > :07:00.constituency. Local people `t the mercy, I'm sure they are highly

:07:01. > :07:05.skilled and have considerable expertise, but they are still 3 0

:07:06. > :07:10.miles from my constituency. At worst, if there was a fire or major

:07:11. > :07:15.explosion, my constituency `nd neighbouring areas would be

:07:16. > :07:18.flattened. Mr Speaker, you light be aware that this is not the first

:07:19. > :07:23.time the issue has been raised in the house. My honourable frhend for

:07:24. > :07:29.Hamilton West raised these points for debate back in July. But it is

:07:30. > :07:33.not just an issue raised by this MP. I would like to thank the honourable

:07:34. > :07:41.member for South Down for contacting me with her support for this.

:07:42. > :07:49.With the 21 counties in Scotland these passed through, in addition

:07:50. > :07:53.they also passed over 13 authorities in Wales and 91 in England. This is

:07:54. > :07:58.not just an issue for Scotl`nd. As this House looks to the potdntial

:07:59. > :08:02.vote on overhauling or upgr`ding of the system through the

:08:03. > :08:07.refurbishments programme, the Government should also be clear how

:08:08. > :08:10.this will impact on the frepuency of convoys, replacing every single

:08:11. > :08:15.warhead and sending every shngle one down to Berkshire and back `gain.

:08:16. > :08:18.Madame Deputy Speaker, I can only imagine the scene, standing on a

:08:19. > :08:23.street corner, observing thd passing of the vehicles, some guardhng and

:08:24. > :08:31.some carrying nuclear weapons. You are not in North Korea. You're

:08:32. > :08:35.standing on the A702, Penictik. My last point before concluding is an

:08:36. > :08:39.issue of great importance. That is to praise the hard work of the men

:08:40. > :08:44.and women working on the submarines as part of the logistical operation.

:08:45. > :08:47.They do an incredible job and it cannot be forgotten that regardless

:08:48. > :08:52.of reviews on nuclear weapons, the men and women who work with them are

:08:53. > :08:56.doing a phenomenal job. While I believe the majority of the people

:08:57. > :08:59.of Scotland and indeed people in my own constituency in Midlothhan

:09:00. > :09:05.remain opposed to the UK Government policy of updating and upgr`ding the

:09:06. > :09:09.Trident system, I hope this debate can persuade other members that even

:09:10. > :09:11.if they agree with the pro Trident policy, they have to show concern

:09:12. > :09:16.and agree there are real risks involved with these nuclear convoys.

:09:17. > :09:20.The transport of nuclear we`pons should not be based on an argument

:09:21. > :09:24.of convenience at the expense of safety. The policy as it st`nds

:09:25. > :09:29.lacks transparency. It is counter-productive against

:09:30. > :09:33.protecting us from terrorist attacks and shows a blatant disregard and

:09:34. > :09:36.lack of judgment for our own citizens. Well my alternate hope

:09:37. > :09:41.would be for the Government to see sense and think again on thdir

:09:42. > :09:47.policy to renew Trident, at the very least we should add to honotrable

:09:48. > :09:51.member 's calls to reconsiddr this policy of driving nuclear transports

:09:52. > :09:58.near our schools, hospitals and front doors. The question is the

:09:59. > :10:02.honourable member have leavd to bring in the Bill. In my

:10:03. > :10:07.constituency, and in fact in the house in which I live in, wd are

:10:08. > :10:12.periodically given warning notices of what to do in the event of a

:10:13. > :10:23.nuclear incident. There has been I'll dine tablets which are given

:10:24. > :10:27.out -- iodine. That is in c`se of such an incident. But I think the

:10:28. > :10:34.difference, and I would see the difference between people in my

:10:35. > :10:37.constituency and his in Scotland, but that is not the case... It is a

:10:38. > :10:43.difference between the people there and those members who sit on the SNP

:10:44. > :10:53.benches, and that is that they have immature understanding -- a mature

:10:54. > :10:57.understanding, that actuallx the regulatory government structure is

:10:58. > :11:06.internationally overseen and is designed to keep people safd. In

:11:07. > :11:13.addition to the live nuclear reactors which are maintaindd within

:11:14. > :11:18.the submarines at Barrow furnace a few hundred yards from my house

:11:19. > :11:26.without incident or the kind of paranoid scaremongering which is

:11:27. > :11:34.being deliberately whipped tp either member the South and West coast of

:11:35. > :11:38.Cumbria has taken by rail in the manner in which he is trying to

:11:39. > :11:43.frighten schoolchildren and nursery children, and I really think he

:11:44. > :11:49.ought to know better, taken by rail nuclear material which has done

:11:50. > :11:54.absolutely... I mean, he must know, if he has done any kind of research,

:11:55. > :11:58.this idea that there is a stdden derailment and then suddenlx the

:11:59. > :12:03.whole of Scotland is filled by this cloud of plutonium and everxone puts

:12:04. > :12:09.on gas masks and guys, it is just complete fantasy, fantasy ddsigned

:12:10. > :12:13.not actually to achieve a greater level of safety for his

:12:14. > :12:17.constituents, but just to add fuel to the fire -- puts on gas lasks and

:12:18. > :12:20.As many as are of the opinion, say 'aye'. To the contrary, 'no'. . Feel

:12:21. > :12:31.to the fire of their absurd argument which is, Madame Deputy Spe`ker it

:12:32. > :12:39.is that we believe in nucle`r weapons -- puts on gas masks and

:12:40. > :12:42.dies. It adds fuel to the fhre. We think, in the SNP, nuclear weapons

:12:43. > :12:47.are up for it and should cole nowhere near Scotland. They can be

:12:48. > :12:52.50 or 100 miles down the ro`d and can keep all of us safe but we do

:12:53. > :12:57.not want any of them on our shores and, frankly, to hear the honourable

:12:58. > :13:02.member patting submarine melbers on the head, saying to those crews and

:13:03. > :13:03.those people who maintain them, we have the utmost respect, wh`t

:13:04. > :13:08.rubbish, what absolute rubbhsh, when rubbish, what absolute rubbhsh, when

:13:09. > :13:16.actually you would cause thousands and thousands of them to lose their

:13:17. > :13:22.jobs, never to return on Scottish soil. I would say, Madame Ddputy

:13:23. > :13:28.Speaker, above the hubbub of the Scottish members are trying to

:13:29. > :13:31.distract me, that this ten linute rule has nothing to do with safety

:13:32. > :13:38.but is all to do with prosecuting their absurd argument which actually

:13:39. > :13:46.is not supported by the people of Scotland. Every opinion poll, by the

:13:47. > :13:51.one done by CND, and I will give them that, they have CND with them,

:13:52. > :13:55.every opinion poll has made clear the Scottish people, like the rest

:13:56. > :13:58.of the United Kingdom, are hn favour of maintaining an independent

:13:59. > :14:05.nuclear deterrent while othdr countries have them. This Bhll will

:14:06. > :14:11.not get anywhere, Madame Deputy Speaker, so I do not see thd trouble

:14:12. > :14:14.that House with the division, given the important issue we have to get

:14:15. > :14:18.onto with the psychoactive substances. I just want to see what

:14:19. > :14:23.poppycock it is and that it really should be paid no regard. The

:14:24. > :14:27.question is the honourable lember have leave to bring in the Bill As

:14:28. > :14:32.many as are of the opinion, say 'aye'. To the contrary, 'no'. I

:14:33. > :14:36.think the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

:14:37. > :15:26.Brendan O'Hara, ... The second reading. What thdy?

:15:27. > :15:33.Friday the 4th of March. Thd clerk will now proceed to read thd orders

:15:34. > :15:36.of the day. Psychoactive substances build, lords, as amended in the

:15:37. > :15:46.Public Bill Committee, to bd considered. -- Psychoactive

:15:47. > :15:55.Substances Bill. Lynne Brown To Move Clause One. Thank You So Much,

:15:56. > :16:00.Madame Deputy Speaker. Both Of These Clauses Deal With The Key Issue Of

:16:01. > :16:04.Drugs, Education And Awarendss. This bill contains provisions to disrupt

:16:05. > :16:08.the supply of psychoactive substances, but these provisions

:16:09. > :16:15.will not be affected without action to reduce demand. What we nded is a

:16:16. > :16:21.coherent and comprehensive dducation and awareness strategy to go

:16:22. > :16:24.which places the duty on thd which places the duty on thd

:16:25. > :16:27.Secretary of State to updatd Parliament on the progress lade by

:16:28. > :16:33.the Government in improving on education and awareness of new

:16:34. > :16:38.psychoactive substances. Thd Bill requires the Secretary of State to

:16:39. > :16:40.bring a progress review before Parliament and I remember prescribes

:16:41. > :16:45.this review should contain information about education and

:16:46. > :16:51.awareness as well -- and I've member. I will give way. Th`nk you,

:16:52. > :16:57.Madame Deputy Speaker. And thank you for giving way. I visited a high

:16:58. > :16:58.school in my constituency, ly old school, and saw their first,hand the

:16:59. > :17:03.kind of educational work behng done kind of educational work behng done

:17:04. > :17:08.on so-called legal highs. Would she agree with me that is precisely the

:17:09. > :17:15.kind of approach we need? I thank my honourable friend for making that

:17:16. > :17:17.point and indeed they have ` really impressive education progralme I

:17:18. > :17:20.will come to later in my contribution. Clause one amdnds the

:17:21. > :17:28.education act to make PF eg include education act to make PF eg include

:17:29. > :17:32.a focus on drugs and new psychoactive substances. It should

:17:33. > :17:36.be foundation subject in anx national curriculum. The Government

:17:37. > :17:39.education strategy on drugs contains really warm words about providing

:17:40. > :17:45.good quality education and `dvice so young people and their parents are

:17:46. > :17:50.provided with "Credible information to actively resist substancd

:17:51. > :17:56.misuse". But these warm words are not and were not acted upon. The

:17:57. > :18:00.Coalition Government reversdd Labour's plans to make this a

:18:01. > :18:04.statutory requirement. Desphte that being recommended in the review

:18:05. > :18:08.carried out by Sir Alistair MacDonald, they closed the drugs

:18:09. > :18:12.education Forum, a source of expertise on drugs education in

:18:13. > :18:17.England, which disseminated information to teachers across the

:18:18. > :18:21.country. The forum was closdd as part of a drastic cut in drtgs

:18:22. > :18:30.education spending. According to the Department of Health, drugs

:18:31. > :18:36.education spending reduced from ?3.9 million in 2009 and 2010 to around

:18:37. > :18:40.give way... I am very grateful to my give way... I am very grateful to my

:18:41. > :18:47.honourable friend and of cotrse you make the very important point about

:18:48. > :18:54.the need for PHSE to includd these measures. Given the five-ye`r

:18:55. > :18:56.forward view set out by Stevens for the National Health Service

:18:57. > :19:01.predicates ?5 billion worth of savings coming from preventhon,

:19:02. > :19:07.isn't this exactly the kind of prevention we should be proloting in

:19:08. > :19:11.our schools? My honourable friend is absolutely right. If I camera Abdul

:19:12. > :19:17.Hassib Seddiqi statistics properly, the Government estimated to do the

:19:18. > :19:22.kind of comprehensive drugs education would cost approxhmately

:19:23. > :19:27.?500 per pupil in England and Wales -- if I can remember my statistics

:19:28. > :19:31.properly. If you consider ndarly ?1 million would be spent on a person

:19:32. > :19:35.misusing substances over thd course of their lifetime, an average cost

:19:36. > :19:38.of course, we can see it cotld be cost effective to provide ddcent

:19:39. > :19:44.comprehensive drugs education and stop us from spending at thd other

:19:45. > :19:50.end, which is on people who are misusing and abusing substances

:19:51. > :19:56.Statistics provided by the drug and alcohol charity demonstrate this was

:19:57. > :20:02.schools no teacher drugs edtcation schools no teacher drugs edtcation

:20:03. > :20:07.for one I've more or less pdr year. -- for one hour or unless a year.

:20:08. > :20:12.69% of all pupils say they cannot remember having a drugs education

:20:13. > :20:21.lesson in the past year. Thd former chief executive of the charhty has

:20:22. > :20:28.told a newspaper we are probably in the worst situation for dec`des for

:20:29. > :20:33.drugs education and where there is drugs education the quality is

:20:34. > :20:40.questioned. Ofsted found 40$ of PHSE teaching was not good and ndeded to

:20:41. > :20:46.improve. In 2013, a survey of teachers by the PHSE Associ`tion

:20:47. > :20:50.reported 81% of responders would like more classroom resourcds for

:20:51. > :20:57.drugs and alcohol education. I will give way. I am very grateful. Can my

:20:58. > :21:03.honourable friend give an example of any anti-drug use education

:21:04. > :21:08.programme here or anywhere dlse in the world in this century or the

:21:09. > :21:13.last century which resulted in a reduction in drug use? Have to say

:21:14. > :21:17.to my honourable friend I al going to come to it later in my speech

:21:18. > :21:21.when I speak about Wales, and although there has not yet been a

:21:22. > :21:25.proper examination of findings from the drugs programme Wales h`s put

:21:26. > :21:30.into action, they does in the initial findings look as if it has

:21:31. > :21:34.had some impact so if my honourable friend will allow, I will continue

:21:35. > :21:45.with my... Thank you. The evidence, including frol the

:21:46. > :21:52.government's and inspectors suggests that the approach to PSA G hs not

:21:53. > :21:58.working. The failure has occurred at a time when the growth of the

:21:59. > :22:02.psychoactive substances indtstry has dramatically altered the drtg

:22:03. > :22:13.situation in our country -- PSHE. Moreover, parents want thesd

:22:14. > :22:20.changes, and NUT survey say that 88% of parents want PSHE to be

:22:21. > :22:28.compulsory. 98% of parents were happy for their children to attend

:22:29. > :22:32.PSHE lesson. There is still the issue of the

:22:33. > :22:36.purchasing of legal highs online. Does the honourable lady fedl that

:22:37. > :22:41.there is much to do in relation to that? I do agree with the honourable

:22:42. > :22:45.gentleman that there needs to be much that we can do in order to

:22:46. > :22:51.prevent the supply and demand of these substances. This set of

:22:52. > :22:56.amendments is currently dealing with demand. I feel that unless we get

:22:57. > :23:01.our message out, that these so-called legal highs are ndither

:23:02. > :23:05.legal or safe. Then the dem`nd on the Internet will become evdn

:23:06. > :23:10.greater. So we do need to gdt out the core message that the government

:23:11. > :23:15.is doing through this bill, these drugs are not legal, they are not

:23:16. > :23:19.safe, and actually, the dem`nd on the Internet needs to be curbed as

:23:20. > :23:25.well. That is why we have to make sure that we have proper edtcation

:23:26. > :23:29.and information out there. Ladam Deputy Speaker, we have a shtuation

:23:30. > :23:33.where parents, teachers and the government 's own inspectors think

:23:34. > :23:37.that we should have more and better drug education. But it appe`rs the

:23:38. > :23:40.government does not agree. Hn Wales, a Labour government shows us how

:23:41. > :23:46.successful an alternative approach can be. ?18 million investmdnt in

:23:47. > :23:54.the all Wales School liaison programme has made substancd misuse

:23:55. > :24:01.a core subject in 98% of Welsh primary and secondary schools - a

:24:02. > :24:04.?2 million. Almost all schools receive accurate and credible

:24:05. > :24:08.information about the potential harm of drugs rather than having to rely

:24:09. > :24:14.on friends, myths, the Internet and guesswork. The school progr`mme is

:24:15. > :24:18.complemented by the Welsh elerging drugs and novel substance project.

:24:19. > :24:22.That is a new psychoactive substances information and harm

:24:23. > :24:28.reduction programme, as well as measures to educate parents. These

:24:29. > :24:31.are all part of a ?50 million investment in reducing drugs harms.

:24:32. > :24:39.There are signs that the Welsh approach is working. Drug ddaths in

:24:40. > :24:44.Wales are down 30% since 2000. In contrast, drug-related deaths have

:24:45. > :24:49.been creeping up in England. There was a 17% increase in the l`st year.

:24:50. > :24:54.The Office of National Stathstics states that they are now at the

:24:55. > :25:01.highest level since records began in 1993. Too much of the drugs

:25:02. > :25:06.education in our schools is focused on providing information. Evidence

:25:07. > :25:10.suggests that to get drugs dducation right, it has to be taught `longside

:25:11. > :25:13.a focus on life skills, which empowers young people to resist peer

:25:14. > :25:23.pressure and make informed decisions. I will give her `

:25:24. > :25:28.chance... It is good to hear from her again. I agree with an `wful lot

:25:29. > :25:35.of what she is saying. Nobody is suggesting that it is perfect but we

:25:36. > :25:41.have Mental UK, the Rise Above campaign, the Frank campaign. Of

:25:42. > :25:46.course there is a role for the state, and education and he`lth

:25:47. > :25:52.There is a role for parents, I am a parent of two young children and I

:25:53. > :25:55.educate them as best as I c`n with the information I have about the

:25:56. > :25:59.danger of psychoactive substances, would you agree this is a kdy part?

:26:00. > :26:04.I agree with the honourable gentleman but I've not been lucky to

:26:05. > :26:08.be a parent myself. But I know that looking at my nieces, their parents,

:26:09. > :26:11.what their parents tell thel, and the information parents havd is

:26:12. > :26:19.crucial in making the right decisions. Shall the ministdr give

:26:20. > :26:23.way? I will. I'm very grateful for you giving way on that point, I want

:26:24. > :26:26.to make the point that therd are a lot of very responsible pardnts out

:26:27. > :26:30.there who will of course talk to their children about legal highs and

:26:31. > :26:33.building resilience and self-confidence so children make the

:26:34. > :26:37.right decision in their livds. But we have to accept that unfortunately

:26:38. > :26:42.there are many young childrdn who don't have the advantages would like

:26:43. > :26:45.them to have and it is important that we all recognise education

:26:46. > :26:51.within the school setting is another way of getting important messages

:26:52. > :26:55.across. My honourable friend is right, these life skills can only be

:26:56. > :26:59.taught by helping children think about the challenges and dangers

:27:00. > :27:04.which they face and underst`nd that bullying is often a tool of the drug

:27:05. > :27:10.pusher and a consequence of taking drugs from pushers is that they

:27:11. > :27:17.often become themselves in debt and open to exploitation. When they

:27:18. > :27:20.introduce into a classroom, in our schools, they can result in

:27:21. > :27:28.conversations between young people, and a real learning process taking

:27:29. > :27:34.place, rather than the hit `nd miss that can take place. Outsidd the

:27:35. > :27:41.school. We need information and context to deliver quality

:27:42. > :27:47.education, that is why we nded the kind of education that can be

:27:48. > :27:52.provided by PSHE, not solelx as is happening so often in the science

:27:53. > :27:56.lessons in our classrooms. Unfortunately, the government has

:27:57. > :28:10.often set its opposition into making PSA -- PSHE a lesson. Research by

:28:11. > :28:15.the Royal Society of Public health found that a quarter of young people

:28:16. > :28:22.between 16 and 24 believe that so-called legal highs were safer

:28:23. > :28:26.than illegal drugs. As we all know, this is a dangerous misunderstanding

:28:27. > :28:31.because some of the new psychoactive substances have been classified as

:28:32. > :28:36.class a drugs. It is little wonder that young people and older people,

:28:37. > :28:41.in fact, are confused when they are bombarded by the marketing tricks

:28:42. > :28:46.from drug pushers who tell ts that they are safe and legal

:28:47. > :28:50.alternatives. Given the ingrained and damaging myths surroundhng

:28:51. > :28:57.psychoactive substances, I find it astonishing that, as of the 2nd of

:28:58. > :29:03.June, ?180,556 has been spent over three years on education programmes

:29:04. > :29:08.on these drugs. New psychoactive substances, education awareness is

:29:09. > :29:12.not just about schools, that is why I've tabled amendment for, that

:29:13. > :29:19.would put a statutory duty on the Home Secretary to include an update

:29:20. > :29:21.on progress made in improving the psychoactive substances education

:29:22. > :29:27.and awareness in her statutory review. I think this amendmdnt would

:29:28. > :29:30.focus minds at the Home Offhce and compelled them to put into place the

:29:31. > :29:39.most effective and comprehensive awareness campaign possible. The

:29:40. > :29:42.Welsh assembly found that 57% of new psychoactive substances users used

:29:43. > :29:49.the media as their main source of information about psychoacthve

:29:50. > :29:52.substances. Therefore, publhc relations and advertising c`mpaigns

:29:53. > :29:57.have a genuine role, a key role to play. This is particularly true

:29:58. > :30:01.among adults groups where the government cannot act as a direct

:30:02. > :30:07.provider of education as thdy do in school. Governments and public

:30:08. > :30:11.awareness campaigns are limhted really, to the Frank websitd which

:30:12. > :30:19.has almost no social media presence. Regrettably. In the absence of any

:30:20. > :30:24.government action, the foundation has been forced to run camp`igns

:30:25. > :30:28.through fundraising and corporate donations in kind, I would like to

:30:29. > :30:32.praise their work again. I'l sure they would acknowledge thesd

:30:33. > :30:36.campaigns should be nationwhde and comprehensive. They simply cannot

:30:37. > :30:37.afford to do it themselves. The job they are doing is the job that the

:30:38. > :30:58.government should be doing. May I . Isn't it strange that we have the

:30:59. > :31:04.information coming from Frank that it is not linked, the great work

:31:05. > :31:09.that can be pushed through social media about the awareness of this,

:31:10. > :31:13.there is not this collaboration Surely we need the government to

:31:14. > :31:17.take lead on this collaboration I say give the gentleman a job in the

:31:18. > :31:22.Home Office, I think we would become more effective if we put into

:31:23. > :31:27.practice what he has suggested. During the committee, the Mhnister

:31:28. > :31:33.said that he agreed, I think I don't want to put words into his louth,

:31:34. > :31:37.that Frank was inadequate. He said "I put my hands up, talk to Frank is

:31:38. > :31:42.not perfect. We will work whth everybody to ensure that talk to

:31:43. > :31:48.Frank improves". The weight is feeding information is perh`ps not

:31:49. > :31:52.as direct as possible. Let's sort that now -- the way it is. Let me

:31:53. > :31:56.say to the honourable Minister, I would encourage him to respond to

:31:57. > :32:00.the point that his honourable friend has made, and give us an

:32:01. > :32:12.understanding of the progress he has made in sorting it. She may not be

:32:13. > :32:15.aware but a prominent anti-drugs campaign in my constituency, Mary

:32:16. > :32:20.Brett, has always had a lot of problems with the Frank website

:32:21. > :32:25.because of the emphasis on hot reduction. The website fails to

:32:26. > :32:30.really point out the dangers in a direct way in which youngstdrs can

:32:31. > :32:34.understand. I would support her in hoping that the Minister wotld again

:32:35. > :32:39.look at this. There are manx very good campaigners with honestly held

:32:40. > :32:44.views that think that Frank is not good enough. I thank the honourable

:32:45. > :32:48.lady for making that point. I looked at Frank. I know very littld about

:32:49. > :32:54.drugs, in truth, aside from what I have learnt in the last few months.

:32:55. > :32:57.I did not know what poppers were in the beginning of my brief, H thought

:32:58. > :33:02.they were little things with string that you have that parties. When I

:33:03. > :33:07.looked at the Frank website, it did not enlighten me that much. I needed

:33:08. > :33:11.something more basic that would help me with my education. I agrde with

:33:12. > :33:18.the honourable lady and the point she has made. I urge the Minister to

:33:19. > :33:22.pledge to report to Parliamdnt the progress made in delivering the

:33:23. > :33:26.government's education strategy It is not a big ask and if the

:33:27. > :33:29.government are serious about drug education, I believe the honourable

:33:30. > :33:34.gentleman is, it is something that ought to be committed to rigorously

:33:35. > :33:38.monitoring, at the very least. The minister claimed in his letter to

:33:39. > :33:43.the Bill committee that the statutory review should focts on the

:33:44. > :33:46.operation of legislation. I agree but the operation of this

:33:47. > :33:52.legislation will not happen in a vacuum. The Minister has repeatedly

:33:53. > :33:57.said it must become fermentdd by a communication and awareness strategy

:33:58. > :34:01.that seems appropriate, to le, that the operation of this legislation

:34:02. > :34:04.would include a substances section on education and awareness just to

:34:05. > :34:08.make sure that we are getting the message is out there and reducing

:34:09. > :34:15.demand. I'm sure that the Mhnister will agree with me that we should be

:34:16. > :34:18.keen to review and evaluate the impact this legislation would have,

:34:19. > :34:22.I'm pleased there is provishon in this bill that would ensure this

:34:23. > :34:28.happens. However, can he provide assurances that in the regular and

:34:29. > :34:32.annual collection of statistics about the arrests, prosecuthon,

:34:33. > :34:35.sentences, offender managemdnt and treatment, information colldcted

:34:36. > :34:39.about substances covered by this legislation would not be subsumed

:34:40. > :34:43.with the similar data collected for the drugs controlled under the

:34:44. > :34:48.misuse of drugs act. And, in a similar way, surveys carried out by

:34:49. > :34:51.the government into crime and public health will separate considdration

:34:52. > :34:56.of information about the misuse of drugs act, controlled drugs and the

:34:57. > :35:00.psychoactive substance. I r`ise this because it would be all too easy to

:35:01. > :35:04.simply obscure the impact that this legislation would have if the

:35:05. > :35:08.information is collapsed into the existing systems for collecting data

:35:09. > :35:13.about actions taken on drugs controlled under the misuse of drugs

:35:14. > :35:18.act. I would like to ask thd Minister to accept a new cl`use one.

:35:19. > :35:23.A girl can dream! The government's approach to PSHE is not working We

:35:24. > :35:26.cannot stand by and let that happen when you psychoactive subst`nces are

:35:27. > :35:32.bringing new dangers into otr community. -- when new psychoactive

:35:33. > :35:38.substances will stop while H am on my feet I would like to spe`k to

:35:39. > :35:42.amendment five. If passed, ht would add poppers to the list of banned

:35:43. > :35:50.psychoactive substances. Thdy would be treated like alcohol, and

:35:51. > :35:54.caffeine. We know them to bd psychoactive but do not feel they

:35:55. > :35:58.are judicious to ban. The rdason we support the bill is because we think

:35:59. > :36:03.that legislation is necessary to safeguard against the seriots harm

:36:04. > :36:09.is created by new psychoacthve substances. Our concern to safeguard

:36:10. > :36:14.against harm is the same re`son why we believe that poppers ought to be

:36:15. > :36:19.exempt from the ban on psychoactive substances. In our judgment, fewer

:36:20. > :36:26.harms are likely to occur if poppers are added to the exemption list

:36:27. > :36:35.In which she recognises the representations made to the fact of

:36:36. > :36:39.a beneficial and healthy relationship effect and the concern

:36:40. > :36:43.that a ban will have partictlarly on men who have sex with men. H was

:36:44. > :36:48.pleased to see the Home Secretary has chosen to refer this issue for

:36:49. > :36:52.further consideration by experts that I was a little perplexdd as to

:36:53. > :36:59.why this consideration was not being made with the a CMD, her own body of

:37:00. > :37:08.scientific experts on drugs but instead through the M8 are `

:37:09. > :37:13.instead. I know if the recommendation by then be f`vourable

:37:14. > :37:25.and agree with the recommendations about poppers, then they will be

:37:26. > :37:34.consulted. I am conscious that this is an intervention, not a speech.

:37:35. > :37:43.The Shadow minister will hopefully be pleased to know that the HMG will

:37:44. > :37:49.start the process. I am ple`sed to hear that and I am grateful to the

:37:50. > :37:56.Minister for the intervention. Why not? Whatever the process that the

:37:57. > :38:03.government is going to go through, it seems boring and crazy to them

:38:04. > :38:06.than the substances with a view to an banned them into what three

:38:07. > :38:14.months' time. the home affairs select comlittee in

:38:15. > :38:25.their report as I do to support amendment five? I do indeed agree

:38:26. > :38:38.with him. Despise the seemingly welcome movement, I am still moving

:38:39. > :38:43.to place poppers on the list. In short, we may do more harm by this

:38:44. > :38:47.action. Life after a review and further evidence it is provdn that

:38:48. > :38:52.poppers are harmful and that on balance they ban will be

:38:53. > :38:55.appropriate, we will willingly review and test the evidencd and if

:38:56. > :39:02.the case is proven, support the ban on the substances. I agree with her

:39:03. > :39:09.approach in this respect because surely that makes far more sense and

:39:10. > :39:15.leads to a situation wherebx the government's approach is gohng to

:39:16. > :39:17.create uncertainty and mixed messages not just in the gax

:39:18. > :39:24.community but in the population at large. My honourable friend is

:39:25. > :39:28.absolutely right. Let's look at the context and evidence. Poppers have

:39:29. > :39:33.been used recreationally in Britain for well over 30 years. In `ll that

:39:34. > :39:38.time no government has sought to ban them. The word poppers is used to

:39:39. > :39:42.describe a group of chemical compounds some of which carry more

:39:43. > :39:48.potential harms than others. They are popular in some sections of the

:39:49. > :40:00.gay community. I am told thdy enhance sexual experience. Some

:40:01. > :40:09.compounds contained within them are relatively rare because of

:40:10. > :40:13.legislation. The most common compound is weaker and does not

:40:14. > :40:24.constitute or pose a signifhcant health risk. Poppers are not... They

:40:25. > :40:29.have been around a long timd but controlled by the Misuse of Drugs

:40:30. > :40:33.Act, not because they are h`rmless, but because they do not meet the

:40:34. > :40:42.high threshold of the act. Hf we are to bring in a blanket ban, this is a

:40:43. > :40:46.blanket ban, a psychoactive substance. Surely the Minister s

:40:47. > :40:56.response to the response suggesting he will do the research... Surely we

:40:57. > :41:02.are doing this the right wax round. Don't agree we should do thhs the

:41:03. > :41:06.other way around. I will explain as I go along. My feeling is that this

:41:07. > :41:11.bill should be about harms. Poppers have not been thought to be

:41:12. > :41:16.controlled by any government. They have been around for decades. In

:41:17. > :41:20.fact they were created in the late 19th century. I understand that some

:41:21. > :41:23.ministers in this House at the dispatch box have used them to

:41:24. > :41:30.simply keep going because they were prescribed that the time by their

:41:31. > :41:33.doctors. The reality is if we ban them now, and then an banned them in

:41:34. > :41:38.four months' time, it will create confusion. What would be better

:41:39. > :41:42.would be to allow what has happened all along to continue and if it is

:41:43. > :41:48.found that the test of signhficant harm is found, then banned them

:41:49. > :41:54.Take them off the exempt list. We won't have any underground labs

:41:55. > :41:58.creating synthetic poppers `nd selling them in nightclubs. It won't

:41:59. > :42:03.be the kind of harm that I dnvisage and fear would happen if we put

:42:04. > :42:12.them... If we didn't put thdm on the exempt list today. I want to make

:42:13. > :42:16.the opposite point. The simple truth is if you ban something and then you

:42:17. > :42:20.take it back later you are bringing the law into disrepute. There was no

:42:21. > :42:23.one in this House who is fidrcer than me in terms of banning

:42:24. > :42:34.inappropriate substances but it seems to me this is the wrong way

:42:35. > :42:46.round. I absolutely agree whth the honourable gentleman. In giving

:42:47. > :42:51.evidence to the home affairs select committee, a doctor said as far as

:42:52. > :42:57.he could speak as a clinici`n, he doesn't think he could have seen

:42:58. > :43:04.anyone coming to the clinic who had harms connected with poppers.

:43:05. > :43:07.Another professor said he h`d not seen sufficient scientific dvidence

:43:08. > :43:12.of harm in the case of just poppers to justify recommendation under the

:43:13. > :43:21.Misuse of Drugs Act. And he was not aware of any increase in thd use of

:43:22. > :43:25.poppers and fall within the UK. To be fair-minded, must I also share

:43:26. > :43:33.concerns in relation to poppers not being on the list, the government

:43:34. > :43:39.does response that the doctor also went on to say there are associated

:43:40. > :43:45.harms. There are links with poppers and I damage and it is the sort of

:43:46. > :43:49.thing that is unpredictable. Genuinely if the evidence changes

:43:50. > :43:55.and if we can see that therd is significant harm, let's ban it. But

:43:56. > :44:01.for us, it is a bit like alcohol. Used wrong, excessively, it causes

:44:02. > :44:09.massive harm. As I understand it, the way poppers are genuinely use,

:44:10. > :44:13.generally used, by the majority of users, they do not create the kind

:44:14. > :44:20.of harms that would require us to be banning them and actually, to ban

:44:21. > :44:28.them with genuinely cause more harm than the harm themselves. I'd like

:44:29. > :44:34.to challenge the myth that by banning a drug you reduce its use.

:44:35. > :44:38.This is virtually never happened and in all most every case when a

:44:39. > :44:45.previously legal substance has been used, as happened with metal drill,

:44:46. > :44:50.its use increased 300% and ht is a myth to believe banning a drug will

:44:51. > :44:53.have that effect. What it is likely to do is replace a legal market with

:44:54. > :44:58.a criminal market which is infinitely more harmful. I `gree

:44:59. > :45:03.with the honourable gentlem`n that if we do not place poppers on the

:45:04. > :45:09.exempt list today, we are lhkely to replace a criminal market whth a

:45:10. > :45:16.regulated market and that, H believe, will be in the intdrests of

:45:17. > :45:23.absolutely no one. It is actually worse than that set out by ly

:45:24. > :45:30.honourable friend. What is likely to happen is that a gay man who might

:45:31. > :45:34.use poppers to enhance sexu`l pleasure, being made illegal he may

:45:35. > :45:39.be tempted to go to the lack market and use a class a or B drug which

:45:40. > :45:46.would increase the risk of unprotected sex and as a

:45:47. > :45:57.consequence, an increased rhsk of STDs. My honourable friend hs right.

:45:58. > :46:00.I agree with him. I apologise to intervene twice but I want to make

:46:01. > :46:06.sure we get the reference point for harm clear. I know very little about

:46:07. > :46:14.poppers, I spent this morning reading about them. They catse

:46:15. > :46:19.fainting, some blood damage. Paracetamol can cause damagd,

:46:20. > :46:24.aspirin can cause damage. Ldt's be clear about what damage means. These

:46:25. > :46:29.do not appear to be on the face of it harmful drugs. I agree whth the

:46:30. > :46:34.honourable gentleman in the House will be aware that the home affairs

:46:35. > :46:42.select committee concluded that poppers should be exempted from the

:46:43. > :46:46.ban. The chair of the home `ffairs select committee who is in his place

:46:47. > :46:50.for most of this debate, will inform the House of his views of the Home

:46:51. > :46:55.Secretary's response to the committee recommendation because I

:46:56. > :47:03.was listening to that with great interest. Poppers is not a new drug.

:47:04. > :47:06.They were first created in the 9th century. They are not a new chemical

:47:07. > :47:11.compound which has been synthetically produced to mhmic the

:47:12. > :47:14.effect of already banned substances. There is a good argument th`t

:47:15. > :47:19.poppers are not only relatively harmless but they are not the sort

:47:20. > :47:23.of new psychoactive substance that this bill is intending to ddal with.

:47:24. > :47:29.We feel a ban on poppers evdn for a short period will in fact bring

:47:30. > :47:32.about harms. The ban will t`ke the sale of poppers out of the

:47:33. > :47:37.regulatory regime and users may end up being pushed underground where

:47:38. > :47:42.unscrupulous unregulated sellers in it for the profit are more likely to

:47:43. > :47:49.provide harmful drug compounds and possibly drive users towards other

:47:50. > :47:56.harmful and harder drugs. If it is likely that the review will take six

:47:57. > :48:00.months or longer, it is for six months of confusion, potenthal

:48:01. > :48:06.prosecutions, there is a re`l danger that they will be under the counter

:48:07. > :48:10.sales of poppers which will not be subject to the same regulathons

:48:11. > :48:15.There is a danger of harm bding created even by a temporary ban on

:48:16. > :48:21.poppers. With the Minister not consider a temporary exempthon for

:48:22. > :48:26.poppers until the MH RA report back? I understand the government has told

:48:27. > :48:36.the National aids trust that the fears I have outlined is unfounded.

:48:37. > :48:41.The National aids trust havd been informed by the gay men's hdalth

:48:42. > :48:48.service in Ireland health sdrvice executive that poppers are still

:48:49. > :48:50.openly sold in Ireland's sex shops and soreness, effectively policing

:48:51. > :48:55.poppers on the exemption list. If this is the case, we would not

:48:56. > :49:00.expect to see any harms associated with pushing Popper use unddrground

:49:01. > :49:06.in Ireland because the poppdrs market is still in effect ott in the

:49:07. > :49:12.open. Cannot therefore be inferred that the situation in Ireland there

:49:13. > :49:17.will be no help harms from ` ban on poppers in the UK. I fear that

:49:18. > :49:21.including poppers in the band may undermine the bill and make it far

:49:22. > :49:25.more difficult to get across the vital message that psychoactive

:49:26. > :49:34.substances can be an very often are very dangerous. There is a risk of

:49:35. > :49:46.the bill, with the ban on poppers which is thought to be relatively

:49:47. > :49:51.harmless. It would be a dis`ster to undermine the important work done by

:49:52. > :49:54.the bill. Finally, given th`t poppers are widely used but

:49:55. > :49:57.relatively harmless, we fear enforcing the ban on poppers would

:49:58. > :50:04.be a waste of scarce police resources. Enforcing the bill will

:50:05. > :50:07.be difficult enough without disproportionate amount of police

:50:08. > :50:12.time spent on enforcing a b`n on a relatively harmless drug. If any

:50:13. > :50:27.future there is evidence produced to the contrary, should be removed from

:50:28. > :50:32.the exemption list. I would urge them to place poppers on thd exempt

:50:33. > :50:36.list until the H M R a has considered the evidence and reported

:50:37. > :50:45.back. I will be listening intently to what he has to say.

:50:46. > :50:52.The question is that new cl`use one be read a second time. Before I call

:50:53. > :50:56.the honourable lady, we havd got a total of two hours, so about another

:50:57. > :50:59.hour and a half, and they'rd quite a large number of people wanthng to

:51:00. > :51:06.speak. If people could keep us tight as possible that be great. Thank

:51:07. > :51:08.you, Madam Deputy Speaker. H write to remove the amendment that stands

:51:09. > :51:15.in my name and following on from the honourable lady's remarks, H have

:51:16. > :51:20.really put this amendment down by way of a probing amendment to

:51:21. > :51:23.ascertain the government's position on a number of products that have

:51:24. > :51:29.been marketed through an online marketing company by my constituent,

:51:30. > :51:38.the company is called For Chris Capper supplements. -- Focus

:51:39. > :51:42.Supplements was that he camd in a couple of weeks ago concerndd that

:51:43. > :51:45.the product they sell is legally, health supplements, and substances

:51:46. > :51:51.which people use for various things which I will go through latdr in

:51:52. > :51:55.talking to this amendment, `nd I wanted to make sure that thd

:51:56. > :51:59.Minister and the Department knew that there are substances ott there

:52:00. > :52:04.that are being marketed by perfectly honest, decent and legal colpanies,

:52:05. > :52:08.indeed on eBay and by peopld like Holland and Barrett, where there is

:52:09. > :52:14.concern that they may fall within the ambit of this bill. Therefore,

:52:15. > :52:20.criminalise those towns as which are perfectly innocuous, and indeed in

:52:21. > :52:27.some demand. I have no personal experience of these products! I am

:52:28. > :52:31.very supportive of his legislation. Let me make no mistake, I would not

:52:32. > :52:35.be moving this amendment, or asking for clarification, if I thotght

:52:36. > :52:40.there was any harm going to come from the substances that I have

:52:41. > :52:49.placed on the order paper today The purpose of this amendment is to see

:52:50. > :52:52.whether they fall foul of the substances in this legislathon.

:52:53. > :52:55.Indeed, whether clause thred, which we discussed earlier on and have

:52:56. > :53:00.been discussing in the pass`ge of this bill for the exempted

:53:01. > :53:03.substances, can be fleshed out in any way at this stage. That would

:53:04. > :53:11.also be helpful to people w`tching this debate. Many of these products

:53:12. > :53:16.are used by people to combat anxiety, aid sleep, enhanced memory

:53:17. > :53:25.and learning, and to improvd focus. And as such, they are used `s

:53:26. > :53:30.dietary supplements. Some increase the level of choline in the brain

:53:31. > :53:36.and contain a substance which is found in many foods, foods rich in

:53:37. > :53:45.choline can include smoked salmon to fried eggs and chicken liver and

:53:46. > :53:47.Brussels sprouts. Indeed, there are recommendations in some health

:53:48. > :53:51.regimes around the world th`t there is a certain level of cholines which

:53:52. > :54:04.you should be taking in everyday in your diet. The new Tropics `re

:54:05. > :54:09.supplements that can in somd cases improve one or more function of the

:54:10. > :54:16.brain. They can improve working memory, motivation or even

:54:17. > :54:19.attention. One thinks that perhaps that is a group of substancds that

:54:20. > :54:23.could easily be taken by sole of the members of this House to improve

:54:24. > :54:30.their attention to some of the debate I have been in on occasion!

:54:31. > :54:34.There is nothing that powerful! The products listed under miscellaneous

:54:35. > :54:41.are various, but for exampld oxygenating is a precursor for

:54:42. > :54:49.serotonin and is sold in from health shops such as Holland and B`rrett.

:54:50. > :54:55.-- one is a precursor for sdrotonin. Some are present in green tda.

:54:56. > :55:03.Another is available from v`rious health shops. Reverse at all I am

:55:04. > :55:06.reliably informed is found hn red wine and if an excellent substance.

:55:07. > :55:26.Fuel duty anime -- Sulbutiamine is also present in

:55:27. > :55:29.many things. My constituent asked and it was stressed that it was

:55:30. > :55:35.perfectly legal to sell these products but medicinal clails were

:55:36. > :55:39.made. In many other countrids, including the USA, I understand all

:55:40. > :55:44.of the substances I have listed in amendment one are not controlled

:55:45. > :55:48.substances. It is legal to tse, on and sell all those products in the

:55:49. > :55:53.USA, and indeed many other countries. I think one of the

:55:54. > :55:57.problems with a lot of thesd products is the relatively xoung.

:55:58. > :56:03.They are only ten years old in some cases. Although many of thel have

:56:04. > :56:07.been subject to study the academic level, they have not gone through

:56:08. > :56:13.the rigorous testing that mddicinal drugs would necessarily go through.

:56:14. > :56:18.But it seems to be... Give way? I will, but it seems to me th`t this

:56:19. > :56:21.sort of product is not the sort of products that this Government or

:56:22. > :56:28.minister is seeking to ban. I give way. My right honourable frhend is

:56:29. > :56:31.exactly right. One reason is that many fitness supplements and other

:56:32. > :56:36.supplements that work on thd brain, there is no doubt about that, growth

:56:37. > :56:42.hormone related ones student and then on things like sage oil do But

:56:43. > :56:47.the other problem she faces is the actual definition in explan`tory

:56:48. > :56:56.notes, which says that psychoactive substance is one that includes but

:56:57. > :57:02.is not limited to drowsiness, mood, all of which could affect things

:57:03. > :57:06.like antihistamines and sagd oil. We have a real problem. They are not

:57:07. > :57:09.careful, we will end up with bad lot which will undermine the st`tus of

:57:10. > :57:14.people like her constituent. The comics I could not have put it

:57:15. > :57:16.better myself! I think that is what concerns me about this legislation.

:57:17. > :57:23.I will say, I think that thd point that was made, that if it is there

:57:24. > :57:26.is a blanket ban and a stuphd ban, because it answered perfectly

:57:27. > :57:34.innocuous substances, it will undermine the very purpose for which

:57:35. > :57:42.this law is being passed. I have very grateful. Does she not think

:57:43. > :57:48.there is a danger in treating these nootropic drugs differently to the

:57:49. > :57:52.others, that we could give them some credibility and approval. There has

:57:53. > :57:57.been some research into thehr harm or otherwise, trials have bden

:57:58. > :58:01.poorly designed. They have not found any great dangers but they would not

:58:02. > :58:06.be accepted as being right for a medicinal drug. Would it not be

:58:07. > :58:10.dangerous to treat this grotp, I understand her constituent's

:58:11. > :58:15.interests commercially, to treat it in the same way as any other and

:58:16. > :58:20.give the public the impresshon that they were harmless? We do not know.

:58:21. > :58:27.I do not think that by putthng them on the exempted last anybodx should

:58:28. > :58:31.trolley conclusion that there are harmless. They obviously have an

:58:32. > :58:35.effect of some sort on individuals, otherwise, as my constituent reports

:58:36. > :58:40.today, I do not think he wotld have a 32% repeat orders for manx of

:58:41. > :58:48.these substances. I take thd point that the honourable gentlem`n is

:58:49. > :58:51.making. However, when it coles to choline, the National Acadely of

:58:52. > :58:54.Sciences has said that cholhne is the dietary requirements, as I

:58:55. > :58:59.referred to earlier, the Federal drugs agency has recommended 42

:59:00. > :59:09.milligrams of choline intakd a day. When it

:59:10. > :59:19.comes to the racetams, a trhal was carried out on rights, and ht was

:59:20. > :59:23.shown to have effect. I havd various other references were there has been

:59:24. > :59:27.a good research done into these drugs. Others, I will admit, have

:59:28. > :59:32.not had so much research carried out into them. However, the purpose of

:59:33. > :59:36.this amendment was to make sure that the law of unintended consepuences

:59:37. > :59:40.did not apply to this legislation. I think that I would ask the Linister,

:59:41. > :59:47.when he is responding to thhs group of amendments, that he needs to

:59:48. > :59:50.reassure my constituent, and many other organisations, indeed many of

:59:51. > :59:55.the health food shops that sell these supplements, that either they

:59:56. > :00:01.do not fall within the ambit of this bill, and therefore they do not need

:00:02. > :00:05.to be considered and so nond of the companies, online companies or

:00:06. > :00:11.health food shops, need concern themselves about falling fotl of

:00:12. > :00:14.this legislation, or, if yot think that they need more research to tell

:00:15. > :00:18.us what needs to be done, btt certainly expect at the bard minimum

:00:19. > :00:24.you will undertake to review this list of products that I havd

:00:25. > :00:30.produced at amendment one and let us know after discussions with the ace

:00:31. > :00:33.MD what he intends to do about it. Hopefully, he will either bd able to

:00:34. > :00:39.add them to the list, or let us know that this legislation does not apply

:00:40. > :00:42.to these products. If not, he needs to reassure my constituent by

:00:43. > :00:47.letting me know the timescales by which he will investigate these

:00:48. > :00:56.particular products and maybe others that might be brought to his

:00:57. > :01:00.attention. Keith Vaz. It is a pleasure to follow the honotrable

:01:01. > :01:03.lady for -- the honourable lady one of the most distinguished and

:01:04. > :01:09.respected members of this House She makes her case very powerfully on

:01:10. > :01:12.these points. I all her an `pology, that because of the speed whth which

:01:13. > :01:16.the select Committee was trxing to look at this bill, because of the

:01:17. > :01:21.timetable the government has given us, that we did not have thd

:01:22. > :01:25.opportunity to explore propdrly the point that she has made to take

:01:26. > :01:29.evidence from her constituent and others, who might have felt that

:01:30. > :01:34.they were going to be affected by this legislation. If we had more

:01:35. > :01:42.time, we certainly would have had them before us. And as is otr

:01:43. > :01:45.policy, I am sure that when we come to review this legislation hn a few

:01:46. > :01:50.months' time, we will have the opportunity of seeing exactly what

:01:51. > :01:53.its effect would be. But I thank her for putting down the amendmdnt and

:01:54. > :01:57.for reminding the House of the importance of all these othdr

:01:58. > :02:02.products that may be caught within the legislation. I want to commend

:02:03. > :02:03.the Minister. He is rapidly becoming one of my favourite Home Office

:02:04. > :02:09.ministers! LAUGHTER

:02:10. > :02:14.Partly, Madame Deputy Speakdr, because he agreed to be Father

:02:15. > :02:21.Christmas at the Westminster kids, party. He did it so well. -, kids

:02:22. > :02:27.club parted us also, he is prepared to the House and he did say that he

:02:28. > :02:31.would look at the work of the Select Committee and try to reflect some of

:02:32. > :02:38.its work in the amendments that he put forward to the committed stage.

:02:39. > :02:42.He has done so in many of the cases, many of the recommendations that we

:02:43. > :02:44.have put forward. He sent md yesterday, again, plenty of time to

:02:45. > :02:52.read for today, I thank him for giving me so much time, the

:02:53. > :02:57.government's response to thd... To the psychoactive bill committee

:02:58. > :03:01.stage, and to recommendations. But I should also begin by thanking the

:03:02. > :03:05.honourable member for Enfield Southgate, pushing the commhttee

:03:06. > :03:11.last year to have an inquirx into this matter before the Housd had to

:03:12. > :03:14.consider this at second reading Again, we were caught out bx the

:03:15. > :03:19.government's timetable, bec`use it was moved forward, as a restlt of

:03:20. > :03:22.which we did not have all the time in the world to consider thdse

:03:23. > :03:27.things. But I thank him for doing so. And I want to thank members of

:03:28. > :03:31.the committee, some of whom are here today, for the work that thdy did at

:03:32. > :03:42.very, very short speed in ensuring that happened. I know that the

:03:43. > :03:45.Member for why some -- one lember attended many of the meetings for

:03:46. > :03:49.this bill, despite the fact that she was sitting on to others at the

:03:50. > :03:53.time. I think the government has moved in respect of the number of

:03:54. > :03:57.points that we have made. They were right to legislate. There is no

:03:58. > :04:01.question. This has been in the entry of successive Home Office mhnisters

:04:02. > :04:04.for a number of years. The previous government was committed to doing

:04:05. > :04:09.something about it. It was `ny manifesto, as are excellent shadow

:04:10. > :04:15.Home Office minister has sahd, and I am sure if the Bulls had fallen in

:04:16. > :04:19.the opposite direction, we would have a Labour minister introducing a

:04:20. > :04:24.similar bill. So, well done to the Minister for doing this. And for

:04:25. > :04:29.incorporating. What we have said. In respect of amendments one and five,

:04:30. > :04:33.which I particularly want to blog about, I think it is very ilportant

:04:34. > :04:38.that we give support to organisations like the Angelus

:04:39. > :04:41.foundation. These voluntary organisations invariably nor more

:04:42. > :04:46.than government, because thdy draw on the experience of real lhve

:04:47. > :04:53.people, and they are prepardd to come together on a voluntarx basis

:04:54. > :04:58.in order to try and warn thd public and Parliament about the risks of

:04:59. > :05:02.these substances. I am glad we are not using the word legal highs any

:05:03. > :05:06.more, because as the report says quite clearly, that encourages

:05:07. > :05:09.people to want to try them. In respect to education, I agrde very

:05:10. > :05:14.much with what the shadow mhnister has said. I am sure this will be

:05:15. > :05:20.echoed by the Minister when he speaks. We cannot do enough to save

:05:21. > :05:24.young people -- persuade yotng people that they should not be

:05:25. > :05:29.taking these substances. My children are 20 and 18, away at univdrsity.

:05:30. > :05:35.It is every parent's nightm`re that one of those children, one of their

:05:36. > :05:39.children, out on a night out after studying and doing their work will

:05:40. > :05:43.be offered a substance which is perfectly legal, they will take that

:05:44. > :05:48.substance and they will then be ill and in some cases die. And

:05:49. > :05:50.therefore, the tough approach by the government is something that the

:05:51. > :06:03.Home Affairs Select Committde absolutely supports.

:06:04. > :06:08.Does he think if we change legal highs to a legal highs they will

:06:09. > :06:13.become even more attractive to adolescence? It may well do and I

:06:14. > :06:19.think young people are, werd not calling them legal highs, that is

:06:20. > :06:26.the point. The bill does not seek to change the name. The effect of the

:06:27. > :06:30.bill is to ban the substancds which caused death. It is not a

:06:31. > :06:37.relabelling. I have great rdspect for my honourable friend, hd was a

:06:38. > :06:41.distinguished member of the Home Affairs Select Committee and I know

:06:42. > :06:46.his position is to liberalise the law on drugs. It is not my position,

:06:47. > :06:51.nor that of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Though we miss hhm, and I

:06:52. > :07:01.know he would have forced otr reports to vote, we don't mhss him

:07:02. > :07:05.that much! It is every parent's nightmare that their child should

:07:06. > :07:10.die of drugs, whether it is legal or not is actually neither herd nor

:07:11. > :07:16.there. If we legislate to m`ke the use of illegal drugs more lhkely,

:07:17. > :07:22.which is my view on amendment five if that is not carried, then we are

:07:23. > :07:26.not serving our children. The honourable gentleman is absolutely

:07:27. > :07:36.right and that takes me on to the discussion on camel nitrates. The

:07:37. > :07:40.Shadow minister says that mhnisters have come to the dispatch box having

:07:41. > :07:46.poppers. I thought that was what she said. That came as a great surprise

:07:47. > :07:49.to those of us in the House. She busily knows more than I do about

:07:50. > :07:58.these issues although she claims to know nothing about drugs. I am

:07:59. > :08:04.grateful to my honourable friend having served along an on the

:08:05. > :08:09.committee. I think my recollection was that it was Ernest Bevin in that

:08:10. > :08:19.post-war Labour government who had a bit of a heart murmur and w`s

:08:20. > :08:25.prescribed it from his doctor and was sniffing poppers around the

:08:26. > :08:29.Cabinet table. I thank him for that information and wonder whether it is

:08:30. > :08:45.still in use around the Cabhnet table.

:08:46. > :08:53.We accepted what he said th`t they were not capable, not seem to be

:08:54. > :09:01.capable of having harmful effects, sufficient to constitute a problem.

:09:02. > :09:06.Therefore we recommended un`nimously that they should not be banned. We

:09:07. > :09:11.said if there was evidence that the government brought forward to change

:09:12. > :09:15.that position and change our view then of course they should be added

:09:16. > :09:22.to the list of banned subst`nces. Indeed, we say this, if there is any

:09:23. > :09:27.evidence produced in the contrary, then poppers should be moved from

:09:28. > :09:36.the exempted list or controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The

:09:37. > :09:42.minister last night wrote to me and said he had a proposal that a review

:09:43. > :09:50.should begin. He felt there should still be a case for putting poppers

:09:51. > :09:55.on the banned list but that if the evidence changed he would come back

:09:56. > :10:01.to the House or by some othdr order and put them on the exempted list. I

:10:02. > :10:04.think this is the wrong way round. The shadow minister asked md for my

:10:05. > :10:15.view, I have listened to wh`t the member for Winchester has s`id, in

:10:16. > :10:20.this particular case, and wd also said certain things about l`ughing

:10:21. > :10:28.gas being banned, that we dhd not feel the case should be... Has been

:10:29. > :10:36.made and I do feel that, and this is my personal view, when we considered

:10:37. > :10:40.this and we voted upon it a unanimous decision, we did not

:10:41. > :10:44.consider that poppers were harmful. Now, the minister writes back and

:10:45. > :10:51.actually tells the House th`t poppers are beneficial, as hf in

:10:52. > :10:54.some cases it may well be m`ndatory. It says this, that government

:10:55. > :10:58.recognises that representathons have been made to the effect that poppers

:10:59. > :11:03.have a beneficial health and relationship affect in enabling

:11:04. > :11:13.banal sex for some men who have sex with men. And it concern about the

:11:14. > :11:16.effect of the ban on these len. The Home Office will now considdr

:11:17. > :11:23.whether there is evidence to support the claims and whether it is

:11:24. > :11:30.sufficient to exempt poppers in the group. Though I welcome that, I

:11:31. > :11:35.think it is actually the wrong way around and I think you bettdr course

:11:36. > :11:41.of action is to put amyl nitrite on the exempted list, to conduct the

:11:42. > :11:45.review and then to come back to the House or by order and changd that

:11:46. > :11:49.position. It is what we likd to call evidence -based decision-making

:11:50. > :11:53.This is what we have said consistently over the eight years

:11:54. > :11:56.that I have chaired the Homd Affairs Select Committee. There is ` lot of

:11:57. > :12:03.emotion out there on drugs, a lot of people who have great concerns. Some

:12:04. > :12:08.passionately in favour of liberalisation, others of a

:12:09. > :12:14.different position, but why take a position where you ban and then

:12:15. > :12:18.un-ban. It actually affects the huge authority that the government has in

:12:19. > :12:20.respect of this important legislation and he has the whole

:12:21. > :12:27.house with him on this legislation. I doubt we will divide on m`ny

:12:28. > :12:30.issues, and this is pretty rare on Home Office bills. I am tryhng to

:12:31. > :12:36.think of another bill that H sat on and we have considered wherd this is

:12:37. > :12:41.not the case. It is always ` division of some kind. Why divide

:12:42. > :12:49.the House on this particular issue when there is no reason to do so? I

:12:50. > :12:54.say to the Minister, except the amendment, or indeed, don't oppose

:12:55. > :12:57.the amendment, and let us move forward in a constructive w`y. Have

:12:58. > :13:04.his review, come back and everyone in this House will accept what the

:13:05. > :13:08.experts are saying. Without equivocation, I give him thhs

:13:09. > :13:12.guarantee that if indeed thd review decides that poppers are harmful, I

:13:13. > :13:18.will be the first in the division lobby with him supporting this view.

:13:19. > :13:24.But to ban and then un-ban sends a powerful message out to a sdction of

:13:25. > :13:27.our community that they are not being listened to and to experts who

:13:28. > :13:37.have given evidence to us that they are wrong. So I urge him evdn at

:13:38. > :13:44.this late stage, to look at this again and ensure that amyl nitrite

:13:45. > :13:50.is put on the exempt list until his review is concluded. We still have a

:13:51. > :13:55.large number of members who want to come in and at this rate, wd won't

:13:56. > :14:01.get everybody in. I cannot put a time limit on that if members could

:14:02. > :14:08.keep brief, we can get everxone in. Eyebrows firstly just to sax what a

:14:09. > :14:12.pleasure it is to follow thd chairman of the Home Affairs Select

:14:13. > :14:16.Committee. I agree with almost every part of his argument and certainly

:14:17. > :14:28.with the conclusions of the select committee rich port and -- report. I

:14:29. > :14:33.also certainly want to give time to my honourable friend for Finchley

:14:34. > :14:38.and Golders Green who has bden fighting a battle behind thd scenes

:14:39. > :14:43.to make sure we don't do anxthing really daft with this legislation.

:14:44. > :14:49.There are sometimes when solething is proposed which is becoming

:14:50. > :14:52.personal to you and you realise the government is about to do something

:14:53. > :14:58.fantastically stupid and in those circumstances one has a dutx to

:14:59. > :15:04.speak up and I am, I have used poppers, I out myself as a poppers

:15:05. > :15:10.user. I would be directly affected by this legislation and in

:15:11. > :15:18.astonished to find that it hs proposing to be banned and frankly,

:15:19. > :15:24.so with very many other gay men If I follow my own mindset reaction to

:15:25. > :15:30.this, it simply serves to bring the whole law into disrepute and then

:15:31. > :15:41.begins to bring... Choosing to ban this, which I have been using, and I

:15:42. > :15:47.know has been used, for dec`des then respect for the law is going to

:15:48. > :15:51.fly out the window for people if that is the drug that they tse and

:15:52. > :15:55.all the warnings that it contained in paragraph 43 of the select

:15:56. > :16:05.committee report, particularly that from a gay men's health collective

:16:06. > :16:07.it would result in increased transmission of sexually tr`nsmitted

:16:08. > :16:12.infections, is busy going to happen and driving the supply of these

:16:13. > :16:20.underground simply puts it hn the hands of criminals and put those...

:16:21. > :16:26.I give way. I think it is rhght to focus on the supply. It is hmportant

:16:27. > :16:34.we make the message clear that the continued personal use of poppers is

:16:35. > :16:50.not being banned but the supply Under 18,, the sale of it to under

:16:51. > :16:56.18 's is covered by the act. We need to be aware that this is a

:16:57. > :17:04.computer-aided error of law -- complicated area of law. Whhlst I

:17:05. > :17:07.know my honourable friend h`s done a significant amount of work here and

:17:08. > :17:17.influence this in the right direction, he has been workhng to

:17:18. > :17:27.make sure we don't do something daft with this. He is loyal to hhs front

:17:28. > :17:37.bench, as I try to be. I am not going to be party to somethhng I

:17:38. > :17:42.know is frankly really foolhsh. As a piece of public policy. The issue is

:17:43. > :17:46.about supply and what it might do to someone like me might be to put me

:17:47. > :17:50.in the hands of the criminals to get my supply for something I used to

:17:51. > :17:55.think was perfectly OK. Then there is a piece of legislation which I

:17:56. > :18:03.think is absurd which someone like me, I might find myself in the hands

:18:04. > :18:10.of people who are supplying everything else. It is manifestly

:18:11. > :18:13.stupid to go down the path that we are doing. Let's have the evidence

:18:14. > :18:17.and if government can then come forward with the case that can

:18:18. > :18:19.convince the chairman of thd Home Affairs Select Committee and his

:18:20. > :18:28.colleagues on that in due course then we can have a discussion about

:18:29. > :18:33.this issue then. Do not ban it. It does seem to be a grey area. I

:18:34. > :18:36.understand it is not intenddd to victimise current users of the drug

:18:37. > :18:41.but it does put them in the position where they may be susceptible to

:18:42. > :18:48.blackmail, dealing with crilinals. It seems to me this will crhminalise

:18:49. > :18:53.people. Indeed, and I am advertising the fact I may be vulnerabld to

:18:54. > :18:58.that. I am pleading with thd House to make sure I don't find mxself

:18:59. > :19:05.caught in this particular shtuation. Given that it relates to my own

:19:06. > :19:10.personal experience, and my experience as a Minister for justice

:19:11. > :19:17.with responsibility for offdnders and offender management, I hmplore

:19:18. > :19:22.my colleagues at the very ldast please don't be associated with

:19:23. > :19:31.putting this on the statute book. It is a mistake. The sensible thing to

:19:32. > :19:42.do would be for us to look `t it again in June. First of all, can I

:19:43. > :19:48.just say I'm not alone in mx constituency. I do not like the word

:19:49. > :19:55.legal highs. The very words attract young people to them. I would also

:19:56. > :19:58.like to commend the governmdnt for coming forward with a strong

:19:59. > :20:07.legislative force in the Hotse today. When you bring legislation

:20:08. > :20:12.like this to the House, you are the favourite of many and my

:20:13. > :20:19.constituents will be grateftl for the changes put forward herd today.

:20:20. > :20:26.I think governments have thd same stance and I welcome that. Just last

:20:27. > :20:33.year in my constituency we had the heartbreak and also the illness and

:20:34. > :20:39.trauma as a result of legal highs. A young man, I know his mother and

:20:40. > :20:46.stepfather quite well, was found dead in my constituency as ` result

:20:47. > :20:52.of his addiction to legal hhghs His parents told me that the very nature

:20:53. > :20:57.of what it is, it is a case which has caused shock across the whole

:20:58. > :21:05.province. It left the familx devastated and this is from his

:21:06. > :21:09.stepmum, Dawn. She said leg`l highs are a major problem around here and

:21:10. > :21:14.something has to be done about it. The government is doing somdthing

:21:15. > :21:20.today and I welcome that. I would like to just make some quick points

:21:21. > :21:24.in relation to amendments 14. I want to ask the Minister just three quick

:21:25. > :21:30.points and I want to make these with some background as well.

:21:31. > :21:35.The shadow referred to the legislative change in the Rdpublic

:21:36. > :21:40.of Ireland, where they have brought in a band on the legal highs. It has

:21:41. > :21:46.been extraordinarily effecthve, according to the Irish police. At

:21:47. > :21:51.the same time, five years ago there were 100 shops were selling legal

:21:52. > :21:55.highs was acceptable and th`t has been reduced to zero. The qtestion I

:21:56. > :21:58.want to ask the Minister is this, the Republic of Ireland havd stated

:21:59. > :22:02.very clearly that there is `n issue, even with the hardline legislation

:22:03. > :22:10.they brought in. A BBC investigation found the Republic of Ireland's

:22:11. > :22:13.police squad was unable to protect against a new range because of

:22:14. > :22:18.problems to stop police must scientifically prove that a

:22:19. > :22:24.substance has a psychoactivd effect and so further have only bedn a few

:22:25. > :22:29.prosecutions. One Sergeant said unfortunately a prosecution cannot

:22:30. > :22:37.be taken, outlining but even with that of legislation, which H think

:22:38. > :22:40.this legislation is based on, and so I think it is imperative th`t we

:22:41. > :22:45.were from they are system and not end up with a similar ineffdctive

:22:46. > :22:50.approach, if that is the wax it should be. At the same time, I also

:22:51. > :22:57.want to have a very clear ddfinition of, as it says in this secthon of

:22:58. > :23:04.the causes we have before us. I know that, again, I ask the Minister has

:23:05. > :23:08.there been discussions... I am aware that this year in prisons in England

:23:09. > :23:13.and Wales there have been 26 attempts to deliver drugs of the

:23:14. > :23:18.drones. Legal highs. In the first ten months of 2015. Insiders claim

:23:19. > :23:26.that it could be higher than that number of 26. Again, this

:23:27. > :23:28.legislation is great but it only works with every other government

:23:29. > :23:31.department is doing their bht. Perhaps the Minister could respond

:23:32. > :23:36.to that. I am very conscious that you set off a timescale and I will

:23:37. > :23:42.keep to that. This is my last point. In the introduction by the shadow

:23:43. > :23:45.minister, it was referred to well it is good to have this legisl`tion but

:23:46. > :23:50.there is still the possibilhty of being able to purchase legal highs

:23:51. > :23:54.and the like online. I think many of us feel that where this leghslation

:23:55. > :23:57.will be strong, the way we wanted, and I thank government for that and

:23:58. > :24:01.that will be exactly what mx constituents want to see, across

:24:02. > :24:05.crusty old Northern Ireland, to ensure that local councils `nd

:24:06. > :24:10.police can stop the manufacture and sale of these products. I'm quite

:24:11. > :24:14.happy to give way. Is he aw`re that in Ireland, after the introduction

:24:15. > :24:19.of legislation which is verx similar to this legislation, not only did

:24:20. > :24:24.every single one of that 102 shops closed down but also there `re now

:24:25. > :24:26.no longer any Irish domain websites selling these substances, and when

:24:27. > :24:33.others were hopeful the samd effect in the UK, here in England `nd

:24:34. > :24:36.Wales. I thank him for that. As I said about the shops being closed,

:24:37. > :24:42.it is really good news. It hs good stuff. But that information I gave

:24:43. > :24:46.earlier on from the Sergeant, he outlined an issue that their time to

:24:47. > :24:51.address now. I think it is good to have other examples that we can

:24:52. > :24:54.refer to, where we can get hard fast, legislative change and address

:24:55. > :24:59.those issues. On the issues of the online, again, it has been

:25:00. > :25:03.successful partially, maybe almost there in the Republic of Irdland.

:25:04. > :25:05.But at the same time, we can do it well. I commend the Minister and

:25:06. > :25:10.government for what they ard bringing forward here and this is

:25:11. > :25:16.the sort of legislation I w`nt to see, my constituents want to see as

:25:17. > :25:19.the sort of legislation that that constituents across the whole

:25:20. > :25:22.Northern Ireland want to sed. We look forward to supporting ht when

:25:23. > :25:29.it comes to devote, if it comes to one. First of all, could I thank the

:25:30. > :25:35.shadow minister for what I thought was a speech which was balanced and

:25:36. > :25:39.had some very well judged comments. I also would like to thank the

:25:40. > :25:44.Minister, my right honourable friend, for the courtesy he showed

:25:45. > :25:52.me when I took a delegation in from the National aids trust, Stonewall

:25:53. > :25:57.and others to discuss this topic. Not just from the debate to day but

:25:58. > :25:59.what has been raging in the gay press over the last few months,

:26:00. > :26:07.there is considerable concern over the need to ban poppers. Wh`t has

:26:08. > :26:10.come to the fore over the p`st few months whilst I have been working on

:26:11. > :26:13.the topic is actually the complete lack of any real empirical detail

:26:14. > :26:22.one way or the other. I do appreciate the Home Office believe,

:26:23. > :26:26.and I have no doubt they believe is genuine, that deaths have occurred

:26:27. > :26:31.from the use of poppers. However, that evidence has never been

:26:32. > :26:35.forthcoming. And so I deciddd to do a little bit more research of my

:26:36. > :26:41.own. I would like to draw attention to American research, particularly

:26:42. > :26:45.by Doctor Thomas Hall of thd University of California in Los

:26:46. > :26:52.Angeles, who gave evidence to a report for Lead Times into the

:26:53. > :26:57.effects of these drugs. I whll quote, not the whole document, but

:26:58. > :27:01.he says there is very specific research that made very little

:27:02. > :27:05.specific research and the hdalth effects. He goes on to say "By

:27:06. > :27:09.summary statement would be that in the grand scheme of drug abtse, the

:27:10. > :27:16.risks from poppers are fairly benign. Isopropyl nitrate and others

:27:17. > :27:21.appeared to be less harmful to the body in general than chronic alcohol

:27:22. > :27:29.consumption." And so I then looked at the New England medical Journal.

:27:30. > :27:34.They said, "To our knowledgd," and this was published in 2010," over

:27:35. > :27:40.the past ten years," which would now be 15 years, "There have only been

:27:41. > :27:44.two cases of visual loss after inhalation of poppers. And the

:27:45. > :27:50.anatomical basis of the injtry remains elusive." And finally, in

:27:51. > :27:58.terms of the medical research, I turned to what is known as the US

:27:59. > :28:06.HHS, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, report of

:28:07. > :28:11.January 20 13. They said, "To date, the use of nitrates as a

:28:12. > :28:15.psychoactive substance among men who have sex with men has received

:28:16. > :28:20.little attention in the addhction textbooks, where they are stbsumed

:28:21. > :28:23.amongst other in he wants," as we are hearing today. "This Is

:28:24. > :28:29.unfortunate because I think these disparate agents together b`sed on

:28:30. > :28:33.Mold of administration, inh`lation, obscures the substantial differences

:28:34. > :28:39.in both mechanism and typic`l risk of between it will nitrates, which

:28:40. > :28:44.act on a specific party, and those solvents and propellants th`t are

:28:45. > :28:50.also propelled. " That is about the sum of medical evidence that I could

:28:51. > :28:55.find. And so in the absence of medical evidence or hard fight in

:28:56. > :28:59.the UK, I wrote to the advisory committee on misuse of drugs. -

:29:00. > :29:04.hard facts in the UK. The chairman could not be more blunt, to say the

:29:05. > :29:11.least. One sentence is a grdy says, "They have not seen that poppers are

:29:12. > :29:17.capable of having harmful effects." And so there was talk about a

:29:18. > :29:23.medicinal benefit to poppers, which I thought was an interesting turn of

:29:24. > :29:28.phrase! Until I received an e-mail, and I will have to bow to the

:29:29. > :29:34.knowledge of our SNP colleagues from a gentleman in Crawley in

:29:35. > :29:41.Inverness, and he says," nitrates are carried and used when the need

:29:42. > :29:46.arises for added rights -- snakebites. Apparently the tse of

:29:47. > :29:50.poppers is assured by many people who work in the countryside as a

:29:51. > :29:58.first line of treatment is one - if one is bitten by an adder." I

:29:59. > :30:04.confessed that adders are not common in my constituency! But he goes on

:30:05. > :30:08.to say, does Mr Joyce," a substantial number of peopld are

:30:09. > :30:12.bitten each year in Britain and the bite is rarely fatal. But whether

:30:13. > :30:14.that is because the then is not particularly powerful against more

:30:15. > :30:19.than healthy humans or becatse treatment with nitrates or one of

:30:20. > :30:24.the eight non-antivenom is `lways administered very quickly is open to

:30:25. > :30:27.debate. Who scored I use th`t because it does show that there is a

:30:28. > :30:32.conflict between what is a view that is held and what limited information

:30:33. > :30:41.and fact is out in the publhc domain. And I do support th`t there

:30:42. > :30:44.is a need to provide up-to-date empirical evidence which also

:30:45. > :30:50.includes proportionality. Anything we do carries a risk. Whethdr it is

:30:51. > :30:56.smoking... If you wish to drink bleach, you will be harmed, but we

:30:57. > :31:01.are not proposing to ban bldach So anything we are seeking to control,

:31:02. > :31:06.regulate or ban has to be ddalt with in the round and has to be dealt

:31:07. > :31:10.with in terms of proportion`lity. I welcome the response to the Home

:31:11. > :31:17.Affairs Select Committee in terms of the investigation that will be

:31:18. > :31:21.underway shortly into the ilpact of the ban on the relationships of gay

:31:22. > :31:24.men and women. I am told it is not just an issue with gay men, it

:31:25. > :31:32.affects gay women as well. @s this is important to remember, and my

:31:33. > :31:35.honourable friend, the Membdr for Leicester East, the chairman of the

:31:36. > :31:43.Home Affairs Select Committde, talked about banal sex, that is

:31:44. > :31:45.quite a crude way of saying that poppers can facilitate the

:31:46. > :31:50.relaxation of muscles. But the point I want to make is not just `bout the

:31:51. > :31:54.physical side of a relationship if your relationship wishes to be as

:31:55. > :31:58.intimate as possible, and poppers facilitate that, that is important

:31:59. > :32:03.element into the emotional well-being of that couple. @nd so if

:32:04. > :32:07.we are talking about the medicinal benefits, we have to includd the

:32:08. > :32:12.relationship benefits and the mental health benefits that the usd of

:32:13. > :32:22.poppers in a relationship could bring. I do think that when we are

:32:23. > :32:25.talking about proportionality, it is important that we do not st`rt

:32:26. > :32:31.banning things on the basis of one or two incidents. It has to be a

:32:32. > :32:34.significant risk of significant harm to a significant number of people,

:32:35. > :32:39.otherwise we would be banning cigarettes and alcohol tomorrow And

:32:40. > :32:44.I must ask my rate honourable friend, and say to him, that the

:32:45. > :32:50.investigation and report must be as open and transparent as possible.

:32:51. > :32:54.And I do ask for assurance when my right honourable friend responds

:32:55. > :32:58.that the evidence will be not just from organisations like Public

:32:59. > :33:05.Health England or elements of the NHS, but is taken from organisations

:33:06. > :33:12.like the National aids trust, the Terrence Higgins trust, Stonewall,

:33:13. > :33:19.but also organisations whosd sale poppers in the UK, because they have

:33:20. > :33:24.a strong and relevant and up-to date evidence bank of how poppers are

:33:25. > :33:26.used, how they are sold, but because they are repeatable retailers, they

:33:27. > :33:30.also have an enormous amount of data on the illegal import of thd more

:33:31. > :33:37.dangerous poppers that are coming in through the Internet. And I would

:33:38. > :33:40.also ask that the Minister would say they take evidence from the

:33:41. > :33:45.international bodies. I mentioned a few earlier on all stop thex have

:33:46. > :33:51.done some medical research hnto the benefits of the use of poppdrs. And

:33:52. > :33:55.one final thing, Madame Deptty Speaker, is if the Home Offhce

:33:56. > :33:59.decides that there is a risk that needs to be mitigated, is not

:34:00. > :34:04.banned, I would urge that if you go down that path, that they look at a

:34:05. > :34:09.licensing through sex shops. If we are worried that there is a risk, is

:34:10. > :34:12.not necessarily requiring an outright ban, one option wotld be to

:34:13. > :34:15.look at having them sold through licensed sex shops, which would

:34:16. > :34:21.allow some level of control, some level of regulation, from ldvel of

:34:22. > :34:25.protection, without an outrhght ban and all of the underground drug that

:34:26. > :34:30.could lead people to be exposed There is a lot of work to bd done,

:34:31. > :34:33.and I do welcome these last action of the right honourable fridnd. You

:34:34. > :34:36.might think I am coming to the conclusion that I would be

:34:37. > :34:39.supporting the opposition's amendment today, and I have to say

:34:40. > :34:43.the opposition have spoken ` lot of sense. However, I will be stpporting

:34:44. > :34:47.the government because one of the things that concerns me is H want an

:34:48. > :34:53.exemption based on empirical evidence. So that if poppers are

:34:54. > :34:58.exempt by the summary says, as outlined in the response to the Home

:34:59. > :35:03.Affairs Select Committee, that exemption cannot easily be

:35:04. > :35:07.overturned at the whim of a future minister. That exception is based on

:35:08. > :35:10.empirical evidence, whatever it says. And on that basis, I will be

:35:11. > :35:18.supporting the government on this particular issue.

:35:19. > :35:32.I think Opec to move the amdndments and my name. -- to Berwick. I wish

:35:33. > :35:38.to speak to the amendments hn my name 12, 13, 14, 15 and along with

:35:39. > :35:46.Labour colleagues, number fhve. I will say at the outset we do support

:35:47. > :35:49.the aims of this bill to protect public health and to go aftdr the

:35:50. > :35:57.big guys, the ones making the profits out of other people's

:35:58. > :36:02.endangerment and not to go `fter the individuals who decide to try it for

:36:03. > :36:06.whatever reason. I think in that respect we are not quite thdre yet

:36:07. > :36:11.which is why we have put across these amendments. Before I do speak

:36:12. > :36:18.to the amendments, I would like to make a plea although I made it in a

:36:19. > :36:24.previous debate about the l`nguage used, and I notice today it has

:36:25. > :36:27.happened a lot less than before and that is about the names people give

:36:28. > :36:32.to the new psychoactive substances and I always say I will nevdr named

:36:33. > :36:37.those products because thosd names are given by marketeers who make

:36:38. > :36:41.them sound bold and exciting and I think it is important that we say

:36:42. > :36:49.exactly what they are and don't use the names that they wish to give

:36:50. > :36:53.them. Amendment 12, the defhnition of psychoactive substance. @s I say,

:36:54. > :36:59.we welcome the broader publhc health aims of this bill. And we h`ve

:37:00. > :37:03.worked hard with the governlent down here to make sure that meastres are

:37:04. > :37:07.proportionate and based on the best advice available to us. And the best

:37:08. > :37:10.advice is available from thd advisory Council on the mistse of

:37:11. > :37:13.drugs which made it very cldar in their submission that the

:37:14. > :37:18.definitions at the heart of the bill require further detail. The Home

:37:19. > :37:22.Affairs Select Committee recommended the government should the

:37:23. > :37:25.definition. The government seems to come at this from another angle

:37:26. > :37:30.going against the grain of scientific advice so we tabled this

:37:31. > :37:33.amendment to be more specifhc when it comes to the definitions. If you

:37:34. > :37:37.are to ask a member of the public what they consider to be a little

:37:38. > :37:43.high, they would generally define them not by chemical family or the

:37:44. > :37:48.fact they are psychoactive hn and of themselves but the similarities in

:37:49. > :37:57.effect they produce to substances already prohibited. It would improve

:37:58. > :38:01.the public understanding and acceptance of these measures. The

:38:02. > :38:06.other important aspect of the amendment is tying legislathon from

:38:07. > :38:11.public health and threat of harm. The bill as it stands as a broad

:38:12. > :38:16.measure and what it is the government's intention to cover all

:38:17. > :38:18.psychoactive substances, it is surely a good principle of

:38:19. > :38:23.legislation that we are cle`r on what the threat is that we `re

:38:24. > :38:26.legislating to tackle. It is the effects of psychoactive substances

:38:27. > :38:37.on the individual and the threat to public health, that should be

:38:38. > :38:40.tackled. Amendment 13, we wdlcome the government's move to

:38:41. > :38:44.criminalising supply and not necessarily possession that we move

:38:45. > :38:48.the amendment to try to prevent the counter productive canonisation of

:38:49. > :38:54.young people who together ptrchased psychoactive substances with one of

:38:55. > :38:59.them placing the order that using money from the wider group. That

:39:00. > :39:10.person could be at risk of being criminalised for supplying `

:39:11. > :39:14.psychoactive substance. The Honourable member knows I al sure

:39:15. > :39:24.that that approach in relathon to you supply... Two youths, placing an

:39:25. > :39:28.order with a dealer and distributing it among their friends, that is

:39:29. > :39:31.entirely consistent with thd law when it comes to the Misuse of Drugs

:39:32. > :39:34.Act because the messages if you buy a drug and then distribute ht, in

:39:35. > :39:38.the eyes of the law you are a supplier and I think I would be

:39:39. > :39:42.interested to know why she thinks that should be a distinction between

:39:43. > :39:48.these types of drugs and thd more serious drugs under the 1970 act

:39:49. > :39:53.because surely we are trying to achieve the same aim, to stop the

:39:54. > :39:57.supply of harmful substances. My understanding was that we wdre

:39:58. > :40:02.trying not to mirror the Misuse of Drugs Act, but to take the bits of

:40:03. > :40:06.that that we moved on. In tdrms of this bill is not about crimhnalising

:40:07. > :40:10.individuals for possession, whereas under the Misuse of Drugs Act they

:40:11. > :40:14.can be and are criminalised for possession. It doesn't have two

:40:15. > :40:27.major it exactly. Ayes have to mirror it. Drugs like enough lives,

:40:28. > :40:30.certainly in my constituencx. Without the need to penalisd

:40:31. > :40:36.somebody who is acting on bdhalf of his or her peer group, without any

:40:37. > :40:42.financial motives. They are not drugs suppliers. Obviously we may

:40:43. > :40:47.question the decision and wd do question the sensing the decision to

:40:48. > :40:55.do that but it shouldn't be a criminal offence and we are creating

:40:56. > :40:59.a situation where a young pdrson could be pressurised by the group to

:41:00. > :41:06.purchase substances that if they are caught, it could lead to thdm having

:41:07. > :41:14.a substantial criminal convhction. The point surely is to introduce

:41:15. > :41:17.clarity to those young people you are describing because if a young

:41:18. > :41:22.person buys ecstasy, that is a class a drug and they are at risk of going

:41:23. > :41:26.to prison for a long time if they are prosecuted and convicted. If a

:41:27. > :41:31.young person buys one of thdse new psychoactive substances that is

:41:32. > :41:35.minimally different from MDLA but dealers get round it becausd they

:41:36. > :41:39.say it is not ecstasy, it is a bit different and therefore doesn't fall

:41:40. > :41:45.under the 1971 act, that pl`ce is that young person in a very

:41:46. > :41:48.difficult position. They have two... My question is did you encotrage

:41:49. > :41:51.clarity between those drugs so that young people know they should not be

:41:52. > :41:58.buying the substances and distributing them? I am not arguing

:41:59. > :42:03.that we should not be discotraging them. I am arguing that if somebody

:42:04. > :42:06.buys them for themselves and a couple of friends that we shouldn't

:42:07. > :42:11.criminalise them as if they were drug dealers. When they are clearly

:42:12. > :42:14.not click drug dealers. I h`ve strong concerns that further down

:42:15. > :42:18.the line members of this Hotse will be contacted by the parent of

:42:19. > :42:23.somebody who very foolishly purchased a substance on behalf of

:42:24. > :42:27.themselves or one of two frhends and was later convicted of supply and

:42:28. > :42:31.they see their life chances greatly diminished. Of course saying to them

:42:32. > :42:34.this could happen to you if you do this, we hope that would discourage

:42:35. > :42:39.them but I certainly don't think we should be punishing and labdlling

:42:40. > :42:46.somebody at a drug dealer ptshed it with the buying stuff for their

:42:47. > :42:53.friends. If I could just finish my point. People do pass a strong moral

:42:54. > :43:02.judgment on anyone who has ` conviction to do with drugs that are

:43:03. > :43:06.strong moral conviction in Hraq -- you are talking about someone who is

:43:07. > :43:11.getting drugs for himself and his friends, not a drug dealer. And that

:43:12. > :43:17.is what the conviction would be Following arguments from thd other

:43:18. > :43:32.side, does the young -- Honourable Lady agree that tobacco and alcohol,

:43:33. > :43:41.does she contemplate the effects that bans on the substances have had

:43:42. > :43:44.across the world? Today we `re here talking about new psychoacthve

:43:45. > :43:48.substances and lost a take that point, they do cause considdrable

:43:49. > :43:53.harm, I think it is important we carry on with what we are hdre to

:43:54. > :43:57.discuss today. If you think about it, any member in this chamber today

:43:58. > :44:03.has children could face the situation where their child is

:44:04. > :44:09.selling along with some fridnds experiment with legal highs. If they

:44:10. > :44:16.are fortunate enough to be damaged physically or mentally by that, we

:44:17. > :44:21.could end up with a situation where somebody's child is convictdd of a

:44:22. > :44:26.drug dealing offence just for stupidly experimenting. I w`nt to

:44:27. > :44:41.move on to amendment 14 abott Internet purchase. I Alan alendment

:44:42. > :44:47.relates to purchasing drugs over the Internet which is then shipped into

:44:48. > :44:50.the UK. The government says they are moving forward and not seekhng to

:44:51. > :44:56.criminalise individuals unnecessarily and the bill hndicates

:44:57. > :45:01.those purchased in other waxs one be committing a criminal offence.

:45:02. > :45:13.However this part of the bill does criminalise. I would argue they

:45:14. > :45:25.should not concern themselvds with the purchase for personal use for

:45:26. > :45:29.individuals. The spirit of the bill is that we do not want to

:45:30. > :45:32.criminalise individuals for possession but we are going to

:45:33. > :45:37.criminalise the sale and purchase of the substances. So we ask for

:45:38. > :45:46.further clarification. He c`me back and said, I apologise. I was talking

:45:47. > :45:51.about intent to supply, not intent to use. Making a purchase from a

:45:52. > :45:58.foreign website would be catght but the purchase on its own would not

:45:59. > :46:02.and I apologise if I misled the House on that point. My honourable

:46:03. > :46:14.friend then pressed the Minhster and said laws eight -- clause ehght the

:46:15. > :46:20.person intentionally purchases that substance and intends to consume it

:46:21. > :46:25.for its effect. It seems to me if somebody imports and possesses a

:46:26. > :46:30.small amount of substance over the Internet, they are criminalhsed but

:46:31. > :46:38.if they purchase it at a he`d shop, he or she would not be crimhnalised.

:46:39. > :46:42.The minister responded, that is not the bill's intention. As we go

:46:43. > :46:51.through the bill, we will endeavour to iron out those concerns. At the

:46:52. > :46:56.committee stage, I have Honourable friends who were on the comlittee

:46:57. > :47:02.and I known the Minister offered this statement. Possession hn a club

:47:03. > :47:05.would not be an offence, indeed possession is not an offencd under

:47:06. > :47:09.any part of the legislation and less in a secure facility. It is

:47:10. > :47:13.important to send that mess`ge out. I really would like some cl`rity

:47:14. > :47:19.from the Minister on that. Could I ask a much longer I have? There are

:47:20. > :47:23.no time limits in this debate but there are many people wanting to

:47:24. > :47:26.speak and the group is getthng longer so the longer the Honourable

:47:27. > :47:37.Lady speaks, the less time others have a chance to do so. I whll move

:47:38. > :47:49.on. I'm taking my killer arguments and bringing them up. I want to make

:47:50. > :47:54.one more point about the purchasing online. If we are saying it is not a

:47:55. > :47:58.criminal offence to purchasd down a dark alley, which is where xou would

:47:59. > :48:01.have two purchase if you were intending to purchase these

:48:02. > :48:05.psychoactive substances, it is not a criminal offence to do that, but it

:48:06. > :48:09.is an offence to do it over the Internet. You will end up whth a

:48:10. > :48:13.situation where two people, brother and sister, can try exactly the same

:48:14. > :48:22.thing, one of them is a crilinal and one isn't. Who do you think is most

:48:23. > :48:27.likely to be meeting a crimhnal drug dealer back alley? I would say it is

:48:28. > :48:30.far more likely that women will be criminalised for this because they

:48:31. > :48:37.are less likely to want to go and meet the drug dealer in person.

:48:38. > :48:44.Amendment 15, this was lookhng at sentencing with potential h`rm of

:48:45. > :48:47.the substance involved. The Minister did say he supported the prhnciple

:48:48. > :48:53.behind the amendment at comlittee stage though it is just to hear

:48:54. > :48:57.where he stands on it today. On poppers, I am proud the SNP

:48:58. > :49:01.champions this from the start and it was great to hear so many p`ssionate

:49:02. > :49:07.speeches of support from both sides of the House. I won't say anything

:49:08. > :49:17.else other than we support that and I will sit down and let somdone else

:49:18. > :49:30.speak. I rise to speak to clause three which stands in my nale. I

:49:31. > :49:34.would like to festival welcomed the very constructive approach that my

:49:35. > :49:39.honourable friend the Minister has taken to engaging with membdrs on

:49:40. > :49:45.all sides of the House during the passage of this bill. And a

:49:46. > :49:49.constructive engagement which I believe has enhanced the positive

:49:50. > :49:54.aspects of the Bill and I al pleased that there is a broad consensus

:49:55. > :49:58.across the House that this hs an important piece of legislathon which

:49:59. > :50:03.is about public protection. However, what we have heard today in

:50:04. > :50:09.listening to this debate is clearly a call for evidence made policy

:50:10. > :50:12.making. That is something that is echoed in a number of contrhbutions

:50:13. > :50:16.today when speaking to diffdrent amendments and different new

:50:17. > :50:19.clauses. That is something H believe we should all sign up to and it is

:50:20. > :50:29.in that spirit that I have tabled this amendment. Primarily as a means

:50:30. > :50:33.to examine and draw out frol the minister 's comments on what is an

:50:34. > :50:38.increasingly confused law in regard to the medicinal use of cannabis.

:50:39. > :50:45.And indeed some of the rese`rch and the fact that the law as it stands

:50:46. > :50:52.is an impediment to research into the effects of cannabis on lental

:50:53. > :50:54.health and the general rese`rch into medicinal benefits of cannabis and

:50:55. > :51:09.cannabis derivatives. A support. Would he put what you

:51:10. > :51:13.are. With your party group on drug policy reform hopes to condtct an

:51:14. > :51:18.inquiry into the Michael Gifford dumbing medicinal use on cannabis, I

:51:19. > :51:21.think it's results will be very interesting in that evidencd base he

:51:22. > :51:25.mentions. I think he is absolutely right. The two points I am going to

:51:26. > :51:29.come onto when talking about the barriers to research our first of

:51:30. > :51:35.all about barriers currentlx to medical health research, and we know

:51:36. > :51:39.that the use of cannabis has links with mental illness, partictlarly

:51:40. > :51:41.psychosis. But also into thd broader research into the medicinal benefits

:51:42. > :51:47.potentially of the many products which are contained within the

:51:48. > :51:50.cannabis plant, and that is something that the United States has

:51:51. > :51:54.looked into, and indeed we have seen over 20 seats in the United States

:51:55. > :52:00.now relax was that allowed for medicinal use of cannabis, `nd

:52:01. > :52:03.cannabis derivatives. That hs something I am very pleased to see,

:52:04. > :52:12.that the all-party group is going to look into the stop --. It is

:52:13. > :52:15.important that we look at evidence and use that to relax and change the

:52:16. > :52:20.law because the law should be for public protection but also public

:52:21. > :52:22.benefit. If there is a legitimate medicinal use of cannabis, ht is

:52:23. > :52:29.something we should be supporting and encouraging, because th`t is

:52:30. > :52:32.good for patients. No, Madale Deputy Speaker, before I proceed, H

:52:33. > :52:36.wondered also to quickly totch upon the very brave speech by my

:52:37. > :52:42.honourable friend, the Membdr for Reigate, to discuss our personal

:52:43. > :52:47.experiences in this chamber is but it is something that I brings into

:52:48. > :52:59.focus the importance of makhng sure that the love that we pass to impact

:53:00. > :53:03.in a positive way on the dax-to day lives of her constituents. He spoke

:53:04. > :53:07.very readily about his own tse of poppers. It is something th`t

:53:08. > :53:11.helped, I think, to bring alive the debate and crystallise the

:53:12. > :53:14.importance of that evidence -based policy making and something that I

:53:15. > :53:22.know the Minister will respond to later on. So under the issud of

:53:23. > :53:29.rescheduling of cannabis from a schedule one to a schedule to drug,

:53:30. > :53:35.as we are aware, the scheduling of this was laid down in 2001 `nd the

:53:36. > :53:37.reason that cannabis was considered to be a schedule one drug w`s

:53:38. > :53:40.because it did not have any medicinal benefit, which I think is

:53:41. > :53:44.something which is now conshderably in contention on the evidence, based

:53:45. > :53:50.on the evidence I am about to bring forward. It is important to

:53:51. > :53:53.highlight some of the inconsistencies. Under the Schengen

:53:54. > :53:59.agreement, it is actually ldgal for somebody in a Schengen country to

:54:00. > :54:02.bring into the UK, if they have been prescribed by a doctor in their own

:54:03. > :54:06.country, cannabis for medichnal use for up to 30 days. Yet it is not

:54:07. > :54:12.legal in this country for a doctor to prescribe cannabis for mddicinal

:54:13. > :54:17.purposes, unless that happens to be... Prescribing cannabis for the

:54:18. > :54:22.purposes of treating MS, whhch is the one licensed drug currently

:54:23. > :54:25.available. And indeed if we recognise that cannabis can be

:54:26. > :54:33.licensed for treatment of mtltiple sclerosis, MS, currently under

:54:34. > :54:38.licensing, surely we recognhse there is a medicinal benefit. Therefore

:54:39. > :54:43.schedule one is the wrong place for cannabis, because we accept there is

:54:44. > :54:50.a medicinal benefit, and thd Home Office does. We need to be looking

:54:51. > :54:56.at rescheduling the drug. I have hardly touched upon the point in

:54:57. > :54:59.responding to my honourable friend's intervention in the evidencd in the

:55:00. > :55:03.United States that is growing that there are other potential mddicinal

:55:04. > :55:07.benefits of cannabis for trdatment of patients and the relaxing was

:55:08. > :55:11.another 20 states based upon that growing evidence to stop th`t is

:55:12. > :55:17.something we clearly need to look at in this country and in parthcular,

:55:18. > :55:20.the potential benefits of c`nnabis products in palliative care is

:55:21. > :55:25.something that I think deserves considerable merit if there is

:55:26. > :55:29.greater scrutiny. So there hs an inconsistency at the moment in the

:55:30. > :55:33.classification of cannabis. That is the reason I brought this alendment.

:55:34. > :55:36.More particularly, I wanted to talk about some of the barriers to

:55:37. > :55:40.research that are in place to stop I am very grateful to my right

:55:41. > :55:46.honourable friend the Minister for meeting with Professor Sir Robin

:55:47. > :55:50.Murray and a doctor who works in mental health, particularly in

:55:51. > :55:53.psychosis, a very eminent professor to examine this issue and ldarn

:55:54. > :56:00.first-hand some of the diffhculties that the experience in condtcting

:56:01. > :56:03.research into mental ill-he`lth We know that there are links bdtween

:56:04. > :56:12.psychosis and cannabis use, particularly important that we

:56:13. > :56:17.understand the basis upon which the way that the planned works

:56:18. > :56:21.effectively on neurotransmitters, and we support researchers hn being

:56:22. > :56:25.able to conduct their research. At the moment, effectively, those

:56:26. > :56:30.researchers could potentially be criminalised for carrying ott

:56:31. > :56:33.research which would be leghtimate in many other fields of medhcal

:56:34. > :56:37.research. That is something that we, I am sure, is not an intenddd

:56:38. > :56:43.consequence. It also makes ht very difficult to carry out rese`rch in

:56:44. > :56:46.this field of mental health and the links with cannabis in an effective

:56:47. > :56:50.way and do something that I know the Minister is so pathetic to. I am

:56:51. > :56:55.looking forward to hearing from him in how we can find a workable

:56:56. > :56:58.solution. -- is sympathetic to. We do want to improve the treatment of

:56:59. > :57:01.patients with mental ill-he`lth but in order to do that, we need to

:57:02. > :57:06.properly support the researchers to carry out their work and th`t is

:57:07. > :57:12.something I hope the whole house can sign up to. Finally, I wantdd just

:57:13. > :57:16.to say to the House but in talk am speaking to my amendment, that this

:57:17. > :57:22.is not an easy matter. This is not part of a broader discussion on the

:57:23. > :57:25.merits or demerits of legalhsing cannabis. I specifically wanted to

:57:26. > :57:29.bring this amendment for discussion today in order to highlight the

:57:30. > :57:33.difficulties faced by researchers carrying out their jobs, to also

:57:34. > :57:35.highlight some of the clear inconsistencies in drug laws in

:57:36. > :57:40.relation to cannabis and thd fact that I think, or importantlx, to

:57:41. > :57:47.highlight the fact that drugs that we consider much more potentially

:57:48. > :57:51.harmful if used by the publhc, heroine or diamorphine, which is a

:57:52. > :57:54.schedule to drugs, is schedtled under that schedule or as c`nnabis,

:57:55. > :57:58.which we now know there is ` growing body of evidence to show thdre is

:57:59. > :58:05.medicinal benefit to using, is a schedule one Bronco, God. There is

:58:06. > :58:07.inconsistency. -- schedule one drug. That is something I believe the

:58:08. > :58:11.government does need to look into. But in particular, I would be very

:58:12. > :58:15.grateful for my right honourable friend's comments on how we could

:58:16. > :58:19.facilitate and ease the process of legitimate research without

:58:20. > :58:26.criminalising researchers. Would he also agree with me that there is a

:58:27. > :58:31.real anomaly when a drug such as DNP, which has caused to so many

:58:32. > :58:35.deaths of young people, which is taken as a drug for body-buhlding or

:58:36. > :58:40.to improve people's percepthon of their body image, is now cl`ssified

:58:41. > :58:44.that it falls between so many stools that it is impossible to get it

:58:45. > :58:50.banned, despite the deaths that it has caused and the damage it is

:58:51. > :58:53.doing? I think my right honourable friend speaks wisely and indeed

:58:54. > :59:00.actually, on that subject, looking at rescheduling, under schedule for,

:59:01. > :59:05.steroids are under section four two of the misuse of drugs regulation,

:59:06. > :59:11.and they are often a drug that are misused by body-builders and

:59:12. > :59:15.sometimes by other athletes. And yet, I mentioned the exampld of

:59:16. > :59:21.diamorphine, or heroine, behng a schedule to drug and I think there

:59:22. > :59:24.is a clear and compelling c`se now, both from the growing medic`l

:59:25. > :59:31.evidence but also because of the barriers to research, to look at

:59:32. > :59:34.rescheduling of cannabis, btt more broadly even before we get to that

:59:35. > :59:37.point, I know there is more that we can do to make it easier to research

:59:38. > :59:46.the link between cannabis and mental health, support the research and

:59:47. > :59:51.hopefully move towards a position whereby we are in a better position,

:59:52. > :59:53.not just through legislation were discussing today to protect the

:59:54. > :59:57.public with regards to psychoactive substances but also on the basis of

:59:58. > :59:59.this bill, improve our care of a number of the most abominable

:00:00. > :00:09.patients that our health service looks after. -- of the most

:00:10. > :00:14.vulnerable patients. Look forward to hearing the response and thd debate

:00:15. > :00:18.later on. I rise to support new clause one and amendment for and I

:00:19. > :00:20.would like to start by congratulating my honourabld friend

:00:21. > :00:25.on the front bench for the dxcellent way she set out the reasoning behind

:00:26. > :00:30.why new clause one and amendment for need to be incorporated into the

:00:31. > :00:33.bill. I would also like to say that it has been six years now, H think,

:00:34. > :00:39.since he seriously started to discuss in Parliament white PS HD

:00:40. > :00:42.should be made compulsory. Ht is with great regret that we dhd not

:00:43. > :00:48.manage to do it when we werd in power. At the very end of the 2 10

:00:49. > :00:51.Labour Government, it was going to be made a statutory part of the

:00:52. > :00:56.National Curriculum. There was a very good case made for it. It was

:00:57. > :01:01.building on that late skills and building confidence and reshlience

:01:02. > :01:05.in young people that we all accept needs to be happening. To mdet the

:01:06. > :01:07.challenges young people facd in the modern world, include and how you

:01:08. > :01:12.deal with drugs and these ndw psychiatric substances. And it was

:01:13. > :01:16.with great regret that in the wash of that final months leading up to

:01:17. > :01:20.the election in 2010, we were not able to secure the support of the

:01:21. > :01:26.Conservatives to actually gdt that change to the law. I also w`nted to

:01:27. > :01:29.refer to the UK drug policy commission, who spent six ydars we

:01:30. > :01:33.on what our policies around drugs should be in this country. Their

:01:34. > :01:41.findings on drugs education was this, the best drugs educathon is

:01:42. > :01:45.best delivered in an evidence -based life skills programme, and that is

:01:46. > :01:50.why I think PSHE been made compulsory is really import`nt. And

:01:51. > :01:54.why doesn't need to be statttory? The education select committee in a

:01:55. > :01:59.report last year said there is a lack of clarity on the statts of the

:02:00. > :02:03.subject. This must change and we accept the items that statutory

:02:04. > :02:09.status is needed for PSHE. The reasons for that is because we know

:02:10. > :02:12.that it is variable all arotnd the country. In some schools th`t are

:02:13. > :02:16.stored very well but in manx schools it is not what will it all. The

:02:17. > :02:19.reason for that is because ht is not statutory. It is not a subjdct that

:02:20. > :02:23.is measured bust up we know that head teachers will have an dye all

:02:24. > :02:26.the time to making sure that there are schools and pupils do bdst in

:02:27. > :02:30.what is measured. I have to say that that is the compelling argulent for

:02:31. > :02:36.me to make sure that we havd a level playing field across all schools.

:02:37. > :02:40.They all have to provide st`tutory PSHE and other important re`son why

:02:41. > :02:43.it is important for it to bd statutory is because if you make it

:02:44. > :02:47.statutory, you have to ensure that teachers are properly traindd. One

:02:48. > :02:50.of the big problems with thd way PSHE is delivered today in this

:02:51. > :02:56.country is that it is often the teacher who perhaps have a little

:02:57. > :03:00.bit more time in their timetable to teach PSHE. It is perhaps the PE

:03:01. > :03:03.teacher who takes response `bility to stop but it is not a teacher who

:03:04. > :03:08.has got the level and depth of training required if you're going to

:03:09. > :03:11.teach this subject properly. We know, as my honourable friend from

:03:12. > :03:19.the front bench said, many students say they only have one hour of drugs

:03:20. > :03:22.education in their schools. At the moment, we are relying on the

:03:23. > :03:25.goodwill and charities and other organisations to provide information

:03:26. > :03:29.to our young people and I think that is wrong. But I do want to pay

:03:30. > :03:33.tribute to Angelus because H think the work that they have dond, and

:03:34. > :03:40.the organisation of course was set up and very sad circumstancds by

:03:41. > :03:44.Marion Stewart, who lost her own daughter, who took GBL not knowing

:03:45. > :03:46.what it was and very, very sadly died, but Marion has really thought

:03:47. > :03:51.hard for this piece of legislation to be put on the statute books. She,

:03:52. > :03:55.I am sure, would be the first to say that we actually need to make sure

:03:56. > :03:59.that I people are educated. It is not just about changing the law it

:04:00. > :04:03.is about making sure that young people make good decisions for

:04:04. > :04:11.themselves. I also just want to refer to an organisation in my own

:04:12. > :04:14.constituency called Real also tried to get information out to young

:04:15. > :04:19.people in Hull to explain about legal highs. I know we have had a

:04:20. > :04:23.debate is already about how we describe legalise, and of I think it

:04:24. > :04:28.is right we refer to them as psychoactive substances rather than

:04:29. > :04:32.legal highs. But this is all relying on goodwill and charity and that is

:04:33. > :04:36.why I think it is vital that these amendments will be accepted by the

:04:37. > :04:40.front bench. Before the Minhster responds, I also just want to say

:04:41. > :04:44.one thing about Frank. My honourable friend also referred to this. Frank

:04:45. > :04:47.is not good enough. It really isn't! If the government are seriots about

:04:48. > :04:52.making sure that young people do have information to make good

:04:53. > :04:55.choices in their lives, Frank is not the delivery mechanism for that So

:04:56. > :04:59.we know that young people gdnerally have called for to be made

:05:00. > :05:02.statutory. It was one of the campaign hs that

:05:03. > :05:07.the youth Parliament a few xears ago supported and run with. We know

:05:08. > :05:11.parents support this and want to see it brought into schools. We know the

:05:12. > :05:15.education select committee ` cross-party --, a cross-party group

:05:16. > :05:18.of MPs and this has, supported. It is clear to me that we do nded to

:05:19. > :05:22.equip our young people with late skills to make good decisions. We

:05:23. > :05:27.also need, of course, to eqtip the police with the powers that they

:05:28. > :05:31.need to enforce the law agahnst those who exploit and harm `nd

:05:32. > :05:36.damage young people in parthcular. So I hope the Minister, who annoys a

:05:37. > :05:41.sensible man and relies verx often on his good sense and common sense,

:05:42. > :05:47.will really think hard about whether rejecting these amendments today

:05:48. > :05:50.will benefit the country and the young people but we all in this

:05:51. > :05:52.House want to make sure our projected and able to make good and

:05:53. > :06:05.healthy decisions for their lives. It is characteristic of much of the

:06:06. > :06:16.debates around the bill that there has been a consensus around this. I

:06:17. > :06:21.recognise the efforts made by the Minister to bring it to the table

:06:22. > :06:25.and recognise it has been done to some pace. It is something that the

:06:26. > :06:30.Home Affairs Select Committde, we sought to keep up with. We wanted to

:06:31. > :06:45.make sure we added our pennxworth to the debate and scrutiny and

:06:46. > :06:57.hopefully it has help. In some ways, if one wishes a blanket ban on one

:06:58. > :07:03.wants to deal with it, therd are some anomalies or some concdrns and

:07:04. > :07:06.we have had other amendments around other seemingly harmless substances

:07:07. > :07:15.which may be tied into a bl`nket ban. I will give the governlent as

:07:16. > :07:20.much scope as possible to h`ng around what is the target of this

:07:21. > :07:24.bill, which is those evil pliers of the trade, this new substances

:07:25. > :07:28.coming to the market and th`t is where the target should be. In many

:07:29. > :07:35.ways, while there has been ` lot of natural concern around poppdrs and

:07:36. > :07:45.wanting not to come in lies personal use of poppers, but that is of the

:07:46. > :07:49.target of the bill. I want to focus on education because it is hmportant

:07:50. > :07:56.that we ensure there is enotgh communication out there to deal with

:07:57. > :08:00.this issue, to have a profotnd effect. That we make the most of the

:08:01. > :08:08.opportunity to educate everxone out there about the harms caused by NPS

:08:09. > :08:17.is. I've been involved in drugs policy. Time. That being -- I have

:08:18. > :08:24.been involved in this for a number of years. It is not surprishng to me

:08:25. > :08:30.that on the benches at the loment, there is no representatives from the

:08:31. > :08:39.Department for Education. It is also the case that while it was ` well

:08:40. > :08:45.attended IMG, that led to the drugs strategy in 2010, it has to be said

:08:46. > :08:48.the Department for Education was one of the most difficult departments to

:08:49. > :08:53.come to the table. I am sayhng this because it is relevant to assist the

:08:54. > :08:56.minister in wanting to ensure that communication gets out therd,

:08:57. > :08:57.education is prioritised because I do not believe the department has

:08:58. > :09:14.been as forthcoming as it should be. We should see they are serious about

:09:15. > :09:21.wanting to educate young people about the harms of NPS. I s`y these

:09:22. > :09:29.comments in relation to new clause one. I think that in the review even

:09:30. > :09:33.though we have urged the Minister and government to include education

:09:34. > :09:37.in the review, to say yes wd will look at how we have done on

:09:38. > :09:41.education and how we have spread the word about harms. The government

:09:42. > :09:50.says we have the strategic `nd indications plan, they said it to

:09:51. > :09:53.the Home Affairs Select Comlittee. We had revealed from a question that

:09:54. > :09:59.was tabled by the Honourabld member for West Ham, there are no specific

:10:00. > :10:11.funds set aside for the plans implementation. Can I perhaps, in

:10:12. > :10:15.case I forget later on, say that it will be part of the review on how we

:10:16. > :10:19.have actually done with educating young people. I will respond to the

:10:20. > :10:28.Honourable Lady in a moment to do with the financial point of view.

:10:29. > :10:32.Perhaps I won't have this responsibility in the near future so

:10:33. > :10:38.perhaps it is good that at the dispatch box that it will

:10:39. > :10:45.categorically be part of thd review. Amendment number four, is in effect

:10:46. > :10:55.what the Minister is committing too. It is welcome. When I was on the IMG

:10:56. > :10:59.through for Home Office minhsters recognising the commitment of my

:11:00. > :11:03.honourable friend to tackling drugs. While there has been a rollhng door

:11:04. > :11:13.of ministers, what still hasn't been the commitment, the involvelent of

:11:14. > :11:19.the Department for Education has to be shown. The only two countries in

:11:20. > :11:25.the world that have passed similar legislation to the spill has seen

:11:26. > :11:32.large increases in the use of these drugs, N Ireland from 16% to 22 and

:11:33. > :11:37.in Poland a level increase of 3 , the biggest in their historx. Is

:11:38. > :11:41.this bill going to have the same bad effect? I am not convinced by the

:11:42. > :11:47.premise put forward by the Honourable member. It is cldar and

:11:48. > :11:51.the evidence coming through from Ireland is that there is success in

:11:52. > :12:04.relation to the blanket ban. They have seen the closure of he`d shops

:12:05. > :12:09.and access for MPS is. -- NPS. In relation to tackling what is the

:12:10. > :12:11.most significant change in drugs legislation since 1971, this is what

:12:12. > :12:17.everyone agrees is a huge significant change. And I think

:12:18. > :12:21.progress in tackling what is very much the new drugs on the m`rket. It

:12:22. > :12:26.is not matched with the samd commitment to education and

:12:27. > :12:30.providing funding for inforlation about this piece of legislation If

:12:31. > :12:35.one looks at what the Department for Transport spent in relation to

:12:36. > :12:46.developing and delivering and evaluating communications c`mpaigns

:12:47. > :12:50.to ensure awareness of drug driving, 1.952 million pounds was spdnt on

:12:51. > :12:57.that communication exercise to deal with particularly driving under the

:12:58. > :13:01.influence of cannabis. We don't see that same commitment to what is a

:13:02. > :13:04.significant legislation and we need to see where it is going to come

:13:05. > :13:08.from to make sure that the good words expressed in the strategic

:13:09. > :13:11.mitigation plan do actually have a real effect because we need the

:13:12. > :13:16.public to be informed. Therd needs to be a strategy to cover social

:13:17. > :13:22.media, the Angelus foundation needs to be involved. For them not to be

:13:23. > :13:28.involved with Frank is frankly ridiculous. It is something that

:13:29. > :13:37.needs to change. Frank needs to communicate better with Angdlus and

:13:38. > :13:41.learn from them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister to get

:13:42. > :13:50.some reassurance on that. If I could just briefly touched on to `nother

:13:51. > :14:03.aspect. I want to link cann`bis to clause six which deals when there

:14:04. > :14:08.are arrests with class a drtgs, I want to just highlight the big issue

:14:09. > :14:19.along with NPSs with young people is their use alongside cannabis. If you

:14:20. > :14:34.go to court, you would see xoung people impacted by cannabis. There

:14:35. > :14:44.justice have their hands tidd behind their back in terms of getthng young

:14:45. > :14:51.people the treatment that they need. A holistic attention to tre`tment is

:14:52. > :14:56.needed. We need to get up to speed and the review needs to convince us

:14:57. > :15:00.that it is doing that. Briefly on poppers, I was in the committee

:15:01. > :15:05.raising the concerns raised on a half of many people about the band

:15:06. > :15:08.and I am pleased that the government has come to the point where they are

:15:09. > :15:14.seriously going to look at the evidence and exempting poppdrs.

:15:15. > :15:19.There is some complications in this. I raised the fact that therd is

:15:20. > :15:25.control around the supply of poppers. There needs to be ` look at

:15:26. > :15:31.all of these areas because where there is commonality is the problem

:15:32. > :15:36.in relation to poppers is the way they are abused and the substance

:15:37. > :15:39.that comes out becomes a harmful substance. Historically that has

:15:40. > :15:49.been the case and that is where the reference to Home Office about

:15:50. > :15:57.historical harms. It should not lead to a 11th hour conversion. Ht is

:15:58. > :16:00.encouraging but somewhat disappointing that we are still at

:16:01. > :16:06.this late stage looking at exemptions. I am willing to look at

:16:07. > :16:11.evidence because it is complicated. We do not want the blanket ban to be

:16:12. > :16:21.deluded and we need to know this is done properly with evidence. There

:16:22. > :16:30.are lots of other issues to speak about but I would like to ghve way.

:16:31. > :16:35.I would like to say this is a force of good to protect young people I

:16:36. > :16:40.start by saying to the Minister that I support the bill, I support the

:16:41. > :16:44.aims. I closed the second rdading debate of this bill in the chamber

:16:45. > :16:49.because we on the side of the House felt that it was important to not

:16:50. > :16:56.just be this as a Home Office bill, although that is where it is placed,

:16:57. > :17:00.but also in terms of its public health aspects as well and so as

:17:01. > :17:04.Labour shadow public health minister I have been very keen to promote

:17:05. > :17:10.some of the public health issues on this and I would like to colmend the

:17:11. > :17:16.work done my honourable fridnd the Minister for West Ham who I think

:17:17. > :17:22.who has led outside of the House in proceedings in committing and today

:17:23. > :17:26.in an exemplary fashion. I `lso want to say to the Minister in stpporting

:17:27. > :17:31.this bill, I want to make it as good as it can be and I do think there

:17:32. > :17:36.are a number of areas where this bill isn't as strong as it ought to

:17:37. > :17:40.be and that is why I am protd to support my honourable friend the

:17:41. > :17:43.member for West Ham in tablhng a number of amendments today.

:17:44. > :17:52.Particularly I would like to talk on two of those. Firstly new clause one

:17:53. > :17:55.on the P H S E. And also amdndment five relating to poppers. I think

:17:56. > :18:03.both have an important publhc health aspect to them. First if I could

:18:04. > :18:11.talk to new clause one and says that in an intervention I raised the fact

:18:12. > :18:16.that Simon Stephens who has a five-year forward view for the NHS

:18:17. > :18:21.has identified ?5 billion worth of savings that can be reinvested into

:18:22. > :18:29.the NHS as a consequence of prevention. I do not believd firstly

:18:30. > :18:32.that this government was wise to cut ?200 million from the public health

:18:33. > :18:37.budget because I think that is the very kind of prevention that isn't

:18:38. > :18:41.then going to bear fruit in year five of the five-year forward view.

:18:42. > :18:45.Attach any one area where the government could redeem itsdlf in

:18:46. > :18:49.terms of public health work is it by adopting new clause one. Because I

:18:50. > :18:56.have always viewed it as a weakness that we do not have in this country

:18:57. > :19:01.statutory P H S E. A lot of schools do PSHE but it is a kind of

:19:02. > :19:06.something else, it is added on to the curriculum. It is not ghven the

:19:07. > :19:11.focus that it really ought to be given. And if we are serious about

:19:12. > :19:16.tackling the whole range of health inequalities, then I think we can

:19:17. > :19:20.start from a very young age through having statutory PSHE. And hn the

:19:21. > :19:25.context of this bill if we `re going to talk about the dangers of

:19:26. > :19:31.tobacco, the dangers of alcohol and the dangers of drugs, and also talk

:19:32. > :19:36.about sex and relationships, actually, we need to do that in the

:19:37. > :19:40.context of a statutory framdwork in all of our schools. There are huge

:19:41. > :19:46.public health benefits for doing that and I think if the Minhster

:19:47. > :19:51.when he comes to consider the views that have been given today, he could

:19:52. > :19:58.do nothing better than to actually read in Hansard, the contribution of

:19:59. > :20:04.my honourable friend the melber for Hull North. I think she got it spot

:20:05. > :20:10.on. The real benefits of having proper statutory PSHE in schools I

:20:11. > :20:16.think is very clear and would really strengthen the aims and ambhtions of

:20:17. > :20:22.this bill. The second thing is to talk about our amendment five

:20:23. > :20:27.relating to poppers. Becausd in the short time that I have been Labour

:20:28. > :20:31.shadow public health ministdr I have met with lots of charities `nd

:20:32. > :20:36.organisations in the public health world. A lot of them includhng drug

:20:37. > :20:43.abuse charities raise lots of issues with me. Not one of them in all the

:20:44. > :20:50.time that I have been shadowing the public health role has raisdd

:20:51. > :20:56.poppers as a issue. I will tell the Minister who has raised poppers with

:20:57. > :21:00.me and that is a large numbdr of LGBT charities and organisations,

:21:01. > :21:04.and there is a public health role here and I think the honour`ble

:21:05. > :21:09.gentleman, the member for Fhnchley and Golders Green made some very

:21:10. > :21:16.important points, not just on the health and well-being of gax and

:21:17. > :21:21.lesbian people but also on some of the mental health issues and the

:21:22. > :21:27.relationship issues surrounding what we are discussing to day. Btt there

:21:28. > :21:37.is also a wider public health issue and it is this, that many of these

:21:38. > :21:43.organisations that I have mdt with, and to give one example, thd

:21:44. > :21:47.National AIDS Trust, have s`id to me that it is a balance of risks. And

:21:48. > :22:03.we have heard that there ard some small risks involved with alkyl

:22:04. > :22:06.nitrites. And the honourabld gentleman raised the anecdotal

:22:07. > :22:10.evidence that it could causd damage to eyesight, that I would s`y to the

:22:11. > :22:16.Minister this, balance the risks of that which are very small whth the

:22:17. > :22:21.risks of contracting a sexu`lly transmitted infection. Becatse it

:22:22. > :22:27.has been put to me, and I think there is some credence in this

:22:28. > :22:35.argument, that there are two scenarios. One is that two gay men

:22:36. > :22:43.will have protected sex with poppers that makes banal sex easier, all

:22:44. > :22:47.will alternatively use other substances if poppers are not

:22:48. > :22:53.available. It may be class ` or class B drugs, it may be alcohol,

:22:54. > :22:59.that any of those substances unlike poppers run the risk of potdntially

:23:00. > :23:04.having unsafe sex. And that increases the risk of both the

:23:05. > :23:05.contraction of HIV, hepatiths C and a string of other sexually

:23:06. > :23:18.transmitted infections. The other point is that this is

:23:19. > :23:23.potentially discriminatory `gainst a group of people who are doing no

:23:24. > :23:28.harm and just want to enjoy themselves in a sexual relationship.

:23:29. > :23:34.So I urge the Minister, think very carefully about whether the

:23:35. > :23:38.intention of this bill is to do something in the way that hd wants

:23:39. > :23:43.it to be done or the way th`t we wanted to be done. Because this

:23:44. > :23:47.Minister is known for common sense, and I credit him with that. He is

:23:48. > :23:56.straight talking and does h`ve a modicum of sense that some of his

:23:57. > :24:00.colleagues do not often display And I am being kind to the Minister

:24:01. > :24:05.there, who I have a great ddal of respect for. Because I do not

:24:06. > :24:11.understand the logic in banning poppers to look at the eviddnce to

:24:12. > :24:18.perhaps then on ban poppers, and the mixed messages that sends ott. If

:24:19. > :24:21.his review comes forward with enough evidence to warrant the banning of

:24:22. > :24:26.poppers that I will support him all the way. But actually I am not in

:24:27. > :24:32.the job of banning things for banning's sake, only to makd them

:24:33. > :24:38.not banned again. Common sense, back amendment five because that is the

:24:39. > :24:46.right approach to this. In which case, Norman Lamb. Thank yot to be

:24:47. > :24:52.called slightly earlier than I had been expecting. I rise to speak in

:24:53. > :25:00.support of the amendments that I have tabled and I guess takdn

:25:01. > :25:06.together they seek to challdnge the approach that the government as

:25:07. > :25:14.taken with this legislation. I suspect a lot of actually share the

:25:15. > :25:20.same objective. We are concdrned, surely, about harm. And we want to

:25:21. > :25:27.seek to reduce harm. Includhng to our loved ones, from the risks that

:25:28. > :25:35.drugs, both legal and illeg`l, do to people. As a father myself, I happen

:25:36. > :25:45.to be rather hostile to drugs, I am hostile to the excessive usd of

:25:46. > :25:48.illegal drugs because of thd harm that is done. I challenge the

:25:49. > :25:52.approach taken by this legislation. I will return to it but the rate

:25:53. > :25:58.honourable lady for Cheshird and Amersham made the point abott the

:25:59. > :26:05.risk of making bad law. It seems to me that there is a real risk that

:26:06. > :26:08.seductive though it is to go down the way the government is t`king, I

:26:09. > :26:19.think we've face the risk of legislating for bad law. Our

:26:20. > :26:23.objective should be harm reduction and he should base is legislation

:26:24. > :26:31.Shirley on evidence of what works. If I can spare to the Home Office's

:26:32. > :26:35.on 2014 report on drugs into rational comparators, it fotnd that,

:26:36. > :26:39.and I quote, there is no apparent correlation between the toughness of

:26:40. > :26:45.a country's approach and thd prevalence of adult drug usd. The

:26:46. > :26:50.great risk is, and the honotrable member for Newport West has made

:26:51. > :26:52.this point, that honourable members both on the government benches and

:26:53. > :27:08.opposition benches assume that this will reduce

:27:09. > :27:11.the use of these substances, but the evidence points in the opposite

:27:12. > :27:20.direction, as the honourabld member has made clear. And I refer to the

:27:21. > :27:24.fantastic speech by the honourable member for Reigate, speaking very

:27:25. > :27:29.openly and candidly. He makds the point, as others have done, that

:27:30. > :27:36.this bill, in respect of poppers, but actually cross the, drives users

:27:37. > :27:38.into the hands of criminals. The question is, what criminal has your

:27:39. > :27:44.interests at heart? Of course they do not. I would just urge honourable

:27:45. > :27:49.members to think before thex vote for this role legislation, because

:27:50. > :27:56.that is precisely what we are doing. Not only that, we are massively

:27:57. > :28:05.increasing the profits of criminals and Gromit works. And let md also

:28:06. > :28:10.make the point that the United nations office for drugs and crime

:28:11. > :28:18.has made the point that there is a clear link between illicit drugs and

:28:19. > :28:22.the profits made from illicht drugs and terrorism. The funding of

:28:23. > :28:27.terrorism. It makes the point about what has happened in Afghanhstan,

:28:28. > :28:33.with money raised from the sale of cocaine fed into the hands of the

:28:34. > :28:36.Taliban, who then use their money, their resources... I will not give

:28:37. > :28:40.away because I am conscious that time is tight and I will get into

:28:41. > :28:47.trouble from the Speaker. Wd should think before we act. Mr Deptty

:28:48. > :28:57.Speaker, new clause five urges her review of the misuse of drugs act so

:28:58. > :29:01.that we determine policy on the basis of evidence, not bridges. New

:29:02. > :29:04.clause six out of a decriminalisation of use of drugs,

:29:05. > :29:10.taking the approach used in Portugal, where we have seen

:29:11. > :29:14.evidence showing a reduction in harm as a result of that policy. New

:29:15. > :29:20.clause three, which are verx happily join with my former honourable

:29:21. > :29:24.friend, colleague in the Department of Health, in arguing for the case

:29:25. > :29:34.for facilitating research into the potential medicinal value of

:29:35. > :29:39.cannabis. And my amendment 24 argues for legalising the possession of

:29:40. > :29:44.cannabis for medicinal use. Surely we should not be criminalishng

:29:45. > :29:50.people who use cannabis to relieve pain, and yet that is what we do in

:29:51. > :29:57.this country. It is madness. Finally, new clause four argues that

:29:58. > :30:03.surely we should only be banning substances under this legislation

:30:04. > :30:08.after they have been referrdd to the advisory Council on the mistse of

:30:09. > :30:12.drugs so that a judgment, an objective judgment, can be lade

:30:13. > :30:18.about whether that particul`r substance causes social harl. And

:30:19. > :30:21.that of course is in line whth amendment five. Mr Deputy Speaker,

:30:22. > :30:28.we are about to commit an act of total madness. Banning poppdrs. And

:30:29. > :30:31.then removing the band just a few months down the track. It m`kes

:30:32. > :30:36.absolutely no sense at all `nd is the honourable member for Howden

:30:37. > :30:42.said, it absolutely brings the law into disrepute. So, Mr Tebbht is

:30:43. > :30:48.bigger, I conclude by saying that the approach taken in this bill is

:30:49. > :30:52.seductive. People are fearftl of the effects of these products. ,- Mr

:30:53. > :30:59.Deputy Speaker. It is alternately bad law and will have precisely the

:31:00. > :31:03.wrong effect. I would like to speak to the amendments today just to

:31:04. > :31:08.express my broad support of what the government is trying to do to stop

:31:09. > :31:12.at the beginning of this wedk, this is a major issue implements, your

:31:13. > :31:17.local paper ran a story abott an individual who drowned in a local

:31:18. > :31:21.harbour in October 2014. A toxicology report show that among

:31:22. > :31:26.the number of other drugs, hllegal I was present in his system. Sadly, I

:31:27. > :31:30.need only look back a furthdr five days in the same paper to fhnd

:31:31. > :31:36.another story about these chemicals, which have now become a hunting

:31:37. > :31:40.menace to society. -- haunthng menace. Over Christmas, I wdnt and

:31:41. > :31:45.served Christmas lunch to the homeless at the hostels and they are

:31:46. > :31:49.being plagued outside of thdse hostels by people selling these

:31:50. > :31:53.illegal highs. It is a real problem in Plymouth. Not only that, I got

:31:54. > :31:56.with the emergency services at least once a month and you see thd

:31:57. > :32:02.challenge that is presented to our law enforcement by these substances.

:32:03. > :32:08.I fully support the Minister in his efforts to identify the new

:32:09. > :32:13.psychoactive substances and react more quickly to them. I ran a

:32:14. > :32:17.campaign briefly prior to Christmas are attempting to raise awareness of

:32:18. > :32:20.these prior to the festive period. I strongly support other councils and

:32:21. > :32:25.I would like Plymouth to le`d the way in this in terms of getting

:32:26. > :32:28.these substances banned loc`lly before this psychoactive substances

:32:29. > :32:32.bill comes through. But ulthmately, this comes on to a key thing for me.

:32:33. > :32:38.We often talk in this House of how we support those who challenge the

:32:39. > :32:41.most challenging parts of society, such as police officers and prison

:32:42. > :32:46.officers. They strongly support what we are doing here. It is not good

:32:47. > :32:48.enough simply to stand up in the House of commons and say we don t

:32:49. > :32:52.support the portable isn't fully support risen officers and then not

:32:53. > :32:56.give them the tools to do it, which is what I think the stars. That is

:32:57. > :33:02.why a supporter of the government's position on this. -- this is what I

:33:03. > :33:05.think this is. Can I point out one major error before I start, and that

:33:06. > :33:11.is a picture of me has been widely read we did by members of the House.

:33:12. > :33:14.It was taken from American television, where tens of mhllions

:33:15. > :33:18.of people were informed in the caption under my picture th`t I was

:33:19. > :33:23.the leader of the Labour Party! CHEERING

:33:24. > :33:30.I just wanted to point that this information is premature! I am

:33:31. > :33:35.generally sweet describing this bill as being a landmark in legislative

:33:36. > :33:43.futility. It is in fact worse than that. This bill will do harl as all

:33:44. > :33:48.the other Prohibition bills in the 28 years that I have been hdre have.

:33:49. > :33:51.They have all gone harm. Thd committee does not seem to have

:33:52. > :33:55.considered what has happened with the two bills in the two cotntries

:33:56. > :34:01.that have passed them, Bill is very similar to this. In Ireland,

:34:02. > :34:07.certainly the shops closed down of course they did, they were hllegal.

:34:08. > :34:13.And the website also. But they were replaced by illegal shops. They were

:34:14. > :34:19.replaced by a market that is criminal. It is a responsible. The

:34:20. > :34:25.market increased among young people in Ireland for using these drugs

:34:26. > :34:31.from 16% of the population to 2 %. These are figures from the Duropean

:34:32. > :34:36.monitoring Centre for drug `buse. In Poland, the increase went up by 3%

:34:37. > :34:38.to stop we have now got the countries that have passed similar

:34:39. > :34:46.bills have the greatest use of psychoactive drugs in the world

:34:47. > :34:50.This will be counter-productive In 1971, we passed the misuse of drugs

:34:51. > :34:57.act. We then had 1000 addicts of cocaine and heroin in Britahn. We

:34:58. > :35:00.have now got 300,000. I wish members would consider the possibilhty that

:35:01. > :35:04.what they are doing, the iddas they have, that the conventional wisdom

:35:05. > :35:10.is the conventional stupidity. It would be madness to ban poppers as

:35:11. > :35:15.everyone says. This bill should be considered on the evidence `lone.

:35:16. > :35:20.Whilst we support the attempt to live cannabis into an area where

:35:21. > :35:23.scientists should work on it, that of an approach not based on

:35:24. > :35:30.superstition, rumour or prejudice but based on science. That should be

:35:31. > :35:35.supported. Thank you, I will be brief. I really wanted to elphasise

:35:36. > :35:39.that it is important, so many elements of this bill, but ht really

:35:40. > :35:42.is essential that it is strdngthened and strengthened in the field of

:35:43. > :35:47.education. New clause one rdally does address that. It does `nswer

:35:48. > :35:50.paragraph 76 of the Home Affairs Select Committee report, whhch says

:35:51. > :35:54.its excessive government spdnding on education on the dangers have been

:35:55. > :36:01.shockingly inadequate to date. Action must be taken now to educate

:36:02. > :36:04.young people. Therefore, thdre is a plea and recognition that there has

:36:05. > :36:08.been an absence of that education. This is not about politics, this is

:36:09. > :36:11.about evidence -based practhce and that is why I'm all for the

:36:12. > :36:17.government will support the new clause one. Who provides th`t

:36:18. > :36:23.education is also vital. Tr`ined professionals, school nurses, public

:36:24. > :36:25.health workers have other qualifications to deliver the

:36:26. > :36:28.programme for the base is not about putting more pressure on te`chers

:36:29. > :36:32.but enabling health professhonals to do their job. Therefore, I would ask

:36:33. > :36:37.the Minister to look at this issue with due consideration to m`ke sure

:36:38. > :36:41.that the full public health agenda is brought in, because the reality

:36:42. > :36:47.is if you do not couple this bill with public health, and the

:36:48. > :36:50.education agenda around that, its impact will be lessened. Thdrefore,

:36:51. > :36:55.really to make sure this bill has real impact and to make surd it does

:36:56. > :37:00.deliver the results, if we can put that education in and the only

:37:01. > :37:04.systematic way my last point -- the only systematic way of achidving

:37:05. > :37:11.this will be through the PSHE programme.

:37:12. > :37:17.I will be brief as well. I would like to thank the other members of

:37:18. > :37:22.the Bill committee. It was ly first bill committee experience.

:37:23. > :37:25.Ministers, the Shalaman is 's and other members of the committee, I

:37:26. > :37:31.felt it was very clear from that experience that everyone was

:37:32. > :37:35.pointing in one direction -, ministers, shadow and is is.

:37:36. > :37:40.Ultimately, we want to get to the same point. I would like to echo the

:37:41. > :37:44.comments of Mike honourable friend from Glasgow North East in support

:37:45. > :37:47.of the amendments proposed. I would like to echo the comments of a

:37:48. > :37:55.number of colleagues at the Bill committee stage. I raised the point

:37:56. > :38:02.around poppers. At that point it was made that we want a blanket ban how

:38:03. > :38:06.could we possibly have exemptions? There are exemptions within the

:38:07. > :38:11.Bill, there is a president to do this. The process that has been made

:38:12. > :38:15.to include an exemption and then have the study to continue that

:38:16. > :38:20.work, rather than banning it, having to do that and pick a mess that we

:38:21. > :38:24.would have to undo honour is a far more sensible approach. I would hope

:38:25. > :38:29.that the number of voices around the chamber, to that end, will hopefully

:38:30. > :38:33.reach the minister and tell us that that is a conclusion he has come to

:38:34. > :38:38.himself, and that is a position we will take. I don't want to take up

:38:39. > :38:42.too much time, I am very aw`re of the pressures and the keenndss to

:38:43. > :38:46.get onto the second group of amendments so, with that, I will

:38:47. > :38:49.conclude. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has

:38:50. > :38:54.been said several times that perhaps this bill should have been brought

:38:55. > :38:57.forward a lot earlier, many years ago, and one of the reasons that it

:38:58. > :39:03.has not and was not as becatse it was so difficult. Can I say to my

:39:04. > :39:09.Liberal Democrat friend, whdn Lynne Featherstone was in my job, she was

:39:10. > :39:14.100% in support of this bill. I know it has been a tough time for the

:39:15. > :39:17.Liberal Democrats, but perh`ps she was right in many of the thhngs that

:39:18. > :39:22.she said and have been brought forward. I will not comment any

:39:23. > :39:28.further, we disagree profoundly and we will oppose the amendment is he

:39:29. > :39:33.will not be surprised. I want to get onto the second group, so I think it

:39:34. > :39:38.is important we make progress. However, there have been many, many

:39:39. > :39:44.very important speeches madd in the House this afternoon incompletely

:39:45. > :39:48.the right tone and attitude of what we are trying to do, protect people.

:39:49. > :39:52.All through committee, one of the things I try to make sure w`s to

:39:53. > :39:57.keep that at the forefront. We may disagree in specific parts, we have

:39:58. > :40:04.heard disagreements within the chamber today, we may slightly

:40:05. > :40:07.disagree on methodology but, at the end of the day, my responsibility as

:40:08. > :40:11.a minister standing up this dispatch botch with my other governmdnts

:40:12. > :40:15.colleagues who have worked closely with me, and I want some of them to

:40:16. > :40:22.work even more closely on the Bill and the review that we have

:40:23. > :40:30.committed to. So what I will try to do is speak to amendment ond, then

:40:31. > :40:36.try to take up some of the hssues taken up in other amendments, then

:40:37. > :40:39.come back if I can, to amendment five, poppers, I think that is what

:40:40. > :40:47.has taken up most time in the chamber and probably one of the only

:40:48. > :40:50.areas we slightly disagree on, and that will only be on how we do it

:40:51. > :40:59.rather than what we are going to do. Can I say at the set, Mr Deputy

:41:00. > :41:03.Speaker, this bill is, as I said, not a golden bullet. It is not the

:41:04. > :41:08.be all and end all. The leghslation of just saying this is a bl`nket

:41:09. > :41:11.ban, a brand-new type of legislation, we have not had that

:41:12. > :41:17.type of legislation before, and it needs to be worked through,

:41:18. > :41:20.particularly with two or three other departments, the Justice Department,

:41:21. > :41:24.obviously, because we are m`king it a criminal defence. I sit in that

:41:25. > :41:31.department so that is helpftl, the health Department, lots of the

:41:32. > :41:35.issues are to do with health, public health and the prevention of other

:41:36. > :41:41.diseases, in particular this could affect, and I will come back to

:41:42. > :41:46.that, but as amendment to ndw clause one indicates, particularly around

:41:47. > :41:50.education. One of the things I learned when I went to the Republic

:41:51. > :41:54.of Ireland and met with minhsters, scientists and Felice, as to how

:41:55. > :41:58.they are there, which is close to this but not identical, how it

:41:59. > :42:02.worked, one of the biggest things they said was you need to gdt it out

:42:03. > :42:08.there, you need to make surd that young people, but not exclusively

:42:09. > :42:09.young people, as we have discovered today, no disrespect to my

:42:10. > :42:15.honourable friend from radi`tor this is not all about young people,

:42:16. > :42:20.it is across the age profild, so I apologise if I refer to young people

:42:21. > :42:25.too often. I will give way, but I will not give away too much because

:42:26. > :42:30.we want to get onto the next group. I think we could learn from the

:42:31. > :42:34.Welsh schools liaison progr`mme which sees drug education awareness

:42:35. > :42:39.delivered in 97% of primary and secondary schools in Wales.

:42:40. > :42:43.With devolution, different governments in different parts of

:42:44. > :42:48.this great nation of ours are delivering. It is very earlx days. I

:42:49. > :42:52.fully respect that. Part of the review which I committed to was that

:42:53. > :42:59.we would look very carefullx as to not only how we have done it but

:43:00. > :43:03.other parts. And we will look to the Republic of Ireland as well. I know

:43:04. > :43:12.we discussed this at committee, and the Shadow men was in a verx deep

:43:13. > :43:17.learning curve at a time, I do think we can do it without the st`tutory

:43:18. > :43:25.requirements with in the legislation. The Shadow Minhster

:43:26. > :43:31.referred to ?118,000. The l`test figure we have is ?341 millhon on

:43:32. > :43:41.interventions and education, tackling drug misuse. A lot. ?3 1

:43:42. > :43:47.million. I accept, but at the start, that Frank isn't perfect.

:43:48. > :43:50.Absolutely. It needs to be hmproved. I don't want to just scrap something

:43:51. > :43:56.and bring something in with a different name. They need to work,

:43:57. > :44:01.very much so, with the Angelus Foundation and others, becatse the

:44:02. > :44:07.voluntary sector is often mtch better than Government, which is why

:44:08. > :44:09.the previous administration and this administration have used

:44:10. > :44:18.extensively, and we need to use them more. If I can possibly spe`k to a

:44:19. > :44:24.couple of the... If I can m`ke some progress, if I have time I will come

:44:25. > :44:28.back. I know from the speech made by my right honourable friend the

:44:29. > :44:32.member for Cheshire and and Amersham that there was concern is that

:44:33. > :44:38.non-Psychoactive Substances Bill would be brought into that. This is

:44:39. > :44:46.specifically about psychoactive substances. We would not be catching

:44:47. > :44:52.the type of products that the honourable lady has alluded to. We

:44:53. > :44:56.will keep a close eye. We h`ve an ability under clause three hn the

:44:57. > :45:01.bill to take things out. Th`t clause is not designed to bring thhngs in,

:45:02. > :45:06.which was slightly confusing during the course of the debate thhs

:45:07. > :45:09.afternoon. When I come onto poppers, I will explain that slightlx better.

:45:10. > :45:15.At the moment, I want to make regress if I can, then I will come

:45:16. > :45:23.back if I have time -- I want to make progress. I spoke with a

:45:24. > :45:30.professor from Kings last M`y to do with research. We need rese`rch not

:45:31. > :45:34.only within the help site btt with the law, to make sure we ard

:45:35. > :45:39.evidence base. -- spoke with a professor from Kings last nhght We

:45:40. > :45:46.need to make sure we are not preventing research. This bhll makes

:45:47. > :45:50.provision for that, one of the amendments was looking at the

:45:51. > :45:54.problems around cannabis, where we need to learn about the harls and

:45:55. > :45:58.the benefits. I will ask my officials to continue that dialogue

:45:59. > :46:06.when we leave the chamber. H think that is very important.

:46:07. > :46:12.Mr Deputy Speaker, I had a really, really interesting time... The

:46:13. > :46:16.honourable member has hopped away... During the committee stage, with the

:46:17. > :46:21.representative from the Scottish National party. In that we had a

:46:22. > :46:26.very good dialogue with the ministers in Scotland, parthcularly

:46:27. > :46:31.about one part of the bill which is a very, very important part, the

:46:32. > :46:35.only part of the bill where we are making possession a criminal

:46:36. > :46:44.offence, which is within secure facilities. That was at the request

:46:45. > :46:49.of the Justice Department and the request of the prison officdrs and

:46:50. > :46:54.other officers and from somd prisoner groups as well. It is a

:46:55. > :46:57.menace particularly within our prisons. And your defenders

:46:58. > :47:06.institutions. During this dhscussion is, which is why I was surprised

:47:07. > :47:12.that many wanted to take it away from the criminal justice, both the

:47:13. > :47:18.Scottish ministers and the Cabinet Secretary were both content that do

:47:19. > :47:24.have an offence of possession in custodial streets as part of the

:47:25. > :47:27.bill. I am not making comment on the Scottish administration, but we

:47:28. > :47:33.worked really, really hard to make sure everyone was on board, so as

:47:34. > :47:35.you imagine I cannot support the amendments that the Scottish

:47:36. > :47:40.National Party have put down. The key to this bill is protecthng

:47:41. > :47:44.people. I do not want to crhminalise every young person in the country or

:47:45. > :47:49.every person that has been tsing these products legally but

:47:50. > :47:55.dangerously for some considdrable time. But what is absolutelx

:47:56. > :47:59.crucial, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that we do not get into a situathon where

:48:00. > :48:04.the defence within the courts is I bought it for a couple of friends,

:48:05. > :48:09.sold it to them, what is thd danger? It is a danger.

:48:10. > :48:14.I give way. I am grateful. Hn that case, will he ensure that hd writes

:48:15. > :48:17.to me about the substances that formed my amendment to this bill so

:48:18. > :48:21.that I can reassure my constituents that they will not be breakhng the

:48:22. > :48:26.law if they continue to be on offer online?

:48:27. > :48:32.I am more than happy to write to my right honourable friend basdd on

:48:33. > :48:36.knowing exactly what the substances are, and I think there is a problem

:48:37. > :48:41.of communication that we nedd to have outside this chamber. H will

:48:42. > :48:44.give way, then I will curtahl my comment so that decisions of this

:48:45. > :48:48.house can be made and we can move on.

:48:49. > :48:51.I am grateful. It is just on the question of not wanting to

:48:52. > :48:56.criminalise, in particular, young people. The point made by the

:48:57. > :49:01.Scottish Nationalists spokesperson, is it a case that the bill will

:49:02. > :49:05.criminalise a young person who buys online from overseas but will not

:49:06. > :49:12.criminalise someone who buys in an alleyway from a criminal?

:49:13. > :49:16.Mr Deputy Speaker, we need to stop these products being available to

:49:17. > :49:21.young, old, middle-aged, old people like me. It is absolutely crucial

:49:22. > :49:26.that we do that. One of the ways, which we have heard in this chamber

:49:27. > :49:30.today, is online. We need to make sure that the criminal offence of

:49:31. > :49:34.someone selling it to someone else will be a criminal offence `nd have

:49:35. > :49:39.the penalties it deserves. There is no point having a blanket b`n that

:49:40. > :49:44.you don't act julienne forcd. I will not give way any mord, can I

:49:45. > :49:51.just touch on probably the lost emotive, understandably, and a very

:49:52. > :49:56.important part of this bill? Which is the amendment five which has been

:49:57. > :50:06.put down by the opposition `nd front bench in particular, the honourable

:50:07. > :50:11.lady for West Ham. I do not have any intent to make life difficult for

:50:12. > :50:16.any individual group. My sole role as a minister at this dispatch box

:50:17. > :50:22.is to protect. But when I fhrst looked at this bill and the

:50:23. > :50:27.proposals and clauses in thhs bill, one of the things I asked straight

:50:28. > :50:32.on is, OK, tell me about, and I knew very little about poppers, tell me

:50:33. > :50:37.about poppers? One of the fhrst things put in front of me, one of

:50:38. > :50:45.the first things, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that since 1993, these nhtrates

:50:46. > :50:53.have been mentioned 20 times on a death certificate. Now, if ly role

:50:54. > :50:59.is to protect, and if my role is to make sure this legislation does its

:51:00. > :51:04.job, I saw that. And then after that, and quite late on, to be fair,

:51:05. > :51:08.I started to listen to other groups, because it was the first tile that

:51:09. > :51:13.they had asked me. It had gone through the Lords, through committee

:51:14. > :51:17.stage, and at committee I offered to meet any group that wanted to see

:51:18. > :51:22.me, as I always do, groups that would be affected by the poppers ban

:51:23. > :51:24.came to see me and started to give evidence that, actually, it wasn't

:51:25. > :51:36.as dangerous as I was alludhng to. So with that in mind, Mr Deputy

:51:37. > :51:42.Speaker and can I pay tribute to my right honourable friend, for Golders

:51:43. > :51:47.Green, I went away and with the help of the Home Secretary and others,

:51:48. > :51:57.came up with what I think is a compromise. And it is a plan. I have

:51:58. > :52:02.different types of evidence as the honourable gentleman for Finchley

:52:03. > :52:06.and Golders Green said, but to me. Lets for once have an evidential

:52:07. > :52:11.base to it. Stage one which will start immediately after this,

:52:12. > :52:23.literally, has probably started in many ways, the M age are a will

:52:24. > :52:30.start evidence gathering. -, the MHRA. Stage two, once they have

:52:31. > :52:33.gathered it, there will be `n assessment by an independent, and I

:52:34. > :52:40.stress, independent assessor, and we will come to a common agreelent It

:52:41. > :52:43.will probably help with the select committee as to who those

:52:44. > :52:48.individuals are. We will do this with the Department of Health. This

:52:49. > :52:52.will not be Home Office led, it will be with the Department of Hdalth.

:52:53. > :52:58.And then, following that, then we can come forward with a dechsion

:52:59. > :53:03.which will be jointly made by the Secretary of State for Health and

:53:04. > :53:08.the Home Secretary, and then if necessary, we can use regul`tions in

:53:09. > :53:13.clause three for exemptions. Expect to do this by the summer recess A

:53:14. > :53:18.commitment that we will do this by summer recess. I know others in the

:53:19. > :53:23.House would like us to do whth the other way. I can't use closdly to do

:53:24. > :53:28.that. We'd have to amend thd bill. I think that a compromise. I think

:53:29. > :53:35.I've listened extensively across the House in the last couple of weeks

:53:36. > :53:39.and in the other House. I know this will be difficult for indivhduals. I

:53:40. > :53:43.fully respect their views btt I hope that everyone in the house holed

:53:44. > :53:50.respects that I am trying to do the right thing to protect people. Thank

:53:51. > :53:55.you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Shotld this clause be read a second timd, those

:53:56. > :54:13.in favour say I. Those against the No.

:54:14. > :54:23.Should this clause be read ` second time? The tellers for the noes art

:54:24. > :06:35.Sarah Newton and Guy Opperm`n. Order, order! That ayes to the

:06:36. > :06:45.right, 241, the noes to the left, 207. The eyes to the right, two and

:06:46. > :06:48.41, the noes to the left, 307. The noes habit, unlock.

:06:49. > :06:53.We continue clause two, frol which it will be convenient to consider on

:06:54. > :06:58.the selection paper. I call Lynne Brown. I rise to move

:06:59. > :07:02.new clause two, and in doing so praise the work of my honourable

:07:03. > :07:08.friend for Barrow in Furness and the local government Association. These

:07:09. > :07:11.new powers in clause to our combo ball to closure powers for premises

:07:12. > :07:17.serving alcohol under the lhcensing act 2003, and provide a helpful

:07:18. > :07:24.interim power for local authorities when premises notices have been

:07:25. > :07:32.ignored. I don't see why we should treat out that suspected of ignoring

:07:33. > :07:38.warnings to stop selling anx more gently than those suspected to sell

:07:39. > :07:45.alcohol illegally. Case Malthouse. I rise to speak to my amendlents two

:07:46. > :07:48.and three, the first of which is to deal with a small anomaly in the

:07:49. > :07:54.bill, the second to do with something more fundamental. It is

:07:55. > :07:58.already access to that the selling of Psychoactive Substances Bill

:07:59. > :08:07.children is a he crime which should attract an aggravated sentence, and

:08:08. > :08:12.it contains and... Informathon that selling outside of a school should

:08:13. > :08:15.issue an aggravated sentencd. It even more vulnerable or those who

:08:16. > :08:21.live in children's homes, and I want to make it an aggravated offence to

:08:22. > :08:25.sell outside a children's home. The Government is keen to rely on

:08:26. > :08:29.sentencing guidelines to brhng these measures in, but the question arises

:08:30. > :08:32.as to whether we should havd any aggravating factors at all. The

:08:33. > :08:38.truth is that these provisions measured those exactly in the 1 71

:08:39. > :08:42.misuse of drugs act, and as far as I can see that is the only re`son why

:08:43. > :08:46.children's homes are being dxcluded from the act. I would asked to

:08:47. > :08:51.consider the logic of selling them outside of children's homes,

:08:52. > :08:55.alongside schools. I am seeking to make an aggravated offence to sell

:08:56. > :09:00.these substances to anybody and 18. The law for the protection of

:09:01. > :09:06.children in this country is patchy, elderly and confused. In particular,

:09:07. > :09:09.it does not privileged children as a group against him committing a crime

:09:10. > :09:15.is particularly serious. We privilege lots of groups, those of a

:09:16. > :09:17.religious faith, particular ethnicity or sexuality that if a

:09:18. > :09:22.crime is committed against them because of who they are, th`t is

:09:23. > :09:29.more serious insensitive and -- sentencing terms. Children `re not

:09:30. > :09:34.among that group. I would lhke to make the sale to anyone unddr 1 a

:09:35. > :09:38.more serious offence in the eyes of a judge and to attract more serious

:09:39. > :09:43.sentence. I do this in the hope that any future criminal Justice Bill

:09:44. > :09:48.which appears or sentencing Bill, we can do what this house did hn 2 12

:09:49. > :09:55.when it made the transgender community and aggravated fe`ture,

:09:56. > :09:59.that any offence against thdm attracted a stiffer sentencd, we

:10:00. > :10:02.could do the same for children. It is time we focused on some dlderly

:10:03. > :10:09.children's legislation and brought it up to date, the first stdp being

:10:10. > :10:12.sending a signal to the courts and to the public in general th`t we see

:10:13. > :10:17.children as worthy of speci`l protection.

:10:18. > :10:22.Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many apologies for the confusion, I

:10:23. > :10:27.thought this was coming latdr. If I can just speak really briefly, I am

:10:28. > :10:33.grateful to yourself for having allocated time for this and I would

:10:34. > :10:38.just impress upon the Government that they ought to consider this as

:10:39. > :10:41.an extra act of protection. I think it is a really good step forward

:10:42. > :10:48.that we are bringing in the blanket ban which, for many on both sides of

:10:49. > :10:52.the house, we have been calling for for some time. But there is a

:10:53. > :10:59.significant gap between being able to decide that the police all local

:11:00. > :11:02.authority, seeing that the substances are being traded, and

:11:03. > :11:07.then being able to apply for a court order and get a court order granted.

:11:08. > :11:12.This amendment would simply allow an interim ban to be placed whhle the

:11:13. > :11:16.court order is heard. And if it turned out to be misplaced, there

:11:17. > :11:19.could be a conversation of some kind, but it gave communitids the

:11:20. > :11:25.extra protection they need `nd deserve in these circumstances.

:11:26. > :11:33.Thank you, and I apologise that my comments will have to be sure to

:11:34. > :11:40.because of the time. Can I speak to amendment two, I fully understand

:11:41. > :11:43.where we are coming from. I believe that the judicial oversight is very

:11:44. > :11:48.important. The gentleman totched on the fact that we have to colpensate

:11:49. > :11:52.if we get it wrong. I don't want to get it wrong. I believe we can get

:11:53. > :11:56.it in the courts quickly, and we do that within other business on the

:11:57. > :12:02.courts quickly, to get judgds to make that decision. Two amendments

:12:03. > :12:10.two and three, I also fully understand the logic why under the

:12:11. > :12:16.old legislation, in the 1970 act, we specifically designate schools, that

:12:17. > :12:22.is because of the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971. I absolutely agred that we

:12:23. > :12:26.should bring legislation up to date, I believe the sentencing cotncil is

:12:27. > :12:33.that place in a modern democracy, but I must reiterate that under

:12:34. > :12:38.section 125 in brackets one of the corridors and Justice act, courts

:12:39. > :12:47.are under the same obligations to consider aggregated factors, whether

:12:48. > :12:51.they are in this bill. Sadlx, while they fully understand both sections

:12:52. > :12:57.of the changes of the bill, sadly, on this occasion, I think wd need to

:12:58. > :13:01.go with the bill as drafted. The question is that new cl`use two

:13:02. > :13:03.be read a second time, as m`ny of that opinion say aye. The country

:13:04. > :14:28.no. Division! Clear the lobby! Order, the question is that new

:14:29. > :14:32.clause two... The question hs that new clause two be read a second

:14:33. > :14:38.time, as many of that opinion say aye? The country no? The tellers for

:14:39. > :22:38.the ayes, Sue Haven and Rae Morris, and for the nose... -- noes...

:22:39. > :26:03.Order, order! The ayes to the right, 227, the noes to the left, 306. The

:26:04. > :26:11.ayes to the right, 227, the noes to the left, 306. The noes habht.

:26:12. > :26:16.Locke. -- the noes have it. And the order of the House, I must put the

:26:17. > :26:26.questions necessary to bring to a conclusion all the remaining

:26:27. > :26:32.proceedings. The question is that amendment 14 be made as manx of that

:26:33. > :27:51.opinion say aye, to the contrary, No. Division!

:27:52. > :27:57.The question is that amendmdnt 4 be made, those of that opinion say aye,

:27:58. > :34:47.to the contrary, No. Order! Order! The ayes to the right,

:34:48. > :37:39.47. The noes to the left, 307. The ayes to the right, 47, the noes

:37:40. > :37:46.to the left, 307. The noes habit, the noes have it. Unlock.

:37:47. > :37:52.Minister to move government amendment 69. The question hs that

:37:53. > :37:58.government amendment six to nine be made, as many of that opinion say

:37:59. > :38:03.aye, in country no? The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Colin Brown to

:38:04. > :38:13.move on amendment five. The question is that amendment five be m`de. As

:38:14. > :38:16.many of that opinion say ayd, as many not that opinion say no.

:38:17. > :40:15.Division! Clear the lobbies Order! Order! The question hs that

:40:16. > :40:23.amendment five be made, as lany of that opinion say aye, the country

:40:24. > :46:21.no. The ayes, Sue Haven and Rae Morris, the noes, Sue Haven and guy.

:46:22. > :49:29.Order! Order! The ayes to the right 228, the noes to the right... Left

:49:30. > :49:37.309. The ayes to the right, 228, the noes

:49:38. > :49:45.to the left, 309. The noes habit, the noes habit. Unlock.

:49:46. > :49:51.Minister to move amendments ten and 11. The question is the govdrnment

:49:52. > :49:58.amendment to ten and 11 be lade as many of that opinion say ayd, the

:49:59. > :50:02.country no? The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the

:50:03. > :50:06.consideration which has been completed in the reading. The

:50:07. > :50:11.question is that the ministdr is now about to move, I understand? Link

:50:12. > :50:15.you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the outset of mx closing

:50:16. > :50:21.remarks at third reading, this has been an experience. I fully

:50:22. > :50:27.understand why previous minhsters and previous governments looked long

:50:28. > :50:31.and hard at this bill, even though it was desperately needed, dven

:50:32. > :50:36.though there was a lot of t`lk, and it didn't go very far. From the

:50:37. > :50:40.outset, can I commend the work done by the Liberal Democrat minhsters on

:50:41. > :50:44.the previous administration, of Norman Baker and Lynne Featherstone,

:50:45. > :50:48.who were very much in the driving seat in the bill in preparing it to

:50:49. > :50:53.come forward and, actually, in many ways, I would like to have seen the

:50:54. > :50:56.bill come forward in the prdvious session, sorry, the previous

:50:57. > :51:01.parliament, not least it wotld not have been me at the dispatch box

:51:02. > :51:06.having to do so much! This `s an enormously important tool. Ht is not

:51:07. > :51:12.perfect but it is an awful lot better than we had before -, this is

:51:13. > :51:15.an enormously important bill. It has some minor, and I say mine,

:51:16. > :51:27.amendments that need to be `ddressed in the other house. Mr Speaker, in

:51:28. > :51:33.2014, there are 129 deaths hn Great Britain that the use of psychoactive

:51:34. > :51:36.substances was implicated in. On the day that I announce that thhs bill

:51:37. > :51:42.was going to come through, H took a call from a journalist in Scotland,

:51:43. > :51:47.from Falkirk. Wanted a commdnt as to why I was doing it. And as H started

:51:48. > :51:53.to talk to him, he actually said to me, there was a gentleman and a lady

:51:54. > :51:57.in the area of Falkirk who had been to a head shop a couple of days

:51:58. > :52:05.before and bought what they thought were safe, legal project...

:52:06. > :52:09.Products, within hours he w`s dead and she was seriously, seriously

:52:10. > :52:14.injured. I hope she has madd a full recovery, I passionately do. I am

:52:15. > :52:23.conscious that we should not any more ever talk about a legal high

:52:24. > :52:27.which is safe, or legal, or any other measure. If you take `

:52:28. > :52:31.substance, you have to realhse the dangers involved, and the education

:52:32. > :52:33.part of this, which I know the Shadow Minister wanted us to be

:52:34. > :52:41.strong on, we were were continuously on. -- we will work continuously on.

:52:42. > :52:45.I thank the tone and the wax that this bill has been brought forward

:52:46. > :52:50.quite speedily, as the chair of the select committee alluded to. There

:52:51. > :52:55.was speedy work done by the select committee, speedy work done on the

:52:56. > :52:59.Bill committee but, can I s`y, thank you to all members of the Bhll

:53:00. > :53:03.committee. Some members of the committee had never taken a bill

:53:04. > :53:06.through a Bill committee, particularly from the Scotthsh

:53:07. > :53:12.National Party, and I pay tribute to the attitude and way that w`s done.

:53:13. > :53:17.Can I also pay tribute to the devolved administration. Thhs bill

:53:18. > :53:21.covers the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a very, very

:53:22. > :53:27.important bill in the way wd have done it. In particular I want to pay

:53:28. > :53:31.tribute to my honourable frhend for Finchley and would Green. Bdcause

:53:32. > :53:35.there was no intent ever in this bill to make it difficult for any

:53:36. > :53:40.individual or any groups. What we wanted to do and what I was

:53:41. > :53:45.passionate about was to makd it safe in this country and we got `way from

:53:46. > :53:48.the concept that something that was thought to be fun would be safe and

:53:49. > :53:55.at the end of the day would take your life or the life of yotr loved

:53:56. > :53:59.ones. My team, led by my Bill manager, have done excellent work as

:54:00. > :54:06.well. It pays to bid to the work done before I was the Minister to

:54:07. > :54:08.make it pays tribute, because of the background information and the way

:54:09. > :54:12.we have understood that this bill could work. It's absolutely right

:54:13. > :54:16.that the bill that this was similar to is not identical to the one

:54:17. > :54:19.introduced some years ago in the Republic of Ireland because we have

:54:20. > :54:25.learned from some mistakes lade there. And they are looking closely

:54:26. > :54:28.at us now. Could I say also, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there `re other

:54:29. > :54:33.countries around the world, we not alone in having our communities

:54:34. > :54:37.blighted by these products. Around the world, other countries `re

:54:38. > :54:41.trying to see what they can do. I've got a minister next week from far

:54:42. > :54:46.away coming to talk to me and saying, how have you done this, can

:54:47. > :54:54.we help you, so we can introduce similar things? Can I say there was

:54:55. > :55:00.one major amendment, Mr Deptty Speaker, I hope it works very fast.

:55:01. > :55:03.And that was the government amendment on possession within

:55:04. > :55:09.custodial premises, in other words, in prison and other such

:55:10. > :55:15.establishments. This was repuested, not by me, but the prisons linister.

:55:16. > :55:19.He requested it because he had prison governors around the country,

:55:20. > :55:24.the prison officers union and others, saying, this is out of hand

:55:25. > :55:28.in prisons, we need help. A lot of people said there was legislation

:55:29. > :55:32.that could have been used. Ht's absolutely implicit, on the face of

:55:33. > :55:39.this bill, that possession within prison or other custodial premises,

:55:40. > :55:45.it is a criminal offence. Nobody wanted to criminalise everyone in

:55:46. > :55:49.possession, within these institutions it is important and I

:55:50. > :55:52.hope that works really quickly, along with four incidents the

:55:53. > :55:58.cameras being trialled in prisons now to prevent assaults on staff. Mr

:55:59. > :56:03.Deputy Speaker, I am enormotsly proud to have brought this bill

:56:04. > :56:07.through. I think it will save lives, as a father, I can only imagine what

:56:08. > :56:12.others have gone through th`t have had their loved ones taken `way from

:56:13. > :56:17.them or badly damaged. I panicked like hell when my daughters went to

:56:18. > :56:19.university, they really sensible, they understood everything but they

:56:20. > :56:24.could easily have been dragged into this situation that this was safe.

:56:25. > :56:29.It was not safe and we have now made sure that everyone knows th`t. The

:56:30. > :56:40.question is that the bill bd read a third time. Labour's 2015 m`nifesto

:56:41. > :56:43.included a commitment to ban the sale of psychoactive substances We

:56:44. > :56:47.believe that a blanket ban with listed exceptions is the most

:56:48. > :56:50.effective means of beginning to tackle the serious public hdalth

:56:51. > :56:53.problem these drugs have brought about and that is why we on these

:56:54. > :56:57.benches support the bill. Wd have not agreed with the governmdnt on

:56:58. > :57:01.every detail of the bill but we have been united in wanting the lost

:57:02. > :57:05.effective legislation possible to tackle the scourge of these

:57:06. > :57:10.dangerous substances and to curb the criminal fraternity who are pushing

:57:11. > :57:23.them on our young people. I am greatly disappointed that the

:57:24. > :57:25.government has chosen not to place Poppers on the exemptions lhst. I

:57:26. > :57:28.believe this will undermine the bill and police users of Poppers,

:57:29. > :57:30.especially men who have sex with men, at greater risk of harl. In

:57:31. > :57:33.spite of our support for thd general approach of the bill we do not

:57:34. > :57:36.believe that this legislation alone will tackle the issue. Marion

:57:37. > :57:41.Stewart, an amazing woman, said in May, no law can offer the pdrfect

:57:42. > :57:47.solution to protect people from drugs. It is equally vital that we

:57:48. > :57:50.concentrate our efforts on laking the public, young people in

:57:51. > :57:55.particular, more aware of the harms of these substances in schools,

:57:56. > :58:00.universities, and during festivals. I couldn't agree more. Sadlx, the

:58:01. > :58:04.government doesn't seem to `gree that a comprehensive educathon and

:58:05. > :58:07.awareness strategy needs to go alongside the measures cont`ined in

:58:08. > :58:12.this bill. That is the trulx only way that we would effectively reduce

:58:13. > :58:15.demand and thereby make measures controlling supply easier and more

:58:16. > :58:19.effective. I would like to thank the honourable member for Redditch for

:58:20. > :58:24.working closely with me on this bill. His insights into the public

:58:25. > :58:28.health aspects of the legislation have been invaluable. It has been a

:58:29. > :58:32.pleasure to work with him. H would like to thank the Minister, the

:58:33. > :58:36.Honourable member for Hemel Hempstead the spirit of co-operation

:58:37. > :58:40.he has shown throughout the passage of the bill, his humour, and the

:58:41. > :58:44.SNP, who have been great to work with, this has been my first one and

:58:45. > :58:49.it has been really good to have them alongside. This legislation was

:58:50. > :58:53.introduced in the other place and I want to be attributed to thd

:58:54. > :58:57.excellent work done by my L`bour Party colleagues there, in

:58:58. > :59:01.particular the noble lord Lord Ross, who led on the bill for the Labour

:59:02. > :59:05.Party. My colleagues in the other place of instrumental in improving

:59:06. > :59:08.the bill by securing more comprehensive exceptions for

:59:09. > :59:13.academic and medical research. And I am convinced that the input from the

:59:14. > :59:17.Labour side of the House has made a difference to this bill. In

:59:18. > :59:28.conclusion, Mr Deputy Speakdr, if the House is divided tonight we will

:59:29. > :59:30.vote for the bill before us. Expert advice from Ireland suggests that a

:59:31. > :59:33.blanket ban is the most effdctive means of beginning to tackld the

:59:34. > :59:36.most pernicious industry of psychoactive substances. We

:59:37. > :59:41.committed to banning them in our manifesto and I believe this bill is

:59:42. > :59:45.a good first step in our battle to protect the public and our children

:59:46. > :59:50.from serious adult risks and harms that these dangerous drugs present.

:59:51. > :59:54.However the fight against the harms brought about by new psycho`ctive

:59:55. > :59:57.substances is only just beghnning and I will continue to work for

:59:58. > :00:05.better education and awarendss in this country as the fight continues.

:00:06. > :00:10., I'd just echo the words of post frontbenchers about the project has

:00:11. > :00:14.been to work with them on this bill -- both frontbenchers. It h`s come

:00:15. > :00:18.as a bit of a rude shock to find complete consensus and no dhvisions

:00:19. > :00:22.and has a medical has sat on a social care committee and the last

:00:23. > :00:27.Parliament are not used to such committees! Like a No ten bts, to

:00:28. > :00:30.have three in a row, I would, if you don't mind because two of mx

:00:31. > :00:36.colleagues want to speak and we will finish on time. I just want to say

:00:37. > :00:40.two things. It is unfortunate, although I do not in any wax

:00:41. > :00:44.denigrate the importance of the subject, it is a shame we h`ve spent

:00:45. > :00:49.some time today discussing `mendment five around Poppers. All th`t I will

:00:50. > :00:54.say about that is that it is a hugely important issue. We need to

:00:55. > :00:57.get it resolved and move on quickly. I really appreciate what thd

:00:58. > :01:01.minister said about immediately and buy some and I have written those

:01:02. > :01:06.things on my notes and as hhs former PPS he knows I will hold hil to

:01:07. > :01:12.that! There has been huge interest in this subject in the Housd since

:01:13. > :01:15.I've been here in 2010. Questions, Westminster Hall debates, prime

:01:16. > :01:19.ministers questions in the last Parliament led to it being hn, I

:01:20. > :01:23.believe, both manifestos at the general election and here wd are

:01:24. > :01:29.today with it almost done. Why is this important? I want to rdturn to

:01:30. > :01:33.an 18-year-old who died in ly constituency at a music festival

:01:34. > :01:39.having fun. She had everythhng to live for, she was an army c`det a

:01:40. > :01:43.Duke of Edinburgh Gold award winner but for ?40, her life was gone. Her

:01:44. > :01:48.dad said at the inquest, I `lways imagined that if any harm c`me to

:01:49. > :01:52.her it would be on a bungee jump or canoeing down a river or an accident

:01:53. > :01:58.on a mountain, nothing like this. She was so sensible, it is `n

:01:59. > :02:01.absolute tragedy for this f`mily, one act of stupidity that h`s

:02:02. > :02:08.destroyed us. That really does say it all as to why we are herd. NPS,

:02:09. > :02:12.as they are currently, are notoriously difficult to iddntify.

:02:13. > :02:15.They currently have to be rdgulated on a substance by substance, group

:02:16. > :02:20.by group races because of the diversity and the speed at which

:02:21. > :02:27.they are developed to replace drugs that are controlled under the 1 71

:02:28. > :02:30.act. For me, the cruellest danger of so-called legal highs that H have

:02:31. > :02:34.seen so often sold at festivals that I attended with my friends `nd this

:02:35. > :02:42.summer with my family, as h`rmless fun. They are anything but. Do I

:02:43. > :02:46.think the bill addresses thd problem? I believe so because it is

:02:47. > :02:50.the blanket ban that we prolised, it is one that we have been crxing out

:02:51. > :02:56.for, campaigned for the manx years, the current response in Hampshire,

:02:57. > :03:01.where I represent, is built around reducing demand, restricting supply

:03:02. > :03:05.and the use of trading standards. Hampshire trading standards have

:03:06. > :03:12.tried everything. They have been unable to is excessively secure a

:03:13. > :03:18.prosecution using existing legislation to regulate head shops,

:03:19. > :03:21.they fall under anti-social association where it can be

:03:22. > :03:26.associated with the problem. It does not take a genius to work ott is to

:03:27. > :03:32.macro that this is fiddling while Rome burns. All good work btt we

:03:33. > :03:37.have been tidying hands behhnd backs and now we nearly have the

:03:38. > :03:41.legislation. I mentioned he`d shops. There was one, at a second reading

:03:42. > :03:46.it was still there, there w`s one on Stockport Road in my constituency,

:03:47. > :03:50.it was closed down last month to anti-social behaviour legislation.

:03:51. > :03:53.My hope is, as has happened in Ireland, that this will lead to the

:03:54. > :04:00.end of many more of those hdad shops. Having approved the bill as

:04:01. > :04:09.it has gone to the House, is that the committee, we introduced new

:04:10. > :04:15.legislation under clause ond and I believe that is crucial, and I share

:04:16. > :04:19.a great deal of hope that that will make a big difference. Therd is a

:04:20. > :04:23.huge problem in the secure state right now and we have a

:04:24. > :04:26.responsibility to tackle it. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speakdr, I

:04:27. > :04:30.think this is a very good bhll, it has been a long time coming. It has

:04:31. > :04:34.been a pleasure to play even a small part in it, as a manifesto

:04:35. > :04:38.commitment, we are getting on with delivering that manifesto. We are

:04:39. > :04:42.here to do no harm and do as much good began, I think. And I think,

:04:43. > :04:46.unbalanced, although it is not perfect, this bill is a giant leap

:04:47. > :04:53.in that direction -- on bal`nce Thank you. Thank you, Mr Deputy

:04:54. > :04:56.Speaker, I will be brief. I will congratulate all those involved in

:04:57. > :04:59.bringing this bill forward hncluding the government, the minister,

:05:00. > :05:03.everyone will agree that he has been very willing to engage in open and

:05:04. > :05:07.robust debate about various different points in this, the

:05:08. > :05:11.Scottish Government, who have supported the ethos behind this

:05:12. > :05:15.bill. The committees involvdd in it and our colleagues and the Labour

:05:16. > :05:19.benches. Although I was not on the committee it is the second bill have

:05:20. > :05:23.been closely involved with, and it has been a pleasure to work

:05:24. > :05:28.alongside Labour colleagues on a number of issues. It is cle`r that

:05:29. > :05:33.an of these substances are dangerous and we are letting this message get

:05:34. > :05:37.out there now. They are also unpredictable. There is no way of

:05:38. > :05:41.knowing what is and what people are buying. No way of predicting the

:05:42. > :05:47.impact on the individual. In the last debate in this House t`lked

:05:48. > :05:52.about somebody I know who took one thing, made one foolish mistake aged

:05:53. > :05:56.17, a talented young medical student, a beautiful girl who spent

:05:57. > :06:00.the rest of her life and is still in a locked psychiatric ward bdcause of

:06:01. > :06:06.the impact because you can never predict how it will impact xou. I

:06:07. > :06:13.have some remaining concerns, particularly on things like poppers.

:06:14. > :06:17.i look forward to the review. differentiating between people who

:06:18. > :06:23.buy from the internet and others who buy from a dealer in a dark alley.

:06:24. > :06:26.that is remaining concern md. i understand that the minister has

:06:27. > :06:30.said that this is not the intention behind that part of the bill. i

:06:31. > :06:37.accepted is not the intention and i will just quote him, the sphrit of

:06:38. > :06:40.the bill is that we do not want to criminalise individuals for

:06:41. > :06:45.possession. Possession is not an offence under any part of the

:06:46. > :06:47.legislation, and purchasing would be legal so there would be no

:06:48. > :06:51.illegality on the part of the individual. If I am allowed to take

:06:52. > :06:55.an intervention, "Subtitles will resume

:06:56. > :06:58.on 'Wednesday In Parliament'