The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14403, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on progress on implementing recommendations of the expert review group on new psychoactive substances.
15:03
I am grateful for the opportunity to open a debate on a subject in which members have a continued interest. New psychoactive substances present a serious challenge to drug services, clinicians, enforcement agencies and those who manage their physical and emotional impacts and their often devastating impact on our communities.
As members have often reflected, the new substances are often misleadingly referred to as legal highs. The term “legal high” is unhelpful. Just because a substance is advertised as legal in one respect at least, it does not mean that it is safe for human consumption. Whether or not a substance is banned, it is impossible to know an NPS product’s content and the dangers that it might pose.
New psychoactive substances are substances whose sale is not restricted, perhaps because the products can be passed off as bath salts, for example. If taken by an individual, they mimic the effects of controlled drugs and can be just as harmful. Indeed, we know that they are already having fatal consequences.
The number of deaths when NPS were found to be present in the body has risen from four in 2009 to 114 in 2015, although I should stress that the presence of an NPS is not necessarily the only cause—or the main cause—of an individual’s death. We might not have seen the peak of the numbers yet.
I am sure that many members will agree that the biggest difficulty, and perhaps the biggest frustration, is that the existing legislative framework enables such substances to remain legal—albeit for an alternate use—as they do not come under the traditional radar of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on which we have relied to control drugs.
That is why, at my predecessor’s request, the Scottish Government formed an expert review group in August 2014. The group’s membership was drawn from people with a range of expertise who come from legal, policy and operational backgrounds. I presented its report to the chamber on 26 February this year and I am grateful to members for their contributions on that occasion.
The group had a deliberate and specific legal focus, but it also considered operational and practical aspects in the context of the existing legal framework. The group presented its report to me on that day in February and made six recommendations on how the existing legal framework might be strengthened, which concerned not just the current law but how it can be made to work better in practice. I am pleased to update the chamber on the progress that we are making to respond to the recommendations that were made.
One of the reasons why NPS are popular is their seemingly legitimate status. They are sold openly in our communities—on our high streets—which is not acceptable. Some head shops are highly visible to school pupils when they are travelling to and from school. The expert review group recognised that and, in combination with a range of evidence, recommended that the Scottish Government should work with the United Kingdom Government on new legislation to address the challenge that head shops pose.
We welcome the progress on bringing NPS under legal control and are working closely with the UK Government on the detail of how the Psychoactive Substances Bill can work in the best interests of Scotland and work effectively within Scotland’s legal framework and courts. The bill does not yet fully reflect the distinct and specific criminal and civil procedures that are adopted in Scottish courts, and my officials have been working with the Home Office to ensure that the bill can be implemented effectively in Scotland.
I will shortly meet Mike Penning MP, the Home Office minister who is responsible for the bill, and I will make sure that he receives our support in making the legislation effective. The bill, as proposed by the Home Office, creates new criminal offences of producing, supplying, offering to supply, possessing with intent to supply, importing and exporting psychoactive substances. It will proceed through the various parliamentary stages and, subject to parliamentary approval, it will come into force in April 2016.
I am pleased to inform members that, because of representations that were made, the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Crown Office have been invited to be part of a UK-wide group to support implementation. That is where much of the practical work will be done to develop guidance for the police and other agencies to support successful prosecutions. I am further reassured by plans that were agreed with the Home Office for a specific Scottish workshop to be held in February next year to hear directly from those who will enforce the law and prepare for the changes.
I know that many members will be reassured by the fact that, in the future, those who seek to sell NPS, knowing the harms that they cause, will face the full legal consequences of their actions. Experience from the Republic of Ireland, where a similar law has been introduced, suggests that head shops have closed and NPS are less visible. However, we need to be alert to the possibility that other distribution channels, such as the internet, will become dominant. There may be only limited scope to control those, for example by banning NPS sales via UK domain names.
The expert group recommended that work be progressed to develop a common definition of NPS to guide enforcement agencies and treatment agencies, although the group recognised that that might need to vary. Further work was also suggested on data sharing and managing the flow of information about prevalence and harms between agencies. In that regard, the Scottish Government has been engaging with Scottish stakeholders, which culminated in the publishing of a questionnaire on 23 September. That enables a structured conversation with the sector that can inform our discussions with the Home Office and guide our response to the needs of those in Scotland in respect of information sharing and a common definition.
A further area that is being explored is the potential forensic capability that will be required by the proposed law to test a substance for its psychoactivity. When I meet the Home Office, I will press for a collaborative approach to creating the forensic capacity to equip us to implement the legislation and manage people in treatment effectively. That will go some way towards developing the forensic centre for excellence that the expert group recommended, and we are supporting the Scottish Police Authority to consider how it might build capacity for that.
That work sits alongside research that has been commissioned into the prevalence and harms of NPS. That work was recently awarded to a partnership between the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Drugs Forum. It is expected that the findings will be available in May next year.
The expert review group acknowledged the requirement to support trading standards services, which are considering enforcement action against people who sell NPS in our high streets, with assistance in removing any inconsistencies in approach across local authorities and widening the adoption of good practice. One of the group’s recommendations was to develop a toolkit and operational guidance with the appropriate stakeholders, to assist trading standards staff to tackle NPS and learn from experience in areas such as Angus and South Ayrshire. Following that recommendation, an NPS strategic working group was formed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, trading standards Scotland and partners to progress development of the guidance, which will be a vital tool for front-line trading standards staff.
I was delighted to launch that trading standards guidance on 15 September. It will go a long way towards protecting the people of Scotland between now and the introduction of the new legislation. It will ensure that trading standards staff across Scotland are better equipped to remove some of the current barriers to tackling NPS at a practical level.
The guidance focuses on the application of consumer protection legislation to NPS and in particular on the legal rules that control the sale and supply of unsafe products. The guidance was created in the absence of a bespoke legislative response so far, and there will be a need to test and shape it based on what works in practice. In particular, it acknowledges that the best way to protect communities from the blight of NPS is to work in partnership with Police Scotland and colleagues in the national health service.
I am disappointed that, although the minister is seven minutes into his speech, I have not heard him refer to the important role that education plays. He may well be coming on to that, but what I am hearing from him is almost exclusively about enforcement, although I am sure that he agrees that education has a key role to play.
I hear the member’s point, but we are dealing with each of the expert review group’s recommendations in turn. I commit to Mr Finnie that I will get on to education shortly.
Another of the group’s recommendations related to licensing authorities attaching restrictions and conditions on the sale of NPS when issuing public entertainment and similar licences. To progress that, I and the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, Mr Biagi, wrote to all the Scottish licensing boards in June this year. In our letter, we requested that local authorities amend public entertainment licences that have been issued in order to ban NPS at forthcoming festivals and that they include such conditions on licences that have not yet been issued. That is thought to be beneficial, as it assists not only in addressing availability at such events this year but in preparing local authorities ahead of the new legislation. I have asked officials to examine the extent to which local authorities are using those opportunities.
I turn now to education, which addresses the point that Mr Finnie raised. Even if displacement to other channels is not observed, we concede that legislation alone will not solve the problem of NPS. Education is crucial, and it will continue to be a high priority for the Scottish Government. The well-established know the score information service, and choices for life, which is delivered in partnership with Police Scotland, Education Scotland and Young Scot, have been supported by the Scottish Government to develop and deliver specific NPS material. The Scottish Government continues to fund Crew, a third-sector drug service, to provide a training package and information resources on NPS and emerging trends in drug and youth services across Scotland. I am grateful to Crew for its engagement and support to me as I attempt to grapple with this important issue.
We have funded the Scottish Drugs Forum to improve the capacity for and quality of interventions around NPS and stimulant use in employment and housing services for young people. On Saturday, I was pleased to build on that engagement with young people when I attended an event that we sponsored with the Scottish Youth Parliament to raise the profile of NPS issues. At the event, young people from across Scotland discussed the best approaches to raising awareness among young people of the dangers of NPS. It was important to get their perspective on the issue. Initial findings suggest that they felt that the widespread accessibility of NPS was a “scary” thing, especially when combined with an equally widespread lack of awareness among their peer group of the risks. Young people also felt that the provision of high-quality information was an essential part of any approach to tackling the use of NPS.
Discussions focused on how a peer-led approach was an important factor in tackling the NPS issue. I say with respect to politicians in the chamber that messages from us probably do not carry as much weight as those from individuals who are identified as young people’s peers. That is an important factor, which I have very much taken on board.
The Scottish Youth Parliament will develop and submit a comprehensive findings and recommendations report to the Scottish Government and will present its findings to the NPS ministerial cross-party working group, to inform members. I thank the Scottish Youth Parliament members not only for organising the event but for their contribution. We will take the findings forward into our education and preventative messaging.
There is a significant degree of consensus across the political spectrum on NPS, as I mentioned to the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament at the weekend. To address the challenges, we have to work together to tackle the substances that present risk to our communities, while recognising that there are no easy answers.
On the day in February when the expert review group published its report, I made a statement in the Scottish Parliament in which I invited my colleagues from across the parties to join me in a ministerial cross-party working group. I am pleased that colleagues from other parties accepted that offer and that the group is up and running. I hope that members across the chamber agree that it provides a good source of information to bring us all up to date with the latest trends.
The group has met twice and continues to examine the work that is under way, build a shared understanding of the problem, hear from experts in the field and oversee the work as it unfolds. Most recently, it heard from accident and emergency practitioners on the harms that they see, sometimes daily. I think that I speak for a number of my colleagues on the group when I say that I was genuinely taken aback at the extent to which individuals are presenting at accident and emergency with what appear to be psychotic conditions that are actually a result of a medical reaction to the effects of NPS, such as overheating following the use of stimulants.
I have been invited to spend an evening shift in an accident and emergency department to see at first hand some of the challenges that professionals face with regard to NPS and other matters—[Interruption.] I notice that Graeme Pearson is happy to volunteer and willing to come along and I will be delighted to take up the offer.
The group has agreed a programme of work and will meet into 2016. It intends to produce a report of its main considerations, which I will bring to the wider attention of the Parliament in due course. Although the group is not focused on making specific recommendations, I have been delighted with the ideas and insights that members across the chamber are generating, which are reflected in the work going forward. I am grateful to members of the group for their interest and for the consensual way in which we have conducted our business, and I am grateful for the openness with which the people who have contributed have engaged with us.
I commend the work that the Scottish Government is doing with others to respond to the recommendations that the expert review group made in February. I am sure that members will acknowledge all that is being done and I welcome their collaboration and support. New psychoactive substances are a hugely significant challenge to the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland and we must focus our minds on how we can best deliver a team Scotland approach to contain and then eliminate the harms that they cause.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the progress being made to respond to the New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) Expert Review Group report recommendations, published on 26 February 2015, including work to bring NPS under legal control; notes that the UK Government published the Psychoactive Substances Bill on 29 May 2015, which the Scottish Government supports, and further notes that this work includes engagement with the sector on information sharing and a common definition, including on the development of forensic capacity, and production of guidance that will be a vital tool for trading standards staff on the frontline, given the serious impact that these substances are having in communities, sometimes with fatal consequences, and the challenges faced by drug treatment and health services and enforcement agencies.
15:16
The Government motion
“welcomes the … Expert Review Group report recommendations”.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I contribute to that welcome and thank the group for the hard work that it has done on the Parliament’s behalf. Scottish Labour supports the Government motion and will vote accordingly at the end of this brief but important debate.
New psychoactive substances, which are known in some communities as legal highs but are perhaps better described as lethal highs for some families, are a scourge and a growing menace that affects our society. They can be legal or illegal and, sometimes, both together in a cocktail.
Throughout the European Union, NPS are used largely among younger age groups and particularly by those who are clubbers in our towns and cities at night. Scotland is little different. Mephedrone and synthetic cannabinoids have been the most commonly available NPS although, with a cornucopia of chemicals entering the market each month to add to the challenges that we face as a society, there is a changing fashion in the types of substances that are consumed.
Only 1 per cent of drug seizures in Scotland are identified as involving NPS. That level of recovery does not reflect the numbers of so-called head shops. There are more than 650 throughout Europe, with more than our fair share in Scotland. The number of internet outlets that retail legal highs to customers of any age and with any pre-existing medical condition further suggests that the 1 per cent seizure rate merely touches the tip of the iceberg.
The main supply emanates from China and India, but growing profits mean that laboratories around the globe are entering the market to enhance the supply. Compounds are constantly changing as the illicit chemists try to keep ahead of the law. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 541 NPS chemical potions had been identified in the marketplace by December 2014.
The growing trend of injecting NPS is disturbing, given the dangers that have been identified in connection with alternative means of ingestion. Kidney failure and psychosis can be laid at the feet of NPS as identified outcomes for some patients. In addition, as the minister acknowledged, NPS have been implicated in up to 132 deaths since 2009, and NPS were identified as the sole drugs involved in 18 deaths. In those circumstances, the Scottish and UK Governments’ actions to stem the growing tide of misuse and abuse of NPS are necessary and must be seen to work if we are to protect our citizens and particularly our young people.
The motion refers to the UK Government’s stated commitment in May this year, which I welcome, to introduce legislation to ban new psychoactive substances. The provision of up to seven years’ imprisonment for those who produce and deal in NPS is an effective deterrent, and I acknowledge the legislation’s intention to avoid criminalising those who are simply caught in possession of NPS.
At the Scottish level, creating a centre of excellence for forensic analysis and a database of information and intelligence will help to fill the current knowledge gap. It would be helpful to have greater detail regarding the who and the where, how much it will cost and what success will look like after a centre of excellence is created, so that we can share that knowledge externally and create confidence that the Scottish Government has the matter in hand.
I am concerned about the abilities of local authorities across Scotland to address the NPS issue, because their trading standards departments are reported to be struggling, with smaller departments having to cope with greater demands. Coincidentally, my colleague Elaine Murray raised the issue of trading standards staffing at topical question time. That issue has implications for the Government’s intention to issue guidance to assist staff to deal with the NPS challenge. The remaining staff in trading standards departments, who are on the front line, will have difficulty coping with the additional guidance. I am sure that, if information could be offered about the impact and the additional resources that might be required, that would remove doubts in the minds of staff about their ability to cope.
Information sharing and common definitions are always crucial in developing a successful plan, but I hope that the Scottish and UK Governments will act together to ensure that the UNODC and the United Nations Security Council take all steps to encourage member states to eradicate the laboratories that are responsible for the supply of new psychoactive substances around the globe, because that is in the interests of world health and it will also deal with international crime groups, which profit greatly from the trade in NPS.
The commitment to obtaining an accurate picture about NPS is to be welcomed. It is also necessary to prepare new packs for education and for the public services front line. New treatment protocols need to be created, as do pathways to divert young people from substance abuse generally and from NPS, given the debate that we are having.
We need a commitment to the use of licensing regulations to prevent head shops from operating at festivals and concerts and to the use of planning regulations, where possible, to manage the presence of those shops in town centre estates. We also need HM Revenue and Customs to ensure that profits from such enterprises are identified and that, if they are not subject to the proceeds of crime legislation, levels of taxation are applied and taxes are collected. Such action would be highly desirable in persuading those who would take advantage of young people in that environment to adopt other business practices.
The use of NPS, particularly in the context of polypharmacy—that is, the cocktail of substances such as cocaine, heroin, prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco—presents a troubling challenge for maintaining healthy communities that are capable of sustaining a productive lifestyle for the future. One can hope that the steps that are outlined in the Government’s motion will represent a successful first step in our efforts to provide a safe and healthy environment for all for the future.
As my colleague Mr Finnie said, a concentration on clear education to provide full knowledge of the damage that such substances do is crucial to any successful outcome. I hope that the Government and those who are involved in the wider drug strategy will apply themselves with vigour to ensuring that the number of drug deaths falls and that the number of those who create problematic drug abuse is reduced as soon as possible.
15:25
I hope that today’s debate will serve to increase awareness of, and to help educate the public at large about, the horrors associated with taking new psychoactive substances—NPS for short. The facts that NPS are most frequently termed “legal highs” and that they are openly on sale online and in head shops throughout Scotland only serve to confuse the issue.
There is absolutely no doubt that there are huge risks in the consumption of so-called legal highs, without exception, whether taken in capsule form, snorted, smoked or injected—for a faster hit—or that there are potentially horrendous consequences. Those include incidents of confirmed deaths, multiple amputations, paranoid delusions, attempted murders, suicidal tendencies, and violent and sexual crimes.
Although they are labelled “not for consumption”, such drugs serve no other practical purpose. They come with no information on dosage, and, as a result of their accessibility, affordability and the anonymity of their purchase, they are readily available to young people well under the age of 18.
In East Kilbride, the chief inspector has warned of a frightening increase in the number of young people in the area admitted to accident and emergency departments after taking potentially fatal legal highs. The warning followed an incident last year in which a 13-year-old pupil from the town was rushed to hospital during a school break after taking a suspected legal high.
Just this month the Falkirk Herald reported that two children—a 12-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl—were rushed to the emergency department at Forth Valley royal hospital after ingesting new psychoactive substances from blotter paper.
Is the member able to give comparable statistics for alcohol abuse in juveniles?
Not at this point, but I am sure that they could be found somewhere and the comparison could be made.
Louise Grant, a harm reduction worker, confirmed:
“We are finding more and more people coming through the door who are taking legal highs. People come to us and they are not engaging with an addiction service because they think the drugs they are taking are legal.”
In May, 25-year-old Jamie Donnelly died at Forth Valley royal hospital after taking legal highs. At the same time a 16-year-old girl was found having a fit in the street after allegedly buying one of the substances. Despite locals in Falkirk launching an angry campaign against a local shop they blame for peddling legal highs, and despite a special event at Denny high school just before the summer holidays at which local police gave an anti-NPS presentation to pupils, it is evident that the risks are not being hammered home.
The stark fact remains that legal highs are still out there, they are still for sale and people are still taking them in Lanarkshire, the Forth valley and throughout Scotland. Edinburgh, with as many as 15 head shops, is fast becoming the legal high capital of the UK.
Therefore I warmly welcome the developments that the minister outlined in his opening speech. According to the most recent figures on drug-related deaths in Scotland, NPS were a factor in a person’s death in 60 cases in 2013, compared with 32 in 2012. With the speed and scale of the emergence of new substances showing little sign of abating, this multifaceted and escalating problem must—and can only—be eliminated by adopting a co-ordinated approach.
It is therefore encouraging that, over the past year, there has been substantial progress in tackling NPS, including the introduction of the Psychoactive Substances Bill in the UK Parliament. The draft legislation will make it an offence to produce or supply so-called legal highs, and it will introduce a maximum prison sentence of seven years for those crimes.
The new psychoactive substances expert review group’s recommendations, which were reported early this year, have gone out to consultation. They include the need for a clear and practical definition of NPS, the creation of a forensic centre to lead on the detection and identification of those dangerous substances, and the need for improved data collection and information sharing among stakeholders.
It is the problems associated with data collection that I want to explore more fully. For example, although Police Scotland recognises the severity of the NPS problem, it was unable to provide a response to a straightforward request for the number of new psychoactive substances seized from persons on their arrest since 2013. That information would have at least provided a valuable snapshot of what is happening on the ground. Furthermore, when asked about NPS recovered during a consensual or statutory stop and search, Police Scotland said that it was unable to provide this information because of problems with the stop and search data.
Meanwhile, following a similar information request, the Scottish Prison Service replied:
“the information you require is not held by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), as current SPS drug testing equipment is unable to identify New Psychoactive Substances.”
However, in June, the National Offender Management Service in England and Wales highlighted that NPS have resulted in serious assaults, “disturbed and disruptive behaviour” by prisoners, and heightened levels of intimidation and increased levels of debt.
When asked in this chamber in February for information, the Solicitor General for Scotland was unable to provide figures for the number of people supplying NPS convicted under the common law of reckless and culpable conduct.
I am therefore disappointed that the amendment in my name was not selected for debate, especially as it was intended to highlight the Scottish Government’s inclusion of the expert review group’s recommendations on data collection in the consultation. Those recommendations have unequivocal cross-party support. However, I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the Government’s motion, despite it making no mention of the crucial issue of data collection.
We now turn to the open debate. Members have a generous six minutes for their speeches.
15:33
First of all, it is incumbent on us all to ensure that we never use the terminology “legal highs” to describe new psychoactive substances, as that often creates the impression among some folk that the substances are safe because they are technically legal, which could not be further from the truth.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to implement all the expert review group’s recommendations, and I hope that that will help to tackle the availability and use of new psychoactive substances.
Many of my constituents and I have been extremely concerned about the growth in availability of the substances, and it is disturbing that shops selling new psychoactive substances have sprung up in Aberdeen and other areas right across Scotland. We have seen Aberdeen City Council secure a closure order at one shop because of
“anti-social behaviour arising from the sale of”—
NPS—
“on the premises.”
Unfortunately, the owners of the shop moved quickly to establish new premises and are plying their dubious trade once again.
In recent weeks, we have seen another shop open just yards away from Skene Square primary school. It is galling that nothing can be done to stop that. Parents are rightly concerned about the presence of such a shop on their children’s route to school. I share their concern, and I hope that folk will not have to put up with such situations for much longer.
Concerns have been expressed to me by the Aberdeen arts centre and theatre about the proximity of another shop to ACT’s facility. ACT has a lot of young members and volunteers and is rightly worried that young folk are being exposed to NPS on a daily basis.
It is positive that the Government has said that it will put conditions and restrictions on the sale and use of NPS into public entertainment and similar licences. Will the minister broaden the licensing regime so that any shop that sells NPS or drug paraphernalia has to be licensed by a local authority? If that happened, I think that it would stem the flow of such shops opening, which would be welcomed by my constituents in Aberdeen and people across the country.
Education is vital. At the beginning of my speech, I appealed for us to change our language to ensure that folk recognise the dangers of new psychoactive substances. I pay tribute to the police in Aberdeen and to Transition Extreme Sports, who have held seminars to warn of the dangers of NPS. Educational opportunities must be expanded, so that we ensure that every young person knows the danger of taking new psychoactive substances. NPS are not safe.
When the minister sums up the debate, will he please tell us whether guidance will be given to schools on teaching kids about the dangers of NPS? Will he also say whether resources will be made available to organisations such as Transition Extreme that are making efforts to educate young people about new psychoactive substances? Such organisations have experience that can be brought to bear in helping to educate young folk.
I acknowledge that the Scottish Government is working closely with the UK Government to ensure that the Psychoactive Substances Bill works well for Scotland. The bill will create new criminal offences of producing, supplying, offering to supply, possessing with intent to supply, importing and exporting psychoactive substances, but it is unlikely to be implemented before April 2016, which is a fair way off. I realise that the bill is complex, but I hope that legislation will be in place sooner rather than later.
Uncontrolled new psychoactive substances might pose a greater threat than some controlled drugs do. We must do all that we can to protect our young folk from these dangerous substances. I hope that the Parliament will unite to back the motion. I hope that today we will all say to the UK Government that we want the bill to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that today we will all commit to using the right language to describe new psychoactive substances, so that folk realise that NPS are extremely dangerous and they should not buy or take them.
Perhaps I should have been clearer about the generous six minutes that I can offer; I can give members up to seven minutes.
15:39
The history of new psychoactive substances really began with MDMA and LSD in the 1960s. By the 1980s and 1990s, MDMA, which is an amphetamine-like substance, had become such a problem that it was banned.
Of course, criminals then began changing the molecule, to get round the ban, and new synthetic semi-industrial chemicals began to appear. GHB—gamma hydroxybutyrate—was found in a cleaning fluid for alloy wheels; it got people high. Mephedrone, or meow meow, is a fertiliser.
A product can be bought and sold legally, for a legal purpose, but when its purpose is subverted and it is sold in different packaging—even it says on the package, “Not for human consumption”—it is going to be consumed. Sales are conducted through clear net websites, but also through dark side websites. There are also, of course, the estimated 250 head shops in the UK that sell those products.
The chemists search constantly for legal substances that can be subverted, and the problem with the legal highs is not that they exist—they have always existed since time immemorial and human beings, being what they are, will continue to seek highs, whether we call them legal or not. That is a real problem that we have to face, but other problems are to do with quality assurance, which is non-existent, and with the fact that we have no real idea about dosage.
A legal drug requires extensive testing, on cells in vitro, then animal studies in phase 1, then novel use in humans in phase 2, and finally condition testing for dosage and side effects in phase 3. Large trials can cost around $1 billion to bring a drug to the market; even then, the drugs are not totally guaranteed to be safe.
If we think that we can make everything that is out there safe and in some way protect people, we are living in a fool’s paradise. We have to try hard, but we also have to be very cautious. Every weekend, in pubs, clubs and bedrooms, people are engaging in what are, in effect, phase 1 trials of new psychoactive substances. They have no idea of what they are taking and no real idea of what the dosage is.
That is not a situation that is going to be improved by a rolling prohibition that makes taking the substances a criminal offence, so I welcome the fact that the bill is not going to do that for personal possession. However, the chemists will simply move on to the next product, so we are engaged in whack-a-mole and firefighting. Moreover, alterations to chemical formulae are not that difficult to make, so we have said that, unless it is the core molecule that is being altered, a substance will continue to be illegal. That is one of the approaches that we have taken.
The temporary class drug orders have been successful and useful, and the fact that they are being extended under the UK bill is valuable. However, if any politicians think that we can get ahead of the game simply by speeding up the categorisation of new psychoactive substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, or indeed under new legislation, we are deluding ourselves. We need new approaches, but it is going to be difficult.
One strategy is to control the head shops. Ireland has been hugely successful in doing that, introducing a ban in 2010, but there has been no evaluation of its act and zero arrestable offences. The head shops have disappeared, but NPS use continues to abound in Ireland—and it now abounds entirely in the criminal area. There is no licensing, but the activity continues. I therefore caution against the suggestion that the bans that are being proposed will work and will be sufficient, much as we desire them to be.
Surveillance and information is good, but of course that is retrospective. Through the wedinos.org site in Wales, people can send a sample of an NPS to a lab anonymously and get an analysis three days later to tell them what they have been using. The drug known as sparkle is entirely mephedrone in Wales, but in Edinburgh it is a combination of mephedrone and ethylphenidate, which is a Ritalin derivative, so a drug known by the same name may be different in different places. On one occasion, sparkle produced such an effect that the person who took it was rendered unconscious for about three days. It was discovered that it was nothing to do with mephedrone or similar products, but that it was a combination of heroin and methamphetamine.
In Holland, there are tests in clubs, which is something that I would like to see. However much we want to stop them, people will continue to use NPS in clubs and at big outdoor events, so it would be useful to allow people to check whether their product is what it says on the tin. Levels of LSD use have been low and continue to be low, but the use of ecstasy, having reduced, has increased again very substantially in the past couple of years. Thousands upon thousands of youngsters are using ecstasy every weekend. We want them to be safe; I doubt that they are going to be.
The Government has its website, which is helpful, but these young people gain information mainly through the internet and increasingly through social media, where they communicate with each other about the branded products, which come mainly from China and the far east. There has been an early warning system in place in the European Union since 2011. There was also a G8 agreement on how we should go forward and a proposed set of EU regulations, which the UK coalition Government opted out of, believing that the controls were inadequate.
The new blanket ban is described by Professor Nutt as a policy based on
“second-hand reporting of flawed data”
and
“very worrying”.
He believes that the number of deaths from NPS in 2012, which was claimed to be 97, was actually
“Less than ten. Maybe none.”
Many people are critical of the blanket ban on NPS in Ireland, of which there has been no formal evaluation.
Could you draw to a close, please?
A surprising number of young people use these substances. The most recent survey conducted in Europe showed that 8 per cent of young people are using them, and they will continue to experiment whether or not we try to prevent them. I suggest that we look closely at what is happening in New Zealand, where a very interesting approach is being taken. They propose to license what will become legal highs, and the producers will have to determine that the products are safe.
You must close, please.
In the extended time that the previous Presiding Officer allowed me, I will finish on this point.
The current UK Government bill has merit, but it will need to be evaluated and the data will have to be collected carefully. Frankly, criminalising the things that we are trying to criminalise has tended to drive them into the hands of the criminal fraternity. In America, more states are now removing their ban on cannabis, and we should watch that experiment with great interest. There is a taxable, quality-assured market for it. It is not harm free, but it is likely to be a lot less harmful than it has been.
15:47
I will be pleasantly surprised if the debate commands many column inches in our newspapers tomorrow. The consensual nature of the afternoon, both in members’ speeches and in the highlighting of interagency and intergovernmental co-operation, is not the stuff to stir the interest of newspapers, but the subject is hugely important, as the cross-party commitment to working together to respond to the challenges that are posed by NPS indicates.
The briefing that members of the ministerial cross-party working group on NPS received a few weeks ago from an accident and emergency consultant laid bare for us all the nature of the impact of NPS on users and the health service in both the immediate and—regarding mental health—longer terms. I do not mind admitting, as the minister did, that I was stunned by some of what we heard. We heard about the physical challenges that are being faced by A and E staff as they attempt to restrain patients who are in a state of excited delirium in order to administer treatment to them; the fact that traditional drug-testing methods often produce negative results, leaving staff guessing what patients may have consumed; the fact that a sixth of a teaspoon of synthetic cannabinoid can put an adult in a coma for 23 hours; the fact that 2 micrograms of a particular NPS would put someone over the drink-drive limit; and the fact that the toxicity of one NPS is such that it dissolves skin tissue. There is, of course, also emerging evidence that there are profound effects on mental health.
It is important that we put all that in context. The misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs continues to impose a greater burden on our NHS and exacts a far greater toll on the population. Nevertheless, NPS are a growing problem, as is evidenced by the fact that between 2012 and 2013 the number of drug-related deaths in which NPS were present rose by 150 per cent and the number in which NPS were implicated doubled. The problem demands a wide-ranging, considered and appropriate response, which is what I believe we are seeing.
The UK Government’s Psychoactive Substances Bill is a welcome contribution to tackling NPS, although there are issues to be explored around it. The joint response to the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry on the bill from Police Scotland, Trading Standards Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlights that. However, the bill has the potential to represent a significant step forward and we should acknowledge it as such. The Scottish Government’s investment in developing an appropriate forensic response to the spread of NPS is a similarly positive development. The purchase of a nuclear magnetic resonance scanner to fill the scientific void that not even mass spectrometers can fill, and the recruitment of specialist staff to deliver the comparator evidence that is presently lacking, are important.
The Government’s recently issued trading standards guidance, which is based on best practice examples—some of which are drawn from the area of the country that I represent, as the minister noted—will help to direct enforcement, particularly as regards so-called head shops, until the new bill is enacted.
Education is going to be critical. We are told that, in a survey that was conducted in 2012-13, 4 per cent of 15-year-olds admitted to using NPS at least once. I suspect that the actual figure is almost certainly higher. The know the score and choices for life programmes are useful vehicles for reaching out to young people, but we need to be sure that we are reaching every group in that age range, including young carers, who can find themselves under enormous pressures. Therefore, I welcome the minister’s dialogue with the Scottish Youth Parliament on the issue, and I look forward to hearing about the outcome of the work that they will take forward.
In addition, of course, we have evidence emerging of increased use among older age groups, including—amazingly—the over-65s, and not just in the most vulnerable sectors of society. Therefore, tailored messaging on the harms of NPS will have to be shaped for everyone.
There remain gaps in our knowledge around NPS—for example, on the full extent of online purchasing, on what is motivating the spread of usage, and on the scale and nature of acute and long-term health harms. We need to anticipate potential unwelcome consequences of actions that have already been taken or that are going to be taken. I have previously voiced concern in the chamber about the possibility that bans simply drive supply underground or, more accurately, on to the internet. The minister echoed that concern, and it was noted in the response to the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry on the bill, which I mentioned earlier.
In Ireland, head shops and supply through Irish domain names have been banned, but it has not been possible to control internet activity from elsewhere. Will adopting the same approach in the UK mean that we, too, might face the same difficulty? That is not to say that we should not do so—far from it. I just note that concern.
Another area in which I seek reassurance is rapid information sharing across the NHS. It is not just routine data that needs to be accessible; we also need early access to information on new and emerging trends and on best practice in responding to the fairly testing scenarios that our A and E departments are confronted with weekly. Collaboration will be everything as we seek to respond to NPS.
I therefore very much welcome the tone and the content of the consultation document that was launched earlier this month, especially section 4, which refers to the functions of the planned forensic centre for excellence. Given the scale and the nature of the challenge that NPS presents, we must avoid reinventing the wheel. NPS does not recognise national or international boundaries, and nor must the response to it, so I was pleased to see the proposal to link to other data-sharing systems, including the UK forensic early-warning system and the Welsh emerging drugs and identification of novel substances project.
There is no room for complacency, but as other members have done, I commend the work—which is supported across the chamber—that is being done here in Scotland and at Westminster to counter the menace of NPS.
15:52
The burgeoning use of NPS coupled with a growing understanding of their dangers has led to a greater focus on how to control these substances. The UK Government’s expert panel review, which was set in train by the former Minister of State for Crime Prevention, my fellow Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, highlighted that
“after years of stable and declining drug use, the emergence of NPS has been a game changer.”
That review gave us a wealth of information, which has since been augmented by the Scottish Government’s later and more focused expert review of the current legal framework that is available to Scottish public authorities to govern the sale and supply of NPS in Scotland. That group had a deliberate and specific legal focus, but it also considered operational and practical aspects in the context of the existing legal framework.
Following those two reports, there has been a lot of useful activity. The UK Government has introduced a bill that will apply across all the jurisdictions of the UK. Local authorities and trading standards officers have worked with police to tackle so-called head shops, although it is worth remembering that it is not only head shops but, in some cases, corner shops and ice cream vans that are dealing in this lucrative but damaging trade.
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs has set up a ministerial cross-party working group to ensure that we all understand the scale of the problem in Scotland. I commend the minister for his inclusive approach and I agree that by sharing information and intelligence in that way we should be better able to act collectively. I have found attendance at that group to be hugely beneficial, and I assure the minister of my support for that way of working.
I want to raise some concerns about the approach that is being taken in the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which proposes a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances with the exception of exempted items such as caffeine and alcohol. In July, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs raised a number of concerns about the bill as it is drafted, including the omission of the word “novel”, which has widened the scope of the bill beyond what was originally intended. The ACMD is concerned that the pyschoactivity of a substance cannot be unequivocally proven, that an impossible list of exemptions will be needed and that the bill, unhelpfully, uncouples the concept of harm from control of supply, importation and production. Those shortcomings risk derailing or delegitimising the bill.
However, since then, the ACMD has reviewed the definition in the Psychoactive Substances Bill and has proposed to the Home Secretary a revision that reads as follows:
“Psychoactive substances which are not prohibited by the United Nations Drug Conventions of 1961 and 1971, or by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by substances listed in these conventions.”
That seems to me to be a much more sensible and measured approach, which could attract support.
No doubt the bill will, whatever shape it takes as it progresses, herald the end of head shops, but given the extent and reach of internet sales, it will not solve the problem. Indeed, research shows that disrupting the supply market often leads to displacement of that market, which is why education is as important as enforcement.
NPS are game changers in many ways, not least in the impact that their use is having in the public health arena. Some of the key harms that are associated with NPS use are overdose, temporary psychotic states and unpredictable behaviours; attendance at accident and emergency units; sudden increase in body temperature and heart rate; coma and risk to internal organs, sometimes with catastrophic or lethal results; hallucination; confusion leading to aggression and violence; and many longer-term issues relating to mental health issues, which are just beginning to become apparent, such as psychosis, paranoia and anxiety.
Education must target all users. As we have heard this afternoon, there is often a focus on young people. However, as Graeme Dey said, there are many different user groups. It is also crucial that education on NPS and their effects is not just targeted at potential users of those drug variants, but extends to health professionals and other public sector workers including police, prison staff and teachers. Better understanding of the manifestations of NPS poisoning could be a lifesaver. Also, understanding that acute behavioural disturbance could be the sign of a medical emergency rather than of a mental health issue will mean more effective early intervention, and will perhaps prevent cardiac arrest or acute temperature spikes.
Understanding that the aggression that is manifested when a person is under the influence of some NPS is unlikely to respond to normal restraint methods is likely to save emergency workers from harm. Understanding of the mental health impacts will affect the shaping of psychiatric services and addiction services for the future.
I support the motion and trust that the consensual nature of the debate will mean that we can continue to make progress in minimising the risks of NPS.
15:58
In March this year, a young Gorebridge man, David Lewis, died after injecting a psychoactive substance called “Burst”. It took him seven weeks to die; after many operations, septicaemia took his life.
Following that, one of my local papers, the Midlothian Advertiser, launched a campaign to ban NPS. I joined that campaign and, in the same month, through a third party, purchased a so-called “legal high” from a shop that sells e-cigarettes in Dalkeith. That third party was a reformed drug addict who agreed to masquerade as a purchaser because he, too, is concerned at how easily such purchases can be made. The shopkeeper produced a small packet containing a white sparkly powder from under the counter for—I think—£10. The packet had printed on it “Not for human consumption” and another somewhat glamorous name. The shopkeeper would have recognised that third party and his addictive past. The actions of that shopkeeper, the subterfuge and the method and conduct of the sale leads me to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the shopkeeper knew—notwithstanding the printed warning on the packet—that the purchase was for human consumption and was dangerous.
Although I will support legislative moves here and elsewhere across these isles, I wonder why the police and Crown Office have not made use of common law. Alison McInnes referred to the difficulties of definition in the UK legislation, which I think will persist.
I plead in my argument the precedent of prosecutions—successful ones, at that—in relation to glue sniffing. I quote the case of Khaliq and Anor v HM Advocate at the High Court of Justiciary on appeal in 1983. Two shopkeepers in Glasgow were arrested and charged inter alia with supplying to children glue-sniffing kits consisting of a quantity of petroleum-based glue in a plastic bag. They gave notice of objection to the indictment when it was served on them, averring that, on the charge of supplying, the facts as libelled did not disclose a crime known to Scots law because there was nothing illegal about the items that they had supplied. Their plea was repelled at a preliminary diet and they appealed.
On appeal, the High Court took the view that, even though Evo-Stik glue and plastic bags might be perfectly legal everyday items, the two shopkeepers knew perfectly well what the children were going to use the articles for, and that the charge on the indictment should stand. The court refused to accept that there was any distinction between supply with knowledge of likely abuse and actual administration of a dangerous substance to a child. Lord Justice General Emslie said:
“There is ample authority for the view that the wilful and reckless administration of a dangerous substance to another causing injury or death is a crime at common law in Scotland.”
It seems to me that the supply of materials for ingestion or injection for purposes of a high that are known to, or are likely to, cause injury or death fits the same bill as the successful glue-sniffing prosecutions. I do not understand why, to the best of my knowledge, there have not been any prosecutions.
Annabel Goldie raised that issue in question S4O-04048 and I raised it in question S4W-25001, which was answered on 1 April 2015 thus:
“COPFS issued guidance to Police Scotland in August 2014 prior to their national day of action on 22 August 2014 under Operation Redwall. The guidance specifically covered the use of the offence of culpable and reckless conduct and the type of evidence that would be required.”
It goes on to say that the review group
“considered the use of the common law offence of culpable and reckless conduct and looked at the case of Khaliq v HMA. They concluded that the offence of culpable and reckless conduct could be relevant to the sale and supply of NPS in certain circumstances.”—[Written Answers, 1 April 2015; S4W-25001.]
I do not understand why common law has not been tried and used. That would render redundant the need for a definition, which I think will always be tricky because there are all kinds of exemptions under the bill at the House of Lords. It may be that the blockage, which is referred to on page 36 of the report of the review group, is the route that is being taken, which seems to me to come under unfair commercial practices and, in particular, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, whereby the seller has to be engaging in misleading actions and/or misleading omissions. The purchasers know what they are doing. They know that what they are buying in many cases is dangerous, so that approach does not fit the bill.
However, I do not see why that is the only route that is being considered for prosecutions. The great thing about Scots common law is that it finds a way of filling gaps in the law. It is often much more flexible and less heavy handed than statutes, which can be terribly clumsy because it is so hard to define every circumstance in which they can be effective and which someone cannot rebut or defend at court.
I go back to David Lewis, the chap who regrettably and terribly died from injecting one of these substances. His father said of the shopkeepers that
“These people know what they are doing.”
Indeed they do; it is reckless and wilful conduct. I would like the minister to tell me, as nobody has so far, why on earth the Lord Advocate and the police have not taken the common-law route, as they did so successfully with glue sniffing in the 1980s.
16:04
I will focus on local co-ordination and harm reduction. The challenges that are caused by NPS in Edinburgh are particularly distinct. At the heart of action to reduce the strain and harm that are caused to individuals and the wider community has been co-ordination on a local basis. If we want to tackle NPS use effectively and prevent harm, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. To tackle the specific problems in each city and town, efforts must be local but supported by responsive national agencies and legislation.
The intravenous use of one substance, ethylphenidate, which members have mentioned, has been the focus of difficulties in Edinburgh. It is cheap and is considered to be purer and of better quality than street drugs. Harm reduction services report that it is frequently used in combination with street drugs. Because it gives an intense short-lived high, users reinject frequently, which has created a surge in problems for users and local communities.
In the period from April 2014 to March 2015, the Edinburgh alcohol and drug partnership recorded needle distribution growing virtually month on month. NHS Lothian found increases in infections caused by needle use, including streptococcus, while communities, the police and our council found a wider impact. Frequent use results in users exhibiting erratic and sometimes antisocial behaviour. Residents in the south side, Tollcross and the city centre were distressed to come across people with a frequent need to reinject using their stairs and leaving behind drug-related items. We also had queues outside head shops early in the morning.
Since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2015 banned ethylphenidate, giving police the power to patrol high street head shops and to seize and destroy any substance, there has been a marked change in Edinburgh. The incidences of infection and injecting are down and support services have been able to make progress in the way in which they respond and reduce harm. At the heart of dealing with localised NPS use is the need to ensure that the council, the police, the NHS and charities such as Comas are enabled to work together.
Support services in Edinburgh are pioneering ways in which to respond to this emerged problem by reducing usage, managing cravings and preventing relapse. Mental health and emotional support services are crucial to complement that and to support people. However, we still need more capacity building and training among staff to ensure that services are co-ordinated with the NHS, police and the council. We need a clear picture of local trends. It is crucial for accident and emergency departments to treat admissions, and to build up a bigger picture. Much-needed data gathering initiatives are under way in Edinburgh. NHS Lothian has conducted focus groups and, next month, the needle exchange surveillance initiative will gather further information on users’ habits.
In tackling the local supply, trading standards officers have worked constructively with the police and retailers for whom NPS is not their traditional or main line of business. Those efforts need to be resourced. In Edinburgh, the use of existing safety regulations is being investigated. I call on the minister to commit resources to ensure that those options can be fully explored and acted on. For example, landlords, including the council, have a responsibility to ensure that commercial tenants comply with the temporary legislation and operate in an ethical manner. Again, support from the minister could help to reinforce that.
Recommendations to provide a new definition of NPS and a framework for testing will further support detection and identification and are welcome. However, the national framework must not downplay the importance of local progress and or deprioritise work that is done by local agencies. Caledonia Youth and Crew 2000 had a good track record of passing on samples of legal highs to police forensic services but, with forensic services centralising under Police Scotland, that relationship and the local integration have been lost.
Edinburgh’s experience with intravenous drug use in the 1980s was absolutely harrowing and affected a generation. We had the AIDS (Control) Act 1987, which was pioneered by Gavin Strang MP and which enabled local authorities to track the infection, provide details of infection rates and provide information on the treatment provided. That helped us to control the disease. Since those dark days of the 1980s, Edinburgh has worked hard to support those who misuse substances and to prevent harm to individuals and the wider community.
The local co-ordination of treatment, rehabilitation and public education is key to minimising harm reduction. In Wales, the WEDINOS—Welsh emerging drugs and identification of novel substances—project has shown that the NHS and justice systems can integrate well to cascade harm reduction guidance to local support services. The project was originally an informal mechanism to profile and map harm from samples of unknown and unidentified drugs analysed by Cardiff toxicology laboratories; it pioneered the use of a focused forensic operation to prevent harm.
We need to ensure through national action that resource and discretion are responsive to local demands, and we need to foster co-ordination in communities across Scotland. Local knowledge and co-ordination in our city have been crucial in achieving effective harm reduction.
Scottish Labour’s amendment calls for a co-ordinated plan of action to reduce the damage that is caused by NPS. Graeme Pearson referred to the need for more effective licensing and education, which are at the heart of the way forward.
Richard Simpson spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that people of all ages, and young people in particular, are given information about the real danger that NPS can pose. We need to ensure that accurate and thought-provoking information that young people can relate to and—crucially—trust is available in our schools, colleges and universities and through social media.
NPS is a huge challenge. We need a co-ordinated response that is delivered nationally and locally, and the agencies must be capable of delivering the resource.
16:11
The debate has been interesting—it is not the first debate that we have had on the subject and, as I think we all agreed last time round, the issue is not an easy one. If there were a simple answer, we would have come up with it by now, but we know that there is not one.
Before I turn to what we know, I suggest that we might reflect—as Sarah Boyack just did—on previous public health issues. AIDS was one such issue, and we have been dealing with the issue of drugs for generations. We must recognise that, while we can do something to help if we organise and co-ordinate, the problem does not go away. We must acknowledge that we will never finish up where we really want to be, but we will—we hope—be in a better situation than the one that we have identified at present.
I will start locally by looking at the communities that I serve, reflecting on what has worked. A petition was put together very quickly earlier in the year by folk in Forfar who heard that a head shop was going to open. They realised that they did not want a head shop, and the petition got more than 3,000 signatures—in Forfar, that represents about 40 per cent of the adult population—within weeks. Effectively, with help from the council and the police—and even, dare I say it, from some politicians—the petitioners managed to persuade those who were thinking of opening the head shop that it would not be welcome and they should not do so, and so they did not open it in the end.
I pay tribute to Adele Douglas-Spiers, Bobbie Murray and Nikki Leathley for bringing forward the petition, which I submitted to the minister, and for having an enormously valuable effect on their community. I can say simply from that one experience that communities can, where they get organised, make a point to those who might otherwise be bringing such substances on to the street.
Less than 20 miles away in Montrose, however, a head shop is still plying its trade. It is no more welcome there, but it is established and has not gone away. I pay tribute to the police and other local bodies who have done their best to make life difficult for that shop, but it is still there.
Only yesterday I spoke to a headteacher from one of my local high schools, and he reflected on his experience in two schools. One of the schools was in an area where there was a head shop, and the other had no head shop nearby. He was clear that, as far as the schoolchildren were concerned, the situation was like chalk and cheese precisely because of the local accessibility to NPS through a shop.
That is entirely consistent with what we have seen in reports, which suggest that folk tend to get started when they can physically get their hands on their first sample from somebody or some place that is local to them. The second, third and fourth use might involve drugs that come from the internet, but there is evidence to show that people start with something that they can get locally. If they cannot get it locally, it is far less likely that they will ever start.
The UK statute will not be a panacea. I am grateful to Richard Simpson for his comments. He gave some extraordinarily useful input and I thank him. The statute will have precisely the same effect as what happened in Ireland; open sales on the high street will disappear, but internet activity will not. Presumably sales from the boot of a car down a lane at the dead of night will not stop either. The criminal world will always find a way of doing what it wants to do.
The sad part of the problem is that the criminal world is fuelled by the money that it wants to make, which brings us back to the old issue that, if something is illegal there is money in it and the criminals will actually do it. If it was not illegal, there would be no money in it and it would be easier to control. That is the general trend in all these discussions.
The UK statute will come in in April, which seems to be some distance away but is a relatively short period of time. Those who have stock will want to get rid of it, so we might see some unwelcome marketing activity during the next six months. We might want to find a way of being prepared for that, because we can see it coming.
The point has been made, properly, that people will get information about these new substances online or through social media, and that that information might or might not be good. There are sites that tell us something fairly reasonable about some of the older, more established drugs but I am a bit concerned that people will get bad information or that they will attribute an unreasonable degree of accuracy to the information that they find. I have no idea how to get the right information across, but everybody has spoken about education. Somehow, we have to get the people who are looking at NPS to realise that we do not know much about them and that the information that they think they are getting is probably guesswork.
That is one of the reasons why NPS are dangerous—we really do not know very much about them. If people finish up in accident and emergency, it is unlikely that anyone there will know much about NPS, even if they can analyse the drug, which they might not be able to do.
Kevin Stewart’s comments about the words that we use were entirely appropriate, coming after a speech in which one member used the term “legal high” almost throughout. It is a fact that the word “legal” implies that something is safe. It might not mean that to us—we know better—but it tends to suggest to folk who are looking at something that is described as legal that it is okay. We really must stop using any term that implies that NPS might be okay, because they are extraordinarily dangerous. I gently suggest that the press needs to understand that. It is irresponsible to suggest that something that is manifestly dangerous should be described as legal. That is just not the way to help our society and I would like the media to stop it, please.
If NPS are no longer visible on our high streets in a year’s time, I return to where I started. What will we do next? Will we say, “That’s okay then—they’ve gone away”? They will not have gone away and we know that. I am not sure that I have the answer. We will be in the same place that we are with controlled drugs, so what will our longer-term strategy be? We need to ask that question very soon because the longer term is not far away.
I commend everything that the Government is doing. The UK statute is a step in the right direction, because it will be a welcome break point in current activity. However, we need to recognise that the future will not be sorted out by that kind of statute. It will be sorted out only by some serious education and a resultant understanding that these things should not be meddled with because we do so at our peril. I encourage the Government to work with everybody who will get that message across.
16:19
I have very much enjoyed the debate and I thank the minister for bringing it to the chamber and for opening it. I wonder what the purpose of the debate is. Is it to highlight to the public a problem that they are aware of? Is it to talk up a problem? Is it to address concerns that are widely held? Is it to contribute to harm reduction?
The motion talks about progress, which of course we all welcome, as it is important. Like a number of colleagues, I am pleased to be part of the ministerial cross-party group that is looking at NPS. No harm ever comes from discussing things and I think that we have had a lot of informed discussion thus far.
The motion talks about
“engagement with the sector on information sharing”.
I am grateful to the minister for taking my intervention on education, which is key to this. I do not want to give the impression that my view that there is an overemphasis on enforcement is the result of anything other than my understanding of how we will best get over the message that people need to make informed decisions. For instance, the motion talks about the “serious impact” of the substances. Is it a serious impact? Serious compared with what? There are other comparators, and alcohol is the most obvious one. We have heard about tragic events in A and E, but those events were relatively rare, whereas we know that the use of alcohol and the mayhem that that creates in the streets of our towns and villages, in dwelling houses and in A and E have been an on-going problem.
Like others, I very much enjoyed Dr Richard Simpson’s speech, which was very informed. He talked about human nature and what it causes us to do. He talked about new approaches and about the role of social media. Importantly, he said that people will continue to use. That is the reality.
At the risk of offending my former colleague in another sphere, Mr Pearson, we could argue that drug enforcement has not led to a positive outcome in terms of cost benefit analysis. If the idea was that all that effort would reduce the availability of drugs, that has not been the case. Of course, this is outwith the realm—in some respects—of the enforcement that has taken place.
I cannot let that remark go unchallenged. My colleague should consider that, in other realms of drug abuse, the so-called tenner bag that is recognised across Scotland had at one time a purity level of more than 40 per cent and now is lucky if it can achieve 10 per cent purity levels, because the supply of drugs into the country has been choked.
It is not simply a matter of enforcement; it is the proper use of all the tactics that are available to us that gives the opportunity for communities to respond better than might otherwise be the case. I am grateful to my colleague for allowing me the time to say that.
Mr Pearson makes an important point, which is that enforcement has a role as part of the whole. I would like the emphasis to be on education.
The Scottish Drugs Forum welcomed the Home Office review and said:
“One of the key issues limiting a Scottish response to NPS is the unknown prevalence of such substances, with much of the data coming from anecdotal information.”
That largely remains the case. As we heard from the expert from A and E, a considerable amount of guesswork goes on.
I will quote something else that the SDF said about the review. Its director, David Liddell, said:
“It is crucial that the review does not solely focus on supply, but also looks at why people are using these new substances and the impact they have on individuals.”
It is important that we do that.
We know that the review considered the internet and of course the internet is there. It can be beneficial, although many people talk it down, but it provides many of the challenges that we have.
The Queen’s speech talked about the new bill creating an offence in regard to
“any substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect.”
We have had a lot of discussion about that, because that may sound definitive, but it is far from clear.
I commend one aspect of the bill, which is its inclusion of provisions for civil sanctions such as prohibition notices and premises notices, two breaches of which will be a criminal offence. Their aim is to enable the police and local authorities to adopt a graded response to supply. It is important that a proportionate response is taken.
In the minister’s letter of June this year, he said that NPS
“are therefore potentially every bit as dangerous as illicit drugs”—
no one would argue with that—
“and have been implicated in a small, but growing number of deaths.”
We heard from Mr Pearson about polydrug use. We should look at the statistics, because I do not want people to blow things completely out of proportion. Alcohol is present in the vast majority of drug-related deaths.
The minister talked about Crew 2000, which has been on the go since 1992 and was formed in response to the rapid expansion of recreational drug use.
Kevin Stewart talked about language, which is important. I understand the frustration at the use of the term “legal highs”. We have in the chamber discussed a similarly sensitive matter: female genital mutilation. The connection is that, to a lot of people, including the victims, the term “female genital mutilation” means nothing. It is right that we should not infer that “legal” means “safe”—I do not infer that anyway; it is legal to climb mountains, but it is not always safe to do so. However, it is important that we communicate with people at the level that they understand. The minister talked about peers, and I say with the greatest respect to my colleagues that people will listen not to us but to the Scottish Youth Parliament and the fine folk at the Scottish Drugs Forum and Crew 2000.
Crew 2000 says that it is underresourced and underfunded, as we have heard from Sarah Boyack and others. It also says:
“Better education is essential so citizens are well informed and can assess risk. The information provided by Government has been minimal, leaving those who take NPS to guess for themselves.”
I have seen that phrase elsewhere. If we are going to say, “Don’t do it,” maybe we need to say why people should not do it.
Crew 2000 says:
“The least harmful substances, such as nitrous oxide, should be exempt.”
I did not know what nitrous oxide was; apparently, it is laughing gas. Proportionality is needed. If the bill is passed, we need to look at what its aftereffects will be.
Crew 2000 recommends something that I have not seen recommended elsewhere, which is
“a UK wide NPS amnesty”.
That would reduce the possibility of redistribution.
The consequences of a ban are not as straightforward as we might imagine. People who return to opiates from non-opiate NPS will have a reduced tolerance and therefore an increased overdose risk. Mental health problems may be exacerbated when people choose to self-medicate. Again, we will drive people who wish to continue using drugs back to dealing with people who are, after all, criminals.
I commend Sarah Boyack’s comments on the use of local initiatives, which are important.
We must deal with facts. We must deal with the internet and we must work collaboratively to reduce harm and bring about informed decision making.
16:28
I welcome the opportunity to speak. As members will be aware, new psychoactive substances are harmful, both psychologically and physically, and present problems that range from kidney failure to psychosis. NPS were implicated in 132 deaths in Scotland from 2009 to 2013.
I heard what John Finnie said about the term “legal high”, but I am with the minister. The term is best avoided, because in my view it certainly implies that the associated substances are safe. However, we know that they are not safe.
NPS are widely accessible. They can be purchased online or at head shops. As Graeme Pearson said, there are 650 head shops in Europe. They are institutions that show no sign of disappearing from our high streets. As we have heard, there is no law preventing the sale of the goods, which are often labelled and sold as plant food or bath salts, or marked as not fit for human consumption. In addition, NPS are readily available in convenience stores and at music festivals across Scotland and the UK. Nevertheless, we must avoid treating all head shops and music festivals as places that necessarily harbour criminal activity. We need to approach matters on an evidence basis.
Concern in our communities is real. The Courier today reports on a Perth pensioner’s concerns about two local shops and what she perceives as a lack of interest in doing anything about the problem. As members will be aware, NPS are risky and have unpredictable side effects, with many people ending up in hospital.
It is impossible for someone to tell what is in many of the drugs before consumption. In 2013, NPS were stated to be the drugs implicated in five deaths in Scotland but, when mixed with other drugs and alcohol, NPS can be even more fatal. There were 60 deaths in 2013 in which NPS were implicated at least to some extent.
There has been growth in the demand for and supply of NPS. Countries have responded to that trend in three main ways. The first is enforcement. A variety of measures can be used to place NPS under legal control. Those measures include using the European early warning system to identify NPS and place them under control. They also include adding substances to the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
In the UK, the British Government can use the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to control substances by issuing a temporary class drug order for up to 12 months. It can then investigate and recommend a classification if there is sufficient evidence to do so. However, a clear problem with that is that drug manufacturers have exploited legal loopholes in control legislation.
The second approach is education, to which Mr Finnie referred. Evidence shows that young people are the most likely to experiment with NPS. In Europe, an estimated 5 per cent of people aged 15 to 25 have done so. In 2012-13, it was estimated that 2.1 per cent of people in Scotland aged between 16 and 24 had used NPS. Therefore, it is crucial that we focus on educating our young people about the health risks that are associated with the substances.
In Scotland, we must continue to support the choices for life initiative and websites such as know the score, to which Graeme Dey referred. Education must underpin any future legislation on NPS and, indeed, NPS policy.
A third approach that some countries have taken is treatment. However, there is very limited information on what constitutes appropriate psychosocial treatment.
The number of new drugs that are available on the market is constantly changing and growing, with more than 300 NPS identified in Europe in 2013. We must seriously consider what we are dealing with and how to approach it, because there is simply no silver-bullet solution.
As members are aware, the UK Government introduced the Psychoactive Substances Bill in the Westminster Parliament in May. As the minister mentioned, the maximum sentence under that bill for people who produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import or export psychoactive substances will be seven years’ imprisonment. According to the bill, a psychoactive substance is any substance intended for human consumption that
“is capable of producing a psychoactive effect”.
However, there are concerns about the bill, as Alison McInnes mentioned.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has raised concerns about the use of the term “psychoactive substances” in the bill, as it believes that it will have a disproportionately broad scope. Furthermore, the ACMD deemed the bill’s impact assessment to be inappropriate. The assessment was of the impact of new psychoactive substances rather than all psychoactive substances, as laid out in the bill. That makes it problematic to list all possible desirable exemptions under the bill.
Psychoactivity cannot be defined through a biochemical test, so there are clear legal difficulties in proving it in a court of law. The only definitive way of determining psychoactivity is via human experience, which is usually not documented. The UK Government needs to continue to work with the ACMD and others to formulate advice on how to predict that a substance is likely to be psychoactive.
Christine Grahame referred to the use of the common law in Scotland. As a member of the Faculty of Advocates, I commend that—I refer to my entry in the register of interests in that respect. The expert review group’s report referred to the fact that the common law could be used to control NPS, but it also referred to three main areas in which it poses problems. The group said that, to succeed in a prosecution
“for culpable and reckless conduct, evidence must be presented to show that the seller knew, or was reckless as to the fact, that the product was being purchased for human consumption.”
We are well aware of attempts being made to label products as unfit for consumption.
Another issue is that harm, or potential harm, to health requires to be proved. That will require analysis of the substance and expert evidence to establish its harmful effects.
Another matter that the report refers to is that
“it should be noted that the person prosecuted … is likely to be the shop assistant who carries out the sale”
rather than the person who takes the key decisions further up the chain of supply.
I know that, in one case, the shopkeeper was well aware that they were selling an NPS, which was kept under the counter in a small packet and handed over to the customer in a certain way. The whole process was one of subterfuge, and the shopkeeper knew that a so-called reformed drug user was buying the NPS—the shopkeeper was well aware of what was happening. Does the member agree that it is time that the Lord Advocate tried a case on that basis?
I welcome that intervention. There are circumstances in which the common law can be used, but I was highlighting that there are circumstances in which its use would be more problematic—I suggest to the member that it is a question of a bit of both.
I welcome the expert review group’s recommendation that a definition of new psychoactive substances should be developed, because it is clear that we need to ensure consistency across all areas, including research, academia, the national health service and government. Common understanding is paramount. I agree with the expert review group that consideration should be given to whether a definition should be based on the chemical compound group of NPS or on their effect, because we must be on the same page on that. I welcome the Scottish Government’s work to engage on information sharing and developing a common definition.
The Scottish Government has worked hard on producing NPS guidance for trading standards staff, who were referred to earlier, and that guidance was published a couple of weeks ago. That guidance will help, because it is crucial that people are working from the same page. We have heard of the lack of recording by Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service of NPS use, so I would like us to get to the point where such information is recorded. We also need a joined-up national approach with local authorities. Entertainment licences provide one obvious step that could be taken, and COSLA has a key role to play in that.
I congratulate the expert review group on the work that it has done.
16:36
I rise to support the motion in the name of the minister, Paul Wheelhouse, and to commend the way in which in his ministerial responsibilities he has taken this matter forward. It is essential that we acknowledge that, as the acronym NPS indicates, we are dealing with something new that we have much to learn about.
As a father and grandfather, it breaks my heart to watch each generation that comes along find its particular mind-influencing substance of choice and to see so many young people choose to infuse that substance into their bodies. We do so much in this Parliament in other areas to reduce the effects of such substances, whether it is alcohol, tobacco or other things that have come along over the years. We see success in some statistics as we begin to win the battle, but then something else appears.
We have seen attempts over the years to bring forward new substances, and we have regulated them. However, the onslaught of the various new substances that we face at the moment is creating a level of difficulty that I do not believe we have seen before. However, the statistics show that the number of people involved in taking NPS and damaging themselves—or, on a few occasions, being killed by them—is still small, so we still have a chance to work towards success in dealing with the problem. I believe that the way in which the Government is tackling the issue and has taken to heart the NPS expert review group’s report and attempted to implement its recommendations is a good way forward.
We must work on the issue at every level. All over Scotland people are doing what they can in their own communities to highlight the problems that NPS cause. For example, I was called to a meeting with people in Arbroath just under two years ago at the award-winning Arbroath CAFE project, which has done a great deal of good work with young people in that town, because a so-called head shop had opened right across the road from the project. Of course, parents were outraged by that.
I would like to commend the action that was taken by parents, particularly my good friend Derek Wann, who was instrumental in bringing that group together, for the work that they did. I also have to commend the action of local police officers who had the courage to do what few have done in other places—to raid the shop and effectively close it down. That kind of action will do a great deal of good where it can be taken but, as we have seen and heard during the course of the discussion today, it does not always happen.
A lot of work is being done within Scotland’s local authorities. Problems that arose in Aberdeen were highlighted at Aberdeen City Council by my colleague Councillor Ross Thomson, who has worked closely with me in my parliamentary role to highlight the problem as it exists in the north-east. Without the work of local individuals and active councillors in individual council areas, we would not have the level of understanding that we have today, limited though it is.
Among the issues that have been highlighted in this debate are some that we have heard before. The use of the term “legal highs” is something that we should discourage, because the simple fact that a substance is not illegal does not make it in any way harmless. We see exactly the opposite to be the case.
We have to improve data sharing to ensure that everybody has the information that they need, whether it is related to policing or to dealing with the health implications of the drugs that are on the market. At the last meeting of the ministerial cross-party working group, it was a real eye-opener, if you will excuse the expression, to hear clinicians who had experience of dealing with cases in accident and emergency units explain how difficult it is to understand the problems that they are facing. They were also able to highlight the problems that are being experienced by police officers who have to deal with people who are influenced by the substances and who find that the traditional way of dealing with people who have abused alcohol or a more traditional drug is simply not the way to treat people on some of these substances.
The inability to understand and translate the needs of those who have used the substances, and to deal with those people in a practical sense, is one reason why information and education are crucial throughout the process of dealing with the problem. Education is needed for those who are likely to use the substances and for those who will fall into using them without understanding the damage that they can do. Education is also needed for those who will be confronted in a professional capacity by someone who is influenced by a substance that we have little or no information about.
There was one disagreement during the course of this debate, which was highlighted by the positions taken by Richard Simpson and Christine Grahame. The views are not wildly different, but they expose two alternative approaches: the regulation approach, put forward by Richard Simpson—the light-touch approach, perhaps—contrasted with Christine Grahame’s view that we should take a more heavy-handed approach.
I find it very hard to accept that we should not be prioritising the removal of the substances from our streets, but I also understand that, even if they are removed from our streets, we will not have removed them from the hands of the young people who are using them. That is why it is important that we also recognise, as has been said during the debate, that the countries where the raw materials come from and the substances are manufactured—China and India—also need to be involved at some level in what we do.
I commend the work of the minister Paul Wheelhouse and the way that he has handled the issue both in this Parliament and through dealing with the passage of legislation at Westminster. I think that we are doing this the right way. Let us continue to work together toward our joint aims.
16:44
This has been an interesting debate, albeit one that was scheduled at short notice due to the withdrawal of the Inquiries into Death (Scotland) Bill. It has been an opportunity to discuss the response to the expert review group and the work, so far, of the cross-party working group on NPS, as well as the developments at UK level since we last discussed the issue in February.
Many members stressed the importance of not using the term “legal high”, because the word “legal” can be interpreted as meaning that the substances are okay and safe to use. However, John Finnie was right to say that we need to use the language of the people involved. There is no point in using terminology that we understand if the people outside do not know what we are talking about.
The minister cited the UK Government’s Psychoactive Substances Bill and the offence that it will introduce. The bill excludes legitimate substances, such as food, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine and controlled drugs, which are, of course, already regulated. It also excludes certain persons, such as healthcare professionals, who may use NPS legitimately during their work.
The definition of psychoactive substances is still up for discussion. The Scottish Government is working with the UK Government, and it will be keeping the working group informed of progress.
It is generally considered that, although the UK bill will help to stop supply from head shops, other areas such as supply over the internet, although covered by the bill, will be much more difficult to control, as will the identification of the laboratories that produce NPS, particularly when they are in China and the far east.
Nigel Don said that he thought that stopping head shops might stop first use of NPS. However, if someone has tried it and they have friends who can get in on the internet, that will be more difficult to control. Richard Simpson made an important comparison with Ireland. Legislation was passed there some years ago, but it has not been assessed. There may no longer be head shops, but NPS use still goes on. Alison McInnes highlighted reservations about the definitions in the bill.
I found the cross-party working group meeting a couple of weeks ago—it was the one meeting that I have attended—extremely interesting. It concentrated on the medical and forensic implications of NPS. We heard from Dr Richard Stevenson, an emergency consultant at Glasgow royal infirmary, on the recent history of the discovery of various psychoactive substances. He gave a graphic account of the symptoms presented in his department and what his staff were seeing. He dispelled any illusion that many of the substances are anything other than dangerous and that, taken in the wrong dosages, they can cause serious psychological damage, psychotic behaviour, and very elevated temperature.
There are no treatments. For example, there is no equivalent of naloxone, which counteracts the effects of a heroin overdose. Naloxone goes into the receptors and kicks the heroin out of the system. At the moment, we know of nothing that can do that to NPS. The sufferer basically has to be administered a general anaesthetic while attempts are made to reduce their body temperature.
Dr Stevenson also described how people took cocktails, such as taking NPS with alcohol in the hope that they could drink more. In some cases, people were also experiencing the effects of serious alcohol consumption.
Dr Hazel Torrance of the University of Glasgow’s forensic toxicology department described some of the screening tests that are available. However, even when such tests are available for uncontrolled drugs, they are not included in the drug-related death statistics.
Barry James from Police Scotland’s forensic department described—I think that Graeme Dey referred to this—how psychoactive substances can be detected in the laboratory using mass spectrometry and, more recently, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. I was a bit concerned to learn from him that the NMR machine, which is a large and expensive piece of kit, is not being used because of a lack of trained personnel. I have also heard that, apparently, quite a backlog of specimens is awaiting analysis at the forensic department.
Many of the techniques used to determine the structure and function of the large and complex molecules are specialised. However, I was struck that there is a lot of expertise in our academic institutions not just in Scotland but across the UK and the world, because this is a global problem.
NPS act by attachment to receptors in the brain. The way in which they do so is complicated, but comparisons of the chemical structures of substances that exhibit similar effects could lead to a better understanding of which functional groups and molecular shapes can interact with the brain in that way. There will be other spectroscopic techniques that could assist, and I wonder to what extent chemist and biochemists in academic laboratories are being encouraged to undertake research on those topics.
There is a lot of expertise out there, and if we understand the functioning of NPS better not only will we be better able to detect what might be psychoactive and get a better handle on it but we might be able to create substances that work like naloxone and kick NPS out of the receptors.
It is serendipitous that the cross-party group on science and technology will have a meeting tonight at which the Medical Research Council will give a presentation on the value and impact of medical research in Scotland. The MRC is one of the major funders of scientific research in Scotland and throughout the UK, so I hope to get the opportunity to ask whether biochemical and chemical research into NPS and their functionality and detection is being done in our academic institutions. If there is no such research, the area could well be funded, which would help.
Graeme Pearson talked about trading standards, which came up at topical questions today. The problems in trading standards departments are not just in Scotland; I think that the situation is even worse in England. Trading standards departments will have to be resourced and perhaps restructured if they are to take on the additional responsibilities that we have been talking about. Is the Scottish Government aware of any financial resource that is attached to the UK Government’s bill to enable trading standards departments to carry out the additional and extremely important work? There should be such resource.
Many members talked about the need for education. Richard Simpson said that people have always sought substances that cause a high, which is true, whether we are talking about alcohol or illegal substances. We need to appreciate and understand that.
I was interested in what Margaret Mitchell and Christine Grahame said about the possibility of prosecution under existing common law on culpable and reckless conduct. There is an opportunity in that regard. Christine Grahame reminded us that 20 or 30 years ago we were worrying about glue sniffing.
There might be opportunities for further discussion in a number of fields, which might take us forward in the fight against new psychoactive substances.
16:52
I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect on this afternoon’s debate, and I have not been disappointed by the quality and collaborative nature of speeches from members across the political divide. I think that the debate has shown our Parliament in an extremely good light, in that we have approached a serious issue in a bipartisan way, with well-thought-through speeches from all members. I am grateful to the other parties for their support for the Government’s work and look forward to working with them. In particular, I thank Alex Johnstone and Alison McInnes for their very kind remarks about me.
There are perhaps few areas of public policy that bring us together in the way that NPS has done today. Members talked about the devastation that NPS can cause and the shocking effects that they can have.
Members reflected on a number of areas; I will try to do justice to them as I sum up the debate. Graeme Dey, Alex Johnstone, Elaine Murray and Alison McInnes picked up on points that have been raised in the ministerial cross-party working group on new psychoactive substances.
Members also reflected on the number of constituencies where the issue is a serious cause for concern for parents. I was struck by Margaret Mitchell’s account of what happened to young Jamie Donnelly, and Christine Grahame’s account of the case of David Lewis in her constituency. The tragic loss of young lives brings the issue into focus.
I take Sarah Boyack’s point about the need to strike a balance between national and local approaches. I will come on to talk about resourcing, which many members mentioned.
NPS are not just the drugs of choice for rebellious young people who are naturally drawn to risky behaviour, but are being used by older and more established drug users. When I visited Crew, I heard that experienced drug users are often terrified by the impact that NPS have had on them. Even when they have been used to taking illicit drugs in similar volumes, they have found NPS far stronger than they expected, with pronounced medical effects.
In responding to the issue, the challenge is its complexity. Despite politicians’ desire to find quick fixes and easy solutions, I think that we all know that in this case there is no easy solution and that even bringing NPS under legal control will not be the full answer. Elaine Murray talked about that, as did Richard Simpson. I did not agree with everything that he said, but I acknowledge the spirit in which he talked about the need to control sales on the dark net and to consider other options.
Graeme Pearson was the first member to pick up on the trend in certain locations of injecting NPS. We are worried about that, and he was right to raise the issue. He and other members referred to poly drug use, which we must take into consideration. The combination of alcohol or illicit drugs and NPS is posing risks to people, and we clearly need to make them aware of those risks through education.
Margaret Mitchell referred to dosage variability and the availability of NPS being key considerations locally and nationally. Kevin Stewart quite rightly criticised the use of the term “legal highs”. There is a difficulty in finding an alternative term that works for the young people whom we are trying to engage with, so that we can talk about the issue in terms that they understand without giving false legitimacy to the use of NPS.
Apart from raising the issue of the dark side websites, Dr Simpson also pointed out that people are effectively engaging in phase 1 trials of substances with no idea of what impact they will have on them. We have to get that message out there.
I appreciate that a wider trading standards issue was raised earlier today, although I did not hear the responses to the question. However, I point out that we have provided some funding—I appreciated that it is limited—to Trading Standards Scotland to assist with the implementation of the guidance that we launched a couple of weeks ago. We recognise the pressures on trading standards, and the funding will assist in gathering a picture in each local authority area of NPS availability and the number of head shops. The funding will also be used to help fund forensic identification, where that is necessary, to identify the substances that are being sold. It is a modest sum of in the region of £30,000, but we hope that it will help to address a specific issue.
Kevin Stewart also referred to the NPS expert review group and to the potential for using a licensing approach, similar to that in New Zealand. The expert review group concluded that there was a real risk that, having looked at the New Zealand example, licensing the sale of NPS could be seen as a way of endorsing the products and confirming their safe use—hence the approach that we have taken. However, he went on to talk about the need to do more to look at the role of education, and I confirm that education is the next theme to be discussed by the ministerial cross-party working group on NPS. I would like to take the point about guidance for schools to that meeting, to pick up on the issue that he referred to.
Graeme Dey talked about tailoring the messages to user groups and understanding the different motivations for purchasing of different groups. The research that we have commissioned will help us to understand better the nature of the demand from different groups, whether they are older users or younger users, and I hope that that will help those who are involved in the advisory scene to tailor the messages. The work that we are doing with Education Scotland can pick up on that as well.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time. However, I assure Ms Grahame that I will come on to the point that she raised.
Alison McInnes mentioned the risk of displacement, which is an important point. We have to understand that the longer-term issues are largely unknown. She was right to mention that, and her points about issues such as the manifestations of poisoning and the identification of mental health risks were also well made.
On the point that Christine Grahame raised about police and Crown use of the common law, I assure members that the police and other partners are committed to tackling NPS using the powers that are available to them, including the offence of culpable and reckless behaviour, until the new legislation comes into effect in April 2016. There are a number of cases pending with the procurator fiscal. I appreciate that there is a lot of interest in the chamber in seeing whether those cases are successful, and we must clearly trust the independence of the Lord Advocate and the Crown in taking them forward. However, I will make the Parliament’s views known to the Lord Advocate in due course.
Sarah Boyack and Richard Simpson mentioned the WEDINOS project in Wales, and I hope that members are reassured by the fact that that features in the consultation that we recently launched on how we can share information across the UK. We have also been studying the Welsh Government’s work on the WEDINOS project to see whether there are any lessons that we can learn.
Nigel Don mentioned the Forfar petition, which shows how people power is having an impact in Forfar. However, as he said, there are still head shops in the vicinity, so the problem has not been solved, although I recognise and welcome the contribution of the local community, to which Alex Johnstone and Nigel Don drew attention. They have taken the issue, grabbed it by the horns and tackled it.
John Finnie talked about education and I very much agree with him about the importance of education in the NPS debate. He referred to messages that tell people, “Don’t do it,” and spoke about the reasons why they should not do it. I will go further than that. The young people to whom I spoke on Saturday said something that could be seen as controversial. They said, “If you are going to do it, be aware of the risks.” We have to listen to the messages that will resonate with young people—we have to tailor the message to the audience. A different message may work better for an older audience, but I take John Finnie’s point on board.
Roderick Campbell referred to the importance of education and the impossibility of being able to tell the contents of these products. He is absolutely right. We have to get the message across to people that, even if they buy something in a packet that looks quasi-legitimate, it may not be safe because the variability of the product between one packet and another—even within the same brand—can be significant, meaning that the user may accidentally overdose.
I reiterate my personal thanks to members from across the chamber for their support in the debate and for the work of the ministerial cross-party group that I lead. I look forward to continuing that engagement with members from across the chamber and working with the Home Office to deliver legislation at a UK level.
Next
Decision Time