Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Elizabeth Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to disagree about the considerable harm that tobacco and alcohol can cause, but today we are talking about new psychoactive substances. I take his point, but it is important to carry on discussing what we have come here to discuss Any Member in the Chamber today who has children could face a situation in which their child was silly enough, along with some friends, to experiment with some currently legal highs. They might be fortunate enough not to be damaged physically or mentally by their experience, but they could still be convicted of a drug dealing offence just for stupidly experimenting Amendment 14 deals with the question of internet purchases. It seeks to highlight the fact that the Government are criminalising the use of drugs for personal consumption that have been purchased over the internet and that are then shipped into the UK for use by an individual. The Government suggest that they are moving forward and that they are not seeking to criminalise individuals unnecessarily. Indeed, the Bill indicates that those who purchase in other ways will not be committing a criminal offence. However, this part of the Bill will still unnecessarily criminalise people I would strongly prefer law enforcement agencies to use their time and effort to prevent the large-scale importation of psychoactive substances for distribution in the UK, rather than concerning themselves with the purchase of these substances for personal use by one individual. In a previous debate on the Bill, the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice stated: "The spirit of the Bill is that we do not want to criminalise individuals for possession, but we are going to criminalise the sale and purchase of these substances." We asked for further clarification, and he said: "I apologise: I kind of misled the House unintentionally on individual possession. I was talking about intent to supply, not intent to use. Making a purchase from a foreign website would be caught, but the purchase on its own from a website or foreign website would not, and I apologise if I misled the House on that point." My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) pressed the Minister and pointed out that clause 8 stated that a person commits an offence if "the person intentionally imports a substance," and "the person…intends to consume the psychoactive substance for its psychoactive effects" He went on to say: "It seems to me that if someone imports and possesses even a small amount of the substance over the internet he is criminalised, but if he bought it in a head shop, for example— in this case the head shops would be gone, so if bought in the street— "he would not be criminalised, which seems to be a strange provision." The Minister’s response was: "That is not the Bill’s intention. As we go through the Bill in Committee we will endeavour to iron out those concerns."—[Official Report, 19 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 737-9.] I was unable to be on the Committee as I was serving on another Bill Committee but I can read Hansard, I have hon. Friends who served on that Committee and I know that in Committee the Minister voluntarily offered this statement: "Possession in a club would not be an offence; indeed, possession is not an offence under any part of the legislation, unless in a secure facility. It is important to send that message out."––[Official Report, Psychoactive Substances Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2015; c. 37.] I would like some clarity from the Minister on that How much longer have I got, Madam Deputy Speaker?