Written Evidence submitted by the Angelus Foundation
1) Summary Points
Introduction
2) The Angelus Foundation was founded in 2010 and is the only UK drugs charity dedicated to raising awareness about New Psychoactive Substances and club drugs. We work with schools, universities, local authorities and festivals highlighting the risks of taking these substances. The Foundation is supported by a group of experts, the Angelus Advisory Board, which brings together expertise from chemical, medical and behavioural sciences, as well as having considerable experience in both the areas of enforcement and misuse of new psychoactive substances (NPS). The Board has been consulted on the content of this submission.
3) Much of our work is show-cased in our website for young people www.whynotfindout.org. There is also a website for families www.angelusfoundation.org.uk. Our aim is to ensure all young people in the UK know the dangers of ‘legal highs’ and are able to make better choices that keep them safe.
4) We have become increasingly aware of the reckless methods used to promote the sale of these products and the impact they have had on the health and welfare of young people in particular. There are many reports of NPS misuse leading to serious anti-social behaviour, crime and violence. Angelus has been predominantly focused on minimising the harms from these NPS, mainly through reducing demand through education. However, having observed the rapid and mostly unchecked increase in numbers of retailers selling these products on the high street, we felt compelled to campaign against the continuance of this unregulated market.
5) Overall, we have expressed our support for the main objectives of the Psychoactive Substances Bill as a way of restricting availability and access to dangerous and often unpredictable psychoactive products. Often, legislative controls fail to stem demand for certain drugs, particularly if people report a level of pleasure from their consumption. Our view, corroborated by the NPS Review Panel of Experts, is that the legality and availability of these products are in themselves strong factors motivating consumption and that restricting supply through the Psychoactive Substances Bill could have a positive impact overall on public health. We are also supportive of the intention to restrict the law to the sale and supply of NPS and not include a possession offence.
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014
6) In 2013, Angelus was invited by the shadow Home Secretary to draft a paper on NPS setting out an amendment to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (now 2014 Act). The purpose of the amendment was to make the sale/supply of “synthetic, intoxicating psychoactive substances” an offence with exemptions for alcohol, tobacco, medicines and certain foodstuffs. Its objective was to restrict the sale of products which headshops would be permitted to sell, in the same way it is an offence to sell butane and glues to minors under the Intoxicating Substances Act 1985.
7) The laying of the amendment also alerted Parliamentarians to the phenomenon of NPS and the need for the Government to draw up measures against their open sale. The ASB amendment was debated in Commons and Lords Committee stages but did not attract sufficient support to pass. There are distinct parallels between the amendment and what is proposed under the ‘Blanket Ban’ through the PSB.
NPS Prevalence
8) Angelus has concluded the high street trade for NPS is harmful to young people and other vulnerable groups in the community. The easy accessibility of NPS has led to dangerous experimentation among younger groups and dependence among some street drug users. Our University Fresher’s survey from September 2014 showed 61% had a friend who had tried NPS, 36% had been offered them and 19% had tried them. Our schools survey (16-18 year olds) showed 87% had heard of “legal highs”, 30% had been offered one and 14% had tried one.
9) The number of headshops estimated to be selling NPS is around 350 according to Home Office figures. A Drugscope report from December 2013 indicated they are also sold by a great many, less likely retailers such as newsagents, shoe-repairers and take-away restaurants. Examples of reckless marketing and trading include:
One new trader in synthetic cannabis exhibited in April at NEC Birmingham. Some headshops are reported to be testing the strength of new batches on homeless people. Some shops are effectively open 24 hours a day, some have a delivery service, some are located near pubs and clubs and are still open at 2am, others give ‘tick’ or accept electrical goods in exchange for packets of substances. We have not yet been made aware of any headshop or chain, withdrawing products from sale, nor investing any of their profits in the testing of products.
Public Awareness
10) The official Home Office press release, included a quote from Angelus and made clear our general support for the legislation on the condition it was complemented by investment into a public awareness programme and assistance for schools in the prevention of NPS harms. Angelus founder, Maryon Stewart, said, “No law can offer the perfect solution to protect people from drugs; it is equally vital we all concentrate our efforts of making the public, young people in particular, more aware of the harms of these substances in schools, at university and during festivals.”
11) The Minister in the Lords’ stages was repeatedly pressed on the point of greater public awareness but gave no encouraging signs that a communications strategy was in place or even being developed. Liaison with officials confirmed there was no preparation for enhancing the messaging around NPS. Angelus is of the view that the legal change is an ideal opportunity to challenge the term ‘legal high’ as many young people are led to believe there is correlation between legality and safety. Recent bi-lateral conversations with colleagues in other NGOs confirmed they shared our frustration. Several stakeholder organisations agreed to be co-signatories to a letter (July 13) to the Home Secretary (see Annex A) requesting a greater commitment to NPS public awareness.
12) We asked the Home Secretary to consider the insightful proposals recommended by the Government for Wales Health and Social Care Committee (March 2015). The Committee recommended a targeted public awareness campaign for young people and also one specifically for parents, an evaluation of current education programmes, investment more generally on drugs education for schools and NPS training for frontline staff. In our letter we also made clear the need for a resource more proactive than TalktoFrank which includes no educational films nor has any social media presence. As we said in our letter “a textbook cannot be said to be the same as a lesson.”
13) The Drugs Minister, Rt. Hon. Mike Penning MP, replied promptly but again we were not satisfied with his commitments on this matter. However, the Minister did refer to “developing a strategic communications plan to support implementation leading into the Bill’s enactment in April 2016.” We will be seeking more detail on this important point when we meet with him on 8 September.
14) We would also like to raise the point more generally that a partnership with the voluntary and community sector could be a powerful instrument for the Government, while offering good value for money in implementing communications campaigns to tackle the risks of NPS. The sector has considerable experience and expertise in campaigning already available and is able to reach far and wide across the UK in a timely manner.
Targeting Harms
15) There is an inherent tension between imposing a ‘blanket ban’ and following a policy of targeting harms. A great many of the substances being sold in headshops can be very harmful, for example, synthetic cannabinoids can be considerably riskier, more potent and with a greater liability to cause dependence than even strong strains of cannabis such as skunk. However, Nitrous Oxide causes dependence in only extreme cases and overdose is relatively rare.
16) There have been amendments laid in the Lords Stages of the Bill, which aim to restrict the definition of “psychoactive” which Angelus is supportive of. For example, Baroness Meacher’s attempt to insert the word “synthetic” into the definition at Report stage. There should be a rational limit to the extent of substances to which the ban applies. Angelus considers the same standard for control contained within section 1 of the MDA 71 should apply to these substances i.e. “capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem.”
17) The Minister, Lord Bates, expressed a different objective at Lords Report stage when he said, ”I have already referred to our policy rationale in capturing some long-standing intoxicating substances in the context of natural products. This reasoning applies equally to products synthetic in nature such as nitrous oxide, which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned, and alkyl nitrites, or “poppers”, which were tolerated for many years when control under the 1971 Act was the only option.” Many of these substances have been considered over the years by ACMD and found were not sufficiently harmful to justify control under MDA 71. The desire for legal clarity under PSB may mean applying a different and lower criterion for measuring harm. Ministers should be wary of how difficult it would be to communicate these measures credibly to young people. There are also definite resource limits to what enforcement agencies are able to deploy.
18) Angelus wants to see workable and effective legislation, which is capable of being properly enforced. By sweeping up a myriad of substances, which have not caused significant social problems previously, the legislation may:
a) Fail to target the most harmful substances
b) Unnecessarily burden the police and local authorities with responsibilities their limited budgets which would struggle to bear
c) Undermine awareness messages to young people when substances, which are recognised as having low harms are controlled alongside others which are potentially very harmful.
Cross-Party Approach
19) We were disappointed the Government did not initially take a more bi-partisan approach to amendments to the Bill during Lords Committee stage. It is generally recognised this is not a straightforward piece of legislation with difficulties persisting over definition. We expected the Government to listen favourably and perhaps take on board Opposition amendments but they were without exception resisted. This is clearly not a party political issue: around the 2015 election all four main parties made similar pledges to take action. There is also historical precedent; the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed from a Labour to Conservative Government after the 1970 election.
20) We were gratified to see some compromise from the Government eventually allowing amendments to include a statutory role for the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs and also a review on the effectiveness of the legislation 30 months after it is passed. We would suggest a cross-party meeting of MPs for the Commons stages to ensure a more constructive consideration.
Additional Points
21) We are concerned there is a significant gap of three months between Royal Assent and commencement which means there is considerable scope for stockpiling particularly in respect of dependant markets such as street drug users and prison inmates.
22) There have been increased anecdotal reports of child exploitation and grooming linked to NPS and other controlled drugs such as Mephedrone and would suggest the Inquiry should focus part of its time investigating this deeply concerning matter.
23) Angelus supports the recommendation of the previous Home Affairs Committee for the Government to initiate a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Contact:
Jeremy Sare
Director for Government Affairs and Communications
Angelus Foundation
www.angelusfoundation.com
Twitter: @angelustweets
www.whynotfindout.org
Twitter: @whynotfindout
Annex A
Rt. Hon Theresa May MP,
Home Office,
2, Marsham Street,
Westminster,
London
SW1P 4DF
13 July 2015
Dear Home Secretary,
We represent organisations who are very concerned about the appropriate educational and preventative response from Government about the risks to young people from New Psychoactive Substances (NPS).
The current approach to preventing young people coming to harm from NPS is insufficient to meet the scale of the problem. The Psychoactive Substances Bill represents an ideal opportunity for Government Departments to come together with stakeholders to invest in a public awareness campaign and ensure schools offer effective prevention and education on NPS.
We share a commitment to evidence based drug education through schools and communities and wish to see a greater commitment to ensure young people are not only made aware of the risks and consequences of drug-taking, but also develop the necessary behavioural skills to build their resilience. The current response indicated in recent Parliamentary debates is wholly inadequate. To date only, £180,000 has been deployed on NPS since 2013; this cannot be considered a serious intervention to the issue effecting significant change.
We would ask the Government to consider the insightful proposals recommended by the Government for Wales Health and Social Care Committee (March 2015). The Committee recommended a targeted public awareness campaign for young people and also one specifically for parents, an evaluation of current education programmes, investment more generally on drugs education for schools and NPS training for frontline staff.
In this context, Ministers have traditionally referred to TalktoFrank. The resource of a website, although useful in some spheres, is essentially passive in nature and cannot offer the necessary outreach through, for example, film and social media. A textbook cannot be said to be the same as a lesson. An education and awareness campaign should adopt new branding and a more interactive ethos. The campaign through Scottish schools ‘Choices for Life’ is a helpful example of an imaginative approach achieved through partnership working.
In response to a Parliamentary Question (Lord Roberts 24 June), the Home Office Minister, Lord Bates agreed with the NPS Review’s Expert Panel, “the legislative approach alone was not a panacea. The panel also considered the education, prevention and treatment response to NPS and made a series of comprehensive recommendations.” Lord Bates also said at Lords Committee stage, he would “undertake to reflect on [drugs education] between now and Report.” It is disappointing that these considerations have not been already formulated with a comprehensive communications strategy developed alongside the legislation.
The legislative changes are also an opportunity to challenge the term ‘legal high’ which is itself part of the problem in allowing young people to associate some degree of safety to legal substances. Equating legality and safety means misunderstanding the scale of risk around NPS and there have been many reports of serious incidents and tragic events around experimentation with them.
We would request that the relevant Departments urgently re-assess their educational commitment to NPS and construct a plan to ensure young people have resilience, confidence and sufficient knowledge to resist taking them and suffering the consequences.
Yours sincerely
Jan King, CEO, Angelus Foundation
Michael O’Toole, CEO, Mentor
Viv Evans, CEO, Adfam
Jane Winehouse, Amy Winehouse Foundation
Christian Guy, Centre Social Justice
Emma Crawshaw, CEO, Crewe2000
Kevin Shapland, Trustees Chair, Solve It
Colin McGregor-Paterson, CEO, Oasis Partnership
Steve Hamer OBE, CEO Compass
Simon Antrobus, CEO, Addaction
6