Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Tuesday 14 December 2021 · 5 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 5 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Ministerial discussions have concluded there are no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
  • The UK government launched a new drugs strategy proposing a three-pronged approach to address drug issues over the next decade.
  • The Minister has not personally visited a drug consumption room but met with Ruth Dreifuss to discuss policies and challenges in Switzerland.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Alison Thewliss SNP
Context

Debate on the effectiveness and potential need for amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Question

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?

Answer from Kit Malthouse

There are no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The principle remains that drugs are dangerous and need to be controlled appropriately.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide any details on discussions about amending the act

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Chris Law SNP Dundee Central
Culture, Media & Sport
Context

Germany's incoming government has agreed to legalise cannabis, a move which contrasts with the UK's current stance on drugs policy.

Question

I am not surprised by the reply we have just heard from the Minister. However, in Germany, the incoming Government have agreed to join Canada and many US states in legalising cannabis, while across Europe drug consumption rooms are operating with positive results. As countries around us move forward, what message does the Minister think it sends to the rest of the world to see the UK stuck in the last century on drugs policy?

Answer from Kit Malthouse

I refute the claim that we are stuck in the last century. In fact, we launched a world-beating strategy just last week, if the hon. Gentleman was paying attention, that proposes a three-pronged approach on drugs, which we believe will have some success over the next decade. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues often push for the legalisation of cannabis, but I point him to the mixed experience of various parts of the world that have done so, not least California, where it is widely agreed to have been a disaster.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not address positive results from drug consumption rooms in Europe and did not acknowledge Germany's decision positively

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Alison Thewliss SNP
NHS
Context

The MP visited a drug consumption room in Geneva and is interested to know if the Minister has done likewise.

Question

I visited a drug consumption room in Geneva, right next to the central station in that city. Has the Minister visited a drug consumption room? It is important to make Government policy on the basis of evidence and what actually works in other countries.

Answer from Kit Malthouse

I have not visited a drug consumption room, although I did have a very illuminating meeting with Ruth Dreifuss, the former President of Switzerland who has been promoting the policy, to discuss the issues they have faced in Switzerland and elsewhere. While I understand that repetition is not uncommon in this place, the hon. Lady will not elicit from me an answer that expands on the ones I have given to her previously.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide specific evidence-based response regarding drug consumption room policies

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Peter Grant SNP
NHS Scotland
Context

The Minister's previous claim that the new strategy is 'world-beating' has been challenged.

Question

The Minister, as every Minister does these days, describes the strategy announced last week as world-beating. I suggest we maybe wait to see how it works before we make those claims. I also suggest that he also looks at what is actually working in the rest of the world. Can he explain why this world-beating strategy still insists on putting the medical and health needs of drug users in second place at best to treating them as criminals to be ostracised and punished, rather than sick people who desperately need to be helped?

Answer from Kit Malthouse

As usual, SNP Members mischaracterise what we are trying to do. The key feature of the strategy is twofold. First, we are ramping up restrictions on supply, building on our success thus far, particularly on dismantling county lines, which will have a direct impact on drug supply in Scotland. The reason we are doing that is that by restricting supply we believe we can create more space for the £780 million we will be spending on therapeutic interventions, particularly with heroin and crack users, to have an impact. Critically, the two have to go together.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not directly address medical needs over criminalisation approach

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q5 Christopher Chope Con Christchurch
Standards & Ethics Local Government
Context

The MP has proposed an amendment to the Local Government (Disqualification) Bill, which will come up for debate on January 14th.

Question

Will the Minister be supporting my new clause to the Local Government (Disqualification) Bill, which is coming up for debate on 14 January? My new clause would make offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 a ground for disqualification from being able to serve as a local councillor.

Answer from Kit Malthouse

It is unusual that the doings of my hon. Friend pass me by in this House, but sadly that amendment has. It is an interesting proposal, but I hope he will give me a moment to consider it before I give him a response.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide immediate support or opposition towards the proposed amendment

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)