Charlotte Nichols

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this crucial debate. The statistics are harrowing, as other Members have said, but how have we got here? A decade-long disinvestment in drug treatment services, approaches more fit for scoring political points than actually solving a problem, a complete disregard for the expert guidance provided by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and an utter lack of expediency. Given those factors, it is little wonder that we have ended up in this position. My work as the unremunerated chair of the Centre for Evidence Based Drug Policy has shown me that there are practical measures that can make a real difference. Diamorphine-assisted therapy, or DAT, has a robust evidence base for helping people who have not responded to other treatment modalities reduce their illicit drug use. A DAT clinic in Middlesbrough demonstrated extraordinary outcomes: a 97% attendance rate, an 80% reduction in street heroin use, and a drastic drop in criminal activity—from 541 offences before treatment to just three in the same period following treatment. Those outcomes translated into an estimated £2.1 million saving across the health and criminal justice sectors, in addition to the lives saved. Tragically, the clinic was closed due to fragmented, unsustainable funding—yet another example of short-term thinking undermining long-term gains. The enhanced drug treatment service in Glasgow, which offers a similar model, has estimated that its services have resulted in a 50% to 70% reduction in health service costs. We are not alone in calling for these changes. A 2023 report by the Home Affairs Committee made it clear that harm reduction must play a far greater role in UK drugs policy. Its recommendations offer a pragmatic road map, and the Government must act on them if they are serious about reducing drug-related deaths. Most of the interventions require only minor amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which, after more than 50 years, appears increasingly unfit for purpose. Currently, the 1971 Act blocks the establishment of safer drug consumption facilities and overdose prevention centres, and the distribution of vital harm-reduction paraphernalia by qualified drug treatment services. That includes safer inhalation pipes, which remain illegal under section 9A, even though corner shops can legally sell dangerous, poor-quality pipes with no health oversight, under the guise of ornaments. A pilot is currently taking place in parts of England, with police support, and shows promising early results, including reductions in high-risk practices and increased awareness of the harms associated with drugs and how to reduce them. There are a number of services in my constituency that I am very proud of, but, to save the House’s time, I will not detail them. One of those is Change Grow Live, and I give massive credit to its work. When stigma shapes policy, we see punitive laws, fragmented services and inevitably soaring mortality rates. When compassion and evidence shape policy, we see reduced deaths, safer communities, diminished profits for criminal organisations and better returns on public investment. This is not just a moral imperative, but a public health necessity.