Drug-related Deaths

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

I extend my thanks to Mr Speaker for providing the opportunity to discuss the crucial matter of drug-related deaths. I declare an interest as the unremunerated chair of the Centre for Evidence Based Drug Policy, a think-tank in this policy space. The Office for National Statistics reported last month that deaths related to drug poisonings have increased for the 12th consecutive year, and have consequently reached an all-time high once again. The ONS reports that in 2024, there were 5,565 deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales, with just under half of those confirmed to involve an opiate. Continuity is therefore not a strategy; it is a guarantee of further avoidable loss. Every single one of those lives mattered, and every single one of those deaths was preventable.

Eight months ago, a similar debate was held in Westminster Hall on the topic of preventing drug-related deaths, to which the Minister responded. Though it was a well-attended debate, during which Members from across the House called for the expansion of harm reduction and evidence-based measures, I am afraid to say that, since then, limited progress has been made in advancing drugs policy to limit the unspeakable further loss of life in our constituencies.

Stoke-on-Trent has the highest number of drug-related deaths in north Staffordshire. Synthetic cathinones, colloquially known as monkey dust, are used in Stoke-on-Trent to an extent not seen elsewhere in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to battle the scourge of monkey dust in Stoke-on-Trent?

I absolutely agree. There are huge regional disparities in drug deaths across the country, and a regional approach need to be taken to tackling them.

While I appreciate that drugs policy and legislation do not fall under the Minister’s departmental remit, I am happy to see her here, as the drugs-related deaths crisis is primarily a public health issue, and must be treated as such if we are to avoid repeating the same mistakes of the last 50 years.

I am proud to be a patron of Burton addiction centre, a residential rehab centre in my constituency. It is calling for a 2% target across the nation. Does my hon. Friend agree with that target for residential rehab? Perhaps the Minister would like to visit some time, when she is able to.

I completely agree about the role that rehab facilities can play in supporting people into recovery, and about the need for proper, consistent funding from the Government.

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. I congratulate her on the campaign, and on her words to the House on the issue. We all greatly admire what she does, and thank her for it. In Northern Ireland, there were 169 drug-related deaths in 2023. That was an increase of 47% on the decade before, and it proves her point that the issue is not specific to her constituency; unfortunately, this happens everywhere. Does she agree that the tactics we have in place are not addressing the growing prevalence of drug abuse, and that not only this Government but the devolved Governments must work to save the precious souls who are passing away?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; without it, it would not be an Adjournment debate. I completely agree. The deaths that I am talking about today are drug poisonings in England and Wales only, but if we look at drug deaths in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and at deaths related to alcohol and despair, we see that drug poisonings in England and Wales are a very small part of a huge issue in every part of our United Kingdom.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Scotland has had the highest number of drug deaths in Europe for seven years in a row; there were 1,017 in 2024. Does she agree that cuts to funding for rehabilitation facilities and drug and alcohol support services undermine the holistic, comprehensive approach needed if we are to bring down the number of drug deaths, and to give hope to those living with addiction, and to their families?

The number of drug deaths in Scotland is stark, and it underlines the fact that the issue affects every part of the UK. We know what we need to do to start addressing it. I welcome the recent Scottish Affairs Committee report, which I will mention later.

I have said before that putting drugs within the Home Office’s ministerial purview is putting the issue in the wrong place, so I am very happy that a Health Minister is here to respond. The current approach is rooted in the belief that we can simply arrest and imprison our way out of this. Despite the death toll rising every year in the six years that I have been doing this job, the Home Office seems to show not just a lack of curiosity but hostility towards harm reduction measures. My overarching question today is: will the Government finally take an evidence-based stance on drugs policy to reduce the immense harm that the status quo causes in our constituencies? Will the Minister work across Government to bring forward necessary changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and deliver a fit-for-purpose, public-health-led approach to drugs across the UK, saving thousands of lives?

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Bradford district, there were 70 drug-related deaths in 2023. I agree with her that we need to take a different approach to tackling the problem, and it must be a public health approach. The UK could learn much from countries like Portugal, which has gone a long way towards adopting such an approach to drugs and drug-related deaths.

I absolutely agree. Later, I will try to develop my argument for that kind of approach, which we could take here but do not.

As a Parliament and as a society, we may have inadvertently come to accept the yearly statistics, and have perhaps not given them the necessary thought, but I stress that there are cost-effective solutions that could save the taxpayer money and save the lives of our constituents, while taking money out of the pockets of exploitative, organised criminal gangs.

I am afraid to say that the problem may be far worse than is recognised. A recent report by King’s College London indicates that there has been a severe under-reporting of drug-related deaths over the past 15 years. The researchers found that drug-related deaths have been under-reported by 30%, and opioid-related deaths between 2011 and 2022 were found to be 55% higher than recorded, putting the estimated number of opioid-related deaths in that period north of 39,000.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She will be aware that many of those who have died from complications and overdoses related to opioids died on their own. That reflects the social isolation that so many experience when they become addicted to drugs. Does she agree that it is incredibly important that the social isolation of those seeking to move beyond addiction is broken through, and will she join me in thanking organisations like Jungle in my constituency, which seek to provide companionship and support for those who are trying to move beyond addiction?

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The clearest way to recovery is with companionship and support—there is no path to recovery without that—and I of course give credit to the organisation she mentioned that is doing such fantastic work in this space, as we were discussing earlier today.

The implications of the under-reporting of drug-related deaths are that the problem is far worse than previously thought and the decision to cut funding to services under the previous Government was based on flawed figures. The National Audit Office reported that between 2014 and 2022 there was a 40% reduction in real-terms spending on adult drug and alcohol services, so I do not think it is a coincidence that the Office for National Statistics has reported a near doubling in drug-related deaths since 2014, and that the number of deaths only rises every year.

It is clear that the problem has been made substantively worse by under-investment by the previous Government. We can all acknowledge that, but acknowledgment without reform is meaningless. Persisting with failed, punitive policies will only deepen a crisis that already ranks among Europe’s worst. Now is the time to show the difference a Labour Government can make by putting in place harm-reduction policies that will start to undo this extensive damage.

As I mentioned previously, and I will repeat again because it is important, near half of all drug-related deaths registered in 2024 were confirmed to involve an opioid. In addition, this year’s ONS report found that the number of deaths involving nitazenes—a group of highly potent synthetic opioids—almost quadrupled from the year before. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the drug-related deaths crisis. As we have seen across the Atlantic, once those synthetic opioids take hold, it becomes all the more difficult to limit their devastation.

I welcome this Government’s changes to the human medicines regulation that further expanded access to naloxone, the lifesaving opioid antidote administered in the event of an overdose. Indeed, naloxone plays a vital role in the fight against drug-related deaths. However, further change is necessary and naloxone should be available rapidly and reliably in every community pharmacy in the UK, so that it can be quickly accessed in the event of an overdose.

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. Does she agree that organisations such as Change Grow Live, which I have visited in Rugby, are doing superb work with people as they recover after the problems that they have been facing, and that it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to encourage the Government to ensure that those organisations get the funding and support they need to do that important work?

My hon. Friend is exactly right: Change Grow Live is a fantastic organisation. Multi-year funding schemes with clear outcome metrics, such as faster time for treatment, improved retention and improved naloxone coverage, will make a difference in bringing down the figures I have talked about. That is the path out of this crisis.

I recently received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime stating she could not support overdose prevention centres because of concerns about organised crime supplying the drugs there. Overdose prevention centres are a frontline, evidence-based intervention that save lives and public money, reducing ambulance call-outs and A&E attendances, cutting public injecting and needlestick injuries, and creating a bridge into treatment. I recognise and share the Minister’s concerns about supply but, with or without such centres, people will use the same drugs, either in alleyways and stairwells or in safe hygienic settings where sharps are disposed of, and where staff can intervene and build relationships that can be the foundation for recovery from addiction.

The Scottish Affairs Committee recently published a report into problem drug use in Scotland and Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, and it is interesting to note the call for legislative action from the UK Government and Parliament and the fact that they seem to share my frustration with the Home Office’s ideological rather than evidence-based approach on safer drug consumption facilities.

In written correspondence to me, my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime also maintains that supplying essential safer inhalation equipment would contravene current legislation, and that the Government are unable to support such a provision or to provide a legal pathway to address this. Encouraging drug users to change their method of consuming drugs from injecting to inhaling can be an important harm reduction step, yet while supplying clean hypodermic needles is exempt under section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government continue to support a policy of criminalisation of potential providers and users of safer inhalation equipment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking an intervention, and indeed for bringing forward this debate. As she has referenced, the Scottish Affairs Committee has done some work on this issue and has visited the safer drug consumption room in Glasgow, but it has also looked at facilities in Norway and Lisbon. The disappointment we have is that at the moment the Thistle operates under the prosecutorial discretion of the Lord Advocate in Scotland and that could continue indefinitely—she has made that clear—as could her permission for other centres to open. We need a change in the legislation that would allow such centres to be set up across the country if necessary. There is going to be a three-year assessment of the Thistle, and if that assessment comes up with the results that we think it might, then surely that evidence should be used to inform Government policy. Our particular disappointment is that the Government seem not to think that is relevant.

I absolutely agree and I took a note from that report:

“However, it was clear from the Minister’s evidence that the Home Office will not make legislative changes, even if the evaluation finds that the facility has been effective in meeting its aims.”

That is ideological, not evidence-based, which is why I believe the Home Office is fundamentally incapable of dealing with drug deaths and drug harm in our communities.