Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act (Amendment) (Hansard, 22 April 1987)

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985; and for connected purposes. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the Session 1984–85, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), having gained first place in the private Members' ballot, introduced in the House and subsequently led off the debate in January 1985 on the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Bill. The Bill received Royal Assent in June 1985 and came into force from August 1985. The substantial change to the law made by that Act was that it created an offence of supply of intoxicating substances—either by supplying or by offering to supply them to anybody under 18 or to anybody acting on behalf of somebody under 18 if the supplier knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the substance is, or its fumes are, likely to be inhaled by the person under the age of eighteen for the purpose of causing intoxication. This legislation had been prefaced by attempts since 1980 to amend the law during the passage of other Government Bills, and it had been anticipated by the common law in Scotland in 1983, which had secured two convictions of shopkeepers who supplied kits by which people abused solvents.
Since the Act, which was supported at all times by the Government, went on the statute book, there has been a noticeably grave defect in that legislation. The major defect is that the law has depended for a conviction on the supplier knowing what the person receiving the substance was going to do with it. That meant that the person handing over the substance, whether butane gas, Tipp-Ex thinner or some other form of volatile substance such as aerosol spray, had to have reasonable cause to believe that it would be used for the purpose of intoxication. The evidence of the past 20 months is that proving that case has been extraordinarily difficult. Indeed, in the past 20 months, there have been but four convictions in England and Wales.
Just as the hon. Member for Tynemouth was precipitated into seeking to introduce the original legislation principally as a result of constituency experience, it will not surprise the House to learn that I am principally motivated by witnessing and sharing the grief of a family living barely 100 yd from me in Southwark when they lost their 14-year-old son in August of last year.
The law has not so far dealt with the problem, because the number of deaths from solvent abuse and other volatile substances have continued to rise. The figures are frighteningly telling, and I know their seriousness is recognised by the Government. In the 10 years up until 1981, there were 140 deaths in the United Kingdom associated with volatile substance abuse — identified from press reports, coroner's inquests and so on. However, in the years since 1981 that total has risen dramatically.
The latest recorded figures appeared in the British Medical Journal of December last year. They showed that there were 46 deaths in 1981; 62 deaths in 1982; 80 deaths in 1983; 81 deaths in 1984; and 116 deaths in 1985. The report in the British Medical Journal states: Most of those who died (285)(74%)"— 681 over the five year period— were under the age of 20, and 65 (17%) were aged 10–14. There has been an increase in the number of deaths occurring in all the major categories.
The report continues: Overall, gas fuels (mainly butane), solvent in glues (mainly toluene), and "other solvents" (principally plaster removers and correcting fluid thinners — mainly 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane) each accounted for around 30% of the deaths. In 43% of cases death was attributed to the direct toxic effects of the substance". The remaining deaths were thought to have resulted from intoxicated behaviour, which accounted for 15 per cent. of deaths, the method of inhalation (plastic bag over the head 16%), or inhalation of stomach contents (16%). All the signs are that the number of deaths will increase when the figures for 1986 are known. The reason is that it is at present extremely difficult to prohibit and educate suppliers sufficiently not to sell.
The National Campaign Against Solvent Abuse regularly surveys solvent use by young people. In the last full year, ending July 1986, it obtained information from 4,217 fourth-year pupils from 28 schools, and the figures are frightening. Overall, 23.9 per cent. of the pupils answered yes to the question: Have you ever tried solvent abuse in any form? The inquiry revealed that 37 per cent. knew someone who sniffed solvents. Both those percentages represent substantial rises from previous years. The position is that 25 per cent. of 11 to 14-year-olds have tried solvents. Two young people die each week from solvent abuse. Perhaps the most frightening statistic of all derived from that survey is that the average age of abusers is just over 13.
When a death from solvent abuse occurs within any community, there is widespread concern. Such death often occurs suddenly, without any warning. It was not surprising that, in October, my local authority, Southwark, agreed a motion, with all-party support, calling for Members of Parliament in the borough to seek to amend the present legislation to limit the supply by retailers to young people of many products used as solvent abuse that would thus prevent the repetition of the tragic death of Lee Kendall, the young local Bermondsey boy. It would also, one hopes, prevent the death of other youngsters.
When Southwark consumer protection officers carried out a survey on how well the law was being complied with they discovered—they reported it to me in a letter in November — that, dramatically, the majority of shopkeepers surveyed were not taking sufficient action to prevent the sale of harmful solvents to young people. There was a low level of awareness of the recommendations regarding sales. Of the 44 per cent. of premises selling solvent-based products, only 28 per cent. of the staff of those premises were aware of the code of practice. Only 19 682 per cent. of the premises conformed to the code of practice and in only 7 per cent. of premises were warning notices displayed, despite the fact that solvent-based products were within easy access of the consumers in half of those outlets.
It is clear that the campaign to prevent fatalities has not yet succeeded. It is important to register now that we cannot wait too long before further action is taken. Therefore, I have decided to seek leave to introduce this Bill.
In a reply to a written answer on 23 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security said: No new central initiatives are planned by the Department"—[Official Report, 23 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 74.] The Minister said that the Department would keep the need for such initiatives under review. I gather that, at the moment, the Home Office has no plans to act either.
I propose therefore that the law be amended in a simple way so that, rather than conviction depending on the subjective view of the supplier, it would be an offence to supply a proscribed solvent product to somebody under 16. That is how the supply of cigarettes to under-16s is controlled and how the supply of alcohol to under-18s is controlled. One does not have to prove that somebody was coming to a shop to buy a product for a certain purpose, but one proves that there was a specific breach of the age requirement. To implement that, all that is needed is a single change to the present Act and a schedule of proscribed products. At any particular time, that can be amended by regulation—it need not come here.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has been speaking for 10 minutes.

§ Mr. Hughes
In conclusion, I believe that we should amend the proscribed list of products and substances by regulation and that the manufacturer shall have the duty specifically to alert the public to the dangers. I hope that this simple amendment will deal with the major defect in the otherwise good legislation. I hope that the House will welcome the opportunity to give leave for this Bill to start its passage through Parliament.