CTSI HAS ITS SAY Some of the institute’s contributions to government policy debate Psychoactive Substances Bill Consultation Tips, Gratuities, Cover and Service Charges – call for evidence Psychoactive Substances Bill Consultation Public Bill Committee, October 2015 Investigations to determine the chemical nature and potential impact – upon ingestion – of suspected psychoactive substances can prove extremely costly, and CTSI notes that other organisations have echoed its concerns about cost implications of enforcement of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. As local authority trading standards services have faced severe resource and staff reductions in recent years, CTSI is concerned about some trading standards services’ ability to enforce the new legislation effectively without additional funding. It proposes some amendments to the existing Bill: l Tightening up the definition of substances as having ‘psychoactive’ effects, which is very wide and very difficult to prove l Removing the requirement for the prosecution to prove psychoactive effects ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, instead requiring proof that the supplier intends to sell substances that could have these effects l Enabling enforcers to seize suspected goods if they are otherwise lawfully on premises l Stating which body the government intends will enforce the Bill CTSI supports the Home Affairs Committee report’s call for a more precise definition of the kinds of substances the Bill covers, as – depending on use – many substances could be described as ‘psychoactive’. The prosecution would have to assemble expert evidence that any suspected substance was capable of producing ‘psychoactive effects’, and each substance under investigation would have to undergo rigorous scientific testing to produce toxicology details of its specific chemical components. One trading standards service indicates a cost of around £100 per substance to conduct a basic test – of limited use as it only tells investigators which chemicals are contained within a substance, not the exact harm it could cause when ingested. Without clinical evidence, it’s extremely challenging to get reliable information. Further complex testing is needed to discover the effects of ingestion. As head-shop investigations require multiple tests – at least one test for each product type – CTSI is concerned about significant cost implications for enforcers. Contributed by: Robyn Ellison, CTSI policy officer For more information, and to contribute to consultations such as these, visit www.tradingstandards.uk