S2M-4073 Drug Abuse

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 9 March 2006

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

… … …

Drug Abuse

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): We ended the previous debate 12 minutes behind schedule, which has inevitable consequences for whom I can call in this debate. I also have a note of four points of order, which could impact on the debate if they are made. They all concern the same point, so it might make more sense to deal with them now.

All the points relate to the amendment in the name of Hugh Henry to the motion in the name of Annabel Goldie, on drug abuse. The amendment contains a typographical error. It says,

"leave out from 'calls on'"

but should read "leave out from 'notes'". Members can be assured that the fact that the amendment was selected means that it was competent. The minister is not responsible for the typographical error and members will vote on the amendment as it should read, rather than as it is printed in the Business Bulletin.

10:28

… … …

10:40

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): The content of the amendment in my name does not diverge widely from that of the Executive's amendment. I had hoped, therefore, that the Presiding Officer would adjudicate and not accept the Executive's amendment so that the Executive could support my amendment, but that did not happen. That is life. Ho hum.

It is important to consider three strands in the debate on drugs. First, we must help to move addicts towards a drug-free future. I do not think that any member would object to that statement. More controversially, however, it must be said that not every addict will complete that journey—it is simply not possible for every addict to do so—but we should continue to offer those who cannot complete it every form of help that we can to move further along it and look after them as addicts, and possibly addicts who still use drugs, which they might remain. However, that is a long-stop second-best option.

Secondly, we must stop as many people as possible being captured as addicts. That strategy matters for our young people in particular, and my colleague Fiona Hyslop will say more about it.

Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind): Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson: I cannot, as I have only four minutes.

Fundamentally, we must change the whole environment in which drug barons make immense profits. Number 10's policy unit, the Cabinet Office, has suggested that the profit margin in the illegal drugs industry is one of the highest margins for industries in the United Kingdom. Until we make progress towards reducing the profit levels and eliminating the pull for drug barons to turn to such an occupation, we will not change the environment. Reducing such profit levels ain't easy—indeed, if any member claims that they know how they can be reduced tomorrow, they simply do not understand the problem, or they are gratuitously misrepresenting it.

I want to mention a few details. There are around 51,000 heroin addicts—there used to be 55,000, so the figure is slightly down. As Neil McKeganey has said, more than half the number of addicts would like to get off drugs altogether and around 5 per cent of them want harm reduction. Are we helping them? We must provide residential programmes. Methadone is merely a bridge to abstinence and to greater help. In 2003-04, there were only around 1,200 placements on residential programmes. If that figure is set against the number of addicts, we can conclude that it will be 25 years before today's addicts are treated. That is a huge problem.

I recognise that more money has been made available. In 1999, there was £11.3 million for residential programmes, but more than twice that amount of money is now available. Therefore, some of the right things are being done, but we should not pretend that what is being done will solve the problem overnight. Incidentally, despite the Tories' protestations, I know where all the clinics for drug users are because they are listed in the Executive's research document, "Residential detoxification and rehabilitation services for drug users: A review." As usual, the Tories would rather go for soundbites than sound research.

We can debate the size of the industry, but it is worth in the range of £1.5 billion to as much as £5 billion. If it is worth £5 billion, it is the same size as our tourism industry. That is why we must focus on it and why we support every possible effort that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is making to tackle the drug barons head-on. Until we succeed in tackling them, we will not solve the problem.

I move amendment S2M-4073.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"acknowledges that drug abuse creates feelings of hopelessness, despair and low self-worth in individuals and communities; recognises that drug misusers are individuals who will vary widely as to the best approach to address their addictions and therefore dismisses single dogmatic solutions to this complex problem; believes that the Scottish Executive should focus resources on appropriate support and child protection measures for children in drug misusing families; notes that access to support for addicts varies widely across Scotland; recommends that substantial additional resources are focused on addiction services and on recovering profits from illegal drugs trade barons, and calls on all in public life to make common cause in the fight against drug misuse."

10:44