Plenary, 06 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 6, 2007

Official Report 698KB pdf

---

Drugs Misuse

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-415, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on tackling drugs misuse. I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion.

It is fitting that the first Government debate of the new parliamentary year concerns an issue that is vital to the future of Scotland. If we are to realise our aspirations for a safer, stronger and healthier Scotland, it is critical that, as a nation, we succeed in tackling perhaps the most pernicious social challenge of our time—the misuse of drugs.

When we came to power in May, we said that we were committed to building a new national consensus on tackling drugs misuse. In June, we gave effect to an initiative that was developed by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration and which was based on proposals that were put forward in the chamber by the Conservatives—a new online directory of drugs services, which can be accessed at www.scottishdrugservices.com. I launched the initiative in Drumchapel and, to date, there have been more than 2,300 visitors to the website.

In July, following discussions with Annabel Goldie, we announced that we would explore how the most successful features of the well-established and successful drug treatment and testing orders could be applied to those who are at an earlier stage in their drug addiction. Later that month, we published and publicised five reports that were commissioned by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, including the findings and recommendations of an expert group that had investigated the use of methadone in Scotland. We made it clear at that time that we agreed strongly with the key conclusions of the group—that methadone has a vital part to play in reducing harm, but that it cannot be the only treatment that people receive. We need, at the same time, to place a much greater emphasis on promoting recovery.

At the end of July, I chaired a meeting of the key experts and practitioners in the field—the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse—who gave me their perspectives on the key challenges that we face in Scotland.

Today, it is the turn of Parliament to express the concerns of the people and communities of Scotland on this critical issue. All members will have experienced in their constituencies the devastating effects that drugs can have on people's lives, through tragic deaths from drugs misuse, the break-up of families and the crime that funds the desperate addictions that drugs misuse can bring.

Those personal, local experiences add up to a dismal account. Only last week, we learned that the number of drug deaths in Scotland had hit a record high of 421 deaths in 2006. Earlier this week, we learned that more than 42,000 drug crimes were recorded by the police throughout Scotland—the second highest figure on record. The figures also showed a near 50 per cent increase in the illegal cultivation of drugs, to say nothing of the crimes of dishonesty that will have been driven by dependency on drugs. It is estimated that, throughout Scotland, there are around 52,000 problematic drug users, and some 10,000 to 19,000 children in Scotland live in households where at least one adult is a problematic drug user. It is a challenge that we can meet only by acting together. If ever there was a case of our needing to set aside party-political affiliations, this is surely it. Our aim today, therefore, is to build on the consensus that we believe exists and to shape it to take forward a national policy to tackle the scourge of drugs misuse.

Today, I confirm that the Scottish Government is committed to taking forward a new strategy. For the next few months, all our work will be focused on discussing, designing and delivering a new approach to tackling the damage that drugs do to our people and our nation.

It is for all members to play their part. I see around me many whom, I suppose, I could characterise as old hands—I had better not name them—but there are also many new members who I hope will take an active part and, developing that, be as active as some of the old hands in together fighting this national problem.

First, we have already learned from the reports that have been published that we do not have the full range of services throughout Scotland to reach our goal of promoting recovery. Secondly, we need treatment and care to be more strongly focused on recovery. We need better information about what treatment people are getting and what the results of that treatment are. Thirdly, we need to improve quality and accountability across the board.

As part of that strategy, we will set key national outcomes for tackling drugs misuse that are founded on promoting recovery. We will set out clearly the responsibilities and functions of Government, local service commissioners and managers and other national and local bodies and how they should relate to one another in pursuing those outcomes. We will also ensure that funding for services is clearly aligned with those outcomes. We will develop the framework in consultation with those in the field and with SACDM. We will engage with our communities and with service users. In short, working together we will ensure that services are robust, focused and effective.

As all members know, one of the most damaging aspects of drugs misuse is its effect on families and on the children in those families. It is imperative that we tackle the complex problems that are faced by children living in substance-misusing households. That means working with local agencies to improve the identification of children at risk to address their needs more effectively. A great deal of such work is already being carried out, but much more remains to be done. We want a renewed emphasis on prevention and early intervention, so that we support young people and families to make positive choices for safe and healthy lifestyles, and holistic support for substance misusers during pregnancy.

We also want to strengthen drugs education in our schools. It is important that all who are involved in delivering drugs education to our children, including our teachers, should be confident in their ability and have suitable resources that are appropriate for each age group. We need to maximise the benefit of important and well-established initiatives such as choices for life—which, I believe, reaches out to 82 per cent of primary 7 children—by placing them within a more effective and more broadly based approach to drugs education.

There will be no let-up on enforcement. Tackling the supply of all forms of illegal drugs remains an essential part of our strategy. We will be unstinting in our support of the police in disrupting the drug-dealing networks and the organised crime groups behind them. We will foster even closer co-operation, joint working and intelligence to produce results. Only recently, Strathclyde Police seized £12.5 million-worth of heroin. Those drugs are no longer on the streets as a result of the force's excellent efforts.

On that point, I commend two Aviemore police officers—Sergeant Maggie Miller and Police Constable David McAlpine—who recently received commendations for their work, as a result of which a known drug dealer is now serving eight years in prison and a large quantity of class A drugs has been kept off our streets.

Finally, as noted above, we need to continue to improve the link between the criminal justice system and treatment for offenders. I believe that there is a real potential for adapting the current model of DTTOs to, for example, the needs of child and female offenders. Those two groups do not fit the current criteria for such orders. Our review of community disposals will explore that possibility.

Our strategy will have five strands: first, better service delivery to promote recovery; secondly, early intervention to protect children; thirdly, drugs education that works; fourthly, effective enforcement; and, fifthly, more appropriate court disposals.

Our action on drugs will be embedded in an approach across the various directorates of Government. Shona Robison will lead a ministerial task force on health inequalities that will provide specific actions to be taken forward. We will offer more of our young people opportunities to do something positive and constructive with their lives. We have already announced a new approach to ensuring that the funds that have been recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are invested in our communities. We will look to ensure that those funds are used to best effect in order to promote confidence and self-esteem among our young people.

In tackling the challenges that we face, we must remember that there is hope. Thousands of people throughout Scotland are working day in and day out with those who are affected by drugs misuse. During my visit during the summer to south-east alternatives—at the Adelphi centre in the Gorbals in Glasgow—I saw at first hand the difference that the workers there were making to the lives of the people whom they help. They told me how disheartening it was when drugs issues become a political football. Although we must debate and agree on the course that we need to set, we owe it to those on the front line to recall that we need to work together for the nation to build consensus on the way ahead.

Tomorrow, I will take the opportunity to thank staff at a project in Kingussie for the work that they do in assisting young people who are at risk of developing drug and alcohol problems. On Monday, Shona Robison and I will chair a meeting in Edinburgh of the alcohol and drug action teams. There is much more work to be done.

In conclusion, there is success to build on but we have much to do. I look forward to today's debate. I am sure that all members will provide a valuable contribution to the policy that we all wish to develop.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that tackling drugs misuse is one of the great social challenges of our time, requiring determined and sustained action; welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to build consensus around a new strategy for tackling drugs misuse; welcomes the recent publication of reports, commissioned by the previous administration, on key aspects of drugs services; supports the Government's determination to improve services to promote recovery from drug addiction, to ensure that children are protected from the drug addictions of their parents, to improve drugs education, to offer young people more opportunities to do something positive and constructive with their lives, to strengthen enforcement and to provide courts with more effective ways of dealing with those whose crimes are driven by addiction, and recognises that there will be resource implications in meeting this challenge.

I thank colleagues for their courtesy in allowing me to head off early because of my back problems.

I echo Fergus Ewing's comments on the importance of the issue, so I am delighted that this will be the first debate since the summer recess in which I have the opportunity to speak.

In 2006, we had a record 421 drug-related deaths. We now have 21,000 people who use prescribed methadone. Some 70 per cent of all court cases are believed to have a drug-related aspect and the cost of drug-related crime is around £330 million a year. Those are not just statistics; they represent broken lives, destroyed families and devastated communities. There are no easy answers. We require a mixed approach, greater investment and joint efforts among not only health, education, justice and social work professionals but politicians.

The Executive's motion is fair enough and contains nothing with which we particularly disagree. I certainly do not disagree with anything that Fergus Ewing said in his opening speech and I note his remarks about recovery and monitoring of outcomes. However, we feel that the motion does not go far enough. Our amendment makes some specific suggestions, which I hope will be taken up by the minister and will attract cross-party support.

Each £1 that is invested in drug treatment saves £3 in the cost of enforcement. We are calling for a doubling of funding for drug and alcohol treatment that would amount to more than £100 million of extra resources over the next spending review period. I know that the Conservatives and others were keen to see such a commitment, which was included in their manifestos, so I hope that we can all move forward together on that.

We want to see an expansion in the number of residential places because they are more effective than methadone treatment. Fewer than 4 per cent of addicts who have stabilised on methadone manage to become drug free within three years—that should be our ultimate aim—whereas 30 per cent of addicts become drug free after being treated in residential rehabilitation. However, despite increased investment over the past few years, few addicts have access to such an option. Only one addict in 50 is offered a residential place.

It is also important that community after-care services are in place to assist addicts after they have returned home. From my experience of work that has been done in my constituency, a key issue is that many people feel that, although they benefited when they were in rehab, the difficulties really hit them when they returned to the community where they again faced the same pressures.

There is a great deal of discussion about heroin and methadone policy. The Liberal Democrats and, I suppose, most of us in the chamber, want to take a pragmatic approach that is based on what works. Although methadone has a role in tackling drugs misuse in Scotland, it should form part of a package of services.

The prescribing of heroin cannot be undertaken lightly. Pilots are under way in England and Holland, where it has been found that patients who were prescribed heroin and methadone together have experienced a 25 per cent increase in improvements in their physical and mental health in comparison with those on methadone alone. Complex issues are involved in such treatment and we should develop our approach together. I will be interested to hear the cabinet secretary's views on that.

The drugs scene is a constant and evolving challenge for service providers. For example, we could be about to experience much greater use of crystal meth, a relatively new drug to Scotland that is three times as addictive as cocaine, and the cannabis that people now use is much stronger than before. It is perfectly reasonable for the United Kingdom Government to keep the reclassification of drugs under review because the picture is changing.

We must continue to invest in services to help the thousands of children in Scotland who are living with drug-using parents. The previous Executive invested in important schemes that gave funds to the voluntary sector organisations that work with children and young people who are affected by substance misuse. As our amendment states, we believe that early intervention work with kids at risk of the misuse of drugs—whether they are in care or have parents who are users—should be a key priority. Drugs misuse is a significant factor in criminal behaviour. Tackling the supply and use of drugs—particularly class A drugs—through law enforcement activity must remain a priority.

Members of the Justice Committee recently heard about the work of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, which should be applauded for and supported in its work, in relation to not only the amount of drugs and assets seized and assets redistributed but the important job that it does in harrying and disrupting the businesses and lives of the gangsters—the hoods—who feed off that despicable trade.

The previous Administration introduced a range of different disposals, and I look forward to our considering them in the review of community sentences. Studies indicate that drug treatment and testing orders have a significant impact on reoffending rates, with almost half of those who completed an order having no further convictions within two years of the start of the order. That is why we would like the ability to issue DTTOs to be extended to Scotland's district courts and used more frequently to address the abuse of alcohol, which we all agree is another significant factor. I was pleased to hear Fergus Ewing's comments about extending the use of DTTOs and I hope that the Government will take on board our suggestion for their further use.

The previous Administration put in place drugs court pilots in Glasgow and Fife, with dedicated drugs court sheriffs and the use of multi-agency pre-review hearings. I hope that the cabinet secretary can tell us when those pilots will be reviewed and whether he shares my view that we should look seriously at developing the specialisation of sheriffs and courts, in either a drugs or family context. We suggest that the use of drugs courts could be rolled out throughout the country.

We want to see greater use of arrest referral schemes. Pilot schemes that have been in place since 2003 have successfully allowed drugs workers to offer offending addicts access to treatment when they are arrested, which seems to be an ideal time to get hold of them and offer them different options.

I pay tribute to the very important and challenging work of all the agencies throughout Scotland. The Liberal Democrats will support the Scottish Government in taking on the challenge of tackling drugs misuse and I look forward to working with people from all parts of the chamber on such a crucial issue.

I move amendment S3M-415.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:

"believes that increased opportunities, improved facilities, more drug-free activities and better drug education are necessary to give young people a positive alternative to drugs; calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a strategy for early intervention with vulnerable young people, particularly those in care or living with a parent who has a drug problem; calls for the establishment of a national register of drug and alcohol services including residential placements; believes that additional resources are required to increase drug and alcohol treatment places, cut waiting times and create more family support services; calls on the Scottish Government to commit to at least double the funding for drug and alcohol treatment in the first year of the next spending review; further notes the direct link between drug and alcohol use and crime and supports the greater use of arrest referral schemes across Scotland; further believes that Drug Testing and Treatment Orders (DTTOs) introduced by the previous administration can make a real difference in cutting crime and reoffending, and calls for DTTOs to be extended to Scotland's district courts and used more frequently to address alcohol abuse among offenders."

I thank Miss Smith for her courtesy in informing me that she is unable to stay for the entire debate.

You will note, Presiding Officer, that we have not submitted a Labour amendment to the motion. That should not imply that we have no questions or issues to raise; I intend to raise many with the new Scottish National Party Executive—or, rather, Government.

Given the scale of the problem that we face, it is appropriate at this stage in the parliamentary session to indicate that we are prepared to engage with, reflect on and assess possible ways forward and that we look to work constructively with the Government, as we have been asked to do. Indeed, the tone of the motion indicates a recognition of the previous Executive's work. As Fergus Ewing said, the challenge of dealing with drugs in modern society is one of the most profound that we face, and it defies crude analysis and standard approaches. Given the scale of what we face, none of us is in a position to dismiss easily others' arguments.

I am glad that Fergus Ewing said that we cannot underestimate or undermine current practice and the serious work that is taking place in Scotland in services, the voluntary sector and communities.

I suppose I am one of the old hands that the minister referred to. As a committee convener in the first parliamentary session, I chaired one of the first parliamentary inquiries into the links between drugs and poverty. As we listened to the evidence that was given during what was a significant parliamentary inquiry, we heard drugs rightly described as one of the truly wicked issues that we face and an ever-changing problem: when we take action on one front, another problem emerges elsewhere, such as a new drug coming on to the market.

Recent statistics on drug deaths not only signal the scale of the problem, but draw our attention to the human cost of those desperate individuals and the appalling impact on their families and communities. None of us can avoid facing the full implications of that cost. We are now dealing with the social consequences of people using drugs over many years. We know from evidence that has emerged since that first inquiry of the strong correlation between deprivation and drugs misuse. Even in a city such as Glasgow, which carries a disproportionate share of the burden of drugs misuse in Scotland, the experience of drugs is highly differentiated.

Few of us in Scotland are immune to the impact of drugs, but some people have to live with it daily—every time they open their front door, it stares them in the face as their next-door neighbour sells drugs to children. Can we imagine what it is like to try to raise a family in such a situation? I ask members to imagine what that would be like for them or their children—or any child—and to think how they would and should respond.

The challenge to public policy makers is to target resources, direct services and co-ordinate our intervention to address that reality. As has been said, dealing with drugs requires a spectrum of approaches from prevention to care, support and of course, enforcement.

I hope that the member does not wish to create the impression that illicit drugs use occurs exclusively in our deprived communities, because that is not the case. I am sure that that is not the impression that she wishes to give. Perhaps she will acknowledge that although there is a higher preponderance of drugs misuse in our deprived areas, it occurs throughout society.

I suspect that Brian Adam is the only person to draw that conclusion, as I did not say that drugs misuse is exclusive to deprived areas. However, statistical evidence suggests that Glasgow bears a disproportionate share of the burden. Given that Kenny MacAskill is nodding, I am sure that he recognises that. I am not implying for a second that the problem is an urban phenomenon only. As I said clearly, few people in Scotland escape the impact of drugs. As I am a Glasgow MSP, Brian Adam will appreciate that my knowledge of drugs is informed by my knowledge of that area. We cannot run away from the strong correlation between poverty and drugs—I assume that he agrees.

We have made some progress. The minister referred to education programmes, and although there is evidence to suggest that they have an impact on young people, a table in the statistics shows that such programmes are less effective among more deprived young people. Ministers want to do more work in education, but I hope that they recognise that teachers in the more deprived communities face a more difficult task and should be given support.

Most people recognise the need to develop treatment and care services with an emphasis on what works. As the minister said, we need to develop more holistic approaches. We cannot just provide rehabilitation services and then send people back to circumstances in their communities where drug taking is all too easy. We need to develop a social model as well as a medical model. We also need to link into education and employability programmes that provide proper opportunities, routes out of drug use as well as care.

That is the context for this deadly serious debate. In Glasgow alone, it is estimated that as many as 7,600 children are affected in some way by the serious problem drug use of their parents.

Methadone has been used—at times effectively—to stabilise addicts and enable families to stay together. However, as I am sure that Duncan McNeil will point out, we cannot afford to fool ourselves that that approach is enough. Indeed, the statistics tell us as much. Methadone was never meant to be an end in itself, and we must come to terms with its limitations and think beyond traditional approaches.

In that respect, I have a few questions that I hope Kenny MacAskill will answer in his summing up. The SNP stated in its manifesto that it would set up a drugs commission, which I presume would address these issues. Is it still committed to establishing such a body? Has it commissioned civil servants to carry out exploratory work on the matter? Is it able to give us an indication of timescales?

In what I suspect will be my concluding 30 seconds, I want to raise with Kenny MacAskill a couple of points on the vital issue of enforcement with regard to drug dealing. We need to be very cautious with those who dismiss our approach to antisocial behaviour. As drug dealers actively encourage and engage those who are involved in street violence, if we deal with antisocial behaviour, particularly among the under-16s, we will cut off their options. It might well be seen as tough love, but we need to divert and stop young people before they are caught up in a cycle of despair, addiction and criminality.

I also wonder whether, in his summing up, Kenny MacAskill will respond to two very quick questions. First, is the SNP still committed to delivering a 20 per cent increase in funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation services? Secondly, will it give us some indication about its commitment to £10 million of dedicated funding for drugs education, and to ring fencing moneys in that respect? After all, in dealing with the challenge of drugs, it is vital that we keep all options open. In that regard, I must point out that, if the SNP Administration goes through with its plan of limiting the ability of sheriffs and judges to send to prison those whom they think should be sent there by getting rid of sentences of less than six months in some sweeping gesture, it will find that it will not be able to tackle this problem. If it wants tough sentencing for drugs offences, it simply cannot get rid of such sentences. As I have said, we must keep all options open.

I very much welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of tackling drugs misuse and congratulate the cabinet secretary on bringing the topic to the chamber at such an early stage in the new session.

Mr Ewing said that drugs misuse is "the most pernicious social challenge of our time", and I endorse every word of that. I also feel comforted. Scotland has entered a new political age, and there can be no dispute about the new political mix and attitude in the Parliament. I genuinely detect a change in political will with regard to drug abuse. At this point, I put on record my respect for and acknowledgement of the First Minister's role in that change of direction. The launch of the directory to which Mr Ewing referred is indicative of such progress, and I am encouraged by the willingness to consider the possibility of extending the ability to issue DTTOs to district courts, which is something that my party advocated in its manifesto. I accept, however, that that will have resource implications.

It is vital that we put past failures behind us. We have spent far too much time ignoring direct evidence not only from the wide range of people who work with addiction but from addicts themselves, and we have been far too reluctant to challenge methods of and approaches to dealing with drug abuse that were conceived 15 or 20 years ago. Things must change—and quickly. However, I am confident that if members of the Parliament work together in the way that Mr Ewing has called for we can achieve real and lasting change.

We need to move into a new era in which none of us is scared to face up to the real challenge of eradicating drugs from our society. None of us is scared to face up to the reality of what is going on. As other speakers have pointed out, the situation in Scotland is singularly depressing. Indeed, Margaret Smith referred to the fact that the number of drug-related deaths has recently soared to 421.

However, as depressing as the picture is, I pay tribute to the outstanding professionalism and commitment shown by individuals throughout Scotland who fight drug abuse every day. We should be very proud of their efforts at grass-roots level, and we must ensure that approaches and practices that demonstrably work are encouraged by recognition, support and resource.

As I have indicated, the Conservatives support the expansion of the use of DTTOs in our courts. After all, it is believed that 70 per cent of court cases have a drug-related aspect. That said, we must get things into a logical, sensible order. Although increasing and expanding referral and intervention facilities is an attractive option, unless we can get the basic rehabilitation sector ready to deal with individuals we will simply be putting the cart before the horse.

An important part of what we are trying to do involves our prisons, where I believe we need a comprehensive system of drug treatment and testing. After all, if we do not know the extent of the problem, how on earth can we address it? If we can find the political will to tackle the problem in our prisons, the benefits to society will be great.

The mandatory testing system that the Conservatives introduced at great expense into the prison service a considerable time ago has been counterproductive. Instead, we must engage those in prison by offering them drug testing and rewards for testing drug-free and by improving drug-free zones in prisons. Simply imposing further testing will be expensive, and there is no evidence that it will work. Perhaps the Conservatives should stick to their mantra of "Let us do only what works".

I am not able to agree totally with Dr Simpson, although his attitude probably explains why we now have such an unprecedented drug addiction problem in our prisons that even our prison officers are at their wits' end to know what to do. At the moment, there is no information base on which to assess the best way of dealing with drug-addicted prisoners.

That said, I accept the latter part of Dr Simpson's proposition. It is, of course, not just a question of finding out who is addicted; the prison must have the support facilities to begin to deal with the problem.

If we can start to tackle what is by any assessment an appalling problem in our prisons, we cannot lose. We will have lower levels of reoffending, less crime and a safer prison environment, which will be good for addicts, families and society as a whole. Moreover, we urgently need a proactive rehabilitation programme—not just within our prisons, I should add—that allows agencies to work with addicts in prison to prepare them for release into the community.

I will not rehearse the statistics that other speakers have quoted, but they say it all about the scale of the problem that we face. We should all acknowledge that they are not simply sterile facts on bits of paper; they are depressing, disturbing and horrifying, and should stop us in our tracks.

We need a clearer strategy that rehabilitates those who have been caught up in a life of drugs and helps them on the way to abstinence while adopting a zero-tolerance attitude to drugs and, especially, to drug dealers. As politicians, we must ensure that such a strategy is in place and that we manage to provide a coherent and robust rehabilitation programme.

On harm reduction, I have in the past said publicly that methadone has a role to play, but only as one of a range of options. The Conservatives want an end to the overreliance on methadone as a dominant response to addiction.

I endorse and applaud the minister's approach. We can make progress with this matter, but only if we refrain from managing the problem. We must now be prepared to tackle it, and I pledge my party's unstinting support in charting that new direction. We will do everything that we can to help mend our broken society and, in that regard, I support Mr MacAskill's motion.

I will endeavour not to repeat statistics that have already been cited in the debate, but perhaps I can begin by highlighting a few other figures. Although I fully agree with Margaret Curran's response to Brian Adam's intervention that there is a high incidence of drug abuse in the pockets of deprivation in Glasgow, I should point out that, according to last year's drugs misuse statistics for Scotland, the trend with regard to new referrals is also increasing in rural areas. In 2001-02, 118 referrals were made in the Borders, whereas, last year, there were 219. I believe that the figures are worst of all in Tayside, where, in 2001-02, 346 referrals were made while, in 2005-06, there were 902. Perhaps that trend suggests that dealers are simply moving out to fresh fields.

I welcome the tone of the debate and the view that it is the duty of the Parliament, including both ministers and committees, to try to deal with this major issue, which is a tough one. If it were not, somebody would have solved it somewhere and we could just pick up a map and follow the solution.

Another unfortunate statistic, to which someone may have referred earlier, is that, according to Professor McKeganey, there are currently 50,000 heroin addicts in Scotland and 22,000 on methadone. All their families and communities are also affected by this dreadful plague.

After eight years of this young Parliament, we have increased drug addiction, increased alcohol abuse and an increased prison population, which relates both to acquisitive crimes and to crimes of violence—the former are more often related to drugs and the latter are more often related to alcohol. Unfortunately, there is also the ever-increasing spiral of teenage drinking. This morning's Herald has the headline "Teenage drinking spirals into drug abuse and crime".

Many years ago, when I was on the Justice 1 Committee, we visited Barlinnie prison. A medical officer there made it plain that, in his view, the gateway into drug addiction is alcohol. Sadly, that point is now reflected in the report in The Herald.

This is obvious stuff and there are short-term and long-term solutions. On the former, I welcome the attitude to the failure of custodial sentences because, as we know, short-term sentences do not give prison officers an opportunity to get into the rehabilitation of prisoners. There is no joined-up progression from rehabilitation in prison to life outside it. The drug dealers used to wait at the prison gates and sometimes threw the drugs over the prison walls to the prisoners. There was a cycle of drug abuse that just brought people back into prison.

The public quite rightly expect people who steal and who are violent to be punished, and they expect to be protected from such people, but there must also be a role for rehabilitation. The protection and the punishment are only short term if someone offends again after a short-term sentence and then receives a further short-term sentence. That view is sometimes a hard one to sell; it appears that we are being soft on certain people, when in fact we are trying to be hard in a way that helps the individual and society.

I commend the work of the drugs courts, which I have seen in operation. However, their work is very intensive and involves a lot of sheriff manpower. For a drug and/or alcohol abuser, it is often one step forward, two steps back. The drugs courts service must therefore have a high level of commitment, but that is dependent on available funding and manpower.

The issue of education on drug abuse is difficult. What we do does not work. Advertising campaigns about drug addiction tend to be just short term; at the time, they look as if they will work and they might indeed have some impact. Some public health advertising campaigns in other areas have worked. For example, campaigns about violence against women have had an impact. However, the message on drug addiction is obviously not getting through to our young people, who think that they are immortal.

I am sorry to contradict Christine Grahame, but the Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey, which is a two-yearly study that looks at attitudes to drugs among secondary school children, has shown that, since 2001, the level of use of drugs by young people has stabilised and has begun to drop. I agree with Christine Grahame that we need to do more, but to say that drugs use continues to increase is to mislead.

I defer to Dr Simpson's knowledge in certain areas, but the headline that I quoted refers to a serious report, which I hope he will read. Its evidence reflects what we see on our streets. When we talk about drug addiction, we must also look back to see where that comes from for our young people. Obviously, it often starts with excessive alcohol consumption.

Professor McKeganey states that there are only 300 places for residential treatment. National health service boards refer people with drugs and alcohol problems to residential places in Castle Craig hospital in the Borders for treatment and rehabilitation. There were 149 such referrals in 1997, but it is predicted that there will be only 33 this year. Either NHS boards do not have sufficient money, or they are not using their money for residential treatment.

I welcome the new structure of the cabinet, which is much more integrated than it was previously. I hope that that structure will be reflected in how the parliamentary committees work. When the Health and Sport Committee was considering whether to do work on drug addiction and so on, members kept saying, "Well, that's a justice issue," "That's an education issue," or "That's a housing issue." It would be useful if committees could work together on a parallel investigation on drug addiction and do so in tandem with the Government.

I commend the Social Justice Committee's report of December 2000, to which Margaret Curran referred. Everything that it said is worth while. I do not know whether that was one of the reports to which the minister referred. If it was not, he should read it.

The motion says everything—well, almost everything. There is not a lot in it with which we could disagree. However, there is not enough—or perhaps anything—about how to address the underlying cause of addiction. We have not looked at that seriously.

The question is how we achieve the measures to which the motion refers. Margaret Smith talked about projects that are giving people heroin. I am not going to tell members what age I am—they can look that up on the web—but when I started in social work, there were 38 heroin addicts in Glasgow. I had them all on my case load and looked after them. They came in every day, got their heroin and went off to work or did whatever they had to do. However, as we all know, things have changed.

How did we get to where we are? After heroin hit the streets, the first thing that we were told was that we had methadone and that it was a great thing. It was first introduced to those of us who worked with addicts, but it was not seen as an answer to addiction. We were not sold that line and I did not sell it on to addicts with whom I worked. I did not say, "If you take this methadone, then your addiction will disappear." What I did sell was an answer to a chaotic lifestyle and an opportunity for them to look after their kids and settle their lives into some kind of order, with plenty of constructive support.

We found that the approach of having someone at the end of a phone 24/7 could work. Those of us who got involved and tried it argued that it could work generally, but it did not happen. Why not? Is it because it takes a lot of money? David Liddell, the director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, says that we need to spend between £7,000 and £10,000 for each addict. That is a lot of money, but I think that it would be cost effective. It is less than the cost of keeping someone in prison or of caring for looked-after children. It is also a lot less than we pay for kinship care, which I will come to later. Will the Executive have the guts to spend such an amount of money on those individuals? I am not sure. The Executive is spending money like it has gone out of style, so I do not know whether there will be anything left. The motion states that the Executive

"recognises that there will be resource implications".

However, I am not sure whether that means that it will meet those resource implications.

Let us look at attitudes. There are still those around who do not believe that addiction is an illness. They say that people can give up whatever it is. They say that if someone is anorexic, they eat; if someone is fat, they do not eat; and if someone is using drugs, they give them up—it is easy. However, that is not true. There is a wide range of people who are on drugs.

Margaret Smith and others pointed out that drug addiction affects not only a particular social class but all social classes. Many drug addicts have mental illnesses and they are moved from pillar to post. One minute they are in an addiction centre, the next they are in a hospital. Nobody involved talks to anybody else, so they do not know what the individual's main problem is.

We are dealing with a multimillion pound industry out there. There is a lot of money around in drugs. Dealers nowadays are often addicts, which is not what I saw in the 1980s.

What is needed? We need a wide range of quality support from different services. Service provision is patchy at the moment. Services can occasionally be accessed quickly. For example, there is apparently no waiting list for services in Fife. However, in general, access to services is a slow process. There is a need for wrap-around services and for that old chestnut, the joined-up approach through the single shared assessment.

Addicts may have separate assessments for housing, education, training and family support. Why? That is a waste of time and money. The assessments that are available through the drug treatment and testing orders are costly, but they are just single assessments and are therefore probably a better way of spending money. I have some sympathy for the proposal to extend the DTTOs into district courts.

So what are the solutions? We need to invest in early support for the most vulnerable families—everybody agrees with that. Children whose parents are addicts can be easily identified. They tend to be withdrawn at school, or they can be the opposite and be very aggressive. The children tend to have no confidence and live in social isolation.

When I talk about drugs, I mean drugs and alcohol. However, I think that some people separate alcohol off. We must think about doing that in this case, perhaps, because of what is called hidden harm. It is much more difficult to identify that someone has an alcohol problem than it is to identify that they have a drugs problem.

We must ensure that we do not channel the resources to the user and forget the child—that is what worries me. We need proper material and financial support for kinship carers—that is an absolute. My colleague Wendy Alexander is interested in considering that matter closely.

Alcohol and drug action teams need to have a thorough review of the treatment, care and rehabilitation in their areas and the health services need to be included in their decisions. If we agree that more needs to be spent to achieve our goals, we must consider ring fencing. That might take away local accountability, but if councils have the money in a soft budget line, we should ring fence it. However, whatever we do, it will take time. There are too many long-term addicts, some of whom are now in their 50s. Care packages must reflect the whole problem, both during and after drugs misuse. As Margaret Curran said, there is an undisputed link between drugs, alcohol and antisocial behaviour. The SNP must be careful not to lose that link if it considers antisocial behaviour legislation. That is one of the most important points.

Many parents are desperate for help, but they do not want closed-circuit television cameras in their living-rooms. Children of addicts need care and protection to be provided by social work departments, other interested parties and voluntary organisations, which should adopt health and care programmes that ensure that young citizens escape the blighting of their lives that is brought about by parents who themselves are in need of support and treatment.

I will use speeches that we have heard so far as the framework for mine. Fergus Ewing gave a full account of the work that he is undertaking—we wish him the best on that front. He mentioned the problems of crime and the break-up of families and used the phrase "joint working and intelligence". I shall support Margaret Smith's amendment, with its call for increased expenditure. She talked about joint working and mentioned, among others services, the NHS and social work. Margaret Curran referred rightly to the work of the voluntary sector. Christine Grahame properly made the point that the gateway to drug abuse is often alcohol and she rightly drew attention to the rural perspective.

On 20 December last year, I had a meeting with Steve March and Jack Law of Alcohol Focus Scotland, who pointed out to me that all parts of the Highlands except Caithness have councils on alcohol. There was a Caithness council on alcohol until fairly recently but, for reasons that I will not go into, it went out of existence. I was told that, although Alcohol Focus Scotland spends a great deal of money throughout Scotland, it was not impacting on what Christine Grahame referred to as one of the gateways to drug abuse. Let us remember that the councils on alcohol, despite their title, have responsibility for drug abuse, too. Previously, NHS Highland and Highland Council gave £7,500 towards the service, but it is no more. That meeting was on 20 December last year. By a fortunate coincidence, there was a debate that same evening in Maureen Macmillan's name about drug abuse in the Highlands, during which I raised the matter and asked ministers to give it attention and consider why Caithness did not enjoy the service.

I move forward to today, a number of months on. I am indebted to Jon Webster, a community mental health nurse and the chair of the Caithness drug and alcohol forum, who has pointed out that we are still in the same situation today, several months on. We have now had 18 months without the service. Evidence has been gathered locally in Caithness to support the need for an effective counselling service and separate proposals have been made by Birchwood Highland and Alcohol Focus Scotland, two organisations with which Fergus Ewing will be familiar. The proposals have been put to NHS Highland and Highland Council, but as yet no move has been made to address the issue, although measures may be in train and officials could be dealing with the matter. My only reason for speaking in the debate is to say that a rural part of the world is not enjoying the level of service that it could, which is relevant if we accept Christine Grahame's argument about alcohol being the gateway to drug abuse. I wonder what problems are being built up for the future. When the service was working, it helped approximately 200 people per annum, but that is now not happening.

The point of my speech, which will be briefer than the six minutes that I have been given, is unashamedly local and related to my constituency. The problem of drugs is not the preserve of the deprived or the rich or of rural areas or cities—it is everywhere. However, right now, one part of Scotland is not enjoying the service that it should have. On a personal level, I say to the minister that I would be extremely grateful if he and his colleagues could at least take a look at the problem and, if it is as bad as it appears, help us to put it right.

Members will have various experiences of the drugs problems in Scotland and in their local communities. I certainly hope that the new SNP Government can build a consensual approach to tackling the issue. The problem of drugs abuse is shocking. On 24 July, the Daily Record had a report in which it quoted Professor Neil McKeganey and stated that 50,000 people in Scotland are on heroin, 22,000 are on methadone and we have only 300 places for residential treatment. Christine Grahame mentioned some of those figures earlier and the minister highlighted other statistics. The problem is vast. It is obvious that every stakeholder should get involved in the fight against drugs misuse.

To follow the consensual approach, I point out that I am not averse to some policies in the other parties' manifestos for the recent election. The Labour Party suggested providing a wider range of drug treatments that are tailored to the individual, and making it easier to seize assets using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and reinvesting drug dealers' money in the communities that are hardest hit by drugs. Labour also said that it would not shy away from taking children away from drug-misusing parents for their safety and well-being and that it wanted to take into account the wider family in rehabilitation programmes. Some of those proposals are laudable. I am also keen on the Conservative policy of putting £100 million into tackling drugs.

Obviously, I stood on an SNP platform, with SNP policies such as developing a national drugs commission, increasing by 20 per cent the funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes, increasing access to abstinence programmes, dedicating £10 million to drugs education in schools, and increasing support services for the families of drug addicts and the families of those who misuse alcohol. I hope that some of those policies are included in our national strategy. I am happy to have a broader, non-partisan approach to continuing the struggle and, judging from what has been said so far in the debate, I think that that is true of other members.

In the run-up to the election, I visited the Haven rehabilitation centre in Kilmacolm, which opened my eyes. I was humbled by the success stories that I was told. Of the people who go to the Haven, 65 per cent come out rehabilitated and drug free. That success rate means that the blight on our communities from drug abuse is reduced and people go back into society to play an active and positive part in our communities. I was told one story that I am sure has been replicated throughout the country. The Haven has a graduation ceremony for those who go back into the community. When one individual who is now clean and back in the community attended the ceremony, his family, including his child, were there, which was the first time that he had seen his child in about eight years. When drug addicts become clean and get their lives and families back together, that is a major achievement for them and for our society and communities.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but not at the moment.

I live in Greenock in Inverclyde, an area that has well-documented drugs problems. Duncan McNeil and I are fully aware of the devastating effect that drugs have had in Inverclyde. I may not always agree with Duncan's comments on drugs, but I know that he wants Inverclyde to be a better place and that he wants a successful outcome in combating the problems and challenges of drug abuse. Combating drug abuse will help Scottish society immeasurably. It will help those drug addicts who want to be clean and want to get their lives back in order and it will help our communities to live in a stronger Scotland, where criminal activity perpetrated by drug addicts is reduced and where our citizens can live in a safer society.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. Because of its impact on communities and families right across Scotland, no issue is more important for us to discuss. Who could argue with the view that we should reach a political consensus on how to deal with the issue? However, our views on how to deal with it sometimes differ.

The current methadone programme is a key part of the harm-reduction approach to drug abuse. It was supposed to stop addicts dying, but drug-related deaths have continued to rise—up by 25 per cent last year. It was supposed to get addicts off drugs by providing a legal substitute, but 70 per cent of those on methadone are still getting their illegal hits anyway. It was supposed to cut drug-related crime, but 80 per cent of addicts on methadone are still committing crimes, and our prisons are full of inmates with drug addictions.

We have to grasp this issue. Members may not all agree, but I feel that by making drug use affordable and acceptable, current policies are conspiring to keep addicts in what—over generations in some cases—has become a way of life. The sad fact behind recent reported deaths is that some of those people were not our children but our grandparents. The harm-reduction approach has increased the risk for our children and our communities. Therefore, calls for "more support" or "more of the same" will not help. We have heard such calls from members this morning.

Is the answer not to challenge the lack of ambition that saw stabilisation as the only realistic policy goal? We have to move towards cessation schemes. We have to challenge drug-taking behaviour and have a clear ambition—as Stuart McMillan said earlier—to get as many people as we can back to their families, back to work and back into the community.

We have to acknowledge that some people who take drugs have multiple problems. However, whether we accept it or not, there are also people who like drugs and choose to take them. That behaviour has to be challenged. Those people are not the only innocent victims; the child, the neighbour and the parent of the addict are the victims as well.

If the Executive is intent on setting up another consultation, that is a worthy intention. If we can reach a consensus on how to challenge the present situation, that will be great. However, I give members a reminder—as if it were needed—about how the children of drug-abusing parents find their way on to the priority lists. The reminder is from the recently published letters of assurance that the Executive sought from local authorities. Those letters reveal that any number of children in Scotland may be living—unidentified and unprotected—in the squalor of parental drug addiction.

Among the correspondence is a submission in which Strathclyde Police chief constable Sir Willie Rae and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde chief executive Tom Divers concede that

"At this present time, we could not provide general assurance that all children affected by substance misuse have been identified."

Those men are very senior figures delivering services in our communities.

However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Executive's own summary acknowledges that

"the vast majority of … areas experience difficulty in consistently identifying those children affected by drug misuse."

That was reported by child protection committees.

In Inverclyde, the past council leader Alan Blair acknowledged that children were living in such circumstances. He admitted that their safety could not be guaranteed. In North Lanarkshire, a report signed off by council, health and police chiefs states:

"We cannot provide a definitive guarantee that all children who … have parents who are misusing substances have been identified."

Senior figures in South Lanarkshire assert that the reason why

"it is never possible to be entirely confident in relation to the identification of all children … affected by parental drug use"

is that drug users are hidden from services. However, precisely where those self-sufficient drug addicts—who have never accessed housing benefit, child benefit, council tax benefit, a general practitioner, a social worker, the housing department or any other public service—are to be found is, alas, not divulged.

I could go on, but time is limited and I am sure that members get the picture. Children are being failed by a system that does not even see them as a statistic. Local authorities have been given a clear duty by the Executive to ensure that addicts' children get the services they need before they are at risk of harm. However, as has now been revealed by the letters of assurance, local authorities are nothing like able to meet that obligation.

The inability to identify, far less protect, a significant number of children and young people is not only creating much needless suffering but risking another child's preventable death. I therefore renew my call to the minister—whether it be Shona Robison, Fergus Ewing, Kenny MacAskill, Adam Ingram, or whoever can be put in post specifically to deal with this issue—to act now. There are no excuses and there can be no delay. Those children need our help now.

A couple of weeks ago, I served a night shift with the local police force down in my constituency in the Borders. I was able to see at first hand what the police encounter every day and to discuss their concerns about how we can improve general policing and safety records in the Borders. It is clear—as it is throughout the United Kingdom—that drug abuse and crimes connected to drug use take up a lot of police time.

It is often assumed that drug abuse is a problem of the big cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, as Christine Grahame stated earlier, it is as much a blight on the streets of the towns and villages across the Borders as it is elsewhere. Indeed, in some league tables on drug crime, the Scottish Borders area comes ahead of West Lothian and Falkirk and is on a par with Edinburgh.

The drug dependency figures for young people in the Scottish Borders show a worrying trend. In a recent survey, a staggering 20 per cent of 15-year-olds had used drugs, which is higher than the average for Scotland. What is more, the number of drug-related deaths of people in their early 20s is disproportionately higher in the Scottish Borders. Drug use is clearly becoming a problem at an earlier age in the Scottish Borders, and there is no clear evidence as to why.

The decision of the previous Scottish Government to replace the just say no campaign with the much weaker know the score programme was perhaps not the wisest decision. We need to make children much more aware of the dangers of drugs from an earlier age.

I note the SNP's election pledge to ensure £10 million investment in classroom–based drug education. I hope that the new Administration can fulfil that election promise.

We must consider the provision of services to tackle drugs misuse from a rural perspective. The health service has been increasingly centralised in the big towns and cities. In rural areas a home visit can sometimes take up most of the day. For safety reasons, such visits often have to be carried out by more than one person. Such issues have to be given greater consideration. An extra £15,000 of funding might go a long way in Glasgow or Dundee, but it will not even pay the cost of an extra member of staff in somewhere like the Borders. The downgrading of the Borders local treatment centres has had an adverse consequence. It is only right that the Government should reflect on that in future funding plans.

Social responsibility and social entrepreneurs have an important role to play in dealing with social problems. It is therefore important not to forget the role that the voluntary and charitable sectors, as well as social entrepreneurs, can play in tackling problems. I would like that to be recognised more, and those sectors to be included in public policy reviews to a much greater extent. Government does not always know best and it does not always have the right answers—sometimes it is better for it to stand aside and let others take over. I am waiting eagerly to see how the new Administration will approach that aspect of the drugs challenge.

I am proud of the work that my Conservative party colleagues have done in pursuing drug abuse. Annabel Goldie has highlighted the issue consistently, often when it was not fashionable to do so. The damage that drug abuse does to our communities is immeasurable. Annabel Goldie and the Scottish Conservatives should be congratulated on the work that they did in the previous session to push the issue to the top of the agenda. My Conservative colleagues and I intend in this session to ensure that that work continues.

I am pleased that so far the new Administration has been prepared to co-operate on the matter. I am sure that there are many areas on which we will disagree, but there is great potential for us to work together on drug abuse to bring about positive change.

I can give Bill Wilson just under six minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer—that means that I can put some of the scored-out bits of my speech back in.

I congratulate Fergus Ewing on his presentation of the motion, which contains much that is to be welcomed. It refers to better treatment of addicts, the need for better protection of addicts' children, the need to improve drugs education and, not least, the need to offer young people better opportunities in life. An effective drugs policy would be cost effective, as it would cut crime; reduce total costs to the national health service, police and judiciary; and reduce the suffering of addicts, their families and the many victims of drug-related crime. An effective drugs policy would pay for itself.

To get such an effective, cost-effective policy we need honest, evidence-based debate. We must move away from the old knee-jerk, tabloid-proofed, party political but essentially empty and counterproductive rhetoric of the past. That is why we should welcome the proposal to introduce a national drugs commission with the aim of producing an evidence-based long-term strategy. In the late 1960s, there were a few thousand addicts in the United Kingdom. Today, across the spectrum of drugs use, there are approximately a quarter of a million. Heroin and methadone account for 85 per cent of drug-related deaths. In the European Union there are between 8,000 and 9,000 opiate deaths each year.

Addicts damage not only themselves but the fabric of society. According to one source, each of the estimated 40,000 heroin addicts in the UK commits an average of 432 crimes a year at a cost of £45,000—£1.8 billion in total. In the USA, Superior Court Judge Howard Scheinblum—I hope that I am pronouncing his name correctly—estimated that 90 per cent of criminal cases in the state of Connecticut were connected in some way to the pursuit of illegal drugs. Judge James P Gray of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, stated that the sale of illicit drugs was by far the largest source of funding for terrorists around the world. In Afghanistan, the drugs eradication policy is not only alienating impoverished farmers but has just resulted in the largest illegal opium crop in history. Meanwhile, there is a world shortage of legal sources of opiates—Africa is in a pain crisis. Where is it going, who is being harmed, and who is benefiting?

It is clear that previous policies have not been and are not being successful. The past two decades of special measures, drugs tsars, higher sentences and various education campaigns here and in many other countries appear to have resulted in more drug users than ever, the profits from selling drugs being greater than ever and the incentive to produce, distribute and push drugs being greater than ever. Is that the universal picture? Are we irretrievably doomed? Ilka chiel maun dree his ain weird—is there no escaping ours?

If we are to fix things and to have a comprehensive, evidence-based debate, we need to look not only at what does not work—the policies that have gone before—but, more important, at what does work. A study of drugs services in six Dutch cities published in the British Medical Journal showed that the clinic-based prescription of heroin as part of an overall package of care, though expensive, resulted in a reduction in drugs-related crime and a net saving per patient of £8,600 per year; in other words, it more than paid for itself. A successful drugs policy will also pull the carpet from under the feet of the drug dealers.

In Zurich, a programme of clinic-based administration of heroin and methadone saw an 82 per cent reduction in the number of new addicts over 10 years, and there is an on-going annual decrease. Incidentally, addicts on the programme, in which the taking of heroin is greatly deglamorised, successfully come off the drug. The Lancet has called for a thorough trial of drug-consumption rooms in the UK, and there are currently Home Office pilot projects in London and Manchester. I am delighted that the Executive is committed to developing an evidence-based policy, is prepared to consider innovative approaches and recognises that not all of what has gone before works.

I conclude with the words of those who should know about the issue—a few present and retired police chiefs. Chief Constable John Vine of Tayside Police states:

"The idea of a heroin clinic has potential. Unless we get past the hand wringing, do nothing stage, there will be no progress."

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom of North Wales Police states:

"the current regime is untenable and it is not going to be successful any more than controlling alcohol was through prohibition in the US. We are making it easy for organised crime".

Inspector Jim Duffy, chairman of Strathclyde police federation, states:

"We are not winning the war against drugs and we need to think about different ways to tackle it. Tell me a village where they are drug free".

If we want to keep people safe and to protect them, we must examine new approaches, develop evidence-based policies, tackle poverty and consider alternative methods of rehabilitation.

I am delighted that the first debate of this term to which I am contributing is on the important issue of drugs misuse. I thank Kenny MacAskill for bringing the issue to the chamber. There are a number of topics that I want to address today, but I will enter into the consensual spirit of this period in Scottish politics for a moment and say that I welcome those parts of the SNP motion in which ministers commit themselves to promoting recovery from addiction, ensuring that children are protected and improving drug education.

Although the Scottish Liberal Democrats fully support tough enforcement of the law against drug dealers, we must consider the recent comments of Tom Wood, the chair of the Scottish Association of Alcohol and Drug Action Teams, who said:

"We have lost the war on drugs. We must re-focus resources on education and deterrence."

The role of enforcement should be to tackle class A drugs and to seize the assets of drug dealers. Users need help and support to get off drugs. If the SNP focuses on those two issues, I will be more than happy to support it.

The facts about drugs are clear. Margaret Smith, Annabel Goldie and others have already made this point, but I have no hesitation in making it again: in 2006 there were 421 drug-related deaths. There are now 21,000 people on methadone, and 160,000 children in Scotland live with drink or drug-dependent parents. Duncan McNeil made the extremely good point that those are the children we know about. Another member pointed out that drug use is an issue throughout society. Has anyone done research into those children who live in middle and upper-class families in which the drug that is misused is cocaine? I am pleased that the minister is to give more support to families and children.

The answer to the member's question about whether research has been done in this area is yes. The estimated number of children who are associated with drug-using families is more than 50,000—some would say 60,000. The number of children who are associated with families in which alcohol is a problem is 70,000—some would say 100,000. Between 100,000 and 150,000 children are affected, which is the equivalent of three birth years.

I take Richard Simpson's point and, like others, bow to his knowledge of the area, which is greater than mine.

Trish Godman was absolutely right to make the point that antisocial behaviour is almost always the result of misuse of mainly drink, but also drugs. In Edinburgh, the way forward has been seen through action on alcohol and drugs, a partnership of the key bodies in the city that deal with different aspects of alcohol and drugs misuse. The partnership performs a key role in allocating funding to agencies offering treatment and rehabilitation in the area of drug and alcohol misuse. It is a great scheme that seeks to ensure that there are no gaps or overlaps in the services that people with substance misuse problems receive. Funding of such schemes needs to be increased. For every £1 that is spent on treatment, £3 is saved on enforcement.

Trish Godman pointed out that it costs up to £10,000 to treat someone. She obviously has experience of that. We need to take cognisance of such experience.

I hope that the new SNP Government will spend more money on preventing drugs misuse. It has long been my party's policy that Government should spend to save in many areas of public policy. That needs to be done in this area. The cost to society of drugs misuse is huge. The Scottish Executive—when it was the Scottish Executive—estimated a cost of £330 million in relation to absenteeism, crime and the criminal justice system. If a fraction of that was better channelled towards treatment and rehabilitation, we would be a better society. What will the Government consider doing in that regard?

The previous Executive made a good start in changing our culture of drugs. I welcome the minister's commitment to extend drug treatment and testing orders, particularly for females and children. I disagree with Annabel Goldie, and think that Richard Simpson is right: we do not need more testing in prison—we should be sending fewer people to prison for short-term sentences and should use DTTOs to keep such people out of prison and thereby reduce our prison population. Duncan McNeil was right to say that we need to keep families together as far as possible and to give them help, rather than put the mother or father in prison.

DTTOs have cut reoffending rates: 48 per cent of people given an order have not reoffended within two years. Seventy per cent of cases dealt with by the courts are believed to be drug related. The DTTO method of dealing with drugs misuse is the best way of addressing drug-related criminal behaviour. That has been coupled with the work of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, which seized £70 million worth of drugs in 2005-06.

We have also tackled people who are engaged in trafficking and organised crime, with 43 new finance investigators working to seize the assets of drug dealing. Some of those assets have gone directly to communities—I know that the Royal Mile outside the Parliament is cleaned by a washer truck that was bought using such money.

My colleague Margaret Smith highlighted the need for more residential rehab places. Such rehab is very effective for most people, but at present only one person in 50 is offered a place. If we had spent more money on residential rehab for drug users it could have had a serious impact.

I am pleased that the SNP has addressed the issue, but we still await the details, as we do with so much of its programme for government.

Our amendment highlights the way forward and I urge members to support it.

I have found this debate encouraging. Not only have there been a lot of positive contributions in which members have drawn on their expertise from previous occupations, but what has come across is a consensus and determination to address the major problem that Scotland faces today.

The buck stops here. Although the ministerial team has special responsibility for finding a solution to the problem, every one of us has to buy into doing something about this 21st century scourge, which has cost so much in lives and resources. That is why it is good that the mood of the debate has been one of quiet determination to do something about the problem.

What do we do? As Christine Grahame said, there are no easy answers—if there were, people would have found them long before now—but we can make a start. I congratulate the Scottish Government ministers on the start that they have made. They have acknowledged that the mood of the Parliament is that there requires to be some lateral, out-of-the-box thinking and that some of the sacred cows that have governed the drug policy of all parties have to be slaughtered.

I am particularly pleased about the intention to extend DTTOs through the district courts to young offenders in respect of the children's hearings system and to female offenders. I have long felt that the way in which the court system operates prejudices those at the lower end of the scale of criminality and those who might have a greater degree of determination to overcome their drug difficulties. The move is therefore wise and positive.

I am also encouraged by the determination shown by ministers to build on the achievements of the previous Administration by acknowledging that confiscations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should be directed towards activities involving young people. The devil will find evil for idle hands to do. We have to keep youngsters occupied.

I am also encouraged by the determination to look anew at some problems. We are not going to reach agreement about everything that we have discussed, but we have to try, because the figures that have been bandied about this morning are chilling. Margaret Curran referred to the report that was produced seven years ago by the then Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee on drug abuse and its effect on poorer areas. One of the worst things to come out of the report—Margaret Curran will correct me if I am wrong—was the evidence that there were many families in the Glasgow area in which three generations were addicted to drugs. If that was the situation seven years ago, it will be much worse now. We have to do something about it.

I suggest that the way forward is a tripartite approach involving prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation.

We will support the activities of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and demand that the toughest possible sentences be given to people who peddle human misery.

On prevention, we must send out a clear, unequivocal message that the use of drugs is not only crazy but unacceptable. In the past, we have not got the educational message correct, nor have we been able to direct it effectively towards young people.

We have to consider rehabilitation carefully. We have to involve everyone. Of course we have to involve the public sector, but we must also consider what has been successful in the private and voluntary sectors. We must garner good ideas that have worked and use them effectively.

On prisons, I do not agree with Richard Simpson that drug testing is negative, but I do agree that we should encourage drug-free areas in prison and provide back-up to prisoners when they leave. I recollect visiting a unit in Barlinnie in which the people were staying clean—they seemed to me to all intents and purposes to be clean. However, I acknowledge the pressures that such people face when they leave prison. It is likely that they would be tapped on the number 37 bus back to Pollok, where the drug dealers would be going up and down the stairs giving them freebies. The pressure under which such people operate must be severe.

We must consider the provision of residential rehab units. The approach is multifaceted. Interesting ideas have been raised this morning, although I do not agree with some of them, such as the suggestion—if I heard it right—from Bill Wilson regarding heroin provision, which is off-the-wall and will not receive unanimous support.

The debate has been encouraging and we must continue along that route.

I want to maintain the spirit of consensus, after one slight interruption. John Lamont said that Annabel Goldie raised the issue of drugs misuse even when it was not fashionable to do so. I argue that all members in the chamber have raised the issue and that it has always been the fashion to do so, because drugs misuse affects many parts of Scotland. It is important that we learn. We are not pioneers of the cross-party approach. I am old enough—I suppose that most of us are—to remember the Scotland against drugs campaign, which is the one thing for which I give Michael Forsyth credit. The campaign highlighted the need for parties to work together and the need for us to acknowledge the challenges that our constituents face.

It is important that we move away from the language that members have used today and in previous debates—the word "holistic", the "joined-up approach" and many other such references that have been made—and talk about the specifics. Duncan McNeil and other members raised specific points, and it is important that we take them on board. He also raised the issue of the importance of having a more robust regime in the methadone dispensing programme. I know that in my constituency there is a role for pharmacies to play in supporting addicts who are involved in the methadone programme and ensuring that they and their children receive services during that process.

Trish Godman made a constructive and informed speech on the importance of kinship. Every member in the chamber values the role of grandparents and other carers in respect of tackling drugs misuse. In that area, members of the Parliament can move away from using language such as "holistic" and "joined up" and say, "Yes, we will take on board the importance of the role of kinship, and we will move forward to ensure that grandparents and other carers feel valued." To be honest, I am afraid that grandparents and other carers do not feel valued at the moment. When they do, we will be setting a clear agenda on which we can move forward.

As in previous debates on drugs misuse—I checked the Official Report—members mentioned that there were 421 drug-related deaths in Scotland in 2006. We talk about the challenges that arise in relation to drugs, but we should also consider how we can learn from that statistic. We are talking about human beings and human tragedies, and many families are affected by drugs misuse. Is it time to consider establishing a drugs commission? I would like to hear the Executive's view on that. Will the Cabinet Secretary for Justice take the matter forward and consider holding a more detailed inquiry into how those deaths occurred? Are there lessons to be learned from the specific detail of the deaths of those individuals? We are referring to human beings; they are not just statistics. Perhaps we should take a more detailed approach to ensure that we learn from the statistics. The Parliament launched an inquiry in respect of the McKie case. I argue that a public inquiry might be required into the 421 drug-related deaths in Scotland. Such an inquiry should at least be considered, because it would help us to understand the statistics and ensure that, when we invest in challenging the misuse of drugs, we get best value.

I turn to the question of how we tackle antisocial behaviour and the importance of ensuring that the right environment does not exist for the drug dealers who are the scourge of our communities. Let us face it—constituencies such as mine and Margaret Curran's are havens for drug dealers. Through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, we successfully provided unprecedented levels of investment to tackle drug dealers. I speak from my personal experience in dealing with Glasgow's neighbourhood relations team. For the first time in my career as an elected representative, which will have lasted 14 years in December, I had a call and an e-mail from the neighbourhood relations team in respect of a drug dealer who was carrying out activities in my constituency. The team asked for a letter of support in respect of a court action. That happened because the team is working with the various authorities throughout Glasgow to tackle the drug dealers in our constituencies. The action is a result of the previous Executive's unprecedented investment in tackling antisocial behaviour. I call on the Government to continue that high level of investment, including the investment in closed-circuit television, which plays a crucial role in tackling drug dealers.

I am sure that we all wish Graeme Pearson every future success as he retires from the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. He has played a crucial role in providing leadership to those who tackle the most dangerous individuals in our communities—individuals who supply drugs. I welcome his innovative approach. I hope that the new Government will ensure that every support is given to the SCDEA so that it can continue its good work. Nothing hits drug dealers more than the recovery of assets from them and their families. Constituents often raise concerns with members about the fact that drug dealers' families benefit from their activities.

We on the Labour benches will continue with the spirit of consensus. I am sure that other members will do so, too. However, it is important that we hold each other to account and have a robust and constructive dialogue, that we drill down into the 421 deaths, and that we do our best for communities throughout Scotland.

I thank colleagues from all parts of the chamber for their contributions to the debate. Many members spoke eloquently, passionately and, indeed, poignantly—some because of their commitment to the issue since they entered the world of politics and others because of their experience in their previous occupations. Each added to the strong commitment that the Parliament must have to tackle the problems of drugs misuse.

I am grateful for the consensual nature of the debate, which was pointed out by Bill Aitken and Paul Martin. Paul Martin is correct; in seeking to create a consensus, we do not expect to have a supine Opposition. That would never be the case, and the adjective "supine" does not describe the members involved, but we are keen to try to work together towards common solutions.

We accept that the Opposition will disagree on some matters and it is appropriate that it should challenge us—that is the role of the Opposition—but we hope to make it clear that our door is open and that others can come and speak to us before something becomes an issue of political debate. If we can resolve the matter, all the better. If we cannot, we will require to disagree about it and vote on it in the chamber, but let us seek to work together first. I am grateful to the members throughout the chamber who have sought to make a commitment to do that.

The Government acknowledges that we do not face the problem of drug misuse alone. It is a problem that we must tackle together. We do not face the problem alone because it does not exist only in Scotland. Most western democracies have significant problems with drug taking. I recently returned from a weekend in the island of Ireland. It is well known that those of us on the SNP benches and in the Government greatly admire the success of the Celtic tiger and the Government of Ireland, but we should not forget that a significant drug problem exists not simply in Dublin but in rural Ireland too. Members from all sides made the point that drug misuse occurs not only in areas of urban deprivation but in rural areas. In Ireland, it occurs not simply in Tallaght but in the Gaeltacht.

The United States of America has the strongest economy in the world, but it still has significant problems with drug abuse. Even with all the resources of its drug enforcement agencies, its military and its police, it cannot stop drugs coming in. It is clear that there is a significant problem. Bill Wilson mentioned that there are even significant problems with drug taking in Switzerland, which everybody in the world recognises as a haven of great wealth and stable democracy. The problem affects us all and we have to try to reach a solution.

I welcome the change in terminology. The Westminster Government is to be given credit for moving away from the language and nomenclature of a war on terror, but we must do the same in relation to drugs. It is not a war on drugs, because that would be a war on our own communities and on individuals who are often more to be pitied than punished. Certainly many are to be punished, and I heartily endorse the credit that Paul Martin paid to Graeme Pearson. The Government will not seek to diminish the action that is taken against those who peddle drugs and those who are involved in serious and organised crime, with the attendant risk to those in law enforcement, but we have to accept that this is not a war; it is far deeper and more pernicious than that.

As many, such as Margaret Curran and Trish Godman, have said, it is also clear that beneath the statistics there are stories and tragedies. Paul Martin commented on that in relation to his area. For all the statistics, these are individuals. They may not be citizen of the year or the most pleasant people to spend time with, but they are somebody's son or daughter. Tragically, they are quite often somebody's mum or dad, and they are a death far too soon that we could do without. Something about common humanity means that we have to address that.

We have listened to many of the points Liberal Democrat members have made, and we will be happy to reflect on them, but I ask them, in the spirit of consensus, to consider withdrawing their amendment, which we do not feel able to accept. We accept the spirit in which it was lodged, and we hope that we can rally around that.

I will try to run through the various points that members have raised. If I do not manage to deal with them all, the error will be mine and I will be happy to meet privately or answer a letter.

Margaret Smith spoke about the expansion of residential places, which we clearly have to address. We have to provide support for those who recognise that they have reached such a juncture in their lives and make a cry for help. Some of that can be given as direction from the centre but, ultimately, it has to be delivered at grass roots level. We have to work with all bodies to ensure that those who work in the community are able to provide support. We are reviewing the matter, and on Monday coming the Minister for Community Safety and the Minister for Public Health will meet alcohol and drug action teams to work out how we can improve delivery, because this is an area in which we must deliver.

Margaret Smith and Bill Wilson mentioned heroin prescription. It is sometimes forgotten that practitioners may already prescribe heroin if they so wish, although they require a Home Office licence to do so. Three practitioners in Scotland have such a licence but are not currently using it. It is not a simple matter, as there are clear problems related to it and there is no real suggestion that it is necessarily better, but it must obviously be reflected on. As I said, heroin prescription currently exists, but we would delude ourselves if we thought that it was a panacea.

Margaret Smith mentioned drugs courts. They started as a pilot, and we have welcomed their success. They were a pilot until March 2006. At that juncture, it was agreed to fund the courts for a further three years, and we will continue to maintain them under operation. She also touched on a variety of other courts. I remind her that what operates in one jurisdiction does not necessarily operate in another because of several factors, including the number of sheriffs and the size of the court. What can be done in Glasgow is vastly different from what can be done in Tain or Dornoch, but we accept that drugs courts have worked and are an important factor to be considered.

Margaret Curran raised the idea of creating a drugs commission. We are determined to build on the national consensus, and we will consider a variety of views. We are conscious that, before we formed the Government, the Parliament had taken some steps and that Mr Pignatelli had been charged with investigating certain matters. We are considering a variety of mechanisms to take on board the genuine consensus and to work together—not simply in Parliament, because the issue involves all of civic Scotland.

I echo the point made by Margaret Curran and others that we sometimes forget and ignore the role of the voluntary sector in Scotland. Trish Godman and Duncan McNeil recognised the importance of kinship and those people who do a great deal of good collectively through organisations or individually through simply dealing with their families. We wish to engage with them as they are significant. We should not forget them.

This is a question not simply of spending more money, but of spending it wisely. We must also recognise that we address the problems in different ways. Some are dealt with through health, education and criminal justice; some are dealt with at central Government level; others are correctly dealt with at local government level. We are committed to providing the appropriate resources. Ring fencing will be difficult because of how such matters are laid out and how money is dispensed, but we are committed to ensuring that the appropriate resources are available to tackle not simply the health manifestations but the problems that we face in education.

Drugs in prison have also been mentioned. There is clearly a significant problem that we have to tackle.

We announced £4 million in additional funding last month to increase training opportunities for foster and kinship carers.

Duncan McNeil raised points about children, which I would be happy to discuss with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, because some of the matters he raised fall outwith the sphere of criminal justice. However, we have to ensure a holistic and joined-up approach.

If I have not answered any particular points, members should feel free to come to me and I will address them in greater detail. I pay tribute to the consensus that prevails in the chamber and recognise that we have a job of work to do. We understand that if we work together, we are more likely to reach a solution. Matters are being addressed; we just have to work harder and work smarter.