Drugs Courts
Good morning. I apologise for the slightly late start. There were technical difficulties with the microphone system.
On a point of order. I am concerned that—yet again—we seem to be reading about Government announcements in the press rather than hearing them in the chamber. Will you please give members guidance on how you intend to address the issue to ensure that the chamber and Parliament hear any such announcements first?
I share the member's concern. I will be charitable today because we have new ministers and, no doubt, new special advisers operating. However, I had a discussion on the matter with Madam Speaker Boothroyd when she was here a few weeks ago. As members know, she fought a losing battle on the issue, but I do not propose to fight a losing battle on it in this Parliament. I will use my powers under rule 7.3 and define the pre-release of speeches as being against the rule that members must
"conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner".
The sanction that is available to me is that I may decide to take a minister's speech as read and go straight to Opposition spokesmen's and Government back benchers' speeches and give them extra time. I hope that the special advisers will pay attention to that. I will let the matter go today, but it is not to happen again.
On a point of order. On the pre-release of speeches and how you might interpret that, would your sanction extend to the pre-release of speeches to Opposition parties, prior to delivery in the chamber?
Yes, absolutely. We do not expect to read in the newspapers what will be said in Parliament—we expect to read what has been said.
On a point of order. As such pre-releases have happened several times, would the Presiding Officer care to have a word with the First Minister to ensure that the Parliament will be treated with the necessary respect?
My words will be printed in the Official Report, so everybody will be aware of them. I take the issue seriously. If we allow the situation to continue, it will damage Parliament, so I do not propose to allow it to continue.
On a point of order. Although I recognise your efforts to ensure that the chamber enjoys the status that it should, I suggest that there is a difference between a statement that is made by the Executive prior to its announcement in the chamber and the normal campaigning of Opposition parties. In no way do I question your right to say that Opposition parties should observe the proprieties, but I think that there is a difference between an Executive statement—which will carry the force of law—and the normal campaigning of Opposition parties.
Obviously, normal statements—whether by Government or Opposition parties—on issues that will be debated in Parliament are perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is the pre-release of announcements—from any quarter of the chamber—before the chamber has heard them. I do not want to make a great meal of this.
On a point of order. It is important to reflect on some of the comments that you have made, Presiding Officer. I support fully what you have said about Government announcements, because those are announcements about the way in which the Government intends to spend public resources and about the way in which it intends to lead debates in Parliament.
My party has secured today's debate on drugs courts, but this morning, I have heard the Government's statement in its entirety on bulletins and I have read the statement in newspapers. The smallest courtesy that the Government could have extended would have been to come to the chamber and take part in a reasoned and measured debate in which it could set its points out.
Margo MacDonald pointed out fairly the distinction between the campaigning rights of Opposition parties and the duty of the Executive to treat Parliament with courtesy. There was a lack of courtesy in the way that the Executive went about its business yesterday afternoon. I hope that, in today's debate, the Executive will show a tad more courtesy than it showed yesterday.
Let us not go back over yesterday afternoon. I think that I have said enough on the subject.
On a point of order. My point of order has a slightly different twist, in that I would like some clarification. Opposition spokesmen and, perhaps, Labour back benchers will have an interest in this. Members sometimes give commitments to constituents that they will raise particular issues in particular ways. I trust that you will take account of that in whatever measures you take.
Absolutely. Similarly, the Executive may, from time to time, indicate general lines of policy—I am not against that. However, I object to detailed pre-announcement of what is to be said in the chamber. I hope that all members will support me in that.
I hope that none of your comments affects matters that have appeared in party manifestos over a number of years, Presiding Officer. Today's subject for debate, for example, appeared in the Scottish National Party's manifesto 18 months ago, in the run-up to the Scottish parliamentary elections.
After all this morning's coverage in the press and on the airwaves, the speech that I am about to make could probably just be handed to the new deputy minister so that he could make the speech as well. There might be a little repetition this morning, but I make no apology for having raised the subject. It is only because the SNP has insisted on having the debate in Parliament that we have heard an unequivocal statement from the Executive, which we hoped for for a number of years, but which was not forthcoming.
Like some other members, I was in the chamber for most of yesterday afternoon. When I got back to the SNP's offices, a little buzz of excitement was awaiting me, because the Executive had spent the afternoon briefing the media that it accepted, in principle, the idea of drugs courts as outlined in the SNP motion. That could be seen as something of a victory for the SNP. The former Deputy Minister for Justice already gave a helpful hint that the Executive accepted the idea in his briefing to the Sunday Herald. I wish that every SNP motion had that effect. However, the outgoing deputy minister's hint was a little surprising, given the tenor of some of his other remarks.
In recent months the Executive has been at sixes and sevens on the matter. Clarification of the Executive's position would be useful, although I am not certain that we will get it today. The Executive amendment in effect removes all mention of drugs courts from the motion. That seems surprising, given the heavy briefing that it gave that it would accept in principle the idea of drugs courts.
Members may call me naive, but I think that if the Executive truly accepts the principle of the motion, it should be gracious enough to reflect that in its amendment. Although I would not necessarily expect the Executive to accept the slightly mischievous reference to the SNP's manifesto, it is surprising that the Executive should attempt to amend the motion to remove any mention of the thing that it claims to support in principle.
We have a new Deputy Minister for Justice. I welcome him and congratulate him on his appointment to his new post. I also offer sympathy for the fact that he must be on his feet so soon after moving to a new department. I hope that we will have the same cordial and generally constructive relationship that I enjoyed with his predecessor. However, I am rather worried that today's debate will produce unobjectionable words from the new minister, but no concrete proposals, time scales or any indication of when the Executive might turn principles into practice. I sought a constructive debate about specifics—I hope that that is what we will have.
We should not have to rehearse the problems that are posed for society by the misuse of drugs—the cost, as we all know, is enormous. There is the cost to families of a disrupted and chaotic home life that impacts on every family member, regardless of whether they take drugs. We know about the devastating effects on society as a whole and on the health service in particular. The total cost is measured in blighted lives in Scotland. We all agree about the extent of the problem, just as we agree that what we have been doing until now has not worked. The problem seems to be getting worse, rather than better.
Despite the fact that drug legislation is a reserved matter, we know that an enormous amount of work can be done and that effective change can take place in Scotland. I hope that Scotland can be an example to the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than continually looking over its shoulder and blindly copying what Westminster does. The drugs courts proposal centres on the criminal justice process. It cannot stand in isolation—it is an initiative that would impact most directly on that system. That is what I want to talk about this morning.
We know that the criminal justice system in Scotland is overloaded with work that can be directly related to the use of drugs. The police cost of tackling drug crime and the criminal effects of drug abuse was, at the most recent estimate, £120 million per year. The Scottish Parliament reference centre research note on drug misuse that was issued earlier this year said:
"In 1997, drugs-related crimes accounted for 14% of all convictions in the Scottish courts."
That figure represents only cases where drug-related crime was the main offence and in which that offence was possession, intent to supply or whatever. That figure does not include convictions for crimes in which the underlying problem was drug misuse, such as theft, housebreaking and other convictions—the list can go on for page after page. Many members have seen schedules of previous convictions, most of which are a direct result of drug use, although they are not drug offences. Most evidence suggests that about 60 per cent to 70 per cent of offences that result in court appearances can be traced to a drug use problem. That is a colossal resource problem for the criminal justice system. I do not know whether the existing cost figures factor all those elements into the equation—they are the tip of the iceberg that lurks beneath the surface.
We must also remember the number of young offenders who are implicated in those colossal figures. The recent report of the advisory group on youth crime is a commendable document. Equally commendable is the fact that the Executive accepted all the group's recommendations. Many of those recommendations could have been commended if they had been made for adult offenders. The drugs courts concept fits very well into the ethos of that report.
I do not deny that some elements of what might be found in a drugs court are already in place in some parts of Scotland. Drug treatment and testing orders were introduced in 1998, but are available only in certain areas of Scotland. They give the power to impose drug treatment—including random drug testing—with the consent of the offender, but they tend to be used only in high-tariff cases. As I understand it, only a small number of DTTOs have been made, which suggests a rather conservative approach to their use.
There are also arrest referral schemes. It was my good fortune to speak last Friday at the launch of the Perth and Kinross arrest referral scheme. The scheme enables arrested persons to make contact with relevant agencies while their court case proceeds. There are several partners in the scheme, including the police, Perth and Kinross criminal justice social work department, Perth drug and alcohol team, and NCH Scotland.
All the partners in that scheme think that it is the first of its kind in Scotland. The Scottish Executive health department thinks that there is another in Clackmannan and that there might be schemes in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Tayside. Without clear guidance on what constitutes such a scheme, however, the actual number cannot be confirmed. There is unnecessary confusion, but it is clear that such schemes are largely self-starting, that they are not overseen and that no targets have been made for setting them up in Scotland. Both the initiatives have been welcomed by the SNP, but surely it would be better to ingather such schemes and set them up under a single, coherent framework—drugs courts. We seem to be inching toward that, but with no overall strategic direction. It is time that we tackled the issue head on.
I raised the issue of drugs courts with the Deputy Minister for Justice's predecessor—Angus MacKay—and with his predecessor, who is now the First Minister. What are drugs courts? They are distinctive environments that are set aside with clear rules. Participants' performance is immediately and directly communicated to a judge, who rewards progress or penalises non-compliance. There are sentencing concessions, but they are made only in response to successful participation and treatment. Such courts deal with users, but not dealers. They should be mainly about diversion from custody. That fits in with another aim, which is to reduce the prison population—an aim that the SNP shares with the Executive.
The aim of drugs courts is to provide a treatment-led response to drugs and drug-related crime that builds on partnership between all relevant agencies. They bridge the gap between punishment and treatment for the user and the discipline that is imposed on the offender is challenging. I would term it an aggressive intervention at the point of maximum impact, when the first jail term is likely.
In practice, such courts would work as follows. On being charged with an offence, or after agreeing to plead guilty, an offender would be assessed for drugs court suitability and brought before the nearest drugs court—or the most likely one—as soon as possible. The drugs court works as a team. It would be non-adversarial and offenders would have to attend court regularly for review. The important point is that offenders would see the same people every time they came before the court.
The proposal already has considerable support in Scotland. The Scottish Drugs Forum, the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and the director of Scotland Against Drugs would all welcome drugs courts. In the past, ministers have not wanted to dismiss the idea completely, but the former Deputy Minister for Justice was on the record as saying that drugs courts would not fit in to Scotland's court system. I am not sure why he would think that and I can only assume that there has been a major change of heart about the issue since the end of August, when that reason was last advanced by the outgoing Deputy Minister for Justice. In truth, Scotland's sheriff court structure does provide opportunities for the development of drugs courts. Equally, the children's panel system offers a culture of non-adversarial proceedings that could be extended to such courts.
Drugs courts—or, at least, the model that is beginning to appear in the spread of countries that I listed—are essentially methods by which we can divert from custody those individuals for whom custody is the next most likely disposal option for a judge. They allow a relationship to be built with the individual and have shown a degree of success. They are not the complete answer, but they may be part of it. Drugs courts require investment in the infrastructure of rehab and through care to work properly. Scotland is not a model of such provision, so I concede that at this stage it might be reasonable simply to develop a drugs court model that is appropriate for Scotland's justice system and pilot it in an area where the provision of back-up services is at least adequate. Let us not hang about, however.
There is already extensive international experience to call upon. At the time of the Irish commission in February 1998, there were 238 drugs courts in operation in the USA, with two or more about to start and 147 more planned. Goodness knows what the number is now. There are pilots schemes in Wakefield and Pontefract and one is about to start in Dublin. Let us get moving—let us turn the undoubted agreement in principle into practice and let us do so quickly.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the complex nature of the drugs problem in Scotland; accepts that addressing the problem requires effective law enforcement working in partnership with well resourced rehabilitation and treatment strategies; acknowledges the role that a system of specialist drugs courts could play in dealing with drug-related crime; notes that the Scottish Drugs Forum and CoSLA support the establishment of drugs courts, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to develop an appropriate pilot scheme with a view to moving towards the establishment of drugs courts in areas of Scotland where adequate rehabilitation and treatment resources exist, as proposed in the Scottish National Party's 1999 Election Manifesto.
I must be strict about time this morning because we have two short debates. Two amendments to the motion have been lodged. I call Iain Gray to move the first one.
I welcome the opportunity to reply to motion S1M-1303, although as Roseanna Cunningham said, perhaps it is a little early for me to be doing so. However, I can cope with that, partly because I agree with most of what she said. I am not surprised by that, because Parliament has often demonstrated its determination to get to grips with the problem—I hope that any repetition will be viewed in that context.
We are all agreed that drug-related crime imposes too heavy a cost on society. It accounts for much of the commonest property crime, such as house breaking, vehicle crime and shoplifting. Some of that might be characterised as petty crime, but its impact is not petty. It robs our people not only of their property, but—worse—of their security, their peace of mind and their sense of community. Every member knows that that is the case in the communities that they represent. The truth is that such crime blights the lives of drug-misusing offenders and their families. That is why the Executive and Parliament have made the fight against drugs one of their top priorities and why the Executive is developing a coherent and effective response to the problems that we face from drug-related crime.
The key fact is that we cannot promote one initiative in isolation. We need a package of measures that addresses the problem at every stage. That was the message that underpinned my predecessor Angus MacKay's approach to tackling the problem of drugs in Scotland. I, too, intend to pursue that approach.
We need a balanced strategy that combines the two main elements. It is important to recognise that the criminal justice system can intervene at critical times in an offender's drug-using career. It is when individuals come into conflict with the law that they are often most motivated to seek help for their addictions. At those times, we must ensure that they have ready access to the help that they need.
A strong enforcement policy is key in our fight against drugs, but often enforcement has a greater chance of success when it sets out to tackle the underlying problems, as Roseanna Cunningham suggested.
Is it useful to pick up the example of Grampian police, whose officers enforce the law while accompanied by drugs workers? They can allow folk who may be involved in crime because of drugs problems to get rid of their drug problems. In recent drugs raids in the north-east, Grampian police has followed that procedure, for which it is to be commended. We should not consider the problem as being about only enforcement or health—we should consider it as a whole.
I agree. There is a range of ways in which to bring enforcement and treatment together. The main attraction of drugs courts is that they would achieve that.
Just before Mr Adam's intervention—
I am sorry, Mr Gallie—your microphone is not on. I have to ask you to repeat that. We are having technical problems.
Is this the definition of cruel and inhumane punishment?
Mr Gray's predecessor suggested that drugs courts would apply only to first offenders. Does the minister agree that that would be the way forward?
I will give the minister some injury time.
Although the microphones are not working, I see that the clock is.
I will say something about the drugs courts model later. The key to drugs courts is that they aim to address the underlying problem of drug misuse, when criminality first becomes its consequence. Drugs courts try to prevent people from becoming involved in the life of crime that follows that cycle of offending.
In general, drugs courts bring together enforcement and treatment, which is why the Executive is taking action in a number of ways to link offenders more effectively with treatment and rehabilitation. We have provided extra resources—almost £100 million—in the spending review to fund the broadest range of services that has ever been seen in Scotland. Within that, an extra £9.5 million is available over three years to make a comprehensive framework of alternatives to custody available to Scottish courts.
Roseanna Cunningham spoke of the drug treatment and testing orders that are being piloted in Glasgow and Fife. Such orders are designed to tackle the problems of offenders who are involved in more serious drug misuse and who have many repeated offences. The orders are important—they incorporate some of the central features of drugs courts, such as access to treatment, routine testing and review in court.
I am pleased that we are extending the pilots to Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, in order to build further on our experience of what works.
We must be able to intervene at each stage in the criminal justice process. We have announced the national roll-out of diversion from prosecution schemes, which target those who are at the other end of the spectrum for drug treatment and testing orders. The schemes are an alternative to prosecution for individuals whose offending career is just starting. DTTOs give people the chance to address their drug use before they launch into a full-blown career of offending.
We also have plans to target medium-tariff and higher-tariff offenders by developing a new model of enhanced probation, which will build in drug testing and treatment as a condition of sentence and will include regular reviews by the courts.
Roseanna Cunningham made the point that the growth in drug-related crime is not peculiar to Scotland. That is true—the problems are international and it is not surprising that countries are keen to learn from experiences beyond their boundaries. A great deal of attention has centred on the north American experience of drugs courts. In that system, drugs courts are designed specifically to supervise drug dependent offenders who have agreed to accept treatment. Thus, that system's objectives are similar to those that we have set in our policy.
It would be too easy to believe that the American system could be picked up and transferred wholesale to Scotland—our legal system, traditions and culture must be respected. However, we are keen to learn from the United States and I believe that we can move forward to introduce a Scottish drugs court model. We have been working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue and have commissioned research into the international experience. We will broaden our discussions on how to introduce and test that drugs court model. The judiciary and the prosecution have key roles to play and we must consult our judiciary, the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office on the roles that the judiciary and prosecution can undertake.
Drugs courts will be successful only if they form part of an overall framework. We must plan their introduction carefully and it is essential that we put in place the infrastructure to support treatment and rehabilitation services first. However, now that the spending review has provided the resources, we are well placed to develop those services. The drug action teams' role in local responses to drug problems has been strengthened during the past 18 months.
Taken together, the plans that I have outlined will provide a wide range of disposals that will be able to deal with the broad spectrum of drug-related crime. They will give Scottish courts all the options—arguably, more options than are available to the US drugs courts. Combined with the new resources that are available, our plans allow us to move forward on the idea of specialised Scottish drugs courts. That approach will be rooted in Scottish institutions and will complement existing practices. It must have the confidence of the courts and the general public alike.
For the first time, we have an opportunity to deliver a system that specialises in dealing with the problem of drug offenders, that blends enforcement and treatment and—above all—that has the possibility of being effective. I am sure that that approach will be welcomed throughout the chamber.
I move amendment S1M-1303.2, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:
"and acknowledges the work that the Scottish Executive is doing in tackling this problem."
I support the comments that you made earlier, Presiding Officer, and I welcome Iain Gray to his new post. The debate is a baptism of fire, if ever there was one. Issues such as drugs are of concern to communities and the Parliament should devote time to debates on them.
Ms Cunningham will not be surprised to learn that for obvious reasons, we cannot support her motion unamended. Similarly, I do not expect the SNP's unqualified support for our amendment. However, we can all be satisfied that the Executive has recognised—later rather than sooner—that the SNP and the Conservative party have identified a way forward. I am genuinely pleased that common sense has prevailed.
Although we made clear our support for drugs courts in our 1999 manifesto, I was grateful to be invited to a COSLA seminar, which was held earlier this year at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan Castle. I was the only MSP who attended that event, which was laid on to provide further information to people whose work is related to drug abuse. In anticipating an intervention from Roseanna Cunningham, I advise her that I met a member of her research team there, fresh from his appearance on "Question Time".
I was glad to have the chance to speak to experienced practitioners and judges in this comparatively new area and I am particularly indebted to Justine Walker for her advice and assistance in gaining access to the acknowledged leaders in the field. Although I do not always advocate that we should follow blindly everything that happens in the US, the experiences of other jurisdictions satisfy me that we have an opportunity to tackle the problem with a new impetus. I do not know whether the minister has seen some of the material that is available on the subject, but I look forward with glee to the adjustments that he will have to make to take account of cultural differences. People who have seen the video tapes of US drugs courts will know exactly what I mean.
We must tackle drug abuse. The extent of the problem is greater than most of our citizens recognise. As Roseanna Cunningham has eloquently highlighted the point, I do not propose to repeat it. Indeed, one of the consequences of such immediate agreement by the Executive is that we are left with very little to say. However, I want to read from a letter from a doctor in Fife that highlights the difficulties. The letter says:
"A few days ago, a new patient was assigned to my list. This person is an intravenous drug abuser who tells me that he is injecting himself six times a day with MST (an oral morphine tablet usually given to terminal cancer patients), which he prepares by sucking off the coating in his mouth, then dissolving the residue and injecting it into his veins.
He has already spent time in prison for theft, which was his way of supporting his £40 per day habit. He is now anxious to stop using drugs and attempt to get his life back in shape.
He came to me for help."
The letter says that the problem in Fife is that there is
"absolutely no consultant support for drug abusers"
and that the
"community drugs team . . . is hopelessly understaffed and ludicrously overworked with minimal resources".
The letter goes on to say that the drug user's case
"is only one of many. 47% of heroin users in Fife live in the Kirkcaldy/Levenmouth area. The total is in the hundreds and yet the resources to deal with this problem are minimal. GP's like myself are overwhelmed with no medical support whatsoever. The knock on effect on families is massive. The amount of shoplifting, burglary and other crime associated with drug abuse is significant.
You will be well aware that morale amongst GP's is at an all-time low for many reasons, We are snowed under by ever-increasing demand, which is not balanced by any significant shift in resources. Early hospital discharges and shortages of beds mean that more and more ill patients are kept in the community with a corresponding increase in GP workload. Patient demand continues to increase in the "instant-service" culture. We find it hard to accept that the government sees us as anything other than a cheap option. GPs have continued to soak up the work, but have not received any significant increase in resources to help."
I should pay tribute to the Scottish Parliament information centre for its research document on the subject, which is a first-class piece of work. Those who have not read it should take a look at it.
The letter from which I quoted outlines what the issue is all about. I look forward to hearing the details of implementation of drugs courts and I hope that we can build on the genuine cross-party consensus that supports their introduction.
I move amendment S1M-1303.1, to leave out from "with a view" to end and insert:
"based on the aims laid out in the 1999 Scottish Conservative and Unionist Election Manifesto."
It is good to participate again in a debate with the deputy leader of the SNP. I see that she has lost none of her zest since leaving some of us behind on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Her successor as convener is unashamedly courting favour with committee members; not only did he cancel a meeting, he extended the tea and coffee break during Tuesday's meeting and the meeting still finished early.
That would not have happened in my day.
This is an important, if short, debate. I accept that the SNP included a commitment to drugs courts in its 1999 manifesto. The Liberal Democrats did not do so; instead, we chose to emphasise a twin-track approach of tougher enforcement and more extensive treatment and rehabilitation programmes.
However, our thinking has moved on. I welcome today's announcement by the Deputy Minister for Justice, to whom I offer my party's congratulations on his new position.
In 1989 the present US Attorney General, Janet Reno, first established an experiment in Dade County, Florida. At the time it was described as an intensive, community-based treatment, rehabilitation and supervision programme for drug defendants to reduce recidivism. As of last autumn, drugs court activity was under way in 49 of the 50 states of the USA, as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.
The evidence in the two-volume report by the US justice department on the first decade of experience of drugs courts up to June 1999 should inform latest thinking. It found that drugs courts have led to a significant reduction in recidivism—as low as 4 per cent in those who complete the full programme. The drug use of participants in the programme has declined. A significant number of drug-free babies have been born to women who were enrolled in drugs court programmes, which saved a minimum of £250,000 per infant in health and social costs. The average cost of treatment is between £900 and £1,600 per participant, compared with an average cost of £5,000 per person who is put in prison. Many of those who have entered the programme have been able to remain employed throughout their participation in it. As confidence among law enforcement agencies and prosecutors has grown, asset forfeiture funds have been released to augment treatment resources.
I understand that nearly 140,000 US citizens from all parts of US society have entered drugs court programmes. Two thirds of them are the parents of minors. Men outnumber women on the programme by two to one, but that preponderance is decreasing. The majority of participants are long-term users and many are multiple drug users. Most have not previously received treatment and many have served custodial sentences for previous offences.
Drugs courts are not without cost. In 1994-95 there was a famous dispute, when Janet Reno had to battle—in the event, successfully—with the US House of Representatives to secure continuation of the £1 billion federal funding for the programme. However, the US experience should inform Parliament whether the drugs court concept could be adopted in Scotland, where the legal system is very different. Drugs courts cannot simply be transplanted to Scotland.
We must take action. As has been said, misuse of drugs is endemic and very few parts of our country are untouched by them. The problem affects even peaceful and relatively prosperous places. I am sure that drug cases have turned up in the surgeries of nearly all members. I dealt recently with a case in a town in my constituency where the unemployment rate is 1.6 per cent. Not all towns in my constituency have such a low unemployment rate, but the example illustrates my point that drug use is a problem throughout the country.
Some of my biggest misgivings about drugs courts relate to rural areas. How will we implement drugs courts in the one-sheriff courts that are prevalent in rural areas? There are other problems. Drugs courts need to be accompanied by rehabilitation and treatment centres—they cannot exist in isolation.
I will end by quoting the director of the office of US national drug control policy. He said:
"If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working.
It is worth investigating for Scotland.
We come now to the open part of the debate. I ask members to keep their speeches to four minutes so that we can fit everyone in.
I welcome this debate, because I have worked in the criminal justice and drug abuse sectors.
Almost 70 per cent of criminal offences in Scotland are committed by young people under the age of 25. Although it is hard to get precise figures, anyone who works in the Scottish criminal justice system will say that a large majority of those offenders have a persistent problem with illegal drugs.
As a former court social worker, I can tell the chamber that in many cases that come before our sheriff courts, the crime has been committed by a young person who was under the influence of drugs or who committed an offence to fund his or her drug habit.
I will give an example of the extent of the problem. A survey that was carried out recently by a criminal justice social work team in Ayrshire revealed that of 50 persistent young offenders in its case load, between the ages of 15 and 18, 32 had drug problems. There is no reason to believe that that is not typical of the situation across Scotland.
We are not addressing the underlying drug problem. Those offenders are caught in a revolving door situation. They appear in court, they are found guilty and they are sentenced. Sometimes they go to prison; quite often, they get community service. Community service, like prison, is punitive and offers no opportunity to address their drug problem. The steep increase in the number of breaches of community service is, in part, a result of offenders with drug problems being unable, as a result of their chaotic lifestyles, to keep the tight conditions that are set by community service orders.
Most criminal justice social workers include a drug-alcohol assessment when they compile a social inquiry report for the courts. However, even when they highlight the underlying problem and ask the court to consider, for example, a probation order with a condition of attendance at a drug rehabilitation programme, that type of disposal is not often granted in sheriff courts in Scotland.
The concept of treatment, as opposed to punishment, is not new. It has been around for some time—a bit like myself.
Oh no, not at all.
Thank you, Christine.
I first encountered such a programme about 30 years ago in America, in the last few years of the Vietnam war. Do members remember that? Did Michael Matheson get that in history?
Not even in history.
In the last few years of the Vietnam war, the United States military was faced with huge numbers of returning servicemen who had developed a drug habit. The penalty for anyone who was caught using drugs in the military was severe—instant dismissal, complete with a dishonourable discharge. With the prospect of such punishment, drug use was always going to be hidden, with obvious safety and security implications for the military.
The US military, like other militaries, is not renowned for its compassion, but it decided to deal with the situation by introducing a hands-up-to-drugs scheme. A person who admitted to a drugs problem received support and rehabilitation, and no disciplinary action was taken. That model has been widely copied.
We in the SNP, like everyone else, welcome a sinner who repents; heaven knows, the Executive has got sinning down to an art form. However, we welcome the Executive's 11th hour conversion to the SNP policy of establishing drugs courts. We have had enough prevarication. Valuable time has been lost, but the Executive has our support; let us get on with it.
This debate shows some of the best and worst features of the Parliament. The best feature is the fact that we can come together—
I am sorry, but I must stop you for a short while because we are having trouble with the microphones. We can hear you, but your speech will not be recorded for the official reporters.
I will allow you an extra half minute.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The best feature is that we can come together with a common purpose on an issue that is of concern throughout the country. Unfortunately, the motion and the amendments introduce an element of political self-congratulation that is as relevant to the general public as an argument among bald men over the ownership of a comb—I leave it to Bill Aitken to explain that in more detail. The general public are not interested in politicians trying to score points on such a serious issue: they are looking for a response and for effective action. I welcome the fact that we are speaking with a common purpose today.
Several matters need to be considered in the overall context of the debate. I support what Iain Gray has said: we need a coherent response and a balanced strategy. He was also right to talk about strong enforcement being the key to effectiveness. We cannot allow the creation of drugs courts to give the general impression that dealers will somehow get off the hook. We need effective, hard action to tackle dealers who bring misery to our communities, and the new Drug Enforcement Agency has demonstrated, in recent months, that it can make a contribution in tackling drug crime throughout Scotland.
Does Hugh Henry agree that it is incumbent on the Executive to say how it will define a drug dealer and a drug user? If one is to go before the drugs court and the other before a higher court, that distinction needs to be made.
Absolutely. I welcome the Executive's opportunity to work on the detail of how the drugs courts will develop. Comment has also been made about the need to learn from best practice elsewhere. Euan Robson made the valid point that we need to examine rehabilitation in this debate.
We must also stress the fact that the route to rehabilitation is not engaging in crime. We cannot prefer for the rehabilitation route those who have been convicted, or are involved in crime, over those who are making a determined effort.
The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee recently visited the national drugs strategy team in Dublin, which is about to pilot a drugs court. It, too, is concerned that, although we must support the principle of drugs courts—and the things that can be done through them—they will work only with public support and if the Government gives rehabilitation and treatment to non-offenders to such an extent that there is no resentment about offenders receiving that support.
I agree. Like other members, I have been approached in my constituency by people who are trying to deal with the tragedy of family members who are victims of a drugs habit and are looking desperately for rehabilitation. In that context, I welcome the extra £100 million that the Executive has allocated to trying to tackle the problem of drugs throughout the country.
As well as rehabilitation for those who have managed to kick the drugs habit, we need to ensure that proper accommodation is available, that there is proper training and that opportunities exist for employment. We cannot view access to rehabilitation as the end of our support for drug users.
We cannot and must not ignore the role that education should continue to play in tackling the scourge of drugs throughout the country. I recommend that the minister—and his colleague, Jack McConnell, who is now responsible for education—look at a project in my constituency that has become the largest youth theatre company in Scotland. Paisley Arts Centre Education has developed a theatre programme involving young people, to deliver the drug education message to other young people in a positive and interactive way that makes that message more meaningful to them. With a combination of all those factors, we can finally come together to do something.
As members have heard, the Conservatives are basically supportive of the concept that is being advanced today. I shall spend some time outlining why and, at the same time, underline some of the caveats.
The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee has been inquiring into how drugs affect poorer areas of Scotland. Although what manifests itself in those discussions must, for the time being, be confidential, I am not telling any tales out of school when I say that some of the evidence that we have heard has been horrendous and horrifying. The cost of the drugs scourge, in human and financial terms, is absolutely devastating.
The problem is getting worse and the evidence for that is clear in the streets of our cities, towns and villages. Against that background, anything that can possibly be done to ameliorate the situation should be considered seriously and implemented.
Let us consider drugs courts a little more realistically and in a somewhat more hard-headed manner. Not too much of what is being introduced is new. A number of disposals are available to courts at present, including probation orders, one of the conditions of which could be that the accused person be subjected to drug treatment and testing orders and required to maintain a drug-free lifestyle. That system is in place at the moment. If it is not being used, it should be used. Sentences can be deferred, so that the accused can demonstrate to the court that he or she is prepared to live a drug-free life. That option is also available at the moment.
If a problem exists with our sheriffs' expertise in dealing with cases in which the accused person is a drug addict, that should not be the case. Some 60 per cent of court cases involve people who have a drugs problem. If, bearing in mind that volume of cases, sheriffs cannot develop expertise, something must be quite seriously wrong.
The US experience seems tremendously exciting and rosy, and I listened carefully to what Euan Robson said about it. However, although it may have been entirely unintentional, he did not tell the full story about the recidivism rate. Although the percentage of those undergoing the treatment who fall by the wayside is low, the figure for those who re-enter society once the treatment has finished is not all that rosy. We must consider that aspect.
Is there any evidence or research to show what sort of drug-using offence has been committed by many of those who fall by the wayside? I suspect that a fairly high percentage will be people who are using cannabis, rather than injecting hard drugs.
I do not think that that is the case. There is a miscellany of crime, and much of it is not related to cannabis use. The harder drugs are causing the problem.
Courts have a clear duty to society as a whole, not just to those who find themselves in difficulty as a result of their own activities. There is also the issue of the diversions that are already in force. Roseanna Cunningham was quite wrong to say that the courts find themselves clogged up at the moment. In truth, there is a tremendous shortage of summary criminal work in sheriff courts throughout Scotland, such is the extent of the diversions that are being carried out. There is an argument as to whether that should be the case, but nevertheless that is the reality.
There is an appalling lack of treatment facilities. I am particularly concerned that those who are sent to prison, although they are sent there to be punished, should be given every opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. In our prison system, there is a lamentable shortage of treatment facilities.
We recognise that there is much to be said for the motion before the chamber today, but we do not consider drugs courts to be the panacea that will change everything. We should go ahead with the pilot, but we should do so with a degree of realism.
I, too, welcome this important debate. My speech will focus on the extremely worrying situation in the city of Aberdeen and in the rest of the north-east of Scotland.
When we think of Aberdeen, we think of the city that is home to the offshore oil industry and granite buildings, but how many people know that Aberdeen is also home to 2,000 to 2,500 heroin users? Last year, 25 mainly young lives were lost as a result of the use of illegal drugs. All that in a city with a population of just over 200,000 people. Examining the situation in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland will allow the Parliament to grasp the enormity of the drugs problem. Tackling drugs and their debilitating effect on society is the biggest challenge facing the Parliament. We need to explore new avenues and innovative solutions, and learn from other countries' success in tackling the problem. That is why I welcome today's debate on drugs courts.
Aberdeen is just a small city, yet tens of thousands of people there are victims of the drug culture: the addicts, whose lives follow a downward spiral and who cannot see life beyond the next syringe or the next pill; the many families who find changed personalities in their households—Hugh Henry referred to the tragedies that many families experience; and the 25 families who lost loved ones last year. However, in the city of Aberdeen alone, there are also thousands upon thousands of victims of crime, not to mention the number in the rest of Grampian. It is no coincidence that Grampian police have to deal with record levels of crime—the highest level of crime in the whole country. The number of house break-ins is double the national average. We must remember that someone has to steal roughly £100,000 worth of goods to feed a £30,000 a year habit. According to Grampian police estimates, 70 to 80 per cent of the crime committed in Aberdeen is drug-related.
Lots of people in Aberdeen live in fear; they will not leave their home because they are convinced that if they leave, it will be broken into for the fourth, fifth, or—in some parts of the city—even the 10th time. There are old people who are afraid to walk the streets because of a recent spate of assaults on older people by folk looking for cash to feed their drug habit. There are newsagents who have given up their businesses because they are fed up of being held up by syringe-wielding people who are trying to get cash to feed their habit. They have gone out of business out of fear for their safety.
We need drugs courts to break the link between drugs and crime. The cost of crime in every city and community in Scotland is enormous. We must get away from the revolving door syndrome, which has been mentioned by other members. Most of all, we must help the people who want help, who know that they will go to prison and still have their drug addiction when they come out. Those people are crying out for help to solve their drug addiction. We should lock up people who have a history of violence and the drug pushers, but we should help those who can be helped. The justice system must deliver better solutions.
I am absolutely convinced that, in many cases, if we take the addiction out of the person, we will take the criminality out of them as well. That is the key. In a city such as Aberdeen, removing one addict from the scene will remove around 360 to 400 crimes a year, which is what we want to do. I appeal to the minister to state unequivocally that pilot drugs courts will be implemented, and to ensure that Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland are top of his agenda.
I hope that members will bear with me, as I do not have my glasses with me. I left them on the kitchen table, I am afraid.
The member can try mine if she wants.
No, thank you. I have tried them before.
I welcome the tone of the SNP's motion, but, like Hugh Henry, I am sorry about the self-congratulatory detail. I suppose that that is politics.
What about the Executive amendment?
That is politics too.
I do not want to waste any more time. I welcome the SNP's motion to an extent. We are having a positive debate on drugs policy and the possibility of drugs courts, which will concentrate on rehabilitation rather than punishment. However, when we talk about drugs, we must be aware of who is listening. I am concerned about the mixed messages that our young people are getting. Some people have advocated decriminalising or legalising cannabis. Others want draconian sanctions to be used against drug dealers and users. We are sending out confusing messages to young people at a time when tremendous efforts are being made by statutory agencies and voluntary organisations to turn the tide on drug abuse.
The Young Scot survey showed that the top cause of worry for young people between the ages of 14 and 25 was drugs, followed by alcohol. It is important that we have a consistent message to give young people and that it should complement, not contradict, what they hear from teachers and youth workers. Public figures should not undermine the drug strategies that are put in place by the police, the health boards, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations. Young people need to be given a clear and consistent message.
In the Highlands and Islands, drug abuse is the biggest problem that the police face. Small communities in rural areas can have serious drug problems. For example, the Mothers Against Drugs group from Cranhill was recently invited to Easter Ross to support parents who are coping with heroin addiction among young teenagers in a particular community. We must realise that drugs are a problem not only in the cities. The numbers might be smaller, but the effects on small communities are just as devastating as they are in the cities.
The idea of drugs courts is interesting and positive. However, I am unsure how it would work in a sparsely populated area such as the one that I represent, where there may not be sufficient offenders to warrant having separate courts. If there is to be a pilot scheme or study, we must examine the logistics and costs of providing drugs courts and rehabilitation facilities in places such as Wick, Portree, Dingwall and Tain. I do not want us to have a two-tier system that ignores the realities of the drug problems of rural areas.
The drugs strategy that is being implemented in the Highlands will significantly address the drug problem and might form the basis for rehabilitation centres. As a former teacher, I welcome the fact that part of the £100 million for tackling the drug problem is going into education. I know that the social inclusion partnerships in the Highlands and Islands are beginning to work at the grass-roots level in vulnerable communities. We will not see results immediately, but we will see them.
In the Highlands and Islands, the problem is not only drug misuse. There is also a major problem with alcohol misuse, and the two are often combined.
First, l congratulate Donald Gorrie on at last securing a members' business debate on alcohol misuse.
Does Maureen Macmillan agree that it is time that the Executive allowed us to have a full debate in the chamber on alcohol abuse? Iain Gray has been promising such a debate for some time.
I would welcome a full debate, and was also about to congratulate Donald Gorrie on securing the members' business debate. Attempts to tackle drug misuse should go hand in hand with attempts to tackle alcohol misuse.
I am pleased that Highland Council, Highland Health Board and other organisations are tackling alcohol misuse in the Highlands and Islands.
There can be no doubt that tackling drugs misuse is one of the biggest challenges that we face, if not the biggest. There needs to be a balanced approach that reflects the needs of individuals and communities, whether they are urban or rural. Drugs courts could be a positive step forward but they should not be implemented hastily without proper consideration for rural areas. Drugs courts could be considered as one part of the jigsaw that the other strategies—
That makes up the other strategies—
I am sorry, I am stumbling because I do not have my glasses. I cannot read my own writing without them.
Hold the paper further away.
That is a good idea.
The Executive's strategy—
Could you wind up please?
The Executive's strategy, I think, would be a good idea. What a mess I made of the end of that.
I congratulate the SNP on its motion, and on the one that we will debate in a few minutes' time. It is encouraging to see positive motions that raise important policy issues. We have wasted far too much time in the past on Opposition motions that are purely mischief making or on Executive motions that are bland and self-congratulatory. That is a general sin and, no doubt, I too am guilty of it.
It is important to debate motions such as this. I welcome what the minister said, although I do not welcome the way in which the matter was handled before it came to Parliament. The Executive's change in attitude away from the London position—tsars, tackety boots, and the view that we should convict everybody in sight and arrest people who take cannabis—is very welcome. We are moving towards treatment, rehabilitation and so on. I accept that the drugs courts are only part of the picture.
I want to make a personal plea. I am expected to vote for a whole lot of simply awful Executive amendments. If I ever find out who writes them, by God he—I am sure that it is a he—will get it hot and strong. There is a lack of generosity in them. I know that people make party points, and I do not expect the Executive parties to support a motion that says how marvellous the SNP's manifesto was, but there could be more generosity of spirit. There was much more good stuff in Iain Gray's speech than there is in the amendment for which I am being asked to vote. Amendments could include more self-confidence and generosity.
I wish to pursue the general issue of alcohol and drugs. The courts are only one aspect of the matter. The Executive and the Parliament must take such issues seriously. If we cannot have a UK commission to examine all addictions—tobacco, booze and drugs—but must have separate commissions on each addiction, let us have a Scottish committee or commission on the subject, as Margo MacDonald has proposed. There is so much conflict of technical opinion that we need a committee or commission to sort it out and take the issue forward sensibly. We need a coherent and joined-up policy involving education, rehabilitation and so on.
I beg the Executive to grasp this issue and not to be frightened that we may be abused, totally unjustly, by some of the tabloid press if we establish a commission. Such abuse happens all the time anyway, so it might as well happen for a good cause as for some other reason. Let us have an overall look at the issue. Let us take booze seriously. We will have a debate on that subject in a fortnight. With due respect to Maureen Macmillan, I am sure the police in the Highlands would tell her that booze is a much bigger problem in the Highlands than drugs are. That is not to say that we should ignore drugs, but we must consider booze, too, as a problem. The two issues are joined together. I hope that we will progress from today's welcome debate to examine those issues more broadly.
As my microphone is not on, I will shout. Picking up from where Donald Gorrie left off, there is a problem—
I have to interrupt, as we seem to have lost sound from your microphone. Could you move to Donald Gorrie's microphone?
Okay.
We have a problem in providing a consistent message—the clear message for which Maureen Macmillan asked. I am certain that the people who took part in the Young Scot survey would say that there are more problems with alcohol than there are with cannabis, for example.
I crave your indulgence, Presiding Officer, to raise the issue of cannabis in this debate. If we are to have drugs courts to separate the sheep from the goats, we will have to decide which are the very bad drugs, which will be dealt with by the drugs courts, and which are the less bad drugs, which may be dealt with in another way, such as by treatment orders. Unfortunately, we have not had time today to address that issue.
I am keen that there should be proper examination of the different categories of drug that are used by different categories of people. The arrestee drug abuse monitoring—ADAM—methodology, which was piloted recently in Scotland, showed that well over 50 per cent of the people who were arrested for drugs offences had taken cannabis. However, we do not know whether most of them had used only cannabis, like Rosalind Henderson, who is featured in The Herald today. She used cannabis for medicinal purposes—for pain relief—in the same way that multiple sclerosis sufferers use it. Are we to categorise people who use cannabis for such purposes as less serious drug users or abusers? They are still breaking the law as it stands.
As part of the mosaic of dealing with drugs, we must consider which drugs we are talking about, how we are to classify them, who uses them and why. When it comes to whether drugs courts will diminish the level of drug-related crime, we should ask how many folk are lifted because they shoplifted in Boots, or wherever, to be able to smoke some cannabis at the weekend. The answer would be very few. We have to admit what happens, and research is required. Members should all sign my motion—they can do so easily by visiting the chamber office.
I am afraid that this morning's problems with the microphone system seem to be more serious than we had thought, and we will have to suspend the meeting for approximately five minutes. I propose that, on resuming, we continue this debate for the appropriate additional period. That will affect the next debate, so we will suspend the meeting for lunch five minutes—or thereabouts—later than usual. I apologise, but there is little else that can be done at this stage.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We can now reconvene. We will move to the winding-up speeches.
I must first apologise for arriving late—I was stuck in traffic. However, that had an advantage: I heard Hugh Henry going on about the rights and wrongs, and the good and bad things in the Parliament; but all the naughty bits took place before I got here. I therefore think that this morning's debate was very good, with knowledgeable people talking about a subject that they knew well. That showed a strength of the Parliament.
We are dealing with a major problem. In my opinion and in that of the members of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee who have been working on our report, the key issue is not cannabis users, or users of the more minor drugs. The key issue is the 20,000 or 30,000 serious heroin addicts in the country. That is where drugs and crime are especially closely linked, and we have the feeding of a habit by crimes of dishonesty.
I used to appear as a duty solicitor in the district and sheriff courts until around eight or 10 years ago. Being in the courts is an eye-opening experience that I would recommend to anyone who wants to see the sharp end of what is happening to the driftwood of society, if I can put it that way. For a long time, the excuse that was given by those who had committed offences was alcohol—"I had too much to drink last night, sir." About 10 or 12 years ago, everything changed, and drugs became the excuse—there is always an element of self-excusing in these matters. There was a clear change in what was happening prior to offences being committed.
As one or two people have suggested, the issue is a mosaic. It is difficult to get the answers to the drug problem right. There is no single answer. The idea of the drugs court is a useful contribution to the debate, but I have to say that I am a little agnostic about some of the claims about the benefits of the court. A key issue is resources: we must be able to prevent people from going on to drugs in the first place, and we must have the resources to deal with them if they become habitual users.
Many issues arise. There is the issue of throughput, which involves the services that people receive when they come out of prison. There are distinct issues about the availability of resources in different parts of the country. I hear what the minister says about new money being put in, but there is a long way to go. The level of resources available is not as high as it should be, and they are often not fully known about in some areas.
There needs to be a discussion not just on the way in which we deal with the sentencing end of the matter—the drugs court aspect—but on the assessment of what works and what does not. The solution is not just a mechanistic matter relating to resources, but is about the input of family members, employment and how we get people back on track. There are many elements linked together. The people who deal with the issue need a high degree of expertise.
Another useful point was on the need for public support. That is not always available for the things that we do in the Parliament. My party has suggested—as have Donald Gorrie and Margo MacDonald today—the idea of some form of royal commission to look into the links between cannabis and harder drugs and to provide solid evidence on a series of important public issues. That would help to get public support behind the idea. We must move on the issue, with the support of the public.
Bill Aitken talked about the need to be realistic in what we do. The realism comes in what the courts can do—they can change procedures. However, I am sceptical about spending additional money specifically on drugs courts, rather than dealing with the resources that such drugs courts would feed into.
I want to begin, somewhat unusually, by referring to a member who has not participated in the debate: Keith Raffan. His presence is missed today. I know how deeply he feels about drug misuse and I am sure that members join me in sending him our best wishes and hopes for his swift return to the Parliament.
The Conservatives welcome the new Deputy Minister for Justice. He is well acquainted with the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—he spent much time with us when we discussed the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. He has also considered the drugs issue from a health perspective, which may prove extremely valuable.
The Conservatives were forced into lodging an amendment to Roseanna Cunningham's motion because of the reference to the SNP manifesto—we, too, wanted to lay a claim. However, when Hugh Henry rebuked us, he should also have rebuked the minister because the Executive has included similar self-congratulations in its amendment. Donald Gorrie also referred to that.
Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the relationship between crime figures and drugs. I am advised that more than 75 per cent of people who are brought in under a breach of the peace charge have drugs or alcohol in their bloodstream. That gives us cause for concern. Drugs courts could be used to assist in such cases, which present an early indication of people falling into bad ways. I welcome Roseanna Cunningham's point that the establishment of drugs courts is not an isolated action, but forms only part of an answer. Iain Gray went on to emphasise the point that drugs courts would form one part of a greater scene.
Iain Gray also referred to the fact that shoplifting, housebreaking and car crime are not minor crimes—they are very serious. Such crimes penetrate people's minds and destroy their faith in the fabric of society. On that basis, we will support the proposal to set up drugs courts, provided that the seriousness of such crimes is borne in mind by those who determine how individuals will be dealt with.
Iain Gray's emphasis on the application of such initiatives to early offenders is welcome. I do not think that somebody who repeats offence after offence should be offered the option, which aims to take people away from the drugs scene. To achieve that, offenders must not simply recognise the severity of the things that they have done, but must want to break with their addiction. There must be a desire on their part to come off drugs. That must be a factor for those who go before drugs courts.
Margo MacDonald made a fair point about cannabis, but I wonder how suitable drugs courts would be to deal with cannabis offenders, because we are told by those who support it that it is not addictive. On that basis, perhaps those who use cannabis should be excluded from the drugs court process. That is an interesting point. I acknowledge Margo's point about the medicinal use of cannabis. As she is aware, she has our support.
The comments made by Dr Ian Campbell, which Lyndsay McIntosh addressed, are valid. When general practitioners say that there are no alternatives and that there are problems, we must take that on board, particularly when we know that so many agencies and groups are involved in the process.
I am aware that I am over my allotted time, so I would like to make the point clearly that drugs courts are one thing; infrastructure is another. Such courts are not an easy option. The amount of input into the infrastructure, such as rehab facilities and other support measures, will be costly, which is why we offer some support to Roseanna Cunningham's motion, which mentioned a pilot exercise. We will support a pilot exercise, but we want to hear that the infrastructure will be in place when the pilot is brought to fruition. It would be helpful if the minister provided some idea of costings.
Before I call Iain Gray to wind up for the Executive, I realise that a number of members have arrived for the second debate of the morning. I should inform them that we are running about 10 minutes late because of a technical problem, which I hope has been resolved.
As a number of members have said, at a time when we know that as much as 70 per cent of crime has some link to problem drug use, it is heartening that the Parliament chooses to devote its time today to debate the issue, and I acknowledge that the SNP chose the subject. I am also pleased that my first debate as Deputy Minister for Justice has allowed me to signal the Executive's commitment to working up a model of drugs courts for Scotland. I cannot promise that, as minister, I will always agree with the Opposition, but this is a nice start. I will probably always have the record for the quickest accusation of a ministerial U-turn, which happened before I had the chance to stand up in my new role, but I am heartened by the agreement that there has been in the debate, which has risen above the minor party political points that all sides have made.
It has become clear that, although on the surface drugs courts seem like a simple option, they are not. Done properly, however, they represent an intensive intervention by the courts and criminal justice social work services, as well as treatment and rehabilitation services, working together. A number of important points have been made about that. Maureen Macmillan and Euan Robson are right to say that in considering the Scottish context we must consider not only our legal system and traditions, but our geography and population spread. I acknowledge that a drugs court model must be practical in rural as well as urban Scotland.
Bill Aitken is correct that a range of disposals is already available. I indicated that we intend to broaden the range, but the distinctive feature of the drugs court concept is the closer relationship between the criminal justice system, the treatment regime and the agencies that are involved. The element of specialism, to which Bill Aitken alluded, makes the drugs court concept different and more effective.
On the disposals that are being developed, I say to Roseanna Cunningham that in the spending review there are resources to help spread out arrest referral schemes. To Richard Lochhead, who made a plea for the drug problem in Aberdeen not to be forgotten, I say that that is one of the reasons why drug testing and treatment orders have been extended to Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. That approach holds out the prospect of reducing the amount of drug-related crime; that will be its test. I have little interest in whose idea it was. That is a pointless argument, which Hugh Henry described rather more graphically. We have the opportunity to create an effective system. To achieve the results that we want, we must ensure that we set up systems that have the best chance of success. I do not apologise for taking the time to get that right.
Many members said that ensuring ready access to treatment and rehabilitation services would be critical to our success. The Executive has invested an extra £100 million from the spending review in the services that are required.
We are running late, so I am sorry but I cannot give way.
Lyndsay McIntosh rightly gave an example of the gaps in treatment services that we must address to make the drugs courts concept work. The additional resources for treatment are part of our programme for government commitments and give us the opportunity to move on the idea of drugs courts while ensuring that we meet the concerns of Hugh Henry and others, who want non-offending drug misusers to have access to treatment programmes too.
We are taking the right approach and learning lessons from experiences here and abroad. We are devising our own system, which will be rooted in Scottish legal institutions and traditions. As Robert Brown said, that must be part of a wider agenda that joins up services to meet the needs of the whole person for treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration into employment, family networks and the community. That will give individuals the best chance of turning their backs on drug misuse and its effects. The agenda must co-ordinate action to ensure education and prevention with consistent messages for young people, as Maureen Macmillan said. Misusers must have opportunities to move on to employment through education and training, and enforcement measures must be taken to reduce the availability of drugs on our streets.
The strength of our approach lies not in a single issue but in the breadth of our response and commitment and in the breadth of the political will shown today in the chamber. That will allow us to deliver on the agenda that we have set for ourselves and for our people all over Scotland.
I welcome the tone of the debate set by all parties, in recognition of the complex drugs misuse problem in Scotland. I also welcome the minister's recognition that the issue of drugs courts was a Scottish National Party manifesto policy commitment. Rumour has it that the Executive, as part of its on-going review of policies, is about to steal one of our other core policy areas: that of independence. I look forward to it bringing that motion before Parliament in due course. [Laughter.]
Iain Gray, in his opening remarks, referred to the blight that drugs misuse casts on Scottish society. A number of members have highlighted the true cost of the drugs problem in Scotland. The cost is not only to the individual, but to their family. It affects the individual's life, leading to loss of friendships and dignity, and a day-to-day existence that is based on feeding their habit. It is a lifestyle based on survival.
When I was at school—more recently than Kay Ullrich—my school had a drugs problem, which reflected the part of Glasgow in which it was located. The school ran a drugs awareness programme, during which a number of workshops were held by former drug addicts. The girl who took our workshop had suffered from a heroin problem for some years. She had lost contact with her family and was so desperate that she returned to her mother's house. Her mother had not let her into the house for years because of her problem, and she refused to let her back in, saying, "I'm not letting you back in until you give up drugs." At the door, she told her mother that she was home in order to give up drugs, and, on that basis, her mother allowed her back into the house. When her mother went out for the messages, the girl stole her television and video in order to pay for more drugs. That is an example of the blight of drugs on society, individuals and families.
A number of members touched on the problems that exist in the wider community. Day in, day out, we hear from people whose houses have been broken into, whose cars have been stolen and whose children cannot play in the back court because drug addicts use it for injecting, leaving the needles behind. Often, those people are not directly involved in drugs but suffer as a result of the continuing drug problems in the community.
As Roseanna Cunningham mentioned, the cost is not limited to the individual, their family and community but affects society as a whole. The Scottish Executive has indicated that in the region of £330 million a year is spent on dealing with Scotland's drug problem, £120 million of which goes on policing alone. Given the financial implications for society, it is in our interests to assist individuals who have drug problems and the communities that suffer as a result.
There is a complex drug problem in Scotland to which there is no single solution. However, as is always said in politics, it is important that we do not just bang the table and say, "We must deal with the problem." By proposing drugs courts, the SNP is genuinely attempting to bring to the table an idea that we believe offers a constructive way of dealing with the problem.
As Hugh Henry said, a balanced drug policy is important. There must be a balance between the important issue of enforcement—the Executive has established the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency—and the education of young people, in order to ensure that they do not take up drugs and, at the same time, that we provide rehabilitation services to those who have a drug problem. Even that approach must be balanced, because, as Hugh Henry said, we must ensure not only that drug addicts who commit crimes have access to rehabilitation services, but that those who do not commit crimes and who are looking for support also have ready access to those services.
The pressure for more alternatives to custody is not just political. Roseanna Cunningham mentioned a number of organisations that are committed to the idea of drugs courts and that believe that such courts will benefit Scotland.
The Executive also mentioned the alternatives to custody that are already in place. We heard about the arrest referral scheme, about which there is confusion. The Executive department that is responsible for that scheme is clear that there is no set strategy for developing it. I welcome the minister's statement that the arrest referral scheme will be extended in the Aberdeen area, but there are different approaches in different parts of the country. We must ensure that we do not end up going down the route of a two-tier system and that we tackle the problem of drugs in a uniform way.
Members also touched on the issue of DTTOs and the way in which they can be used. I recognise that the minister is committed to extending the pilot project on DTTOs. However, it must also be recognised that fewer than 50—
Will the member give way?
Yes, but only briefly.
Michael Matheson referred to a one-system structure, but, given the comments made about rural communities, should not the system be flexible?
Yes, but our responsibility should be to ensure that, if someone presents at court with a drug problem in any part of Scotland, they should still have access to services. The problem is the piecemeal approach that exists at present.
I was talking about DTTOs. Why is it that, for nearly two years, fewer than 50 DTTOs have been issued? If we are to extend the use of DTTOs, we must consider why such limited use has been made of that disposal.
Last Friday, I visited HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and spoke to the prison officer who is the prison's drugs co-ordinator. She said that, of 15 new young offenders who presented at the institution in the past month, nine tested positive in drug tests. It is estimated that between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of all young offenders at Polmont have a drugs problem. Although there are limited resources within the prison system to deal with that problem, the institution is desperate to see the introduction of a mechanism to ensure that, because of their drugs habit, people do not start down the route of a life leading from one prison to the next. Drugs courts are one of the vehicles that can help to break that vicious cycle.
Although I welcome the fact that the Executive is willing to take on board the establishment of drugs courts, I share Donald Gorrie's concerns that its amendment makes no reference to that. We need a clear, focused and determined attitude to dealing with the drugs problem in Scotland and on that basis I ask members to support the SNP motion.