Drug Misuse
Resumed debate.
Question time has overrun and I must protect the debate because many people are still waiting to speak. The occupants of the chair this afternoon will have very little chance of calling everybody who is hoping to speak, so the briefer the speeches, the greater the number of people who can be called. I appeal to members to leave quietly, if they do not plan to be present for the debate, so that we can begin immediately.
One of our most important tasks in addressing Scotland's drug problems is to acknowledge and learn from past mistakes. Earlier in the debate, Margo MacDonald mentioned Scotland Against Drugs. In its initial form that organisation was an example of Government failing to engage with the realities underpinning drug misuse.
To people involved in dealing with the problems of drug abuse in Glasgow, Scotland Against Drugs seemed from the beginning to be essentially a cosmetic exercise, with the emphasis on being seen to be doing something rather than achieving change on the ground. The money spent on publicity stunts, such as getting Jim Wallace, Alex Salmond and George Robertson to don tee-shirts and climb on a bus with Michael Forsyth and Tom Farmer, could have been much usefully directed at tackling the causes of drug abuse or its consequences, which are especially severe in some of our more deprived communities. The fact that Donald Dewar was otherwise engaged at the time meant that he missed having to face a sartorial dilemma—I do not ever recall Donald in a tee-shirt.
I was pleased that among the early acts of the Labour Administration was the revamping of Scotland Against Drugs, moving it away from increasingly ineffective media campaigns and towards direct engagement with young people. I was interested to note in passing that the former chief executive of Scotland Against Drugs, Mr Macaulay, was associated with another less than successful media launch yesterday.
In his speech this morning, the minister mentioned the success of the methadone programme in greater Glasgow, and I was pleased to hear the Conservative spokesperson pay tribute for their tremendous work to Dr Laurence Gruer and his colleagues, who are internationally recognised as at the forefront of work on handling
patients suffering as a result of drug misuse. As a former member of Greater Glasgow Health Board, I was fortunate to see at first hand the effectiveness of the methadone substitution programme in providing those addicted to heroin with a route out of the chaotic lifestyles characteristic of drug abusers, which are the main factor in so many drugs-related deaths.
The observed administration of methadone has done a great deal to limit health damage, but the impact of the spread of hepatitis C, which has infected nearly 80 per cent of intravenous drug users in Glasgow, will be felt for many years by those who have been infected and by the health services.
Richard Simpson spoke about the role of community pharmacies. I want to highlight also the positive outcomes that will result from changes that the Government has introduced in primary care. In particular, the establishment of community-based general practice co-operatives will have positive results for the care of the victims of drug misuse.
Continuing the theme of highlighting success, I commend the work of the greater Glasgow drugs action team as an example of an effective local partnership involving the full range of agencies. The DAT has set itself clear objectives and a fully specified action plan. Over the past three years, it has had a real impact in co-ordinating responses to drugs problems in greater Glasgow.
However, it is clear that it will be a huge task even to slow down the increase in the number of drugs deaths or in the number of people engaged in various forms of drug misuse. I welcome the minister's statement that fighting drugs will be a key task for the Executive and that efforts will be joined-up and cross-cutting.
The Executive's commitment would have been more clearly underlined if a specific target for reducing the incidence of drug misuse had been set in the social justice document that was published in December. If there is too much uncertainty for it to be possible to provide numerical output measures, perhaps the minister will consider giving process measures, against which we can assess the number and scope of interventions that he intends to introduce.
On research priorities, I recommend that the minister should not direct funding to prevalence studies, which tend to confirm what we already know, but should commission work on studies that are aimed at improving the effectiveness of interventions, so that best practice can be spread and consolidated. There is a parallel here with work on public health, in which Michael Marmot and others have given us a clear understanding of the causes and nature of health inequalities, but we have only patchy information about the effectiveness of measures that address these problems and about the effectiveness of different types of local initiatives.
We need to strike the right balance between national efforts and more local work to deal with drug misuse and, equally important, the effect that it has on local communities. Drug problems are different in different parts of Scotland. The Executive will gain most from supporting and encouraging local initiatives rather than national task forces and strategies.
The role of local authorities in these efforts is vital. We need not only to deal with people as patients but to provide the infrastructure to allow them to gain control over their lives. Services that are provided by local authorities, such as housing, education and social work, are vital in that process.
I want to broaden the debate and pick up on what Tommy Sheridan said. One of the biggest addictions in Scotland is, of course, alcohol, but the Deputy Minister for Justice did not even mention alcohol abuse. I hope that it will be covered in the summing-up.
There are 200,000 people in Scotland who misuse alcohol. In the past 25 years, the recorded increase in deaths for which alcohol is recorded as cause of death is 552 per cent for males and 760 per cent for females. Those are gross understatements, as they refer only to cases in which the death certificate records the death as an alcohol death. There is also an increase, up to 64 per cent, in the number of children in the 12 to 15 age category who partake of alcohol. More important, the number of units that they are taking has doubled.
Because of the time lag in the production of statistics, all those figures will be understated. We are well aware that, because of the social acceptability of taking alcohol, much of it goes on, hidden, at home. Like cocaine addiction, alcohol abuse and addiction takes place at all levels in society. Unlike cocaine addiction, it is socially acceptable.
One third of general hospital beds contain patients who have an alcohol problem. All indicators—liver disease, suicides, accidental deaths, and so on—demonstrate that alcoholism in Scotland is 60 per cent to 40 per cent greater than in England, yet in the Scottish Parliament information centre document on drug misuse, only 15 lines out of 22 pages are devoted to alcohol abuse, and only 13 lines to tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco separately cause more deaths and more
misery to people in Scotland than all the other drugs that are commonly discussed.
The document says that misuse of alcohol
"has steadily increased . . . and is a major risk factor associated with disease, homelessness, unemployment, criminality, mental breakdown, domestic violence and child abuse."
To that list we must add lost days at work and the cost to employers, drink-driving and so on. It is essential that alcohol and tobacco problems become part of the remit on drug abuse in Scotland and we ought to extend the definition of the word abuse.
Mary Scanlon referred to the Castle Craig rehabilitation centre in West Linton. Two thirds of patients there are alcohol abusers and one third are drug addicts. There is an age divide, with drug addiction tending to be a youth problem and alcoholism a problem for older people. It is often impossible for the victims of such abuse—and I call them that rather than patients—to obtain a referral to the Castle Craig unit, even when there are no national health service facilities in their area. In some areas, general practitioners are resigned to the situation. As admissions to psychiatric hospitals for alcoholism have declined, admissions to general hospitals have increased. In general hospitals, however, patients will not get treatment for their underlying addiction to alcohol.
Angus MacKay said that drugs create despair. He also said that drugs are extremely lucrative business, and indeed they are. Eighty-five per cent of excise duty on alcohol goes to Her Majesty's Government at Westminster. In 1995, that totalled £9,745.9 million.
I have three questions for the minister. First, will he ensure that the Executive's approach to tackling drugs misuse does not become blinkered and that it addresses alcoholism? Secondly, will he undertake an audit of referrals from NHS areas and other statutory bodies to alcohol rehabilitation units? Thirdly, will the Executive make representations to Westminster to hypothecate a portion of those vast excise revenues to resource an educational programme for all age groups on alcohol and alcohol abuse, and to provide adequate rehabilitation facilities in Scotland? That would have a consequential impact on the availability of general hospital beds.
A lot of good speeches were made this morning and their tenor was, on the whole, constructive. I would like to refer briefly to four of those speeches.
Richard Simpson said that we should accept the fact that we are losing the drugs war in the United
Kingdom. We should start from that vital point. I and many of my colleagues feel that, at the UK level, our drugs policy is rubbish. It oscillates between tsars and tackety boots and heavies, with a bit of rehabilitation thrown in. Part of the reason for our not getting anywhere is, as Margo MacDonald said, that we have no objectives and no strategy. We are fighting a drugs war. A war usually has an objective, such as the capture of Timbuktu. Our drugs war, however, has no objective. We do not know what on earth we are doing so it is no wonder that we fail. We must get a grip on ourselves at a UK level.
Keith Raffan and Tommy Sheridan both stressed the need for more emphasis on rehabilitation and less on enforcement. That is vital. There must be a big switch in our expenditure to rehabilitation and we must seriously examine enforcement measures, some of which are a total waste of time. Tommy Sheridan flew the flag for a bit of a revolution on the subject. In due course, I may sign on for his revolution, but he must understand that people in my position have to ration the number of rebellions that we conduct. [Laughter.]
On a serious note, there must be a switch not only to rehabilitation but also to prevention. Richard Simpson gave a good example of the huge cost to the public purse of 12 youths in Clackmannanshire. If Clackmannanshire had sufficient funds—say, £50,000—to set up one or more youth cafes or advice centres, and if that kept just one young person from going down the drugs route, that investment would pay for itself many times over. That is the attitude that we must take to accounting and public finance.
We must involve young people more. It is useless to have people like me on committees talking to young people about how not to do drugs. I have never even smoked a cigarette. To be absolutely accurate, I gave up smoking when chocolate cigarettes were no longer available in 1939. [Laughter.] I know zilch about drugs. We must involve the young people who actually know about them; we do not have to agree with everything they say, but they must make a major contribution. We need more locally based, not top- down, action. We must give young people a real say in how their affairs are run, for example, on the youth cafes that keep them out of trouble, and ask them what sort of programmes may work.
Christine Grahame spoke about alcohol, which is critical. Alcohol is a much bigger problem in Scotland than are drugs. That is not a reason to neglect drugs, but nor do we have a reason to neglect alcohol—but we neglect it, because it is damned embarrassing to almost all of us.
Does Mr Gorrie consider the use of cannabis to be
alongside the use—or misuse as I see it—of alcohol and nicotine?
I have signed Margo MacDonald's motion about holding an inquiry into cannabis use. My serious, lofty colleagues tell me that that is not viewed with favour, because the matter is not within the control of the Scottish Parliament. However, alcohol is under our control and, without prejudicing Margo's desire to have a real look at cannabis, we should have a real look at alcohol. Either the Parliament or the Executive should have a thorough look at alcohol, possibly in relation to drugs and smoking. We keep sticking our heads in the sand about young people and alcohol, about the connection between alcohol and drugs and about the Scotland's macho spirit— whereby unless a man is totally blootered he is not a real man—but that attitude is very dangerous and we must get a grip on it. Let us do that.
We have had a reasonably interesting debate today and it is obvious that no one in the chamber is not aware of the problems that are caused by drugs. I will not go into any particular examples from my area, because I am sure that we all have such examples to give.
The people whom we represent are very aware of the issues that surround today's debate on drugs, something that cannot be said of some other debates we have in the chamber. In fact, they understand the issues far better than most of us.
Angus MacKay mentioned a partnership approach. That is the key to trying to tackle the drugs problem, but the partnership has to exist not just between us and outside agencies but within the chamber. We have to accept, as does the Executive, that a wide range of opinions exists and that no one person or political party has a monopoly on caring about the drugs problem or on wisdom when it comes to solving that problem.
I agree with a number of points that have been made by members from different parties. Roseanna Cunningham suggested an audit of services and how effective they have been. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I, too, worry that many agencies, individuals and bureaucracies are spending increasing sums of money on tackling drugs without us really knowing whether any of them are working.
In Dundee and Glasgow, we had drugs prevention teams that seemed to be developing in the right direction; however, they were closed down last spring, possibly so that money could be diverted into a national drugs prevention unit. Those teams were operating on a community development basis, in partnership with statutory agencies, the private sector and community groups, and were one of the main providers of education on prevention in primary and secondary schools. They built up considerable links in the community and in schools. I am not convinced that a national unit will be able to foster and maintain such links.
I welcome the Executive's obvious strong commitment to deal with a problem that affects every community that we represent, but funding is not the only issue. I will not criticise publicly any particular body, but much of the money that could be spent in communities on rehabilitation, or on preventing people from starting on drugs, is being spent on bureaucracy and enforcement. There are not enough community-based rehabilitation projects; there is not enough relevant and realistic education for our young people. Alarmingly little emphasis is placed on harm reduction, to which Keith Raffan referred earlier. I will expand a little on those areas.
In Dundee last week, Sheriff Davidson commented, when sentencing a 20-year-old man to a jail sentence, that he felt that there was a need for a residential drug rehabilitation centre. He did not think that going to prison would help that young man—quite the opposite—but he had nothing else at his disposal. That young man had to be taken out of the community, therefore he ended up in prison. That will not help him, and it will not help the community that he eventually comes back to. I hope that the need for a centre will be considered seriously, to allow people like Sheriff Davidson to do the job that they should be doing, which is not just to punish people, but to help them.
In terms of education with a view to preventing kids getting involved in drugs in the first place, it is patchy, and sometimes evangelical. We must ensure that sufficient funding is directed towards relevant education, and not just in schools. For example, it should be directed to The Corner in Dundee, which was mentioned earlier, and is an excellent project. However, such education must take account of the society that our children live in and the pressures that they face, which are different to those that we faced when we were younger.
I welcome the pilot schemes that Angus MacKay announced last year that aim to get kids involved in sport as an alternative to being involved in drugs. However, we must examine the effects of issues such as cuts in local government spending, which have resulted in leisure centre closures in some areas. To give additional funding on one hand but take it away on the other could create problems, so that we would be going round in circles.
I will finish on the important issue of harm reduction. I know that a lot of people are uncomfortable about it, because it means that we have to accept that, in spite of our best efforts, people will take drugs. We would have to commit ourselves to ensuring that the people who take drugs know how to take them safely, and that they have the means to protect themselves with education, needle exchanges, chill-out rooms, access to water in nightclubs and clean paraphernalia, which Keith Raffan mentioned. Those are simple measures to save lives.
We must have a realistic drugs policy. I welcome the commitment of the Executive, but I want every penny that will be spent on drug prevention to make a difference.
I welcome this debate. It is interesting that we are having to address what we mean when we talk about the drugs problem, because numerous issues have been raised, such as anger at dealers, the desperation of parents who have lost their children and the victims of drug-related crime. There are many problems, many issues and many solutions, and there is no quick fix. None of the problems can be tackled until the objectives and strategies are known. On that point I agree with Donald Gorrie.
Of course, there are different drugs. In mentioning substance abuse in our amendment, we include alcohol abuse. If we include alcohol in that category, we will get more respect and attention from young people who so frequently accuse older generations of hypocrisy. That is the approach that other countries, for example, Australia, have taken in tackling their drugs problem.
There are big differences between different areas, for example, between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Types of behaviours with regard to drugs change, and they change quickly. Even in West Lothian, as well as in Edinburgh, we are seeing increased heroin use and availability of cocaine, which has infiltrated the dance culture there. Interestingly, the West Lothian DAT has recognised the importance of alcohol issues as part of the progression of those drugs. Yesterday, I spoke to senior drugs officers in Lothian and Borders police, who told me of the pace and change of drug use. For example, dealers are manufacturing new drugs that escape current statute definitions.
This issue is one of economics. We must tackle supply and demand. We must deal harshly with dealers, but we also know that the economics of the system means that, like the heads of a hydra, if one dealer is dealt with, another will spring up in their place. We should identify the drugs economy in our schemes and communities as one of the problems to be resolved. We have to provide alternatives.
Does Fiona Hyslop agree that the terminology that she used, with all due respect, can be confusing? The person who makes a profit from selling drugs is not someone whom we want anything to do with, except in terms of punishment. On the other hand, often the dealer is the user is the supplier. That is why we need to look clearly at who is taking drugs, why they are doing so, where they are taking them and when they are taking them. No longer is it enough to talk about dealer and user.
I think that Margo MacDonald pre-empted some of my comments.
A lot of money that is circulating in communities is drug related. The Scottish Drugs Forum's shared agenda for the Scottish Parliament recommends that there should be substantial investment in legitimate economic activity to counter and undermine the illicit drugs economy that is currently gripping the multi-deprived communities in Scotland. We must provide ways out of drug abuse. The average age of people seeking assistance in Glasgow is 25, with an average of seven years of drug use—seven years without any intervention. We must address that issue.
We have to use joined-up thinking. We need to think about what we are doing in our prisons. In Glasgow, many of those who died because of drugs in the last year had come out of prison less than two weeks before they died. That demonstrates the need for a holistic approach. I know that the Executive wants to do that, but it is important that we have a body that can hold the Executive to account and ask what is happening in our prisons, what is being done to provide alternatives to drugs in our communities and what is being done to address the economic problems of the communities that are badly affected by drugs.
We need to consider the role of the Executive and Parliament. We need to look at the pace of change. We have lost some momentum since the 1994 ministerial task force. I believe that the Executive wants to move quickly, but issues change quickly and need to be continually monitored. A parliamentary committee would allow us to do that. What would the committee do to ensure accountability? We could examine the drug action teams and the audit that is being done. We could find out about the international experience. The Parliament must take ownership of the drugs debate because it is about partnership— partnership within the Parliament and partnership
between the Executive and Parliament. What is missing is the accountability that a parliamentary committee on substance abuse could provide.
I apologise for not being in the chamber this morning. My absence was due to personal reasons.
Irrespective of whether the motion is accepted as it stands or is amended, the multi-agency approach will be approved. As Kate MacLean suggested, there is a concern about the multiplicity of agencies involved. Has the minister had any representations made about the individuals who are involved in one or two of the groups, and does he have any concerns about aspects of control of the groups?
A few years ago, I was privileged to work with the Scottish Affairs Select Committee when it examined this issue. Donald Gorrie's comments about the UK's approach being a shambles are reasonable, but the situation applies across the world. When I visited America, I found that there was a range of approaches to the problem and no central drive. That gave great cause for concern.
Much has been spoken today, I understand, about the rehabilitation aspect of action against the drugs problem. Rehabilitation is not a cheap option; it does not last a week or two. To ensure effective rehabilitation, a person might have to be taken away from their community for as long as six months or more. We must provide hope for people when they come out of rehab. Facilities must be provided for them.
Phil mentioned that rehab is not a cheap option. Does he agree that it is better value for money than spending money on enforcement? All observers agree that, for every pound spent on rehab and treatment, £3 is saved on enforcement.
There is a balance to be struck. We need the enforcement, but we also need the rehab. This morning, my colleague Mary Scanlon made a suggestion about the future use of Penninghame prison. That would be a positive way forward; I would like to think that some cash could be injected into that, perhaps by enforcing and using the confiscation laws that the minister investigated in Ireland. Perhaps money could be extracted from those who sell drugs, to boost the cash that is available for rehab. I would go along with Mary Scanlon on the proposals that she made this morning.
Comments have been made today about methadone. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee was much divided on that issue. Eric Clarke, for one, had great reservations. Quite honestly, methadone has to play a part as well—it is about harm reduction. People are not put on to methadone for the long term, but to try to ease them away from heroin. A pharmacist in Ayr approached me about the way that the methadone system works at present. We have to consider methadone; supervised prescription is important. The pharmacist mentioned a situation in which a methadone user was given a litre bottle of the drug. He was later heard to argue that he used 200 ml; the rest was for sale. It is a valuable programme, but we have to guard against such incidents in future.
The issue is wide—there are many concerns. It is not an issue at which we can simply throw money; we have to put heart and soul into it. Kate MacLean referred earlier to the chill-out areas and so on that are needed in clubs. I was horrified when the local licensing committee shut down Hangar 13 in Ayr. However, after that, a bill was introduced, the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1996, that addressed some of the points to which Kate referred.
In many ways, I would rather not have had to speak in today's debate. I would rather that we lived in a society without the misuse of drugs. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The abuse of drugs is destroying communities, leaving the people living within them feeling powerless and trapped. The impact that drug abuse can have on health and crime is well documented. Recent research in Glasgow indicates that the city's 8,500 heroin injectors were committing an estimated 2.6 million offences a year.
When that information is added to the evidence of the correlation between deprivation and some types of drug abuse, it becomes apparent that many of our most deprived communities face the greatest difficulties. The overall effect of that is to erode the sense of community within neighbourhoods. That is particularly worrying, as it is that very sense of community—the belief that communities are strengthened by acting together—that is the key to tackling this problem.
Just as communities are being encouraged to be active participants in the process of tackling poverty, we must encourage and support those communities to take an active part in the fight against drugs. I recognise and commend community organisations throughout Scotland that are already engaged in that fight. However, we need many more recruits for this war. We must ensure that communities are given the necessary support to participate on an equal footing within partnerships. We must also ensure that their
opinions are given equal weight. Most important, we must demonstrate that this Parliament understands their fears about drug abuse and is willing to take whatever measures are required to reclaim our communities from those who deal in drugs.
There is no single solution to this problem. We need a multi-faceted approach and tough laws to crack down on those who peddle drugs. We need rehabilitation and harm reduction facilities. As important, we need to educate our young people in a way that is meaningful to them. If we are to do that, the resources used to inform young people must be up to date, engaging and properly targeted. I am pleased to say that, in that respect, Lanarkshire is leading the way.
"What's the Score?" is an education pack written for teachers by teachers. The content of the pack was influenced by discussions with pupils, parents, teachers and relevant agencies. The pack is aimed at children from primary 1 to secondary 4 and was created by North Lanarkshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Lanarkshire Health Board with the support of the Lanarkshire drug action team. The pack is evidence of the benefits brought by partnership working and the involvement of the private sector, which funded the printing and publication of the pack. I would like to encourage the Executive to ensure that all local authority education departments have the opportunity to benefit from this excellent resource.
We need a strategic and co-ordinated response to the problem of drug misuse in Scotland. The corporate action plans of local drug action teams must complement community plans, health improvement plans and targets set within our social inclusion partnerships. The commitment to combating drug dealing through a powerful and well-resourced drugs enforcement agency must be matched by a resolve to provide adequate rehabilitation facilities.
The establishment of the ministerial committee on drug misuse is a vital first step in co-ordinating resources, information and policy. I urge the minister to strive constantly to include members of our communities in the process of understanding and tackling the problem. It is only by rebuilding and empowering Scottish communities that we will begin to combat seriously the misuse of drugs.
We have had a good debate and I take on board what has been said, particularly by Christine Grahame, about alcohol abuse—I hope that the Executive will also take that on board. Members were correct in their comments on the extent of alcohol abuse in Scotland and that is why the SNP amendment is relevant. I hope that members read the amendment carefully and support it.
Although I agree with what was said about the problem of alcohol abuse, I believe that we should be under no illusions about the seriousness of the drug problem that we face in Scotland, particularly in Glasgow and the west of Scotland.
Many experts have pointed to the link between deprivation and drug misuse, as Karen Whitefield said. It is evident that many young people from the worst housing schemes in our cities—particularly Glasgow—have no hope and no prospects and eventually turn to drugs. We have all seen the recent reports of the deprivation in Glasgow. I make no apologies for mentioning Glasgow. I go along with Johann Lamont's suggestion that the Glasgow MSPs and the Executive should get together to present Glasgow as a special case.
There are compelling reasons to believe that deprivation has contributed to the grim statistics, including the 146 drug-related deaths reported by Strathclyde police. Only yesterday, we saw the problems that drug misuse can cause families: a heroin-addicted couple were convicted at the High Court in Glasgow for the terrible neglect of a young child. That is just one example of the misery that drugs cause, not only for addicts, but for their families.
As I said, Glasgow has a major problem with drugs. In 1990, there were an estimated 8,500 drug injectors in greater Glasgow; it is believed that there are now more than that. Research has also found that 40 per cent of 15 to 16-year-olds in greater Glasgow have tried illegal drugs. The majority of addicts are under the age of 30. That is what concerns me most—young people's lives are being snuffed out because of drugs. That is a major problem in Glasgow and we need the facilities to attack it. I hope that the Executive will respond to that. It was also found that those admitted to hospital for drug misuse were 30 times more likely to come from deprived areas of the city, which again demonstrates the link between drug misuse and deprivation.
Research has found that drug injectors in Glasgow spend an estimated £160 million annually on drugs. That spending is financed mainly by crime—from the sale of stolen goods and drug dealing. A recent survey of 168 injectors in greater Glasgow found that they committed an average of 26 offences per month each. Strathclyde police have also identified a strong correlation between drugs and house-breaking.
The misuse of drugs has a devastating effect. It is a major contributory factor in crime—the front page of The Herald yesterday carried a report on attacks on the elderly. We all suffer, not just the drug abusers and their families. Whole
communities suffer.
The cost of keeping the estimated 1,000 drug misusers from the Glasgow area in prison is approximately £26 million a year. It is clear that, as well as causing misery for thousands, drug misuse is a major drain on public resources.
The creation of the Scottish drugs enforcement agency and the moves to improve drugs education and awareness are welcomed by everyone, I assume, in the chamber. However, we must create real jobs and real opportunities for young people. It is our duty to restore hope to those communities where all people have is despair. I hope that the Executive will take that on board. As Fiona Hyslop said, providing real jobs and real opportunities is the one way in which we will stop drug misuse in the Glasgow area.
Last year, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee heard from the Scottish prison chiefs that drugs are now the No 1 problem in our prisons. During our visit to Low Moss prison, we heard from the governors about some of the ingenious ways in which drugs are brought into an enclosed environment. It is of major concern that that is out of control. I agree whole-heartedly with Richard Simpson, who said this morning that prisons are not equipped to deal with drugs.
Drugs have become the No 1 barrier to tackling social problems, affecting prisons, policing and communities. The Labour partnership is beginning to tackle the problems in the right way.
In my constituency, parts of Anderston are commonly known as the red light district. Anyone who has passed through this city centre area— with its bus station and several hotels—after dark, will say that what they saw was heart-rending.
Fifteen years ago, the police used to say that Glasgow had a prostitution problem. In 2000, that problem is more complex, accentuated by drug use, addiction and a vicious and violent circle— vicious because the women who present themselves on the street have to get high in order to cope with the experience of prostitution, and violent because some of their male partners in the vicinity, as we know from the police, have weapons close by. That is partly to look after the women, but it creates a violent circle from which it is very difficult for the women to get out.
Of the women working on the streets who are referred to by law as common prostitutes, 95 per cent are drug users, mainly using heroin. It is because of such startling facts that I recently joined the Routes out of Prostitution social inclusion partnership, which meets and works in the heart of the red light district in Glasgow Kelvin constituency. The partnership brings together a range of people—including people from the police, health and social services—who are seriously committed to working together towards finding a genuine alternative for the women and men who are working the streets in Glasgow city centre.
I pay tribute to that project. It has already analysed why those women have become drug addicts. The reasons include: male partners who introduce them to drugs; experience of child sexual abuse, which can lead to drug taking at an early age to blank it out; an introduction to or an increase in drug taking to cope with the experience of prostitution; and homelessness or a hostel culture, which can introduce women— particularly young women—to drugs and prostitution.
To provide effective support to women drug users, the Routes out of Prostitution project has found that it is necessary to acknowledge and understand a range of complex and interrelated factors. Many of my colleagues have spoken about that. It is also crucial to recognise that drug dependency is not gender neutral and that different approaches to working with women and men are necessary.
Many women face charges for shoplifting, soliciting and non-payment of fines. The Executive has been very responsive to the specific problems of women offenders, which has been a significant change of direction.
The Turnaround project has been operating in the criminal justice system since 1997, with support from the Scottish Executive and Glasgow City Council. It takes drug workers to women in the cells, in courts and in prison and encourages them to address their drug problems. The project is also piloting Scotland's first diversion from prosecution programme for women drug users. The aim is to reduce the number of women sent to jail in the first place by working with the procurator fiscal's office to provide an alternative to prosecution.
Schemes such as Turnaround play a vital role in the Scottish Executive's plan to tackle drug-related offending and prevent women from getting caught up in a vicious circle of criminal activity to feed their drug habits. As legislators, we can learn from the work of Routes out of Prostitution about the need to develop a genuinely sensitive approach to working with women drug users and the need for greater access to methadone prescriptions and detoxification services. Furthermore, there is a particular need for effective early prevention strategies and early intervention for young women.
It is sad to live in a city where heroin is available for £10 a bag, which is cheaper than a bottle of
spirits. The drugs menace has the potential to spiral out of control. The Executive motion has found the right balance by considering agencies working together, rehabilitation programmes and drug enforcement. We need all those measures to tackle the drugs menace in our society. No party has the monopoly on finding a solution to the problem.
We will now move to the closing sections of the debate. Seven members were not called in that section of the debate, but I should say that we make a note of such members and we try to make recompense in future. I call Euan Robson to wind up for the Liberal Democrats.
This has been a welcome and necessary debate because all drugs, including alcohol, are central to some of the biggest problems in Scotland today.
I begin by emphasising the point made by Keith Raffan and Donald Gorrie that total UK drug- related expenditure was about £1.4 billion in 1997-98 and that 75 per cent of that amount was spent on enforcement, 13 per cent on treatment and 12 per cent on prevention and education. We believe that the balance must be shifted significantly towards treatment, rehabilitation, prevention and education.
The local police in my area say that we must break the recidivist cycle of arrest, conviction, part- treatment and return to the street unprotected from the attention of local dealers and suppliers. Through care and after care are essential and must be developed for the individuals concerned. I was given a forceful example of that when the Justice and Home Affairs Committee visited Longriggend prison, where two young remand prisoners told me succinctly that the first knock on their door after their release was from the local dealer.
Treatment and after care will reduce demand for drugs. That is essential, because, despite the effectiveness of efforts such as Operation Spotlight in Strathclyde and Operation Foil in Lothian and Borders, middle-rank drug dealers will always be replaced quickly if the demand still exists. The vacuum created by arrest and conviction is seldom long lasting; why else is it that seizures are rising dramatically—which is welcome—but, as we agree, we are still losing the war against drugs?
Treatment and after care are also cost-effective. It costs about £30,000 a year to keep an individual in prison, whereas the most intensive community- based treatment costs no more than about £7,000 a year. Indeed, Glasgow City Council estimates that an average sheriff court trial with a jury costs about £7,700 while an average diversion case costs £400.
Such measures are also good for communities. Breaking the recidivist cycle cuts the cost of crime and the amount of damage caused by drug-related crime throughout Scotland. Another important statistic is that, as recent surveys have shown, patients prescribed methadone commit four property crimes a month compared to 15 before treatment.
I especially agree with Richard Simpson that drug dealers and users are found in nearly all our towns and villages. That is certainly true in my constituency, and many members will doubtless be familiar with complaints at surgeries from people from what used to be quiet, law-abiding areas suddenly finding that new neighbours receive visitors in the small hours of the morning, with associated noise, disruption and far worse.
The drugs enforcement agency proposals need more clarity and we need to think more clearly about the body's purpose. A further debate on that would be welcome in due course.
I reiterate what Keith Raffan said, because it is also my experience—local police divisions are concerned about the extraction of experienced officers to the drugs enforcement agency. They point out that it takes three or four months to put a police officer on the streets. Recruitment to the DEA must, therefore, be phased so as not to put local policing at risk. I know that we will consider the matter in the months to come, but it is important to emphasise that point up front.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of the Deputy Minister for Justice about the need for civil forfeiture to be developed at a European level. That is extremely important, because measures must comply with the European convention on human rights. In addition, we must ensure that forfeiture does not breach the principle of innocence until guilt is proven. There must also be protection for the innocent dependants of those involved. We must be careful with this issue and ensure that those two principles are safeguarded.
I ask the minister to ensure that, when convictions are secured, there is effective pursuit and capture of assets gained through illegal means. There must be reinvestment, preferably in treatment, education and rehabilitation services. That would be a worthwhile achievement.
I have two final points. First, I agree entirely with Donald Gorrie's remarks about alcohol. Alcohol is an extremely grave problem, which should not be disassociated from this debate. As Christine Grahame pointed out, alcohol is an endemic problem in some areas—I am sure that we all
have some constituency experience of that.
Secondly, we feel that the SNP amendment replaces too much of the Executive's motion, so we will vote against it. However, as Keith Raffan said, we are not opposed to the proposal to establish a cross-cutting committee. The matter could be put to the conveners committee and we must return to it—preferably soon—once the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee has completed its report.
As others have said, today's debate is long overdue. Drug misuse is a problem that affects each and every person in Scotland. The people of Scotland surely expect their Parliament to tackle it.
The debate has been refreshing, with excellent contributions from across the chamber. Johann Lamont's speech was very poignant, as was Pauline McNeill's, and I was interested to hear what Tommy Sheridan had to say this morning.
As has been said, it may be time for a more mature and open debate about drug use. It would certainly be a test of the maturity of this Parliament to have such a debate and to move away from the vilification of those who express frank and honest views. That is not a concession on the position of zero tolerance, the argument for which will best be won in an informed debate, rather than in an atmosphere of hysteria and hypocrisy.
What has been particularly refreshing about the debate is the fact that no one, not even from the Executive, has claimed that there is one simple solution to the problem of misuse and its devastating human consequences for young lives, families and communities. There is not.
That does not mean that doing nothing—or believing that others will do it for us—is an option. We believe, as Lyndsay McIntosh set out this morning, that there should be a minister with full responsibility for the drugs issue, which is why we lodged our amendment. We are also interested in the SNP's proposal, which, if its amendment is not carried today, we agree should be considered further.
In addition to the human cost of drug misuse in Scotland, the financial cost is now so huge that we are unable to calculate it properly. The figure is so frightening that some people probably do not want to calculate it, but it is time that we did, because we are all paying the price.
We have heard a ream of statistics in this debate. Given that 80 per cent of shoplifting is drug related, each household is paying for drug misuse in its weekly shopping bill. People are paying for it in their home and car insurance, because of drug-related crime and burglaries. They are even paying for it in their electricity and telephone bills because two men have to go out to do a job instead of one, so that someone can stay behind to look after the van in case it or the tools are nicked. We are paying for the problem in income tax and council tax. A huge proportion of accident and emergency admissions to hospital are drug related, including a significant number of failed suicide attempts, the result of which is psychiatric after care.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is also a cost at the workplace—to business and employers. Although mainly anecdotal, the evidence seems to suggest that drug misuse affects performance at work and leads to prolonged absences from work.
I contend that there is not a person, business or organisation in Scotland that does not have a stake in tackling drug misuse. That is why we need to galvanise all our citizens, businesses and institutions to come together to create the climate in which the issue can be tackled and to dispel the "it's not my problem" culture.
Employers have to face up to any problems of employees smoking a joint in the toilets at break time, not least because that is a criminal activity. It is also a problem for an employer if someone cannot come to work on a Monday morning because of a heavy weekend. A report that I heard about this week shows that Monday morning absences from work are at record levels.
What David Mundell has just said illustrates perfectly a general point that SNP members are making—that we must consider the abuse of substances other than "drugs". Many more people cannot turn up for work on a Monday because they have been drinking.
I absolutely agree with that.
Let us dispel the myth that anything serious can be done about drug misuse and substance misuse without each and every one of us playing our part, and without each of us opening our eyes to the horrendous human and financial costs of the problem.
I am always cautious about saying that I have had no personal experience of drug taking, not least because I always fear that I might have suffered from a period of memory loss immediately afterwards. To the best of my recollection, I have not had such experience. I am also cautious about saying it because I do not believe that we should live in a culture in which people hold themselves to be whiter than white while vilifying others who are willing to admit errors of judgment.
On a personal level, although I am a parent of three small children and generally think of myself
as a man of the world, whatever that means, when I stood for this Parliament, I knew nothing about the real facts and consequences of drugs. We must do more to dispel the culture of ignorance among adults. Every parent, manager, teacher, businessman and ordinary citizen must take personal responsibility to learn more. How many of us have heard parents say, "My children know more about drugs than I do"? How can parents know what their children need to know if they know nothing themselves? Do they know that it takes only £10 to purchase a piece of heroin? Do they know that that piece of heroin in its wrapper looks just like a tiny crumpled-up piece of paper? Do they know that heroin is in fact available free in the current market—where crack cocaine is flooding some areas—if the dealer wants people to get hooked?
As other members have said, we have to get real. I welcome the Executive's attempt at a cross-cutting approach, but no Executive alone will solve the problem; we all have to play a part.
What about our young people, many of whom seem so confident and seem to know it all? The truth can be very different. I spoke to some young people from the south of Scotland at the weekend who said they had had only an hour's drugs education in their whole time at school. I spoke to some who felt that their teachers knew less than they did and to others who, having attended classes given by the police—I am sure with good intentions—felt that the whole issue had been put in a criminal rather than information context. There are excellent programmes in some parts of Scotland but no uniform approach. Education is central to progress. It should involve young people and encourage them to talk to other young people in an informed way so that peer pressure has a positive effect, steering people away from, not on to, drugs and unsafe practices.
At the weekend, I also met Paul Betts, the father of Leah Betts, who died on her 18th birthday after taking ecstasy. Paul and his wife now live in Scotland and have been giving the other side of the story to schoolchildren in the north, where they live. He is shocked by young people's ignorance about the drugs issue. The approach of giving young people in school the real facts has much to commend it.
I have said that drugs affect everyone but I agree that, as Johann Lamont said, the greatest impact is on those who live in the worst social and economic conditions. From my informal discussions with police officers and others, I know that the consensus is that drug use—particularly heroin use—and poverty are inextricably linked. When Dr Elaine Murray and I recently accepted an invitation from local police to oversee a major drugs operation in Dumfries, the people and dealers arrested were not from the so-called posh parts of the town but from the run-down bed and breakfasts and poorer housing.
Let us not forget the link between drugs and prosperity, however. As well as debating drugs again, let us spend more time discussing how we can make and keep Scotland prosperous.
As others have said, today's debate has been carried out in a more honest way than has previously been the case in Scotland. We have heard different approaches to a very difficult subject, allowing each and every one to express their ideas. It appears that the Deputy Minister for Justice is prepared to accept many of the ideas advanced today, which is a great step forward, and the Parliament should be proud of that.
We seem to be beginning to understand that chaotic drug abuse, which results in addiction, is the front line. Most stories and anecdotes today have been about chaotic drug users and addicts, although they account for only 1 to 3 per cent of drug users. We must deal with that area, but if we are honest about dealing with abuse and substance misuse, we need a committee and we need to develop a proper delineation between chaotic use, misuse, addiction and recreational drugs. I cannot concur with the Conservative view, expressed by Lyndsay McIntosh, that it is wrong to use the term recreational use. It is a failure of reverse political correctness not to recognise that every weekend in the UK upwards of half a million young people take what they would term recreational drugs. The question is not whether we accept that concept—we need to look at why people use such drugs.
I have no hesitation in accepting that many people use that phrase. My main concern is that the phrase conveys the wrong impression. I do not doubt Mr Quinan's statistics and I do not doubt that many people use drugs for what I hesitate to call recreational use.
Lyndsay exemplifies the failures in this debate in recent years. She does not want to refer to recreational drug use, but she does not use ecstasy. Those who do see it as a recreational drug, and we must recognise that—it is that simple.
More people have died in the past 10 years in the United Kingdom from nut allergies than from the use of ecstasy as a recreational drug.
I do not wish us to get bogged down in semantics, but I feel that we are discussing the fact that somebody who steals a car to drive it
round a built-up area at 60 mph might call that joyriding, while the rest of us will not. Lloyd Quinan's point is well made, but many people will not accept the concept of recreational drug use. Those who take drugs might feel that way, but others will feel differently.
I accept that Brian feels differently—that is fine, but I have made my point. If we do not begin to understand the people who have that view, and the terminology that they use, our understanding of the debate will be incomplete.
Members have come to the conclusion that addiction is a health problem and I welcome the fact that the justice department, supported by the health department, is leading the Executive contribution to the debate. That shows that there is recognition that addiction is not a substance abuse problem—it is a health problem. Recognition of that means that, as the SNP suggests, we must look at the broad issue of substance abuse. That includes use of prescribed drugs and misuse of illegal and illicit drugs. Most important, it includes misuse of solvents and of alcohol, on which Scotland has the worst record of abuse—apart from Czechoslovakia—in Europe. The amount of the health service budget that is used to deal with that and tobacco-related diseases is far greater in real terms than the amount that will be needed to deal with the drugs problem.
I lodged a written question to Susan Deacon on how much drug-related illnesses cost the national health service. In her reply, she said that no calculation was made on that basis. Is not it difficult, therefore, to make such comparisons for illnesses such as drug-related illnesses? Those illnesses might cost millions or—for all we know— billions.
Let us get back to the crux of the matter. The SNP calls for a substance misuse strategy committee—not to criticise what the Executive intends to do, but to assist it in carrying it out. We want to help the agencies that are involved to carry out their work and to tackle substance abuse. More important, such a committee would help members of the Parliament to understand properly the issues. I know that many members from different parties support that idea—I hope that John Young can.
As Angus MacKay pointed out, it is important to understand that we are up against an international business that constitutes 4 per cent of world trade. We must recognise that it is an extremely sophisticated industry. It is ironic that the Royal Navy's current recruitment advertisement on television shows the Royal Navy carrying out a drugs bust in the Caribbean. It would be more useful to see the Navy working with Customs and
Excise officers, and reinstated coastguard stations on our west coast—whence drugs are leaked into Europe. The SNP pleads that Angus MacKay speak to his UK equivalent about the reinstatement of coastguard stations and reassessment of the number of Customs and Excise officers on Scotland's west coast.
I also suggest that we need to discuss the possibility of extending the remit of the fishery protection vessels that operate on the Atlantic coast and to consider drug seizures from ships that might be involved in illicit trade.
Most important, as Fiona Hyslop and Roseanna Cunningham said, this is an economic problem. We are up against a great industry. It is estimated that, in Glasgow last year, the black drugs economy was worth about £80 million to £100 million. If that estimate is correct, surely we have to match it pound for pound. If we were to take £80 million out of Glasgow's economy—because that is where that money is—we would have to replace it.
The proposed committee would be useful because it would deal with the broad range of issues. Whether we like it or not, the Scottish economy is, to some degree, underpinned by the black economy of the drugs trade. As I said to the minister this morning, if we do not have a proper and consistent audit of the black economy, how will we tackle the potential poverty that we would create by eradicating the drugs trade? Admittedly, we all know that that cannot happen tomorrow, next week or even within the next couple of years, but we could begin the process.
We believe that the best way in which to develop this afternoon's great debate is to institute a substance misuse strategy committee and to allow that committee to assist the Executive and the agencies on the ground. That would genuinely allow the Parliament to deal with the many issues around substance abuse and misuse in Scotland.
I recommend the SNP's amendment to members and ask them to vote for it.
We have had a wide-ranging and constructive debate, which does not surprise me because we know that there is a genuine desire to address the problem across the chamber and across Scotland. In that spirit, we will take away and consider many of the points made today, and I will try to respond to others now.
I want to deal early in my speech with the issue of alcohol abuse, which was raised by many members, but most passionately and eloquently by Christine Grahame.
Believe me, the Executive knows that it cannot deny the damage wreaked on our society by alcohol. The debate about whether we should tackle alcohol and drug misuse separately or in tandem is alive in drug actions teams, in the NHS and in the ministerial committee. While today's debate dealt specifically with drug misuse, one message that the Executive must take away is that of considering an early debate on alcohol abuse, to give the subject the time that Christine Grahame's statistics show that it warrants.
Both the SNP and Conservative amendments have considerable merits. However, we believe that neither can be wholly supported and I will come to the reasons later in my speech.
First, I will return to the bigger picture, which is one that we largely share. We are striving towards concerted action to deal with the drug problem— action that embraces all the agencies that work on the problem on a daily basis as well as those who are affected by it. As David Mundell said, the truth is that we are all affected by drugs—every police officer, teacher and parent knows that. We can all make a difference, in our own ways, if we commit to a joint approach.
That is what "Tackling Drugs in Scotland: Action in Partnership" is about. It is a long-term strategy because no short-term solutions are available— remedies must be long term and sustained—and because we must win the agreement of all key partners involved in its implementation for the long haul. We must develop clear and agreed objectives. We must bring together the key elements for success, and bring them together in a coherent way. The action that we take must be monitored and reviewed on a continuous basis, so that we know what works.
This morning Angus MacKay talked about what we have done so far to turn our strategy into action. That action is based on four key pillars: young people, communities, treatment and availability. In her excellent speech, Fiona McLeod was quite right to say that we must think about our young people at every turn. That is why they are the first of the four pillars of the strategy.
The minister mentions availability and treatment. Does he agree that Grampian Health Board's current policy of sending patients to rehabilitation and detox facilities in England is not appropriate and illustrates the lack of facilities in that region? Is he willing to speak to Grampian Health Board about its policy?
Angus MacKay and others have made the point that there is no one problem and no one solution. Questions of the sort that Richard Lochhead has just asked are for the drug action team in Aberdeen. I will say a little more about how we intend to make the drug action teams more effective. There is also a live debate about which are the most appropriate rehabilitation facilities. This morning we announced some research to ensure that decisions are taken on the best information. The issue that Richard Lochhead raises would be informed by better information, which we hope to have in the near future.
In his speech this morning, Angus MacKay mentioned the posting of information and access to data on the web. Does the minister share my concern about websites that do harm, advertising the availability of narcotics in locations throughout Scotland? That is a sad development and a misuse of the web.
I certainly share that concern. Earlier Fiona Hyslop said that we face a hydra, and that the moment one of its heads is cut off, another springs up. This is a good example of that, and we must be constantly on our guard. It reminds us that we are dealing with an international business that will use every kind of new technology to get at our young people. We need to fight back against it in all arenas.
I repeat that the four key pillars are young people, communities, treatment and availability. Our approach, based on those pillars, is to co-ordinate action across Scotland, so that all the arms of Government work together to ensure that existing funding of drug misuse services is used properly; to identify where extra funding could make a difference; to measure progress and act where it is not achieved; and to identify gaps in that action and fill them. We seek to work in partnership with all the main players, to act on the basis of top-class research, information and evaluation, and to seek out and produce that information when it is not available.
Is the minister's strategic objective to eradicate all drug misuse in Scotland?
That would certainly be our aspiration, but we are dealing with a difficult and complex question. In every area of action, we must set clear objectives that take us closer to that aspiration.
We have indicated that within 90 days we will set out in a comprehensive action plan the ways in which the Executive will support that work. However, we have already begun to take specific steps. First, there is a clear ministerial lead for the strategy, supported by a Cabinet sub-committee. That not only gives clear leadership but ensures that all departments play their part. It does not separate drugs—a pervasive and insidious issue that affects every area of government in Scotland—from day-to-day government, as the Tory amendment would do. It does not try to carve
out separate funding by unifying budgets in a way that would make it seem that work on drugs was something extra or separate from the work of our departments. We believe that it is the best way to promote concerted action on drug misuse.
We have taken specific steps on drug action teams. We have asked them to report to the centre annually, so that their plans can be tied in. A number of members expressed doubts about the effectiveness of drug action teams. Brian Adam characterised them as having lots of strategy but no action. Although that is true, it will have to change. Angus MacKay is meeting every drug action team in Scotland—he is often accompanied by me or other members of the Cabinet sub-committee. His key message is that the drug action teams are about action.
There are good examples; Des McNulty spoke about the successes of the greater Glasgow drug action teams. Drug action teams are vital if local action is to be locally sensitive. They are the arena in which a specific Glasgow strategy to deal with the conditions in Glasgow, about which several members have spoken, can be created. They are a recognition of the SNP's point, which was well made by Roseanna Cunningham and others, that there is not a single problem and we cannot have a single solution.
However, we do not favour the formation of a new parliamentary committee on substance misuse. That is partly for the practical reason that it would create pressure for committee members. Even some members who spoke in favour of such a committee said that, although they supported it in principle, they understood that it would pose difficulties for many people who wanted to be members of it.
The idea of a parliamentary committee has been mooted over several months by members of all parties. It is a matter on which the Parliament should decide—perhaps through the committee of conveners. Does the minister agree that, as a compromise, we could remit the matter to the committee of conveners, to be considered before the summer recess?
On that point, if the minister finds after consultation that, because of the pressure of work on members, the route that Keith Raffan has described is not the most advisable, will he consider having a commission outwith Parliament that could assume the work load and report to Parliament?
Keith Raffan makes a good point. I expressed the Executive's view that such a committee would cause practical problems, but I will say something about the alternative places to discuss the subject.
Another reason against having a parliamentary committee on drugs was raised by Johann Lamont, who powerfully argued that drugs should be a concern of all our committees in their day-to-day business and should not be separated. We are pleased that the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee has led the way on the issue.
Practical reasons, and the fact that the SNP amendment deletes so much of the motion, are why we oppose the amendment. However, as Keith Raffan said, a number of members have said that they will pursue the idea of a committee on drugs, and that is their prerogative.
Specific steps have been taken to improve treatment and prevention: additional funding of £6 million per annum for drug treatment services over the next three years; £1 million for the community programme of Scotland Against Drugs; £2 million over two years—
A number of members have suggested that there is a link between drug misuse and social deprivation. Although I recognise that that might well be the case, we should also recognise that the drug problem is not exclusively associated with areas of social exclusion. In particular, I highlight the problems in east coast fishing communities such as Fraserburgh, where drug misuse is not related to social exclusion. We must be careful about how we target resources and should not label deprived areas as sinks that are associated with drugs.
I note that point, which is well made.
The Executive has taken steps towards understanding what works, so that when money is spent, it is effectively spent. We have established a drugs information team at the Executive and will be setting up a new website covering the matters that Andy Kerr mentioned earlier. We have established the first ever drugs research programme and an all-Scotland drugs prevalence study. We have allocated £300,000 for a new prevention and effectiveness unit.
I can assure members that we want further through care development. Many members have, quite rightly, raised that issue. We are committed to through care for prisoners after they leave prison. Today's comments about the pointlessness of providing in-prison rehabilitation if there is no follow-up were absolutely correct and cannot be refuted. That is why the Scottish Prison Service is working on a holistic strategy, and its representatives sit on drug action teams and co-operate with all the other key agencies.
Members referred to the CARATs scheme in England, but that was introduced to deal with the complete lack of drugs services in prisons in the past, and the situation is different in Scotland.
The Executive is taking steps forward on enforcement. Over the next two years, £10 million will be allocated for the drugs enforcement agency, which will be dedicated to tackling drug- related crime.
In this country, as in Ireland, we must consider the international experience. We have examined the evaluations of the drug courts in the United States, to which Roseanna Cunningham referred. We believe that the drugs testing and treatment orders that are being piloted in Glasgow and in Fife strip out the most effective aspects of the drug courts in a way that is appropriate to our legal system. Offenders can be placed on drug programmes lasting for periods of six months to three years, with failure to comply leading to revocation and an alternative sentence.
I must tell Lyndsay McIntosh that, although we will give serious drug criminals no quarter, the distinction between user and pusher is not always easy to make. Almost all users also sell. Does that mean that, with a promise of minimum two-year sentences, almost all drug users would end up in prison? How does that square with her welcome indication that the Tory group in this Parliament believes with the rest of us in a combination of enforcement and treatment?
As for the balance of enforcement, treatment and prevention to which Keith Raffan referred, we must get it right. That is one reason for the audit of Executive expenditure in Scotland rather than of expenditure figures for the UK to which he referred. That audit covers enforcement. To know how to strike that balance and where money must be spent—
Will the minister give way?
The minister has only one minute left in which to wind up.
The central priority must be to make enforcement, rehabilitation and prevention work together to have real impact. We must take effective action to interrupt the supply of drugs and to cut the demand for drugs. There is no either/or. That approach must permeate the work of every agency.
Last week, Angus MacKay and I met Fife police officers working with children at Kelty Primary. The police service resources and delivers drug prevention programmes in schools. Projects such as Alter8 2000, which I visited in Dundee, are led by the police, facilitated by the voluntary sector and funded by business through Scotland Against Drugs. They target the young people who show all the early indications of future involvement with drugs.
The police are preventing drug use to avoid enforcement later. Health services are educating in schools to avoid treating in rehab later. Businesses are funding projects to avoid paying the cost in crime later. There is no quick solution, no single solution and no simple answer. However, we must build on a single, simple objective. We must cut the cost of drugs that is paid day in, day out by Scotland—the opportunity cost, the property cost and, above all, the human cost, which is paid in young lives and which we cannot afford.