Plenary, 28 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, November 28, 2002

Official Report 794KB pdf

---

Drugs Courts

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3641, in the name of Bill Aitken, on drugs courts, and on two amendments to that motion. If those members who are leaving the chamber could do so quickly and quietly, I would be grateful.

If we are all sitting comfortably, we will begin.

We have debated the drugs issue before, and it is right that we do so again. Few would disagree with me when I say that the threat posed by drugs and drug abuse is perhaps the most potent danger facing contemporary Scotland. While it is important not to exaggerate the problem, it has to be recognised that the misuse of drugs in certain sections of our society has become almost endemic.

When the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee produced a well-researched and well-thought-out report on its inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities about two years ago, that should have come as a sharp, indeed dramatic, wake-up call for the Executive, but it did not. The Executive's response to the crisis facing many of Scotland's communities has been inadequate, and the actions taken to resolve or even contain the problem of the criminality that accompanies drug misuse have been woefully inadequate. The approach, the attitude and even the language of the Executive is all wrong. It is time for a complete rethink, and for a willingness to consider radical policies that will simultaneously reduce crime, to the benefit of everyone in society, and help those whose drug-abusing habits are a danger not only to the wider community but to themselves.

When the most recent research, which was published in November last year, indicates that, among the Scottish population aged between 15 and 54, 2 per cent—some 56,000 in number—are problematic drug users, we know that it is time for action. When, in the same year, some 36,175 drug-related crimes were recorded, such action becomes imperative. When 332 people, mainly young people, die as a direct result of drug abuse in one year, action becomes tragically overdue.

Let us examine the Executive's response, and let us consider how it has impinged upon Glasgow in particular, as the city has been chosen to pilot one of the drugs courts. The cost of drug-related crime in Glasgow is estimated at about £300 million per annum, a figure which was borne out in the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee's report. The Executive's principal response has been to set up the drugs courts system, and it did so with the full support of the Parliament.

Now, however, there is concern over the way in which the drugs court in Glasgow functions. It seems that those who are being targeted for processing in the drugs court are from the wrong client group, if I may, uncharacteristically, use social work jargon. All the individuals concerned have serious records of criminality, involving numerous convictions and custodial sentences. If they go to the drugs court, they will be made subject to its limited strictures. Consequently, they will avoid an almost inevitable six-month jail sentence—bearing in mind their record and pattern of behaviour. They are offered early treatment, but they do not have to take it up. While we accept that many of those individuals lead dysfunctional lives, should we not be demanding that, having been given the opportunity, they should stay off drugs altogether?

Will Mr Aitken accept that it is precisely the failure of the conventional system for people with such chaotic lifestyles that requires a different approach, with flexibility and adaptability for serious drug users?

I have said it before, and I will say it once more: the principle of the drugs court is one with which we agree. Nevertheless, the way in which the drugs court is operating is not working. Should those concerned not be told that they have to attend for drug testing? They are told to attend, but they may miss two out of six appointments without fear of sanction. Against that background, is it surprising that there is a lack of confidence in the system and that so few cases are being referred?

We recognise that no one is beyond redemption, but should we not also recognise that people may have had their chance, having gone through the whole gamut of court disposals—from fiscals' warnings to community service as an alternative to custody—before the cell door slams? Is there not something inherently unfair in a system that gives people with this type of record the prospect of access to immediate rehabilitation programmes, when people with few or no offences must wait months for such an opportunity? This is a classic illustration of how crime can pay.

The jury is still very much out on the success of drugs courts. Despite the Executive's spin, the indications are not good, as the proportion of clients who expect to offend again is disturbingly high. However, the system deserves to be given a chance to succeed. Perhaps we would have much greater success if we targeted a less hardened section of criminal society. What about the women who find themselves in prostitution? Should they not be given a chance of early rehab, before they waste their lives? The whole system must be re-examined. Hardened criminals in Glasgow see the drugs court as a get-out-of-jail card. They recognise that it has very limited powers to ensure that they co-operate in the effort to get them free of drugs. At the same time minor offenders and non-offenders must wait months for a chance of treatment. Is that not a total injustice?

What needs to happen is simple. We should make clear what is expected to those who agree to appear before the drugs court. They should go for rehabilitation immediately after leaving the dock. Delays in such cases are likely to impinge on the offender's level of co-operation. If we are to bring more minor offenders before the drugs courts, they cannot reasonably be expected to wait months for treatment.

The Executive must gear up rehabilitation and counselling projects to ensure that there is an immediate response. Failure by an individual to co-operate must result in the immediate cancellation of the drugs court order and the offender's re-entering the mainstream system.

We must make prisons and young offenders institutions drug-free zones. Drugs are freely available in prison. In Barlinnie there is a special unit to which prisoners who want to stay off drugs can volunteer to go. I give full marks to the prison administration, but is that not an absolutely farcical situation? It must be made impossible to get drugs into prison. Those attempting to do so must expect severe penalties.

The ideal would be to make our prisons drug free, but how does Bill Aitken intend to do that? It is almost impossible to stop drugs entering prisons. Any prison governor will say that prisons are run effectively only with the full co-operation of prisoners.

I always listen carefully to what Mr Raffan has to say on the issue of drugs, because he has researched the matter very deeply. However, his comments epitomise the defeatist approach that bedevils the system. It is possible to stop drugs getting into prisons and that must be done.

When visiting the drug-free unit in Barlinnie, I wondered what happens to prisoners when they left jail. Their pushers probably offer them free drugs and the bus fare back to the place from which they came. Prisoners return home to areas in which drug use is prevalent, and it takes a very strong person to resist that temptation. Sadly, support for those who are determined to stay clean is absent. The Executive and local authorities are failing once again.

I want now to consider some of the language that is used in drugs education. As long ago as December last year, my colleague James Douglas-Hamilton wrote to Cathy Jamieson about the document "Taking Drugs Seriously", which the Executive recommends for secondary schools. The document refers to

"boring old farts who exaggerate the risks involved".

The primary schools drugs pack claims that most drug users

"come to little harm but many parents don't like to believe it is true".

What sort of message does that send out?

Last week the Scottish Executive unveiled a good drugs guide for clubbers. It appears that Egon Ronay's good food guide is now rivalled by the Executive's good drugs guide. Once again, the Executive has run up the white flag. The document advises people to take half an ecstasy tablet instead of a whole tablet, and to wait for an hour to see what happens. That is madness. The Executive must come out against drugs in a more determined manner—a zero tolerance approach must apply.

We applaud the measures that have been taken, such as confiscation of assets. The work of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is extremely encouraging. However, until we take a much more hard-nosed but compassionate approach, the overall package of measures will not succeed. The choice between treatment and custody may be a harsh one for many offenders, but they must make their own decisions.

The Scottish Government must ensure that support mechanisms are in place and make increased use of the voluntary sector. It should use the Maxie Richards Foundation, which has had tremendous success in dealing with those who have abused drugs for a long time. However, at the same time it must be made clear that those who are given opportunities must take them. They are not altogether victims—they are responsible for their lives. They must face up to their problems and Executive policy must encourage them to do so.

The Executive must take a two-tier approach—a three-tier approach, if we include education provision. The education system should state that drugs and the use of drugs are totally unacceptable. A compassionate resource should be available to those who are determined to take treatment, irrespective of whether they are offenders. However, at the end of the day the Executive must be tough enough to ensure that the anodyne response of the drugs courts system is replaced by the use of appropriate sanctions against those who are prepared to continue offending.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the growing prevalence of drug abuse and drug-related crimes; regrets that the Scottish Executive continues to send out mixed messages on drugs; further regrets that the Executive's flagship drugs courts have become a means of avoiding a prison term, and therefore calls on the Executive to ensure that (a) those sent to drugs courts have committed only a minimal number of offences, (b) there are sufficient resources to ensure that those who are sentenced by drugs courts have the option of immediate and instant treatment to undergo rehabilitation and (c) any breach of orders from the drugs courts are dealt with properly.

I welcome the opportunity that Bill Aitken and the Conservatives have given us to debate this issue. The debate provides us with an opportunity to recognise the success that the drugs courts have had so far.

We should remember that it is less than two years since Iain Gray announced that the Executive would set up drugs courts in Scotland. This month the Glasgow drugs court marked its first year in operation. An evaluation of the court's first six months was published two weeks ago. A second drugs court is now up and running in Fife.

In a very short time we have moved from wondering what to do about the increasing menace of drug-related crime and the drug dependence that causes it to a situation in which two drugs courts have been established and are dealing with the most difficult offenders. From Bill Aitken's speech, I was not sure whether he had thought through what he was saying. He spoke about the need to give the system a chance to succeed, but then launched into a condemnation of its failures. He did not recognise that it takes time to bed in new systems and to try things out. One way of moving forward is to learn from our mistakes. If the drugs courts do not work, we will try something else. This experiment is well worth pursuing. It is welcomed across Scotland and by many political parties. It is also being examined carefully by people outside Scotland.

These are early days. It is right to pilot drugs courts, instead of introducing them throughout the country at this time. We need to learn how drugs courts are working and to learn from their achievements. We will examine the viability and effectiveness of drugs courts as part of the criminal justice system in Scotland before deciding how to proceed.

Critical to the success of drugs courts are drug treatment and testing orders, which are the principal orders that the courts use. The evaluation of DTTOs was published at the beginning of October. It reported that they had made a positive impact and had reduced the level of drug misuse by people subject to them. Weekly reported expenditure on drugs fell from £490 before the introduction of a DTTO to £57 after six months of an order's having been made. DTTOs have also led to a reduction in associated criminal behaviour. This is the serious end of offending, but it has been proved that we are making an impact on it.

The Scottish Executive social research unit has carried out an evaluation of the Glasgow drugs court pilot scheme after one year. There is now talk of conducting an independent assessment of the scheme. Can the minister say more about that, as it is important in helping the system to bed down and in deciding when to roll it out?

I will deal with Keith Raffan's question later.

We are committed to extending the coverage of DTTOs. Today I announce that, as a result of this year's spending review, local authorities in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire will receive funding to set up local DTTO schemes. When the schemes are up and running, a further five sheriff courts will be able to make drug treatment and testing orders. That will ensure that courts covering around 70 per cent of the Scottish population have access to DTTOs. Those will be significant milestones in providing courts with a full range of options in dealing with the problems presented by offenders with drug misuse problems.

The experience of operating DTTOs will be a crucial factor in deciding on the location of any future drugs courts if and when the full evaluation of the latter suggests that it would be appropriate. We made it clear from the start that we would base future decisions on the evidence of the two pilots, which is why we commissioned the independent evaluation to which Keith Raffan referred. It is also why we asked for a review, which he also mentioned, of the first six months of the Glasgow court's operations. We want to make changes where they are necessary and the evaluations will help us in that.

The report highlights the main strengths of the court. The fast tracking of offenders, the existence of a trained and dedicated team, the members of which are in regular contact with each other, the system of pre-court review meetings and the regular reviews in court are all reported as positive innovations. The role of the drugs court sheriffs is also seen as critical in the success of the court.

However, what really matters is what happens with the offenders. I offer no apology for saying that our intention is that the drugs court will deal with offenders who have serious drugs problems linked to an established pattern of offending. Those are the people who create the problems. Those are the problems that we need to solve. Other interventions are available for drug misusing offenders at an earlier stage in their offending.

The drugs court pools the expertise and experience of seven different agencies to deal with the hard end of the market. In the course of its work, the drugs court team is developing an understanding of respective roles and building up knowledge of the issues that surround drug misuse and crime, not from the viewpoint of a single agency but from one based on a multidisciplinary perspective. Most of the offenders in the drugs court will have been in prison before. Most of them will have come in and out of using and offending. We want to stop that revolving door.

I thank the people who came together in Glasgow and in Fife to help us devise a different approach, which has a greater chance of success. I also thank the drugs court teams for their dedication in making the models work on the ground.

All the offenders who were interviewed as part of the evaluation reported a significant reduction in drug use and offending, a finding which the evidence from the drugs court team supports. Overall, the offenders were positive about their experience. We know from research that the longer an offender stays on an order the greater the chances of success. During the first six months only one order had been breached.

The evaluation has identified some areas for improvement. That was the intention behind having a pilot. More work will be done to extend the availability, for example, of a wider range of sanctions and rewards for non-compliance and progress.

It is the philosophy of the drugs court that there will be relapses. We know that. The court deals with them through the regular reviews of progress of the offender. Failure to comply is investigated and dealt with appropriately. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will strengthen the powers of the drugs court by providing it with a range of interim sanctions.

We propose to amend the order-making power for variance of the duration of interim sanctions from negative resolution procedure as it stands in the bill to affirmative resolution procedure, giving the Parliament the opportunity to debate any proposed change if at any time the need arises.

Interim sanctions will send a warning to the offender without the need to revoke the order. The offender who fails ultimately faces the possibility of a custodial sentence for the original offence and the loss of access to the supervision and support offered by the drugs court order. If the offender succeeds, he has the chance to reduce or eliminate dependence on drugs, to re-establish family ties or reduce the burden on the family, to eliminate crime and to become an accepted member of the community. That is what lies at the end of the order.

I make it clear that it is imperative that we provide extra funding that DTTOs and drugs courts need so that offenders have quick access to treatment. The money comes on top of the additional resources already going into building the infrastructure to combat drug abuse. Some £13 million is going to NHS boards for drug misuse treatment from 2001-02 to 2003-04; an additional £21 million is going to local authorities for rehabilitation services from 2001-02 to 2003-04.

That is a clear demonstration that we intend to take the fight against drugs seriously. Our drugs strategy is not focused on either treatment or enforcement. It is wide ranging, combining improvements in specialist provision, expansion of needle facilities, better shared care arrangements, a tough drugs enforcement policy and innovative criminal justice interventions. The DTTOs and the drugs courts are an essential part of that strategy.

I move amendment S1M-3641.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the commitment of the Scottish Executive to address the problem of drug misusing offenders by establishing pilot drugs courts, the success of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, the additional resources made available to agencies within the criminal justice system, local authorities and the NHS to support its co-ordinated approach to reducing or eliminating the dependence on or propensity to misuse drugs and its integrated strategy to tackling drug-related crime and reducing the impact which this has on communities."

I welcome the Deputy Minister for Justice to his new responsibilities. He has perhaps been thrown in the deep end and I dare say that he is having to stick fairly closely to his brief, but I hope that he enjoys his time in the justice department.

When I read the Tory motion, my immediate reaction was that the Tories have simply not understood the point of the drugs courts in the first place. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton received a written answer that showed that there are far fewer breaches of orders in drugs courts than there are in non-drugs courts. In fact, of 59 orders made since November 2001, only three have been breached, resulting in imprisonment for the offender, which is exactly what was meant to happen.

Is Ms Cunningham aware of the number of outstanding cases relating to people who have gone before the drugs courts?

I am absolutely aware of the difficulties that the drugs courts face. I have sat through drugs courts proceedings. I also know that it is important that we allow the sheriffs who are there to gain specialist knowledge and expertise and make their decisions and use their discretion as to what is appropriate.

I have visited and sat through an entire day's proceedings of the drugs court in Glasgow. I was very impressed by the hard work that was being done by the sheriffs, the staff, the drugs workers, the social workers and fiscals, on whom a heavy work load has fallen. That has meant that a degree of court expertise and specialist knowledge has been built up, which is vital and should be built upon.

What most impressed me were the considerable advances made by a number of the offenders. We should remember that getting free of drug addiction is very hard work indeed and that there are bound to be setbacks. We have to allow the space for that to happen. It was pointed out to me quite forcefully that when offenders received encouragement from the sheriffs and social workers, that was often the first time that any of them had received praise of any kind at all. The fact that we can achieve that within the criminal justice system is a huge step forward. I would have thought that it was worthy of commendation instead of condemnation.

The scale of the problem that we are dealing with in Scotland is only too well known. Recent figures suggest that as many as one in 50 people in Scotland is misusing drugs. According to some estimates, an addict will commit an average of 26 crimes a month to support a £1,500-a-month drug habit. Getting just one addict cleaned up will mean that there are 26 fewer victims of crime and that there is considerably less work for an over-stretched police service.

That is not to say that there are not problems. There is evidence that referrals from the police have been fewer than expected, not because the police do not support the concept of the drugs court but because they feel ill-equipped to make the decision about suitability. Perhaps work needs to be done to address that issue.

There is also, apparently, a problem with solicitors who are beginning to feel that for them the drugs courts work is simply not profitable enough to be involved in. There are specific reasons why that is the case and I will raise the matter with the minister separately. The problem has just been flagged up and we do not want to see such problems getting in the way of the good working of the drugs courts.

There is under-resourcing, but the source of the difficulty is not within the court itself. The bottleneck appears to be at the level of the drug treatment and supervision team, which also handles the DTTOs that are handed down by other courts and is severely stretched. That needs to be addressed.

We also know that the waiting times for non-court-related drugs services can be very lengthy. In Aberdeen, waiting times for access to the medical drug problems service was nearly 14 months in 2001-02; in Dundee, the wait is frequently seven to eight months and can be as much as double that; and in Fife, as I understand it, the wait is nine to 10 months. The irony is that such lengthy waiting times can mean that treatment is more likely to be forthcoming if drug users are caught committing crime, by which time the addiction is probably even more difficult to address. That is not a reason for attacking the drugs courts; it is a reason for addressing the problem of under-resourcing in those other services.

DTTOs are the one way, apart from the drugs courts, that drug offenders can be dealt with in the community at a considerably reduced cost compared with sending them to prison. Even so, DTTOs are available in only a few areas of Scotland. I welcome the announcement today of the extension of DTTOs to Lanarkshire and Ayrshire and I look forward to further extensions in the near future. In spite of what the absurd Tory motion says, the truth is that limiting such interventions to those who have committed very few crimes will restrict their usefulness and will increase harm to society.

In conclusion, I caution all members, particularly the minister, not to evaluate the drugs court purely on the basis of a cost evaluation that considers only the money that is spent on the court and its attendant services. Unless that expenditure is measured against the benefit to the community that is achieved as a result of there being fewer victims of crime, fewer crimes to investigate and less pressure on the health service in the long run—a benefit that is much harder to calculate—we will not see the true worth of the experiment and the need for all the advantages to be extended to the whole of Scotland. The alternative would be simply to give up on rehabilitation. I strongly hope that no member wants to go down that route.

I move amendment S1M-3641.1, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert:

"welcomes the work of the drugs courts in diverting users into effective rehabilitation programmes; acknowledges the dedication of the fiscals, social workers, drugs counsellors and sheriffs who have worked to make the drugs courts successful; considers that further resources are required to ensure the continued effectiveness of the drugs courts, and calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure the early roll-out of drugs courts and the provision of the necessary resources so that offenders in all areas of Scotland will have equal access to the same rehabilitation opportunities."

I disagreed with nothing that Ms Cunningham said in her speech and I agreed with nothing that Mr Aitken said in his speech. So much for Iain Duncan Smith's attempts at social inclusion, meagre though they were—they have crashed down today with Mr Aitken's appalling and dreadfully ill-informed speech. Iain Duncan Smith famously went to a council estate in Glasgow to talk with feeling and compassion about the drug problem. Although we know that crack is little used in Scotland, he wrongly identified all the paraphernalia of a heroin user as being that of a crack user. So much for Tory knowledge on drug issues. They have scored an enormous own goal today.

There are 55,000 drug addicts in Scotland. That is the most recent estimate from Neil McKeganey of the centre for drug misuse research at the University of Glasgow. More than £500 million a year—£190 million in Glasgow alone—is stolen or shoplifted to finance drug habits.

The Executive is taking a two-pronged approach to the problem. The first prong is to cut supply through enforcement. There has been an increase in seizures but, regrettably, that has not been reflected in an increase in the street price. According to the Government's figures, the street price of class A drugs has dropped by 20 to 40 per cent in the past five years. That shows that the increased seizures represent a smaller proportion of the amount of drugs that is coming in. On enforcement, that is the principal problem that the Executive faces.

The second prong in attacking drug misuse is to cut demand through education, treatment and rehabilitation. We want to break the cycle of drug dependency and of reoffending. The minister referred to the revolving door scenario of stealing to use, going to prison, being back on the streets, stealing to use and going back to prison. We want to get addicts into treatment, into recovery, into mainstream life and into employment, so that, instead of continuing to be a drain on public spending, they become contributors to public spending through the taxes that they pay. We are talking about a policy of spending to save.

My party and I fully support drugs courts and drug treatment and testing orders. They have clear objectives, which are being met. Those objectives are to reduce drug-related crime, to get drug addicts into treatment, to break the cycle of reoffending, to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system and to reduce the population in our prisons. I repeat—that is a policy of spending to save. The cost of a 12-month DTTO is £7,992, whereas the average cost of 12 months in prison, which does not include drug treatment, is £26,700.

A year on, the in-house evaluation of the effectiveness of the Glasgow drugs court pilot scheme has shown the value of fast-tracking offenders, the waiting list notwithstanding. The most important aspects of the scheme are the development of a trained, dedicated team the members of which are in regular contact with each other and with the offender and a system of pre-court meetings and reviews.

Of course operational problems have been identified—that was the whole point of the evaluation. The Tory attitude is, "Let's pull up the plant by the roots to see how it's growing." That is a destructive approach. The evaluation has identified the work-load problems and the need for a wider range of rewards and sanctions for non-compliance and for those who have made progress.

The initial assessment is that the Glasgow drugs court has largely been a success. Offenders have reduced their drug taking by 90 per cent. In the six months since the implementation of DTTOs, offenders' spending on drugs has reduced to £57 a week from an average sum of £490. There has also been a reduction in the number of drug-related offences in Glasgow.

We look forward to the important independent assessment that will follow next year, before a roll-out across the country. The roll-out depends on certain things. Ms Cunningham was right to say that the real problem is the availability of places—residential and day—on treatment programmes. As Mr Lochhead has observed in the past, the long waiting list for methadone treatment is a particular problem. If people do not get methadone treatment when they are at rock bottom, they are more likely to reoffend and to return to prison, which means that we fail to break the cycle.

I do not know when Mr Aitken last visited a prison; it is clear that he has not done so recently. Perhaps he did so in Dickensian times.

Will the member take an intervention?

I hope that the member will listen to my point. I will give way briefly after I have made it.

It is virtually impossible to keep drugs out of prison. When I went to Saughton prison, the deputy governor told me that Henry McLeish's sniffer dogs had been in the day before and that they had not found anything. Half an hour later, one of the prison officers found a huge ball of cannabis, which was wrapped in plastic and covered in Bovril. The sniffer dogs did not succeed on that occasion. It is difficult to keep drugs out without having closed visits. If one had closed visits, there would be prison riots. We need the Tories to say how they intend to keep drugs out of prison. They do not have a clue at the moment.

I welcome the Executive's move towards drug treatment in prisons, which Cranstoun Drug Services has been appointed to undertake. We must get that process going, so that once people get out of prison, they do not get on the bus and go back to the same environment and to their dealers. That is about the only point on which I agree with Mr Aitken. The Tories' neanderthal approach shows that they have learnt nothing.

We must praise those who have been involved in drugs courts and DTTOs, because their work is hugely valuable for our community, for our society and for drugs offenders, and it has helped to reduce crime. They deserve our support. I look forward to the independent evaluation.

Although I speak in support of the motion, I would like to broaden the debate. In particular, I will consider rehabilitation and, if it is not too ambitious to do so, prevention.

The amendment in the name of Mr Wallace is instructive, because it refers to a number of bodies to which resources are allocated. I accept that those resources are being allocated to considerable effect. Amendment S1M-3641.2 refers to pilot drugs courts, drug treatment and testing orders and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. It also mentions the fact that additional resources are being made available to agencies within the criminal justice system, to local authorities and to the national health service.

I am full of praise for the allocation of resources, but I must ask what it is achieving. It is disconcerting that the distribution of resources is fragmented and it is depressing that the statistics point to a steady increase in drug-related crimes and deaths. Are we clear about what does not work? I share Mr Aitken's scepticism about recent documents such as "Taking Drugs Seriously" and the good drugs guide for clubbers. If we seek to give guidance to young people—it is interesting that young people seek such guidance—the kind of dangerous babble that those documents contain is unhelpful and has a negative effect. To be frank, they are an affront to the intelligence and the common sense of our young people. My criticism of those documents is unqualified.

I will move on to more positive territory. Have we any idea of what works and of whom we should be speaking to? Mr Aitken referred to Maxie Richards, whom I have known for a number of years. It is no understatement to say that her work and achievements in rehabilitation make her a miracle worker. It is humbling to meet her. Although she is diffident by disposition and nature, when it comes to dealing with drug abuse, she is determined, resolute and unconquerable in seeking to do her best for young addicts and victims who might have nowhere else to turn.

I spoke to Maxie Richards just last night. I asked her what she thought rehabilitation meant. She answered that it meant three things: taking young people seriously, providing meaningful rehabilitation in a concentrated manner and introducing a change of environment by removing the individual from the threats that exist. In her opinion, rehabilitation, if handled properly, can take people off drugs in as little as 10 days.

Will the member give way?

I will give way when I have finished my point.

Maxie Richards believes that once rehabilitation has been effected, a change of environment can be vital in continuing to save an individual from going back on to drugs. Her success is proven and I urge the minister to contact her if that has not been done. All I ask is not that the minister expresses an opinion about her work today, but that he sees how she works and to what effect.

How shall I put this tactfully? Maxie Richards's approach and her opposition to methadone in particular are somewhat controversial—I do not support her view. Of course, one welcomes anybody who produces positive results, but I am amazed at Annabel Goldie's reference to 10 days for somebody to get off drugs. The usual estimate is between six weeks and six months. If the member talks to any experts—I can give her a list—she will find that out.

I welcome Mr Raffan's intervention, which showed the huge uncertainty about the best way to progress. All that I can say is that I tend to rely on evidence. Perhaps that is because of my dreary training as a lawyer, but the evidence is that Maxie Richards has a proven record of success. Many recovered addicts' families will testify to that. It is interesting that the judiciary's interest has also been evident. She is a not uncommon source of referral by the bench.

My message to the minister is that we must consider what we spend resource on. Significant amounts of money are being allocated in genuine attempts to deal with drug abuse in Scotland. Much more perplexing is to determine whether those sums are being spent to best effect, whether there are lessons that all of us can learn, and whether that means that we must begin to speak to the right people.

I am pleased to have the chance to speak in the drugs courts debate and I welcome Hugh Henry to his new post. In politics, there is nothing like hitting the ground running.

I do not think that a single member would disagree that drug use is a problem in Scottish society. In constituencies such as mine—Glasgow Rutherglen—drug use causes many associated problems. That is why our approach to tackling the issue must be multidimensional. Again, I think that no one would disagree with that.

We must deal with rehabilitation and drug use locally. The work of drugs forums in my constituency, including the Rutherglen and Cambuslang drugs forum and the Toryglen drugs forum, and in other constituencies is crucial to that.

We must also find an appropriate way to deal with criminal behaviour. Simply sending offenders to prison without any rehabilitation does not work. They leave prison, reoffend and remain trapped in a cycle of drug abuse, prison and crime. Drugs courts offer us the chance to take offenders out of the prison system and start them on the road to rehabilitation, which benefits us all in the long term. For the Tory motion to describe drugs courts as

"a means of avoiding a prison term"

is misinformed and mischievous—rather like Mr Aitken, I fear.

I do not doubt that members are aware of the extent of the problem in Glasgow. Recent studies show that 70 per cent of people who are arrested in the city have used drugs. Unfortunately, as we have heard from members, bitter experience has taught us that sending someone to prison is no guarantee that they will not get their hands on illegal substances. There is no point in sending criminals with drug problems to prison without dealing with their addiction. That is why drugs courts work and why the report of the first six months of the pilot shows that the pilot has been a success. That might not be what the Tories want to hear, but that is a fact.

The Scottish drugs courts have been a resounding success, and the introduction of drug treatment and testing orders has helped to achieve a decrease in offending and in drug taking among offenders who have been placed on orders in the pilot areas. I am delighted that the minister announced today funding to introduce drug treatment and testing orders in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire. The orders work, and extending their application is the way forward.

I agree with Bill Aitken's motion in that of course sufficient resources to manage drugs courts are essential. However, the motion's overall negativity is disappointing, although—unfortunately—not altogether surprising.

I am unclear what the Tory motion means by saying that the Executive sends out mixed messages on drugs. The Executive is fully committed to tackling drug misuse in Scotland's communities. The First Minister recently outlined a proposal to confiscate the profits that drug dealers have made, with the proceeds going to the families of victims of drug misuse. The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency has been created and £100 million has been allocated to tackle drug misuse in constituencies such as mine. I am not sure why the Tories have a problem with that.

The Tories' age-old message to just say no and their approach of lock 'em up and throw away the key have failed. They failed for 18 years when drug misuse escalated in Scotland. Like the Tories, they have never been more irrelevant.

I add my support to the Executive's amendment.

We have a bit of time in hand, so members can stretch their speeches by a minute or a minute and a half.

I welcome the debate, sponsored by the Tory party. However, a sense of irony prevails, as the Parliament was left to pick up the pieces after the 18 years of Tory Government during which substance misuse in Scotland went through the roof. It is extremely difficult to think of any successful initiative by the Tories to tackle substance misuse in Scotland during their 18 years, but thankfully, the Parliament is beginning to address the issues and to undertake desperately needed new initiatives.

One reason why I take a close interest in the issue is that I want to help people who are on drugs to live productive and healthy lives and to contribute to Scotland in the future, and to save their families much grief. Another reason is the need to cut drug-related crime, which is one of the biggest social issues—if not the biggest issue—that faces many of our communities throughout Scotland.

That is the case in Grampian, which I represent. Aberdeen has the second-highest crime rate in Scotland, but double the national average figure for house breakings. In Scotland, 80 per cent of house breakings are drug related. Every day one can pick up any newspaper from north-east Scotland and it will be riddled with stories about people who have been jailed or given drug treatment and testing orders for drug-related crime. It is essential that the debate concerns cutting crime as well as helping people to get off drugs.

We know that putting people in prison does not work. A revolving-door syndrome is involved. Even in Craiginches prison, where 80 per cent of inmates test positive for drug use, the limited services are virtually collapsing. Three drug agency workers and three Scottish Prison Service staff are supposed to be based in the prison to deal with drug issues. A few months ago, I discovered that only two of those six posts were filled, although the prison has one of the biggest drug problems in Scotland. After public outcry, the situation was addressed and some posts were filled, but I found out this morning that the prison's drugs co-ordinator has resigned. A few months ago, most of the posts were filled to help to get inmates off drugs, but now, only two of the three agency staff posts are filled and only one fully trained prison staff member is in post. We are back to square one. The situation in the prison continues to worsen rather than improve.

What does that mean? We must look outside the prison to help to get folk off drugs and to tackle the problem. We want a drugs court in Grampian. Of all the places in Scotland where a pilot should have been established, Grampian should have been chosen, because it has had the biggest increase in drug misuse in Scotland in the past 10 years and has the third-biggest drug misuse problem. The local authorities have identified 1,700 opiate users in Grampian, 1,300 of whom have used treatment services. Some estimate that there are roughly 3,500 opiate users in the region and others put the figure as high as 5,000. That is the scale of the problem, which relates to heroin and more recently to crack cocaine.

After many people leave prison, they end up back on the streets. They continue to use drugs and commit crime, then return to prison. That must stop. I suspect that one reason why Grampian has not had a drugs court is that it does not have the resources to service a drugs court. The situation is as simple as that. As Roseanna Cunningham said, Grampian has the longest waiting list for referral to the local drug problems treatment service. Addicts who are committing crime now were referred to the service 18 months ago, but still wait for their appointments. They want to get off drugs and most of them are committing crime, but they are being told to return in a year and a half, when they can perhaps be helped. The situation is unsatisfactory.

In 1992, 250 referrals—excluding alcohol cases—were made to the local drug problems treatment service. One consultant psychiatrist and one registrar worked for the service. In 2002, several thousand referrals have been made to the same service, but still only one consultant psychiatrist and one registrar work for the service. The number of psychiatric nurses who work for the service has increased to about 24 and other senior staff have been employed, but no increase has been made in key posts over the past 10 years. Demand for the service is going through the roof, which is one of the reasons why people are told that they have to wait 18 months.

Richard Lochhead has placed his focus on consultant psychiatrists. I am not denying that they are important in leading the service, but the crucial thing is to have trained drug counsellors who can offer group therapy and other forms of treatment. The trained drug counsellors handle the day in, day out treatment, not the psychiatrists.

I do not dispute Keith Raffan's point, but other parts of the country, where there is less demand on such services, have more consultant psychiatrists and other staff. I am thinking of Glasgow, which I believe has three consultant psychiatrists. We must look at the share of resources around the country.

To put the icing on the cake, of all the health board areas in Scotland, Grampian has the lowest level of drugs funding.

The member has one minute.

I welcome the new minister to his post and ask him to turn his attention to the situation in Grampian.

Drug treatment and testing orders have been piloted in Aberdeen where they are meeting with success. I will finish by giving an example of their success, which shows that it is worth while to go down the road of giving the courts alternative disposals and not simply putting people in jail to get them off drugs.

I asked the local council for a case study to highlight an individual's progress through a drug treatment order. The council gave me the following example:

"A is a 30 year old male, who has been involved in heroin use since the age of 16. At the time of being referred to the Drug Treatment and Testing Order Project, he had a total of 88 previous convictions and had served 24 custodial sentences … He was made subject to an 18 month Drug Treatment and Testing Order in February 02".

The case study concludes:

"He has built relationships with his family and is presently in a permanent relationship and investigating the possibility of securing a mortgage in order to buy a flat."

I finish by saying that we must build on successful initiatives such as that. We have to ensure that such initiatives are up and running in Grampian, which has lagged behind in securing the resources that are needed to service them.

Finally, the economics—

I think that that is your third "Finally", Mr Lochhead.

We would have saved a lot of cash for society if the individual I mentioned had been enabled to get treatment earlier in his life.

At the outset, I say that, although I condemn the comments that were reported last week, I do not think that any of us could criticise Richard Simpson's commitment to addressing one of Scotland's most difficult problems. [Applause.]

I served on the Health and Community Care Committee with Richard Simpson for two and a half years and his commitment to and knowledge of health issues and Scotland's health are second to none. Nonetheless, I look forward to working with Hugh Henry.

I will concentrate on point (b) in Bill Aitken's motion, which addresses "treatment to undergo rehabilitation". I have three points to make. The first is on the effect of the effective intervention unit. Last week, I read a paper on support for families and carers of drug users. Several families in Inverness have tried to get support and advice, but a social worker has not been available for families since January this year. I know that there is a national shortage of social workers, but unless all the key personnel are in place, the support systems do not work.

People are told to go to Al-Anon. Although it is an excellent organisation, which operates at no cost to the taxpayer, we should ask where public money is going and how people are being served by it. We know that the Executive allocates money to address the drugs problem. I say to the minister that, when people look for doors to chap on to find help, they get the serious runaround.

During the recess, I phoned Richard Simpson on that point to ask for help and found him extremely helpful in understanding the problem. Mothers Against Drugs has set up many support groups throughout Scotland to enable mothers of drug users to support each other. There is a particularly good group in Alness, with which I know Maureen Macmillan is familiar.

My second point is about Ritalin. This week, I met representatives from the Overload Network. If its figures are correct, the increase in the use of the drug is seriously worrying. I know that Ritalin is not the subject of the debate today, but the Overload Network raised the issue of the effects that taking Ritalin can have on children as they move into adolescence and adulthood. I highlight the long-term effects of taking the drug.

My third point is about the methadone programme. I fully support the comments that Annabel Goldie made about doing what works. Many members are trying to address cases in their constituencies and, because we are not experts, we look around to try to find information on what works.

Last week, a pharmacist told me that one of her regular methadone users had expressed a desire to reduce the dose and work towards a drug-free lifestyle. His request was met by him being given a full week's supply of methadone. He was sent home with no support and left to his own devices. As he had a bottle of methadone in his home, the temptation led to increased not decreased use. He is now back to stage one and believes that he cannot reduce his dose.

Last week, I received a letter from a parent who lost their son to methadone. He was not a heroin addict but was put on methadone all the same. The substance of my concern stems from a parliamentary answer that confirmed that it was more difficult to come off methadone than heroin.

I want to be clear about the Conservative position on the matter. Are the Conservatives coming out against methadone treatment? A lot of us would be concerned about that. Methadone is not ideal, but it works for a lot of people. Many addicts manage to reduce the dose, keep off crime and get their lives back in order.

I appreciate that point, but today I am asking questions. Any politician makes judgments only on the basis of knowledge, as I am sure Keith Raffan appreciates.

I have asked questions about the number of people in Scotland who are on the methadone programme. The answer was promised by the end of October and the previous minister with responsibility for drugs assured me that it would now be available by the end of November. Surely we need to know how many people are on the programme, how long they have been on it and how many people have progressed through it to gradual dose reduction. We know that there is insufficient advice and support for many people who are on the programme. We also know that detox and rehabilitation options are rarely offered. I asked the Executive how many places are available in Scotland for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. I was told, as MSPs are often told:

"The information requested is not held centrally."

I say to the minister that more information is needed so that politicians can make correct judgments on the basis of accurate information.

There are alternatives to the methadone programme. I understand that drug addicts in France are offered buprenorphine, which is a substitute treatment for opiate dependence. I also understand that recent research in France illustrated that 47 per cent of people who are on the programme are in stable occupational activity. How many people on the methadone programme hold down jobs? I also understand that buprenorphine results in the marked reduction or elimination of the effects of additional methadone use.

France may not have got it all right—I do not know, we are here to learn. I do know that 8 per cent of drug addicts in France are on methadone and 92 per cent are on buprenorphine. Why cannot we have similar pilot studies to manage opiate withdrawal? Not only would they be of benefit to patients, they would help families, improve employment status and reduce drug dealing and theft.

Given that the success or failure of the drugs strategy rests largely with the drug action teams, what effective audit and monitoring is taking place to ensure that the drug action teams deliver in addressing Scotland's drugs problem?

I call Christine Grahame. In view of her dual identity, I ask her to confirm that she is speaking for the SNP and not as the convener of the Justice 1 Committee.

That is correct.

First, I take the opportunity to put the record straight on the SNP policy on the prosecution of drug dealers. I refer to the Official Report of last Thursday's First Minister's question time. The First Minister said:

"Silly proposals about sending drug dealers to drugs courts do not help that debate. I want to ensure that, in Scotland, we get the dealers and get people off drugs too."

He prayed in aid a quotation:

"I will quote from the Scottish National Party's press release from this morning, which says that the SNP pledges to introduce drugs courts ‘to use the full force of the law on those individuals who are profiting from drugs.'"—[Official Report, 21 November 2002; c 15651.]

The press release actually says:

"Mr Swinney said the SNP will roll out drugs courts across the country so denying dealers a market by giving addicts the help they need to get off drugs while also using the full force of the law to put the producers and dealers in jail. Commenting he said:

‘In 1999 the SNP pledged that we would introduce special drug courts to firstly break the cycle of drug taking and crime and secondly to use the full force of the law on those individuals who are profiting from drugs.'"

That is not quite the same thing.

I know that the First Minister is a man of integrity—he tells us so—and I am sure that he will be pleased to endorse that correction on the record. Let me tell him, too, that I have booked an appointment for him with an optometrist, so that he can deal with any problems that he has in reading press releases.

I refer to the Scottish Executive's press release of 14 May 2002, which is headed, "Drug courts judged a success". It goes on to say that the then Deputy Minister for Justice

"praised the work of the team set up to oversee the court and the effectiveness of inter-agency working that has become its hallmark … The drug court is supported by seven different agencies who contribute to a dedicated team that attempts to ensure the smooth working of the new procedures".

The team is undoubtedly dedicated and certainly attempts to ensure smooth working of procedures, but it is not having much help with resources.

I refer members to the Executive's own research, which says:

"The existing demands placed by Drug Court Orders and by a perceived increase in DTTOs made by the Sheriff Court were contributing to low morale and a feeling of being overloaded by the frequency of client appointments required. This resulted in staff taking ‘shortcuts', such as using information directly from reports prepared by other professionals rather than providing an integrated summary of the relevant material."

That has been endorsed by recent reports in the Sunday papers of the state of distress and anxiety among social workers who feel that they cannot cope. They want to cope and the system to work, as we and others do, but they are not being resourced.

The research goes on to say:

"There was a feeling, throughout most of the interviews, of what one respondent described as, ‘that bit of, my bit being more important than your bit.' Whilst a certain amount of professional jealously provides a useful stimulus to multi-agency working, the views recorded during this evaluation suggest a more unhealthy inter-disciplinary rivalry."

There will always be problems when one pilots something as revolutionary as the drugs courts, which were recommended by the SNP as long ago as 1999. However, we must not draw a veil over the initiative. If the Executive is planning to resource drugs courts for other areas, will it please examine the existing difficulties? We do not want the scheme to fail for the want of resources.

As we know, the background to that is the fact that 20 per cent of social work places advertised in the criminal justice system are unfilled. It is unfair to the professionals not to provide them with resources or to recognise their problems. I do not say that to undermine drugs courts, but to be honest about them. The principle is excellent. Anyone who has served on the Parliament's justice committees from the beginning, as I have done, knows that prisons often contain very sad people who have offended against society and who have stolen, but only to pay dealers. The statistics show that, as soon as they come out of prison and return to the communities in which the dealers live, they go back to crime and back into prison. It is a waste of people's lives and resources.

I cannot use up all my time, but I have made my point. I want the minister to examine clearly and be honest about the resourcing of the current pilot projects. He must ensure that the front-line workers who try to help drug addicts are supported and know that the Parliament recognises the stresses that they are under.

I begin by apologising for being late to this debate. I am sorry that I did not hear everyone's speeches. I did not mean any disrespect to Parliament—I had transport problems. Bill Aitken and I share an interest in transport. It is an issue close to our hearts that we have discussed many times in the Justice 2 Committee.

I congratulate Hugh Henry on his new appointment and welcome back Roseanna Cunningham, who has been absent for some time. She has been missed, although Christine Grahame and Michael Matheson have done a wonderful job in her absence.

Drug misuse is the single most difficult issue that our society faces, and we all know that there are no easy solutions. We face it in every sphere of life and, as politicians, have a heavy responsibility to match solutions to serious problems. It is a measure of the maturity of the Scottish Parliament that so far we have had such a constructive debate on the strategy that we should adopt. We may have our differences, but there has been a mature approach to the debate.

The drugs court is a new concept in our justice system. Specialist courts are fast becoming a feature of the system as we examine specialist approaches to other areas of offending and recognise that we sometimes need an expert approach to break the cycle of offending, particularly in relation to drugs. The success of drugs courts has been debated this morning, and I acknowledge the success of the pilots that we have been able to examine. However, we must constantly search for the signs that drugs courts are worth the investment that we are making.

The Justice 2 Committee recently heard evidence from Sheriff Matthews, who has presided over the drugs court in Glasgow sheriff court. He emphasised the multidisciplinary team approach to justice. Seven agencies, including sheriffs and social workers, are involved in the partnership team and work together to provide an expert approach. He also emphasised that if the experts believe that an offender is failing, he would regard it as an indication that the programme is not working and that the offender should be referred to another sheriff for another sentence.

The new provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill are important. They will nail for ever the lie that a DTTO is a soft option, because sheriffs will be able to impose a period of detention if they believe that that is appropriate. The minister should take note of another technical matter that has been raised by the Justice 2 Committee. During the progress of the bill we may need to examine the provisions about the breach of a DTTO, so that, in line with their human rights, if offenders want to deny that a breach took place they will have the opportunity to do so.

By all accounts, coming off drugs is hard, which is why we must allow for offenders receiving treatment having some failures along the way. We cannot stand here in judgment of offenders and say that it is easy. A simple failure should not be an automatic breach of the DTTO. We also know that the order can last as long as 36 months, so it is in no way a soft option.

The crucial test is not the number of DTTOs, but ultimately whether we cut the number of crimes related to the cycle of drugs and reoffending. Rehabilitation and assistance with drug misuse have been a strategy in our criminal justice system in relation to not just those appearing before our courts, but those in our prisons. It is a mystery to many why drugs are so prevalent in our Scottish prisons, but it is worth noting that we have important schemes in our prison service to help those who wish to deal with their problems. As Christine Grahame and I have mentioned on many occasions, there is also the wonderful work that has been done in Alva house in Low Moss prison. I hope that that work continues as we discuss the future of the prison service estates.

The post-prison release programme, which the Executive announced at the beginning of this year, is a 12-week programme to assist prisoners who have been released and have successfully dealt with their drug addiction. It is an extremely important programme. Offenders have said on many occasions to me and to other members of the justice committees that, having dealt with a drug addiction, they are then released into the community with no support whatsoever. I would like to hear more about the success of that particular programme.

Furthermore, it cannot be right for people to have a better chance of rehabilitation and detoxification if they have offended, and we need to examine equality of treatment. I am sure that Keith Raffan will have pointed that out, as he always does, and it is an important point to make.

The Parliament is capable of carrying out very important work on this issue, and I hope that we continue to have a mature debate on our approach to this very complex and serious problem in our society.

"There is more joy in one sinner that repenteth".

Although the Executive came rather later to drugs courts than did the SNP, its arrival is nonetheless doubly welcome. We share the view that drugs courts are the way forward.

I share members' concerns about the possibility of known offenders accessing treatment and support the pleas for further investment to ensure that people who wish to come out of addiction have the opportunity to capitalise on that wish and motivation before it disappears.

Although we are debating drugs courts and therefore addiction to illegal drugs, we should remember that the general addiction to drugs is much wider than we would sometimes care to acknowledge. Even in this relatively sparsely populated chamber, there will be a number of drug addicts and people who are in remission. No, I am not looking at you in particular, Presiding Officer. It is 30 years since I had my last cigarette and I can fairly claim to be in remission. However, temptation is present every day: someone in the pub might pass round a packet of cigarettes and, under certain circumstances, I might unconsciously reach for one. Fortunately, the social norms mean that such an occurrence happens less frequently. We should not cast stones at addicts, because many of us are addicts ourselves.

Mike Rumbles, who is not in the chamber today, has taken a close interest in the subject of alcoholism. I know that he would wish me to remind the chamber that that legal drug has caused serious addiction problems.

However, the debate is about the role of drugs courts in getting people out of addiction and out of crime. Bill Aitken was absolutely wrong to characterise such courts as a get-out-of-jail card; they actually represent a get-out-of-crime card. The current arrangement of treating addicts in the mainstream court system simply has not worked, and we must try another option. We are testing drugs courts. It is possible that they might fail, although I believe that with a fair wind, proper resources and enthusiastic and committed professionals they will succeed. We must make them succeed, because at the moment there is no other visible option.

In my role as sweeper in this debate, I want to address one or two other issues that have not yet been covered. In its 1999 manifesto, Labour promised to double to 200 the number of police officers in the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. We are still below that figure, and have not heard any plans to increase numbers in early course. Perhaps that will happen next year. However, the Executive is taking a very long time to deliver on an important commitment that was made nearly four years ago.

I want to turn to the difficulties about the Executive's need to work with its colleagues in government in London. I raise the issue not to make a constitutional point, but to make a practical one. Because legalising drugs is a reserved matter, Home Office debates down south will affect the situation in Scotland. I seek the minister's assurance that he is working closely with colleagues elsewhere. Our views on the matter are well known, and I will not repeat them.

However, I draw particular attention to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which makes it an offence for property owners knowingly to permit or suffer the use of a controlled drug on their property. Such a provision means that landlords cannot rent property to drug addicts if they know that addicts are likely to permit or suffer the use of controlled drugs on that property. As a result, there is a one third higher prevalence of heroin use among people in hostel accommodation and a 94 per cent higher percentage of heroin use among people of no fixed abode than in other groups. Those people cannot qualify for DTTOs because they are homeless. It is important that we examine other aspects of the system if we seek to minimise the effects of other legislation on drug addicts.

I should also point out that because the number of customs officers has been dramatically reduced, the drugs business continues to be successful and the channels to market remain open.

We must put the drug user at the centre of our concerns. Drug dealers are a different issue, because they volunteer to deal drugs. Once drug users have been exposed, perhaps on a single occasion, to the use of drugs, they cease to have a choice. Their addiction compels them down a path that leads to criminality. I very much welcome the introduction of drugs courts and very much regret that the Tories are unable to see beyond the justice system to provide justice for the community and addicts.

I was reflecting on Stewart Stevenson's suggestion that we are all drug addicts of some kind. I think that he is correct: my drug is probably the enjoyment that I get from stirring things up. I welcome the Executive's attitude to drugs, and the progress that has been made on the matter. As a regional member, I also welcome the decision to extend the system to Lanarkshire and Ayrshire.

Many members know much more about the subject than I do and have covered it very well. Indeed, my friend Keith Raffan keeps on about the subject. As a result, I will try to approach it from a different angle. The amendment that I support mentions

"reducing … the … propensity to misuse drugs".

Yesterday, I praised the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report for including a phrase about the cost of not doing things. We have to focus on the cost of not treating the causes of people becoming involved in drugs. The notion of spending to save is widely accepted, and my argument is that we should spend more to save on the "propensity to misuse drugs".

Many people come to drugs through family breakdown or family violence. This afternoon, we will have a debate on domestic abuse, which is an issue that is clearly related to drug activity. Both Scottish Women's Aid and Couple Counselling Scotland, which tries to help couples not to split up, are underfunded and could use a lot more money to carry out their good work properly. The Executive must take a wide-ranging approach to the matter and adequately fund organisations that carry out such important work.

We must create communities that are based on the ethos that people should not go into drugs. That includes helping communities to develop in their own way instead of having people like me tell them what to do. For example, recreation is important. Money that is invested now in a local football team on a housing estate will save thousands of pounds later on if it keeps one individual off drugs and out of jail because of drugs. Education and training, which we dealt with yesterday, are required to give people hope for the future and to give them a worthwhile job.

Another issue that I tend to go on about is alcohol. There is a relationship between alcohol and drugs, as many alcohol users later become drug users. Even in its own right, alcohol is probably a greater destroyer of lives than are drugs. We must attack that issue as well.

As other speakers have said, we need to go for a rapid response. It is no use having a nice scheme in six months' time. The person must get the help when he or she needs it. There must be work in prison to help those who have succumbed to drugs. Good work is being done, but it is still not being adequately resourced.

We need joined-up government, whereby budgets on all sides are used to tackle the problem. That would reduce the number of people who get involved in drugs and so allow the drugs courts to do their excellent work on fewer people.

I shall refrain from following the example set by my colleague Stewart Stevenson in disclosing that he is a recovering addict, which was followed by Donald Gorrie, for fear that, if we all start getting up to disclose our addictions, the public may think that they have come in to watch some kind of counselling meeting. However, it was interesting that Donald Gorrie's stated addiction is stirring things up. His track record suggests that he has a serious addiction problem, but given the level of entertainment that he provides us with, I hope that he will not undertake counselling.

If one thing has come from today's debate, it is that the debate has helped to crystallise which parties in the chamber are serious about tackling Scotland's drugs problem and which are more interested in political rhetoric. During the course of the debate, the extent of the drugs problem in Scotland has been highlighted. Bill Aitken mentioned the £300 million that the problem costs Glasgow. Roseanna Cunningham mentioned how one in 50 people may be using drugs. Keith Raffan mentioned the fact that there are over 55,000 people who have some type of drugs problem in Scotland. The problem is massive and requires to be tackled.

In his opening remarks, Bill Aitken mentioned that the Parliament has had several debates on Scotland's drugs problem. A key theme that has run through all those debates is that there is no simple solution to the problem. We must be prepared to try new ideas if we are to tackle the problem effectively. It is sad that the Tories appear to be unable to accept that.

Bill Aitken was happy to quantify the extent of drugs misuse in Scotland, but he went on to state that, instead of the present approach, we require a "hard-nosed but compassionate approach". I am at a loss as to exactly what that might mean. He obviously included the bit about compassion to gain the favour of Iain Duncan Smith. Who knows what the phrase means in respect of drugs users—perhaps it means that we should bang them up with a smile? That does not strike me as being a serious approach to tackling Scotland's drugs problem.

We require a realistic approach to dealing with drugs in our communities. Keith Raffan put it well, when he said that we need to tackle reoffending. One of the most effective ways of dealing with those who commit crimes as a result of their drugs habit is to tackle their drugs habit, so that we can break that cycle in which people continue to commit crimes because they need to feed that habit. Helping people to tackle their drugs habit is exactly what the drugs courts are intended to do.

Mention was also made of the problems within our prisons. Having visited a number of prisons this year, along with Donald Gorrie and a few other members of the Justice 1 Committee, I know that there is a serious problem about the level of resources within our Prison Service to tackle those who go into prison with a drugs problem. That process started with the Cranstoun projects. Let us be under no illusion; we must continue to tackle the problem, but we must be realistic in how we tackle it.

The Tory contributions to the debate have been ill thought out. Now is not the time to start criticising the drugs courts. Now is the time to highlight the problems in the pilot project and to ask the minister to ensure that resources are provided so that the drugs courts can be successful and we can deal realistically with drugs abuse and with those who have a drugs problem in Scotland. We do not need to hear the political rhetoric that we have heard from the Tories today.

To some extent, I agree with Michael Matheson's point that the Conservatives have presented an ill-thought-out motion and debate. Having said that, the debate was valuable because there were some thoughtful, considered and constructive contributions. As I am new to the portfolio, I will certainly reflect on those contributions.

If I am allowed to say so, what was missing from the debate was Richard Simpson's contribution. He brought enthusiasm, knowledge and commitment to the issue and I do not believe that anyone could doubt the contribution that he made. I regret that his observations and experience are not part of this debate. I am sure that Richard Simpson will continue to develop his interest in the subject; that will be welcomed.

It is important to consider the context of the debate. We are just into the process and as some other speakers and I have said, we will inevitably make mistakes. The scale of the problem that confronts the country is so great and—as Stewart Stevenson and other members have said—the failure of what has been tried so far is so evident that something else must be tried.

Annabel Goldie asked what the resources are achieving. The early indications are that the investment is beginning to have an effect. We will, however, have to reflect on how effective it has been, what lessons can be learned and whether drugs courts can easily be spread across the length and breadth of Scotland.

I disagreed with very little of what Roseanna Cunningham had to say; indeed, there is little in the SNP amendment that I could disagree with. Where we cannot agree is on the demand for an early roll-out of drugs courts. It is right to test, analyse and reflect on the experience. That is the only thing that I could disagree with in what Roseanna Cunningham had to say.

Will the minister give way?

I really do not have time.

Some particular questions have been raised and comments made today. I will consider them very carefully and come back to members where necessary. I agree with a point made by Roseanna Cunningham and echoed by Keith Raffan—any evaluation should not be just about the cost of the drugs courts. The evaluation must be of the effectiveness of getting people out of addiction and of reducing crime. It would be a false economy if all we considered was expenditure. We will therefore have to consider the wider picture.

Richard Lochhead asked about having a drugs court in Grampian. We have made it clear how we intend to move on that. Christine Grahame raised the issue of social workers. I do not believe that the vacancy rates are as bad as she made out, but Cathy Jamieson has made it clear that she is concerned about the need to give a boost to the social work profession. She is considering the training of social workers and some initiatives have already been set up. We want to encourage and retain social workers. We know that there is a particular issue for social workers in the criminal justice system and we will consider that very carefully.

Mary Scanlon mentioned Mothers Against Drugs. I have some experience of families in my area who are tackling the scourge, and one thing is clear: many of those people welcome the initiatives of DTTOs and drugs courts. I recently visited a project in Foxbar in my constituency called Family and Drug Support—FADS—and it was moving to listen to the horrors that families face in dealing with the problems of drugs and the turmoil that they cause, and to listen to people like Ellen Donnelly and Doreen Polson, who wrote a moving poem about her experiences. That is why drugs courts are important; we have got to help those ordinary people. It is not just the drug addicts who need support; their families need support as well.

I say to Stewart Stevenson that we will work with colleagues elsewhere. I agree with him that we are talking about a get-out-of-crime card, not a get-out-of-jail card, which I thought was a cheap jibe from Bill Aitken.

Pauline McNeill raised the issues of rehabilitation and better chances for offenders. We will reflect on those comments. We have a problem that we need to tackle but, equally, we recognise that those who have addiction problems and who are not offenders also need to be supported.

Despite its ill-thought-out premise, I have found the debate to be useful. Some constructive comments were made. We should reflect on the relative success that we have already seen with drugs courts and use our determination to learn from the experience to do something that is effective in ending the scourge.

I welcome the new minister's frank contribution to the debate, and his recognition that the drugs court policy must be measured by its effectiveness. That should be the aim.

The issue of drugs is one of the most sensitive and difficult that faces our communities, and communities throughout the world. While there may be strong disagreement on solutions to the problem, there can be no doubt whatever as to the ill-effects of drug abuse. There is no doubt in my mind, having met the parents of young people who have lost their lives, that drug addiction and drug abuse can destroy lives, impose enormous anguish on families, lead to recurring crime, and lead to all the serious disadvantages for civilised community life, which is badly damaged thereby.

Our request is that everything should be done to discourage young people from, and inform them of the likely consequences of, taking undesirable substances. I am glad that Richard Lochhead raised some relevant issues but they are, if I may say so, for the Executive to respond to in detail. Pauline McNeill stressed the importance of a team approach. Like her, we believe that we need a thoroughly integrated approach to education, deterrence, social work, medical assistance and rehabilitation. According to information from an Executive report, there are 55,000 or more drug misusers in Scotland, of whom more than 22,000 are injecting themselves, so we know that the problem is considerable in scale.

The Scottish Government should not be advising people on how to break the law, either directly or indirectly. The Minister for Justice produced a good drugs guide for clubbers, which gives young people detailed facts as to the potential effects of taking ecstasy, cocaine and LSD. Tips in that guide include taking half an ecstasy table and waiting one hour to see what effect it has before taking anything else. Bill Aitken touched on that matter. We would prefer a stronger message to say that drugs involve real dangers to those who take them. Instead of giving advice on drug taking, the Government should advise people not to take them at all.

We believe that the drugs courts exist to give drugs misusers a genuine chance.

Just so that we can be clear on Conservative policy on drug misuse, are the Conservatives saying, "Just say no," and are they now totally opposed to any policy of harm reduction?

Mr Raffan asked earlier whether we are against the use of methadone. We are not against the use of methadone. We think that there is an important place for methadone, but we do not think that methadone should be used as a form of social control of prisoners. We note that the use of methadone has increased by four times and we believe that it is relevant where appropriate. However, a stronger message should be given about the dangers and, as Annabel Goldie said, every support should be given to rehabilitation programmes. We believe that drugs courts are there to give drug misusers a genuine chance to come off drugs by accepting treatment. I strongly support what Donald Gorrie asked for—a rapid response. That is absolutely necessary, as is a joined-up approach.

If a person who has a large number of criminal convictions does not co-operate, they should be made to face the consequences. That means that if an offender refuses to engage in rehabilitation treatment there should be the immediate sanction of imprisonment. Drugs courts should not deliver an easy route out of prison when the offender has no sincere purpose of fitting in with a drug testing and treatment order. We call for an effective approach, which is also what the minister has called for.

When offenders who have committed a great many offences happen to be drug addicts, that fact should not be used as an excuse for them to escape prison solely on that account. That would be an excuse and an incentive for offenders who have a large number of convictions to be on drugs. Persons in that position should be sent to courts and, when their offences merit it, to prison. As my friend Bill Aitken stressed—there has not been enough concentration on this in the debate—there should be medical and social work support for those who are drug addicts when they complete their imprisonment and come out of prison.

It is our belief that prisons should be drug-free zones. We want to ensure that through the use of sniffer dogs, strip searches and through making it impossible for family and friends to pass in drugs surreptitiously during visiting sessions. Keith Raffan said that we cannot possibly stop drugs getting into prison. I do not accept that. We can stop drugs getting into prison.

It is very difficult.

It may be very difficult, but there should be a greatly increased focus to that end.

Not enough sympathy has been expressed during the debate for the victims of drug-related offences. We need to keep clearly in mind the interests of the victims as well as those of the drug addict who is up for a number of offences and is sent to a drugs court. Of course, we support a policy of zero tolerance of all crimes, including those that relate to drugs. The best way to reduce all crime is to have many more police officers visible on our streets in support of policies to strengthen deterrence and detection.

Both Christine Grahame and Michael Matheson said that the necessary resources should be provided in order to tackle the problems effectively. I am certain that that must be the case. We should pursue that.

We want a higher priority to be given to justice matters in general. We believe that our approach must be one of determination, deterrence, prevention, justice and rehabilitation.