Chamber
Plenary, 06 Sep 2007
06 Sep 2007 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Drugs Misuse
The motion says everything—well, almost everything. There is not a lot in it with which we could disagree. However, there is not enough—or perhaps anything—about how to address the underlying cause of addiction. We have not looked at that seriously.
The question is how we achieve the measures to which the motion refers. Margaret Smith talked about projects that are giving people heroin. I am not going to tell members what age I am—they can look that up on the web—but when I started in social work, there were 38 heroin addicts in Glasgow. I had them all on my case load and looked after them. They came in every day, got their heroin and went off to work or did whatever they had to do. However, as we all know, things have changed.
How did we get to where we are? After heroin hit the streets, the first thing that we were told was that we had methadone and that it was a great thing. It was first introduced to those of us who worked with addicts, but it was not seen as an answer to addiction. We were not sold that line and I did not sell it on to addicts with whom I worked. I did not say, "If you take this methadone, then your addiction will disappear." What I did sell was an answer to a chaotic lifestyle and an opportunity for them to look after their kids and settle their lives into some kind of order, with plenty of constructive support.
We found that the approach of having someone at the end of a phone 24/7 could work. Those of us who got involved and tried it argued that it could work generally, but it did not happen. Why not? Is it because it takes a lot of money? David Liddell, the director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, says that we need to spend between £7,000 and £10,000 for each addict. That is a lot of money, but I think that it would be cost effective. It is less than the cost of keeping someone in prison or of caring for looked-after children. It is also a lot less than we pay for kinship care, which I will come to later. Will the Executive have the guts to spend such an amount of money on those individuals? I am not sure. The Executive is spending money like it has gone out of style, so I do not know whether there will be anything left. The motion states that the Executive
"recognises that there will be resource implications".
However, I am not sure whether that means that it will meet those resource implications.
Let us look at attitudes. There are still those around who do not believe that addiction is an illness. They say that people can give up whatever it is. They say that if someone is anorexic, they eat; if someone is fat, they do not eat; and if someone is using drugs, they give them up—it is easy. However, that is not true. There is a wide range of people who are on drugs.
Margaret Smith and others pointed out that drug addiction affects not only a particular social class but all social classes. Many drug addicts have mental illnesses and they are moved from pillar to post. One minute they are in an addiction centre, the next they are in a hospital. Nobody involved talks to anybody else, so they do not know what the individual's main problem is.
We are dealing with a multimillion pound industry out there. There is a lot of money around in drugs. Dealers nowadays are often addicts, which is not what I saw in the 1980s.
What is needed? We need a wide range of quality support from different services. Service provision is patchy at the moment. Services can occasionally be accessed quickly. For example, there is apparently no waiting list for services in Fife. However, in general, access to services is a slow process. There is a need for wrap-around services and for that old chestnut, the joined-up approach through the single shared assessment.
Addicts may have separate assessments for housing, education, training and family support. Why? That is a waste of time and money. The assessments that are available through the drug treatment and testing orders are costly, but they are just single assessments and are therefore probably a better way of spending money. I have some sympathy for the proposal to extend the DTTOs into district courts.
So what are the solutions? We need to invest in early support for the most vulnerable families—everybody agrees with that. Children whose parents are addicts can be easily identified. They tend to be withdrawn at school, or they can be the opposite and be very aggressive. The children tend to have no confidence and live in social isolation.
When I talk about drugs, I mean drugs and alcohol. However, I think that some people separate alcohol off. We must think about doing that in this case, perhaps, because of what is called hidden harm. It is much more difficult to identify that someone has an alcohol problem than it is to identify that they have a drugs problem.
We must ensure that we do not channel the resources to the user and forget the child—that is what worries me. We need proper material and financial support for kinship carers—that is an absolute. My colleague Wendy Alexander is interested in considering that matter closely.
Alcohol and drug action teams need to have a thorough review of the treatment, care and rehabilitation in their areas and the health services need to be included in their decisions. If we agree that more needs to be spent to achieve our goals, we must consider ring fencing. That might take away local accountability, but if councils have the money in a soft budget line, we should ring fence it. However, whatever we do, it will take time. There are too many long-term addicts, some of whom are now in their 50s. Care packages must reflect the whole problem, both during and after drugs misuse. As Margaret Curran said, there is an undisputed link between drugs, alcohol and antisocial behaviour. The SNP must be careful not to lose that link if it considers antisocial behaviour legislation. That is one of the most important points.
Many parents are desperate for help, but they do not want closed-circuit television cameras in their living-rooms. Children of addicts need care and protection to be provided by social work departments, other interested parties and voluntary organisations, which should adopt health and care programmes that ensure that young citizens escape the blighting of their lives that is brought about by parents who themselves are in need of support and treatment.
The question is how we achieve the measures to which the motion refers. Margaret Smith talked about projects that are giving people heroin. I am not going to tell members what age I am—they can look that up on the web—but when I started in social work, there were 38 heroin addicts in Glasgow. I had them all on my case load and looked after them. They came in every day, got their heroin and went off to work or did whatever they had to do. However, as we all know, things have changed.
How did we get to where we are? After heroin hit the streets, the first thing that we were told was that we had methadone and that it was a great thing. It was first introduced to those of us who worked with addicts, but it was not seen as an answer to addiction. We were not sold that line and I did not sell it on to addicts with whom I worked. I did not say, "If you take this methadone, then your addiction will disappear." What I did sell was an answer to a chaotic lifestyle and an opportunity for them to look after their kids and settle their lives into some kind of order, with plenty of constructive support.
We found that the approach of having someone at the end of a phone 24/7 could work. Those of us who got involved and tried it argued that it could work generally, but it did not happen. Why not? Is it because it takes a lot of money? David Liddell, the director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, says that we need to spend between £7,000 and £10,000 for each addict. That is a lot of money, but I think that it would be cost effective. It is less than the cost of keeping someone in prison or of caring for looked-after children. It is also a lot less than we pay for kinship care, which I will come to later. Will the Executive have the guts to spend such an amount of money on those individuals? I am not sure. The Executive is spending money like it has gone out of style, so I do not know whether there will be anything left. The motion states that the Executive
"recognises that there will be resource implications".
However, I am not sure whether that means that it will meet those resource implications.
Let us look at attitudes. There are still those around who do not believe that addiction is an illness. They say that people can give up whatever it is. They say that if someone is anorexic, they eat; if someone is fat, they do not eat; and if someone is using drugs, they give them up—it is easy. However, that is not true. There is a wide range of people who are on drugs.
Margaret Smith and others pointed out that drug addiction affects not only a particular social class but all social classes. Many drug addicts have mental illnesses and they are moved from pillar to post. One minute they are in an addiction centre, the next they are in a hospital. Nobody involved talks to anybody else, so they do not know what the individual's main problem is.
We are dealing with a multimillion pound industry out there. There is a lot of money around in drugs. Dealers nowadays are often addicts, which is not what I saw in the 1980s.
What is needed? We need a wide range of quality support from different services. Service provision is patchy at the moment. Services can occasionally be accessed quickly. For example, there is apparently no waiting list for services in Fife. However, in general, access to services is a slow process. There is a need for wrap-around services and for that old chestnut, the joined-up approach through the single shared assessment.
Addicts may have separate assessments for housing, education, training and family support. Why? That is a waste of time and money. The assessments that are available through the drug treatment and testing orders are costly, but they are just single assessments and are therefore probably a better way of spending money. I have some sympathy for the proposal to extend the DTTOs into district courts.
So what are the solutions? We need to invest in early support for the most vulnerable families—everybody agrees with that. Children whose parents are addicts can be easily identified. They tend to be withdrawn at school, or they can be the opposite and be very aggressive. The children tend to have no confidence and live in social isolation.
When I talk about drugs, I mean drugs and alcohol. However, I think that some people separate alcohol off. We must think about doing that in this case, perhaps, because of what is called hidden harm. It is much more difficult to identify that someone has an alcohol problem than it is to identify that they have a drugs problem.
We must ensure that we do not channel the resources to the user and forget the child—that is what worries me. We need proper material and financial support for kinship carers—that is an absolute. My colleague Wendy Alexander is interested in considering that matter closely.
Alcohol and drug action teams need to have a thorough review of the treatment, care and rehabilitation in their areas and the health services need to be included in their decisions. If we agree that more needs to be spent to achieve our goals, we must consider ring fencing. That might take away local accountability, but if councils have the money in a soft budget line, we should ring fence it. However, whatever we do, it will take time. There are too many long-term addicts, some of whom are now in their 50s. Care packages must reflect the whole problem, both during and after drugs misuse. As Margaret Curran said, there is an undisputed link between drugs, alcohol and antisocial behaviour. The SNP must be careful not to lose that link if it considers antisocial behaviour legislation. That is one of the most important points.
Many parents are desperate for help, but they do not want closed-circuit television cameras in their living-rooms. Children of addicts need care and protection to be provided by social work departments, other interested parties and voluntary organisations, which should adopt health and care programmes that ensure that young citizens escape the blighting of their lives that is brought about by parents who themselves are in need of support and treatment.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-415, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on tackling drugs misuse. I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move t...
The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):
SNP
It is fitting that the first Government debate of the new parliamentary year concerns an issue that is vital to the future of Scotland. If we are to realise ...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
I thank colleagues for their courtesy in allowing me to head off early because of my back problems.I echo Fergus Ewing's comments on the importance of the is...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I thank Miss Smith for her courtesy in informing me that she is unable to stay for the entire debate.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
Lab
You will note, Presiding Officer, that we have not submitted a Labour amendment to the motion. That should not imply that we have no questions or issues to r...
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
SNP
I hope that the member does not wish to create the impression that illicit drugs use occurs exclusively in our deprived communities, because that is not the ...
Margaret Curran:
Lab
I suspect that Brian Adam is the only person to draw that conclusion, as I did not say that drugs misuse is exclusive to deprived areas. However, statistical...
Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I very much welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of tackling drugs misuse and congratulate the cabinet secretary on bringing the topic to the chamber...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
The mandatory testing system that the Conservatives introduced at great expense into the prison service a considerable time ago has been counterproductive. I...
Annabel Goldie:
Con
I am not able to agree totally with Dr Simpson, although his attitude probably explains why we now have such an unprecedented drug addiction problem in our p...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I will endeavour not to repeat statistics that have already been cited in the debate, but perhaps I can begin by highlighting a few other figures. Although I...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
I am sorry to contradict Christine Grahame, but the Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey, which is a two-yearly study that looks at...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I defer to Dr Simpson's knowledge in certain areas, but the headline that I quoted refers to a serious report, which I hope he will read. Its evidence reflec...
Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (Lab):
Lab
The motion says everything—well, almost everything. There is not a lot in it with which we could disagree. However, there is not enough—or perhaps anything—a...
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD):
LD
I will use speeches that we have heard so far as the framework for mine. Fergus Ewing gave a full account of the work that he is undertaking—we wish him the ...
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Members will have various experiences of the drugs problems in Scotland and in their local communities. I certainly hope that the new SNP Government can buil...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Stuart McMillan:
SNP
I am sorry, but not at the moment.I live in Greenock in Inverclyde, an area that has well-documented drugs problems. Duncan McNeil and I are fully aware of t...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. Because of its impact on communities and families right across Scotland, no issue is more important for us t...
John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con):
Con
A couple of weeks ago, I served a night shift with the local police force down in my constituency in the Borders. I was able to see at first hand what the po...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
I can give Bill Wilson just under six minutes.
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Thank you, Presiding Officer—that means that I can put some of the scored-out bits of my speech back in.I congratulate Fergus Ewing on his presentation of th...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
I am delighted that the first debate of this term to which I am contributing is on the important issue of drugs misuse. I thank Kenny MacAskill for bringing ...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
The answer to the member's question about whether research has been done in this area is yes. The estimated number of children who are associated with drug-u...
Mike Pringle:
LD
I take Richard Simpson's point and, like others, bow to his knowledge of the area, which is greater than mine.Trish Godman was absolutely right to make the p...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
I have found this debate encouraging. Not only have there been a lot of positive contributions in which members have drawn on their expertise from previous o...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab):
Lab
I want to maintain the spirit of consensus, after one slight interruption. John Lamont said that Annabel Goldie raised the issue of drugs misuse even when it...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):
SNP
I thank colleagues from all parts of the chamber for their contributions to the debate. Many members spoke eloquently, passionately and, indeed, poignantly—s...