Chamber
Plenary, 02 Nov 2000
02 Nov 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Drugs Courts
This is an important, if short, debate. I accept that the SNP included a commitment to drugs courts in its 1999 manifesto. The Liberal Democrats did not do so; instead, we chose to emphasise a twin-track approach of tougher enforcement and more extensive treatment and rehabilitation programmes.
However, our thinking has moved on. I welcome today's announcement by the Deputy Minister for Justice, to whom I offer my party's congratulations on his new position.
In 1989 the present US Attorney General, Janet Reno, first established an experiment in Dade County, Florida. At the time it was described as an intensive, community-based treatment, rehabilitation and supervision programme for drug defendants to reduce recidivism. As of last autumn, drugs court activity was under way in 49 of the 50 states of the USA, as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.
The evidence in the two-volume report by the US justice department on the first decade of experience of drugs courts up to June 1999 should inform latest thinking. It found that drugs courts have led to a significant reduction in recidivism—as low as 4 per cent in those who complete the full programme. The drug use of participants in the programme has declined. A significant number of drug-free babies have been born to women who were enrolled in drugs court programmes, which saved a minimum of £250,000 per infant in health and social costs. The average cost of treatment is between £900 and £1,600 per participant, compared with an average cost of £5,000 per person who is put in prison. Many of those who have entered the programme have been able to remain employed throughout their participation in it. As confidence among law enforcement agencies and prosecutors has grown, asset forfeiture funds have been released to augment treatment resources.
I understand that nearly 140,000 US citizens from all parts of US society have entered drugs court programmes. Two thirds of them are the parents of minors. Men outnumber women on the programme by two to one, but that preponderance is decreasing. The majority of participants are long-term users and many are multiple drug users. Most have not previously received treatment and many have served custodial sentences for previous offences.
Drugs courts are not without cost. In 1994-95 there was a famous dispute, when Janet Reno had to battle—in the event, successfully—with the US House of Representatives to secure continuation of the £1 billion federal funding for the programme. However, the US experience should inform Parliament whether the drugs court concept could be adopted in Scotland, where the legal system is very different. Drugs courts cannot simply be transplanted to Scotland.
We must take action. As has been said, misuse of drugs is endemic and very few parts of our country are untouched by them. The problem affects even peaceful and relatively prosperous places. I am sure that drug cases have turned up in the surgeries of nearly all members. I dealt recently with a case in a town in my constituency where the unemployment rate is 1.6 per cent. Not all towns in my constituency have such a low unemployment rate, but the example illustrates my point that drug use is a problem throughout the country.
Some of my biggest misgivings about drugs courts relate to rural areas. How will we implement drugs courts in the one-sheriff courts that are prevalent in rural areas? There are other problems. Drugs courts need to be accompanied by rehabilitation and treatment centres—they cannot exist in isolation.
I will end by quoting the director of the office of US national drug control policy. He said:
"If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working.
It is worth investigating for Scotland.
However, our thinking has moved on. I welcome today's announcement by the Deputy Minister for Justice, to whom I offer my party's congratulations on his new position.
In 1989 the present US Attorney General, Janet Reno, first established an experiment in Dade County, Florida. At the time it was described as an intensive, community-based treatment, rehabilitation and supervision programme for drug defendants to reduce recidivism. As of last autumn, drugs court activity was under way in 49 of the 50 states of the USA, as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.
The evidence in the two-volume report by the US justice department on the first decade of experience of drugs courts up to June 1999 should inform latest thinking. It found that drugs courts have led to a significant reduction in recidivism—as low as 4 per cent in those who complete the full programme. The drug use of participants in the programme has declined. A significant number of drug-free babies have been born to women who were enrolled in drugs court programmes, which saved a minimum of £250,000 per infant in health and social costs. The average cost of treatment is between £900 and £1,600 per participant, compared with an average cost of £5,000 per person who is put in prison. Many of those who have entered the programme have been able to remain employed throughout their participation in it. As confidence among law enforcement agencies and prosecutors has grown, asset forfeiture funds have been released to augment treatment resources.
I understand that nearly 140,000 US citizens from all parts of US society have entered drugs court programmes. Two thirds of them are the parents of minors. Men outnumber women on the programme by two to one, but that preponderance is decreasing. The majority of participants are long-term users and many are multiple drug users. Most have not previously received treatment and many have served custodial sentences for previous offences.
Drugs courts are not without cost. In 1994-95 there was a famous dispute, when Janet Reno had to battle—in the event, successfully—with the US House of Representatives to secure continuation of the £1 billion federal funding for the programme. However, the US experience should inform Parliament whether the drugs court concept could be adopted in Scotland, where the legal system is very different. Drugs courts cannot simply be transplanted to Scotland.
We must take action. As has been said, misuse of drugs is endemic and very few parts of our country are untouched by them. The problem affects even peaceful and relatively prosperous places. I am sure that drug cases have turned up in the surgeries of nearly all members. I dealt recently with a case in a town in my constituency where the unemployment rate is 1.6 per cent. Not all towns in my constituency have such a low unemployment rate, but the example illustrates my point that drug use is a problem throughout the country.
Some of my biggest misgivings about drugs courts relate to rural areas. How will we implement drugs courts in the one-sheriff courts that are prevalent in rural areas? There are other problems. Drugs courts need to be accompanied by rehabilitation and treatment centres—they cannot exist in isolation.
I will end by quoting the director of the office of US national drug control policy. He said:
"If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working.
It is worth investigating for Scotland.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
Good morning. I apologise for the slightly late start. There were technical difficulties with the microphone system.
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order. I am concerned that—yet again—we seem to be reading about Government announcements in the press rather than hearing them in the chamber....
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I share the member's concern. I will be charitable today because we have new ministers and, no doubt, new special advisers operating. However, I had a discus...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
On a point of order. On the pre-release of speeches and how you might interpret that, would your sanction extend to the pre-release of speeches to Opposition...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Yes, absolutely. We do not expect to read in the newspapers what will be said in Parliament—we expect to read what has been said.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
On a point of order. As such pre-releases have happened several times, would the Presiding Officer care to have a word with the First Minister to ensure that...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
My words will be printed in the Official Report, so everybody will be aware of them. I take the issue seriously. If we allow the situation to continue, it wi...
Ms Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order. Although I recognise your efforts to ensure that the chamber enjoys the status that it should, I suggest that there is a difference betw...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Obviously, normal statements—whether by Government or Opposition parties—on issues that will be debated in Parliament are perfectly acceptable. What is not a...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order. It is important to reflect on some of the comments that you have made, Presiding Officer. I support fully what you have said about Gover...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Let us not go back over yesterday afternoon. I think that I have said enough on the subject.
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
On a point of order. My point of order has a slightly different twist, in that I would like some clarification. Opposition spokesmen and, perhaps, Labour bac...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Absolutely. Similarly, the Executive may, from time to time, indicate general lines of policy—I am not against that. However, I object to detailed pre-announ...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
I hope that none of your comments affects matters that have appeared in party manifestos over a number of years, Presiding Officer. Today's subject for debat...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I must be strict about time this morning because we have two short debates. Two amendments to the motion have been lodged. I call Iain Gray to move the first...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Iain Gray):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to reply to motion S1M-1303, although as Roseanna Cunningham said, perhaps it is a little early for me to be doing so. However, I c...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Is it useful to pick up the example of Grampian police, whose officers enforce the law while accompanied by drugs workers? They can allow folk who may be inv...
Iain Gray:
Lab
I agree. There is a range of ways in which to bring enforcement and treatment together. The main attraction of drugs courts is that they would achieve that.
Phil Gallie:
Con
Just before Mr Adam's intervention—
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I am sorry, Mr Gallie—your microphone is not on. I have to ask you to repeat that. We are having technical problems.
Iain Gray:
Lab
Is this the definition of cruel and inhumane punishment?
Phil Gallie:
Con
Mr Gray's predecessor suggested that drugs courts would apply only to first offenders. Does the minister agree that that would be the way forward?
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I will give the minister some injury time.
Iain Gray:
Lab
Although the microphones are not working, I see that the clock is.I will say something about the drugs courts model later. The key to drugs courts is that th...
Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
I support the comments that you made earlier, Presiding Officer, and I welcome Iain Gray to his new post. The debate is a baptism of fire, if ever there was ...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
It is good to participate again in a debate with the deputy leader of the SNP. I see that she has lost none of her zest since leaving some of us behind on th...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
That would not have happened in my day.
Euan Robson:
LD
This is an important, if short, debate. I accept that the SNP included a commitment to drugs courts in its 1999 manifesto. The Liberal Democrats did not do s...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
We come now to the open part of the debate. I ask members to keep their speeches to four minutes so that we can fit everyone in.
Kay Ullrich (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome this debate, because I have worked in the criminal justice and drug abuse sectors.Almost 70 per cent of criminal offences in Scotland are committed...