Hansard

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 the motion, which contains much that is to be welcomed. It refers to better treatment of addicts, the need for better protection of addicts' children, the need to improve drugs education and, not least, the need to offer young people better opportunities in life. An effective drugs policy would be cost effective, as it would cut crime; reduce total costs to the national health service, police and judiciary; and reduce the suffering of addicts, their families and the many victims of drug-related crime. An effective drugs policy would pay for itself.

To get such an effective, cost-effective policy we need honest, evidence-based debate. We must move away from the old knee-jerk, tabloid-proofed, party political but essentially empty and counterproductive rhetoric of the past. That is why we should welcome the proposal to introduce a national drugs commission with the aim of producing an evidence-based long-term strategy. In the late 1960s, there were a few thousand addicts in the United Kingdom. Today, across the spectrum of drugs use, there are approximately a quarter of a million. Heroin and methadone account for 85 per cent of drug-related deaths. In the European Union there are between 8,000 and 9,000 opiate deaths each year.

Addicts damage not only themselves but the fabric of society. According to one source, each of the estimated 40,000 heroin addicts in the UK commits an average of 432 crimes a year at a cost of £45,000—£1.8 billion in total. In the USA, Superior Court Judge Howard Scheinblum—I hope that I am pronouncing his name correctly—estimated that 90 per cent of criminal cases in the state of Connecticut were connected in some way to the pursuit of illegal drugs. Judge James P Gray of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, stated that the sale of illicit drugs was by far the largest source of funding for terrorists around the world. In Afghanistan, the drugs eradication policy is not only alienating impoverished farmers but has just resulted in the largest illegal opium crop in history. Meanwhile, there is a world shortage of legal sources of opiates—Africa is in a pain crisis. Where is it going, who is being harmed, and who is benefiting?

It is clear that previous policies have not been and are not being successful. The past two decades of special measures, drugs tsars, higher sentences and various education campaigns here and in many other countries appear to have resulted in more drug users than ever, the profits from selling drugs being greater than ever and the incentive to produce, distribute and push drugs being greater than ever. Is that the universal picture? Are we irretrievably doomed? Ilka chiel maun dree his ain weird—is there no escaping ours?

If we are to fix things and to have a comprehensive, evidence-based debate, we need to look not only at what does not work—the policies that have gone before—but, more important, at what does work. A study of drugs services in six Dutch cities published in the British Medical Journal showed that the clinic-based prescription of heroin as part of an overall package of care, though expensive, resulted in a reduction in drugs-related crime and a net saving per patient of £8,600 per year; in other words, it more than paid for itself. A successful drugs policy will also pull the carpet from under the feet of the drug dealers.

In Zurich, a programme of clinic-based administration of heroin and methadone saw an 82 per cent reduction in the number of new addicts over 10 years, and there is an on-going annual decrease. Incidentally, addicts on the programme, in which the taking of heroin is greatly deglamorised, successfully come off the drug. The Lancet has called for a thorough trial of drug-consumption rooms in the UK, and there are currently Home Office pilot projects in London and Manchester. I am delighted that the Executive is committed to developing an evidence-based policy, is prepared to consider innovative approaches and recognises that not all of what has gone before works.

I conclude with the words of those who should know about the issue—a few present and retired police chiefs. Chief Constable John Vine of Tayside Police states:

"The idea of a heroin clinic has potential. Unless we get past the hand wringing, do nothing stage, there will be no progress."

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom of North Wales Police states:

"the current regime is untenable and it is not going to be successful any more than controlling alcohol was through prohibition in the US. We are making it easy for organised crime".

Inspector Jim Duffy, chairman of Strathclyde police federation, states:

"We are not winning the war against drugs and we need to think about different ways to tackle it. Tell me a village where they are drug free".

If we want to keep people safe and to protect them, we must examine new approaches, develop evidence-based policies, tackle poverty and consider alternative methods of rehabilitation.