Scottish Parliament

Thursday 6 September 2007

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

Foot-and-mouth Disease

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. As the minister will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interventions during it.

09:15

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead): I would like to make a statement on the response in Scotland to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey. I understand that there may have been a delay in some of the other parties receiving copies of the statement. If that was the case, I apologise, and will have it investigated.

As members will be aware, August was a turbulent and difficult month for Scotland's livestock and red-meat industries. Disease was confirmed in the early evening of Friday 3 August. That came as a considerable surprise, given that the international surveillance work for exotic diseases suggested that the risk of foot-and-mouth disease to the United Kingdom was low. Clearly, the news was of serious concern to the many rural communities and agricultural businesses whose memories of the devastation caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 remain painful and whose contribution to the Scottish economy is vital.

When the outbreak was confirmed, leave was cancelled for ministers and key officials. On receiving the news, the Scottish Government acted quickly to put its emergency arrangements in place. The Scottish foot-and-mouth disease contingency plan was activated, and the Scottish Government's emergency room arrangements were immediately implemented within Pentland House. My officials and I immediately returned to Edinburgh to participate in key meetings and to direct the precautionary and proportionate response to the events. The Scottish contingency plan incorporates many lessons learned from the 2001 outbreak. One of the key lessons was that confirmation of disease within the single epidemiological unit of Great Britain would lead to a nationwide movement ban on susceptible animals as quickly as possible.

Following confirmation of this serious animal disease, the Scottish and UK Governments took immediate action and the movement ban was implemented at 9 pm on Friday 3 August, just three hours after disease was confirmed in Surrey. That was a necessary, immediate step to protect Scotland's interests, as the disease picture was uncertain, both in terms of its source and in terms of the potential spread of disease. In addition, major agricultural shows were being staged in Scotland over that weekend.

Ministers and officials were in close contact with the other Administrations throughout the UK from the outset, and there were several telephone conferences a day between the Administrations. Parallel movement bans were put in place in England and Wales, and the Scottish Government participated in key meetings, including Cabinet Office briefing room meetings chaired by the Prime Minister, which the First Minister and I attended. The scale of that response reflected the serious intent behind our actions.

The Scottish Government recognised that the introduction of the movement ban, while fully justified by the uncertainty of the origins of the disease, would have consequences for the entire livestock supply chain. That is why, where justified by science and veterinary risk assessment, relaxations were made as soon as possible. In particular, during the first 48 hours of response we permitted movement of dairy cows across roads for milking; we permitted the movement of animals for emergency veterinary treatment; and, as a temporary measure, we permitted the on-farm burial of fallen stock to protect animal and public health.

The rapid introduction of those measures was possible because of the strong and early engagement with Scottish industry and other stakeholders. From an early stage, my officials were in close contact with key stakeholders to spread the message of restrictions imposed and the need for heightened vigilance and biosecurity. That initial communication was supported by the quick establishment of a dedicated area on the Scottish Government's website and the creation of a dedicated foot-and-mouth disease helpline. At its peak, the website took 14,000 hits in one day and the helpline took 1,749 calls over a four-week period.

Through those communication channels and regular meetings with stakeholders, we were able to identify the key challenges and issues that needed to be addressed. That allowed us to consider and prioritise work that needed to be done to support the on-going operation of the Scottish livestock industry. Through that approach, from 8 August—only four days into the outbreak—we were able to allow the resumption of

movements direct to slaughter. That was an unprecedented achievement, which was based solely on the available science and risk assessments.

Those risk assessments were undertaken by my chief veterinary officer, Charles Milne, and his team, and I take this opportunity to state on the record my sincere thanks to all my officials. Throughout this crisis they have demonstrated the highest levels of commitment and professionalism. They consistently sought solutions and worked round the clock to ensure that the livestock sector, the media and—as often as possible—MSPs were kept fully up to date with the latest information and that restrictions were relaxed as soon as it was prudent to do so. I am proud, and Scotland should be proud, to have such high-calibre professionals working for us, particularly in such difficult circumstances. I know that the many people involved in the livestock sector that I have spoken to would echo my vote of thanks to them. As a result of their efforts, Scotland was able to be the first part of Great Britain back in business. Similar risk assessments allowed Scotland to move early to open up collection centres on 22 August; movement between farms on 24 August; and—a significant achievement—to allow markets to resume operation on 27 August, a whole week earlier than other parts of the UK were able to achieve.

The Scottish Government's activities were not solely related to the livestock sector. We worked with the media and others to send out a message of reassurance to Scotland and the wider world. In particular, we wanted to ensure that everyone understood that Scotland's countryside remained open for business. We were aware that a significant number of agricultural shows were planned for August. I ensured that the organisers of each show that was planned for the weekend on which disease was confirmed were contacted and provided with advice on how their shows could continue, albeit without livestock. I personally spoke to a number of show organisers and was privileged to be able to attend the Turriff show on 5 August with the First Minister. I later also attended the Keith show. Indeed, ministers from across the Government attended many shows throughout Scotland over that four-week period.

As the disease situation became clearer, further restrictions were relaxed. In particular, the islands were removed from the restricted zone on 12 August, allowing them to return to pre-3 August activities. From an early stage, the Scottish Government worked to consider how Scotland could roll back from the restrictions. In doing so, we have been ably supported by the Scottish science base, and in particular the centre of excellence in epidemiology, known as EPIC, which

is funded by the Scottish Government. As part of that, a team of scientists, lead by Edinburgh University, were commissioned to analyse known movements of livestock from Surrey to Scotland. That work considered both direct movements and indirect contacts between livestock within 20km of the infected premises in Surrey and animals that moved to Scotland between 16 July and 3 August. Not only did that work provide important evidence, enabling restrictions in Scotland to be relaxed, but it provided a significant contribution to the wider debate. I record my thanks to the EPIC team for its efforts.

Discussions with other Administrations were vital in making a successful approach to Europe for a return to full European Union trade. Exports to the EU had been suspended on 3 August. For Scotland, early resumption was critical, given the value of exports to the industry and the Scottish economy. The Government considered all available opportunities for regaining access to export markets. Regionalisation was one option that was given serious consideration. I had early discussions with a wide range of industry representatives to consider the desirability of such an approach. The conclusion from those discussions was that regionalisation would be difficult, particularly given the significance of trade with other parts of the UK. It was an option, but not the preferred option under the circumstances of the August outbreak.

Fortunately, it did not come to that. On 23 August, Europe's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health unanimously agreed to allow the resumption of export trade in live animals and animal products from Great Britain, with the exception of the Surrey surveillance zone. The value and volume of trade with England and Wales meant that that was a particularly good result for Scotland. To the industry's enormous relief, the export ban was lifted three weeks after the outbreak rather than the potential three months. I express the Scottish Government's appreciation for the efforts of the European Commission officials and the UK's negotiating team in achieving that result. Once again, the speed and scale of the result was unprecedented.

It is worth noting that an important factor in allowing exports to resume so early was the robust response taken throughout Great Britain. A core part of that was the national movement ban. However, there is still work to be done. We have been successful in securing EU trade, but third-country exports remain an issue and we continue to engage with the UK Government to support negotiations with the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health.

When I announced the lifting of movement restrictions in Scotland, the Scottish Government put in place some temporary safeguards: the 20-day movement standstill, the suspension of separation agreements and the requirement for a veterinary presence at markets. That was a temporary measure recommended by my chief veterinary officer until the risk levels returned to those of before 3 August.

I have already announced that the temporary safeguards will be lifted in parallel with the lifting of the surveillance zone in Surrey. That is currently scheduled for Saturday and will mean in practice that the additional standstill restriction amounts to only an additional two days beyond the normal 13 days. By Sunday, Scotland will have returned to the normal movement regime.

Overall, Scotland has achieved much over the past month. This was a team effort of the highest order, with industry and Government working together with a common goal. I would also like to record the good support that we have received from other agencies, particularly the Meat Hygiene Service, local authorities and Animal Health. In particular, this event was an early test of the new co-ordination arrangements between the Scottish Government and Animal Health, which saw a senior agency official embedded within the Edinburgh strategy team for the first time. This was invaluable in ensuring close co-ordination with the vets in the field and helped to address emerging issues quickly.

Although there have been successes we must not be complacent. It is our intention to learn from these events and to be even more prepared in the future. Today, I can announce that the Scottish Government is commissioning an independent review into the Scottish response to foot-and-mouth disease. The review will led by Professor Jim Scudamore, who has extensive experience in the animal health field, having held the post of chief veterinary officer to the United Kingdom Government, including during the 2001 outbreak, and also having served as assistant chief veterinary officer for Scotland.

I will meet Professor Scudamore next week to discuss in detail the scope and timescales for the review. I intend the review to inform our contingency plan and to reflect on our experience in relation to this outbreak. I will keep Parliament appraised as this review progresses.

I am also commissioning research into the economic impacts of the movement ban and the relaxations that we were able to introduce. This is important in guiding our future response and ensuring that our actions are proportionate.

We understand that the industry and the rural economy have been disrupted. The livestock

sector before the outbreak was already facing pressures, particularly due to the effects of cereal prices. With that in mind, I wish to say a final vote of thanks to those who were most adversely affected by this outbreak: the farmers, auctioneers, hauliers, processors and people who form every link in the livestock supply chain and whose resilience, understanding and co-operation in the face of this crisis has been truly magnificent. They have responded to the restrictions with patience and understanding and I assure them that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support them at this challenging time.

We have acted quickly to respond. We have committed £100,000 to support a Quality Meat Scotland lamb promotion campaign. This is a practical step to aid speedy recovery and we will continue to offer practical support. The demand for quality Scottish produce in export markets and the premium price that this produce can command will bring huge benefits to the industry in Scotland. We will continue to work across the sector to maximise Scotland's opportunities.

I know that we all agree that it is vital that every effort is made to identify the source of the outbreak. We await the official outcome of the investigations by the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt, who are concentrating their efforts at the Institute for Animal Health and the Merial facility at Pirbright. Whatever the source, it is absolutely vital that every step is taken to prevent any lapses of biosecurity in future.

In concluding, I reiterate my thanks to all involved in achieving what has been a positive outcome for Scotland. Within the space of three weeks, we responded to a significant outbreak of a notifiable disease. Furthermore, within those three weeks we were able to relax movement restrictions and restore export markets. Scotland set the pace and was able to lift many of the restrictions ahead of the rest of Great Britain, when it was safe to do so.

Although there is a need to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity and to remain vigilant and alert to the threat of animal disease, there is no question but that in the handling of this outbreak the Scottish Government has delivered the best outcome for the Scottish people.

The Presiding Officer: I intend to allow about 30 minutes for the minister to take questions on the issues raised in his statement. Rob Gibson will ask the first question, followed by Rhona Brankin.

Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): People across the country have welcomed the possibility of the early lifting of the bans. The minister and his team are to be congratulated.

At the moment, Britain is one epidemiological unit in relation to exotic disease. In terms of our

economic interests and biosecurity, would it be practical and beneficial to explore the prospects of Scotland being treated by the EU as an epidemiological unit?

Richard Lochhead: We have considered regionalisation over the past few weeks and many of those issues have been highlighted. Those are the kinds of issues that it is important for Professor Scudamore to analyse. However, we must recognise that the reason why Great Britain is identified as one epidemiological unit is because of the integrated industry and the fact that there are no natural boundaries.

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab): I welcome Rob Gibson to the ranks of the official Opposition.

I, too, pay tribute to the responsible reaction from the farming community and the broader rural community. The events of 2001 remain a vivid memory for many people in Scotland and throughout Britain. There is still a high level of understanding of the need for alertness and biosecurity measures throughout the country. Indeed, I echo the praise of the commitment and professionalism of the officials who were involved at the Scottish level, the British level and the European level. I am aware that some of the officials who are sitting at the back of the chamber have the misfortune to be going through this process for the second time and I pay special tribute to them, as I was in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department at the time of the previous outbreak.

I welcome the minister's commitment to the independent inquiry under Professor Scudamore. I ask the minister to ensure that the results of the inquiry are brought before the Parliament at an early opportunity. We all await with interest the results of the Health and Safety Executive's inquiry and the Spratt report.

Despite the tendency of the minister to try to make political capital out of the suggestion that Scotland does things better than England, does he agree that politicians make decisions only on the basis of the advice of chief veterinary officers and that that is how it should be? Further, will he join me in recognising the importance of team GB and of close working with the rest of the UK when dealing with such a crisis?

Richard Lochhead: I thank Rhona Brankin for echoing the thanks that I paid to our officials. I was interested in her comment about making political capital out of this issue.

With regard to the independent review, it is imperative that we keep both Parliaments and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee up to date with Professor Scudamore's work.

Throughout the crisis, all our decisions were made with regard to the advice of the chief veterinary officer in Scotland. However, as I explained in my statement, at the beginning of the crisis the chief veterinary officer, I, other officials, the First Minister and the Government decided that we had to go forward when the chief veterinary officer's advice allowed us to do so, but that we should accept that we wanted to lift the relaxations as soon as possible because of the impact on the industry. That twin-pronged approach was essential if we were to get through the crisis as quickly as possible. Of course, the fact that we did not have a disease outbreak in Scotland helped us move at a quick pace.

I assure Rhona Brankin that all decisions were taken in the light of the scientific advice. I have already paid tribute in my statement to the co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. From the beginning of the crisis, I had daily conversations with Lord Rooker; or Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; or Jonathan Shaw, a minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The First Minister was involved in conversations with the Prime Minister. There was a good team effort across Great Britain and it produced the results that we wanted in Scotland.

The Presiding Officer: I apologise to the chamber for not calling the Opposition spokesman to ask the first question, which, of course, I should have done. I can only put it down to ring rustiness after the summer recess.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con): I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, declare my interest as a farmer, and welcome the appointment of Professor Scudamore to carry out the review as discussed this morning. I also congratulate the minister and his team of dedicated officials at Pentland House—particularly Charles Milne—on their sterling efforts during the crisis. I might, however, gently rebuke the minister for his comments about champagne corks popping all over Scotland last week; none were, because normal service has not yet been resumed.

While the foot-and-mouth crisis has mercifully largely been overcome, it will pale into insignificance unless producers—particularly those in the pig and poultry sector—start to receive a return from the marketplace that matches the hugely escalating costs of production, driven by the doubling of world grain prices, as the minister noted.

What progress is the minister making in resolving the transport issue by seeking a temporary relaxation of the restrictions on lorry drivers' hours so that the backlog of livestock movements can be cleared up, particularly in

Scotland where it is such a problem? Can the minister also advise those farmers who are considering buying livestock this week whether they should do so, considering the fact that the 20-day movement rule is not being lifted until Sunday? If animals are bought today or tomorrow, will they be subject to the 20-day or the 13-day restriction rule on Monday? Will the minister assure us that he is doing all that he can to ensure that only the 13-day restriction rule is in place from Monday?

What will the Scottish Government's response be if the evidence points to foot-and-mouth disease having escaped from a Government-licensed facility? Will that affect the Scottish Government's view on the proposed animal disease levy?

Richard Lochhead: I thank John Scott for his initial comments and three questions.

Transport is a serious issue for hauliers and the livestock sector in Scotland. The current situation is unusual because the movement restrictions have caused a backlog of livestock on farms and, potentially, in markets. We need to relax temporarily some of the restrictions on drivers' hours and the industry and the Scottish Government have conveyed that message to the UK Government. The day before yesterday, I wrote to Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Transport, to ask her for a change of heart and to allow a relaxation of the restrictions for a short time so that we can deal with the livestock backlog. That would be of enormous benefit to the livestock sector in Scotland. In the aftermath of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease there are unusual circumstances. There was a similar relaxation of the restrictions on drivers' hours in 2001, so I think we have a strong case for that to be repeated.

As I indicated in my statement, the plan is to remove the 20-day standstill period on Saturday if all goes well. So by Monday, we will be back to the situation as it stood before 3 August—a 13-day standstill. As members can imagine, I have spoken to many farmers during the past few weeks and they are understanding about the situation. I am hopeful that, by Monday, the industry in Scotland will be back to the pre-3 August situation.

On Pirbright and the source of the outbreak, it is important that the chamber, and I as cabinet secretary, await the outcome of the investigations that are being conducted by the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt. Once we have the reports—which I hope to receive as soon as they are made available—we can reflect on their contents.

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): I have two specific questions for the minister.

First, given the likelihood that the Health and Safety Executive findings that are due to be published tomorrow will show that the foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred as a result of identified biosecurity lapses between the Government-run Institute for Animal Health and the private company Merial, what action is the Scottish Executive taking to press the UK Government to compensate all those Scottish farming operations that have suffered direct financial loss because of that failure of biosecurity measures?

Secondly, the minister said—and I listened very carefully—that he followed advice at all times. However, I want to check something with the minister. Did the minister not reject specific advice that he received from his officials on biosecurity measures for people visiting agricultural shows, when deciding that those shows should continue during the outbreak?

Richard Lochhead: I do not want to speculate on the investigations at Pirbright. We should await the publication of the reports and then reflect on the findings. I assure Mike Rumbles that I am engaged in regular discussions with farmers' representatives and the livestock industry, and I will continue with those in the coming days. No doubt our discussions will reflect on the contents of the forthcoming reports as they become available.

My response to Mike Rumbles's second question is that that is simply not the case. I am not sure where he got his information from. Under no circumstance did I, as cabinet secretary, reject advice from the chief veterinary officer. That did not occur during those four weeks. I would be interested to find out Mike Rumbles's source for that information.

Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): One of the matters that became clear during the incident was the rejection by the National Farmers Union Scotland of a regional, Scotland-only approach to the management of the crisis. The lamb sector, to which the minister alluded, along with beef, is so integrated into the rest of the UK for the purposes of slaughter and export that it would have been ineffective to take a solely Scottish approach to the crisis. Does the minister accept that the UK market operates as one market, that the Scottish sector is so integrated with the rest of the UK that it would not be appropriate to take a solely Scottish approach to such problems, and that such matters are always best dealt with at a level above that of the Scottish boundaries alone?

Richard Lochhead: Peter Peacock's initial statement was incorrect. The option of regionalisation was not rejected outright; there was simply a preferred option of the surveillance area being exempted from the lifting of the restrictions in the rest of GB because that was in Scotland's interests. Peter Peacock's initial comment was, therefore, inaccurate; it was a case of there being a preferred option, which I accepted completely.

We adopted a Scottish approach; we did not reject such an approach and it would have been foolish to do so. Because we took that approach and reflected Scottish circumstances in Scotland, we were able to relax the restrictions in the islands as soon as possible and Scotland was able to relax a number of other important restrictions before the rest of GB. That was the right thing to do.

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): I thank the cabinet secretary for the phone call that I received on the Friday night that the outbreak was made public. The Perth show had opened on that Friday and was to continue on the Saturday, so the impact on my constituency was immediate. I also commend the people who organised Perth show for doing the enormous amount of work that was necessary in the middle of the show to comply with the various newly imposed restrictions.

We have heard how well things were handled, but the outbreak was a stark reminder of the consequences of foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases for the agricultural sector. Although the source of the recent outbreak seems to have been lab based, which is pretty shocking, the importance of very strict controls was highlighted. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the serious concern about the potential for contaminated imports, whether they come into the country legally from countries such as Brazil, for example, where the regulatory regime is seen to be inadequate, or whether they are illegal? Has any analysis of the extent of that problem been done in Scotland? Is the cabinet secretary pursuing that matter with the relevant authorities given this summer's stark reminder of how badly things can go wrong?

Richard Lochhead: I did my best to contact many of the Opposition spokespeople and representatives of the areas in which some of the key agricultural shows were taking place during the weekend of the outbreak. I contacted some of them in lovely overseas countries and they were clearly enjoying their holidays at the time.

Roseanna Cunningham's questions raise an important point about ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place at ports of entry throughout Great Britain and Scotland to prevent

illegal imports from entering the country, especially given the threat that that can pose.

The issue has been raised previously in committee reports, in both the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons, and it continues to be a concern. In the weeks ahead, I intend to meet the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government to reflect on the foot-and-mouth outbreak and I will seek reassurance from the UK Government on the matter at that meeting.

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con): I put on public record my thanks to the cabinet secretary for the efforts that he made to assist me in having direct contact with senior officials during the worst part of the crisis, to deal with specific points that constituents had raised with me. I also record my gratitude to the chief veterinary officer and his staff for the efforts that they made to ensure that problems were dealt with effectively and in a timely manner.

I have a specific point to make on the minister's commitment to a review of the way in which the most recent foot-and-mouth outbreak was handled. Although it seems likely that that outbreak will turn out to be an open-and-shut case, I ask the minister to take the opportunity to extend the review to ensure that it considers the experience of dealing with the 2001 outbreak, as that presents us with two possible learning opportunities.

First, it might be possible to consider some of the proposals made during the review of the 2001 outbreak that have not yet been acted on. Secondly, time has passed since that outbreak and there may be opportunities to give further consideration to proposals that were rejected in 2001, but which the cabinet secretary might think it appropriate to take up in response to any future outbreak of the disease. Will he give an undertaking that the review that is to be conducted will take into account the experience of the 2001 outbreak?

Richard Lochhead: I and my officials very much appreciated the contacts that we had with constituency members the length and breadth of Scotland who made representations on behalf of their local farmers. Those representations were fed into discussions involving me and my officials and were helpful in determining our way forward, so I thank all the members who made them during the four-week period.

I will meet Professor Scudamore shortly to discuss the precise terms of reference of the review and will take on board many of the good points that have been made this morning. Alex Johnstone makes an important point. We must bear in mind that the current contingency plan was drawn up in response to the 2001 outbreak. It

makes sense to recognise that the 2007 outbreak was different from the 2001 outbreak, to reflect on the existing contingency plan, which relates to 2001, and to examine the specific circumstances of the most recent outbreak so that we can update the contingency plan to take into account all the factors that Alex Johnstone mentioned.

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): During the Environment and Rural Development Committee's scrutiny of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill in session 2, we had detailed discussions on the contingency plan and the biosecurity measures, during which Richard Lochhead was highly critical of the approach of former ministers. In the light of the cabinet secretary's criticisms, what changes did he adopt in the Scottish Executive's response to the recent outbreak? Are there any specific issues that he intends to put on Professor Scudamore's agenda that he feels the previous Scottish Executive did not address properly?

Richard Lochhead: Many of the criticisms that were expressed after the 2001 outbreak were reflected in the new contingency plan, from which I and my officials benefited greatly. If the member is suggesting that I should pay tribute to the previous Administration for taking on board those criticisms and updating the contingency plan, I am happy to do that. The outbreak in 2001 was extremely serious and I would have been amazed if we had not learned lessons from it. We learned important lessons, the main one of which was, as I explained in my statement, the need for a rapid response and the imposition, as soon as is practical, of restrictions on the movement of animals.

At this stage, we have an open mind on the precise terms of reference of the review. As I said to Alex Johnstone, we will take into account many of the points that members have made today. If there are specific issues that members are keen for the review to include, they should write to me and I will ensure that their suggestions are passed on to Professor Scudamore. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to speak directly to members in the Parliament in the weeks and months ahead.

Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD): I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. Members must forgive my voice—it sounds as if I have picked up a form of foot and mouth. Members should not laugh because if that is the case, a 3km cull might have to be declared. I declare an interest in farming.

I acknowledge that the Government reacted swiftly to the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I am concerned about our facing such a devastating disease again so soon after the tragic 2001 outbreak, so I urge the Government to support a full investigation into how the outbreak came about. In addition, I am concerned about

imports from countries in South America and south and east Asia, where foot-and-mouth disease is rife and traceability is doubtful. There is no doubt that the recent outbreak has caused a disturbance in their usual markets.

Yesterday's statement on the legislative programme made no mention of local food procurement by public agencies. Has the Government turned back on its promise for such procurement?

The Presiding Officer: Questions are supposed to be about the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but I leave it up to the cabinet secretary whether he wishes to reply to that.

Richard Lochhead: The member's question is reasonable, given that promoting Scottish food will help farmers to obtain a better return for their top-quality produce at a difficult time.

The £100,000 that we have given to Quality Meat Scotland is aimed at promoting Scotch lamb, given the specific pressures that the lamb sector in Scotland faces. I know that that has been warmly welcomed.

I remind members that the on-going Scottish food fortnight provides us with an excellent opportunity to spread the message of encouraging Scottish consumers to get behind our farmers and food producers at this difficult time by purchasing Scottish food. It would be an enormous help if they would do so. This morning I had a bacon roll for breakfast, as I did yesterday. I am sure that other members have been doing the same.

Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP): Will the independent review address the backlog in livestock movement and the practical problems that are faced by Scotland's haulage industry, which are linked to animal health? I congratulate the minister on his prompt and highly effective action. Looking forward, what steps is he taking to ensure the full recovery and future prosperity of the red meat industry in Scotland?

Richard Lochhead: Throughout the outbreak, we were highly conscious that not just farmers, but hauliers, abattoirs and other sectors connected with the red meat industry were affected.

We will learn lessons from the past few weeks. It would be arrogant of us to say that everything was done correctly. We want to learn any lessons that can be learned. That is one of the purposes of the review that we will undertake.

As regards support for the red meat sector, I reiterate what I said to Jim Hume. We have scheduled meetings with the NFUS and other organisations for the days ahead, starting this afternoon, at which we will discuss the pressures that the red meat sector in Scotland faces. Those pressures are due to a wide range of factors,

some of which have arisen as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but many of which were already causing severe difficulties for livestock farmers in Scotland.

Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab): Does the minister agree that the approach that was taken not only in Scotland, but across Great Britain has been crucial to minimising the impact of the outbreak on Scottish farmers? Does he agree that the review that he has announced should be informed by the impending UK Government report? There have been many questions about the review's terms of reference. Once the minister has met Professor Scudamore, when does he expect to be able to report on that to the Parliament and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee?

Richard Lochhead: Richard Baker is right to say that across Great Britain the response to the outbreak was first class. Our response was part of a joint team effort involving Scotland and the UK.

As I explained in my statement, my general approach is that we want the review to inform the contingency plan for responding to foot-and-mouth disease and to reflect on the experiences of the past four weeks. In broad-brush terms, that is our approach to the review. However, the precise terms of reference will reflect many of the points that have been made this morning. We will report to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the Parliament as soon as possible.

The Presiding Officer: I call Liam McArthur, to be followed by Andrew Allan.

Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD): I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. I also thank him and his officials for making themselves accessible to me throughout the recent outbreak. I note that calls were made to various members on 3 August, although not to me; I readily confess that I was overseas at the time, but I point out that it is extremely difficult to travel round my constituency without constantly being overseas.

I echo the praise that has been expressed by members for Charles Milne and his team. I cannot guarantee that he will be given the freedom of Kirkwall any time soon, but he can be assured of a warm welcome throughout Orkney when next he visits.

There is real concern in my constituency about the price that is being achieved in the early market sales, especially for store cattle. With significant increases in the cost of barley, the situation is serious. What specific steps will ministers take with the industry to improve consumer confidence and a return to a more sustainable price for cattle? The cabinet secretary said that £100 million has been committed to the promotion of lamb for

specific reasons. Although I welcome that, what steps is he considering to support likewise our important beef industry?

Richard Lochhead: I point out that we have allocated only £100,000, not £100 million, for the promotion of lamb. Had we allocated £100 million, that may have scuppered yesterday's legislative announcements.

I thank Liam McArthur for the cup of tea that he gave me in his constituency office last week, when I was in Kirkwall. I received such a warm response in Kirkwall that I thought I was about to be given the freedom of the community, which I am sure would have worried Liam McArthur.

Yesterday, I had the great privilege of attending the Lairg sales prior to coming down to the Parliament. I spoke to many sheep farmers from the Highlands, as well as from throughout Scotland, who were there to buy lambs. The prices are down on those of previous times, which is a worry; however, thankfully, yesterday's prices at Lairg appeared not to be as bad as expected. Some of the early sale prices were very encouraging. I therefore hope that the sheep farming sector, which is crucial to the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere, will recover from some of the pressures that we are witnessing currently.

I reiterate that the First Minister and I will meet farmers' representatives this afternoon and that such meetings will continue over the next few days and weeks. We are keen to do everything in our power to help the red meat sector to get through these difficult times.

The Presiding Officer: I call Alasdair Allan and apologise for getting his name wrong the first time.

Alasdair Allan (Western Isles) (SNP): Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I associate myself and all the representatives of the islands with the remarks that have been made by Mr McArthur and others about the gratitude that is felt in the islands for the role that was played by officials in ensuring that a difficult situation was contained relatively quickly.

Despite the attempts of one or two members today to make this a constitutional issue—reflecting some Labour members' constitutional obsessions—most people understand that the process was science driven and that the response was proportionate. In particular, I am grateful for the fact that the situation of the islands was recognised in that response. Should another outbreak occur in the future, although we hope that that will not happen, what lessons have been learned specifically about the situation of the islands, particularly with regard to ensuring that people are able to get livestock to markets on the

mainland as soon as it is safe and practicable to do so?

Richard Lochhead: My colleague, Michael Russell, has visited the Western Isles in the past few weeks, and I have had the privilege of visiting the Shetland and Orkney islands as well. We have, therefore, had the opportunity to speak to many crofters and farmers on all those islands and we are well aware of the specific nature of the livestock sector on the islands.

We will have an opportunity to consider that area in the review. The islands face specific circumstances—a fact that, to a certain extent, we were able to reflect in our response over the past four weeks. The islands were the first communities to have the restrictions relaxed, because of their geographical nature and their links with the mainland trade. I feel that there is an opportunity there. We are willing to learn the lessons to ensure that the specific needs of the islands are taken into account in the future contingency plan.

The Presiding Officer: That brings us to the end of questions on the statement on foot-and-mouth disease. I will allow a brief suspension while members change their seats.

09:59

Meeting suspended.

10:00

On resuming—

Drugs Misuse

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): 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 the motion.

10:00

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing): 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 our aspirations for a safer, stronger and healthier Scotland, it is critical that, as a nation, we succeed in tackling perhaps the most pernicious social challenge of our time—the misuse of drugs.

When we came to power in May, we said that we were committed to building a new national consensus on tackling drugs misuse. In June, we gave effect to an initiative that was developed by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration and which was based on proposals that were put forward in the chamber by the Conservatives—a new online directory of drugs services, which can be accessed at www.scottishdrugservices.com. I launched the initiative in Drumchapel and, to date, there have been more than 2,300 visitors to the website.

In July, following discussions with Annabel Goldie, we announced that we would explore how the most successful features of the well-established and successful drug treatment and testing orders could be applied to those who are at an earlier stage in their drug addiction. Later that month, we published and publicised five reports that were commissioned by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, including the findings and recommendations of an expert group that had investigated the use of methadone in Scotland. We made it clear at that time that we agreed strongly with the key conclusions of the group—that methadone has a vital part to play in reducing harm, but that it cannot be the only treatment that people receive. We need, at the same time, to place a much greater emphasis on promoting recovery.

At the end of July, I chaired a meeting of the key experts and practitioners in the field—the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse—who gave me their perspectives on the key challenges that we face in Scotland.

Today, it is the turn of Parliament to express the concerns of the people and communities of Scotland on this critical issue. All members will have experienced in their constituencies the devastating effects that drugs can have on people's lives, through tragic deaths from drugs misuse, the break-up of families and the crime that funds the desperate addictions that drugs misuse can bring.

Those personal, local experiences add up to a dismal account. Only last week, we learned that the number of drug deaths in Scotland had hit a record high of 421 deaths in 2006. Earlier this week, we learned that more than 42,000 drug crimes were recorded by the police throughout Scotland—the second highest figure on record. The figures also showed a near 50 per cent increase in the illegal cultivation of drugs, to say nothing of the crimes of dishonesty that will have been driven by dependency on drugs. It is estimated that, throughout Scotland, there are around 52,000 problematic drug users, and some 10,000 to 19,000 children in Scotland live in households where at least one adult is a problematic drug user. It is a challenge that we can meet only by acting together. If ever there was a case of our needing to set aside party-political affiliations, this is surely it. Our aim today, therefore, is to build on the consensus that we believe exists and to shape it to take forward a national policy to tackle the scourge of drugs misuse.

Today, I confirm that the Scottish Government is committed to taking forward a new strategy. For the next few months, all our work will be focused on discussing, designing and delivering a new approach to tackling the damage that drugs do to our people and our nation.

It is for all members to play their part. I see around me many whom, I suppose, I could characterise as old hands—I had better not name them—but there are also many new members who I hope will take an active part and, developing that, be as active as some of the old hands in together fighting this national problem.

First, we have already learned from the reports that have been published that we do not have the full range of services throughout Scotland to reach our goal of promoting recovery. Secondly, we need treatment and care to be more strongly focused on recovery. We need better information about what treatment people are getting and what the results of that treatment are. Thirdly, we need to improve quality and accountability across the board.

As part of that strategy, we will set key national outcomes for tackling drugs misuse that are founded on promoting recovery. We will set out clearly the responsibilities and functions of

Government, local service commissioners and managers and other national and local bodies and how they should relate to one another in pursuing those outcomes. We will also ensure that funding for services is clearly aligned with those outcomes. We will develop the framework in consultation with those in the field and with SACDM. We will engage with our communities and with service users. In short, working together we will ensure that services are robust, focused and effective.

As all members know, one of the most damaging aspects of drugs misuse is its effect on families and on the children in those families. It is imperative that we tackle the complex problems that are faced by children living in substance-misusing households. That means working with local agencies to improve the identification of children at risk to address their needs more effectively. A great deal of such work is already being carried out, but much more remains to be done. We want a renewed emphasis on prevention and early intervention, so that we support young people and families to make positive choices for safe and healthy lifestyles, and holistic support for substance misusers during pregnancy.

We also want to strengthen drugs education in our schools. It is important that all who are involved in delivering drugs education to our children, including our teachers, should be confident in their ability and have suitable resources that are appropriate for each age group. We need to maximise the benefit of important and well-established initiatives such as choices for life—which, I believe, reaches out to 82 per cent of primary 7 children—by placing them within a more effective and more broadly based approach to drugs education.

There will be no let-up on enforcement. Tackling the supply of all forms of illegal drugs remains an essential part of our strategy. We will be unstinting in our support of the police in disrupting the drug-dealing networks and the organised crime groups behind them. We will foster even closer co-operation, joint working and intelligence to produce results. Only recently, Strathclyde Police seized £12.5 million-worth of heroin. Those drugs are no longer on the streets as a result of the force's excellent efforts.

On that point, I commend two Aviemore police officers—Sergeant Maggie Miller and Police Constable David McAlpine—who recently received commendations for their work, as a result of which a known drug dealer is now serving eight years in prison and a large quantity of class A drugs has been kept off our streets.

Finally, as noted above, we need to continue to improve the link between the criminal justice system and treatment for offenders. I believe that

there is a real potential for adapting the current model of DTTOs to, for example, the needs of child and female offenders. Those two groups do not fit the current criteria for such orders. Our review of community disposals will explore that possibility.

Our strategy will have five strands: first, better service delivery to promote recovery; second, early intervention to protect children; third, drugs education that works; fourth, effective enforcement; and, fifth, more appropriate court disposals.

Our action on drugs will be embedded in an approach across the various directorates of Government. Shona Robison will lead a ministerial task force on health inequalities that will provide specific actions to be taken forward. We will offer more of our young people opportunities to do something positive and constructive with their lives. We have already announced a new approach to ensuring that the funds that have been recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are invested in our communities. We will look to ensure that those funds are used to best effect in order to promote confidence and self-esteem among our young people.

In tackling the challenges that we face, we must remember that there is hope. Thousands of people throughout Scotland are working day in and day out with those who are affected by drugs misuse. During my visit during the summer to south-east alternatives—at the Adelphi centre in the Gorbals in Glasgow—I saw at first hand the difference that the workers there were making to the lives of the people whom they help. They told me how disheartening it was when drugs issues become a political football. Although we must debate and agree on the course that we need to set, we owe it to those on the front line to recall that we need to work together for the nation to build consensus on the way ahead.

Tomorrow, I will take the opportunity to thank staff at a project in Kingussie for the work that they do in assisting young people who are at risk of developing drug and alcohol problems. On Monday, Shona Robison and I will chair a meeting in Edinburgh of the alcohol and drug action teams. There is much more work to be done.

In conclusion, there is success to build on but we have much to do. I look forward to today's debate. I am sure that all members will provide a valuable contribution to the policy that we all wish to develop.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that tackling drugs misuse is one of the great social challenges of our time, requiring determined and sustained action; welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to build consensus

around a new strategy for tackling drugs misuse; welcomes the recent publication of reports, commissioned by the previous administration, on key aspects of drugs services; supports the Government's determination to improve services to promote recovery from drug addiction, to ensure that children are protected from the drug addictions of their parents, to improve drugs education, to offer young people more opportunities to do something positive and constructive with their lives, to strengthen enforcement and to provide courts with more effective ways of dealing with those whose crimes are driven by addiction, and recognises that there will be resource implications in meeting this challenge.

10:12

Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (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 issue, so I am delighted that this will be the first debate since the summer recess in which I have the opportunity to speak.

In 2006, we had a record 421 drug-related deaths. We now have 21,000 people who use prescribed methadone. Some 70 per cent of all court cases are believed to have a drug-related aspect and the cost of drug-related crime is around £330 million a year. Those are not just statistics; they represent broken lives, destroyed families and devastated communities. There are no easy answers. We require a mixed approach, greater investment and joint efforts among not only health, education, justice and social work professionals but politicians.

The Executive's motion is fair enough and contains nothing with which we particularly disagree. I certainly do not disagree with anything that Fergus Ewing said in his opening speech and I note his remarks about recovery and monitoring of outcomes. However, we feel that the motion does not go far enough. Our amendment makes some specific suggestions, which I hope will be taken up by the minister and will attract cross-party support.

Each £1 that is invested in drug treatment saves £3 in the cost of enforcement. We are calling for a doubling of funding for drug and alcohol treatment that would amount to more than £100 million of extra resources over the next spending review period. I know that the Conservatives and others were keen to see such a commitment, which was included in their manifestos, so I hope that we can all move forward together on that.

We want to see an expansion in the number of residential places because they are more effective than methadone treatment. Fewer than 4 per cent of addicts who have stabilised on methadone manage to become drug free within three years—that should be our ultimate aim—whereas 30 per cent of addicts become drug free after being

treated in residential rehabilitation. However, despite increased investment over the past few years, few addicts have access to such an option. Only one addict in 50 is offered a residential place.

It is also important that community after-care services are in place to assist addicts after they have returned home. From my experience of work that has been done in my constituency, a key issue is that many people feel that, although they benefited when they were in rehab, the difficulties really hit them when they returned to the community where they again faced the same pressures.

There is a great deal of discussion about heroin and methadone policy. The Liberal Democrats and, I suppose, most of us in the chamber, want to take a pragmatic approach that is based on what works. Although methadone has a role in tackling drugs misuse in Scotland, it should form part of a package of services.

The prescribing of heroin cannot be undertaken lightly. Pilots are under way in England and Holland, where it has been found that patients who were prescribed heroin and methadone together have experienced a 25 per cent increase in improvements in their physical and mental health in comparison with those on methadone alone. Complex issues are involved in such treatment and we should develop our approach together. I will be interested to hear the cabinet secretary's views on that.

The drugs scene is a constant and evolving challenge for service providers. For example, we could be about to experience much greater use of crystal meth, a relatively new drug to Scotland that is three times as addictive as cocaine, and the cannabis that people now use is much stronger than before. It is perfectly reasonable for the United Kingdom Government to keep the reclassification of drugs under review because the picture is changing.

We must continue to invest in services to help the thousands of children in Scotland who are living with drug-using parents. The previous Executive invested in important schemes that gave funds to the voluntary sector organisations that work with children and young people who are affected by substance misuse. As our amendment states, we believe that early intervention work with kids at risk of the misuse of drugs—whether they are in care or have parents who are users—should be a key priority. Drugs misuse is a significant factor in criminal behaviour. Tackling the supply and use of drugs—particularly class A drugs—through law enforcement activity must remain a priority.

Members of the Justice Committee recently heard about the work of the Scottish Crime and

Drug Enforcement Agency, which should be applauded for and supported in its work, in relation to not only the amount of drugs and assets seized and assets redistributed but the important job that it does in harrying and disrupting the businesses and lives of the gangsters—the hoods—who feed off that despicable trade.

The previous Administration introduced a range of different disposals, and I look forward to our considering them in the review of community sentences. Studies indicate that drug treatment and testing orders have a significant impact on reoffending rates, with almost half of those who completed an order having no further convictions within two years of the start of the order. That is why we would like the ability to issue DTTOs to be extended to Scotland's district courts and used more frequently to address the abuse of alcohol, which we all agree is another significant factor. I was pleased to hear Fergus Ewing's comments about extending the use of DTTOs and I hope that the Government will take on board our suggestion for their further use.

The previous Administration put in place drugs court pilots in Glasgow and Fife, with dedicated drugs court sheriffs and the use of multi-agency pre-review hearings. I hope that the cabinet secretary can tell us when those pilots will be reviewed and whether he shares my view that we should look seriously at developing the specialisation of sheriffs and courts, in either a drugs or family context. We suggest that the use of drugs courts could be rolled out throughout the country.

We want to see greater use of arrest referral schemes. Pilot schemes that have been in place since 2003 have successfully allowed drugs workers to offer offending addicts access to treatment when they are arrested, which seems to be an ideal time to get hold of them and offer them different options.

I pay tribute to the very important and challenging work of all the agencies throughout Scotland. The Liberal Democrats will support the Scottish Government in taking on the challenge of tackling drugs misuse and I look forward to working with people from all parts of the chamber on such a crucial issue.

I move amendment S3M-415.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:

"believes that increased opportunities, improved facilities, more drug-free activities and better drug education are necessary to give young people a positive alternative to drugs; calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a strategy for early intervention with vulnerable young people, particularly those in care or living with a parent who has a drug problem; calls for the establishment of a national register of drug and alcohol services including residential placements; believes that additional resources are required to increase drug and alcohol treatment places, cut waiting

times and create more family support services; calls on the Scottish Government to commit to at least double the funding for drug and alcohol treatment in the first year of the next spending review; further notes the direct link between drug and alcohol use and crime and supports the greater use of arrest referral schemes across Scotland; further believes that Drug Testing and Treatment Orders (DTTOs) introduced by the previous administration can make a real difference in cutting crime and reoffending, and calls for DTTOs to be extended to Scotland's district courts and used more frequently to address alcohol abuse among offenders."

The Presiding Officer: I thank Miss Smith for her courtesy in informing me that she is unable to stay for the entire debate.

10:19

Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (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 raise; I intend to raise many with the new Scottish National Party Executive—or, rather, Government.

Given the scale of the problem that we face, it is appropriate at this stage in the parliamentary session to indicate that we are prepared to engage with, reflect on and assess possible ways forward and that we look to work constructively with the Government, as we have been asked to do. Indeed, the tone of the motion indicates a recognition of the previous Executive's work. As Fergus Ewing said, the challenge of dealing with drugs in modern society is one of the most profound that we face, and it defies crude analysis and standard approaches. Given the scale of what we face, none of us is in a position to dismiss easily others' arguments.

I am glad that Fergus Ewing said that we cannot underestimate or undermine current practice and the serious work that is taking place in Scotland in services, the voluntary sector and communities.

I suppose I am one of the old hands that the minister referred to. As a committee convener in the first parliamentary session, I chaired one of the first parliamentary inquiries into the links between drugs and poverty. As we listened to the evidence that was given during what was a significant parliamentary inquiry, we heard drugs rightly described as one of the truly wicked issues that we face and an ever-changing problem: when we take action on one front, another problem emerges elsewhere, such as a new drug coming on to the market.

Recent statistics on drug deaths not only signal the scale of the problem, but draw our attention to the human cost of those desperate individuals and the appalling impact on their families and communities. None of us can avoid facing the full implications of that cost. We are now dealing with

the social consequences of people using drugs over many years. We know from evidence that has emerged since that first inquiry of the strong correlation between deprivation and drugs misuse. Even in a city such as Glasgow, which carries a disproportionate share of the burden of drugs misuse in Scotland, the experience of drugs is highly differentiated.

Few of us in Scotland are immune to the impact of drugs, but some people have to live with it daily—every time they open their front door, it stares them in the face as their next-door neighbour sells drugs to children. Can we imagine what it is like to try to raise a family in such a situation? I ask members to imagine what that would be like for them or their children—or any child—and to think how they would and should respond.

The challenge to public policy makers is to target resources, direct services and co-ordinate our intervention to address that reality. As has been said, dealing with drugs requires a spectrum of approaches from prevention to care, support and of course, enforcement.

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (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 case. I am sure that that is not the impression that she wishes to give. Perhaps she will acknowledge that although there is a higher preponderance of drugs misuse in our deprived areas, it occurs throughout society.

Margaret Curran: 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 evidence suggests that Glasgow bears a disproportionate share of the burden. Given that Kenny MacAskill is nodding, I am sure that he recognises that. I am not implying for a second that the problem is an urban phenomenon only. As I said clearly, few people in Scotland escape the impact of drugs. As I am a Glasgow MSP, Brian Adam will appreciate that my knowledge of drugs is informed by my knowledge of that area. We cannot run away from the strong correlation between poverty and drugs—I assume that he agrees.

We have made some progress. The minister referred to education programmes, and although there is evidence to suggest that they have an impact on young people, a table in the statistics shows that such programmes are less effective among more deprived young people. Ministers want to do more work in education, but I hope that they recognise that teachers in the more deprived communities face a more difficult task and should be given support.

Most people recognise the need to develop treatment and care services with an emphasis on what works. As the minister said, we need to develop more holistic approaches. We cannot just provide rehabilitation services and then send people back to circumstances in their communities where drug taking is all too easy. We need to develop a social model as well as a medical model. We also need to link into education and employability programmes that provide proper opportunities, routes out of drug use as well as care.

That is the context for this deadly serious debate. In Glasgow alone, it is estimated that as many as 7,600 children are affected in some way by the serious problem drug use of their parents.

Methadone has been used—at times effectively—to stabilise addicts and enable families to stay together. However, as I am sure that Duncan McNeil will point out, we cannot afford to fool ourselves that that approach is enough. Indeed, the statistics tell us as much. Methadone was never meant to be an end in itself, and we must come to terms with its limitations and think beyond traditional approaches.

In that respect, I have a few questions that I hope Kenny MacAskill will answer in his summing up. The SNP stated in its manifesto that it would set up a drugs commission, which I presume would address these issues. Is it still committed to establishing such a body? Has it commissioned civil servants to carry out exploratory work on the matter? Is it able to give us an indication of timescales?

In what I suspect will be my concluding 30 seconds, I want to raise with Kenny MacAskill a couple of points on the vital issue of enforcement with regard to drug dealing. We need to be very cautious with those who dismiss our approach to antisocial behaviour. As drug dealers actively encourage and engage those who are involved in street violence, if we deal with antisocial behaviour, particularly among the under-16s, we will cut off their options. It might well be seen as tough love, but we need to divert and stop young people before they are caught up in a cycle of despair, addiction and criminality.

I also wonder whether, in his summing up, Kenny MacAskill will respond to two very quick questions. First, is the SNP still committed to delivering a 20 per cent increase in funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation services? Secondly, will it give us some indication about its commitment to £10 million of dedicated funding for drugs education, and to ring fencing moneys in that respect? After all, in dealing with the challenge of drugs, it is vital that we keep all options open. In that regard, I must point out that, if the SNP Administration goes through with its

plan of limiting the ability of sheriffs and judges to send to prison those whom they think should be sent there by getting rid of sentences of less than six months in some sweeping gesture, it will find that it will not be able to tackle this problem. If it wants tough sentencing for drugs offences, it simply cannot get rid of such sentences. As I have said, we must keep all options open.

10:27

Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (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 at such an early stage in the new session.

Mr Ewing said that drugs misuse is "the most pernicious social challenge of our time", and I endorse every word of that. I also feel comforted. Scotland has entered a new political age, and there can be no dispute about the new political mix and attitude in the Parliament. I genuinely detect a change in political will with regard to drug abuse. At this point, I put on record my respect for and acknowledgement of the First Minister's role in that change of direction. The launch of the directory to which Mr Ewing referred is indicative of such progress, and I am encouraged by the willingness to consider the possibility of extending the ability to issue DTTOs to district courts, which is something that my party advocated in its manifesto. I accept, however, that that will have resource implications.

It is vital that we put past failures behind us. We have spent far too much time ignoring direct evidence not only from the wide range of people who work with addiction but from addicts themselves, and we have been far too reluctant to challenge methods of and approaches to dealing with drug abuse that were conceived 15 or 20 years ago. Things must change—and quickly. However, I am confident that if members of the Parliament work together in the way that Mr Ewing has called for we can achieve real and lasting change.

We need to move into a new era in which none of us is scared to face up to the real challenge of eradicating drugs from our society. None of us is scared to face up to the reality of what is going on. As other speakers have pointed out, the situation in Scotland is singularly depressing. Indeed, Margaret Smith referred to the fact that the number of drug-related deaths has recently soared to 421.

However, as depressing as the picture is, I pay tribute to the outstanding professionalism and commitment shown by individuals throughout Scotland who fight drug abuse every day. We

should be very proud of their efforts at grass-roots level, and we must ensure that approaches and practices that demonstrably work are encouraged by recognition, support and resource.

As I have indicated, the Conservatives support the expansion of the use of DTTOs in our courts. After all, it is believed that 70 per cent of court cases have a drug-related aspect. That said, we must get things into a logical, sensible order. Although increasing and expanding referral and intervention facilities is an attractive option, unless we can get the basic rehabilitation sector ready to deal with individuals we will simply be putting the cart before the horse.

An important part of what we are trying to do involves our prisons, where I believe we need a comprehensive system of drug treatment and testing. After all, if we do not know the extent of the problem, how on earth can we address it? If we can find the political will to tackle the problem in our prisons, the benefits to society will be great.

Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): The mandatory testing system that the Conservatives introduced at great expense into the prison service a considerable time ago has been counterproductive. Instead, we must engage those in prison by offering them drug testing and rewards for testing drug-free and by improving drug-free zones in prisons. Simply imposing further testing will be expensive, and there is no evidence that it will work. Perhaps the Conservatives should stick to their mantra of "Let us do only what works".

Annabel Goldie: 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 prisons that even our prison officers are at their wits' end to know what to do. At the moment, there is no information base on which to assess the best way of dealing with drug-addicted prisoners.

That said, I accept the latter part of Dr Simpson's proposition. It is, of course, not just a question of finding out who is addicted; the prison must have the support facilities to begin to deal with the problem.

If we can start to tackle what is by any assessment an appalling problem in our prisons, we cannot lose. We will have lower levels of reoffending, less crime and a safer prison environment, which will be good for addicts, families and society as a whole. Moreover, we urgently need a proactive rehabilitation programme—not just within our prisons, I should add—that allows agencies to work with addicts in prison to prepare them for release into the community.

I will not rehearse the statistics that other speakers have quoted, but they say it all about the scale of the problem that we face. We should all acknowledge that they are not simply sterile facts on bits of paper; they are depressing, disturbing and horrifying, and should stop us in our tracks.

We need a clearer strategy that rehabilitates those who have been caught up in a life of drugs and helps them on the way to abstinence while adopting a zero-tolerance attitude to drugs and, especially, to drug dealers. As politicians, we must ensure that such a strategy is in place and that we manage to provide a coherent and robust rehabilitation programme.

On harm reduction, I have in the past said publicly that methadone has a role to play, but only as one of a range of options. The Conservatives want an end to the overreliance on methadone as a dominant response to addiction.

I endorse and applaud the minister's approach. We can make progress with this matter, but only if we refrain from managing the problem. We must now be prepared to tackle it, and I pledge my party's unstinting support in charting that new direction. We will do everything that we can to help mend our broken society and, in that regard, I support Mr MacAskill's motion.

10:33

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (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 fully agree with Margaret Curran's response to Brian Adam's intervention that there is a high incidence of drug abuse in the pockets of deprivation in Glasgow, I should point out that, according to last year's drugs misuse statistics for Scotland, the trend with regard to new referrals is also increasing in rural areas. In 2001-02, 118 referrals were made in the Borders, whereas, last year, there were 219. I believe that the figures are worst of all in Tayside, where, in 2001-02, 346 referrals were made while, in 2005-06, there were 902. Perhaps that trend suggests that dealers are simply moving out to fresh fields.

I welcome the tone of the debate and the view that it is the duty of the Parliament, including both ministers and committees, to try to deal with this major issue, which is a tough one. If it were not, somebody would have solved it somewhere and we could just pick up a map and follow the solution.

Another unfortunate statistic, to which someone may have referred earlier, is that, according to Professor McKeganey, there are currently 50,000 heroin addicts in Scotland and 22,000 on

methadone. All their families and communities are also affected by this dreadful plague.

After eight years of this young Parliament, we have increased drug addiction, increased alcohol abuse and an increased prison population, which relates both to acquisitive crimes and to crimes of violence—the former are more often related to drugs and the latter are more often related to alcohol. Unfortunately, there is also the ever-increasing spiral of teenage drinking. This morning's Herald has the headline "Teenage drinking spirals into drug abuse and crime".

Many years ago, when I was on the Justice 1 Committee, we visited Barlinnie prison. A medical officer there made it plain that, in his view, the gateway into drug addiction is alcohol. Sadly, that point is now reflected in the report in The Herald.

This is obvious stuff and there are short-term and long-term solutions. On the former, I welcome the attitude to the failure of custodial sentences because, as we know, short-term sentences do not give prison officers an opportunity to get into the rehabilitation of prisoners. There is no joined-up progression from rehabilitation in prison to life outside it. The drug dealers used to wait at the prison gates and sometimes threw the drugs over the prison walls to the prisoners. There was a cycle of drug abuse that just brought people back into prison.

The public quite rightly expect people who steal and who are violent to be punished, and they expect to be protected from such people, but there must also be a role for rehabilitation. The protection and the punishment are only short term if someone offends again after a short-term sentence and then receives a further short-term sentence. That view is sometimes a hard one to sell; it appears that we are being soft on certain people, when in fact we are trying to be hard in a way that helps the individual and society.

I commend the work of the drugs courts, which I have seen in operation. However, their work is very intensive and involves a lot of sheriff manpower. For a drug and/or alcohol abuser, it is often one step forward, two steps back. The drugs courts service must therefore have a high level of commitment, but that is dependent on available funding and manpower.

The issue of education on drug abuse is difficult. What we do does not work. Advertising campaigns about drug addiction tend to be just short term; at the time, they look as if they will work and they might indeed have some impact. Some public health advertising campaigns in other areas have worked. For example, campaigns about violence against women have had an impact. However, the message on drug addiction is obviously not getting

through to our young people, who think that they are immortal.

Dr Simpson: 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 attitudes to drugs among secondary school children, has shown that, since 2001, the level of use of drugs by young people has stabilised and has begun to drop. I agree with Christine Grahame that we need to do more, but to say that drugs use continues to increase is to mislead.

Christine Grahame: 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 reflects what we see on our streets. When we talk about drug addiction, we must also look back to see where that comes from for our young people. Obviously, it often starts with excessive alcohol consumption.

Professor McKeganey states that there only 300 places for residential treatment. National health service boards refer people with drugs and alcohol problems to residential places in Castle Craig hospital in the Borders for treatment and rehabilitation. There were 149 such referrals in 1997, but it is predicted that there will be only 33 this year. Either NHS boards do not have sufficient money, or they are not using their money for residential treatment.

I welcome the new structure of the cabinet, which is much more integrated than it was previously. I hope that that structure will be reflected in how the parliamentary committees work. When the Health and Sport Committee was considering whether to do work on drug addiction and so on, members kept saying, "Well, that's a justice issue," "That's an education issue," or "That's a housing issue." It would be useful if committees could work together on a parallel investigation on drug addiction and do so in tandem with the Government.

I commend the Social Justice Committee's report of December 2000, to which Margaret Curran referred. Everything that it said is worth while. I do not know whether that was one of the reports to which the minister referred. If it was not, he should read it.

10:40

Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (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—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.

10:46

Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (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 best on that front. He mentioned the problems of crime and the break-up of families and used the phrase "joint working and intelligence". I shall support Margaret Smith's amendment, with its call for increased expenditure. She talked about joint working and mentioned, among others services, the NHS and social work. Margaret Curran referred rightly to the work of the voluntary sector. Christine Grahame properly made the point that the gateway to drug abuse is often alcohol and she rightly drew attention to the rural perspective.

On 20 December last year, I had a meeting with Steve March and Jack Law of Alcohol Focus Scotland, who pointed out to me that all parts of the Highlands except Caithness have councils on alcohol. There was a Caithness council on alcohol until fairly recently but, for reasons that I will not go into, it went out of existence. I was told that, although Alcohol Focus Scotland spends a great deal of money throughout Scotland, it was not impacting on what Christine Grahame referred to as one of the gateways to drug abuse. Let us remember that the councils on alcohol, despite their title, have responsibility for drug abuse, too. Previously, NHS Highland and Highland Council gave £7,500 towards the service, but it is no more. That meeting was on 20 December last year. By a fortunate coincidence, there was a debate that same evening in Maureen Macmillan's name about drug abuse in the Highlands, during which I raised the matter and asked ministers to give it attention and consider why Caithness did not enjoy the service.

I move forward to today, a number of months on. I am indebted to Jon Webster, a community mental health nurse and the chair of the Caithness

drug and alcohol forum, who has pointed out that we are still in the same situation today, several months on. We have now had 18 months without the service. Evidence has been gathered locally in Caithness to support the need for an effective counselling service and separate proposals have been made by Birchwood Highland and Alcohol Focus Scotland, two organisations with which Fergus Ewing will be familiar. The proposals have been put to NHS Highland and Highland Council, but as yet no move has been made to address the issue, although measures may be in train and officials could be dealing with the matter. My only reason for speaking in the debate is to say that a rural part of the world is not enjoying the level of service that it could, which is relevant if we accept Christine Grahame's argument about alcohol being the gateway to drug abuse. I wonder what problems are being built up for the future. When the service was working, it helped approximately 200 people per annum, but that is now not happening.

The point of my speech, which will be briefer than the six minutes that I have been given, is unashamedly local and related to my constituency. The problem of drugs is not the preserve of the deprived or the rich or of rural areas or cities—it is everywhere. However, right now, one part of Scotland is not enjoying the service that it should have. On a personal level, I say to the minister that I would be extremely grateful if he and his colleagues could at least take a look at the problem and, if it is as bad as it appears, help us to put it right.

10:50

Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (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 build a consensual approach to tackling the issue. The problem of drugs abuse is shocking. On 24 July, the Daily Record had a report in which it quoted Professor Neil McKeganey and stated that 50,000 people in Scotland are on heroin, 22,000 are on methadone and we have only 300 places for residential treatment. Christine Grahame mentioned some of those figures earlier and the minister highlighted other statistics. The problem is vast. It is obvious that every stakeholder should get involved in the fight against drugs misuse.

To follow the consensual approach, I point out that I am not averse to some policies in the other parties' manifestos for the recent election. The Labour Party suggested providing a wider range of drug treatments that are tailored to the individual, making it easier to seize assets using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and reinvesting drug

dealers' money in the communities that are hardest hit by drugs. Labour also said that it would not shy away from taking children away from drug-misusing parents for their safety and well-being and that it wanted to take into account the wider family in rehabilitation programmes. Some of those proposals are laudable. I am also keen on the Conservative policy of putting £100 million into tackling drugs.

Obviously, I stood on an SNP platform, with SNP policies such as developing a national drugs commission; increasing by 20 per cent the funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes; increasing access to abstinence programmes; dedicating £10 million to drugs education in schools; and increasing support services for the families of drug addicts and the families of those who misuse alcohol. I hope that some of those policies are included in our national strategy. I am happy to have a broader, non-partisan approach to continuing the struggle and, judging from what has been said so far in the debate, I think that that is true of other members.

In the run-up to the election, I visited the Haven rehabilitation centre in Kilmacolm, which opened my eyes. I was humbled by the success stories that I was told. Of the people who go to the Haven, 65 per cent come out rehabilitated and drug free. That success rate means that the blight on our communities from drug abuse is reduced and people go back into society to play an active and positive part in our communities. I was told one story that I am sure has been replicated throughout the country. The Haven has a graduation ceremony for those who go back into the community. When one individual who is now clean and back in the community attended the ceremony, his family, including his child, were there, which was the first time that he had seen his child in about eight years. When drug addicts become clean and get their lives and families back together, that is a major achievement for them and for our society and communities.

Dr Simpson: Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan: 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 the devastating effect that drugs have had in Inverclyde. I may not always agree with Duncan's comments on drugs, but I know that he wants Inverclyde to be a better place and that he wants a successful outcome in combating the problems and challenges of drug abuse. Combating drug abuse will help Scottish society immeasurably. It will help those drug addicts who want to be clean and want to get their lives back in order and it will help our communities

to live in a stronger Scotland, where criminal activity perpetrated by drug addicts is reduced and where our citizens can live in a safer society.

10:55

Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (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 to discuss. Who could argue with the view that we should reach a political consensus on how to deal with the issue? However, our views on how to deal with it sometimes differ.

The current methadone programme is a key part of the harm-reduction approach to drug abuse. It was supposed to stop addicts dying, but drug-related deaths have continued to rise—up by 25 per cent last year. It was supposed to get addicts off drugs by providing a legal substitute, but 70 per cent of those on methadone are still getting their illegal hits anyway. It was supposed to cut drug-related crime, but 80 per cent of addicts on methadone are still committing crimes, and our prisons are full of inmates with drug addictions.

We have to grasp this issue. Members may not all agree, but I feel that by making drug use affordable and acceptable, current policies are conspiring to keep addicts in what—over generations in some cases—has become a way of life. The sad fact behind recent reported deaths is that some of those people were not our children but our grandparents. The harm-reduction approach has increased the risk for our children and our communities. Therefore, calls for "more support" or "more of the same" will not help. We have heard such calls from members this morning.

Is the answer not to challenge the lack of ambition that saw stabilisation as the only realistic policy goal? We have to move towards cessation schemes. We have to challenge drug-taking behaviour and have a clear ambition—as Stuart McMillan said earlier—to get as many people as we can back to their families, back to work and back into the community.

We have to acknowledge that some people who take drugs have multiple problems. However, whether we accept it or not, there are also people who like drugs and choose to take them. That behaviour has to be challenged. Those people are not the only innocent victims; the child, the neighbour and the parent of the addict are the victims as well.

If the Executive is intent on setting up another consultation, that is a worthy intention. If we can reach a consensus on how to challenge the present situation, that will be great. However, I give members a reminder—as if it were needed—

about how the children of drug-abusing parents find their way on to the priority lists. The reminder is from the recently published letters of assurance that the Executive sought from local authorities. Those letters reveal that any number of children in Scotland may be living—unidentified and unprotected—in the squalor of parental drug addiction.

Among the correspondence is a submission in which Strathclyde Police chief constable Sir Willie Rae and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde chief executive Tom Divers concede that

"At this present time, we could not provide general assurance that all children affected by substance misuse have been identified."

Those men are very senior figures delivering services in our communities.

However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Executive's own summary acknowledges that

"the vast majority of ... areas experience difficulty in consistently identifying those children affected by drug misuse."

That was reported by child protection committees.

In Inverclyde, the past council leader Alan Blair acknowledged that children were living in such circumstances. He admitted that their safety could not be guaranteed. In North Lanarkshire, a report signed off by council, health and police chiefs states:

"We cannot provide a definitive guarantee that all children who ... have parents who are misusing substances have been identified."

Senior figures in South Lanarkshire assert that the reason why

"it is never possible to be entirely confident in relation to the identification of all children ... affected by parental drug use"

is that drug users are hidden from services. However, precisely where those self-sufficient drug addicts—who have never accessed housing benefit, child benefit, council tax benefit, a general practitioner, a social worker, the housing department or any other public service—are to be found is, alas, not divulged.

I could go on, but time is limited and I am sure that members get the picture. Children are being failed by a system that does not even see them as a statistic. Local authorities have been given a clear duty by the Executive to ensure that addicts' children get the services they need before they are at risk of harm. However, as has now been revealed by the letters of assurance, local authorities are nothing like able to meet that obligation.

The inability to identify, far less protect, a significant number of children and young people is

not only creating much needless suffering but risking another child's preventable death. I therefore renew my call to the minister—whether it be Shona Robison, Fergus Ewing, Kenny MacAskill, Adam Ingram, or whoever can be put in post specifically to deal with this issue—to act now. There are no excuses and there can be no delay. Those children need our help now.

11:01

John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (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 police encounter every day and to discuss their concerns about how we can improve general policing and safety records in the Borders. It is clear—as it is throughout the United Kingdom—that drug abuse and crimes connected to drug use take up a lot of police time.

It is often assumed that drug abuse is a problem of the big cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, as Christine Grahame stated earlier, it is as much a blight on the streets of the towns and villages across the Borders as it is elsewhere. Indeed, in some league tables on drug crime, the Scottish Borders area comes ahead of West Lothian and Falkirk and is on a par with Edinburgh.

The drug dependency figures for young people in the Scottish Borders show a worrying trend. In a recent survey, a staggering 20 per cent of 15-year-olds had used drugs, which is higher than the average for Scotland. What is more, the number of drug-related deaths of people in their early 20s is disproportionately higher in the Scottish Borders. Drug use is clearly becoming a problem at an earlier age in the Scottish Borders, and there is no clear evidence as to why.

The decision of the previous Scottish Government to replace the just say no campaign with the much weaker know the score programme was perhaps not the wisest decision. We need to make children much more aware of the dangers of drugs from an earlier age.

I note the SNP's election pledge to ensure £10 million investment in classroom-based drug education. I hope that the new Administration can fulfil that election promise.

We must consider the provision of services to tackle drugs misuse from a rural perspective. The health service has been increasingly centralised in the big towns and cities. In rural areas a home visit can sometimes take up most of the day. For safety reasons, such visits often have to be carried out by more than one person. Such issues have to be given greater consideration. An extra £15,000 of funding might go a long way in Glasgow or

Dundee, but it will not even pay the cost of an extra member of staff in somewhere like the Borders. The downgrading of the Borders local treatment centres has had an adverse consequence. It is only right that the Government should reflect on that in future funding plans.

Social responsibility and social entrepreneurs have an important role to play in dealing with social problems. It is therefore important not to forget the role that the voluntary and charitable sectors, as well as social entrepreneurs, can play in tackling problems. I would like that to be recognised more, and those sectors to be included in public policy reviews to a much greater extent. Government does not always know best and it does not always have the right answers—sometimes it is better for it to stand aside and let others take over. I am waiting eagerly to see how the new Administration will approach that aspect of the drugs challenge.

I am proud of the work that my Conservative party colleagues have done in pursuing drug abuse. Annabel Goldie has highlighted the issue consistently, often when it was not fashionable to do so. The damage that drug abuse does to our communities is immeasurable. Annabel Goldie and the Scottish Conservatives should be congratulated on the work that they did in the previous session to push the issue to the top of the agenda. My Conservative colleagues and I intend in this session to ensure that that work continues.

I am pleased that so far the new Administration has been prepared to co-operate on the matter. I am sure that there are many areas on which we will disagree, but there is great potential for us to work together on drug abuse to bring about positive change.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): I can give Bill Wilson just under six minutes.

11:06

Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (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 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. Wh