DRUGS - A TWO-WAY DEAL

Duncan McNeil, the senior Labour MSP, told The Herald in May he had
floated the controversial idea of putting contraception in methadone
to shape policy on confronting the problem of drug addicts having
children. He has succeeded. The Labour Party in Scotland confirmed
yesterday that a paper from Mr McNeil setting out proposals to deal
with this matter will form part of the process culminating in
Labour's manifesto to put before voters ahead of next year's Scottish
Parliament elections.

It is a measure of how far the debate has come in a short period of
time that Mr McNeil has gone from being vilified as a Nazi eugenicist
to being appreciated as a compassionate, thoughtful man who might
perhaps have the answer to a worsening situation that condemns
generation after generation to a cycle of life - invariably short and
miserable - locked in by drugs. Its impact blights not just victims
but Scottish communities, as Mr McNeil, who represents Greenock and
Inverclyde, knows all too well. In his constituency there has been a
30% increase in less than 10 years in the number of babies born
addicted to heroin. As we know from several high-profile cases, being
denied a decent life chance is not the only consequence of being born
into a drug-addicted home. A lack of care, or a surfeit of cruelty,
can result in the loss of an innocent young life.

To break these aspects of the cycle, Mr McNeil's paper envisages
addicts entering into a social contract with the state. In return for
receiving services such as free methadone (the heroin substitute),
housing and benefits, addicts would agree to regular drug testing, to
participation in programmes to wean them off drugs, and to putting
off having children until they were "clean". Failure to meet their
side of the bargain could result in services and benefits being
withdrawn. In addition, children taken into care for their protection
could automatically be removed from their parents.

The familiar oxymoron "tough love" has been deployed to describe the
proposals. Mr McNeil views them as setting out the responsibilities
addicts should live up to as their side of the bargain with the
state. He is right to say this has been a one-sided contract for too
long. Can it be made a feasible two-way deal that is effective but
sensitive to individual circumstances? Withdrawing treatment from
addicts who fail to sign up to an agreement not to have children
remains sensitive and contentious. The Scottish Drugs Forum has
described the proposals as hardline, punitive and dehumanising.

Mr McNeil's model is still probably a step too far for Labour to
take. But it is not so far removed from existing policy. Jack
McConnell, the First Minister, has challenged the assumption that
children of drug users should remain with their parents. The Hidden
Harm blueprint to help children affected by parental drug abuse says
contraceptive services should be part of the package of treatments
for addicts. So presumption is heading in Mr McNeil's direction. He
has raised awareness of a situation that cannot be allowed to
continue, and should be commended for challenging policy-makers to
frame measures to prevent future generations falling into the same
trap as drug-addicted parents. It will not be easy, but our
legislators must rise to the challenge.