Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by Paul Flynn (Labour). It was answered on Monday, 27 February 2006 on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

Afghanistan

Question: Rather than destroying almost the only livelihood of farmers in the Helmand province of Afghanistan and possibly driving them into the arms of the Taliban, would it not be better to try to license their production to be used not for heroin production but for producing diamorphine? As we know, there is a world shortage of diamorphine, and anyone dying in a third world country has only a 6 per cent. chance of getting diamorphine, because 70 per cent. of the world supply is taken by seven rich countries. Would it not be a more stable solution to divert production to diamorphine production?

Answer: No, I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. More importantly, neither do our analysts on the ground or, even more importantly, the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan. I understand his suggestion, but we do not believe either that it would be of general benefit to Afghanistan or, indeed, that we could make such a distinction in the conditions that exist there. We therefore throw our whole weight behind the commitment of the Afghan Government, President Karzai and his colleagues in getting rid of that which corrupts the whole of the country's commerce and much of its politics—the production of opium that eventually ends up as the heroin that is pumped as poison into the veins of so many young people in this country.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 443 c3
Session: 2005-06
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Peacekeeping operations Afghanistan Opium Armed forces Deployment International cooperation Terrorism NATO ISAF
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk