Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Lea of Crondall (Labour). It was answered on Monday, 29 January 2007.

Afghanistan: Opium

Question: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in discussions on this, there is a lot of support for the view that income replacement, as the right reverend Prelate said, is very important? But why cannot we buy some of the poppies instead of destroying them? Hearts and mind will go in the direction of the Taliban unless we can sustain the income of people. I think there is support in our own military for this strategy, too. Even though the Treasury might look askance at an open cheque book, ways and means can be found to ensure income replacement and the confidence of the people currently growing the poppies.

Answer: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have asked this question, and I specifically asked for some detailed briefing on it. There are currently no central Government and law enforcement mechanisms in place in Afghanistan to set up and administer a system of licit cultivation, so traffickers would be free to continue to exploit the illicit market. There is also an issue of pricing, because there is no evidence to show that Afghan opium would be economically competitive in a global marketplace. For example, Australia, France, India, Spain and Turkey currently dominate the export market for licit opiates. I will give noble Lords a sense of the cost. In countries such as India and Turkey, licit production requires market support. In Australia, for example, the production costs for the equivalent of 1 kilogramme of morphine in 1999 was $56. In Afghanistan, it would be $450.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 689 c10
Session: 2006-07
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Related items: Afghanistan: Opium
Thursday, 8 February 2007
Written questions
House of Lords
Subjects: Crops Development aid Drugs Afghanistan Opium
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk