 The next item of business is a debate on tackling drug deaths and drug harm. I invite members to participate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Gillian Martin on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for around six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon's debate, and I want to give my apologies because I may not be in the chamber for the closing speeches as I have already let the Presiding Officer know. When my committee took evidence from the Minister for Drugs policy last year, it became apparent that a number of key policy leavers in this area lie with the UK Government. In this part of our joint scrutiny work, we heard evidence that the 1971 drug misuse act was outdated and fails to reflect the public health-led approach that we want to pursue in Scotland. Indeed, a routine branch review of the 1971 act was a key recommendation from the Scottish Drugs Death Task Force. It is therefore extremely disappointing in the face of evidence and recommendations from experts in this field that the UK Government has no plans to review the 1971 act. Given the mix of devolved and reserved powers, I was pleased that we were able to take evidence from the UK Minister for Crime and Policing Kit Malthaus, and I hope that he could give us confidence that those UK Government leavers could be used to work with us in Scotland in the aims of reducing drug harm, the aims that everyone across this Parliament wants. However, the session with the minister highlighted a fundamental difference in approach between the UK and Scottish Governments. For example, the UK Government is clearly anxious that creating safe consumption facilities, even on a trial basis, might be seen to condone drug use. However, that must understand the underlying reasons that drive people to take drugs in the first place. Overwhelming evidence underlines a very strong link between poverty, deprivation and trauma, and a heightened risk of drug addiction. The statistics bear this out in 2020. People in the most deprived areas of Scotland were 18 times more likely to suffer a drug-related death than those in the least deprived. People will not stop taking drugs simply because they are illegal. For people in a desperate situation, a criminal justice-led approach will not help. It can, in fact, make things much worse. Indeed, a recent report from the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee called for a shift from the current criminal justice approach to a health approach, like we have in Scotland, and for responsibility of drugs policy to move from the home office to the Department of Health and Social Care. The provision of safe consumption facilities needs to be considered in that context first and foremost as a health intervention. There is strong evidence that, by providing facilities where people can take drugs in a safe and supervised environment, safe consumption rooms can reduce overdoses, drugs death, bloodborne virus infection rates and public injecting. During our joint committee, I was encouraged by the UK ministers' apparent willingness to consider new evidence around the successful trialling of safe consumption facilities in New York and the many lives that trial has already saved. Unfortunately, Mr Malthouse, more recent comments to the media have been less than encouraging. However, I am hopeful that proposals that are brought forward by the Glasgow social care and health partnership will enable a safe drug consumption facility to be piloted in Glasgow within the current legal constraints. Given evidence to the criminal justice committee in November last year, the Lord Advocate recognised that the scale of the crisis that we currently face and offered a potentially pragmatic way forward. He indicated that, in the instance of a proposed safe consumption room that was precise, detailed, specific and underpinned by evidence and supported by Policy Scotland, prosecutions might be deemed not to be in the public interest. During the pandemic, the Lord Advocate demonstrated a similarly pragmatic approach by issuing guidance that would not be in the public interest to prosecute anyone registered with the Scottish Government population health directorate supplying in their lock zone to be administered in the emergency to counteract a drug overdose. I am hopeful that such pragmatism will help us to navigate the legal constraints that we face and to continue to pursue a public health approach to tackling drugs death and drug harm. Clearly, the trialling of safe consumption facilities is only one element of an effective public health-led approach. I agree with Mr Malthouse when we took evidence from him that there is no silver bullet when it comes to tackling drugs death, but we as a committee do not see that as a public health issue rather than being justice focused. I thank the member for giving way. I wonder whether, in terms of any of the evidence that the committee saw in the representations that it had from the minister from the UK Government, whether there is any analysis or evidence as to why drug deaths in Scotland are almost four times higher than the rest of the UK. Gillian Martin, I give you the time back. I am not sure that that would come from the UK Government. Certainly in the Health and Social Care and Sport Committee, we have heard that a lot of the historic deprivation that is multi-generational has led to the situation. Of course, the member lives in Dundee. He will know that to be the case in Dundee. Things that happened decades ago, which took the lifeblood out of communities, has led to deprivation and possibly is one of the reasons that we have this situation. I want to talk very briefly about our recent inquiry into the health and wellbeing of children and young people. It is important to be addressed the particular impact on children and young people of problem, drug use and alcohol use in families. Connected to that impact is the stigma around drug use by women. You cannot say that somebody is not a good mother because they have an issue with drug use. A terminal justice approach when it comes to women is going to put more pressure on the family and their children. I have run out of time because I took that intervention, but I look forward to continuing work collaboratively with colleagues across other committees in this Parliament and their shared goal of identifying a sustainable long-term path towards tackling drug deaths and drug harm in Scotland. I thank the convener of the health, social care and sport committee for opening this important debate. That committee rightly highlights that drugs deaths and problems, drugs use, are a public health issue. Although there continues to be a debate over whether that is a public health issue or a criminal justice issue, we need to keep in mind that it is also and primarily a social justice issue. Drug deaths do not often occur in more wealthy populations. They are a distressing and wholly avoidable indicator of inequality, deprivation, poverty and trauma. The Scottish Association of Social Workers told us that poverty is still one of the leading contributing factors for substance use and so a wider focus on tackling poverty and inequality is essential. The impact of poverty, food insecurity, fuel poverty and digital exclusion on Scotland's families and communities is devastating and increases the risk of putting individuals towards drugs use. Harmful drugs use is also most damaging to communities already struggling with disadvantaged poverty and marginalisation. Those are complex structural problems far from unique to Scotland. We need to redouble our efforts and tackle the underlying causes of poverty and inequality, a task that all of us in this place, across all committees, must commit to. Our joint work across the three committees is a great example of widening that focus, but it is not an easy task. If the social justice are very briefly yet… Michael Marra, I appreciate it at the member given way. He will have my intervention to Ms Martin, who highlighted deprivation in parts of England. That is right in Scotland, but there are areas of England that have had the same deprivation in Scotland. In fact, areas that are deeper but do not have the level of drug addiction and drug death that we have in Scotland. Is any of the evidence that the committee has taken to explore those issues? I thank the member for his intervention. Except for repeating what my colleague has already said, I point to the fact that we have a multi-faceted issue with polydrug use in Scotland that is unique to Scotland. That explains some of the issues that we are facing. Our joint work across the three committees is a great example of widening that focus, but it is not an easy task. If the social justice committee does anything, it highlights the complexities of issues such as this. It highlights that every individual in Scotland does not fit into one single remit. As a committee, we have heard that individuals can get trapped into a funneled web of complex issues that can become ever worse. Losing a job, taking on caring responsibilities or an increase in fuel costs. For someone with little income, just one such an event can start this downward, often lonely spiral. For someone who is experiencing multiple, severe and complex disadvantage, the risk of problem substance abuse multiplies. We are hearing through our current committee inquiry on problem debt and low income that many families and individuals are in no position at this point in time to build any financial resilience. They cannot absorb the shock of changes in circumstances and that can impact hugely on their emotional resilience. Poverty is not only a feature of unemployment. Those in low paid precarious jobs also face significant financial challenges. Many struggle with their mental health because of debt and some with existing mental health problems find it hard to engage with services and support to help them out of that debt. As we have heard, stigma also magnifies those issues. We know that, without enough to live on now and in the face of the cost of living crisis, people are at real risk. We know that some of the reasons someone turns to drugs are complex and dependent on many factors. For some, it is useful experimentation, but for others, what might have started as recreational use will progress and to escapism and self-medication. It means to seek a way out of a hopeless situation when other means seem not to exist. However, there is some light on the horizon. We are hopeful that the trend that has been seen over the past year of a decrease in drugs-related deaths continues. Always mindful, however, that any such death is one too many, and I know of on a personal and work-related capacity just how devastating such a loss is and how far the ripples go. That tentative but positive decrease in deaths is a result of specific actions taken to provide holistic support. The housing first approach recognises that social barriers that people face have the impact of the lack of the most fundamental of needs, a safe place to call home and the needs for services to gather around vulnerable people. Organisations such as the Simon community, Favour UK, We Are With You and Turning Point Scotland tell us that it is not just about the prevention of death and further harm, but of working with people over a long period of time at their pace and providing the support that they need, recognising sometimes a traumatic past. Turning Point Scotland says that, while the complexity of a need was identified as a priority for the task force, no specific recommendations were made and they are calling for greater integration and strategic thinking so that the work across the system is co-ordinated. They have also highlighted that one positive step is that homelessness prevention looks set to become a duty across the public sector system but emphasises that co-ordination is required across public services to realise the good intentions of policy. What is it that can prevent this holy grail of co-ordination of services around the needs of individuals or the no wrong door approach for all those who need support? We have been made aware daily of the brilliant, innovative, compassionate projects that respond to need. We saw how quickly we could respond to need, particularly homelessness during the pandemic. We know that systems can change. The system that creates poverty needs to change. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, there are different layers to this problem. The immediate joined up, compassionate support that a person needs to prevent them falling further. The actions of public services to ensure that all they do together is to co-ordinate an agile and aligned with the third sector are crucial in that. Finally, and perhaps the hardest but most crucial, is to achieve. That needs to have the will that is in all of our power to end the structural unfairness that makes people vulnerable in the first place. Thank you. Ms Whitham, before we call on the next speaker, I have a gentle reminder to those wishing to participate in the debate that they should press the request and speak buttons that include those who have made an intervention. I now call on, or do you nickle, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee again six minutes. Thank you very much. It is also my pleasure to open this debate on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. Last year, the Criminal Justice Committee heard from people with lived and living experience of problem drug use. They told us that they wanted to see tangible outcomes from the work of the Scottish Drug Deaths Task Force. I am very grateful to members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee for agreeing to collectively consider the implementation of the task force's recommendations. The written evidence that we received highlighted a very wide range of innovative work undertaken in response to the recommendations, but it also identified gaps and barriers to implementation that need to be addressed. Today's date will be wider in scope, and this afternoon I want to focus on the role of the police service in reducing drug deaths and tackling drug harm. We know that, in the course of their operational duties, police officers frequently engage with people impacted by problem drug use. We know that adverse childhood experiences and trauma are risk factors for problematic drug use, and therefore it is vital that initial police contact is trauma-informed and trauma-responsive. The committee welcomes that training is now being delivered to officers that will support them begin the process of signposting people to appropriate recovery and treatment services earlier and more effectively, often at a time of increased vulnerability. Police Scotland, in partnership with MedeX Against Violence, has piloted a Pathfinder service for people with problematic drug use in Inverness, referring individuals to support that connects them with organisations that can aid their recovery. Following evaluation, the service is to be expanded, which is a very welcome development. However, this approach will only be effective if treatment and recovery services can meet demand. In that regard, the task force recommended that the Scottish Government pursue increased weekend access to treatment and support. However, the evidence that we received suggests that out-of-hours treatment and support, especially at weekends, remains a gap in delivering a whole systems model of care. Staying on the theme of collaborative working, and among the many examples provided in the written evidence, the committee welcomed Police Scotland's partnership work with the Scottish Drugs Forum, the Scottish Recovery Consortium, Scottish Families Affected by Drugs and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to provide training to probationary officers on substance use and the barriers to support and treatment caused by associated stigma. Police Scotland's work with Scottish universities, such as Robert Gordon University, to allow a quick turnaround time in drug analysis. In looking at naloxone, the task force recommended that the distribution of naloxone be maximised, and Police Scotland's proactive approach to training officers to administer the naloxone nasal spray to those suspected of a drug overdose has undoubtedly saved lives. However, police officers are rightly concerned about facing investigation and or prosecution where naloxone is administered in response to an overdose where the person subsequently dies. That is an important issue that we consider needs to be addressed. Another area of current focus is the legality of the provision of safe drug consumption rooms. The UK Government is not considering a legislative framework to support that introduction and has not devolved powers to the Scottish Government for this purpose. Police Scotland's discussions with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have indicated that there is the belief that a legal framework may exist to allow those who would operate a safe drugs consumption facility to do so within current legislative provisions. However, Police Scotland has stated that, while that may provide a basis on which to operate a facility, it would not address the potential criminality of those with addiction issues attending to use safe consumption rooms whilst in possession of illegal drugs. I very much hope that that is an issue that can be resolved timeously. In conclusion, there are many more issues that I would like to cover. However, I feel that it is really encouraging and I think that it is endorsed by the committee to hear about the innovative and collaborative work that is taking place to tackle the complex and multiple issues that contribute to drugs deaths and drugs harms. The latest data on suspected drugs deaths in 2021 shows a fall of 8 per cent from the previous year, but, as we already know, every death is a tragedy. While that is good news, there is still much more to do. I believe that, by working together in this Parliament, across Government and across the public and third sectors, we can, and we will, make an important contribution in tackling drugs deaths and drugs harms. Every drug death is a tragedy, leaving families, friends and loved ones looking for answers and support. As I always do, I offer both my condolences and continuing commitment to everyone affected by the drug deaths crisis and to work across Government, Parliament and beyond to save and improve lives. I would like to begin by thanking the three parliamentary committees for coming together across their portfolios to help to provide insight into what has been and what should be done to tackle drug deaths and harm. This mirrors the approach of the national mission, which is a whole-systems holistic approach to providing care and treatment, not judgment, and opportunities for recovery and hope for people who use drugs. I also want to extend my thanks to the task force for the quality and breadth of its work and its commitment to publishing recommendations this summer. Its focus on evidence-based recommendations has helped to shape the priorities for the national mission, alongside the advice from other groups such as the residential rehabilitation working group. A national mission represents a significant step forward in tackling drug harms, because it seeks to link crucial evidence-based drug treatment and recovery and essential health and social care services with the wider personal, social and economic needs of people impacted by drugs, who often find themselves in need of support across a range of services. While we are making better links within health services, especially with alcohol issues and mental health, the mission also links closely to improvements in community and criminal justice, homelessness and housing, education and many other factors. Making change and improvement across all of those together is what marks out the mission as a right-based approach and a public health approach, too. We are now in the second year of the national mission to save and improve lives, making the best use of the additional £250 million over the lifetime of this Parliament, and our focus now is on delivery and implementation on the ground. The medication assisted treatment standards demonstrate this public health approach clearly, linking in clinical service standards, such as same-day treatment, with standards on psychologically and trauma-informed care, as well as standards for advocacy support for housing and benefits. The MAT standards reinforce a right-based approach to treatment and emphasise the importance of empowering people to make informed decisions about the types of help that is available to them. We are now working in partnership with local areas to implement, improve and sustain standards across the country to ensure that everyone has access to high-quality treatment and recovery services, and I will return to Parliament next month in a few weeks' time to provide an update on progress with that. Reinforcing the right-based approach, we are increasing publicly funded placements in residential rehabilitation by 300 per cent over the course of this Parliament. That work is backed by £100 million funding. We have made significant announcements on the establishment of a national family rehab service to children and mother houses, as well as increasing capacity on other residential services. Yesterday, we published evidence on the benefits of rehab in terms of improving health and wellbeing. We are helping local areas to develop a standardised approach to commissioning residential rehab services and improving the pathways into and from rehab services. That includes better links from prisons 2. The mission makes crucial links to the justice system, with emergency services now carrying naloxone. We have already seen lives being saved from overdoses. The task force helped shape what is now the world's most extensive distribution network of naloxone, and seeing colleagues in the justice system provide this life-saving intervention is really positive. I want to add my thanks to Police Scotland for becoming the first force in the world to roll out the carriage of naloxone. Our justice system as a whole needs to be more treatment-orientated and trauma informed, and we are taking forward the task force recommendations on drug war reform, which are applicable to the Scottish Government. As part of our public health approach, I again state my strong support for safer consumption rooms, as the evidence is clear, we save lives. We are leaving naloxone unturned to find a way for those facilities to operate within our existing legal framework. As part of our mission, we are linking with other parts of government to tackle problems associated with drug harm, such as poverty and homelessness, and we are taking a cross-government approach to tackling poverty, which includes funding to reduce child poverty through social security. People in our most deprived communities are 18 times more likely to die from drug use than those in the more affluent areas, and that is simply unacceptable. On homelessness, the Government published the Ending Homelessness Together Action Plan, and with COSLA, we are consulting on a new duty to prevent homelessness. Too often, stigma stops people from accessing the help they need, that is why we are taking forward the task force stigma strategy. At the turn of the year, we ran a media campaign to challenge stigma and are working on a charter that will encourage organisations to consider best practices to create a stigma-free Scotland. I have heard repeatedly how stigma and problem drug use can cause untold hardship and trauma to families and loved ones. In December last year, I published a framework on how we will improve holistic support for families. That has been supported by an additional £3.5 million for alcohol and drug partnerships and a fund of £3 million to support vital front-line and third sector services. We will continue to work with local areas to implement that framework across the country. The national collaborative for people with lived and living experience, chaired independently by Professor Alan Miller, will bring forward the vision for integrating human rights into national policy and local service design and delivery, based on internationally recognised human rights to be included in our forthcoming human rights bill. I have no doubts that the national collaborative will hold us all to account, making sure that people who are affected by drug use can participate in the decisions that affect them and will ask tough questions and demand clear answers. On that note, Presiding Officer, I thank the committees once again for working together. That is a very welcome approach and in the spirit of the national mission, which is an all-scotland, all-government public health approach to reducing drug deaths and improving lives. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Under the SNP, drug-related deaths have spiralled out of control and it is clear that the SNP's current strategy is to help those struggling with addiction have failed. There were a record number of deaths in 2020 and the death rate is 3.5 times that of the rest of the UK. It is also higher than any other European country. The scandal is Scotland's national shame and it goes without saying that every single death brought about by the misuse of drug is a tragedy not only for the victim but for the families and friends. We cannot go on like this, lives are being lost and families are being torn apart. Yes, I will. It is really about the language that we say. I hear Conservatives saying shame all the time. Do you think that that is a stigmatising language and that we need to get away from that kind of stigmatising language when we are talking about drugs? I personally think that it is an absolute shame that people are continuing to die from drug-related deaths in this country. The Scottish Conservatives believe that a different approach is needed to help those suffering from addictions. The SNP Government must listen to front-line experts and back our right to recovery bill, which would guarantee treatment for those most in need. The key principle that underlines our proposed right to recovery bill is to ensure that everybody who seeks treatment for addiction to drugs and or alcohol can access the necessary treatment that they require. Individuals must not be refused treatment for drug and alcohol addiction services. Angela Constance has said that she would give our right to recovery bill proper consideration to see if it will do what it has claimed. She has confirmed that she backs the principle that people suffering from addiction should have the right to treatment and that our bill will be given fair and sympathetic hearing. The shifting language from the minister is welcome. The console petition period on our right to recovery bill showed that more than 77 per cent of respondents backed plans to guarantee treatment for those suffering with addiction. The bill was drafted alongside front-line experts who are overwhelmingly positive about those plans. We all know that there is no one single measure that can help to tackle the scandal of Scotland's drug deaths, but a guarantee of being able to access treatment can signal a new approach in that fight. Ann Marie Ward, from the charity Favour UK, who helped to draft the bill alongside the party, has also welcomed Angela Constance's change of direction towards the proposed legislation. Favour Scotland said that it had been told privately by some SNP MSPs that they will support the legislation. We have services that are currently inflexible. Addiction and mental health are constantly changing and services need to adapt to that. Our services need to adapt to the individuals who should not be adapting to the services. There is rightly that has been mentioned across the chamber the issue of stigma, and many people are ashamed to admit to their issues and ashamed to seek help that they require. We believe that our right to recovery bill will help with this issue, and it will provide everyone with a statutory right to addiction and recovery treatment services. In September 2021, the Lord Advocate announced that class A drug users could be let off with the recorded police warning. The SNP's effective decriminalisation of class A drugs will mean that thousands will get away with drug use. In 2019-20, it is estimated that 30,469 crimes of drug possession were recorded, and 7,000 are estimated to be for possession of class A drugs. With regard to Ms Weber's comments on recorded police warnings, I think that it is appropriate that she recognises that that decision was taken by the independent Lord Advocate 1, which the Government is supportive of. Do you recognise the international evidence that overwhelmingly states that we need to move towards a public health approach, as opposed to a criminalising approach, which actually causes more harm than good at the end of the day? I mentioned in my statement that it was the Lord Advocate who announced that, so that was recognised. Where we are is that we get dismayed that it is a single public health approach, and there needs to be an element of justice involved in that. We believe that the possession of class A drugs is a serious offence and should not be dealt with through warnings. Rather than making the police's job more difficult to combat the supply of drugs, our focus should be on proving access to rehabilitation and treatment. Disappointingly, the SNP Government refused to sign up to a UK Government scheme to help to tackle drug dealing and organised crime. Project Adder is a UK-wide initiative, with £150 million of investment in England and Wales, and it is designed to tackle addiction and the supply of illegal substances. Project Adder helps people with their addiction and assists them in accessing recovery, but it also takes a hardline stance in targeting the criminality associated with drug gangs. The UK Police Minister called the SNP's decision not to sign up, deeply distressing and alarming. Scotland's drug deaths are a national crisis, and yet the SNP refused to engage with schemes like that. Surely they should be trying anything, especially something like that, that has evidence of being effective. We know that the drug's death task force recommended safe consumption rooms, and the SNP Government says that it is moving forward with plans to establish a safer drug consumption room, but Chief Constable Ian Livingstone said that stronger evidence was needed before he could support drug consumption rooms. The Scottish Conservatives will not oppose the use of drug consumption rooms, but we do have serious reservations about their operation. As Chief Constable Ian Livingstone said, we need to proceed with caution, so while we will not oppose a pilot if that is the route that the Scottish Government is going to take, we need to see more evidence on their use. Drug consumption rooms are no silver bullet, and they will not solve all our problems. Unlike the SNP Government, we will consider all options to tackle this crisis. I am looking for leadership and pragmatism from the SNP Government, and I hope that our approach is reciprocated and that it will take this approach to both with accepting project adder and our bill. Our game-changing right to recovery bill, developed with the help of those with lived experience, was lodged by Douglas Ross yesterday. It will save lives. It will provide a statutory right to addiction and recovery treatment services, including, but not exclusively, residential rehabilitation. Now that our bill has successfully passed through the consultation stage, it is time for the SNP Government to throw their weight behind it so that we can tackle this national scandal once and all for all. I welcome this afternoon's debate and the work of the three committees. We can all agree that Scotland's drug deaths figures are unacceptable and shocking. We all know that more people die in Scotland than they do across the rest of Europe. Our high rate of drug deaths destroys families and communities and too often continues a cycle of drug dependency and addiction. However, while our rate of fatalities is high, we are not alone in having to face this challenge. There is evidence of other countries and cities that have changed their approach, focused on harm reduction measures, invested into services, not only addiction services, but also mental health and family support. They have changed their criminal justice response, they have tackled isolation and stigma, and they have turned around the despair and the misery that comes from addiction and drug dependency. With leadership-focused determination across Government and our public services, we can change our direction in Scotland. Scotland's drug deaths are not our fate. We have the resources and the capacity to save lives. I welcome the approach of the health, justice and social security committees and opening words from the conveners today. Scrutiny on policies and progress is crucially important. With two member's bills in the area of drug policies coming to Parliament, the committees will be responsible for considering member's proposals on overdose prevention centres and patients' rights if they get member's support, as well as the work of Government, and Labour will give all proposals a fair hearing. When I started as Labour's drug sports person a year ago, I recognised the failings of the Scottish Government and their culpability for the spiralling levels of fatalities, but I also gave a commitment to be constructive and supportive where we see progress. I recognise the roll-out of Naloxone, the investment that is going into the third sector and the expansion of the recorded police warning scheme. Plans to increase capacity and residential rehabilitation facilities are a positive step, but more investment is required to make a more significant impact. I welcomed introduction of the mat standards, which, if effectively implemented, would be transformational. However, I said in response to the statement last week that it gives me no satisfaction to say that the commitment to embed and implement the mat standards in a year is heading for abject failure. The Government is now changing the goalposts, they are talking of embedding and being different from delivering, and they are saying that delivery is not a tick-block exercise. None of those caveats were given a year ago when the First Minister said that they would be rapidly implemented. When the minister announced the statement that the standards would be in place by the end of April 2022, I spoke of the challenge in achieving this and the importance of accountability, calling for robust monitoring of implementation and interim reporting on progress. I await the report in June, which will set out the progress, and while I am critical of the failure to react with the speed that is required of an emergency, I will scrutinise progress and press the Government to make haste. There are challenges in delivering the mat standards, but if they fall short, lice will continue to be lost, people will continue to suffer, individuals will disengage with treatment services, jeopardising their health and their wellbeing. The high level of non-fatal overdoses will continue, and the risk of people catching serious infectious diseases will remain. The opportunity to rebuild lice will be more limited. The Scottish Drugs Forum survey from October last year included views of users. One man said, I am hearing of guys going to the clinic and being told to come back in two or three weeks time. By that time, you are dead. Two weeks is a long time to an addict. It's more like two years. Others this afternoon will talk about the importance of treatment programmes and rehabilitation beds. Of course, a range of treatments must be on offer, and everyone should have access to treatment that makes their needs. The full implementation of the mat standards are crucial for reducing preventable deaths. We are beyond admiring the problem. We need to see action. However, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. Speaking to people in the third sector and in the NHS, more needs to be done to ensure that there is investment in addiction psychology services and that that service is valued. There needs to be a greater consistency across the country on availability of treatment. The role of primary care needs to be enhanced. Progress is moving too slow. Two and a half years ago, the Scottish Government declared the drug's death crisis as a public health emergency, yet we have not seen the emergency response that is required. There are alarm bells ringing, the rise in fatalities among women, the level of fatalities among young people. Action needs to be urgently taken. Government ministers have still to develop a drug and alcohol plan that is clear, transparent and measurable to tackle the crisis, according to Audit Scotland. Very few people are still receiving heroin assisted treatment. Drug checking facilities are not up and running, while they are in place now in Somerset. The Mental Welfare Commission recently found a serious lack of drug addiction and mental health support for prisoners a decade after they raised similar concerns. Over those prevention centres have yet to be established. We do not even have a finalised proposal, although others have said that the Lord Advocate has indicated an openness to finding a solution. Drug use among young people is different, and yet there are still few bespoke services for young people, and a full response to the rise of street benzos is still not realised. I am ready to recognise that the call for culture change is at a time when the recent workforce survey of front-line staff in drug and alcohol sectors showed that many are underresourced, undervalued and under pressure. Demand on services is exceeding availability, with unsustainable work clothes leading to mental and physical health issues for front-line workers. The workforce is under pressure and under resourced, which will entarn impact on the implementation of the mat standards and the delivery of treatment. It is welcome that the committees have taken an interest, and we have heard today about the evidence that they took. I would encourage the committees to play their full part in ensuring that we see delivery on the national mission to tackle the appalling level of preventable drug deaths in Scotland. The Parliament must not take its eye off the ball. Thank you, Ms Baker. I now call on Beatrice Wishart, who joins us remotely for around five minutes, Ms Wishart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank all three committees and the clerks for the work that they are putting in as this joint committee to examine this vitally important and complex issue. Before I go further, I think that it is important that we all pause and reflect on the impact that the drug death crisis has had on people in Scotland. As has already been highlighted in the chamber, there were just over 1,300 drug deaths in 2020, and for the seventh year in the row, Scotland has had the highest rates in Europe. I would like to express my condolences to all those who have been affected by a drug death. While I know that debates like these won't ease the pain of loss, I hope that it provides some reassurance that we are taking this seriously. Scottish Liberal Democrats have long called for all issues surrounding drugs to be viewed through the lens of a public health problem rather than criminal justice. We believe that those who are caught in possession of drugs for personal use could be directed down a path of treatment or education rather than face a fine or prison time. By taking a public health approach, we can ensure that people get fast access to support and wraparound services that can help both those at risk of drug-related death, as well as their families. That can be done through, for example, safe drugs consumption rooms. My party is consistently called for such facilities, and I note that Paul Sweeney's recently proposed member's bill seeks to allow those to be created. While I and my party look forward to working constructively with Mr Sweeney on the issue, it is disappointing that it has taken an opposition MSP for those proposals to finally be up for discussion. However, that seems to be the norm when it comes to both of Scotland's Governments and their approach in tackling their drugs death crisis. In 2015 and 2016, the SNP cut funding for drug and alcohol partnerships by 22 per cent. That meant that vital services were hit, causing relationships between service providers and users to collapse. Given how crucial those services are in helping people to get the treatment that they need, there is no doubt that the impact of that decision was devastating. However, it is not just this Government that needs to do more. The UK Government's actions on that are also equally lacking. As the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee stated in the 2019 inquiry, there needs to be a shift at UK Government level to a health rather than justice approach. That view was also shared by the Scottish Drugs Death Task Force in their recommendation that there should be a routine branch review of the misuse of drug crack in 1971. However, in this, the Malthouse may, as he did when he gave evidence to the committee, point to the Adder projects in England and Wales as a sign that they do understand the need for a public health approach. There seems to continue to be very much a belief that that is a criminal justice issue. I fear that if the UK Government continues to take that approach, then we may never tackle that crisis. While Douglas Ross proposed bill around the right to recovery could highlight a shift in conservative thinking, Scottish Liberal Democrats are still concerned that it may not do enough. However, as I mentioned earlier, we will always work constructively on a cross-party basis to take long overdue measures to tackle the drug death crisis. Considering both of Scotland's Government track records with that issue, my party and I believe that it is time for an independent body to be brought in, such as the World Health Organization. That issue will not be resolved overnight. Positive steps such as the roll-out of Naloxone to Police Scotland are welcome, but there is still much to be done. If we are to tackle that, we must change our approach. Providing people with the support that they need through safe drug consumption rooms and stabilisation services, rather than handing them fines or looking to imprison them, will, as I have said repeatedly, save lives. We do not have time to waste. I want to first recognise everyone who has unduly suffered mentally or physically and those who have tragically died because of substance misuse or unsafe drug consumption. Every death attributed to unsafe drug consumption at the moment is an absolute tragedy for families losing their loved ones. The current level of harm being experienced by people who consume drugs calls on radical change in how we tackle that going forward. I say that as someone who has experienced my own friends and loved ones appearing in Scotland's drug death figures. For decades, successive UK Governments have made a concerted effort to continue their so-called war on drugs, with grave human cost and huge expense to the legal system that everyday taxpayer and our society. Of course, in dealing with substance policy, we must take a cautious yet research-based approach. We also owe it to all the people living in Scotland to explore all options at our disposal to reduce harm in our society. That is why we must not shy away from creating a national conversation on how to exactly do that, because change is needed as a matter of urgency. The UK Government needs to give serious consideration to radical reform of drug laws. After its decades-long failed war on drugs, to rule this out without due consideration would be a serious disservice, driven only by ideology rather than proper research and evidence. There are plenty of international examples out there that evidence that decriminalisation or legalisation and regulation is successful in reducing drug deaths and harm. There is more than one incentive to be explored for that potential. For example, organised crime groups would no longer thrive off of the proceeds from illicit drug industry. Proceeds of which are often used to fund other criminal operations, such as human trafficking, may be at the end. I will see how I get on. Drug reform must be about taking a realistic and common-sense approach. We in Scotland are trying to forge a different path from the one being forged by the Government south of the border. Like other countries with common-sense drug policies, Scotland has taken a public health approach to tackling this issue. Under the guidance of Angela Constance and within the limitations of devolution, the SNP Scottish Government has taken its responsibility on reform seriously by setting out a national mission to improve lives and save lives, committing an additional £250 million over the next five years to increase access to services for people affected by drug addiction and exploring the need for safe consumption rooms for people who use drugs. It is not just a pity that we do not have the same level of commitment for Scotland from the Government and Westminster. It is an absolute disgrace. It is long been observed by clinicians that social determinants of health tip the scales against people who are addicted to substances. They are already daunting quests to recover from any type of addiction. To be clear, when I talk about social determinants of health, the world health organisation defines that as the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. Those circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. We already know that the cost of living crisis will do untold harm to just about all of us who have less than they do, but make no mistake that this will also have a wide and long lasting impact when it comes to health outcomes and substance misuse issues. To tackle this issue, Scotland needs the full and comprehensive powers over drug reform in our Parliament. Perhaps a quicker fix to this is Scotland gaining its independence. Imitigating the worst of bad UK Government policies should be a thing of the past, and their current policy on drugs is inadequate. Stigma and criminalisation suppress the potential for future rehabilitation, harming and individual's employment prospects and often leads to the continuation of generational cycles of poverty and adverse childhood experiences. Penalties related to drug consumption should not be more damaging to an individual than the consumption of the drug itself. The picture of drug harm in Scotland is different from that one of South of the border. That is why it is so important that we in Scotland have full powers over our own destiny to ensure that our Government, our laws, our customs and our values are reflective of the people who choose to live here. The UK Government continuing to cling to powers that should be in the remit of the Scottish Parliament just is not ineffective. I am speaking fast, so I have time to take his end. Their policy is not ineffective, but it is actually damaging. However, Scotland is a progressive nation brimming with innovation and confidence in our role in the world. On matters devolved, we are at the forefront of tackling some of the biggest issues in the 21st century. As we look to the future, fantastic work is already under way to make positive change. Perhaps someday soon, with the full powers in our own destiny, Scotland can join other progressive nations that have been able to radically decrease the rate of harm caused by unsafe consumption of illicit substances. Change is needed. I have got 30 seconds. I am quite depressed at the tone of that contribution. I hope that the member will reflect on the language that has been used in a very sensitive subject. The idea that Scotland has a drug death rate three and a half times the rest of the UK, including areas that suffer from far more deprivation than many parts of Scotland, no member of the Government benches has been willing to admit that, to accept it, to acknowledge it or even to explain it, which is surely what they should be doing. Karen Adam, I can give you the time back. I would say to the member that I do not know why he is asking me to reflect on my tone. I think that that was uncalled for, but in terms of reflecting on the bespoke issues to Scotland, that is exactly why we need powers here. Obviously, a UK-wide approach is not working for Scotland. I can advise the chamber that there is a little time in hand, so any member taking intervention should get most of the time back. I call Russell Finlay to be followed by Emma Harper for around six minutes. Last year, Nicola Sturgeon announced the launch of what she called, and I quote a national mission to end what is currently a national disgrace. She was talking about Scotland's drug death toll, which has risen every single year under the SNP Government and which has doubled during her time as First Minister. Douglas Ross later challenged the First Minister over why she allowed a drug rehab facility in her Glasgow constituency to close in a line that caused incredulity at the time she admitted taking her eye off the ball. Nicola Sturgeon, of course, did not take her eye off the ball. She knowingly cut addiction services as drugs deaths continued to climb. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland is the drugs death capital of Europe. Drugs cause abject misery and despair. It is encouraging that this national disgrace is being treated primarily as a public health issue. I agree that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem, and I cannot think of anyone who puts this forward as a credible solution. However, it would be equally misguided, naive even, to think that public health in isolation is the cure. Like Sue Webber, I, too, would like to talk about Project Adder, which stands for addiction, diversion, disruption, enforcement and, crucially, recovery. Described as a whole system approach, it puts a ring of steel around drug ravaged communities, aggressively targets violent and parasitical gangs while giving addicts the help and support they so desperately need. Gillian Martin, who is interested in using the language, explains what he means by a ring of steel. What is meant by a ring of steel is a robust policing approach in those communities, protecting the flow of drugs coming into communities to the benefit of the people who live there. Given that Scottish drug deaths are 3.5 times higher than the rest of the UK, inexplicably, it was obvious that the UK policing minister, Kit Malthouse, wanted to deploy Adder here. He identified Dundee as an ideal place, but to his bafflement, the SNP decided to keep the Adder approach behind Hadrian's wall. The minister is on the record expressing his disappointment. Many suspect that the SNP blocked Adder due to their strategy of taking a different approach to England just for the sake of being different. That episode raises concerns. Mr Finlay may not be aware that the Scottish Government participates in a learning network to monitor project Adder. There are aspects of project Adder in terms of diversion and support for recovery that do indeed mimic or mirror the national mission. However, I wonder if he is also aware that the UK minister really just wanted to re-bad work that we were already doing in Scotland as project Adder, but there was no serious offer behind that. Russell Finlay, I can give you the time back. Thank you so much. Yes, I was aware of that. It is the first suggestion that I have heard from the minister that this was merely a branding exercise, which I think will come as some news to the UK Minister. That episode raises concerns that, despite the Scottish Government rhetoric, they are not sometimes treating it as a national mission. Let's take another example of drugs in prisons. It is scandalous that so many prisoners go in clean and come out addicted. Far too few get the meaningful help that they need to beat drugs and break the cycle of re-offending. When prison officers told me that drugs have never been so widespread and that most arrived soaked in mail, I raised it repeatedly with this Government. But for months, nothing happened. In that time, prisoners died and overdosed, yet officers pleased for help were ignored. The minister for drug policy responded to my calls to ban drug-soaked mail with a bizarre and patronising dismissal. It was only following a mass overdose at maximum security prison that the mail was finally stopped. That resulted in a dramatic and immediate reduction in drug incidents and ambulance call-outs. Given Nicola Sturgeon's supposed national mission, why did our Government not listen to prison officers far sooner? Where is the use of firefighters carrying naloxone, which is used to treat opioid overdoses? The First Minister and the Drugs Minister turned up at Bathgate fire station three months ago for a PR event to announce that. The only problem being that her Government has not even reached an agreement with firefighters who have many concerns. I spoke with an FBU official today who does not know of a single firefighter who is volunteered to do so. If it really is a national mission, they need to put persuasion and partnership before PR. A respected campaigner who has already been mentioned today is Ann Marie Ward from Favour UK, which stands for Faces and Voices of Recovery. Ms Ward agrees that Ada would certainly benefit Scotland. The charity is led by people who are either living with or have lived through the damage of addiction. They know what they are talking about. Ms Ward has also helped to draft my party's right to recovery bill, which was lodged this week by Douglas Ross. It is simple and compelling legislation. It would enshrine in law the right of people with addictions to get the treatment that they need. Glasgow has an estimated 18,000 problem drug users, maybe more, yet it is fewer than 20 rehab beds. Again, no one suggests right to recovery alone is the answer to everything, but its merits are clear and I look forward to hearing more from my colleague Dr Sandesh Gulhane. The bill has secured strong public support and I was very pleased with the response of the minister who said that it would be given a fair and sympathetic hearing. For the sake of thousands of families suffering from the devastation caused by drugs, let's hope that this Government will work with the Scottish Conservatives and other parties on this. It's time for a real national mission to put an end to this national disgrace. I now call on Emma Harper to be followed by Michael Marra for around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have a long-standing interest in drug policy and the work to reduce the number of drug-related deaths across Scotland, not only as a registered nurse but as a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in this session and in the previous session of Parliament. I also participated in the Scottish Affairs Committee joint inquiry into drugs death in Scotland at Westminster led by Pete Wishart. I would like to make three points in my short contribution, addressing evidence-based action that the Scottish Government has taken using the powers that we have available to reduce drug-related harm and the importance of continued action to tackle drug-related stigma, as others have mentioned, and the response from the UK Government to the tri-committee inquiry. Presiding Officer, firstly, since the national mission to reduce drugs death was announced in 2020, the Scottish Government has taken action to transform our approach to drug policy within the constraints of the outdated 1971 misuse of drugs act. We have changed our approach away from one that focuses on criminalisation to one that puts the health and medical needs of those impacted by drugs first. In health, that has included the roll-out of the courage of Naloxone to save lives, and that is the people who are experiencing a heroin overdose, developing better outreach services, increasing the provision of rehabilitation beds and the development of non-fatal overdose pathways and MAT standards. Regarding Naloxone, the unintended overdose occurs in Scotland when benzodiazepines are taken, whether it is illicit or prescribed, and then mixed with other substances, including alcohol. It is worth highlighting that those are causes of deaths, especially in rural areas. Naloxone works only for the reversal of opioids. From my experience as a nurse, I know that there is a reversal agent for benzodiazepine called flumazanil. I know that there are side effects of the use of flumazanil, but I was wondering if the minister could tell us potentially whether any work is being done to pursue this Naloxone-type reversal drug to apply to benzos, especially in rural parts of Scotland. In education, the Government is bolstering teaching on drug and alcohol harms, ensuring that children are educated at an early age on drug safety and on the harms that addiction causes. By taking those and other measures forward, the Scottish Government is creating a new whole-systems approach to implementing an integrated person-centres medical and not punitive approach to tackling drug harm. I also welcome the work of project match, which is person-centred, client-centred approach to recovery, with harm reduction that might also be part of recovery. It must remember that recovery includes relapse as well as support. I want to turn specifically to stigma, and by addressing stigma and the silence and alliation that it causes, we make it easier for people to seek help. Stigma is damaging not only to the individual in terms of their mental health and sense of self-worth, but it also discourages people from coming forward to seek the help that they need. Our media has an important role in addressing stigma. For example, in my South Scotland region, when I put out a press release, welcoming drug funding and the progressive approach that is being taken in Scotland, with a stigma focus as well, a local paper used the stereotypical picture of a metal spoon with powder on it next to a used syringe. The paper has agreed to consider changing what images they use in the future, so I would welcome other print media addressing addiction sensitively to help tackle and possibly eradicate stigma. It is welcome that the drugs death task force has developed a strategy that identifies actions to help reduce stigma. However, I often hear from constituents and others that there still exists an issue with stigma among some minority of health, social care and allied health professional staff. In a debate in January, the minister agreed to my ask to explore the possibility of an e-learning module to be created, for example, on the TURAS, which is the NHS learning system for our healthcare professionals, including pharmacists and so on, specifically on drug stigma. I ask the minister when closing for an update on whether the e-learning module to tackle stigma is progressing. There is strong evidence from other countries that safer drug consumption facilities help to prevent fatal overdoses and encourage people who use drugs to access longer-term help. The European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction and the advisory council on misuse of drugs both support the use of DCRs and have said that the effectiveness of drug consumption facilities to reach and stay in contact with highly marginalised target populations has been widely documented. In recent years, I will take an intervention. Russell Finlay. Thank you very much. I wonder if the member could perhaps cast some light on when our Government is bringing forward detailed plans of what DCRs will look like and where they will be. Thanks for that intervention. I am not in the Government, so I cannot speak for the Government at this point in time, but I look forward to any plans that the Government will announce because I think that drug control or drug rooms that help to support people to prevent overdoses should be taken forward in Scotland. We know—of course, I will if I have time, Presiding Officer. I can give you some of the time back. Bob Doris. I apologise for making use of your time, Emma Harper, but thank you for taking the intervention. Are you aware that, recently, as 2016 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, we have got some very detailed plans for what drug consumption rooms will look like? So we are not starting from scratch. There is a health-based approach with plans already put in place. Emma Harper. Thank you, Bob Doris, for that update on what is happening in Greater Glasgow. My focus is in South Scotland, so quite often I do not know what is happening in other health ports directly, and we have not gotten to that in the health committee yet. In recent years, the UK Parliament, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee have recommended introducing those facilities, but they are continually blocked by the UK Government, which refuses to accept evidence and refuses to devolve control over drug policy to this Parliament. The UK Government's whole approach, my final point, Presiding Officer, to drug addiction, can be summed up well by Minister Kit Malthouse, who, at the trial committee appearance, said that people take drugs are sad and not bad. Drug use is so much more complicated than that. And what he said, I believe, belittled and condescended the people that are struggling from harmful use of drugs and alcohol. I am sure that he did not mean to dehumanise and focus on criminality, but we need the proper powers to take our own Scottish approach forward to tackling drug harm, which is focused on evidence-based practice, Presiding Officer. So repeat my calls on the UK Government to devolve drug policy to this Parliament. Thank you, Ms Harper. I now call on Michael Marra to be followed by Collette Stevenson for up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate having followed the discussions of the committees on the issue. Short reflection on the debate, I do think that the minister will be quite aware of this, that the tone of this debate is in a marked contrast of the ones that we have had previously. And we on these benches would be very concerned about a breakdown in consensus around the scale of the challenge that we face and the need for a humble approach from the Government and concerted and reasonable support from the opposition benches. A vacuum has been created in this debate from the lack of a strategic plan put forward by the Government. We now have proposals from both sides of the chamber for action in this area, and if we do not have a strategic approach from the Government, then more ranker will result in this and it is not going to serve the people of this country well. Those discussions were certainly helpful in committee on a very narrow range of issues, but they gave no real strategic insight into the why of Scotland, but it is the drug death capital of the world and our level of drug deaths that remain almost four times, not at this moment, if I can just make some progress maybe later on. The drug death capital of the world and our level of drug deaths remain almost four times that of the rest of the UK under the same drug laws. I remain deeply concerned that the Government does not have an evidence-based understanding as to why the situation is quite so horrific, and that is in essence the point that I was making to colleagues who I was grateful for allowing me in on the SNP benches. They cited the issues of poverty, Gillian Martin, but we know that the areas of England which have higher levels of poverty are nowhere near the levels of drug deaths that we have in Scotland. On the issue of polydrug use in one moment cited by Elena Whitham, polydrug use exists across the UK, certainly not on benzodiazepines at the same level, but there is a clear issue of polydrug use across the whole of the UK. If I can say and I will bring the minister in, on 13 January the minister provided the chamber with her personal analysis in less than one minute of why the situation in Scotland is so much worse. She cited a higher level of drug use, benzodiazepine use and not enough people in recovery. Without any authoritative accompanying evidence-based, all of this is well qualified speculation. I do not necessarily disagree with the minister that those are very serious issues, but set out alone in one minute they are pretty much next to useless. Take the benzodiazepine issue. My contention is the withdrawal of volume scripts and the creation of a wild west street market for tablets. A varying content potency is the most lethal policy error of the devolution era. The minister stated in the same debate, my opinion as to why we have seen that increase differs from Mr Marra's, yet no alternative analysis has been provided. If the minister wants to make an intervention now, we would appreciate an answer to that point. Minister, I have made to you in the past that as a politician I am not a clinician and I neither prescribe or otherwise in terms of medications, but it is factual to say that, in Scotland, we have doubled the prevalence rate in terms of the use of drugs in comparison to south of the border. I think that we agree on the significance of the implications of benzodiazepines, but also on heroin. I hope that we both agree that it is a fact, not my opinion, that we do not have enough people in treatment. That is why all of our national mission is very core, is about getting more people into treatment that is right for them. Mike Marra? I appreciate the minister reiterating what she said in the previous debate, which is exactly what she did say, but it is not clearly a coherent analysis that actually covers the scale of this issue. If the minister can let me, there is no evidence presented against those numbers that she has brought to the chamber in any form of marshaled way that gives an analysis of the where, the why, the how and the when. I think that that would be appreciated by all members if we had a full understanding. If we had a shared understanding around those benches, as do the why—no, thank you—as the why this is happening, we could say whether the measures that were being brought by other members in the chamber were the appropriate reactions to that situation. Frankly, it is not good enough. On the associated issue of clinical care, we still await the benzodiazepine harm reduction guidance. The minister talks about not being a clinician, but the draft guidance was published in August 2021 and no follow-up guidance has been published. I have lodged parliamentary questions to that effect today, and it would be good to know when that was arriving. All of that remains a mission without a plan that is visible to the Parliament and crucially to the public. We should be deeply worried for everyone that is concerned on that issue. We can be hopeful that the drugs death task force report provides an analysis, but we will wait and see when that forth comes. I want to mention in my closing time about the Dundee Drugs Commission, which published its two-year review on 2 March. Three months on, there has been no response from the partner agencies involved and of whom that report is particularly critical. No meeting with the commissioners, no report to the city council, no discussion at the health board. The report is clear that the critical bodies in the city have failed to grasp the scale of the challenge. Key recommendations from the first report two years ago have simply not been addressed. Unsurprisingly, the rebrand of the integrated substance misuse service itself—a rebrand of a rebrand—to Dundee drugs and alcohol services has done nothing to change the culture or perception of a service that is failing clients, families and my city. So the closure of Constitution House should have happened years ago, but a long last has been accepted that it should happen by the end of this year, but that cannot next steps be in this cosmetic change. There must be wholesale change from the centralised medical model. It must be deconstructed. Relocating is not enough. The Dundee partnership must respond fully to the work that has been done and must accept and fool the recommendations made for them, including the recommendations from the original report. Clients deserve services where hard-pressed staff are proud to work and clients can have confidence to be respected and invest in hope. We do risk, I think, in this debate in the absence of a real strategy published in a plan that we can scrutinise and see whether our proposals meet. In the absence of that, I think that the kind of tone that we are seeing in this debate today might just get worse. Thank you, Ms Marra. I now call Collette Stevenson to be followed by Julie Mackay up to six minutes. Please, Ms Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Drug-related deaths and drug harms are a public health emergency. The number of people dying from drugs in Scotland is heartbreaking, and the ripple effect of one person having an addiction can be far-reaching. One of my first speeches after my election was on this topic. I started it by paying tribute to my brother Brian, who we lost to an overdose in 2002. Brian was at the forefront of my mind again when I was thinking about today's debate and the effect that drugs have on people. He often talked about the monkey who couldn't get off his back no matter what. Brian lived with me for a while, but one of the biggest regrets of my life was asking him to leave because of his chaotic lifestyle. I never seen him alive again. I just wish that there had been the right support mechanisms in place for people with addictions and their families to cope. I could be telling a different story today. My dad chose a song for a dancer by Jackson Brown for Brian's funeral, and I think the words sum up his lifestyle perfectly. Don't worry, I'm not going to sing it. I don't remember losing track of you. You were always dancing in and out of you. I must have thought that you'd always be around, always keeping things real by playing the clown. Now you're nowhere to be found. Before he died, Brian was living in Hope House in Glasgow and had been off drugs for six weeks. He was doing well and all the guys there thought he was brilliant. He was then offered a job as a security guard at a festival, which he accepted. Brian and his friends ended up overdosing. Paramedics managed to revive his friend, but, sadly, Brian got that monkey off his back in the worst possible way. He was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Since then, some things have changed. In 2011, Scotland was the first country in the world to introduce a national naloxon programme, empowering individuals, families, friends and communities to reverse and opiate overdose. Since then, the roll-out has increased dramatically from police officers and paramedics to the take-home kits given to individuals at risk of an overdose and their relatives. Had naloxon been so widely available back in 2002, Brian could be alive today. My speech today could have been one focused on my lived experience as a sister of someone who survived an overdose, managed to get that monkey off his back and was living a happy life there to see his daughter grow up and to be the amazing uncle he could have been. Like many others I have spoken to, I hope that sharing my own experience today shines a light on how we tackle this drug crisis and the importance of getting the right support in place for people who take drugs and their loved ones. I encourage anyone watching to visit stopthedeths.com and order naloxon. It could save a life. Of course, although it is a vital tool, we must accept that there are many opportunities to help someone before it comes to administering naloxon. At the heart of the national mission to save and improve lives is to get people into the treatment and recovery that is right for them. One aspect is residential rehabilitation, which the Scottish Government recently reviewed. More can be done there, so I welcome the action taken today to improve access to and boost the use of publicly funded residential rehabilitation. Another very welcome development is the MAT standards, which will ensure that people can get the help the day they ask for it. That is so vital for addictions. Any approach in tackling drug harms must accept that a range of possible interventions are required. We need treatments available through the NHS, whether that is heroin-assisted treatment, opioid substitutes, detox or residential options. We need interventions in the community like peer support workers and we need access to advice for housing, social security, employment and training. I recently visited the WISE group and learned a lot about their work, which also benefits people who have experience of substance misuse from signposting to mentoring schemes to support for getting back in touch with relatives. Relationships and families are a crucial part of that recovery process for many, and this kind of wraparound support is so important. More generally, I think that we should be cautious in thinking that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here. Residential treatment might be great for one person, but for another, taking one drug instead of many would be a success. Given the poly drug use is now the leading cause of drug-related deaths in Scotland, if we are serious about wanting to tackle the drug deaths emergency and drug-related harms, we must accept that complexity. We must also realise that tackling deprivation is key to reducing the adverse impacts of drugs on individuals and communities. Tory policies in the 80s and today have driven inequality, which is associated with drug use and addictions. To conclude, I fully appreciate that the number of people dying from drugs in Scotland is not just a number. Each and every person is a mum, dad, brother, sister, son, daughter or friend who had their own hopes and dreams. Improving treatment options and access to healthcare and facilitating recovery are essential. Same-day treatment will make a big difference, and we need to continue the work to remove stigma and support families. As I begin this speech, my thoughts are with everyone who has lost a loved one to a drug overdose, and I pay tribute to collect Stevenson's powerful speech before mine. When we have these debates, we often focus on policy and reform, but it is important that we also take time to reflect on the lives lost and the terrible pain felt by those who have been bereaved. For too long, our criminal justice system and drug treatment services have robbed people of the dignity that they deserve. Our focus must be to restore that dignity while preventing further deaths. The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act is outdated and obsolete, and further erodes the dignity and safety of people who use drugs. In its 2021 report on drug law reform, the drug deaths task force stated that it was unequivocal that the act in its current form creates barriers to the implementation of a public health approach. When the case for reform was put to the minister of state for crime and policing at the joint committee meeting, however, it was clear that he had neither a good grasp of the situation in Scotland nor the root causes of drug use. When asked if he recognised that poverty was an underlying cause of drug use, which needed to be tackled, he answered, no, and he said that he believed that drugs and violence drive poverty. I have spoken before in the chamber that the fact that Scotland's drug death crisis can be traced back to the 1980s de-industrialisation and the subsequent economic and social impact. According to the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, some of those experiencing the highest levels of drug deaths and drug-related harms grew up in the post-industrial 1980s, when unemployment levels were high and the heroin market expanded into those deprived communities. That group suffered multiple complex disadvantages, including poor physical and mental health, unemployment, unstable housing arrangements, involvement with the criminal justice system and family breakdown. The UK Government is so far behind in this conversation should worry us all. How can we hope to effectively tackle this crisis when UK ministers are espousing such ill-informed views that further stigmatise people who use drugs? Kip Malthouse refused to entertain the prospect of drug-checking facilities here in Scotland. As we heard in the chamber last week, there are now plans and a licence issued by the Home Office to operate a facility in Bristol. Those services can save lives. I wish the loop who will operate the facility the very best. I hope that they will have incredible success and, once and for all, hopefully provide the evidence that the UK Government might listen to. It is nonsensical and hypocritical to rule out drug-checking services here in Scotland and allowing them in England. We need those powers to save lives. The varying purity and strength of illicit drugs makes it impossible for— Yes, Mike Marra? It is my understanding that a licence has been made so far in Scotland, but I would welcome and greatly so at drug-checking services. Would the member agree with me, her Government and her party's member, that those facilities must be funded, and a pilot, if it is forthcoming, must be funded appropriately with staff costs and the appropriate equipment that is required in order to make that work? What I was doing was reflecting on the questions that we had asked at Malthouse, and that was one of the questions that we put. Would the UK Government back drug-checking facilities here in Scotland? The answer was no, but I agree that, if that was something that we could bring forward, we would be more than happy to chat to the member about all the measures that he just mentioned. Safe consumption rooms and another life-saving intervention must be allowed to operate in Scotland. Mr Malthouse said that he needed more evidence on safe consumption rooms. Considering that they have been operating in Europe for around three decades and have proved effective in a range of countries from around the world, including Australia, Canada, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands, I am not sure what further evidence the minister requires. Those facilities could be saving lives now. I found the minister's focus on enforcement particularly disturbing. In Scotland, we have a general consensus that a public health approach is needed to solve this crisis. The UK Government clearly does not share this view. To them, it is a criminal justice matter, despite all of the harm and stigmatisation that the war on drugs has caused. I was also disappointed by the minister's use of stigmatising language, which I will not repeat here. We do people a disservice when we label them. It robsom of their dignity and humanity and others. If we want treatment services built around human rights, we must dispense with such language and speak about people as if they are human beings, deserving of our respect and compassion. We need a person-centred system that views people as whole beings, not as various conditions that need to be categorised and dealt with separately. Above all, we must seek to reduce and prevent harm wherever possible and must maximise every opportunity to connect people with services. The more we embed stigma-free treatment and lifesaving interventions in the community, the greater chances of connecting with those who need the help the most. To take one example, I was pleased to see the roll-out of Naloxone to some taxi drivers in Edinburgh, which will surely result in more lives being saved. I applaud all those in this scheme, which has also been implemented in Glasgow and hope to see it extended to more of our cities and towns. The Scottish Greens also support the roll-out of heroin-assisted treatment across Scotland. According to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, there is high-quality evidence to suggest that it can improve individual and societal outcomes when provided as a second-line treatment for people with chronic opioid dependency. That is yet another area where meaningful progress is being blocked. Stakeholders have reported to the drug desk task force that the process for submitting a licence application for HAT is overly complicated and resource intensive and that the ability to offer HAT alongside other medication-assisted treatment should be more widespread and that any remaining barriers to the provision be removed. Despite the fact that HAT is a well-evidence intervention that has clear health and social benefits, roll-out is being hindered by an overly bureaucratic process. I have heard the Minister for Drug Policy say on more than one occasion that we need to turn expressions of interest from health boards into commitments. At the moment, health boards must apply to the Home Office and the Scottish Government and can be approved by one but rejected by the other, which may discourage some from applying. In spite of the HAT licensing, it has evolved to Scotland to reduce the administrative burden and facilitate its roll-out across Scotland. I thank the committee's committee conveners for their contributions and others today. The fact that this is a joint debate demonstrates the impact of drug misuse in many aspects of everyday life in Scotland. I am glad that we are spending sufficient time to discuss this and debate it today. Although I am now a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I was not at the time of the joint session with the Criminal Justice and the Health and Social Care Committee, which was held on 1 February. However, having read the official report, a few things stand out to me. Alina Whitmer in her question asked about the link around poverty, and we have heard a few members raise that today. She stated that there are very strong links between poverty, deprivation, adverse childhood experiences, trauma and drug deaths, especially here in Scotland. We all know that there is a complex and multifaceted issue to address. She asked that, at the time, would she agree with the opinion that Scotland's high rate for drug deaths reflects historical patterns resulting from economic policies of the 1980s, which we can also see in the north-east of England? She also asked about whether anti-poverty measures taken by the Scottish Government would have an impact. UK Police and Minister Kipmol is in the politics that she has stated, and I quote, and this is a worrying part, that I would be careful about the difference between correlation and causation. Earlier today, we have heard of the study from researchers from Lask University, who found that austerity was the most likely reason that life expectancy had stagnated after 2012, and death rates in the poorest areas had increased. There is very clearly a link. Kipmol has further stated over the years that there have been lots of attempts to deal with the underlying problems of poverty and deprivation, and I hope that doing so would deal with the violence on drugs that were perceived at the time to be the product of those problems. It is clear that the UK Government needs to do more to tackle poverty. I still think that the UK Government sees this issue far too much as a criminal, rather than a predominantly health issue. Elaine also stated that the cohort of people among those who are seeing the most drug deaths at the moment are people who were born in the 1970s, who were seeing multiple deprivation and problematic drug use. Kipmol has said that the police could play an enormous role in assisting health professionals and those who can give counselling, emotional support and everything else that is required to turn someone round from drugs by ensuring that there are fewer drug dealers and less drugs in Scotland. Focusing on poverty is a contributing factor in the national drugs mission. Alongside the clear understanding of the issue presently, it is a health issue that is fundamentally important. The second aspect that I want to touch on was on drugs consumption rooms. Gillian Martin, Gillian Mackay and Pauline Mackay all pressed Kipmol on their issue. As we know, many experts, people with lived experience in committees such as the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster, have recommended the introduction of such rooms, given the contribution that they can make to reducing drug deaths in the UK. Gillian Mackay stated in the meeting that at least 39 sites in Canada and there are peer-reviewed articles from Portugal and there is an evidence base in San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Vermont, Delaware and Portland in Oregon. Pauline McNeill further stated that there are 66 sites in the world with consumption rooms. Moreover, 312 professionals in England will sign the letter after the Health and Social Care Committee at Westminster calling for the introduction of drug consumption rooms. The case for the UK Government changing position is strong and compelling. The Royal College of Physicians in the briefing stated that safe drug consumption facilities have been operating in Europe for around about three decades. It offers opportunities to reduce the acute risks of disease transmission through unhygienic injecting. Critically, it can prevent drug-related overdose deaths and connect high-risk drug users with addiction treatment and other health and social services. The further stated evidence from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction highlights that such facilities also help to reduce drug use in public spaces and the prevalence of discarded needles. We went on to say that safe drug consumption rooms have proved effective in a range of countries such as Australia, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands and others. The evidence indicates that such facilities do not increase drug use nor do they increase the frequency of injecting. The college therefore would recommend that safe drug consumption facilities can, if implemented well, provide people who use drugs in Scotland with an environment to take drugs using safe equipment, with expertly trained staff to support their emotional and physical health needs. I have time for that. For a very brief intervention, I have a bit of time, but not much will be added on Russell Findlay. I am just wondering what the member's view is on the chief constable of Police Scotland who has asked for greater evidence before we are able to support drugs consumption rooms. I think that the evidence that I presented here is quite clear and compelling, as I said before in the statement that I just made. I want to touch on a few other issues that the RCP raised in its briefing. On match standards, it is very clear that the state optimising the use of medication assisted treatment can mitigate opioid use disorder. We have heard that already. The new standard of match will ensure the necessary range of support that is available wherever people live in Scotland to reduce harm and promote recovery. The task force has identified that it is a priority to get more people on to match in a timely manner to support them in the treatment as long as they need. The college supports the match standards. Continued focus on this area is key. The second issue is that of rehabilitation beds. People in the services have better protection from drug deaths. That is a fact. £100 million for £250 million additional investment will support further investment and expansion of residential rehabilitation and assisted aftercare. We need to develop sustainable capacity in regional centres across the country and that work will be inclusive of different models of care. Different funding models can play a significant role in determining the availability of rehabilitation services locally and across the country. Getting people on to treatment and recovering at the right time is the core of our national mission. In conclusion, the debate has been a good debate looking at what we all know is a complex issue. There is much agreement. There is still areas where we disagree. The tone at times has not been helpful. Progress has been made. Let us make sure that we work together moving forward to continue to progress and support individuals, families and communities in Scotland that we are likely to serve. Thank you. Patricia knows only too well how Scotland's SNP Government is failing families who have loved ones struggling with addiction. Patricia's son is 47. He has a drug addiction and has been on methadone for years, and he wants to be free. He describes methadone as like liquid handcuffs. It's as if he shackled to the chemist and fears he'll remain so for the rest of his days. That's because support for recovery and rehabilitation is thin on the ground. Of course, for recovery to work, those with addictions must want to change, but to do so, to take responsibility for their own recovery, they need long-term support and supervision from professionals who believe in them. Recovery is a long, bumpy and winding road. People with addictions trying so hard to get their lives back on track often suffer daily with headaches, nervous symptom disorders and disorientation. It's really important that we have their backs and we're there for them in a long run. Patricia explains that this is simply not happening. Furthermore, from her experience, there is far too much red tape for access servicing in the first place. Then, when mistakes occur, like a service failing to communicate an appointment, guess who gets the blame for the did not attend. Dentistry is an important part of the recovery process. And not only for repairing extensive tooth decay and gum disease, poor dental health is a stigma associated with drug addiction. It influences how people see addicts and also how addicts see themselves. So dental interventions can change the self-image for the better. This is so important for wellbeing and recovery. Patricia wrote to me again on Friday. She is pleading for access to a safe and well-supported rehabilitation unit, a caring service that will help her son off his dependency on methadone, so he can have, as she says, a life worth living. This is a six-foot man who weighs just nine stone. Today, he's crying out for just one right in life, a right to recovery. We're not seeing anywhere near enough progress to advance a rehabilitation treatment of addiction in Scotland. Addiction is ruining countless lives. Families are being torn apart. Over the past decade, thousands have died directly from drug-related deaths. Over 1,300 people died in 2020 alone. There were five times as many drug-related deaths in 2020 as in 2000. Scotland's drug rate is three and a half times that of the UK as a whole. This is a scandal. This is Scotland's national shame. No, this is our Parliament's shame. This is a failure of government. Across the chamber, I believe we agree that the current strategies don't work. The Scottish Conservatives support a public health approach to substance use. We need to have a right to treatment and ongoing support to turn lives around. We need to care and encourage people right through their recovery journey. This is why we feel so strongly about our right to addiction recovery bill. The key underlying principle is to ensure that everyone who seeks treatment for drugs or alcohol addiction is able to access the necessary addiction treatment that they require. This would be a clear binding commitment to families and communities across the country. A promise is unambiguous. It's enshrined in law. The consultation on our proposal shows an overwhelmingly positive response, with 77% of people supportive of the proposals. That includes organisations with a hard experience of working with sufferers from addiction, including fears and voices of recovery, Cisco, the Scottish Tennis Association, Recovery Enterprise of Scotland and the Church of Scotland. I'm also pleased that the Minister for Drugs Policy has signalled and moved towards Scottish Government support for our proposals. I hope that we can speedily work together across Parliament to ensure that our right to recovery is put into law as soon as possible. Of course, details are as important, but so is delivery. In order to deliver the right to recovery bill, there is an obligation on NHS health boards, Scottish ministers and others to provide treatment and set up reporting arrangements so that the quality and access of treatment provided can be monitored and reported to the Scottish Parliament. Parliament needs to see the data. If we don't measure it, we can't improve it. The additional recovery treatment services would include community-based, short- and long-term residential rehab, community-based and residential detox, stabilisation services and substitute prescribing services. Individuals may access a preferred treatment option unless it is deemed harmful by a medical professional. Our right to recovery bill also prevents individuals from being refused access to treatment, including for reasons like having a criminal history involving substance abuse, mental health assessments, being in receipt of substitute prescribing services or individuals that are still using alcohol and drugs. If you want support, you get it. I believe that all of us in this Chamber are horrified by the rising death holes of addiction-related deaths and how addiction has spiralled out of control, tearing families apart and blighting communities. That is a huge problem for Scotland, and it is complex. Tackling this head-on requires co-ordinated action to include support recovery, reducing demand and restricting supply. It is worth noting that co-ordinating with the four nations on tackling drug dealing and organised crime is important. In February, for example, we heard that the police in Kent raided a manufacturing facility and seized 27 million street benzodiausamine tablets that were bound for Glasgow. Just as we do not want Scotland to be seen as a safe place for criminals to do business, we need to work with partners across the UK to damage the source of their supplies, but the thrust of my speech today is supporting people who want to kick their addiction. We should be striving to ensure that no one falls through the gaps, and there is no stigma attached to addiction. We need to commit to long-term support. With those local areas, with the highest need receiving, the most support and our right to recovery bill is the way forward. I refer members to my legislative interests as a practicing NHS GP. As a member of the criminal justice committee, the commitment to a public health approach, as it is clear that a criminal justice-led approach has not worked, it has not prevented the rise of problematic drug use or turned round the lives of those with drug abuse problems. I think that we all know that drug abuse is a major problem in many of our communities. It is a major problem for our criminal justice system and has become a massive problem in our prisons, where drugs are readily available and many prisoners take drugs for the first time. Of course, many offences are committed whilst the individual is under the influence of drugs and are associated with serious drug abuse. There were 1,339 drug-related deaths in 2020, and, as has been said by a number of members, there is no doubt that there is a direct link to poverty, trauma and deprivation. It also has to be said that Scotland has a problem with high-risk patterns of drug use, and we need to look at how that compares with elsewhere. We know that drug-related deaths have been increasing since 1996 and have increased substantially over the past 20 years. The average age of drug-related deaths has increased from 32 years to 43 years over the past 20 years. People in the most deprived areas are 18 times more likely to have a drug-related death in the least deprived areas. In the 2020s, that was only 10 times as likely. We also know that 93 per cent of deaths occur where there is more than one drug present in the body. All of those factors are aspects that we need to be aware of when we look at how we tackle that problem. Over 10,000 people have lost their lives to drugs since 2007. We know that that crisis is complex and that we need bold action to reduce drug-related harms. We need a holistic approach, grounded in public health. We also, however, need to recognise that there is a real problem with those living with addiction being exploited by criminal gangs and that the nature of the drugs trade itself has links with organised crime. The cuts to council services and the cuts to alcohol and drugs, services that Claire Baker spoke about in her speech and, indeed, the wider underfunding of public services more generally clearly is an important factor with the rising levels of inequality and the growing gap between rich and poor in our society. Last year, the Scottish Ambulance Service attended 2,500 incidents where street benzos were involved and more than 1,000 were overdose incidents. As has been said earlier by the minister, we know that the problems are becoming greater for women in particular, and that is an aspect that we need to look at very seriously. We know that there are no silver bullets, but there is strong evidence that safer drug consumption facilities are effective. It is not a new idea. It is an idea that has been around for many decades, but there has been disagreement over many years as to whether it is a practice that is compliant with the misuse of drugs legislation. The Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence from the Lord Advocate earlier this session that she believed that it might be possible for there to be a legal route or, indeed, a route that there could be a public interest ground for providing drug consumption rooms in the public sector. She indicated that she would consider a new proposal on public interest grounds, providing that it was precise, detailed and specific, underpinned by evidence and supported by those who were responsible for policing such a facility. The Scottish Reference Select Committee highlighted in its evidence work by the advisory council on the misuse of drugs that said that there was no overdose deaths that occurred in such facilities as in 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government is working to look at what can be done to address the specific issues that were raised by the Lord Advocate, that have been raised by drugs consumption rooms and that are being brought forward in Paul Sweeney's bill to ensure that we can go forward to look at this specific issue to provide a legal framework in the public sector for such drug consumption rooms. It is only one small part of what is a complex and challenging issue for Government and for all of us, but I hope that it is one aspect that we can see movement on from the Scottish Government quickly. I now call on Stuart McMillan, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to six minutes, please, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I would like to remind the chamber that I am a board member of the addiction recovery service moving on to Inverclyde. This joint debate by three committees of this Parliament provides an example of the type of joint up working that is required. I agree with the comments from Elena Whitham that, earlier when she stated that every committee in this Parliament has a role to play. The debate is of particular importance to me due to the sobering figures that are read when the drugs death figures are published each year. Inverclyde per heropopuliation is normally one of the areas with the highest number of drugs related to deaths. 33 constituents died in 2020, 28 men and five women. Of those people who died, 63 per cent of those who died were in the 35 to 54 age category. That is my age group. Last night, I was reminded of how my age group can be caught up in drugs misuse. After a meeting that I attended, I was informed of a school friend who sadly has been involved with heroin for some time. Growing up in Port Glasgow with declining traditional employment opportunities, it will certainly be part of the reason as to why some people became involved in drugs. That is something that I have spoken about in this chamber before. That is where the issue of deprivation touched upon earlier by speakers and also by Michael Marra's intervention is relevant. The report, published by Glasgow University and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health today, suggests that people are dying younger as a result of UK Government austerity, certainly will not help the situation we as a society face. With regard to drug-related deaths, the report states, and I quote, that, as evidence of the effects of UK Government austerity measures, their impact is seen as twofold, reducing levels of important services such as addictions, housing, mental health, welfare rights and so on, and cutting individual incomes by reductions in social security payments, leading to further drug use as coping mechanisms. There are many areas of society that we all can and must do more to improve, but we cannot do anything once someone has passed. They leave behind parents, children and friends who have to live with that loss forever. We must and can do more and that is why, when the First Minister announced in January 2021 the national mission to reduce drugs-related deaths and harms, supported by the £250 million funding over this parliamentary session, I welcomed that funding to go towards improving and increasing services for people affected by drug addiction. The aim of the national mission is to save and improve lives through, first of all, fast and appropriate access to treatment and support through all services and improve front-line drug services, including the third sector, and that is something that I have touched upon and others that I have touched upon in the chamber before. Across the last week, I met the head of the Inverclyde alcohol and drugs recovery service. The local ADRS is a change of strategy in recent years by bringing together the alcohol team and the drugs team previously. They had operated independently. In a paper to the Inverclyde integrated joint board in March 2020, the following was highlighted and I quote, the review of alcohol and drugs service provision within Inverclyde is nearing completion, with an aim to develop a cohesive and fully integrated whole system approach for service users affected by alcohol and drug issues. Inverclyde historically has not had a well-developed recovery community, so developing more robust recovery opportunities has been identified as an area of required focus and attention. Work has commenced with the recovery strategy being developed. I welcome the changes that have happened locally and I know that there is a more cohesive partnership approach taking place that just really hasn't happened before. Across the chamber, everyone will agree that we need to listen more to the needs and experiences of those who have lived with an addiction and also their family and friends. Too often, those with an addiction suffer from mental health issues, which would cause issues with housing, finances and put pressures on family dynamics. That can then lead to our person's life being difficult to manage and to fall away from treatment services. The Scottish Government highlighted a need to address the high that did not attend rates, as we know. A high proportion of people who died from drug-related causes never had contact with their drug treatment service. To help this aim, the Scottish Government is providing £3 million per year to local services through alcohol and drug partnerships to increase outreach to people who need that support. The Scottish Government is also increasing the capacity of statutory to funding residential rehabilitation places by 300 per cent by the end of 2026, when at least 1,000 people will be publicly funded for their placement. Safed drug consumption rooms and the lock zone have been spoken about already. The Naloxone roll-up programme is something that I welcome and I bought into it at the very outset. The establishment of a safe drug consumption room story, on the other hand, took me longer to accept. The marketing campaign to raise awareness on the lock zone and the signs of overdose, I am sure, will prove to be very beneficial in the long term. However, on the issue of safe drug consumption rooms, it took me a lot longer, as I said, but the fact is that they work, they save lives. Across the chamber, if we actually want to save lives, every single thing has to be on the table for consideration. I want to say thank you to the minister and the Scottish Government for the £400,000 investment to the Jericho Society in my constituency. The Jericho Society runs two residential units in Greenock, one for men and one for women. Jericho has also received £78,000 last year from the Scottish Government, which allowed it to increase staffing hours by 50 hours in the women's house. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. That is why I genuinely believe that having a debate, having actions across this Parliament, across society, is the only way that we can really make those achievements and save those lives the way we need to do. I begin by saying that it is important that the Scottish Government, as a whole, acknowledge that it has failed to tackle Scotland's outrageous and tragic level of high drug deaths. We can assess our approach to the scandalous state of affairs with dire human consequences. That is outlined in a really important and good contribution from Stuart Millan. As Michael Marra said earlier and others have said, we still have no answers as to why Scotland in particular has such acute figures, the worst in Europe. Claire Baker said that in her contribution. We are not alone, but it is important to keep on trying to get an answer to this question, otherwise we will not be sure that we are heading in the right direction. The Government is already slow to meet its own commitments, as Claire Baker also said about the MAT standards. Therefore, it is all the more important that the Opposition work with the Government, as we have all committed to, but also push the Government to deliver on what it has promised, especially on treatment programmes and the MAT standards. I do not envy the job of Angela Constance, the minister, and I want to put on the record that she has my full support in her endeavours. I must interrogate the commitment that she has made, I welcome it, to increase drug and treatment facilities by 300 per cent by the end of the Parliament, but it will be meaningless unless this report can tell us what this looks like in a year, in two years and the year after. We need to see what progress we are going to make in the years between. Some very excellent contributions this afternoon. I think it was Gillian Martin, who was first to point out the link between drug deaths and deprivation, many other speakers have said that. It was even more worrying that the cost of living crisis, the worst in living memory, unfortunately, is likely to create more deprivation. We will, unfortunately, make the Government's job even harder. While drug misuse is now recognised as primarily a public health issue, I hope that that is what we have come to, rather than a criminal justice issue, as Katie Clark spoke to in her contribution, we need to go a lot further to reduce the stigma of addiction, as Emma Harper outlined. Fundamentally, drug addicts are people in pain, both mental and physical pain. There is usually some sort of recent or past tragedy that is developed into trauma where drugs have been used to numb some of the difficulties that manifest in daily life. May I pay tribute to the courage of Collette Stevenson, who has come to this chamber to talk about her family experience and her brother? I think that that must have been hard. I commend her for doing so. Darae MacGarver, who is serious on Scotland's problems with addictions recently had on BBC, said that alcoholics and drug addicts need our love, and I believe that that to be true. If the Government wants our constructive support, it also needs to focus on what we can do now. We have two separate proposals, one from Douglas Ross and one from Paul Sweeney, and they exist because of the vacuum that there has been on Government policy on preventing drug deaths. Both are worthy of consideration. I want to say something about that later on. As we have heard, in Scotland, there were nearly five times as many deaths in 2020 compared with the year 2000, and we should probably reflect on how outrageous that statistic is. That is why we ask those with power and those with the influence, such as the Lord Advocate, to consider what can be done within the law to change that. Portugal is often highlighted as a success story. Drug rates were similar to the EU average, and in 2001, Portugal changed a policy towards a health-led approach, and drug-related deaths have remained below the EU average since 2001, so there is no reason why Scotland cannot turn things around in a similar way. However, we need to ask the question, are we really un-tracked for that? As Claire Baker said in her opening contribution, we cannot allow the Government to back-trap on the swift implementation of medically-assisted treatment standards until they are implemented because life will unnecessarily be lost. I want to talk a little bit about drug consumption rooms, and I will look so much at what other members have. I just want to read that out from one of the briefings. As we have all talked about on many occasions, the well-known Peter Caigran ran a drug consumption facility in Minibus for over a year. Over 10 months of the facility supervised over 800 injections, and at this point, David Lidl of the Scottish Drugs Forum has said, that there was no public interest in prosecuting him for the drug consumption rooms that he ran, and no prosecution followed. However, it seems that a ridiculous state of affairs that he can want to serve has not been prosecuted, but NHS England and Glasgow cannot run the one that it wants to. I do not think that there is a lot of disagreement on that. I think that we need to sort out the public policy, which seems to be a bit of a mess around this. We need to do it very soon, because, as I have argued many times in this chamber, drug consumption rooms are one small part, but it is a gateway to treatment. It is a really important point to make. It is a gateway to those seeking the treatment at which the minister has made a commitment to expanding. They exist in other countries such as Australia, Canada, Switzerland and the Netherlands, so it is clearly a radical step to take. Importantly, there have been no deaths where consumption rooms have been used. That is a really important point to acknowledge. That is also acknowledged by the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh, who recommends that safe drug consumption facilities, as well as rolling out the heroine-assisted treatment programmes in all major centres in Scotland. They say that safe drug consumption facilities can prevent drug-related overdoses. It is only one way, but it is important to sort that out. I want to conclude by saying that I do wait with real interest to the report in June that the minister referred to. I hope that there will be signs in that report that we are on the right track. However, if we are not on the right track, it is important that ministers come to the chamber humbly and tell us that we are not on the right track. If we are all serious about that, the approach that we will take is to acknowledge that and then put our heads together, work together to change that, because if we do not, there are far too many lives at stake. I start by echoing the somber comments that are made by others in the chamber and passing our condolences to anyone watching this or being affected by not just drug-related deaths but the very presence of drugs in their lives, their own or their families. I commend Collette Stevenson for sharing a very deeply personal and moving experience of what that means. I think that too often we forget that we are in a position of great privilege to be with user platforms in public life to share our own personal experiences and I know that that is not easy to do as someone who has tried to do it myself. I actually would prefer that future debates about the subject lend themselves more in tone and content to talking about some of the progress that we are making, not the year-on-year rise in drug deaths that have so often become the reality of debates such as this. I share Mr Marr's concern that having listened carefully to today's debate, I fear that the tone of collegiate and constructive consensus that existed in the early days of this topic have been replaced by a merry-go-round of blame game, political or otherwise. I do find that deeply unfortunate because the statistics are grim, the statistics bear themselves true. We are the drug death capital of Europe and the point being made by many repeatedly today and a point that I tried to make earlier is that the rate of drug deaths in Scotland is much higher than that of the rest of the UK, where there exists a very similar legislative environment that deals with how drugs are dealt with and arguably it is more relaxed in Scotland than in other parts of the UK but equally where there are huge pockets of deprivation right across England, especially in the midlands in the north, where there are major drug problems and that is widely accepted by the Government south of the border, but the rate of drug deaths is markedly lower and that is something that has never been properly, academically identified, discussed in a way where we can have that conversation without it's your fault, it's her fault, it's their fault, it's that minister's fault, it's not my minister's fault and I think that we could have that conversation and we should have that conversation. I'm happy to give way. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I wonder if you would agree with myself, back in the mid-2000s when I did a lot of work with people experiencing drug use, I would tape around lots of different GP practices trying to get prescriptions for benzodiazepines for these people but general practice had wholesale stopped prescribing due to the fact that things were being sold on in the open market and that I think is one of the key areas where we perhaps saw a shift in a change in the way that Scotland was dealing with drugs and drug deaths. Jamie Greene? It's one of many factors. I don't disagree with that. The supply of cheap street drugs is a major problem. You don't need to go far from this building to speak to people about how cheaply and easily it is to source illicit factory-made pills, which replaced those that previously hitherto were prescribed to people. We are not clinicians, some of us are, but these are complex discussions that have to take place. I appreciate that there are a wide range of factors. Many have been mentioned. People were talking about the 1980s and social deprivation in areas where I grew up. I accept that they have been fundamental root causes going back a generation, but that was 40 years ago. What I am saying now is that we have a powerfully devolved Parliament, a powerfully devolved Government who could have made different choices in the last decade and did not. We cannot talk about the use of drugs if we do not address the issue of supply. I think that that is an important part of this debate that has been missing. Drugs do not magic themselves onto the streets of Scotland. They are put there through a complex network of supply, production and distribution, and that starts right at the very top from the dealer network. There are pill making factories right now in Scotland making little blue pills that people are selling for £50 a pop, which people are overdosing and they are mixing with other drugs. That is a fundamental part of the reason why so many are suffering fatal outcomes. Of course, we know that there are cross-border issues, complex cross-border issues, county lines, trafficking, slavery and money laundering. What Scotland really needs is both of its Governments working together on solutions to those intra- and international crime issues. I do not think that that has helped by the tone of the debate that I have heard thus far today. I could talk about diversion and prosecution. I could talk about safe consumption rooms and their legality or otherwise. I think that our bench's views on some of that are quite well rehearsed and I do not think that they need to be played out. However, there is one fundamental point that we did here today, which is a game changer. That is the spending review that was announced by the finance secretary in the moments before the debate started. I am afraid to say that justice and the justice portfolio comes out badly in all of this. That includes our prisons and our rehabilitation services and the community justice services that will help to get people back on the straight and narrow and the courts and the police court funding, all getting a real-terms cut over the next five years. We can have an argument about why and how that has happened, but we must be honest with ourselves and ask ministers if such cuts to front-line services will deliver the outcomes that she wants. I will ask if that £50 million per year in the term of this Parliament will be ring-fenced and will not suffer the same cut to budgets as other portfolios have been announced. I just want to finish by pleading with the Government. Rather than reflect on what I thought has been quite a misfortunate tone in today's debate and taking issues with other Governments and powers that we do not sit with us, what I would say is that all the front-line services that people who desperately need access to will not exist and will not function properly if they are not properly funded and properly resourced. Before lamenting powers that ministers claim that they need to fix the problem, they must be able to demonstrate to the Parliament and to the wider public that they are willing to and able to use the ones that they already have and use them to their fullest, Presiding Officer. I now call on Angela Constance Minister up to seven minutes, please. Let me start by genuinely thanking all speakers this afternoon, but in particular Collette Stevenson, for her very personal contribution. I think that she was a great leveler to all of us on a cross-party basis that, at times, we just need to buckle down and focus on what matters most. It is saving lives that is what matters most. I thank Collette for her contribution. I think that most contributors this afternoon have also recognised that we can only make the necessary impact by tackling the issue of problem substance use wherever it presents, be that in our communities or in our institutions or in our health and social care system. We must ensure that all our services from primary care through to housing, justice et cetera are all pulling in the right direction. That is why the national mission is important both in terms of tone but also actions, because this is about how we as a country move forward together, despite our differences, and how we move forward together to address the issue of problem drug use. That is, by and large, by taking a public health approach that not only saves lives but crucially looks at improving life chances. I do not shy away from the fact that my first priority in coming into this post was to get investment out the door into the front line. I am proud of the fact that the national mission has secured a 67% increase in resources available. I would hope that members would welcome and recognise that there are 97 front line organisations and third sector organisations that have now been directly funded by Government via the CORA funds. Of course, not that long ago we announced that there are 77 projects that will benefit from £25 million over the next five years, and that came from the children and families fund. Last week, I laid out a statement that I appreciate some members were underwhelmed by, and I know that I can bore for Britain the phrase when it comes to good governance, but accountability, governance and regular reporting at a local as well as the national level is crucial. That is why, in that statement, I laid out about the work that we will do around local outcomes frameworks, about the national mission annual report and, of course, the formulation of a plan that we are already proceeding with, which is in and around prevention, that emergency response, treatment and recovery but also improving lives. We are, I can assure you, gathering and publishing more information than ever before in the interests of transparency and accountability. I have consistently said that, in terms of the right to treatment proposition from the Conservatives that I will give that a fair wind, I have no reason to do otherwise. Similarly, with Mr Sweeney's proposition on safer drug consumption rooms, I think that Katie Clark made some important points. What she did is take us right back to the commentary that was made by the Lord Advocate to the Justice Committee at the end of last year, where the Lord Advocate spoke about, and I am paraphrasing, the limits placed on us by the law across the UK. She also made that question about what is in the public interest in terms of prosecution. I want to reassure Katie Clark and Pauline McNeill, because it is a matter of public records that I have made repeatedly, that we are in the guts of work that is delicate, it is detailed but it is around meeting that need to be precise and detailed and specific in our proposition. The reality is that evidence around safe drug consumption facilities is compelling. It is that gateway to other treatments. The greatest respect to any individual coming forward with a proposition, I have never ruled out the need to legislate further. It is why we are moving forward with a national care service and a human rights bill. I know, and I am sure that other members know, that statements of high principles and propositions around future legislation do not necessarily create immediate action and acting now. That is why our focus has been on scaling up the practical and financial support to implement, embed, sustain and improve match standards. That financial support went from £6 million to £10 million per annum. Of course, we will return to the issue in just a few weeks. Again, in the interest of transparency and accountability, there will be a report that will have 145 indicators across 29 localities. In terms of our work around residential rehabilitation, we have made substantial announcements. I am not going to repeat them all here today, but this is also part of our commitment to women, our families and keeping the promise. Members will also recall the work that we have done in and around a treatment target. At the core of the national mission, we have to get more of our people into the treatment and recovery that is right for them. I have always said that that is on us. The fact that we do not have enough people in treatment and recovery, I have always said that is on us. It remains a fact that it is a point of disgrace that your ability to get residential rehabilitation is on your ability to pay at the moment in Scotland. That remains an unfortunate fact. Those beds are not going to magic themselves overnight. What can the Government do in the more short to medium term to improve access to much-needed rehabilitation for those who need it most? I appreciate that Mr Greene follows probably justice matters more carefully than issues in and around my portfolio, but the decisions that I have made will result in 85 additional beds and will increase capacity by 20 per cent. The reason we are doing all this monitoring and reporting is to follow the money. We are investing more than ever before, specifically in a residential rehab, and I am following that money closely hence my statement to Parliament last week. I want to quickly cover the issue of benzodiazepines. The Government brought together the expert group together this year, Mr Marra's Right February. One of the recommendations from that group was monitoring the development of the pilot benzoclinic that is being set up in Fife. That is funded by £274,000 per year again through the national mission. If I can say to Emma Harper that the expert group also thought that it was too early to move to flumazenil, as it is associated with Caesars, but she wishes more detail on that. She should not hesitate to come and speak to me. My final point is quite simply about drug law reform. I have never demurred from the importance of investment and reform of services and utilising every aspect of the powers and resources that we have at our disposal. It is important, though, that we do not seek to take the easy road and that we must pursue what works. I have only ever engaged with the UK Government on the evidence. We need a better conversation debate, not just between ourselves but with communities of interest in place about what will improve the safety and wellbeing of individuals and communities. We must, as a matter of priority, reduce demand and improve access to treatment. I now call on Paul O'Kane to wind up on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee up to eight minutes. I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this important debate on behalf of the three committees—Health, Social Care and Sport, Criminal Justice and Social Justice and Social Security Committee—which have, as we have heard, undertaken joint scrutiny work on the issue of tackling drug deaths and drug harm. I begin, as colleagues have, on behalf of the committees, in offering our condolences to anyone who has lost a loved one to drugs. I thank everyone in the chamber who has contributed to this afternoon's debate from all sides of the chamber for bringing their own experience and ideas, but particularly our committee conveners who opened the minister and party front benches and to echo everyone's compliments to Collette Stevenson for her very powerful and personal speech. The debate today and the joint work that has preceded it has been important. Excuse me, Mr O'Kane, could you resume your seat for a second? I just say that there is a wee bit too much noise in the chamber and I think that we all want to hear Mr O'Kane winding up for the committee. Thank you. The debate and the joint work that has preceded it has been important and broadly positive. I think that a strong example of cross-committee collaboration in this Parliament. In terms of tackling drug deaths and drug harm, I think that it also reflects the cross-sectoral nature of the significant challenges that we face and the variety of actions that are needed to address them. I believe that we have heard some of the ideas and thinking around those issues today. We have heard from colleagues about the challenges that exist in rehab services. We have heard that from Russell Finlay and Sue Webber. We have heard about the limitations of the Miss Use of Drugs Act that was outlined by Gillian Mackay. We have heard about the need for long-term support in everyday life as outlined by Stuart McMillan in his contribution. The evidence that we took as a joint committee from the UK minister for crime and policing at Mawthouse and from Angela Constance as a Scottish Government minister with responsibility for drugs policy showed that the responses and the interventions that are required are many and complex and will be found at multiple different levels of government. From a health, social care and sports committee perspective, today's debate has been particularly useful in shining a light on the public health aspects of drug policy, a number of which the committee will undoubtedly want to explore further as part of its future work programme. Issues such as stigma that were raised by Emma Harper and safe drug consumption facilities raised by many colleagues today across the chamber. No doubt, there will be other aspects that other colleagues in the criminal justice and the social justice and social security committees will want to take forward also. Hopefully, we can continue to collaborate effectively across committees as we progress with important scrutiny work. It is clear that scrutiny and ensuring government delivery will be important, particularly on issues such as the match standards. I think that we scrutinise those two members' bills in the name of Douglas Ross and Paul Sweeney that we have heard mentioned today. There were contributions today about the tone of the debate. Gillian Martin spoke about ensuring that our tone is respectful, Michael Marra and Jamie Greene similarly. I think that there is something that we must focus on in ensuring that we continue to find our common ground on this issue, because there is common cause across the chamber that this is a national emergency that warrants an urgent and concerted response. I think that what we have seen demonstrated today is that there is less of a consensus perhaps on what the solutions might be and how we move forward. In the joint committee, I had an exchange with Kit Mulhouse where I asked if he acknowledged poverty as the underlying cause of the current Doug Seth crisis. He responded by saying, no, I do not. I think that it is the other way round and that violence drives poverty rather than the other way round. However, there are contributions to that. Some of the written evidence that we received in committee from alcohol and drug partnerships across Scotland specifically highlighted poverty and deprivation as an important contributing factor to drug harms. That evidence pointed to a significant overlap between our most deprived communities and an increased prevalence of drug harm and death. However, it is also clear that we must drill down further to understand the particular challenges in our Scottish context and why our drug deaths are higher than other parts of the UK. I think that there is—there continues to be broad agreement within this Parliament that Scotland's drug deaths crisis is first and foremost a public health crisis and that our policy response needs to treat it as such. However, we must acknowledge the relationships between health and justice and one that has all too often jarred over many years. Ultimately, if we are going to find impactful solutions, we need to follow evidence. It is important that we do that without prejudice or preconception. This afternoon, we have heard multiple examples of collaborative work throughout Scotland and the impact that that is having in tackling drug harms and, indeed, the further measurable impacts that it could offer for workable solutions that will reduce drug deaths. Widing up this debate, I would like to highlight one more example. In its written submission to our call for evidence, East Renfrewshire Alcohol and Drug Partnership told us about turning point. Scotland's successful funding bids deliver the wand initiative in Greater Glasgow and Clyde, including East Renfrewshire. That initiative delivers four key harm reduction interventions on an outreach basis, wind assessment, the assessment of injecting risk, provision of naloxone and dry blood spot testing for blood-borne viruses. I think that we have heard a lot about many of those interventions across the country today. However, the wand initiative is one of many innovative approaches that the committee has heard about in written evidence. It is an example of efforts to deliver consistent harm reduction in interventions in communities across the west of Scotland. We, as legislators, have a responsibility to evaluate and to learn from the approaches and to try to replicate what works. That is why I think that it has been so important today in this debate that we have heard a real strong call for evidence-based decision making, for reporting to this Parliament and for continued scrutiny and analysis of what is being done in this national mission. We have also heard in written evidence and, I think, in all of our discussions on the subject, that an important element of an effective policy response is early intervention. We need to be mindful that an early intervention approach takes time to embed and to start delivering results, but it is no less important for that. I also want, on behalf of the committees, to note the continued willingness of the minister to engage with our committees and to be subject to the on-going scrutiny in those committees and in this Parliament, not only in terms of the work of the drugs death task force and its implementation, but also with respect to the new national collaborative. We, as a committee, very much look forward to continued engagement and scrutiny of the decisions that the minister takes. Across this Parliament, we all share a common goal, I believe, which is to achieve a sustainable long-term reduction in drugs deaths and harms in Scotland, and ultimately to eliminate the blight that drugs currently inflict on so many lives. Over the coming months, I hope that we can continue to do that in a collective dialogue, maintaining a laser focus on scrutinising progress. It is through effective collaboration across committees and parties and by taking an evidence-based approach that we will have the best chance of delivering on the national mission to reduce and ultimately eradicate drugs deaths and drugs harm in Scotland. That concludes the debate on tackling drug deaths and drug harm. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 4723, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out changes to tomorrow's business, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and the question therefore is that motion 4723 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 4728, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on variation of standing orders. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 4728 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed, and there are no decisions to be taken as a result of today's business. We'll now move on to members' business, and I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly.