 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 7894, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for today. I would ask any member who wishes to object to say so now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 7894. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 7894 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That brings us to two typical questions, and we start with question number one from Joan McAlpine. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update following yesterday's meeting with the UK Government to discuss Brexit. Deputy First Minister John Swinney. The meeting with the United Kingdom Government was a useful opportunity for an exchange of views on Brexit, including to discuss the Scottish Government's proposed amendments to the EU withdrawal bill, which were published jointly with the Welsh Government last week. The discussions were constructive and we repeated our willingness to discuss where common frameworks may be required, provided that they proceed on the basis of agreement and with the required changes to the bill. We made it clear that the Scottish Government will not recommend to the Scottish Parliament that it gives its consent to the bill unless changes are made to protect devolution, as set out in our proposed amendments. Mr Russell and I also stressed the need for the forthcoming meeting of the GMCEN to be a constructive discussion allowing us to contribute to the development of a negotiating position for the whole of the United Kingdom in line with the agreed terms of reference. Joan McAlpine. Thank you. I understand that the talks were described as constructive, but there remains no significant movement by the UK Government towards an EU withdrawal bill that respects the 1998 devolution settlement, which respects this Parliament or which even keeps the promises made by leavers, including Michael Gove, that Scotland's Parliament would become more, not less powerful as a result of Brexit. Has the Scottish Government set a timescale for further talks and what are its minimum expectations of the UK Government in the interim? Mr Swinney. The Government has said that we will continue discussions with the UK Government and there will be further contact at official level and ministerial level in due course to take forward the discussions that Mr Russell and I had yesterday with the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have had discussions around some of the issues in connection with the establishment of frameworks and further dialogue will take place in that respect. The UK Government has also agreed to consider the amendments that we have suggested in partnership with the Welsh Government as part of the consideration of the EU withdrawal bill, which will be making its way through the House of Commons in due course. Joan McAlpine. Friends of the Earth Scotland last week said that the EU withdrawal bill would result in an alarming loss of control by Scotland's Parliament over renewable energy, climate change, air quality and fracking—all areas where Scotland has led the UK. The charity Nourish has warned that the bill could diminish the quality of the food that we eat, and NFU Scotland has said that the loss of agricultural payments could amount to £250 million a year. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, for the sake of our environment and our rural economy, those powers must remain in Scotland, as Donald Dweyer's 1998 devolution settlement intended? I think that people in Scotland would not be in any way surprised that the Scottish Government, and I also believe the Scottish Parliament, would want to protect the settlement that was agreed in 1998, which has been subsequently updated by the transfer of powers at different occasions and, most recently, by the transfer of powers implicit in the enactment of the Smith commission. People would be perturbed if there was to be an attempt as a consequence of the EU withdrawal bill to essentially recast that settlement, and I think that that is why there is such a breadth of opinion in Scotland that supports the position adopted by the Scottish Government. I want to make it clear that we have no opposition in principle as a Government to work within UK frameworks where that is relevant and appropriate to do so, but it must be appropriate and relevant to do so, and it must respect the devolved settlement. That is why we have marshaled very specifically and very openly the amendments to the EU withdrawal bill, because essentially those amendments rectify what is wrong in that bill, which could be damaging and prejudicial to the devolved settlement. We will continue those discussions, but I assure Ms McAlpine and I assure Parliament of the determination of the Government to remain very clear about the issues of principle that are at stake in the EU withdrawal bill and to work at all times to ensure that we have in place a framework that protects the devolution settlement. There is, of course, a wider debate to be had about the extension of powers to the Parliament as a consequence of the EU withdrawal bill, and we are yet to hear specifics about what those additional powers that were promised during the EU referendum are likely to be when they materialise. Adam Tomkins I welcome the Scottish Government's recognition that there will be a need for UK-wide or perhaps great Britain-wide common frameworks as we leave the European Union. Is the Deputy First Minister able to tell Parliament today anything about the areas, the substantive policy areas, where the Scottish ministers think that such common frameworks will be needed? Is he able to tell us anything about how he understands the timing as to which those common frameworks might become apparent? The Deputy First Minister That is fundamentally the dialogue that we have to engage in with the United Kingdom Government on those questions. We have been absolutely clear throughout this process that we have no opposition in principle to the development of UK frameworks, but they have to be appropriate and respectful of the devolved competence. What has been proposed in the EU withdrawal bill essentially goes about this in my view, in the Scottish Government's view, entirely the wrong fashion. It essentially presupposes that all of those powers should be reserved to the United Kingdom Government, regardless of whether they were devolved in 1998. We need to reverse that process and establish the basis on which UK frameworks should be constructed, their substance and, most importantly, how agreement should be reached in the operation of those UK frameworks. That point is very material, because we cannot have a situation where the Scottish Parliament cannot properly and fully represent the interests of the people of Scotland in those frameworks, only to find that the outcome of those frameworks is determined by decisions made by the United Kingdom Government. Those will be the issues that are taken forward as part of the on-going discussions that we have, but I reiterate to Mr Tomkins the position that the Government has made very clearly to Parliament that the EU withdrawal bill in its current format is not a bill that the Government could recommend that we give legislative consent to which we give legislative consent, because of that fundamental weakness in the composition of the bill. Thank you very much. The Deputy First Minister will be well aware that UK ministers have made a couple of assessments around the withdrawal bill, which I am sure he will want to test. First of all, the assertion that the powers that are coming to the UK under the terms of the bill that the UK Government deem can be transferred directly to the Scottish Government, that will happen without delay. The chancellor said so on his visit to Scotland yesterday. The other is that all the responsibilities that the Government is taking in the devolved areas are a temporary measure in order to put frameworks into place. I wonder if he can indicate whether discussions that he has had with the UK Government so far either identify some of the 111 devolved areas where the UK Government has no quibble with those being transferred immediately to the Scottish Government responsibility or whether there is any indication of the Government's intention to amend its own bill in order to time limit the exceptional powers that they have taken under its terms? The way that Mr McDonald characterised the chancellor's remarks yesterday is not consistent with what is in the bill, because the bill says something very different to the way in which Mr McDonald characterised the issue. Fundamentally, there has to be a change to the bill to avoid the situation about which the Government is concerned, in which I believe that there is broad parliamentary support, because the proposal in the bill is to transfer all those powers to the United Kingdom. I can give Mr McDonald no clarity about how temporary that would be. I can give no clarity about how he used the words the transference of the powers without delay. I can give no guarantee to Mr McDonald about that on the discussions yesterday. There is a material conversation to be had about what powers within the range of responsibilities in the list of 111 that were shared with the finance committee last week. There will, of course, be discussions to be had about what should be the subject of UK frameworks and what should not. At this stage, I cannot share any proceeds of the discussions with Parliament as to which powers fall into particular categories, but that is a material issue that has to be addressed in our dialogue. I recently visited a social enterprise in Glasgow that was set up to teach European languages to both children and adults. By necessity, they have found themselves forced effectively to provide a support group to the many EU citizens and their families living in Glasgow who find their lives in turmoil with the complete lack of clarity about their future. Will the Government place a high priority in its discussions with the UK Government and others? The need to recognise and remember the position of people in Glasgow and elsewhere throughout Scotland who are part of this European country and who we value and to make sure that they are given the clarity that they deserve by the UK Government, which so far has been unwilling to do so. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Harvey's point in his question. At a personal level, I met a week past Saturday with representatives of the Polish community in my constituency, and I detected exactly the unease and the anxiety and the hurt, frankly, that is felt by European citizens who have come here and who are making a contribution to our society, both in terms of their contribution to the economy and their contribution to our communities and our schools and the lives that we all lead. I completely accept Mr Harvey's point. I reassure him that, in the meeting yesterday that I made clear to the First Secretary of State the importance that the Government attaches to being able to give certainty to those individuals but also to have an approach once the United Kingdom has left the European Union to enabling the free movement of individuals. The substantial contribution that has been made by the migrant population to our population as a whole and our economy should not be understated by anyone in this debate. Those issues are very much on our agenda. We have tried to seek the clarity that we can on every occasion available to us. I assure Mr Harvey of our determination to make sure that that continues in all further discussions on that question. When we get on to the joint ministerial committee EN, which will take place in October, that will be an opportunity for us to engage substantively on the discussions around what is the negotiating position of the United Kingdom for the longer term. I assure Mr Harvey that that will be a priority for the Government in those negotiations. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Network Rail on its decision to withdraw support for the needle exchange programme at Glasgow Central Station. The Scottish Government is concerned that the decision taken by Network Rail stands as contrary to the ambitions of our road to recovery drug strategy that seeks to provide support and services to those at most at risk from addictions and risk further stigmatisation of those who rely on needle exchanges services across Scotland. The Glasgow Central Station needle exchange is one of the busiest in Scotland, providing around 1,000 transactions per month, thereby meeting a significant public health need in Glasgow and one that was identified in the 2016 Glasgow public health needs assessment. Removing the service will not only displace but potentially exacerbate the issue of problem drug use in this area. The Minister for Transport and Islands has spoken with the managing director of the ScotRail Alliance, who has agreed to look again at Network Rail's decision in light of concerns. I thank the minister for that response. The decision by Network Rail has caused a great deal of anxiety. The programme was set up in 2016 following a spike in HIV cases in Glasgow. It is used widely by 2,000 drug users, and it has issued greater than 40,000 needle cleaning kits. It is very much needed. Because of its location in Central Station, it is able to have opening hours from 7 am through to midnight. It is a very damaging decision. I would say that it has got to be reversed as soon as possible. I note what the minister has said. I would ask that the Government take the lead in working with the various partner organisations—the health, social care partnership, the city council and the NHS—to press the case very strongly with Network Rail to reverse the decision immediately. The concerns that have been articulated by James Kelly, as I said in my original answer, the Minister for Transport and Islands has spoken already to the ScotRail alliance, and they have agreed to look again at that decision in light of those concerns. Those are very real concerns. The public health needs, the fact that there has been that spike in HIV in the city and the fact that it had been one of those identified within the 2016 Glasgow public health needs assessment. As I said in my original answer, it potentially risks displacing and exacerbating the problem within the city centre. It is right to acknowledge that the particular centre is very busy, is centrally located and provides an important public service. Discussions are on going. Where we can ensure that discussion is made, we will do what we can and work with the partners that have an interest in this. As I said, there is a cross-portfolio, so my colleague has already engaged with Network Rail on the issue, and we will keep Mr Kelly informed. Ivan McKee Can the minister indicate what approach the refresh of the drug strategy will take with regard to addressing the issue of substance abuse from a public health perspective? Thank you. In announcing my intention to refresh the current Scottish drug strategy, I emphasised the importance of viewing and treating substance misuse through a public health lens. The nature of Scotland's drug problem is changing, and services need to adapt to meet the needs of those who are most at risk, whom we know face complex and wide-ranging social and medical issues. A key aspect of the strategy will be to consider how we encourage those who are most at risk to engage with services and to look at how we keep them there as a means of promoting the protective factors associated with being in treatment. Again, I will add that it relates in part to James Kelly's answer and question. It needs to be seen in the broadest possible context. It cannot just be around health professionals and those at the front line. That has to be seen across many different disciplines and many different professions. That is my hope and my intention when we take forward this refresh is that we engage as thoroughly and widely as we possibly can to make sure that we get the right strategy in place to adapt and to cope with the changing requirements across the country. John Finnie. This is an excellent service and an excellent location. We know that community safety and harm reduction are inextricably linked. The service users must be supported, not displaced, as you said. The community responsibility is largely discharged by the NHS, but I ask what role there is in the Scottish Government and whether you have made an assessment if there are sufficient and robust arrangements elsewhere in the country to avoid a repetition of the sort of incident. As I understand it from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, discussions had been on-going, so there was never at any point from their perspective a need to escalate this to the Scottish Government at the point in time. As I said in response to James Kelly, Colleague Hunza Yousnap has already engaged with the ScotRail Alliance, who is going to ensure that there is a re-look at Network Rail's decision, in light of the concerns that have been raised, where there are other areas that we can push to ensure that that does not have happened again will be taken forward when those conversations were appropriate. Certainly, I have expressed my concern about this discussion and it will potentially exacerbate what is quite a significant problem for the city. We need to work together across the different disciplines of different partners, the health boards and others, to make sure that we can get something in place or make sure that discussions can be always as open and as considered as they possibly can be. At the moment, I understand that the Simon community has agreed to allocate two members of staff to operate a backpacking exchange outside the station from 6.30 to 9.30 for the next two weeks, and that is a temporary measure. The two weeks period is a stopgap to give some time to see if the decision is reconsidered or for an alternative service to be established. We will continue to keep members updated as that develops and make sure that those who have an interest can be furnished with appropriate information because of the dynamic element of the situation. Adam Tomkins Thank you, Presiding Officer. A survey of 1,000 drug addicts in Scotland revealed that less than 5 per cent of them wanted help with injecting safely and that the overwhelming majority want to become drugs-free. What action is the Scottish Government taking to help those addicts to achieve that goal of abstinence? One thing that the member might be interested in is that very recently we hosted—it was in his constituency in Glasgow—the first-ever gathering of our recovery communities. That brought together a number of different groups from across Scotland who were able to articulate the importance of recovery for them. It is also an important plank of the road to recovery, which will be refreshed. There is a flourishing recovery community. There is a recovery walk at the end of this month in Dundee. If the member is interested, I am sure that they will be glad to have the support and recognition of their achievements in trying to cope with their addiction habits. We will keep the member engaged with the refresh of the strategy, but there is a flourishing recovery community that we should all be very proud of, because they have done enormously well to get to a position where they are able to cope with their addiction but also to be able to help and support others through similar troubles. Thank you very much. That completes the topical questions.