 The next item of business is debate on motion 14914, in the name of Miles Briggs, on new approach needed to tackle Scotland's drugs crisis. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Miles Briggs to speak to and move the motion for up to nine minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Ten years ago, pressure from the Scottish Conservatives resulted in the then First Minister, Alex Salmond, committing the minority SNP government at the time to develop a 10-year drugs recovery strategy. At the time, Scottish Conservative leader Annabelle Goldie rightly called for a new focus on rehabilitation services and action to address the shocking death rate amongst drug-dependent Scots. In 2007, this saw the unacceptable situation in our country where 455 of our fellow Scots died as a direct result of drug-related deaths. A decade on, and we need to see and be totally honest with what has gone on, the SNP government has failed to lead that change that we all wanted to see. The road to recovery strategy has not just— Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay. Given that his party had such an influence on that policy, is it the influence of his party that has caused the numbers to die to double? No, I think that in terms of Mr Findlay's contribution to the debates, he should consider the issue that we are talking about and the fact that we are trying to progress this policy, which is exactly what Scottish Conservatives MSPs did. I remember what was left of Labour who have returned to this chamber and did nothing on this issue, so we will take no lectures on this today. The Scottish Government's draft strategy estimates that there are 61,500 people in Scotland between the ages of 15 and 64 who are engaged in problematic drug use in Scotland today. That has significantly increased from the estimated 52,000 Scots who needed help during the road to recovery strategy in 2007. Deputy Presiding Officer, a decade ago, Scottish Conservatives asked SNP ministers to act. Today we are demanding SNP ministers take action. Scotland is facing a national public health emergency with a record number of drug-related deaths. Last year, 934 of our fellow Scots in a second died as a direct result of overdoses more than double the number a decade ago, and two and a half times the right UK-wide. Stuart McMillan I thank you for taking the intervention and I refer members to my register of interests. It is Miles Breaks now saying that his party and him did not agree with road to recovery. Miles Breaks That is exactly what I am not saying. What I am saying is that what we hoped would be a strategy that this Government would deliver to turn this around has failed. Ministers have failed and today we are resetting them to make sure that this is a challenge that this whole Parliament takes up to address. Scotland is looking to its Parliament and to this Government to act, and we need action now. The human cost is immense. Drugs, rec families destroy lives and are holding back some of our poorest communities. The financial cost is just as severe. It has been estimated that drug misuse costs Scotland £3.5 billion every year. Scottish Conservatives are calling for a new approach and have consistently called on the Scottish Government to tackle and take a genuine cross-portfolio approach to drug addiction in Scotland. That is why this week we have set out our own radical proposals on how we believe that we as a country can reduce drug addiction and cut drug-related deaths. We want to see steps taken to establish innovative new approaches in Scotland to support individuals, families and our communities. The establishment of local commissions for individuals caught for the first time in possession of drugs, an independent review of the methadone programme, a redesign of alcohol and drug services, a redirection of funds into rehabilitation, recovery and abstinence support, more prison-based interventions followed by transitional and long-term support for addicts, increased peer support, employability and education programmes and a third sector recovery task force. We are also calling on the Scottish National Party Government to commit to some real targets to benchmark drug policies, something not included in the last strategy. Target, we believe, is achievable with a change in direction from this Government, a target to half the number of drug deaths in five years and a target to increase the number of problem drug users accessing treatment from just 40 per cent to 60 per cent. Listening to those who work day in, day out in our drug and alcohol partnerships, it is clear that they feel let down by the Scottish Government and that the Scottish Government's drug and alcohol strategy is simply not fit for purpose. I want to make some progress in the time having taken to. Scottish Conservatives agree with them. Many feel that the Scottish Government is lacking the real vision to get a grip of the crisis facing our country, that is costing lives, destroying families and affecting so many of our communities. That is too big and too important an issue simply to be left to this SNP Government. Today, the SNP Government has decided to publish their drug and alcohol strategy on the very day that we are debating the issues in this chamber. From reading the strategy, my initial thoughts are that it has not developed the actions that the sector has been calling for and is not going to make the real long-term difference that we all want to see. Like the positive steps taken to improve the suicide strategy, Scottish Conservatives have offered to work with the Scottish Government on this issue. I met with the minister in his very first day in the job and outlined how we wanted to see a radical new approach, something that has not materialised. This Government has not prioritised the public health emergency which we have in Scotland today and have not looked towards the long-term solutions that we all should work to develop. Most recently, the SNP Government has destabilised the sector, with a £20 million cut to funding for drug and alcohol partnerships. The third sector is simply not being let in and has been given the opportunity to set up the help and support for drug addicts and their families and our communities and provide the additional infrastructure that the country so desperately and clearly needs. The situation in Scotland today is at crisis point, but there are also warnings coming internationally. The opioid crisis that we are seeing in the States is a major warning and a call to action for all parliamentarians across this chamber. A year ago, Alison Johnstone and I visited the Edinburgh alcohol and drug partnership facility and met with a number of service users there. It is a visit that will stick with me for the rest of my time in this Parliament. We met with an individual there who had spent 20 years in drug alcohol services. She had felt like she was being moved around the services and was not being given the opportunity to escape what was a cycle of decline that she saw it. She told us her own personal story about the fact that when she was growing up at six years old, she had been abused by her father. At 13, she had been introduced to heroin by her father and how that had destroyed her life. What stuck with me was how she felt that it was her fault somehow. However, what she really wanted to say and what I want to say today is that the opportunity to get into recovery services did not exist here in Edinburgh for her and does not exist across Scotland. That has to change the current strategy and the Government's new strategy does very little to achieve that. I do not want to be standing here in 10 years time taking part in a debate on how to address the thousands of drug deaths that we will see in Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, it should be a national scandal that, under the SNP, Scotland has become Europe's drug death capital. Over the last 20 years of devolution, Scotland has failed to make any real progress in addressing the drug dependency and drug misuse facing many of our fellow Scots today. We, as parliamentarians, can decide to spend our time blaming other parliaments. We can look for excuses or policy areas that we do not have within our powers today or we can act. We on these benches are not willing to see this national public health emergency continue. We need action to set our country, our health services, the third sector, our local communities the challenge to help turn this situation around. We can come together, we can work together to develop a new national approach which is needed to clearly tackle the public health emergency that so many of our fellow Scots are facing today. However, we need this SNP Government to understand that it needs a radical new approach to tackle this crisis. The Scottish Government can and must lead that change or make ways for others to do that. I move a motion in my name. I call Jo FitzPatrick to speak to and move amendment S5M-14914.2 for eight minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will move the amendment in my name in case I forget later. Minister, could you pull your microphone over a bit? The last 10 years have seen significant changes in the nature of Scotland's alcohol and drugs problems. We have witnessed a significant increase in the number of drug-related deaths and corresponding high levels of alcohol-related deaths. Alongside that loss of life, problem substance use also inflicts pain, trauma and suffering on individuals, families and communities right across the country. I came into this post at a time when there was already work under way to develop a new substance use strategy. However, I took the decision at that point to pause what was being produced, allowing me the time to meet people from the sector, those who are responsible for commissioning and delivering our treatment services, but also those who have used them and still use them and their families. Just this morning, I announced the publication of our new combined alcohol and drug strategy, rights, respect and recovery at the Cairn Centre in Dundee. I had the opportunity to meet the service users who spoke to me about their experiences, including their use of substances, but also their stories of recovery. I spoke to many family members and I was able to speak to some of the staff who work there to get a feeling for what it is like to be at the front line of service delivery. I was also very pleased to be able to take a very short training course, which allowed me to be trained to dispense naloxone. It took maybe five minutes, so I would encourage anyone who has not done that to get in touch with one of the services. That is one of the ground-leading things that we do here in Scotland. We internationally lead on that. It saves lives, and we can all be part of that. It took literally five minutes to get the training, so thanks to the staff who gave me that training this morning. In the development of the strategy, I was keen to speak to as many different groups and individuals as possible to ensure that I understood where the differing points of views come from, but also to understand what the reasons behind those views were. In addition, we also undertook an engagement process around the document and received over 140 responses. What I have learned during that is that the field of substance use is not one that is easy to navigate and that there are opposing views on a number of points. However, the conversations that I have had and the feedback that I have received so far, I feel that what we have published today is a strategy that has the support of the whole sector. I have certainly looked at the feedback so far today, and that would certainly seem to be the case overwhelming support for a strategy. We all want to see the reduction in the levels of harm associated with alcohol and drug use, and our new strategy sets out how we propose to achieve that. Importantly, the strategy recognises the significant increase in drug-related deaths and the corresponding high levels of alcohol-related deaths, and sets out a range of options that will work to reduce them. We know that being engaged with services has a protective factor, and that that is one of the most effective ways of keeping people alive. Alex Cole-Hamilton is very grateful for the minister giving way. Does he accept that his Government's cost of 23 per cent to alcohol and drug partnerships between 2015 and 2017 will have played some role in our poor performance in terms of drug mortality statistics? Does he recognise the loss in institutional memory from organisations that have folded or lost staff in that time, and that is going to be very hard to recoup? I do not recognise the figures. That was not what happened. There was a different way in terms of funding, and what I do recognise is the £20 million extra funding that we have put into services. However, our strategy sets out how we will improve the reach, attractiveness and speed of delivery of treatment services. We will also deliver and maintain the best possible treatment and recovery services that we can respond to the changing patterns of substance use and associated harms in Scotland. I need to make some progress, I am sorry. The strategy also describes how we will utilise the new investment of £20 million per annum, which I just talked about, for the lifetime of this Parliament to put health and personal-centred services at the heart of our approach. It also covers how we will work in partnership with stakeholders, service providers and those with lived and living experience. With the partners, we will agree a new memorandum of understanding to deliver on the agreed strategic outcomes that are contained in the strategy, but also to guide our new investment. There is also a challenge contained in the strategy for our treatment services, which is asking them to consider how they can adapt to ensure that they can find those individuals who are most in need of help and support and which can deliver services that address their specific circumstances. Neil Findlay. I listen to all that the minister has to say. In all that he has said so far, what does he say to my constituent who came to see me last week who wants treatment for heroin addiction and has been told that there is a three- to four-month wait to see anyone? Jo FitzPatrick. I know that the waiting times are certainly improving across Scotland, but that is exactly what the strategy is about. The strategy is about how we provide those services to people and do it better. The strategy also recognises that some of the approaches that we are currently in use do not go far enough in relation to harm reduction, and it confirms our support for health-focused evidence-based approaches such as safer drug consumption facilities. We will continue to press the UK Government on that matter, working alongside our colleagues from Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership in an effort to progress that, knowing that the introduction of such facilities could save lives. We also set out the benefits of investing in family inclusive practice and support, recognising that taking a whole family approach can also bring huge benefits for all involved. I know that the families that I spoke to this morning really appreciated that approach. A strategy also recognises the importance of language and the significant impact that stigma can have on the individuals, but also on their families and loved ones. This is one of the things that, over the period since I came to office, I now understand much more than others, the real impact that stigma has on being a block to people going and getting the treatment that they need. We have committed to using the language around substance use that is set out in the global commission on drug policy publications from earlier this year, and we encourage others to do likewise, because some of the language that we have seen around that is just plainly offensive. It is your last minute, Minister, so quickly. I thank Minister for giving way. He announced his £20 million for ADPs this morning. He will know as well as I do that the ADP in Tayside has been underspent for the last two years, so does he recognise that there are more intrinsic problems with ADPs rather than just cash? Jo FitzPatrick. I think that the member makes a very good point, and that is why this strategy is not just about how ADPs deliver, but how it is delivered in a much more holistic approach. We have got some fantastic third sector organisations such as the Cairn Centre that I visited this morning, such as our amazing 120 recovery groups right across Scotland who are just doing fantastic work. We have got a reputation in Scotland for being world leaders on taking action to prevent future harm from implementing alcohol minimum unit pricing in May to our support for safer consumption facilities. We have had cross-party support for alcohol pricing measures, so we call on consensus on preventing and tackling drug harm too. I understand that the motions and amendments were drafted before the right to respect on recovery was published this morning, but I hope that having now seen the published document, members across the chamber will feel able to get behind the strategy, which has very much been finalised in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders. That is an area that requires us all to work together going beyond traditional party lines as we seek to improve the health of some of the most vulnerable members of society. I call Monica Lennon to speak through and move amendment S5M-14914.3. The debate is crucial, because Scotland is experiencing an alcohol and drug-related public health emergency on that. Miles Briggs is not wrong. We are pleased that he has secured the debate. Across the chamber, there are passionate and strong views. In the 10 years since the previous drug and alcohol strategies were published, there have been more than 15,000 substance-related deaths. For context, 15,000 is the equivalent of the entire population of Lack Hall, one of the towns that I represent. If we continue at this rate in 10 years' time, the population equivalent of another small town will have been wiped out too. That is a state of emergency, and that is what the amendment in my name seeks recognition of. That is my first opportunity in the chamber to congratulate Joe FitzPatrick on his ministerial appointment. I believe him to be sincere in tackling the issues outlined. I very much welcome his comments on stigma and language. I am sure that the entire health team who is here from the Government today would agree that they cannot have the luxury of a honeymoon period, because people's lives are at risk today, tomorrow and the next day. There were 934 drug-related deaths and 1,235 alcohol-related deaths last year alone, so that is 2,169 preventable deaths in just one year. Today, we agree that we can support the wording in the Tory motion and the Scottish Government's amendment. In doing so, we are going to knock out our own amendment, because we want to find consensus. It is not about cheap points in the chamber, but we do not agree with all the proposals on the table and some of the rhetoric that we have heard today. If the Government declares that the public health emergency is a public health crisis and puts the full force of all the Government behind it, it will have the full support of our adventures. Although we can support the wording of the Tory motion, I have to say that we do not support the strategy that is released to coincide with today's debate. The strategy that says some decent things, a fear is as dangerous in other parts and appears to be shaped by Tory ideology rather than evidence-based solutions. Today's debate is a topic close to my heart. I thank the member for taking the intervention. When will the Labour Party be putting forward their ideas? We have heard nothing from them. They do not seem to have any ideas, and, thanks to what we have seen today, the Government has just published its strategy ahead of this debate. Monica Lennon Do not dare, Miles Briggs. If you are really genuine about this, you do not rush out a strategy on a few bits of paper to get ahead of the Government and bounce them into your strategy. In Miles Briggs' strategy, he talks about the financial costs of the drugs crisis. What about the financial costs of austerity? There is no mention of that, and what poverty does not feature. The strategy from Miles Briggs is not worth the paper. It is written on. However, if I can continue, because we are passionate about this, I know that Miles Briggs is too, but following my member's debate on alcohol and drugs related deaths last year, people across Scotland got in touch with me, and I am sure that they got in touch with other members to share their own family story of the devastation that alcohol and drug harm causes. It is crucial to countless families across Scotland that we do get this right. I do not think that we should come to this chamber today and have to react to different statements, because we have heard some fantastic contributions from all of the stakeholders across Scotland. I think that there are some things that we are leading the rest of the world on, and I want to pay tribute. I am sure that Miles Briggs does, too, to alcohol-focused Scotland, to SHAP, to the Scottish Drugs Forum, Scottish Families Against Affected by Drugs and Alcohol. It is there and put and evidence that has helped Mr FitzPatrick to improve the strategy that he started off with. I hope that members across the chamber too, but today is not a day for cheap points. A lot of us know from family experience and through supporting constituents that the human stories behind alcohol and drug harms are always complex, often chaotic and invariably tragic. One issue that we on those benches have with the Tory strategy is that it fails to recognise that people experiencing addiction are in the grip of an illness. We are talking about illness, so there are some positive policies in there, but I fear that we have a strategy that reinforces the stigma around drug harm. If we are going to have policies around trying to arrest and punish people to get them out of recovery and you are going to feel the full force of the law if you do not cooperate, that is the kind of rhetoric that is coming across, and I would say to Miles Briggs that that is not helpful. In contrast, I do not often agree and support the Scottish Government, but our rights-based approach is the correct one, and a stated commitment to the right to health does have the potential to make a real difference to people's lives. Other colleagues, Alex Cole-Hamilton and Jenny Marra, have made the points that alcohol and drug partnerships must be properly resourced, and I do not agree that the Government has always played fair on that. A lot of it is to do with funding, but there are issues around how resources are spent and the transparency around it, and I am sure that others will make those points. We do agree that a new approach is required. When 15,000 people have died during the course of the previous strategies, we all have to be brutally honest and say that it is not just a refresh that is required. That is a public health emergency, and the Scottish Government should declare that for the goods of the country. It is imperative that the Scottish Government commit to targets to focus and reduce alcohol and drug harm. Preventative action, harm reduction and reducing health inequalities will be key to tackling the issue meaningfully and effectively. Death is not the only indicator or measure of alcohol and drug harm. There are over 60,000 problematic drug users in Scotland. Although it is difficult to identify the true number of problematic alcohol users, there were over 36,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions last year alone. Specialist medical responses are urgently required for alcohol specific illnesses such as fetal alcohol, spectrum disorder and alcohol-related brain damage. I would ask the minister, as it looks likely, our amendment will fall today if he supports the asks in our amendment. The treatment of alcohol and drug misuse must include recognition of the social and economic root causes, and that is where the Tory strategy fails. Addiction does not discriminate and it can affect all walks of life but is deprived communities that are more likely to be impacted by drug and alcohol harm. I want to speak on stigma. I was pleased that the minister mentioned that. In conclusion, we support the Scottish Government's amendment. I am disappointed that our amendment is likely to fall today. I will finish with a question that gets to the crux of the matter. Does the minister agree that the alcohol and drug-related crisis is an emergency while the Scottish Government declared a public health emergency and worked with all of us for the good of the people of Scotland? I move the amendment in my name. I call Alison Johnson. Six minutes, please. Like all members, I regret that we are discussing an 8 per cent increase in drug-related deaths since last year. We have already heard that another 934 people have lost their lives, at least in part, due to drug use. When we debated the need for safe injection facilities earlier this year, the Parliament agreed that they should be implemented in Glasgow and called on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to allow that. It is frustrating that the Parliament does not have the powers to authorise much-needed public health facilities in its own right. I know that some members will want to discuss the scope for heroin-assisted treatment, and I am interested in that, but the fact remains that in Scotland we have long agreed to treat addiction as the public health issue. If the UK legislation does not reflect that, then the relevant powers should be devolved. I thought that that earlier debate showed our collective commitment as a Parliament to prioritise the safety of drug users and help to prevent addiction. Daniel Johnston stressed that there is a failure in trying to criminalise individuals that is fundamentally flawed logic. Neil Findlay suggested that we should be looking to Portugal, where possession and consumption of all illicit substances has been decriminalised since 2001. I felt encouraged by Brian Whittle's honesty when he told us that his own views on a safe injection facility in Glasgow were no longer black and white. He took the opportunity to ask people at ad action in Kilmarnock what they thought about safe drug consumption facilities and found that they were interested in what results might come from facilities in Glasgow. Brian Whittle, I thank the member for taking the intervention. I also said that, prior to today's debate, I spoke to ad action again yesterday on a specific topic. My issue is that there are many levers available to the Scottish Government currently that they have in their own remit. Why are we focusing on the one thing that is not within the remit? I think that it is absolutely clear in this debate today and even from the minister's contribution that we are not focusing on this one thing. This is a holistic strategy. If we want to help people who are suffering from drug addiction, we have to be looking, as Monica Lennon has so rightly said, at welfare, at employment. There is a lot involved in this issue and I do not think that we are just focusing on that one thing. However, I did think that there was a real will to get people who inject help within safe facilities. When they attend those facilities, they are more likely to get the help and the support that they need. With that, I think that there is a consensus that we should be investing more in prevention. The motion and amendments to the debate today focus on the Government's strategy, the draft strategy, although I know that, as other members have mentioned, that the final version of the strategy has been published today. However, the timing of the debate should not cloud our discussion of the issues at hand. I think that the Government's draft strategy fell very short and, in my quick reading of the final strategy so far, it is clear that there is much work to do if we are to deliver real change. I certainly agree, though, with the emphasis that the Government's motion places on the principles of right, recovery and respect. We do need strategies with public health at their heart and which do not stigmatise people. In terms of the visit that we did together in relation to residential places, Edinburgh only has 12. There is nothing in the strategy that will make sure that we realise the potential of far more so that people can get into recovery. Is that not something that we all need to focus on and that the Government needs to think again on? Absolutely. If there is a need for more residential places—and I think that that point was well made at our visit—it is something that we should insist upon. The cross-party group on alcohol and drugs, too, raised real misgivings about the draft strategy, because it said very little about how it will reduce fatal drug overdoses. That cannot be acceptable when drug-related deaths in Scotland are so high. I recognise that the final strategy highlights the particular risk of overdose for prisoners in remand, but all deaths from overdose must be seen as preventable. They are all tragedies. I was shocked to find that, compared with a decade ago, there has been more than a 200 per cent increase in drug-related deaths among women. We know that there is also a cohort of long-term drug users who are ageing, who now have multiple complex health needs to contend with as well as addiction, and they often feel written off. We have to make sure that the drug strategy includes all those who suffer through drugs. I would like to press the minister for an update on two particular matters on the Government's timeframe to appoint a childhood bereavement co-ordinator to improve support for children who have lost parents, and on the Government's timeframe for establishing a national commission to oversee the implementation of safe injecting facilities. Many of the concerns that I had about the draft strategy—the lack of focus on reducing bloodborne virus transmission, for example—are simply not reflected in Conservative proposals. We have made a commitment in Scotland to eliminate high hepatitis C by 2030, and the final drug and alcohol strategy does at least support that ambition and intends to make hepatitis treatment in the community a part of future addiction services. Safe injecting facilities will also play a key role in reducing the risk of death from overdose and in reducing bloodborne virus transmission. The Conservative's recommendations would introduce a new public awareness campaign to prevent drug use. I am sure that that is well intended. It does have a place, but evidence suggests that mass media public information campaigns are not an effective way of influencing that kind of behaviour. It would also be helpful if Conservative members could expand as the debate goes on, on the extent to which its approach to recovery encourages abstinence, since abstinence will not work for everybody. The Scottish Drugs Forum states that abstinence is a state or a condition, not an end in itself. It needs not be the measure of success for services or the goal of treatment. In closing, I believe that there is scope for improvement in the Government's final drugs and alcohol strategy, but I welcome the focus on rights, respect and recovery and will be supporting the Government's amendment today. Alex Cole-Hamilton, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to the Conservatives for bringing this important motion to the Parliament this afternoon. This is a public health crisis. There is no two ways of saying that. As such, the measure of our public policy response is the measure against which everyone in this chamber will ultimately be judged in this agenda. It is fair to say that, 10 years after road to recovery was first adopted, I am grateful to the Conservatives for articulating their involvement in that. We can see where that worked and where it has failed and where we need to build from that going forward. However, it is also fair to say that, in recent times, the Scottish Government's public policy response to this public health crisis has been wholly inadequate. We see that in the 23 per cent cut to alcohol and drugs partnership, which I am not overstating, Deputy Presiding Officer, can be measured out in human lives. That all told resulted in a 1.3 million cut to drug services per year in our nation's capital and, with it, untold death and suffering alongside. That is more than two to one of what the rate is in England and has led to an HIV outbreak in Glasgow, which is still not abated since it started in 2015. It is not just about money that services depend on, but with that loss of money came a loss of certainty. Many services lost staff, unsure if their contracts would be renewed and, as such, the institutional memory of organisations that have been working valiantly in this field for so very long have just frittered away. We will struggle to get that organisational memory back. We have had a number of excellent contributions from people such as Monica Lennon and Alison Johnson today talking about the inexorable link between drugs use and a whole range of poor social outcomes, whether that is poverty, housing and employment. Let us also remember that housing is absolutely vital at the end game when we have helped to stabilise chaotic substance uses. Many people who leave drug treatment facilities or are leaving prison often go back into communities where peer groups led to the chaotic behaviours to begin with, so we need to have a whole systems approach on our response on a public policy level. You all know that my background was in children's rights and children's services, and children who are affected in this area are often an afterthought. I was dismayed to not see more about that in the draft strategy from the Government. Whether that is in looking to getting our priorities right was the practice guidance, not refreshed since 2013, in terms of how we, as primary care workers or social workers, respond to the needs of Scotland's community of children who are affected by problematic parental substance use. In the freedom of information request that the Scottish Liberal Democrats revealed this week, it says that 600 babies have been born since 2015 with chronic fetal abstinence syndrome, which means that they are born addicted to substances. I cannot think of a worse start to life yet. This is happening in Scotland in 2018, and our response to this so far has been inadequate. That stems from our failure to fully grapple and understand the needs of adverse childhood experiences. I once again asked the Government to heed the call of Harry Burns in capturing ACEs. I am glad to see some of that in the strategy today. It is very easy for me as an opposition politician to poke holes in a strategy, so let me suggest some empirical, practical solutions. First, I want to see a ministerial commitment—I hope that we will get that in his closing remarks today—that the Scottish Government will endeavour to protect forevermore those vital ADP budgets so that drug services in our communities and alcohol services in our communities have the surety of continuing Government funding so that it can recruit and retain staff and build relationships at the heart of the communities where that is most needed. We need to recognise and I welcome that Government has finally moved that from being a justice issue to a public health issue, and I ask it to go on further to convert that recognition and to stop sending people to jail for possession. Instead, we should be sending them into treatment or education, given that, in places such as HMP and IWAL. Fifty per cent of those tested on release were still testing positive for drugs. We are not. I will. Tom Arthur. I just wondered if you would support calls for the devolution of powers over drugs to this Parliament. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I believe that our response to this has to be a whole island response. I do not think that these problems are situated entirely in Scotland. They have to be a solution right across the board, but I do believe that where we have sentencing power, we should not be sentencing people for low-level possession for the reasons that I have just described. I must make progress. I also want to understand an explanation from the Scottish Government as to why drug treatment and testing orders, which the strategy itself says has beneficial impact on both drugs addiction and, indeed, offending behaviour, were only used 31 times last year, despite 4,400 convictions for drugs possession. Similarly, I want to see Scotland-wide proposals for heroin-assisted treatment, which we have heard more of today. I want to close my remarks by focusing on the impact of children. We need to do more for those children who are affected by parental substance use, because life can be cyclical, people can pick up and learn behaviours because of the trauma that they experience as a result of chaotic parental substance use. That means capturing adverse childhood experiences as former chief medical officer Harry Burns has asked us to do. I finished with a quote that I saw on a local treatment centre wall, and it really struck me as why we need to take this debate. It says, tomorrow is the most important thing in life. It comes to us at midnight very clean. It is perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes that we have learned something from yesterday. I think that there are thousands of people in this country who are looking to this chamber for help to stabilise the situations in which they find themselves. We do them all in justice if we do not heed that call. We now move to the open debate and contributions of up to six minutes, please. Liam Kerr, followed by Joan McAlpine. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support Miles Briggs's motion today and to support the Scottish Conservative strategy to reduce drug deaths and addiction. We need new thinking and fresh thinking. Miles Briggs has set out some of the stark realities of the present situation. Let me add to those statistics. Nearly 1,000 Scots died last year due to overdoses, and that is almost double what it was 10 years ago. It is two and a half times the UK rate. Scotland is on track to record more than 1,000 drug deaths this year for the first time. It is the worst drug death rate in Europe. There has been an increase of nearly 10,000 problematic users of drugs such as heroin, methadone and sedatives in the last 11 years since the SNP launched its failed strategy in 2007. What that tells me is that when Professor McKeagony described the SNP's so-called road to recovery programme as disastrous, creating a financial black hole and an addiction industry, he was right. We have the same tired thinking from the SNP plan today. We have had David Liddle, director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, say that the draft strategy's most serious deficiency was its clear or lack of clear measurable targets, exposing a total lack of vision. The strategy still has no targets. One of the members has heard David Liddle's comments on the strategy. David Liddle said, we welcome the fact that reducing the number of preventable overdoses, overdose deaths is the key focus of the strategy. There are key elements of the strategy that will help us to respond to the public health crisis, and he goes on in positive terms on the strategy. On the alternative, Roy Robertson, Professor of Addiction Medicine at Edinburgh University, said that the strategy proposal that was published yesterday was based on little evidence and contained some rather strange ideas. He added, I do not know what the paper has to offer and what it means in terms of the plans that the Government has placed, but it is disruptive, poorly thought out and retrogressive in its approach. Thank the minister for the speech. What Roy Robertson also said was that the SNP strategy was inadequate and watered down. David Liddle said, there are no targets. There are still no targets. The minister cannot divert from his own failures by selectively quoting the likes of Roy Robertson, I am afraid. Drugs are a blight on our communities. They destroy lives and break up families. Our plan identifies ways to achieve what we all hope for. Fewer people are addicted to drugs, fewer dress, fewer lives destroyed. We are talking about drug abusers for whom better outcomes are achieved by addressing the root cause of criminal behaviour, rather than letting it spiral out of control into continued drug use and re-offending. The Scottish Conservative strategy sets out our plan to deal with first-time drug offenders to ensure that their first time is also their last. First-time drug offenders would be given a choice, a criminal record or referral to a local commission with powers to prescribe treatment. That intervention would be kept on record and would be seen as an aggravating factor if the individual were to re-offend, but it would mean that a criminal record could be avoided in the first instance. Presiding Officer, will I have time at the end? Sorry, I think that you may, but only for one. I thank Mr Kerr for taking an intervention. Does he not accept that addiction is an illness? I thank the member for the intervention. In some circumstances, yes, absolutely, addiction can be an illness. Absolutely. That is another matter for another debate on circumstances or an intervention, but I have no time. I do not quite understand why the member is attacking on that. I think that it is a reasonable point, and the point that we are trying to put forward in the strategy is that we need to take a new approach. We need to take a bold approach and an innovative approach. That is why prosecution will remain as a fall-back option if the offender does not keep within the boundaries set by the local commission. That is a powerful incentive to comply with the contract terms and ensure personal responsibility. A similar system is already in operation in other parts of the UK, where, for instance, people will avoid prosecution if they sign a four-month contract, requiring no re-offending, community work, restorative justice and work with a navigator. Those schemes are proven to significantly reduce re-offending. They improve police relationships with drug users so that there is better intelligence on the dealers. They reduce the risk of falling into a life of crime. They reduce risk, and most importantly, they save lives. The second key strand to pick up on is that those who are put in the jail must not be forgotten about. Within the prison environment, there is an opportunity to engage with people, many of whom do not engage with the healthcare system due to chaotic lifestyles. The prison environment is a unique opportunity for getting individuals clean. That starts with mandatory dried-spot-blood testing on admission to help to identify drug users and the delivery of hep C treatment and drug rehabilitation services. No, I have no time. However— Point of order, Presiding Officer. A standing order is made clear that it is incumbent upon members to consider the language that they use in the chamber. The word clean is offensive and derogatory. The more appropriate word is absent for a person who has stopped using drugs. Can the Presiding Officer give her opinion on that matter? That is not a point of order, Mr Marther. Please carry on. Governors have spoken about their frustrations of prisoners making real progress, and that is stopping once they leave. Services must not cut off upon release, and instead they should be followed by transitional support and treatment in the community. Under our life plan, an individual's care would be transferred to their local GP who would oversee progress, access services and ensure that the prisoner's progress was maintained. Presiding Officer, that is a bold and innovative strategy, and it is necessary because 11 years of SNP Government have failed to find a solution. Instead, as the motion states, that strategy is not fit for purpose. We have to try something different. A new approach is needed to tackle this crisis. The question today is whether the SNP will put the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland first by voting for the Scottish Conservative motion, or continue with the same party politicking and attempts to make stupid points of order that has failed the people time and again. We shall see at decision time. Can I say to you, Mr Kerr, that it is for the Presiding Officer to decide on points of order, not for any member sitting in the chamber chairs? I now call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Neil Findlay. Can I start by welcoming the Government's new combined alcohol and drug strategy, and can I welcome the minister's very proactive approach to this topic and indeed welcome him to his position? I have a number of things that I would like to say, however, about the Conservative strategy, because it is a Conservative debate. I would like to start by quoting from an expert's response to the Conservative paper. Dr Hannah Graham, senior lecturer in criminology at Stirling university and an expert in this field, made some really interesting comments earlier this week. She started off quite positive. She said that the Scottish Tories' new drug policy has benevolent intentions. What it doesn't have enough of are details and commitments on what, how and who and what targets will be met and it isn't costed. Dr Graham's critique suggests that the Tories treat this matter too much as a criminal justice issue, as opposed to a health and human rights issue. We have outlined two key targets to half drug deaths in five years. The Government's strategy, her Government's strategy published today, contains nothing. That's a target. We need it for our country. John McAlpine? Far be it for me to contradict Dr Graham, Dr Graham is an expert in this field, and I am quoting what she said about the Tory paper. She is clearly not very impressed with it. To quote her again, she points out that the Tories are the only Scottish political party to oppose plans for a drug consumption room in Glasgow, which we all know would reduce the number of drug deaths caused by the HIV increase that we have heard about already. If I can quote Dr Graham again, the Tories say that drug users being caught for a second time should be seen as an aggravating factor, and they would feel the full force of the law. She asks, is this as two strikes on your outdrugs policy? We can't arrest or punish our way out of Scotland's high rate of drug deaths as Dr Graham nor the scale of drug use. First and foremost, those are health and welfare, not criminal justice issues, and that's what the Government's strategy is all about. She goes on to talk about the rate of deaths among people over 35 in Scotland, and she points out that the Tories do acknowledge that, but that contradicts the aim of their policy in targeting first-time drug users. It's the deaths of these older people that I want to talk about in the rest of my speech today, because official figures show that the biggest cohort for drug-related deaths is among those aged 35 to 54. Someone aged 40 now who dies either because of problematic drug use or illness associated with many years of problematic drug use would have been aged 20 in 1998, a year before this Parliament was created, so that is not simply a problem of the last 10 years. It has much deeper roots. It was during the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major that Scotland experienced a wave of heroin abuse, which devastated many of our urban areas, and which we are still living with today in these high death rates. I agree that Miles Briggs was only 10 years old. I want to make progress when Irvine Welsh's book Trainspotting was published in 1993. However, the Tories ought to acknowledge that their party policies created that Trainspotting generation. No, I've already taken intervention from you. One in five people out of the total Scottish workforce lost their jobs in the years 1981 to 1983, and by 1985 Scottish unemployment has reached 400,000 for the first time since the 1930s. I want to make progress. We know that there is a direct link between adverse childhood experiences and drug and alcohol use, and that generation of children and young people experienced adversity on a colossal scale. The pressure of worklessness and families was appalling, but also the hopelessness in being told that their communities were not valid and that their futures had been written off, and research carried out by Glasgow University in NHS Scotland only last year found that drug-related deaths were linked to social and economic changes in the 1980s. Other studies by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health reached similar conclusions about the higher rates of death in that city. As I said already, we are experiencing the terrible legacy of that Westminster rule back in the 1980s and 1990s. Scotland has made enormous progress in this area as a result of the progressive policies pursued in this Parliament, but we cannot write off that historical legacy that we have. The new strategy that is launched today is a completely different direction from what the punitive actions that the Tories are suggesting. We have already seen improvements. It is encouraging for example that recent drug deaths report fewer deaths in the under-25s and highlight following heroin use, particularly among under-25s. Our more progressive health and human rights-based approach recognises that deprivation, poverty, trauma and adverse childhood experiences can cause people to turn to both alcohol and drugs. Treatment can no longer just be clinical, but it must also address some of the deep-rooted social and economic circumstances that people face. I welcome the Government's strategy of treating people and all their complex needs, not just the addiction, and it is also correct that we tackle the inequalities and traumas behind substance misuse, something that the Tories are responsible for, not just in terms of their policies in the 1980s and 1990s, but in the kind of social inequality that has been caused by many of their policies, particularly their welfare policies today. Neil Findlay forward by Michelle Ballantyne. Presiding Officer, there are times when debates in this chamber really depress me and today is one of them. I was hoping that today we would come to some agreement, a consensus, a consensus on one thing that should be obvious to anyone who shows even a cursory interest in the issues of drug policy. That is that the war on drugs has failed and has failed disastrously. Like the years of alcohol prohibition in the US, the years of prohibition of drugs in this country has been an abject failure, leaving an unregulated product controlled by criminal networks reaching into every community, making illicit drugs one of the world's most lucrative commodities. The impact on communities, in particular the poorest communities, like the one that I live in, has been heartbreaking. Drug use is synonymous with organised and violent crime, people trafficking, early death, social isolation, mental ill health, with a consequential impact on the NHS, public services and the justice system, not to mention the impact on the wellbeing of individuals and families. People are the collateral damage of a 50-year war on illegal drugs, a war that has cost £100 billion a year. Despite all of this global money, we still see 200 to 250 million users across the world, many exploited, many criminalised for their addiction. The failure of this approach is at its starkest and most devastating here in Scotland. We now have over 1,000 deaths a year. The streets are awash with cannabis and cocaine. Heroin can be bought in every community in Spice as the drug of choice in our prisons. I recently visited Addiewell prison to discuss the Spice problem. I visited local drug and alcohol projects. I spoke to drug users who are desperate for help but unable to get it. John Scott? Neil Findlay, for taking intervention, would you agree with me that it is absolutely shocking that 90 per cent of the people who present themselves at Bowhouse as a right to Majesty's Government's pleasure to be kept there, 90 per cent of those people present with drug hormones on arrival? Do you agree that something should be done about that? Absolutely. In the last place that they should be in is in prison, which more of them will be if we take the Tory approach. John Scott is right, but he needs to speak to his colleagues to take a different approach. I spoke to someone recently who told me that they learned a lot in prison. They learned how to steal and defraud. They learned how to take different drugs. They learned how to steal cars. The last place they should have been is in prison for a health problem like addiction. I spoke to people who are sitting waiting months to try and see their first appointment because they have a heroin addiction. People who have been in addiction for decades can have as many conversations as they want with their dot-gp about getting more methadone, but they cannot have a conversation about how they get off illicit drugs and how they get off methadone. I am not a methadone critic. It has its place, but many people want to be drug-free and methadone-free. I have met families of people who have taken their own lives because they cannot get the mental health support that they need. I have spoken to police officers on the front line, academics and pressure groups working with drug users. You know this at every one of those meetings that I asked them what we need to do. Not one of those experts, police officers, prison officers, health workers or drug users that I have met have said, let's continue with the current strategy, because you know what? The war on words is so jolly well successful, because it isn't. It's a disaster. With a public health emergency on our hands, the evidence is staring up at us from 1,000 mortuary slabs. Policy is failing, and its consequences are deadly. It depresses me that an intelligent and decent man like Tom Arthur reduces the debate to a constitutional wrangle. It is pathetic, and I will tell you why it is pathetic, because I care as much for drug addicts and people who use drugs dying in Manchester or Newcastle or London or Dover or Cardiff than I do here. No, I won't. I hear John McAlpine depicting the train spot in generation. I've got news for you. Do you know what a drug user looks like? Have a look at the person around you, the person next to you. It isn't the dishevelled train spotting image that we have, it's people in your family, in your community, it's constituents who come to see you, it's friends and relatives, that's who they are. John McAlpine. I would point out that that's not actually what I said, but surely he must agree with me that there is a legacy of the 80s and 90s in terms of the social and economic impact, which is what Glasgow University and other researchers have said, and that's why we've got high rates of deaths amongst older drug users. I'm sure that that's a reasonable point to make, and I hope that he agrees with me. Yes, I agree with you on that, but let's not depict— Excuse me, Mr Finlay. Neil Finlay. Thank you. Let's not depict all drug users on that. In fact, that's a minority, because the average drug user, if he speaks to any of the academics, will tell you that it's people at UNI, it's people in our families, it's people in our community, so we should not have any exceptionalism on that. We see higher levels of infection here, mental ill health, homelessness, crime, more drugs available on the streets and ultimately more deaths. I say it often, but if this was flu or measles or meningitis, we would have a national emergency on our hands, but I suppose there just ain't any votes and addiction. We must learn from other countries. We must learn from the Portuguese model of decriminalisation and harm reduction, the Canadian experience with cannabis, diversionary alternatives that are being brought in now with the powers that they have by progressive Labour police and crime commissioners in England, who are establishing schemes to divert people away from prison and addiction, not at the moment, who are offering a scheme making offenders sign a contract and undergo mental health treatment and sort out their lifestyle. They are joining up policing community and public health streams to improve outcomes from those suffering from addiction. They are prescribing heroin in a medical setting for those who have not responded to other forms of treatment. They are training people in naloxone, who are establishing early warning programmes to alert people of new drugs on the streets and a whole range of other issues. I have to say that timidity and political cowardice will not work. Neither will cut and drug and alcohol budgets. I have to ask this final question. If one cow dies from foot and mouth, we see a national emergency declared, here we see a thousand of our fellow citizens dying and nothing much changes. This Parliament is failing our people and we will continue to fail it until we see a very significant change in policy. The strategy published and the Tory strategy simply does not cut it. I have given leeway to each group for their first speaker. I have to be a bit stricter in timings now, so absolutely no more than six-minute contributions. Michelle Ballantyne, followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thought that this was going to be consensual. I feel quite emotional about it all now. I was the head of a drug and alcohol service, and I have dealt with the people who suffer and the people who die. I think that we need to tone this down and I think that we ought to be talking together about this, not fighting about it. It just isn't the way forward. Changing the course of Scotland's relationship with alcohol and drugs has quite rightly been on the Scottish Government's agenda since they came to power. Eleven years ago, in my professional capacity, before any involvement in politics, I gave evidence as the head of a drug and alcohol service to the Scottish Futures Forums project on alcohol and drugs. My colleagues and I left that meeting with high hopes that we had a Government that was listening and were genuinely going to tackle the causes through a programme of early intervention and supported treatment and harm reduction. In 2008, the report, Approaches to Alcohol and Drugs in Scotland, A Question of Architecture, was published. Alex Ferguson was the Presiding Officer at the time, and in his forward, he wrote, I hope that politicians, policy makers and practitioners will reflect on the project's findings and also on the systematic approach that has developed. I hope, too, that every discussion and debate, both at Holyrood and elsewhere for the foreseeable future, will reflect back on the considerable learning to have come from this project. In the spirit of those words, I did look back to that piece of work and reflect on my own experiences and thoughts and how we have come to a situation that, far from tackling the problem, we have seen it get worse. Although, interestingly, a small survey at the time showed that MSP's confidence that it would improve was significantly higher than organisations on the ground, and maybe that should tell us something. The 2008 report described itself as a systems mapping approach to how Scotland would reduce the damage to its population through drugs and alcohol by halving it by 2025. Frank Pagnatelli, who chaired the project board, summed up the work with those words. The forum has come to believe that significantly reducing the damage caused by alcohol and drug misuse is possible if we re-appraise the architecture of our alcohol and drug policies for the long term. To do that, there will need to be strong leadership, honest debate and sophisticated and flexible policy approaches, all of which must be underpinned by a strong evidence base, sustained investment and continuous monitoring and evaluation. Ten years have slipped by and, to be honest, I am not convinced that the Government has systematically used the work that was undertaken to achieve that reduction. Organisations in the field will absolutely recognise the new strategy that the Government has put out because it does contain many of the things that were asked for in 2008, but it does fundamentally fail to recognise the need for a whole systems mapping approach. Frank Pagnatelli highlighted why that was important, because he said that interventions to reduce the damage caused by alcohol and drugs, regardless of how well-intentioned, will have intended and unintended consequences somewhere else in the system. By using a systems mapping approach, we have been able to see those consequences more clearly. I really do not think that I am going to have time, but I will have to talk later. That is important because I know that delivering services on the ground consistently and effectively is difficult and frustrating when Government policy does not always support what you know needs doing, but you are bound to be supportive because your funding is dependent on meeting the policy of the day. That is not the way to run services. Scotland has a complex relationship with alcohol and drugs. We have been world leaders at time on some of the issues, and on some of the issues we still are, and I always supported minimum alcohol pricing. It is a good thing in my view. Today, of course, is World AIDS Day. It should be remembered that treatment in Scotland had been largely drug-free until the arrival of HIV in Scotland. The Clarellum report of 1986 led to the reappraisal of services, needle exchange, methadone substitute prescribing and harm reduction approaches were all advocated as a result of that. By 1994, those were accepted forms of treatment. 1994, we are in 2018 now. We are not actually reviewing them for modern life. The road for recovery has not delivered everything that we would hope for, despite some excellent work on the front line and some real positive changes in various areas. However, as we move towards 2020, we must have an eye to what effective treatment actually means. I believe that an effective treatment for, say, heroin should be a drug-free discharge within 12 weeks of entering treatment and no return to treatment within 12 months. Sadly, methadone has not been used in this way. Using it to reduce harm over long periods has a knock-on effect for families. I want to quote something that the author Stephen King said, because, for me, that sums it up. I think that it will sum up some of what has been said today in anger. There is a phrase, he said, the elephant in the living room, which purports to describe what it is like living with a drug addict, an alcoholic and abuser. People outside such relationships will sometimes ask, how could you let it go on for so many years? Didn't you see the elephant in the living room? It's so hard for anyone living in a more normal situation to understand the answer that comes closest to the truth. I'm sorry, but it was there when I moved in. I didn't know it was an elephant, I thought it was part of the furniture. There comes an aha moment for some folks, the lucky ones, when they suddenly recognise the difference. Parliament, it's time that we recognise the difference. It isn't right that anybody lives with it, and it is the children that suffer when they grow up in homes where drug use and alcohol use is normalised, because that becomes their way of dealing with stress when they grow up and they become the future problem users. We have to save them, so we have to address our drug and alcohol policy going forward. I want to start by first acknowledging Michelle Ballantyne's fairly consensual input to the debate, unlike her other Tory speakers in the debate so far. I want to start by addressing inadequacies in glaring emissions from the Tory motion. Maybe it's brass neck or maybe it's naivety, but to bring forward a motion on drug use and not even reference poverty is not living in the same world as the rest of us do. Just last week, the special EU rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights gave a damning report on the Tory welfare reform in its interim report, welfare reforms that have plunged 600,000 more children into poverty. As Bruce Crawford put it in the chamber yesterday, it's the biggest failure in public policy of this century. No, I won't have time, Mr Briggs. Yet no mention of it to them is just a game. I am as alarmed as anyone to learn that Scotland is the highest drug death rate in Europe, and there have been an increased misuse of opiates in Benzeddiazepines in the last decade. That distressing rise in drug death is part of a larger trend that is seen across the UK and Europe, and it is driven by a number of factors, chiefly poverty, as I have said, and a demographic of people who are using drugs, partly as a product of the 1980s Tory Britain policy, whose health has become more vulnerable as it has become older. That was explained very articulately by Joan McAlpine. Unfortunately, my constituency has with others—no, I don't have time—with others taking the brunt of the austerity measures. I've got some important points to make, colleagues. The food bank has run out of supplies, the school uniform service has made unprecedented demand, folk are coming under droves about universal credit, so colleagues will not be surprised to hear that drug use in my constituency is also a major concern. Nearly every other day, constituents tell me of concerns that they have for vulnerable people in their communities, and often the local paper runs stories to highlight those concerns. It is important to remember that drug and alcohol use are not choices. They are symptoms of wider social issues, and I am proud that in this Parliament we regard it as a health issue and not a justice one. We now recognise factors such as poverty, trauma and adverse childhood experiences can lead people to use drugs in alcohol. We must continue to find new ways to address the issue that is person-centred and evidence-based. Over the past decade, emerging evidence has changed our understanding of the root causes of addiction and substance misuse. In more work needs to be done with people moving in and out of treatment, and for those who do not access treatment, not all services are meeting the complex health and social care needs of those who need it most. We must say that reasons for falling in and out of treatment are complex, but can include the unpredictable state of drug use, bad experiences with services or punitive measures that are enforced in patients resulting in discharge. Our strategy should address this and must chat on services to adapt those complex health and social care needs. Funding needs to be in place. It was raised by Alex Cole-Hamilton. It is a great pity that one of the first pieces of work that I picked up following my election in 2016 was the impending closure of a well-established drug and alcohol service next door to the offices where I was moving into. Their funding had run out and they were not able to get any more from the council or the health board. A low-patients were offered another service. I later found that this transition was not seamless. Remember, we are indeed talking about some of the most vulnerable people. More broadly, the Government and health boards need to work together to address localised health inequalities. For example, a few weeks ago, along with others, here in the chamber, Alex Neil spoke in the debate in the Monklands hospital. Surely the days of having consultations simply on the location of a new hospital are long gone. Those consultations need to address wider health concerns and inequalities. If there is any consideration to taking a hospital with an A and E away from the centre of one of the most deprived areas of the country where people present with alcohol and drug induced emergencies, then it is incumbent on boards to suggest ways to address those such as using the current site. I welcome the review set out by the cabinet secretary and hope that it will be addressed through that. I warmly welcome the strategy that I announced today in the Government amendment. My own experience as a social worker tells me that it is a right approach to take. The right to respect and recovery is a bold way to address treatment. That strategy aims to help people by working collaboratively across sectors and addressing the root causes, as I mentioned earlier. It takes an innovative and person centred approach and seeks to divert users out of the criminal justice system where appropriate and tackle wider issues such as housing, employment and mental health. The strategy also includes support for families and loved ones, allowing them to be closely involved in treatment, and it emphasises early intervention for young people, most at risk of becoming addicted. I want to briefly mention reach advocacy, based on my constituency of Copebridge in Creson. Reach are a charity made up of people with lived experience, direct or indirect, of addiction and work to support recovery for individuals, carers and communities affected by problematic drug use and mental health conditions. They are the only right space charity advocacy service of its kind in the country and are such a fantastic place to take forward the direction that is intimated in the Scottish Government's draft drug and alcohol strategy. Reach have worked with the Government policy team to encourage a human right space approach to taking addiction into recognising the life course of individuals living with addiction and dual diagnosis and to help to develop a model in which advocacy is significant and relevant. Reach have been asked to apply for both the challenge fund and the national development project fund, which cover both the advocacy service and the SQA accredited training centre in delivering the approved advocacy practice award. I am disappointed to hear that this amazing organisation is struggling to continue because of much-needed funding gaps in the local landscape. They are asking not to be treated unfairly because North Lanarkshire does not have an obvious and identifiable ADP board and we engage with, in order to obtain partnership working, a well-talked for on-going. I would back those up and ask the minister and his summing up if he would consider taking this up directly with Reach. To conclude this, I am going to probably help you there. We all must do a bit to work together with it. Thank you. We are going to have to be a bit stricter in time from now on, where people will be getting their time cut and in whole annuals to be followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate today and to have contributed to the Scottish Conservative addiction strategy. When looking at how we tackle Scotland's long-standing legacy of drug and alcohol misuse, it is clear that the efforts of the Scottish Government in the last 10 years have failed. We need a new approach. Growing up and still living in one of the most deprived areas of Glasgow, I have seen firsthand what drug addiction can do, not only to the individual, but also to their family, friends and neighbours. Drugs and alcohol devastate too many lives and it is time for real change. Last year in Scotland, we saw record numbers of drug-related deaths. We have already heard that the figure was 934 people who died in 2017, a rate double that of 2007 and two and a half times higher than the UK average. As I have said in the past, the fact that we have reached this crisis point is evidence of the long-term failings of Scotland's drug policy. What the Scottish Conservatives are proposing today is a whole-life strategy, one that focuses on understanding addiction and providing meaningful opportunities for people to be drugs-free all together. I will take a very brief one. I thank Annie Wells for taking the intervention. Just after what she just said, does she then still agree with the use of the language of problem drug users in the proposal from the Scottish Conservatives? Annie Wells, I think that it is a problem in some circumstances because there are drug users out there and I know many of them and I can look about and I can see the devastation that takes place in Glasgow. We have reached this crisis point today because of a failing drug policy and what this debate is so important that we have it today to make sure that we come together as a parliament. The debate is something that is so important. I do not want to say more people dead through drugs this time next year and standing here debating this again. As a starting point, the strategy commits to reviewing all deaths by drugs. As we have seen by the statistics, Scotland's drug-related death rate is two and a half times higher than the UK average. To truly understand the issue and how best to support people with addictions, we have to understand the following. What makes Scotland so unique in its relationship with drugs? Who are the groups that are most at risk and where is it in the system that those people are being failed? By understanding the journeys of those who have sadly passed away, we can put in place effective strategies that capture people on the journey to addiction rather than waiting until the point at which they have reached crisis. Prevention 2 is key, making the ask one's get help approach so important. It is right that first time offenders are given a second chance. By giving the choice between a criminal record and treatment through a local commission, that approach recognises that drug use can be the symptom of deeper underlying issues. When I visited Turning Point in Glasgow and spoke to service users there about their own personal journeys, many linked their addiction to adverse childhood experiences such as abuse or family breakdown. To give an example of a woman who is now in her 30s that I spoke to, she explained to me that she suffered abuse as a youngster. That was the starting point that led her to eventually taking heroin. However, she was never offered the support that she so badly needed in the early years of drug abuse. That is why we are proposing a strong public awareness campaign that builds greater public understanding of the links between mental health problems and substance misuse. It is also so important that we look at radical new ways of doing this, looking at the potential for anonymous e-mental health apps and targeting of key demographics and key media. Again, as I have said in previous debates, the focus should always be first and foremost in getting people off drugs altogether, with the belief that virtually every problem drug user in Scotland can be supported back into a functioning lifestyle. That should be the right support to be given. Currently, people are falling through the net of a system that is not working. As we have heard last year, the alcohol and drug partnership budget was cut by 23 per cent, and we are seeing people part in methadone indefinitely despite the drug being implicated in almost half of the drug deaths last year. We want to see greater focus on promoting smaller abstinence-based local treatments, which will help drug users to become drug-free. We want to see a dramatic expansion of support for third sector. I do not have time, I am sorry. We want to see a dramatic expansion of support for the third sector so that it has a direct fund to help to establish places for rehabilitation. I met the director of the River Garden of Concrove project in Ershire, which opened this year and was really inspired by what the project was trying to achieve. Based on the residential setting, the programme offered free accommodation for those who volunteered, and the opportunity for employment within the village shop, cafe and bakery. It is this kind of whole lifestyle approach that can make a real difference. We do not want to part people in methadone. Of course, it will always have a role to play, but we desperately need a full independent review of the drug's use. At the moment, we do not have a full picture on how often patients are being reviewed and exactly how many people are on methadone prescriptions—something that needs to change. To finish today, any life that is lost to drugs is absolutely tragic, especially for the family and friends closest to those who have lost their lives as a result of drug abuse. For too long, a number of measures that have been seen to be tried and tested have failed those, for whom a number of reasons turn to drugs. It is time for a radical new approach that fits with the challenges of this day and age, and I believe that those benches have laid out many such policies today. Tom Arthur, followed by Jenny Marra. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In the beginning, let me just acknowledge a point that Michelle Ballantyne made at the opening of her remark when she said that we should be talking not fighting. I want to associate myself with that remark, because it is far too important a topic for it to descend into political point scoring. If none of us in our own families personally will have friends and relatives who have been affected directly as a result of the challenges that we face around problematic use of drugs, it is an incredibly difficult subject, and I understand that emotions are running high, but I wish to address a couple of points that arose. Neil Findlay accused me of seeking to play constitutional politics. I presume that this is in reference to an intervention that I made on Alec Cole-Hamilton. Alec Cole-Hamilton was speaking with regard to the misuse of drugs powers. I know that Alec Cole-Hamilton is a committed federalist as a member of the Liberal Democrats, and there are many countries that have a federal constitution where there are different drugs powers in different parts of the overall state. It varies in different countries, and it varies in the amount of powers, but it was a genuine inquiry for information. Alec Cole-Hamilton set out his point, and I, from a sedentary position, acknowledged that and respected it. The reason that it is a relevant issue for Scotland is that, of course, the Scottish Government has called for powers and for conversations so that we can further and progress opening a safe consumption facility in Glasgow, certainly. Excuse me, I was so enthralled that I did not notice Alec Cole-Hamilton standing up. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. One of the reasons I hold that position of believing in a whole UK solution to drugs issues is that we are making progress, finally, slowly, with the Westminster Government on the misuse of drugs act, particularly around prescribing of cannabis therapies. Will the member tell me if he supports the Liberal Democrat call for a regulated cannabis market in the United Kingdom? I cannot give extra time for interventions to be wary of their length. I am very grateful to Alec Cole-Hamilton for intervention. I am looking on keenly at the examples internationally for that. It has been occurred. Fundamentally, all of our policy decisions have to be evidence-led, and we have to be open-minded and considered all options. Fundamentally, it cannot be driven by ideology. It has to be led by evidence. The other point that I wanted to pick up was, in my exchange, via a point of order with Liam Kerr. I know that Mr Kerr is a considered and thoughtful politician. I appreciate that he gets angry. However, I wanted to raise the issue around the use of language, because we are all in a journey when it comes to language, and we can all slip into terms that are perhaps outdated and unbeknown to us and can cause offence. The simple point that I make is that the term that Liam Kerr uses, which I assume we have all used up different points in our life, is clean. However, the corollary of that is someone who is using drugs and is unclean. That is a particular issue for me personally. Since being elected, I have spent a lot of time working with the hepatitis C trust and other stakeholders in that wider community. I have had the privilege of meeting clinicians, first sector workers, academics and many others, but the most powerful experiences that I have had are meeting people who have had hepatitis C and have been cured of it due to the fantastic new treatments that are available. In all of those encounters and conversations that I have had, what people who have had hepatitis C have said to me is that it made them feel dirty. That had a stigmatising effect, and for many an effect that is more stigmatising than has perhaps historically been associated with HIV-AIDS. That sense of feeling dirty is to use the word that Liam Kerr used to me, acted as a barrier to progressing their own lives in many other areas. I think that it is very important, and I am not going to speak to chastise anyone for language, but collectively I have a responsibility to raise our game when it comes to language. It is going to be a journey for all of us. I want to pick up in my final couple of minutes on what I think the fundamental issue is, certainly. Liam Kerr I genuinely thank the member for taking the intervention. It is a very reasonable point that he is making. I apologise for what was slightly in temperate language. I did not feel that it was a point of order, but I accept the point that he is making. It is a good point. Tom Arthur I accept that, and I recognise that perhaps it was not a legitimate point of order. The final point that I want to make is about the broader issue of prevention. I think that it is inextricable the links between poverty and adverse childhood experiences and how we can relate to people, as young people, later in life starting to use drugs. That is something that we have to be incredibly cognisant of. When we look at that whole cross-cutting portfolio approach, we have to think about the broader suite of powers that we have and how we tackle poverty and social injustice. I think that there is a key message in that education. The Conservative document that I have read, and although I do not agree with all of it, I think that there are things that could be improved. I welcome a policy contribution in seeking to engage in debate. I think that that is to be very welcome. There was reference made to a new public awareness campaign to prevent drugs use. Just one aspect is that it would seek to highlight the dangers of drugs. That is a mode and a method of communication that has been used historically that was reference made to the war on drugs. People of a certain generation may remember Nancy Reagan and just say no. The evidence that we have is campaigns that seek to stimulate fear are quite ineffective. The best approach—this is something that is set out in the rights, respect and recovery strategy that the Government has published today—is about empowering young people and all people to make positive health decisions, not scaring them, but giving them the information so that they can make those health decisions. No, Mr Sir. It is just closing. I thank you, Presiding Officer. I conclude there. Thank you, Mr Rathar. I now call Jenny Marrard to be followed by John Mason. The chamber will allow me to understandably address my comments to the situation in Dundee at the moment and try to draw some conclusions from there. The minister and I both have in common that we have a very personal interest in this human tragedy at the moment. Him and I went to school in Dundee roughly around the same time and I lost kids that were in my year at school, and I know that he will have to as a result of this crisis in our city and across the country. There was a report by Sarah Smith on BBC Scotland last night that said that Dundee had the highest drugs deaths rate in Europe. We must be really careful when we are talking about those figures because they always have a context. We know that drugs deaths are higher in deprived communities and Dundee City Council has a very tight boundary around those deprived communities. The drugs commission that was set up last year in Dundee is doing some very good work at the moment in putting some of that into a wider context, which I think will have lessons for the whole country. I want to start with the human face of this. I was talking to a woman in Dundee recently who told me that she felt that her daughter was safer in prison than she was at home in Dundee. That was repeated again on the BBC report last night. I think that that kind of story really brings home some of the insecurity around this whole issue. I would like to address a few points in this debate. I want to start with the point about the ageing cohort. I have always felt that this is really quite a misleading statement. I feel that when Government ministers are on TV talking about the ageing cohort, the image that appears as somebody is about to get their bus pass and has perhaps been taken drugs for 40 years. In fact, the age that we are talking about is much younger. I believe that the average age of those who die from drugs is 41. That is exactly the age that I am now. In no other sphere, Presiding Officer, would that 41-year-old be considered old? We need to look wider than that. It is a very simple explanation. We need to look at harm reduction. I think that the minister would say that we have not been as strong as that in all Governments over the years, but there is also a big question of toxicology here. This is a problem that is quite pertinent to Dundee in terms of the streets being flooded with as cheap as 20 pence blue tabs of valium that, in a combination with heroin, are causing a large spike in death. I would like to see us stepping back a little bit from the ageing cohort, because in no other sphere would we say that we shouldn't be looking at harm reduction and evidence-based solutions for 41-year-old people who are dying. I have touched on the Dundee Drugs Commission. The commission is doing some excellent local work. I think that local work, Presiding Officer, is particularly important, as we need to understand individual circumstances before we can really put in treatment for them. I did a whole series of meetings around this before the commission launched earlier this year, and I saw a huge disconnect. I know that the minister will be aware of this, too, between the stories on the ground and a very defensive account from the NHS drug services. I understand now, in the commission, that doctors feel that they are being asked difficult questions by the commission, but I feel that that is right. I feel that the Dundee Commission is doing some really good work here. When it reports in May, I hope that it will provide a bit of a blueprint or a bit of a pathway for other places across the country to look at and come up with their own local solutions. I want to touch on this. I think that it is really important that alcohol and drugs partnerships are important. The minister today has announced 20 million more for ADPs. I mentioned in an intervention to him that we have in Tayside underspent £381,01617 and £242, and nearly £1.25 million last year. That is not just a cash problem. I think that there is a huge question here about what ADPs are actually doing. Page 30 of the new strategy, published this morning, says that the Scottish Government will support ADPs to evaluate current psychological interventions. In Tayside, over the last few years, we know that very little evaluation has been done by the ADPs. There has been no implementation of countless recommendations over the years. How do drugs workers and doctors on the ground know what they are trying to achieve? When we have the ADP, we have the community partnerships, we have the strategic planning groups, we have the IJBs, who all have a locus in drug services, and they are really just a rearrangement of chairs of NHS and council officials. All of them together work under about 15 different frameworks at the last count. That is multiple strategies, which are really not useful. I say this to the minister in my concluding remarks. I think that the level of debate this afternoon has been quite poor considering what we are used to in this chamber. I believe that that is because of the complexity of this issue. I do not think that any of us in this chamber have the real answers to the questions that this motion poses today. I would like to say that my colleagues on the labour benches would be very happy to set aside everything that has gone before and work with the Government on a cross-party basis and with the Conservatives and other parties. This is a huge crisis in Scotland. It is killing young people. I do not believe that the Conservatives come from a bad or a terrible place on this. We all have people's welfare at heart and we need to solve this. I make that offer a very sincere offer to the minister today and I hope that we can move forward. John Mason, followed by Emma Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To pick up and pay one of Jenny Marra's last points, this is an area of great complexity and I do not think that there are any easy answers to the challenges of the alcohol and drug abuse and dependence that we face if there were, presumably, we or others would have found them already. It seems to me that there is both a health and a justice angle to all of this, but I am very happy to agree that we should place more emphasis on drugs being a health problem without losing sight of the disruption to the lives of those impacted around the edges. I frequently have complaints from constituents whose lives are made a misery by dealing going on in their closures, with purchasers arriving at all hours of the day and night going to the wrong door and I have older people especially living in fear in their flats. I have gone into closures myself, including in some quite nice blocks of flats where people find needles and other paraphernalia on the landing. Some residents are looking for evictions and enforcement of the law. In my constituency, we have a particular problem in the Calton area. I visited a sheltered housing complex recently and we looked outside and could see people in the streets waiting for their drugs to be delivered. I met a short time back with two sizeable local retailers in that area who have had people coming into their premises either coming in to use drugs or running away from someone else in a related matter. Outside, they have a problem with prostitution, which appears to be linked to the drugs problem as well. One retailer has removed all the benches from outside their store as they were providing a space for people to use drugs. BT were asked to move a phone box, which appeared to be only used for dealing in drugs, but they were not keen to move it. Meanwhile, the police do do their best. However, recently, a while ago, they got a major drug dealer's house closed down and the problem fragmented and scattered, so that there were more locations used for selling than there had been previously. The police also tell me that dealers are using drones to get warning of police in the area. Clearly, we have a problem. We are not going to solve it only by controlling supply. We also have to tackle demand. One suggestion has been made for safer drug consumption facilities on page 32 of the paper, which euphemistically says that the drugs would be obtained elsewhere. I understand that to mean that the drugs would continue to be bought and sold illegally, but they could be used in a safer, more controlled environment. That does have some merit, I accept that, but I remain ill at ease that a proposed future system should have this criminal element built into it. Another major option if we are moving to more of a health model is HAT, or heroin-assisted treatment, and I have to say that I am much more comfortable with that model. If that really is a health issue, then it seems to me better that both the substance to be used and the use of it should be in a controlled health setting. It has to be said that local residents and businesses are not entirely comfortable with HAT either. As has happened with methadone, they are concerned that having such a facility and provision in the area will bring other problems with it. Another aspect is that people addicted to alcohol, drugs or gambling have underlying problems that need to be addressed, and some of them are going to take a considerable length of time to solve. I am pleased to see that, in the Conservative paper mentioning this on page 2, it says that there are often deeper underlying problems, and the two examples that it gives are mental health and family breakdown. However, as others have said, there is no mention of poverty, there is no mention of just a general lack of hope that maybe the reasons people are seeking to escape into addiction. I very much welcome the emphasis on a person-centred approach and it will not be one-size-fits-all. Members may have heard previously of Calton Athletic Football Club, which was run by Davy Bryce, and they had a specific model for getting young guys heavily into sport, and that had some great successes, but it would clearly not be the right model for everyone. There are many other local projects in our area and throughout Glasgow, and I just mentioned a few. There are recovery cafes in Shetleston and at Parkhead Nazarene Church, Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs, Family Addiction Support Service, Alcoholics Anonymous, All-in-on, The Simon Community Turning Point, The Archery Settlement Centre in Bridgeton, and some groups particularly focused on women. The group goes on. The third sector has to be given tremendous plaudits for the work that they are doing. One theme that is extremely important is that we look at individuals and deliver services that address their specific circumstances. We know from smoking cessation that some people stop instantly, others reduce gradually, while others use a substitute like vaping. We need to assume the same with drugs and other addictions that we need a variety of options, and I am slightly wary of the Conservative approach, which can come across as everyone goes down one specified route. However, the Conservative paper addiction strategy life plan makes some reasonable points, including early intervention, increasing the role of pharmacists and the third sector, all of which I support. However, when I read on page 3 that they want a dramatic increase in rehabilitation services and on page 5 an increase in the number of addicts in treatment, I imagine that there might be a cost to that. It is difficult to see when the Conservatives consider that we are too highly taxed already and therefore public services should be reduced how that can work. I do not think that I have got time, sorry. Labour also suggests greater priority in preventive action, but, again, that means disinvent investment somewhere else to pay for the money. Overall, I am glad that the Conservatives have brought this debate today. It is good that we all acknowledge that there is a problem and we can openly discuss it. I think that rights, respect and recovery looks broadly excellent, and I hope that we can all agree that we have some common ground on this. I call Emma Harper to be followed by Brian Whittle. It is always interesting to be one of the last speakers in the debate and hear the contributions ahead. I have loads of scribbles over my paper, as I have made little comments. As a nurse, I have experience working with people who require help to address their problematic use of alcohol and drugs. I agree with Tom Arthur that he has mentioned that many of us across the chamber will also have direct experience and knowledge of people who have had problem use. It is a complex issue that requires a multi-team and key partners and a person-centred patient rights approach. I welcome the new rights, respect and recovery strategy, which aims to prevent and reduce alcohol and drug use, harm and related death. In today's debate, I would like to focus on two aspects, social prescribing and safe consumption rooms. The Scottish Government's alcohol and drug treatment strategy, unlike the succinct proposal by the Tories, has a person-centred approach so that treatment and support services address people's wider health and social needs, such as mental health, employability and homelessness. In the last 10 years, our understanding of the underlying causes of addiction and substance use disorders has changed and developed. The Scottish Government now recognises that deprivation, poverty, trauma and adverse childhood experiences can cause people to seek alcohol and drugs, which can lead to problematic use. Although there are clear differences between the root causes and the response by services, they have too much in common to be kept apart. Treatment can no longer be clinical but must address some of the deep-rooted social and economic circumstances that people face. It is fundamental that we address issues such as social isolation and stigma that others have mentioned. Those remain major barriers to recovery. The Scottish Government's renewed approach, along with the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, shows a range of measures that the SNP Government is taking to help people with problematic use. That devastates lives, families and communities. I spoke with a former colleague yesterday who is a nurse specialist who supports people's experience, problem, drug and alcohol use. She said anecdotally that the minimum unit pricing is actually working. Her client cohort is consuming less of the high in alcohol drinks that the minimum pricing strategy is targeted at. I welcome future evidence that is going to be presented by the Government when we see the actual numbers or the effects of that policy. I will take an intervention. I thank Emma Harper for taking the intervention. You are talking about the evidence that the minimum alcohol pricing will eventually give us as to whether people are dropping their levels of alcohol consumption. Do you agree that, with regard to reducing drug deaths, there should be clear, measurable targets? Emma Harper. I think that we are talking about patients' lives here. I think that the ultimate first goal is saving people's lives, the right to life and the right to support people through any health care problem that they have. First and foremost, I have said previously in this chamber, we need to stop treating drug users as criminals and instead we must look at illicit drug use as a public health issue. It is good to see that the Tories are finally catching up with the public health issue in their document that they have presented. I welcome that. Unfortunately, in terms of the law and drug policy, as we have heard, we are reliant on an out-of-touch Government to take decisions on our behalf. I suggest that the member's opposite should lobby for powers over drug laws to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I know that others have said that it is a UK-wide issue, but the Scottish Government has a goal to address it, and using laws that are 47 years old really need to be challenged, and we need to be addressing that. With Emma Harper to a brief intervention? Yes, of course. Stuart McMillan. I thank Emma Harper for taking the intervention. Subject to the comments from Michelle Ballantyne earlier about having a whole system mapping strategy, would the devolution of those powers help with that? Emma Harper. I would welcome devolution of any powers, and I think that if we have an idea and a plan to treat people with rights, respect and educate them or help them to support a recovery strategy, I would welcome any devolution of any laws. We have 200 community and residential rehab centres in Scotland, and although those centres can help, there is an average of 70 per cent of people who come out of treatment that revert to problem use within six months. I find those numbers quite challenging, but earlier this year I attended and spoke at the opening of the river garden, which is the independence from drugs and alcohol recovery community, which is in Jeane Freeman's constituency. It is interesting to hear that Annie Wells has actually visited that centre. It is a recovery community, independence from drugs and alcohol, or otherwise known as river garden. It applies a social prescribing approach to recovery, and it applies the Sampad Rignano, which is an Italian recovery model, which looks at one of the oldest, longest-running, successful residential treatment centres. It has been working for more than 39 years, and it achieves full recovery for persons with addiction support. I realise that time is short, and I would support social prescribing issues, and I welcome the minister's thoughts on supporting those social prescribing models, such as the Sampad Rignano one at river garden. I would be happy to continue debating on that, but I realise that time is short. I support the Scottish Government's new strategy and reaffirm the calls from the SNP for powers over drug policy to be devolved so that we can really take action and support our people and save lives. I am early on in my time in this place. I asked Add Action if I could speak to some of their service users as part of my initial preventable health investigation. It was a real lesson to me. Do not go into these meetings with any preconceived ideas. I sat facing a horseshoe of service users who shot from the hip and did not miss, but I have to say that I really appreciate that kind of approach. No sugarcoating of issues just straight up brutal reality. I have gone back several times, and when I am putting into the Scottish Conservatives drug and alcohol strategy, I have tried to keep their words in mind. I spoke to one of several third sector agencies in writing that speech. I wanted to assure Monica Lennon specifically that what I have to say really is a list of current issues and asks from them rather than any attempt at me to come up with a speech. I think that there is no use pretending that we understand the issues if you have not experienced those issues first-hand. I think that just to move on from what Jenny Marra and John Mason said, I think that what is positive about this particular debate is both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Conservatives have put ideas on the table here to tackle this crisis, and I think that we are going to get everything right—absolutely not. We certainly will not get everything wrong, so let us not dismiss every idea out of hand. In East Asia, there is a mixture of towns and rural areas, and it happens to have the biggest rise in drug deaths in Scotland in the last year. All signs suggest that that trajectory is likely to be repeated this year. Whatever strategy is currently being deployed is not working, and those third sector agencies and organisations on the front line have told me that they are being swamped, undervalued and underresourced and not listened to. I am also told that there is a huge rise in concan users in the area, and that habit is driving people into debt, especially young men. Not only is their habit directly contributing to the rise in drug deaths, I am almost told that addicts as young as 18 are in hawk to drug dealers for as much as £20,000. They are then being coerced into dealing and, with no apparent escape from that black hole, suicide becomes an option in their minds. That is what I was told is the reality. Those are the people that are most likely to fall foul of the law, but those are the people that we should really be viewing them as the health issue. What I would say, however, is that those who sit behind them, those who are the real dealers, are the ones who should feel the full force of the law. Another issue that arose was that mental health services were not engaged with those who are still using it, so they are sent to third sector agencies to tackle that addiction. The problem, of course, is that addiction agencies are generally not equipped to deal with complex mental health problems. Although they will not turn those cases away, the chances of successful outcomes without mental health interventions alongside addiction services are much reduced. Many of those cases are people who are self-medicating because of previous trauma or poor mental health, and without that, multi-agency support for that individual plan conversion rates are going to be poor. Even for those who make it into the system, they are not getting the on-going support required to make that full recovery. Addiction services, I am told, are generally generating prescriptions, and all too often that is where the health stop. I met a woman who had been a methadone for 23 years before she found out that it was even possible to come off it. Even then it was only through a chance meeting with someone else who had gone through the process themselves. I am listening very carefully to his speeches. It is a very good speech, I am informed. I wonder if he agrees that putting people back into the criminal justice system is a backward step and that his approach sounds a much more sensible step. I wonder if he will have a word with his colleagues on that, because we should be taking some of the approaches that he is suggesting. Brian Whittle I thank Mr Finlay for his intervention. I think that, in some respects, of course we should try to bring it into the health issue. Inevitably and eventually, in some cases, there is going to have to be some kind of criminality involved in that, but that is certainly not the first step that should be taken. That woman that I was talking about there with that peer support has managed to get off of methadone, reignite a relationship with her daughter and was actually working again. Health care professionals can be reluctant to reduce medication usage when they see those who have managed to come off of drugs and reduce drugs through that medication find some reasonable balance compared to where they were, but that should not be the end of the journey. I think that that is where the third sector of involvement is so crucial in supporting those in this situation who are reducing their medication dependency and collaboration with medical interventions. I think that one of the big asks is about the needle exchange programme. In East Ayrshire, there are very limited opportunities to access this service. Why are pharmacies that are dispensing methadone and other similar medication not equipped for this service? I think that the rise in HIV and hepatitis C in Glasgow has been associated with the reduction in the needle exchange programme. Surely it is much more effective to prevent hep C than to treat it, because hep C treatment costs around £10,000. That is only a further internal damage to organs that has not already occurred. I see that I am running towards the end of my time. I just wanted to say that, in what I think and there have been many good inputs today, I want to say to Joan McAlpine that I think that you have devalued this debate in a feeble attempt to try and blame elsewhere for Scotland's crises. It does not explain why Scotland has a drug and alcohol death rate of two and a half times the rest of the UK. We need to stop blaming elsewhere and start taking some responsibility, Presiding Officer. In conclusion, I think that the Scottish Conservatives recognise that each individual situation will require a different set of solutions, be that in medication, mental health support and social interventions in the NHS and the third sector, and that early access to assessment which allows each individual to be signposted to the appropriate services is essential. Thank you very much. Before we go to closing features, I call Alex Neil. Can I say any well said that we had failed for the last 10 years in relation to dealing with this problem? I disagree with that. I think that we have collectively failed for the last 50 years in dealing with this problem. Part of the reason for that is that, as Jenny Marra said, we do not yet, after all these years, totally understand all the complexities of what causes the problem and what is the best way to try and solve or at least mitigate the problem. That is where I think that we have all got to come together and learn from each other and listen to every stand of opinion, because nobody has a monopoly of the truth in relation to that matter. Many different ways of approaching the problem have been tried, including in the last 10 years, but before that is well under successive Governments in the UK and in the devolved administration. I remember, Presiding Officer, when I came into this Parliament 19 years ago, the First Committee on Social Justice was chaired by Margaret Curran. The first major inquiry that we did was into the problem of drug addiction. We should go back and look at that, because a lot of what we recommended then has been implemented and some of what we recommended has not been implemented. Even with recommending all those recommendations, we still have a major problem. The interesting fact is that we should not just go by one year—the statistics are appalling—the number of people who are losing their lives as a result of drug addiction. I do not think that any of us would say otherwise. However, if we go a way back and look at when the figures were starting to be recorded, the trend is continually upwards. Irrespective of who has been in power, irrespective of what has been happening elsewhere, the reality is that the numbers have been creeping up and then getting to the point where we have reached nearly 1,000 people in a year in terms of death. Clearly, there is some indication that that might be about to peak because of the age profile. I take the point about not describing those people as ageing in the traditional sense, but the age profile suggests that, particularly if we look at the decline in deaths among the under 25-year-olds, it suggests that we might have peaked in terms of the deaths, but that is not in any way to minimise the scale of the problem. I hear many people saying, why is it that Scotland has a bigger problem than the rest of the United Kingdom, and why is it that we appear to have a bigger problem than the rest of Europe? There, I refer people to the research done by Sir Harry Burns on the biology of poverty and related issues. He has studied the issue of why, not just in relation to things such as drug addiction but in relation to mental health problems and physical health problems, why, for example, Glasgow's health record has been relatively so much worse than Liverpool's, even though, on the face of it, Liverpool suffered the same run-down in industry as Glasgow did over the past 30, 40 or 50 years. If you read Harry Burns's stuff, it is very interesting, and there are reasons as to why Glasgow in particular—I will in a minute—but other parts of Scotland have not been so good at tackling those issues or perhaps not had a much bigger scale of a problem than what you would think would be comparable cities. However, there are reasons as to why that has happened. Neil Findlay. I have read that research, and it is very interesting. However, if we look at a country such as Portugal, which had worse statistics than ours, worse than infection rates and deaths, it has turned that round significantly with a change in policy. Absolutely. The change in policy in Portugal is one that we should study and learn from, not just in Portugal but in other countries as well. If I may say so, and I am not making a constitutional point here, we would require, if we were going to do this, if we did not have agreement with Westminster to do it across the whole of the UK, if we wanted to do it in Scotland, we would need the powers here to do it. That is not a constitutional point, it is just a practical point. I do believe in experimentation. I do believe that we need to pilot many more ways of trying to tackle that problem, but in some cases—not in all cases, but in some cases—we need the power to do that. Mr Neil will not get this time back, but Brian Whittle. Mr Neil, for taking the intervention, I wonder whether your rationale explains why East Ayrshire has the highest rise in drug deaths. Alex Neil. I absolutely go back and look at that report. The social justice report is referred to in the year 2000. We visited Cumnock and we visited Aberdeen as part of our inquiry. When we went to Cumnock, Cumnock has never recovered from the closure of the coal industry. That destroyed a lot of lives, not just a lot of jobs, but destroyed a lot of lives. Cumnock is only beginning to recover from that now. When we went to Aberdeen and looked at the so-called drug problem in Aberdeen at that time, there was a complete contrast between the problem in Cumnock, where it was clearly caused by a sense of hopelessness, and in Aberdeen, where the issue was mainly about so-called recreational drug-taking. That is why I say that it is complex. The problem in Cumnock and the problem in Aberdeen and the reasons for the problem are completely different. In all of that, we have to take a genuine collective approach and try to get independent advice, but let us step on the accelerator. We are all agreed that this is a problem, but we do not want to be here in 10 years discussing it under the same circumstances. Thank you very much. I now move to closing speeches. I call on David Stewart to wind up for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I believe that this has been an excellent, well-informed debate with passionate speeches from across the chamber on new approaches to tackling Scotland's drug crisis. Miles Briggs should be praised for bringing this before Parliament today, although this side of the chamber might not agree with all of his submissions, where our minds meet is on the big picture, which is Scotland has a troubled relationship with alcohol and drugs. That culture is ruining the health and wellbeing of too many Scots, and the range and scale of Scotland's substance misuse problem cannot be downplayed or forgotten. Jenny Marra should be congratulated for her session. We should all be getting our heads together to work out a strategy, and we should certainly be doing that from this side as well. As my colleagues Monica Lennon, Neil Findlay and Jenny Marra made clear in their excellent speeches that the record levels of drug-related deaths are unacceptable. Scots Labour are calling on the Scottish Government, as others have done today, to face up to the crisis and declare the situation a public health emergency. As we have identified, we call on the Scottish Government to have a new strategy to reduce the number of drug-related deaths by 50 per cent. This is very much in line, as the minister knows, with the World Health Organization global status report, and to reduce the levels of alcohol consumption by at least 10 per cent over the next 10 years. There is the ghost at every feast in this debate, and that is health inequality. Many members, such as Alec Neil and Brian Whittle, mentioned the spectre, and members will know that the national burden of diseases report in 2016 made it clear that drug use and alcohol dependency are major contributors to health inequality. Members will again know that dismantled areas have doubled the rate of illness and early death in richer areas. In our most deprived areas, drug use disorders were the leading cause of disease in residents 15 aged 15 to 44. Some members rightly attended to look at the future in drug use, and they looked at issues that are coming on the horizon now that we should be concerned about, such as new psychoactive substances, prescibed medication. If you want any lessons about the way forward, look at America and the horrors of the opiate crisis. I was reading recently when I was over there that 90 per cent of people injecting heroin started with ordinary prescriptions for opiates, as a very frightening model. Obviously, there are other developments in the future, the image and performance enhancing drugs, online supply, and members also have mentioned bloodborne virus transmissions. In alcohol presiding, I think that we do know the right direction. I would concede this to the Government. I do believe that the quantity discount ban and irresponsible alcohol propulsion ban are very sensible, and I also do believe on the minimum unit pricing implementation. However, I would ask about a specific point to give a notice—I was fair about that to the minister. The minister will know when we discussed this that the sheffield modelling around MUP estimated a windfall of around £40 million a year to the alcohol industry. When will the Scottish Government introduce the regulations to enact the social responsibility levy that has been passed by Parliament? That could provide the funding to tackle alcohol abuse, to hard-pushed health services or, indeed, to our third sector or organisations across Scotland. The very brief time that I have available could just summarise some of the points in the debate. Miles Briggs was right to talk about the scale of drug abuse. It is a staggering figure—£3.5 billion—absolutely phenomenal. I also agree with him that we need to look at cross-portfolio work, and his view is an independent view of methadone. He also used the point about public health emergency. My colleague Monica Lennon made quite frightening statistics when she talked about the 15,000 substance abuse deaths over the last 10 years, which she mentioned to a small town. I also believe that our points about stigma were well made. Many members, including from this side, mentioned the importance of the safe consumption facilities in Glasgow. That is something that we, in our amendment, made clear that we strongly support. Alison Johnstone has always made a very well-informed speech. Again, she emphasised the point about overarching strategy, prevention being the key, but one of the key points that came out of her speech was that there is a 200 per cent increase in drug deaths among women. Alex Cole-Hamilton made a very thoughtful speech. His particular point that jumped out to me was the 23 per cent CAT and ADP funding. There is also a point about the fetal alchem spectrum disorder, which I think was very innovative and that is an extremely good point. Liam Kerr made some very good points, particularly about having the innovative approach in his points on the commission. John McAlpine had a very useful quote when she said that we cannot arrest or punish away out of Scotland's drug problems. I think that that was a very good quote. I was very impressed with Neil Findlay's very powerful speech. He has a great knowledge in this area about people being the collateral damage, the enhancement of the criminal network that happens, the fact that streets are awash with cannabis and cocaine, and that last place you need to be when you have an addiction of any sort is on prison. I am very conscious of time, Presiding Officer, so moving very quickly to the conclusion. I thank the minister for publishing the new alcohol and drug use strategy this morning. I welcome the Scottish Government's move towards recovery-oriented care. I also touch on the points that some members have made that we normalise that, because every member in this chamber, including members themselves, will know someone who is dealing with an addiction challenge. It is something that touches so many lives and so many people are suffering from addiction. In conclusion, I was very struck by a quote that I discovered this morning from a recovering addict who is well known probably to everyone, and that is Russell Brand. He said that the mentality and behaviour of drug addicts and alcoholics is wholly irrational until he understands that they are completely powerless over their addiction, and unless they have structural help, they have no hope. I welcome the range of views that we have heard today from across the chamber. I think that it has been quite a good debate. I know that there was a little bit where we were all a bit heated, and that is never good, particularly when you are talking about a subject like that. In the main, it has been a good debate. It clearly captures just how emotive and important this issue is to people in the chamber as much as it is to the people in communities right across Scotland. However, despite the many different opinions there today, I know that we all agree on the fact that we all want to see a reduction in the levels of harm associated with alcohol. The points that are raised have also highlighted just some of the complexities that we see in that area. As a country, we face these complexities in trying to tackle the many and varied challenges associated with high-risk drug and alcohol use. I will try and cover as many of the points that were raised. Miles Briggs, Monica Lennon and a few other people talked about the call for a public health emergency. I will take a second just to say where that came from. That originated from the British Columbia, where the provincial government called a public health emergency, which resulted in the federal government having to take actions. It was very much about the issues that we are looking at in terms of safer consumption spaces, which they needed the support to do. If I could stand here and declare a public health emergency, and that would make the UK Government change the drug laws to allow Glasgow to proceed with the safer consumption spaces, which we know would save lives, I would do that. Unfortunately, there is no meaning to the phrase in Scotland. However, I absolutely accept and recognise that the levels of death are a public health priority and are absolutely unacceptable. Every one of those deaths is avoidable and we need to work together to do that. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I cannot think of a word other than emergency. The reason why we have asked for this in our amendment is so that the full force of government can act. It is not about blaming the Government. As we have heard from other members, the issues around ADPs and the structures around that are not all about money, it is about the governance and transparency and the accountability to our communities. We cannot afford for more people to die. It is not a slogan, it is a genuine attempt to make sure that every part of local government and public spend is completely focused. I can assure the minister that if that declaration is made, he will have our full support. It is absolutely about making the full force of government to address the public health priority. That is what we need to do. I think that I better make some progress, because there are a number of points that are made through the debate. There was some talk early on in the debate—I do not know whether it was Mr Briggs or during it was during Monica Lennon's debate criticising the Labour Party for not having brought forward a strategy. However, I want to put on record that when I published a draft strategy, it was about consulting with everybody. All the spokespeople I shared that with and we shared it with stakeholders across Scotland. I can confirm that Monica Lennon was one of the people who came back to us with issues that we have addressed as part of the strategy. That strategy is not my strategy, it is Scotland's strategy. It has been built, it has been pulled together with input from stakeholders across Scotland, including members in this chamber. Thank you, minister, for taking that intervention. You know what today's debate has shown that the Government's strategy, which has been published today, can be improved, that we have brought ideas. Two specific ones, I would like to see, is a review of all drug-related deaths in Scotland and for targets to actually be attached to the strategy. They are not in the current format. We want them to be. Will you do a cross-party support to make sure that that happens? The strategy that was published this morning specifically includes a section on evaluation and review. That is important, because it is not just about having the strategy, it is about making sure that it works. I thought very carefully about targets, and that comes to Dave Stewart's point. He suggested that the two targets in the Labour motion were targets of the World Health Organization, so that is not exactly true. The first target is not in terms of drug deaths, but the second target is alcohol. That is a reasonable point that we should look at. I feel very uncomfortable about setting the targets of the number of people that we would say is acceptable to die, because my view is that every single one of those is unacceptable. There are a number of points that I need to make progress. I feel very uncomfortable because every one of those deaths is invoidable. If we can work together to do what we can to work on that issue together, it would be so easy for me to say that I am going to use a target that, in 10 years' time, there will be no deaths, but I really care about that. I am concerned that it would not send the right message, but I understand the points and why people are asking for that very quickly, because otherwise I am not going to make it. Jenny Marra If the minister could outline how we are going to work together, I think that I suggested in my speech that we would all be prepared to come together in a cross-party way on this emergency. Can he outline exactly how that will work, please? Joe FitzPatrick There has already been a large degree of collaboration in terms of getting to this point. There are further documents in terms of our delivery strategy, so if people have ideas about things that we should include in the delivery strategy going forward, we will obviously be working with stakeholders across Scotland in terms of those who provide the services. I have to make progress. If people have suggestions on how we can do that, then I am happy to sit down and have those discussions, because that really does matter. There are some really important issues that were talked about through the day. I want to touch very quickly on Neil Findlay who mentioned the changes that were made in Portugal. I think that there are definitely lessons that we can make there, but we would have to either have a UK Government that was prepared to see drug and alcohol abuse in a public health context or elsewhere to give this Parliament those powers. I met my opposite number in Westminster recently, and I was really disappointed that the minister there could not see that in a public health context. She was only able to see that in a justice context. I think that I need to finish. By reiterating my earlier point, by improving how we support people who are affected by drugs and alcohol requires a concerted approach, not just by those in alcohol and drug services or those in wider health and social care services, but by people, services and organisations across the whole of society. My challenge to the chamber today is to give your support to the new strategy, to give the approach, to support this new approach, an approach that places health and personal centre services at the heart of the treatment of the harms from drugs and alcohol that cause misery to so many people across Scotland. I am very proud that we have talked about this issue in Conservative Party time this afternoon. The debate, as the minister just said, has been heated at times, but in my view genuinely valuable and constructive contributions have been made from members right across the chamber. I thank everybody who has taken part in this afternoon's debate. Often in politics, you have to speak about issues that you wish you knew a little bit more about, but not this afternoon. Today's proceedings have been peppered with speeches in which members from across the chamber have plainly wished that they did not really know as much about the issue as they do about the death, about the pain and the destruction that drug and alcohol addiction continues to cause every day here in Scotland. That is an area where none of us has all of the answers, but where all of us have something useful to say. The starting point, it seems to me, has to be with an honest and robust appraisal of the road to recovery approach that was set out a decade ago. A decade ago, or a little more than a decade ago in 2007, there were 52,000 problem drug users in Scotland. There are now 61,500 problem drug users in Scotland. In 2007, there were 455 drug-related deaths in Scotland. That number now rises to nearly 1,000. That is two and a half times the UK average. It is the worst in Europe, Presiding Officer, and methadone is present in nearly half of these deaths. The word crisis is often overused in politics, but this is a crisis. It is a public health emergency. We must be honest about the failure of the policy that has led us to this point and we must be robust about the remedies that we need to move on from here. As Monica Lennon said in her opening speech earlier this afternoon, and I agree with her, it is not just a refresh of the policy that is required. As Alex Neil said in his speech a few moments ago, those statistics are appalling and we should be appalled by them, notwithstanding the fact that they are so often tragically repeated. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, the cut, the on-going cut in alcohol and drug partnership funding most recently of £1.5 million from 2016-17 to 2017-18, despite record drug deaths, does not exactly help, does it? What would we do? We sought to set out earlier this week our strategy for beginning to tackle some of those problems. Our strategy starts by recognising that drugs policy needs to tackle addiction at source and needs to dig deep and understand that relationship between addiction and mental health, family breakdown and adverse childhood experience. If that is what a public health approach to drugs policy means, I fully support it. I reject the false antithesis that we have to somehow choose that drugs policy is either a public health issue or a criminal justice issue. We cannot afford to ignore the role that the criminal justice system must play in this system when, as John Scott pointed out in an intervention, some 90 per cent of offenders arriving at jail in Scotland come with addiction problems. That is why our opening proposal in our strategy published this week is for a pilot on local commissions that seeks to address precisely this point. We need a holistic approach to addiction policy that joins up public health and criminal justice elements of it. I am happy to give away to the minister. Joe FitzPatrick mentioned justice and public health approaches. Will the member accept that a policy that will save lives, like the safer consumption space, is a public health approach that should be supported? Will he call on his colleagues at Westminster to either allow us to do that by changing the law at Westminster or giving us the powers to do so? I want to get people off drugs and not make it easier for people to take them. It is a step down the road to decriminalisation and it is a step in completely the wrong direction, and that is why I will not support it, not for Glasgow nor for any other city in Scotland. The second proposal that we are making in our strategy published this week is that there needs to be an urgent and fully independent review of methadone in Scotland. 8,000 drug users in Scotland have been on methadone for more than five years, and methadone was present in nearly half of all drug-related deaths in Scotland last year, so whatever it is that is happening across Scotland with regard to methadone is not working. Keeping people on a drug substitute does not help them to beat their addiction. Substituting prescription drugs such as methadone for illicit drugs does not deal with the problem, Presiding Officer. It merely delays the problem. The third proposal that we are making in our strategy published this week is that there must be a redirection of funds into rehabilitation, recovery and abstinence. As Jenny Marra said twice during the afternoon's debate, it is not all about money, of course money is important, but it is not all about money, it is about how you spend it, and we need to see a dramatic increase in rehab services to deliver additional capacity and placements. I would like to say on a point of, for me, consensus that to this regard I welcome the comments that are made in the Scottish Government's strategy published earlier this morning. Unlike the draft that was circulated a few weeks ago, the document that was published today talks honestly about the importance of recovery. It says this, and I quote from the Scottish Government's document, that recovery is clearly a journey for people away from the harm and the problems that they experience towards a healthier and more fulfilling life. In this context, we need to continue to develop recovery-oriented systems of care across Scotland. I welcome that, and I think that it is very important. However, I would like to push the minister a little bit further in terms of explaining exactly what policies contained in this document or anywhere else are going to be used by the Scottish Government to deliver on these aspirations. It is all rather lofty. It is pointing in the right direction, but we need concrete action, and we need concrete action on this now. That is the final point that I want to make about the strategy that we published this week. Our strategy says that it should be measured against two clear, ambitious but realisable targets. First, within five years, we will halve the number of drug deaths in Scotland. Second, we will increase the number of problem drug users accessing treatment from 40 per cent—which is where it is in Scotland at the moment—to 60 per cent, which is where it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The draft drug strategy that the Scottish Government circulated in September showed a startling lack of ambition for people with addiction. Rather than helping people to move beyond their addiction, it focused only on managing addiction, perpetuating what is, for some, a disastrous state-sponsored dependency that can last years even decades. Drug users do not need a drugs plan to help them to manage their addiction. They need a life plan to help them to end their addiction. Every problem drug user can be brought off drugs and supported back into a functioning lifestyle. That is the standard against which any drugs or addiction strategy should be measured. The Scottish Government strategy that was published today is an improvement on the draft that was published a few months ago, but work remains yet to be done to make it truly fit for purpose. That concludes our debate on a new approach that is needed to tackle Scotland's drug crisis. The next item is consideration of business motion 14958, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Bureau. Can I call on Graham Day to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. No one wishes to speak against the motion or on the motion. The question is that motion 14958 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The next item is consideration of business motion 14959, in the name of Graham Day. This is on the timetable of a bill at stage 2. Can I call on Graham Day to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. No one wishes to speak against the motion. The question therefore is that motion 14959 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of two parliamentary Bureau motions. Can I ask Graham Day, on behalf of the Bureau, to move motions 14960, in the size of a committee, and 14981, on committee meeting times? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. We have come to decision time. Can I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Joffith Patrick is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Monica Lennon will fall. The first question is that amendment 14914.2, in the name of Joffith Patrick, which seeks to amend motion 14914, in the name of Miles Briggs, on a new approach needed to tackle Scotland's drugs crisis, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14914.2, in the name of Joffith Patrick, is yes, 85, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in the name of Monica Lennon therefore falls. The next question is that motion 14914, in the name of Miles Briggs, as amended, on a new approach needed to tackle Scotland's drugs crisis, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 14914, in the name of Miles Briggs, as amended, is yes, 89, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 14960, in the name of Graeme Dey, on the size of a committee, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The final question is that motion 14981, in the name of Graeme Dey, on committee meeting times, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you very much. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members or shortly to members' business, in the name of Sandra White, on planned Bank of Scotland bank closures. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.