 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1, 4, 1, 6, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane on legal right to recovery. Again, I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons or place an hour in the chat function. I call on Dr Gulhane to speak to and move the motion. Seven minutes please, Dr Gulhane. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The on-going failure of successive SNP administrations to tackle a spiralling drug addiction epidemic that is ruining countless lives is a national scandal. There were 1,339 drug deaths in Scotland in 2020, an increase of 5% from 2019. Since 2007, drug-related deaths have almost tripled, while Scotland's drug death rate is over three and a half times that of the UK as a whole, and it is higher than any other European country. People in our most socially deprived communities are 18 times as likely to die from drug-related deaths than those from affluent areas. Those are stats, but every death is a person and a family's world has turned upside down. Given the stark facts after two decades of devolved government and 14 years of an SNP administration, I cannot help but conclude that this Parliament has not yet grasped what drug addiction means, or else we would have solutions by now. We sit in this iconic Parliament once described as a tour de force of arts and crafts and quality without parallel in the last 100 years of British architecture, and we are far removed from the lives of addicts in our communities that we have a duty to help. When I listened to propose solutions to our country's shameful record on drugs, all I hear are aspirations based on a version of life success. That means little to those outside these walls who are struggling with addiction. As a Glasgow GP, let me tell you what success means to our fellow Scots who are living on the edge. Success is not simply stop taking drugs. Success is simply just waking up. Success is not breaking the law to buy drugs. Success is going through the day without being abused. One of my patients, let's call her Rose, started smoking as a young teenager before being offered cannabis. She got in with the wrong crowd around 13 or 14 and then started taking cocaine and eventually heroin. What made Rose change track was an utter tragedy. She watched her best friend overdose and die in front of her. She knew she was next unless she changed. She knew she couldn't do this anymore and survive. She needed help and she had the courage to ask for it. Rose was lucky because help was there at Hunter Street Health Centre in Glasgow's Gallagate. The centre brings together many of Glasgow's homeless health and social care services under one roof alongside a dedicated GP service. She is now off drugs and holds down a job in Glasgow. Rose got there because of the all-around support that was in place. Rather than decriminalise and make this a justice issue, we need to medicalise and provide joined-up approach across services that will support drug users recovery and give them a path to a new life. Another patient of mine, let's call him Paul, wants a very heavy drug user. He was so overwhelmed with life that he attempted suicide. Thankfully, he has now reduced his consumption and is on the long road to recovery. This is what success looks like. Paul and Rose say that the key to success is for the support services to be ready to grasp the opportunity when someone first says, help, I want to stop. This response must be quick. They need to get on a pathway as soon as possible that includes help with housing, basic care, GP services, mental health and counselling, all the elements that the Scottish Conservatives have set out in our right to recovery bill. We want to guarantee that everyone in our country who needs drug treatment can receive it. This is the cornerstone of a strategy to tackle our national scandal, to turn the tide of ever-increasing drug-related deaths. We want to provide all the appropriate treatment options that our country has at its disposal so that those seeking help and their support team can have the best possible care plan. This is ambitious because most of our communities don't have a Hunter Street, but we need to do this—no ifs, no buts. Rehabilitation requires medical service-led solutions. Laws don't cure addiction, but while we sit here in our design award-winning chamber, let's have a think about not going down this route. What if we just tried decriminalisation? Now, I know that Government benches will say that this is not backdoor decriminalisation, but the public perception is that this is, and that is what really counts. If we don't have a credible support and rehabilitation regime in place, well-planned and resourced, do you think those suffering in our communities are going to be okay? We wouldn't be able to cope if only 10% of all drug users said they wanted to quit tomorrow. Our fellow Scots on the edge need our help, and we need to get working on this now. Practical action is much more progressive than simply passing legislation. There are also unintended consequences of decriminalisation of class A drugs. Drug use could actually increase among recreational drug users like the weekend user. Not all drug users are the stereotype people think of. There are adults holding down jobs who use drugs, like cocaine from time to time, knowing that it is a criminal offence. We need to ask ourselves the question, if it is no longer illegal, are they going to stop, continue or even start using more? We are dealing with one of Parliament's most pressing and well-overdue matters. We seek to consult with the Government on the Lord Advocate statement of 22 September. Given the importance and potential consequences of the Government's mission, we feel that this request is reasonable, and we have given our debate time to this, and we would like the Government to do the same. We also seek a cross-party commitment to back our motion today so that we can move to enshrine in law a right to recovery, a progressive medical approach to Scotland's humanitarian crisis. Let's act to rehabilitate the most vulnerable in our communities, and let's do this now. I move the motion in my name and declaration of interest in my registered interests. I am a practicing doctor. Thank you very much indeed, Dr Durrani. I now call on Angela Constance to speak to and move amendment 141, 6.3. Cabinet Secretary, six minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to welcome Sandish Gilihani to his new role and wish Annie Wells a speedy and full recovery. It should come as no surprise that the Government cannot support the whole motion as introduced by the Conservatives today. I have consistently acknowledged that we are facing a public health emergency, and the loss of life from drug-related deaths is as heart-breaking as it is unacceptable. I once again offer my condolences to all those who have lost a loved one and my continuing commitment to do everything possible to turn the tide on drug-related deaths. My position is clear that this Parliament and the UK Parliament should consider any proposal that is based on evidence and can play a part in saving lives. That includes upholding the rights of individuals to recovery or treatment, whether that be through harm reduction or recovery in communities or in residential settings. Last weekend, I spent time on the recovery walk in Perth with some absolutely amazing people who have achieved great things despite great adversity on their own journey in life. I strongly believe that supporting the Conservative motion today would be letting down all those people and many others, because the motion simply fails to recognise that addressing drug misuse has to be done through a public health approach. Which bit of our calls for a right to recovery and shrining that right to rehabilitation treatment in law is letting them down? I was talking about your hysterical reaction to the Lord Advocate's statement last week, and Mr Greene, with respect, if you had perhaps paid attention to the many comments that I have made about Conservative calls on your right to recovery bill, which is interesting, because it is now called a right to recovery bill, as opposed to a right to treatment bill, but perhaps that will come out in debate. I have always said that once you have published a bill, and I, like others, have had the opportunity to ensure that that bill will do what it says on the tin, I will give a view about it, but I do have an open mind about whether, at some point, we need to legislate. The national mission that we have announced comes with an additional £250 million in funding, and it is driven by the rights that people already have to respect and to healthcare and to human rights that this Government is strengthening through a new framework. The creation of a national care service will also be an opportunity to make those rights real, just as we are doing through our national mission. The work that is being done by the residential rehabilitation development working group will help us to increase capacity in rehab and improve services, including aftercare. The introduction of medication assisted treatment standards will help to ensure that people have immediate access to a wider range of treatments in more settings, including where they are, and those practical measures will help to make rights a reality. One of the most significant changes that have been called for through the national mission is to embed a public health approach wherever appropriate in our justice systems. However, prosecution policy, as I am sure MSPs will be well aware, is not something that the Government or Parliament has a role in deciding, and that is for the Lord Advocate in her capacity as an independent authority, as is set out in legislation. However, the Government welcomes the change as it is clear that people with their drug dependency must be supported and helped with their addiction. We know from other countries such as Portugal that diversion from prosecution from drug possession towards support or treatment can be an opportunity to ensure better outcomes for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I note from the amendments suggested by others today and from the discussions around the Lord Advocate's recent statement to Parliament that there is widespread support across this chamber for her decision and widespread support for police diversion. For the record, if not preempted by my amendment, I am supportive of the Labour amendment with its reference to safe consumption facilities and naloxone. I will be continuing to prioritise the use of naloxone, including by police officers. I very recently had the opportunity to discuss with Police Scotland their continuing role in the national naloxone programme and sought assurances about the support and training available to our police officers. We launched the national naloxone campaign last month, and that has already significantly increased demand through our third sector partners. That is to be welcome. I am aware that the Conservatives will be shortly publishing their draft right to recovery bill, and I will be happy to consider that closely. As I said earlier, I have never ruled out the need for further legislation, but my focus right now, as I have said to Parliament several times this year, will be on making rights a reality by getting more people into treatment and recovery. That is right for them at the right time. I am focused on making sure that, through that standard and increased capacity and residential rehabilitation over the next five years, everything possible is done to reduce drug deaths. I genuinely hope to see something positive and practical in the proposed bill, but I will have to be satisfied that what has been proposed will not have any negative impact on existing practice and other existing rights. There are existing and crucial rights already in legislation such as the Patient Rights Scotland Act and the Children's Scotland Act, and I am looking forward to hearing from the authors of the bill how those rights will be fully retained. We need to conclude now, cabinet secretary. I will indeed conclude by moving the amendment. Last week, I welcomed the Scottish Recovery Walk to Perth in my region, and while we focus on Scotland's unacceptable high level of drug fatalities and mourn the unnecessary loss of life and loved ones this afternoon, we must also recognise the potential for recovery and the importance of investing in people and services. The grip of addiction is unrelenting and powerful. People need support services to be flexible, responsible, responsive, free of stigma and committed to the long term. The recovery walk shows that change is possible, and we must do all we can to support people to make that change. We are all aware of the Scottish Government's complacent approach to drug addiction and treatment in recent years. The cuts to ADPs, which led to a construction in services, a lack of focus on the rising deaths and a lack of urgency in responding. As I said in the debate in June, this is the start of a new Parliament, and I will work cross-party with government and with other parties to deliver meaningful and significant change to ensure the delivery of the MAT standards and to scrutinise whether policy is making a real difference. We must be open-minded and evidence-led. We will consider the member's bill that the Conservatives are bringing forward. I am open-minded on its proposal to introduce a legal right to recovery, but I think that it needs scrutiny. It needs to ensure that it can deliver what it sets out to achieve. The organisations that have worked with them on this bill do so out of a sense of frustration and a desire to help those looking for support. I met Ann Marie Ward from favour this week. I can understand the frustration with the lack of change, with inadequate services, with a postcode lottery of care and a lack of options for people seeking treatment. We will consider whether our legal right treatment is going to address those issues. We must think whether it will deliver the funding that is needed, whether we need it as a lever to drive delivery of services and whether a meaningful right will be realised. Those are issues that need to be explored in detail. However, the Conservatives need to recognise that, although recovery and treatment options are vital and must be prioritised and I agree that we need to see greater focus and investment, the solutions to reducing drug deaths are as reliant on harm reduction programmes as they are on rehab. Facilities that support harm reduction, whether that is consumption rooms or testing facilities or needle exchange, address the reality of drug use. It is not fatalistic to accept that some people will continue to take illegal drugs, regardless of what we say in the chamber. The choice should not be whether to leave them in potentially life-threatening situations such as ingesting dangerous batches of street drugs or waiting to see if they pursue recovery, if they make it that far, or continue to deal with a group of vulnerable people as criminals. I am very grateful that the member has taken her attention. She also agreed with me that part of the solution has to be prevention in terms of preventing people from taking on drugs in the first place. That is a key point. That is something that has been invested in, but you cannot ignore how important it is to have harm reduction policies and propose those in there that support people through those difficult addictions that they are living with. Those who support harm reduction measures, whether that is safe consumption rooms or testing facilities, we are not condoning drug use. We are simply aware of the harsh realities of living with a drug addiction. The comment over the weekend in response to the advocate's decision from the Conservatives was disappointing and misrepresented the policy. The outrage at the last Lord Advocate's decision is, however, full, because, in 2018, it supported diversion from prosecution, and it was the Conservatives that were highlighting Durham's checkpoint diversion scheme as a model to emulate. The Lord Advocate came to this chamber, as Parliament called for, and I support her decision to expand recorded police warnings, which we should be clear with her decision to make. It does not change the offence, it is still illegal, but it changes how the Crown Office and the Prosecutor of Fiscal will deal with it. Police already use RPWs, and they are familiar with the judgment and professionalism that is needed to use them. In the past year, the number of diversions from prosecution has doubled. The change announced by the Lord Advocate, I hope, will increase this further, but the Scottish Government needs to deliver on their side of this equation. There has to be reliable, viable options for Police Scotland and authorities to direct people to, and all agencies must work together. I want assurances that Police Scotland are enabling the national roll-out of Naloxone. Social media reports at the weekend demonstrate a need for awareness raising and training for officers. The Lord Advocate has set out the role that our criminal justice services can play, but they need support from other services for this to be successful. Presiding Officer, I support the right of everyone to enter recovery services. I agree that the pathways right now are not good enough that they fail too many people and they lack the capacity to meet the need and demand. I understand the frustration and disappointment of families who have been let down by services. I do not want to regret putting faith into the MAT standards, and that is why I will hold the Government to account on delivery and we do need Parliament to be informed of the progress, but the charities I know, working with people with addiction, tell me if the standards are fully introduced they will be transformational for people who are ready to change their lives, and I am Luzio Mademint in my name. Thank you. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton. In this chamber, we are often divided, but I have heard in the speeches made by members from all parties this afternoon so far the counterpoint of my own commitment and symmetry with my own commitment to fighting this emergency. How we go about doing that is different, as is evidenced by the amendments lodge for this debate, but we are working towards that common goal, which is to just stop people dying. On that, I would like to thank Angela Constance for reaching out several times to me and my party. I welcome that approach, but we cannot ignore there are aspects of the substantive motion that the Government of Motion amendment rather seeks to erase. It fails, for example, to acknowledge its own failures, the Government's own failures or recognise the systematic problems that have arisen from the SNP's decision to cut funding for ADPs, alcohol and drug partnerships by as much as 22 per cent in the financial year of 2015-16. That sent centres to the wall and severed relationships. I believe that the Government has made progress on accepting responsibility for that, but I do not want to see this Parliament revise the history of how we got to this point by backing the Government amendment. After consideration, I have to inform the minister that I will not be supporting it tonight. If progress is to be made, we have to be honest about where we are and how we got here. Progress so far has been far too slow. We have the worst drug mortality rate in the entire developed world. It is nearly four times the rate of our neighbours in England and Wales. In this summer, official statistics revealed that 1,339 people died of drug-related deaths in 2020. That was an increase of 5 per cent. It is the seventh year in a row that Scotland has reported record numbers of drug-related deaths. In December of last year, a new minister for drugs policy in Angela Constance was announced by the Government to give focus and attention to this crisis. I do not doubt her ability or commitment to her charge, but we are yet to see progress on the ground that we need. Two weeks ago, the interim statistics were released. They showed that there were 722 suspected drug deaths during the first half, the first six months of this year. At this rate, drug-related deaths will continue at the same terrifying rate as earlier years, and we will continue to set invidious records. Despite the focus of an entire ministerial portfolio, additional investment and interventions such as increased roll-outs of naloxone, people have not stopped dying. That is why last week I wrote to the director general of the World Health Organization asking for international help. I believe that Scotland would be well served by a WHO task force made up of leading experts in drug mortality to assess and analyse this particularly Scottish problem. The drug death crisis in Scotland needs a revolutionary strategy in order to make a meaningful difference to the way that we treat those who have suffered from drug addiction in this country and, crucially, to save their lives. That starts with innovative approaches such as that of Peter Crikan and Safe Consumption Rooms, and we will be supporting the labour amendment tonight. I am open to the idea of the right to recovery, as is laid out in the Scottish Conservative motion, in principle, but my concern is that it will become simply another piece of fuel-good legislation. I look forward to seeing that published and we will be scrutinising and do so with an open mind and a hand of friendship to work through that with colleagues across the chamber. However, where the Conservative motion fails, Presiding Officer, is in the human aspect of the drug's crisis and in the recognition of steps that we are trying to take to lessen that impact, Liberal Democrats have had an evidence-based approach to drug policy for many years. We called for decriminalisation of drug use long before any other party, because people should not be punished for suffering. However, the motion before us rails against even the smallest steps that the Lord Advocate announced last week towards that approach. We have to reduce the misery of drug abuse with compassion and health treatment. I am just closing, I am afraid, rather than prosecution and criminalisation, because people's lives depend on it. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. All members will surely welcome the opportunity to debate last week's truly seismic announcement. It is remarkable that greater discussion has taken place in newspapers and on television than in this Parliament. Who would have thought that drug's law could be so radically altered at the stroke of a pen? We keep hearing that Scotland's drug death crisis must be treated as a public health rather than a criminal justice matter. Many say that the war on drugs has long been lost. There is agreement that much more needs to be done to counter the root cause of abuse and to give addicts the treatment that they deserve and need. It is for that reason that the Scottish Conservatives plan to bring forward a right to recovery bill, as explained by my colleague Dr Sandesh Gulhani. The SNP Government's effective decriminalisation of heroin, crack cocaine and other class A drugs will be felt in communities across Scotland. Normalising possession of these highly dangerous substances, removing the threat of prosecution, will diminish their stigma. I wonder if Mr Findlay would accept that the record police warning system has existed since 2016. In terms of his colleague Mr Gulhani's contribution about the need for treatment and support and reducing risk, would he accept that class A drugs such as heroin are the highest risks presented to individuals? Therefore, those are the very individuals that need our help and not our punishment. Russell Findlay, I think that that is the very point of making them need our help, they need a right to recovery, but this is wrongheaded. The SNP, the logical inevitability of decriminalising possession, as is happening, is the increase in social acceptability, prevalence and use. Drug dealers will be delighted. Saving lives is the apparent justification for this gamble, but where is the evidence and where is the joined-up thinking? I have spent the past month badgering the Justice Secretary Keith Brown about the prevalence of drugs in our prisons. We know that most drugs get inside by being soaked into items of mail, chief among them are the psychoactive substances such as itizolam. This so-called street valium causes serious medical harm to prisoners and puts staff at increased risk. Prisoners who desperately want to overcome addiction are failed by jails awash with drugs. For many of them, prisons have revolving doors. Despairing staff say that a simple and effective solution can be taken. By giving prisoners photocopies of mails and withholding the original items, you achieve a drastic reduction of drugs getting in. That happened during Covid lockdown, but the very day that those restrictions ended, staff reported a significant and dramatic increase. I raised this with Mr Brown at the Criminal Justice Committee on September 1. I raised it with him in this chamber on September 15. Both requests were met with a vague undertaking to look into it. I raised this again with Mr Brown on September 16. My letter to him concluded, given the urgency of this matter, I would appreciate immediate action, and if that is not possible, a full explanation as to why not. The day after the Lord Advocate's announcement came Mr Brown's response to me, his letter appeared to have been constructed by a committee of civil servants. Here is an excerpt. Preparatory work into exploring the implications of a change into how we conduct SPS mail processes is well under way. This work involves assessing the full impact, risk assessment, legal implications and operational requirements associated with a change in how individuals' mail is handled. Mr Finlay, if you could begin to wind up, please. A appraisal has been reviewed. You get the gist. Let me put it into plain English. They could act now, but they won't. Drugs inside will remain as abundant as ever before. More prisoners will overdose. Their chances of rehabilitation remain vanishingly small. I would like to remind members that I am a board member of moving on in for Clyde, a local addiction service. Not one MSP wants this drug crisis to continue. In the Tories, I have been talking about a legal right to recovery proposal. Quite rightly, the cabinet secretary has indicated today, but also on multiple occasions beforehand, that the Scottish Government will look at any proposals that come forward. That is right and proper. Asking a Government to sign up to something that is not yet written is not any way to do policy, and the Tories know that. Notwithstanding, the Scottish Government has never rolled out the need for further legislation and will consider the detail of the draft right to recovery bill once it is made available. However, through its proposal, the Conservatives are asking the Scottish Government to do something, and some things are already happening. First of all, getting people into the treatment and recovery that is right for them at the right time is at the very core of the Scottish Government's national mission to save and improve lives. Most of the issues proposed for legislation are addressed by the recommendations of the residential rehabilitation working group that the Government has already accepted. The Scottish Government is already investing in increasing the capacity of residential rehab nationally, developing good practice on referral pathways and exploring options for standardisation and national commissioning of services. As the chamber knows, the Scottish Government is providing additional funding of £250 million over the next five years. That funding commitment emphasises the importance of tackling the public health emergency. There are a range of measures and investments being made, but one that I particularly welcome is the moving to a five-year funding cycle for eligible third sector and grassroots organisations that are at the forefront of saving lives. That particular decision is something that I have spoken about before in the chamber, as well as when I met the minister earlier on this year. I know that that particular decision will certainly save lives across the country. Third sector organisations provide a range of services that are not always available via public services, and they can adopt a different approach. We must empower more people to seek support, to make that support more consistent, flexible and effective and much faster and help services to stick with the people that they support. Additional investment will also be used to support a range of community-based interventions, including primary prevention and expansion of residential rehabilitation. Ultimately, the guarantee of funding to third sector partners will provide the surety and the ability for them to plan and deliver the services that are going forward instead of always having one eye on funding bids. The Parliament has heard time and time again about the need for bold actions and bold decisions to deal with the drug-death crisis. It is a national emergency, and that is something that we can all agree on. We need to be bold and push ourselves into thinking about possible solutions and policies to help our fellow citizens and our constituents, no matter how difficult that will be. 33 people in Unverclyde died last year. 1,339 people died in Scotland. Whether we want to admit it or not, the war on drugs cannot be won the way that we have been doing it. I am pleased with the large drug halls that take place across my constituency and across the country, but that does not stop individuals from obtaining drugs. Learning lessons from elsewhere is also something that we must do. We are failing our constituents if we do not. The quote that Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting differing results is something that this Parliament, this chamber, has certainly began to adopt that we will not follow that. I do back the amendment in the name of the minister, and I certainly will not be voting for the motion in front of us from the Conservatives. Last week, the SNP announced that it was effectively decriminalising all class A drugs, including heroin, meth and crack cocaine. The possession of class A drugs is a serious offence, and this is the biggest shift in drugs policy in years, as my colleagues have spoken about today. Normally, the Scottish Government is quick to consult and, frankly, you cannot move for consultations, but on this, there was nothing, no debate until today, and no stakeholder involvement. I am very grateful to Ms Webber. I wonder if she is aware that 89 per cent of people who die from a drug-related death have opiates in their system. Therefore, surely she would accept that if we can offer a recorded police warning to someone who has cannabis in their possession, is there not a bigger case to be able to offer a recorded police warning to someone who has opiates in their possession if we are serious about saving lives? Although drug deaths are rising, remember the number of people convicted of drug deaths has continued to decline, so I will carry on with my contribution. Rather than only softening the rules for drug dealers, the SNP should also focus on guaranteeing treatment for anyone who needs it. Decriminalising class A drugs through the back door alone will only help drug dealers who are ruining our communities, and this extreme move by the SNP will do nothing to save lives. The answer to our drug's death crisis is complex, and increasing the treatment available to those who need it should be at the heart of it. Ann Marie Ward, chief executive of faces and voices of recovery, has said, we have to be very clear not to view this as a silver bullet. This move will help, but ultimately it will not help people to get well on its own. It will not save lives on its own. It has to be accompanied by increasing access to treatment and rehabilitation, or nothing will change. I met Jay Hastin from the Wavetrust this week and a former drug addict. He said that the decriminalisation of drugs will not fix the root cause of Scotland's drug deaths problem. All it does is put yet another plaster on top of an already bleeding plaster, and now everybody is having a party in the street. People from all walks of life are no longer scared to carry drugs. I visited Waverly Care on Monday and this is what we need more of. We need more funding for third sector organisations, as Stuart McMillan has stated, who directly help people in those situations. In Glasgow, they are helping vulnerable women, often victims of domestic abuse, caught in a cycle of drug use and broader health harm. It is a person-centred service that is flexible to individuals' needs and enables people to escape the harm caused by drugs. We need more of this. I urge everyone to back the Scottish Conservatives' right to recovery bill, which will guarantee treatment or rehab for anyone who needs it. All that we are asking for today is time to be set aside to debate this in full. Scotland's drug crisis is the SNP's shame. We need to see access to rehabilitation, not dangerous drug decriminalisation. Tom Buchan said, Talk about abject surrender. It should worry everyone. It shames us as a country. I support the Conservative motion by my colleague Sandesh Gauhani today. I think that there is a general agreement now that we must treat drug deaths in Scotland as a public health issue and not a matter of law and order. I hope that somewhere in the Torah benches there is an understanding of that. For us to continue to progress and pull our country out of the spiral, we will need to maintain that understanding and my party will support measures to do so. I am sure that my parliamentary colleagues will have noticed that there has not been a parliamentary term since Scotland re-established its Parliament in 1999 that drug deaths have not been a serious concern for the constituents that we are committed to represent. The seriousness with which the Parliament has treated that problem, however, has only recently got anywhere near the level that is required to tackle it. Having seen some examples in other countries where they have worked miracles to put a stop to death multiplying annually, we are now slowly waking up. The Lord Advocate's recent statement is simply realistic. It is not anything that the average person on the street would not understand as necessary. Drug abuse and the effects of it are not hidden away anymore. We all see it, but far too many just want to keep it at arm's length. The Lord Advocate's intervention has equally had the positive effect of keeping that issue in the headlines during a time when there has naturally been a considerable focus on other health issues. That attention is sorely required. One reform that was getting considerable attention prior to Covid and no small part due to the great work of my party colleague Paul Sweeney are safe consumption facilities. That is not an ideal solution, not even when I particularly ever envisioned having to support, but over the years it has become obvious that the scale of the problem in Scotland is well beyond slogans and awareness campaigns. We need to treat that with the same seriousness that we have treated the pandemic. Providing safe facilities to prevent death has been proven to work. That is one example of the kind of direct and meaningful approaches that we need to take at all levels of health policy, policing and education, but it requires serious funding. In my own region, NHS A Shanarn is experiencing the second highest rate of drug deaths throughout Scotland. Much of that falls on the shoulders of community health workers, hospitals and the police who are overworked, underpaid and left with resources that are stretched to breaking point. Councils and health boards undoubtedly see the problem as a priority, but they simply do not have the funds to help tackle it all the time. We need to expand community resources and improve access to residential rehabilitation and treatment efforts to get on top of that. Part of that involves giving police the time and training to support any reforms taking place and not forcing through a new model with little consideration of those on the front line. The police officers that I have spoken to will be relieved to hear that a more pragmatic approach has now been taken on drugs as it frees them up to do the kind of policing that they join the force to do. Included in that should be the proper training so that officers are prepared to respect the use of aniloxone to prevent overdoses, as the minister has mentioned. Finally, let me say that this does not have to be a debate about who can show themselves to be the toughest on people with serious addictions. If it becomes one, that is just about politics, not progress. At the heart of this issue is poverty. I fully endorse all the measures that I have mentioned already. The biggest reform that we can push through to end this crisis is to remodel our economy and society, so it does not have built into its architecture the acceptance that a vast number of people should simply be left to struggle and desperation while others have more wealth than could ever reasonably be required. The loss of life in Scotland from drug-related deaths is heartbreaking and unacceptable. The Scottish Government is committed to implementing approaches that reduce drug-related harms now and in the longer term as we tackle this national mission. To do so, we need a public health approach that supports people with addictions, not an approach that criminalises large swathes of the population. We need to take bold decisions, not continue with Westminster's failed misuse of drugs act. We need to consider each person as an individual and offer them the most appropriate treatment, not impose a one-size-fits-all response. The Tories are calling for a right to recovery, but in the same breath they want to jail people caught in possession of drugs. The Tory spokesperson in closing could enlighten us all. Is someone with an addiction a serious offender who should go straight to jail or a person who deserves quick and appropriate treatment from health processions? No, you can answer that in your own time. The Government's amendment mentions an alternative. Portugal's public health approach, where drug use and drug-related deaths are consistently below the EU average and the proportion of prisoners sentenced for drug offences, has more than half. The Westminster war on drugs has failed. The Tories are stuck in the 1980s. We cannot arrest our way out of the drugs crisis. We need bold thinking to reduce drug deaths in Scotland and the UK misuse of drugs act needs reformed. Professor Fergus McNeill told the Criminal Justice Committee that punishment is not a smart response to problems such as substance misuse and that it rehabilitates people. Professor McNeill also told us that criminal justice investment should be directed to diversion at every possible turn. The Lord Advocate's statement last week is therefore very welcome. As the Lord Advocate made clear, guidelines on diversion are set by her, independent of any other person. Recorded police warnings do not represent decriminalisation. They offer a proportionate justice response in select circumstances. For example, if someone with an addiction is caught in possession of a small quantity of drugs, diversion from prosecution may be appropriate. Importantly, that will allow police more time to tackle the dealers and give drug users an opportunity to seek help. Many new policies and initiatives have been announced and delivered by the Scottish Government in its national mission to tackle drug-related deaths. That is backed up with additional investment of £250 million over the Parliament. One of the major things that the Minister is working to implement is the medication-assisted treatment standards. The standards will ensure that patients can access evidence-based, high-quality service with same-day treatment, harm reduction and support to remain in treatment for as long as requested. I will end with this. I have spoken before about the Beacons, a Lanarkshire-based recovery community. Earlier this month, peer volunteers delivered a presentation on their research project. Their conclusion was clear. The misuse of drugs act 1971 is not fit for purpose and we need a public health approach, not a criminal justice approach, if we are serious about reducing drug harm. That is the voice of experience. Let's listen to them. I would like to extend my condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one to a drug overdose. During the debate on drug-related deaths in June, I spoke about dignity, about the dignity of people who use drugs and how they are so often robbed of this by a system that seeks to punish them for their addiction. We cannot treat that as the public health emergency while we continue to criminalise people. This is a health debate being led by the Tory's health spokesperson, so I very much hope that we all agree that this is a health issue, not a criminal justice one. Yet I have to admit that I do not understand some of the tone from the Conservative benches during this and some of the content of their motion. It begins by calling drug-related deaths a humanitarian crisis but only a few lines later it calls for people found in possession of drugs to continue to be criminalised. How can we solve a humanitarian crisis which criminalises those most affected? We must abandon the failed war on drugs which stigmatises people and makes it more difficult for them to access treatment and support. We need a harm reduction approach. In June, the majority of members supported my amendment which called on the Scottish Government to investigate, as a matter of urgency, what options it has to establish legal and safe consumption rooms within the existing legal framework. Safe consumption rooms have been operating in Europe for 30 years and there is evidence that they result in immediate improvements in hygiene and safer drug use, as well as wider health and community benefits. The Scottish Greens have long maintained that safe consumption rooms are an important public health measure that will play an important role in preventing drug-related deaths. I know that work is progressing on this issue and I look forward to hearing updates in due course from the minister. As the Government amendment notes, both the Scottish and UK Parliament should consider any evidence-based proposal that can help to save lives, including a right to recovery. On the issue of rehabilitation, it is clear that residential rehab provision needs to be greatly expanded so that everyone who needs it can access it. I am wondering whether the member is part of the Government. Can you perhaps tell us how many more residential rehab beds there will be made available this year? I thank Sue Webber for my promotion but I am not a member of the Government. To quote a Scottish Drugs Forum briefing, for people in some situations, residential rehabilitation will be vital and effective. Some people may be afraid that they will lose their tenancy if they enter rehab or that they may have caring responsibilities. It is vital that treatment services are as accessible as possible and that people who enter rehab are protected from negative consequences such as homelessness. Follow-up discharge is vital. When people leave residential rehabilitation, they are at increased risk of overdose as their tolerance to drugs has been lowered. It is important that we recognise that people do not leave rehab cured and that they need on-going support. Residential rehabilitation provision must be well integrated with other health and care services so that no one is left struggling to cope alone after they are discharged. We must also consider that abstinence-based recovery will not suit everyone. I have said before that we will not demand that someone stops smoking before we treat them for lung cancer. There must be a range of treatment options available. Scotland only has about 40 per cent of people in treatment at any one time, whereas England has 60 per cent. However, many people who use drugs have been in treatment at some point in their lives, so they have significant issues around retaining people in treatment. Services must be flexible and person-centred and take account of changing needs. Community-based provisions such as dropping cafes and peer support networks must be made available alongside residential rehab. To conclude, I will be supporting the Scottish Government's amendment because it recognises the need for a focus on harm reduction and treatment. I am also very supportive of the content of Clare Baker's amendment, but note that it will be preempted by the Government. To tackle this crisis, we need to treat people with compassion, not judgment, and offer them support, not condemnation. I would like to start by thanking the numerous organisations and individuals who gave me their time and expertise while I researched for today's debate. There are far too many on them to mention, but each contribution has been hugely helpful and equally as humbling in the work and effort that they are putting in to help those affected by addiction, especially over the period of the pandemic. Why do people take drugs in the first place? That is a bit like asking what colour are cars. The reality is that there is no single reason that simply means that neither is there a single silver bullet cure. In my constituents of Persia, South and Cunosia and the wider Persian Cunos council area, there has been an increase in usage and drug-related deaths over the pandemic, but there is also some fabulous joint-up working through multi-agency collaborations such as the Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Partnership, which made it clear to me that they are committed to delivering the aims of the national drugs mission. The scope and scale of the work that they are doing is brilliant and far too big to discuss all in a four-minute speech, but it is important to say that the partners in the ADP include Perthyn Cunos Council social care partnership, Perthyn Cunos Council children's services, housing, justice services, local police Scotland, public health, third sector partners and the Scottish Prison Service. As part of the Scottish Government's £3.5 million uplift to ADPs this year, Perthyn Cunos ADP is to receive just under £400,000 and then a further £180,000 to be used in the outreach and near-fatal over those pathways and living experience panels. He, I am sure, has heard concerns from these partnerships about the proposed centralisation of them under a national care service. What representations has he made to ministers about that? Let me come to that. That is an example in my constituency of the nationwide effort that the Scottish Government is committed to. I spoke to Stephen Jardin of the Scottish Recovery Consortium, who praised the £250 million funding package with £100 million of it ring fence for residential rehab. Every bit is important that the after-care and provision to ensure supported continuum so that, after R&R, folk are not just dropped back into the drug-taking environment without the necessary support. He spoke at how pleased he was to have met Minister Angela Constance and heard her plans and her full understanding of the real lived problems that gave him real hope that we are tackling this hellish problem with the right approach. There is undoubtedly still much to do, but when the people who have lived with and come through addiction tell me that they are optimistic about our ministers' handling of the situation, that gives me a lot of hope, too. That brings me at least to the Conservatives' motion. They seem to be all over the place on how to address Scotland's problem with substance abuse. In the short space of four clauses they go from calling drugs deaths or humanitarian crisis to expressing horror at the Lord Advocate not wanting to criminalise users. Every single person I spoke to about in this issue who have lived with addiction or worked with addicts and sometimes both have all said the same thing. Criminalising users does not break the chain. I just don't see how talk of a legal right to recovery can be resolved with the determination to judge and jail users. I simply don't trust the motives held in this motion. It could be seen as cynically trying to use the death toll drugs that are taken in our communities to attack the Scottish Government while at the same time preventing and undermining many of the actions that would actually do some good. If the Tories were so concerned about the harms done by drug or alcohol misuse, why did they oppose minimum unit pricing for alcohol when alcohol was a bigger killer of Scots than what drugs were? Professor Sir Ian Gilvor, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said of a recent research study by Newcastle University published in the Lancet that this is powerful real-world evidence of the success of minimum unit pricing as a harm reduction policy. So, just as the Tories in this chamber are trying to stop minimum pricing, their colleagues in Westminster are blocking the drug consumption rooms, which we know can reduce the risk of disease transmission. My question is this to Dr Gilharry. How will he maintain the trust of his patients who present to him with the disease of drug addiction when he is going to vote to jail him for an addiction that may well be attributable to poverty policies that his party have imposed on Scotland's people for decades? We now move to winding up, and I call on Pauline McNeill up to four minutes, please. Scottish Labour are genuinely interested in the proposals for right to recovery outlined by Dr Sandish Gohani. Over 1,300 people died of drug misuse in Scotland last year, a record number of deaths for the seventh year in a row. As we previously discussed in this place, the highest drug death rate in any country in Europe. As Claire Baker says, Drew McMillan says, many others assay national shame with tragic consequences. So it is the Scottish Government rightly so that we are under pressure to change that. But we do need desperately fresh thinking all around this Parliament and in the process when it comes to Scotland's approach to tackling drugs. If we don't have fresh thinking in this, we will fail. A step in the right direction is the Lord Advocate's announcement last week that confirmed that the scope of recorded police warnings has been extended to include possession only of class A drugs. It is important that the Tories get to speak accurately about this announcement last week. It is still illegal to possess drugs. The law is not changing. It is not decriminalising drugs and, as well as they know it, it is a diversion from prosecution. It is important to note that the scheme applies to drug possession offences only, but it does not apply to drug supply. It is aimed at reducing drug deaths to get people on the right pathway, which Dr Glehane talked about. I believe in what he says. To characterise this, but for the Tory benches to characterise the Lord Advocate's announcement last week, as a whole-scale decriminalisation of drugs, does his proposal no justice whatsoever? Has it occurred to them that a route into recovery may well be the police officer who issues a warning and, under the scheme, refers that person to treatment? Has it not occurred that that could actually be a pathway? It is also worth stressing that offering a recorded police warning is not mandatory and police officers retain the ability to report cases to the procurator fiscal. As the Lord Advocate noted last week, when a police encounter an individual who they know or suspect is addicted to drugs, officers are able to direct that person to the services that they are able to assist. Surely that in itself is consistent with finding pathways to recovery. The type of referral that the Lord Advocate says must become the norm and we need more resources for treatment and recovery programmes urgently. I spoke in the last debate about drug consumption facilities, operating in 66 countries around the world. I think that there is some agreement in the Parliament that Scotland needs to facilitate that. A review by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that the availability of safer injecting facilities increases drug use or the frequency of injecting. Those services facilitate rather than delay treatment entry and do not result in higher rates of local drug related crime. I believe that the Scottish Government must work within the legal framework. I asked the Lord Advocate in her statement last week if she does consider that the supervision of those who are consuming drugs in its situation may well be that it does not actually contravene the act itself if the supervision of those who are illegally consuming drugs is in order to save lives. However, I was pleased to note that the Lord Advocate said last week in response to me that she would be prepared to consider a future proposal. As we know by the end of March, lives were saved by Peter Kye, which I previously mentioned. It has to be a serious part of our ideas if we have not to fail in this matter. Most of us in this chamber clearly support a public health approach to our drug deaths crisis, Scotland's other public health emergency. For most of us, the debate is how, in our national mission to save and improve lives, to reduce harm and promote recovery, how do we do everything possible to maximise that public health approach, which of course is much broader and more holistic than a purely medicalised model. Like Pauline McNeill, I fear that the Tories are failing to join the dots between life-saving emergency work to improve lives, which, in an all-government, all-Scotland response must include our criminal justice system, as well as our welfare system, as well as our health and education system, too. I noticed that Ms Webber said that she was worried that people would be no longer scared to carry drugs. I am worried about people being scared not to seek treatment through the risk of criminalisation. Dr Goualo, if I have pronounced that correctly, is the architect of Portugal's reforms. When they said, the biggest effect has been to allow the stigma of drug addiction to fall and to let people speak clearly and to pursue professional help without fear. Now, despite my questions about the Conservatives' proposal on a right to treatment or a right to recovery bill, like other members in this chamber, I have been clear that I have an open mind and will give it a fair hearing, which of course is more than the Tories gave the Lord's advocate last week. I do have to say to Mr Finlay that it is a poor show when you never let the facts get in the way of column inches in the Daily Mail or the Daily Express. That is the Lord's advocate's decision. It is not decriminalisation. It is not mandatory. We heard from the Lord's advocate that it is a response that can be tailored to the needs of the alleged offence and the individual involved. For most of us, we are trying to elevate the debate within and outwith this Parliament, of course. Russell Finlay. Thank you. As I was saying earlier, would you encourage your cabinet colleague Keith Brown to act immediately in relation to prison drugs and stop the mail, as I was suggesting in my speech? That would go a long way to helping vulnerable prisoners who are suffering from drug problems. I do not expect Mr Finlay to know this about me, but a large part of my career before I entered this place was working in three Scottish prisons and the state hospital. I know the hard work of prison officers both to make their institutions safe and secure. At the same time, I also know the hard work that they do to protect and promote welfare, particularly the mental health of prisoners. I remind Mr Finlay that even prisoners these days have human rights, and human rights are not something that we pick and choose about. The challenges for our prison service are safety and security, but it is also protecting our most vulnerable citizens, some of which are wrongly placed in our prison system. While it is for Mr Finlay—he is a big boy now—he does not need his mammy to hold his hand, I am sure that he will be able to address any outstanding matters that he has with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. If we go back to the facts of the matter, if we look at the diversion scheme introduced in Baltimore, where they stopped prosecuting for low-level drug offences out of 1,400 drug cases that they diverted, only six cases were involved in re-offending. If we look at Portugal, where they have six drug deaths per million of the population in comparison to Scotland, where we have 315 deaths per million of the population, we have to think big, bold and radical. Of course, the Conservatives are suspiciously quiet on that wide range of evidence-based interventions that work, whether it is safe consumption rooms, whether it is heroin-assisted treatment or whether it is—I do not have time, I am so sorry, Mr Briggs, otherwise I would. We have to accept—and it is a point that I think was made by someone in the Labour benches—that this is not about supporting harm reduction over recovery. It is not about supporting recovery over harm reduction, it is about supporting people. We have massive platforms of work around medication-assisted treatment. Minister, if you could wind up, please. I will indeed, around residential rehabilitation, but we have never presented any measure as a silver bullet, but neither will we pass up any opportunity, however large or small, to take even one step forward. We will continue on our journey to save lives. Thank you. I call on Jamie Greene. Up to six minutes, Mr Greene. Thank you. I also thank members from right across the chamber for their input in today's short debate on this. For the most part, I respectfully debate about our drugs crisis, and it is a crisis. Of course, there are very polarized arguments over the criminalisation or even its perception. It is not a new argument nor an easy one and it is clear from a number of contributions today that there is agreement on the scale of the problem that we face in Scotland and even to an extent of what has gone wrong in the past and what might need to be done to fix it. However, I want to be clear about why we are using Opposition Time today to talk specifically about the decision made by the Lord Advocate last week. It is our view that this major shift in drugs policy has not fully been fought through or consulted on nor its potential effect or consequence fully understood or indeed debated. It is clear that very little consultation took place before the decision was made. In fact, last week's announcement came as a surprise to many of us. I would say to Jim Fairlie, who has just waxed lyrical about all the stakeholders that he has been engaging with about today's debate. That is great, but let me remind him that none of those people would have a voice in those walls had we not brought a debate to the chamber in the first place today. I asked the Government where the formal consultation was with drug rehab charities, with the third sector, with Police Scotland and with recovering addicts. What did Police Scotland say about the new guidance or the proposed changes? What experiences do they share with you about the effect of the previous changes that were made to the possession of Class B and C drugs? In a second, what evidence is there that this approach either does work or will work? I am happy to take an intervention. I quoted in my closing remarks evidence from Baltimore and Portugal, but you heard the Lord Advocate statement last week. Did you not ask her these questions about her decision? I would love to have, but we had a 20-minute question-and-answer session. That is the point, Presiding Officer. There is no time to properly debate this and listen to the voices of those stakeholders that many of us have referenced today. In fact, why did not a Hollywood committee be afforded the opportunity to take proper evidence on this? I am sure that many of them would have been happy to do so. The Health Committee, the Criminal Justice Committee and surely that is the role of our committees in a Unicameral Parliament such as ours. I say that because it is an important point, let me make my point, because just as there may be voices who support the move, there will surely be others who do not, and perhaps we ought to listen to those voices too. We argue that a shift in the guidance to police on whether or not to prosecute the possession of Class I drugs makes them no less harmful nor will it reduce drug use or consequently drug deaths. We are not alone in that view. Other stakeholders out there in the real world share those views. This is not a political position. For example, the Centre for Substance Use Research said, let me finish this quote, that there is a huge risk of escalating, not reducing our drug problem. I want to drill down on why that argument is being made, because maintaining those legal barriers to drug use is a very powerful means by which society seeks to suppress the limitless expansion in the scale and impact of drug use. The only way to reduce our drug death total is to reduce the overall level of drug use itself, and the measure announced last week will go nowhere to do that. Why? Because the policy, as was announced, assumes the behavioural change only in those who use drugs, not those who deal in them. The dealers, who I think are buoyed by this new approach to how we police hard-core drugs. I am happy to take an invention. Thank you. I raised on my speech, and I am asking you again why did the Conservatives in 2018 support diversion prosecution and highlighted Durham's checkpoint diversion? If you are asking for scrutiny now, you seem to be able to decide three years ago that you supported this kind of approach. I am very happy to respond directly to that, because it is an important point. We said in 2018 that there needed to be a holistic approach. I have never said publicly in anything that has been reported last week that I am against the principle of diversion, because many ideas have been mooted over the years. Our paper in 2018 was to be commended, but it was ignored, and that is the point, because you cannot divert people from prosecution to nothing. You cannot divert them if there is nowhere to divert them to. That is the point that we are making today. Neither can you simply point towards other countries and say, my goodness, what a great job they have done, because you cannot do that without accepting that those Governments in those countries did not make 22 per cent year-on-year cuts to drugs and alcohol services like this Government did. It is not good enough. It is not good enough simply to use emotive arguments based on the perceived benefit of a policy. We need to use facts, Scottish facts, and here are some facts for the minister. When the SNP came to power, there were 352 residential rehab beds in Scotland, and 352. There were 445 drug deaths that year, and 445 too many. We all agree that. Ten years later, there were 70 rehab beds, and a death rate of more than 1,000. Today, that rate stands at nearer 1,400. Minister, do you see the link here? Those are the facts. They are disgraceful ones, and they should be a source of shame on this Government. One thing that we all agree on is that drug addiction destroys lives. That point was made by Sandesh Gohani powerfully in his opening remarks. Of course, those people need help, but that help is simply not there for far too many. It is our unapologetic view that the right to recovery must be enshrined in law. If the Government's direction of travel is, as it says, to make our drug shame a health problem, not a justice one, fine. But ministers better make sure that there is a health solution there to back it up, because their track record today fills no one with confidence. We will support them in that journey, but they must also be willing to listen. I support the motion in Dr Gohani's name. That concludes the debate on legal right to recovery and its point of order, Murdo Fraser. In this afternoon's debate on Covid vaccine passports, reference is made to the absence of the draft regulations and to an evidence base to support the policy. I understand from media reports that the Scottish Government's senior council, appearing this afternoon in the court of session, stated that the regulations would be considered by the Covid-19 recovery committee tomorrow morning, despite the agenda for that meeting having already been published and there being no room on our agenda to do so. Moreover, the same senior council produced in evidence to the court of session a 71-page evidence paper from the Scottish Government in support of its policy. The draft regulations and that evidence paper were then emailed to members of the Covid-19 recovery committee after the debate in the chamber was concluded. Clearly, those documents would have been very helpful in informing the debate that members were holding, and presumably were ready long before the debate commenced. Can you investigate why the Scottish Government made those documents available to the court of session, but not to this Parliament, or why does treating the chamber with contempt? I thank Mr Fraser for his point of order. I am not aware at this moment of the precise detail of the information that has been provided or the basis of which it was produced in the court of session, but it is, of course, extremely important that members and committees are provided with information to enable scrutiny in a timious manner. I will review the information that has been provided and I will return to the chamber if I consider that a further ruling is appropriate. The material that has been provided to the committee has been provided in accordance with the routine arrangements that are available and have existed throughout the pandemic for the supply of regulatory information to committees in advance of their deliberations. That material was provided at 4 pm this afternoon in accordance with the normal arrangements that are in place for such arrangements. I thank Mr Swinney for his point of order. I will satisfy myself as to the situation and, as I said previously, I will return to the chamber if I consider a further ruling is appropriate. I believe that Mr Kerr's point of order is next and then I will return to Ms McNeill. I have previously raised concerns with you about the SNP Government's blatant disregard for Scotland's Parliament. This morning, the SNP snuck out Government-initiated question S6W-03408, which announced that the NHS would remain on emergency footing until at least March 2022. Surely, Presiding Officer, this kind of significant and substantive announcement must be brought to the chamber in the first instance with an opportunity for members to question ministers on its consequences. We had the First Minister's Covid update statement yesterday. There was ample opportunity for the Cabinet Secretary to make a statement to Parliament in person and to answer questions. I seek your guidance on three matters. First, you will know that, on 22 June, I raised a very similar point of order with you, and you said then that you had, quote, asked the Scottish Government to reflect on the use of GIQs when Parliament is sitting. Do you believe, Presiding Officer, that today's events demonstrate that the Scottish Government has taken any notice whatsoever of your request? Secondly, on 22 June, you also said that all significant and substantive announcements should be made to Parliament whenever that is possible. I do not think that anyone can argue that this announcement is not significant and substantial. I do not think that anyone can argue that it was not possible for the Cabinet Secretary to make a statement to Parliament yesterday or even today or tomorrow. Do you, Presiding Officer, still believe that what you said on 22 June is correct and do you share my concern that this Government is disrespecting your office and this Parliament by its behaviour again today? The Government has already shown this week how quickly it can and does change business when it suits it. Finally, Presiding Officer, based on the approach that we have seen today from the Government, I fear that the Scottish Government's elusive winter NHS plan might well be snuck out over recess with minimal scrutiny, because the one thing that we know about this SNP Government is that it cannot abide transparency or scrutiny. What, Presiding Officer, can be done to ensure that members of this Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise this plan before the October recess? I thank the member for his point of order. Government-initiated questions are recognised as a mechanism through which the Government can make announcements. As I set out in June, all significant and substantial announcements should be made to this Parliament wherever that is possible. There will of course be instances in which it is not possible to make an announcement in the chamber. In relation to question S6W-03408, I have noted that the GIQ mechanism has been used both in this session and last session to confirm extensions to the period for which the NHS will remain on an emergency footing. The guidance on announcement also notes that GIQ answers can be followed up with a debate. That might be something that the member wishes to raise at the next meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau, where I will visit the issue that the member raises today. I thank the member for his point of order. Further to the question that you will consider about scrutiny in this Parliament, particularly of the vaccine passport regulations, following a radio interview that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport gave after the debate, he said that evidence to back the Government's position was lodged in Spice, and I pursued that. I was told that no such evidence existed. I asked the Presiding Officer to consider that members of this Parliament who have an interest in the debate, which I and many others do, who are not part of the Covid Committee, must have access to all the Government's advice and evidence for what position we want to take. It is really unsatisfactory when considering the bold basis of the Government's argument around Covid vaccine passport, if it is not available in our information centre. I thank Ms McNeill for her point of order. As I said previously, I will review the information that has been raised with me this afternoon, and I will return to the chamber if I consider that a further ruling is appropriate. We will now move on to consideration of business motion 1.48, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. On the point of order that I just raised with you, I once again rise to speak against the business programme motion due to the lack of opportunity for any meaningful scrutiny of today's announcement by stealth that the NHS will remain on emergency footing until at least March 2022. I understand that the announcement had to be made before the 30th of September, and what I do not understand is why it had to be snuck out through the back door on the 29th of September. I would welcome the opportunity in meeting with the Bureau this week—I should say that I would have welcomed the opportunity in meeting with the Bureau this week or last week—to discuss the appropriate way in which the announcement could be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. That would have been the correct way to do things, but for whatever reason, the Minister for Parliamentary Business made no mention of it at all at those meetings. We should not have to fight tooth and nail for significant Government announcements to be made to Parliament. The people of Scotland are watching the tedious pattern of this SNP Scottish Government disrespecting this Parliament and its processes. The Scottish Conservatives cannot stand idly by and watch this happen. We will defend Scotland's Parliament from this overbearing executive. I urge the Minister for Parliamentary Business to bring forward a revised business motion to include a statement on today's announcement with an appropriate question-and-answer session. They may laugh, but someone has to defend this Parliament from this executive. We will take up that challenge. I currently have no indication from the Minister for Parliamentary Business that he intends to put such an announcement or a statement or a question-and-answer session into the business for next week. That is why we will oppose the motion today. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. I feel as if I have been timewalked back to last week again, because we seem to be having the same debate on every single time in the Parliament. It has nothing to do with the Scottish Government's attitude. It is purely to do with the attitudes and the benches over to my left. When we look at this in reality, we take away the Conservative hyperbole, and we look at it in reality. The National Health Service Scotland Act 1978 enabled the Scottish Minister to make use of direction making emergency powers to secure the continuance of services. The NHS in Scotland was initially placed into emergency footing on 16 March 2020. That was a statement by Jeane Freeman, where, in effect, numerous ideas and numerous ways of going forward with Covid were brought into place. It was further extended until the end of September 2021. Although the number of new Covid cases appears to be in decline, health services are continuing to deal with the most challenging combination of issues. There remains a need for caution in protecting the capacity of the NHS as we move into this challenging winter period. No, I really need to get on to the end of this at the moment. There is a need to continue with measured and consistent approach to remobilise and renewing the vital services that we all rely on. In addition, we are mindful of the impact on many front-line staff, who are the most important people in this scenario, who will remain under considerable pressure and must be given the appropriate support, as well as the opportunity to recover as our range of services continue to resume. As we look through this, Jeane Freeman announced to Parliament in March 2020 that the NHS was under emergency measures. Jeane Freeman then, in March 2021, put a GIQ through Parliament, extending it at that point. In June this year, we had a situation in which a letter was sent to the committee. I made sure that everybody knew that there was debate for it, and it was continued to September now. All I am arguing here is that we are living in the middle of one of the most challenging times that we have ever gone through, and for the Conservatives to come here and play political games, while people's lives are at stake as a damned disgrace. Mr Adam, I would be grateful if you would address the chamber with courtesy. I will take away the swear word there that I should not have said. You may ask yourself why is a GIQ in March acceptable? A letter in June is acceptable, but a GIQ in September is unacceptable. As I said earlier, this is about the people of Scotland dealing with this terrible situation that we are currently in. It is about ensuring that staff on our NHS get that full support. First and foremost, it is about this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, making its decision on what business we decide as we go forward tonight. The question is that motion 1438 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.