 Truly, there are three options on the table, of which we have given an initial view, and I encourage everybody to respond. I encourage everybody to respond. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 14375, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, on the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill. Members who wish to take part in this debate should press their request speak buttons now. Now Annacomming the constitution, I will invite Stuart Stevenson to speak, to Felly, yn cymryd deulog, mae'r cymryd yn cyfryd amddangos ar gyfer y llifydd y mae gweithio cymryd mewn cygedig yn cyfryd hynny, mwyaf i amddangos i gwyllgor cymryd deulog yn datblyg mewn cyfryd deulog ar gyfer y llifydd a'r cymryd deulog yn cymryd deulog. Mae'r cywir cymryd, os dim yn gyfaradwyr cymryd ar ran y cymryd, ac yn digwyddoleg cyfrilogio'r cyfrilog, oherwydd mae'r cyfryd yn cyfrilog iawn diogelio'r cyfrillog i fyfyn ar gyfer, ac ymddangos i nog? byddoch o'r bwysig Plyrydau Cymru. Fy hollwch i ddifallus I4M14375 yn eu gwriad. Fy hollwch i'w bwysig y bydd yn hynny'n ddweud datblygu 크�ogiadau cyfleol corws y bydd yn cyfrasil y paddig o'r prydwyr i ffrasil ffansilyn gyffredinol, yn gyffredinol i gweithio to assist MSPs in complying with requirements to report donations. The proposals in the bill would also strengthen the sanctions available to Parliament too, deal with any breaches to the rules set out in the interest act, widen the scope of the offence of paid advocacy and extend the length of time that the Parliament may retain members' registers of interest. I will speak in my closing remarks about this aspect of the bill later this afternoon. Turning first to the proposals to eliminate dual reporting. MSPs currently have to report financial interests in two places. To the Electoral Commission under the political parties Elections and Referendums Act, otherwise known as preparer, and to the Parliament. There is an overlap between the two regimes, which results in the dual reporting of certain financial interests. The bill before us today makes the necessary changes to the Parliament's register so that dual reporting can be ended, bringing the reporting requirements into a single place for MSPs. That would make information about MSPs' financial interests more easily available to the public, and it will be beneficial for a number of other reasons. Information on MSPs' financial interests could be found in a single place on the Parliament's website, where you would expect to find it. MSPs would only have to register in one place and can now receive advice on all their interests from parliamentary officials, the clerks to the committee. In addition, all complaints about an MSP not meeting the reporting requirements would be dealt with in a single way. They would be dealt with in future by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. That will make the process easier to navigate for the public, for MSPs and anyone with any interest whatsoever in the process—a single process for all MSPs for all complaints. The approach in the bill has been to leave the Parliament's existing regime as undisturbed as possible while incorporating the donations and transactions that are currently reportable under PEPERA. However, the changes included in the bill to bring the two regimes together in one place make the interests act much more complex. The bill adjusts the definition of gifts and the definition of overseas visits, and a new category has been added for loans and certain other transactions. The bill also adds an additional layer of rules on the aggregation of interests with a combined value of more than £1,500. The overall approach has been to limit the changes that we propose wherever possible to interests with a single or combined value in excess of the £1,500 threshold that has come originally from the PEPERA. The current framework for ending dual reporting in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 does not extend to independent MSPs. As that act stands, dual reporting can only be ended for members of registered political parties and not for independent members. The bill that we are debating today contains an amendment to that act, which will allow dual reporting to be ended for all MSPs. The committee has included that provision in the bill so that all MSPs are treated in the same way. I know that this is something that the Presiding Officer herself feels very strongly about. As the convener of the SPPA Committee, I have talked to all those in the current Parliament who might be affected. Indeed, my last meeting with the late Margaret McDonald MSP a month before she died when I visited her at home was precisely to discuss the effect of what we are proposing today with her, as with all other members. I may say that she was in remarkably good spirit and my three minutes on this subject extended to a full hour while we discussed current political topics. No surprise there whatsoever. It would be unfair if independent members were required to continue with dual reporting when the system had been streamlined for MSPs who are members of political parties. Let me now address the changes to sanctions that are also included in the bill. The Scotland Act 2012 introduced changes to section 39 of the Scotland Act 1998 to give the Parliament greater flexibility in determining what sanctions are appropriate for breaches of the member's interest regime and the paid advocacy prohibition. Our bill largely restates the existing criminal offence. The provisions on parliamentary sanctions in the interest act are currently limited to excluding a member from proceedings in the Parliament or restricting participation in proceedings on matters in relation to which there has been a breach. The bill makes clear that a full range of parliamentary sanctions will be available if an MSP fails to register or declare an interest or undertakes paid advocacy. It includes a provision for a range of parliamentary sanctions that are broadly equivalent to some of the measures that are available to the Parliament where it withdraws a member's rights and privileges, for example in respect of a breach of the code of conduct. That approach ensures consistency with section 39, which envisages further provision on sanctions being made in or under an act of the Scottish Parliament. The committee believes that it is vital that a wide range of sanctions is available to the Parliament for dealing with breaches of the interest act and the code of conduct. Sanctions available to the Parliament must be sufficiently stringent for it to respond effectively to breaches of the rules and to discourage such breaches in the first place. The bill ensures that a broad range of sanctions is available to the Parliament, including potentially removing all allowances or salary. That change demonstrates that the Parliament has the tools to deal effectively with any breaches to the interest act. Paid advocacy is where an individual uses their position as an MSP to advocate a particular matter in return for payment, including benefit in kind, or to urge any other MSP to do so. It is a criminal offence and a breach of the interest act for an MSP to undertake paid advocacy, but no MSP has ever been found to breach those rules. The committee is very clear, given the gravity with which paid advocacy should be treated, that the criminal offence for paid advocacy is appropriate. Our consultation paper proposed that the definition should be amended for greater consistency with the bribery act 2010. A particular note to the committee was the incorporation of the act of agreeing to receive inducements within the offence of being bribed under section 2 of the bribery act. The paid advocacy offence currently requires actual receipt. It does not incorporate payments of benefits in kind that a member agrees to receive. Our bill amends the definition of paid advocacy, so by agreeing to receive inducements as well as actually receiving them, there would be an offence. It would be a breach of the act. Bill introduces a new sanction that the Parliament should be able to agree a motion of censure. I will speak more about this in my closing remarks. I believe that the provisions of this bill will increase transparency for the public, make it easier for members to ensure that they comply with the rules and create a more robust standards regime. When Parliament debated the committee report back in April, we talked about how implementation of the Scotland Act 2012 had paved the way for the committee to update the member's interest statute in full. I will not miss today's opportunity to stress the importance and benefits of this Parliament being responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operations. That is not just a matter of ownership. It is the realisation that the Scottish public would quite reasonably expect the Parliament to be responsible for its internal affairs. It also helps to reinforce the accountability of the Parliament to the people of Scotland. It is only right that the rules under which we as members operate are wholly conceived in this Parliament and that this Parliament can be wholly judged on the robustness and the framework that it chooses to put in place. I therefore welcome the bill promoted by the committee to amend the existing member's interest statute. More generally, I want to reflect, if I may, on the fact that those measures are brought forward by a committee bill. In total, there have been six previous committee bills since devolution 3 in session 1, 1 in session 2 and 2 in session 3. Like that one, most have been parliamentary in nature. Those are not things that come around every week. I would like to take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for the ability of committees to bring forward legislative proposals. That arrangement helps to characterise a modern, healthy and proactive legislature. The Government would therefore encourage committees to consider proposals that might be suitable for promotion via the committee bill process. I once again want to put on record the Government's recognition that the bill's subject matter is clearly parliamentary in nature. The Government does, however, wish to offer its views on the proposals in their current form. I want to commend the committee on the suite of reform proposals contained in the bill. The bill delivers, I think, on three fronts. Firstly, it seeks to establish measures to enhance members' accountability to the public, reflecting the latest views as to what constitutes appropriate property standards. Secondly, it looks to standardise arrangements for reporting interests in streamlining the activity that is required of members and offers the public a single point of reference. Thirdly, it offers the Parliament flexibility in the event that circumstances ever arise that necessitate enforcement activity. I consider that each of those elements to be significant in themselves. However, to seek to deliver them—and I joined up approach via this bill demonstrates the committee's level of ambition and commitment to reform, and I think that the committee should be commended in its approach. Turning to the specific reforms that the bill seeks to implement, the reduction in the financial threshold for registering gifts from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent of a member's salary clearly enhances transparency. I welcome the committee's consideration of the report published by the group of states against corruption, which promoted a reduction to the registration threshold. Oat moves across legislators and assemblies in the UK to reduce the gift threshold, and it is appropriate for our Parliament to have the opportunity to keep in step with such changes. The backbone of the bill, as the convener said, is the aim to end dual reporting of a member's financial interests to both the Parliament and the electoral commission. The Government notes that the bill is tackling the complex interaction of the current member's interest regime with the regime on reporting donations and loans under the political parties elections and referendum act. The Government supports the principle that dual reporting should end. The creation of a single reporting regime will be beneficial in terms of transparency and more generally improved governance in Scotland. It is right to ensure that elected members have a clear and unambiguous system for registering their interests. It is also right that such improvements can equally benefit the public in terms of reviewing those interests and in seeking assurances over the integrity of the registration scheme. I commend the committee, its clerking team and the electoral commission for tackling this topic and delivering a clear reform proposal for the Parliament's consideration. The last policy strand in the bill that I want to offer some comment on is the proposal that the Parliament be given full flexibility over imposition of sanctions in respect of the member's interest regime. The Government sees merit in such a move and it would allow the Parliament to consider any breach on its merits and to apply whatever sanctions it deemed appropriate in respect to that breach. The current situation whereby the only sanction available to Parliament is to exclude a member could be viewed as disproportionate in certain cases. The ability of a proportionate sanction could ultimately encourage more enforcement action. The proposal to add a new sanction for the Parliament to agree a motion of censure also seems sensible in that regard. The Government welcomes the commitment shown from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to reviewing and updating the current member's interest legislation. The benefits of conducting that review in the context of wider competence has, I believe, shone through in terms of the significance and helpful reforms that are now proposed in the bill. It should not surprise the chamber that the Government welcomes and supports the committee bill. I am pleased to open the debate for the Labour Benches, having been a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, while they consulted on the changes to the way that members register outside interests, gifts and political donations that are proposed in the bill. That is the technical bill, which comes from this Parliament being given greater flexibility over the scheme for registering members' interests by the provisions of the Scotland Act 2012. Members of the public want assurances that elected representatives are working in their interests, and the register of interests is an important tool in holding members in this chamber to account on that. The system that we have must hold the confidence of the public that MSPs' activities are not being influenced by outside financial interests and that they are transparent and open. The bill contains significant amendments to the current system that strengthens it and will lead to greater confidence in it. Although the threshold for registering a financial interest will remain the same, we welcome the important change to how we, as members, will report any financial interests and how members of the public will be able to access it. The current system of reporting financial interests to both the electoral commission and this Parliament not only means more administrative duties for members, but it also means that financial interests are recorded in two places. We welcome the bill's proposal to end this due reporting for two reasons. Although members will still be required to register any financial interests within the existing financial thresholds, moving to a system of one report to this Parliament, made within the current 30 days limit set by the electoral commission, will streamline the registration scheme for members and make it easier for us to comply with the requirements set. It will also give members of the public one platform to seek the information about members' interests that they wish to access, producing a more efficient system. We also welcome the proposal to create a more robust enforcement and sanction regime that I am sure will increase the public's confidence in our register of interests system. I believe that it is absolutely correct that a full range of sanctions for registration breaches should be available. The current system of Parliament having the right to withdraw a member's rights and privileges over a registration breach is too limited in scope and cannot be an appropriate response in all cases. I believe that there must be a range of options open to Parliament that are able to cover cases of minor breaches but also in more serious cases. We, as members, should also welcome moves to have the standard commissioner investigate all breaches. Currently, some breaches are investigated by both the commissioner and the electoral commission, and the bill's proposal simplifies that. This change also allows the procurator physical to investigate all breaches theories. Currently, some minor breaches can be pursued on a civil rather a criminal basis. That takes me to the committee's decision to retain the criminal offence part of the existing system. That is absolutely the right decision for a system that must hold the confidence of the public. It would be wrong for us in this Parliament to be seen to be taking breaches of the register of interests less seriously, and I fully support the retention of that in the committee's bill. We also welcome other proposals in the bill such as the enactment of the recommendations made by the group of states against corruption by lowering the threshold of registering gifts to 0.5 per cent of a member's salary. We wholeheartedly give our support to the proposed ban on paid advocacy. Members in this Parliament are here to represent constituents in our constituencies and regions. Members should not be paid to advocate causes on behalf of outside organisations, and this bill makes important changes to this. Members are often lobbied by groups, and the current system is not transparent. While we wait for the Government to bring forward the lobbying bill, which will hopefully meet the aims of the private members' bill proposed by my colleague Neil Findlay, the bill today proposes a significant amendment to the definition of paid advocacy. The bill will make it an offence for members of this Parliament to agree to receive financial inducement for advocacy work. That is a significant change from the current definition whereby only receiving money for advocacy work is an offence. With that change, we are sending a clear message that accepting paid advocacy work is not acceptable conduct for any member of this Parliament, and we welcome the strength and definition of paid advocacy. Presiding Officer, beyond those benches, I am pleased to support the proposals within the committee's bill. I am pleased to speak in support of the bill before us today, too. I pay tribute to Stuart Stevenson and his role as convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. He has co-ordinated a considerable amount of work of the preparatory work that has been required to bring the bill to this stage, as well as introducing it on behalf of the committee today. I would also like to offer my appreciation to some of the others who laid the groundwork for this bill's introduction. In this instance, it is appropriate to consider the extensive co-operation between our Parliament's officials and the Electoral Commission to create compatibility between their respective registers of interests. We thank them for their efforts in handling what the committee has recognised are complex areas of law and administration. This work will enable the ending of dual reporting and its replacement with a single register, as envisaged by the 2006 Electoral Administration Act. That will hopefully provide clarity, not just in reporting terms, but in making information convenient and straightforward for the public to access. On this side of the chamber, we also take note of the Council of Europe's Greco recommendations on gifts. We believe that they have been well accommodated in the bill. That follows similar actions being taken in the House of Commons and House of Lords in light of the 2013 Greco report on the UK. The committee has also examined the guidance that is available to members on gifts and light of that report to ensure that it is clear and compliant. It was the committee's conclusion that this area is already well covered by the information that is provided. The UK has been an active member of the Greco's since 1999, and it is right that it continues to be an effective forum for evaluating our efforts in preventing corruption and ensuring public sector transparency. We are also supportive of ensuring that the legislative framework underpinning the interests act is sufficiently robust. While it is positive to see that no members have been convicted of offences in this area—a record that we undoubtedly hope to maintain—it is important that we have rigorous measures in place to accommodate all circumstances and to be able to deal with them appropriately. It is sensible that the prohibition of paid advocacy is extended to better mirror the offence of bribery as put in place across the United Kingdom by the 2010 bribery act, itself the consequence of examination both at home and in light of our anti-corruption work internationally. In both circumstances it is clearly justifiable the requirements of the offence relate to agreement to receive an inducement rather than the actual receipt of an inducement being necessary. In December last year, the UK Government published its wide-ranging UK anti-corruption plan. While the UK has always been seen as among the least corrupt nations in the world, the plan made it clear that there is more to do, and we have seen our international anti-corruption rankings improve as a consequence of our willingness to make sensible changes to our laws and practice. The Parliament should be mindful of its responsibilities and the direction of travel under that plan. The provisions of the bill will form a substantial part of our response. The bill has undergone detailed consideration before the committee. It has been clear from those deliberations and from the responses to the consultation that its contents are sensible and reasonable proposals to ensure that this Parliament remains transparent while providing us with the tools to address situations where we fall short of the standards that may be expected. Many thanks. I have one request in the open debate, so I now call Tavish Scott up to four minutes please. I just want to really make two or three points on this bill. The first is to recognise the committee and the convener's role in that and in bringing forward these proposals. It is important to recognise what has not happened since 1999, as the convener and one or two other members mentioned that there have been no breaches of this in any sense. Therefore, the tightening up of it has to be seen in that context. We are tightening up a measure that has in large part worked and that, as far as I have always been aware, the understanding that members across the political parties and across the chamber have in terms of their responsibilities, both in terms of reporting, has been, or was one or two, slight edges in terms of timescale being complied with at all times. What has come to light has been the point that the convener made in his opening remarks, and that is the dual reporting. That tightens up and deals with that and not before time. Some of us have been caught by that. It is no-one's fault, as far as I can see, one of those things that needed to shake out during the context of alterations to perfectly sensible proposals. However, in at least resolving that matter, the bill creates, as it were, a one-stop shop that is eminently sensible in terms of the procedures of this Parliament in upholding the standards. It did strike me gently to the minister that we should apply the same principles to ministers as well as to members. I am sure that he would wish to point out that ministers have to comply to even higher standards in terms of financial transparency, but, certainly, that would be very important indeed that that were the case. Finally, and I might just address this two final questions that I made to the convener to deal with in his winding up, and I may just not have seen the detail on this, it is by definition wrong and an offence that any member were to be offered money in relation to paid advocacy. However, the similar question would also apply were someone be so stupid as to actually ask for it, and he may wish to clarify that in his—I am sure that is something that the lawyers of no one else have given some thought to. The final point actually did strike me when he was speaking, and that is about not just donations. He rightly set out the limit that all members now will comply with in terms of the donation limit in terms of the register. Of course, donations do not just come from individuals to an individual politician, they also come through political parties, and he might want to address whether the register deals with the fact that much money that flows into politics flows into political parties and then is spent in regions and constituencies of Scotland. I genuinely do not know whether this bill does anything about that in terms of transparency whatsoever. Many thanks, and following that short debate, we now turn to the closing speeches and a call on John Scott, four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and this has been a welcome debate, and in a democracy it is right that there is proper scrutiny when representatives are in essence deliberating on how best to regulate themselves and their conduct. Given the justifiable public interest in transparency, I am pleased to see that the proposals of this bill will serve to enhance how this Parliament operates. As has been touched upon, this has been a lengthy process. The end of dual reporting was envisaged in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and was removed from the House of Commons in 2009. It was in spring 2013 that the consultation was opened for the bill before us now. That consultation highlighted some of the benefits that members have brought forward in their speeches today. The commissioners for standards in public life, for example, pointed to the significance of the reporting changes not only in terms of simplifying the regulatory framework but for the purposes of public transparency, too. In its evidence, the Electoral Reform Society used the opportunity to call for a full review of all procedures in this Parliament to take place. While it envisages such a review before any legislation and the content of the bill was brought forward—a proposition that must have seen that as unlikely—it is perhaps worthy of consideration for the future. We sometimes forget that this Parliament is still a young institution, although perhaps no longer a fledgling institution. It would be no bad thing for us to examine how it has evolved from what was envisaged at the outset. We go back to our founding principles. The ERS proposes that we go back to our founding principles and the reports of the consultative steering group to consider holistically where we are and what the effects have been of our reforms. It is also important that this Parliament is evolving. Earlier this year, we saw Scotland's first tax levyd since 1707. Income tax will fall on next year with the extensive powers of the Scotland bill being on the near horizon. In any case, and at the risk of laboring the points in my opening speech about the process of bringing the bill forward, I would like to make a further observation. It is extremely positive that this Parliament is moving forward to make changes to its standards and privileges in a way that is as consensual as possible. The bill contains a number of sensible measures that will provide how we operate and improve how we operate and hopefully ensure that this Parliament is seen as an open, transparent and responsible institution in the future. I hope that the proposals that I have brought forward today will go some way towards satisfying those principles. In closing, I would again like to state my appreciation for the work of Stuart Stevenson, his fellow committee members and the officials, all of whom are laying the extensive groundwork that the bill required. I am pleased to say that we will be gaining the support of this side of the chamber. I thank Stuart Stevenson and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and the clerks for the work that they have done to progress the important piece of legislation. I am pleased that, across the chamber, we all agree that we need robust, accountable and transparent mechanisms for reporting members' interests. This is a Parliament that rightly prides itself on openness and accountability. The bill gives Parliament the opportunity to revisit the legislation surrounding members' interests. Although the committee considered the regime to be robust, we must maintain standards to ensure sufficient checks and balances exist. The bill will help to increase transparency and accessibility to information about members' financial interests, and will ensure that Parliament has a robust set of sanctions to deal with any breaches to its rules. Stuart Stevenson spoke of the provision that will create a new sanction, allowing Parliament to agree a motion of censure. A motion of censure will serve as a useful middle ground if a member is found to be in breach of the rules, but that breach is not serious enough to justify removal of parliamentary privilege. A motion of censure would allow debate and would give the member in question the opportunity to explain the breach and apologise. Another useful change is the length of time information on members' interests will be kept. The committee considered it more appropriate to keep registered entries for 10 years instead of five. There are a number of practical reasons for doing this. It will assist members in ensuring information about their previously held interests are available at the start of a session. Similarly, if a member is not returned to Parliament but does return at a subsequent election, it is easier to check the previous interests that were recorded. The change will also increase transparency in relation to members' interests as the information will be easily accessible to the public for much longer. Those changes combined with the changes to the register provide an additional layer of transparency to the public seeking to access members' registers. Ending dual reporting is an important step. At the moment, the information is on both the Parliament's website and the Electoral Commission, depending on the nature of the interests. Streamlining the process will assist people in accessing information, but it will also help members to comply with the regime. With regard to paid advocacy, although I am pleased that no member has found to be in breach of the rules, we must, however, keep the rules under review. I think that it is right that we are strengthening the rules on paid advocacy through the bill. Most members of the public would expect there to be a breach where the member has agreed to undertake paid advocacy, even where cash has not changed hands. That bill ensures that that behaviour will be caught. I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour and support the motion seeking the Parliament's agreement on the general principles of the committee bill. Its provisions will increase transparency and strengthen the standard regime in the Scottish Parliament. Openness, transparency and accountability must be at the forefront of the way that this Parliament operates, and I am happy to support the motion in Stuart Stevenson's name. Many thanks. I now call on Jovis Patrick. Five minutes, please, minister. Margaret MacDougall referred to the bill as being a very technical bill, and she is right. It is a very technical bill. I put on record the committee and its clerks for the work that they have done to bring forward such a technical bill in the way that they have done. I hope that today's debate has made it a little bit less technical for anyone who is listening in and reading the report and can understand what the technical bill is about and what we are hoping to do. It is good to hear that we have cross-party support for the proposals that the committee is bringing forward. The measures in the bill send out a strong message on Parliament's commitment to a modern and flexible approach to the registration system that can deliver benefits for the Parliament, its members and the public. The point that Tavish Scott made is that he is absolutely right that we need to make sure that we are all subject to the same high standards and that goes for ministers and members in equal measure. We have a pretty good record across the years going back to 1999 of having those robust procedures in place. We need to make sure that we keep that standard as high as we can, and that is partly what the bill does. No doubt that the committee will appreciate the constructive comments from across the chamber. The proposals to end your reporting are a significant step forward. I commend the committee for its commitment to that move and the benefits that it should deliver for both members and the public. In tackling the specific issue of independent members, that might have been something that it might have been easier not to do, but we are all grateful that you took the time to bring forward a bill that tackles that appropriately and to everyone's benefit. The bill demonstrates that the committee is alert to the importance of transparency in public affairs, and it is very much aware of the outward-facing nature of the member's interest bill. The reforms also demonstrate how the Parliament can make better use as greater competence comes towards it. The competence offered in the area under the original devolution settlement was unnecessarily constraining in comparison. Why, for example, were limitations ever placed on the type of sanctions this Parliament could impose in response to non-compliance? The new arrangements proposed by the committee now that such barriers have been removed is better, particularly in terms of flexibility of the order. It gives future sanctions that are more likely to be imposed when there is a more proportionate sanction rather than the nuclear option, as is all that exists just now. It is important that our Parliament is continuously seen as willing to deliver tangible improvements in its operation, in this case building upon the robust member's interest system that is already in place. Those proposals seek to further enhance measures that play a key role in ensuring that Scotland has confidence in its MSPs and in its Parliament. It is in our collective interests to ensure that the public considers that their MSPs are meeting the highest possible standards of probity and that we undertake our parliamentary duties. Measure, switch, above all, ensure that the electorate will be left in no doubt that their electorate representatives act on their behalf and in their interests. Building that public confidence and, ultimately, trust will help to reinforce Parliament's integrity. It represents an important further development of this Parliament. As the Scottish Parliament grows in its stature, so does public expectation. The Scottish Parliament was founded on transparency, co-operation and inclusivity for all the people of Scotland, and the measures before us today help support and reinforce those principles. I now call Stuart Stevenson to wind up the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. We use Parliament to pride ourselves in openness and accountability in relation to the behaviour of all our MSPs. Of course, the question is, could we do more to build public trust and make sure that we have a regime that is fit for purpose? Because robust standards are essential to ensure that, should a car run, there are sufficient checks and balances to hold MSPs to account. The bill seeks to increase transparency and accessibility. Those are important matters, and the Parliament must always be keeping those under review and making improvements where the opportunity arises. Let me take this opportunity to thank Parliament for the establishment of a committee to take the bill forward, provided that it receives the support of members at 5 o'clock tonight. I thank those who participate in the debate for their engagement on what is an important topic for our future property and reputation. Turning to a few of the things that have been raised in the debate, the minister mentioned the reduction in gifts from 1 per cent to half a per cent. That is the subject that we first discussed in committee on 10 October 2013. That stems, of course, from the group d'état contre la corruption, which is something that we are following. The minister also referred to the Electoral Commission, and we have helped to get a briefing from the Electoral Commission that makes it clear that it is satisfied with what we are doing, in particular, that the Electoral Commission will be able to obtain the necessary information that it requires from the standards clerks in this place to meet future publication, compliance and enforcement options. Tabish Scott, I particularly welcome his coming along and bringing his considerable experience to bear on the subject. I will pick up a couple of the points that he made. The minister has already indicated that ministers are caught by this, and I was going to make that point, certainly in respect of their behaviour as MSPs. The interesting point that was made by Tabish Scott in relation to soliciting rewards in section 9 of the bill that is before us is that we introduce the phrase, or agreeing to receive. It is certainly our intention that that would catch soliciting, but I will take further advice from the clerks to see if any further amendments that might just make beyond misapprehension are quite clear, because it is quite clear that soliciting would be as unacceptable to any of us as agreeing to receive. In relation to political parties funding members' activities in their constituencies and elsewhere, we are seeking to catch the whole issue of funding of political activities by members by some of the amendments that we have. Largely and in particular in relation to elections, the Electoral Commission already caught that activity in the reporting that political parties require to make to them, which, of course, is published on the website. Of course, equally, we make reference to the period of election when, of course, financial returns have to be made and make some provision for when money that is solicited for that purpose is not spent within the 35 days of the motion. I want to just pick up one or two other points that have arisen and that I perhaps can say a little bit more about. First of which I promised I would say a little bit about motion of censure. It would serve as a useful middle ground where the Standards Committee found a member to be in breach, but where we did not consider the breach to be sufficiently serious to justify a sanction such as exclusion or removal of other parliamentary privileges. Such a motion could be debated, providing the MSP, who is the subject of the motion, with a public opportunity to apologise in person. I believe that a motion of censure would be a useful addition to the Parliament's two kits of sanctions. I also mentioned the bill's provisions for retention of members' registers, and we have already heard from Mary Fee a great deal about that. I think that keeping the register for 10 years as distinct from the current five is going to be particularly useful in general, but specifically where people have what they might term broken service and come back. There are also practical reasons in that it just helps members to see what they had previously said, and it will increase transparency overall. The current timescale of five years was previously just set in relation to the period when people were elected, but of course it is reasonable to extend it. Additional transparency for the public has got to be good news and keeping it for longer helps that, letting the public see what is going on. At the moment, all the information that we are referring to is on the Parliament's website, but it is also held by the Electoral Commission, depending on the nature of the interests. However, the bill will mean that people much more readily can come to one place, but it will also help members to comply with the two regimes. Most of us have comparatively modest operations that involve the Electoral Commission in that respect, but when it occurs, it will be something that we are unfamiliar with, and we do not have sources of advice in the Parliament. That changes. I am paid advocacy, I repeat once again, as others have, we have never seen those rules breached, and the changes that we want to make today are important in signalling to everyone how important we regard those as. At the end of the day, it is down to the personal property of each and every one of us, not merely the rules that appear in the book. The provisions in the bill are going to make sure that we are in both places and that that is a comfortable place to be. I am delighted to be able to close the debate. I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to take the bill forward through stage 1. I reconfirm that I look for the Parliament's agreement and the general principles of the committee bill. I hope, as the minister suggests, that we might see a greater number of committee bills in future sessions, not all simply related to our internal business, but that is an important bill that increases transparency and ensures that our procedures remain robust. That concludes the debate on stage 1 of the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, and I will allow a few seconds for members to change seats. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 14403, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on progress on implementing recommendations of the expert review group in new psychoactive substances. Could I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please? I call on Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move the motion. Minister, 13 minutes are so please. I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate today on a subject in which there is continued interest from members. New psychoactive substances present a serious challenge to drug services, to clinicians, enforcement agencies and those managing their physical, emotional and often devastating impact on our communities. As many members have often reflected, those new substances are often misleading to refer to as legal highs. The term legal high is an unhelpful term, and just because a substance is advertised as legal, in one respect at least, it does not mean that it is safe for human consumption, whether a substance is banned or not, when it comes to NPS it is impossible to know a product's content and the dangers it may pose. New psychoactive substances or NPS are substances whose sale is not restricted, perhaps because the product is passed off as a bath salt, but are substances that mimic, if taken by, an individual, the effects of control drugs and can be just as harmful. Indeed, we know that they are already having fatal consequences. Dests where NPS were found to be present in the body have risen from 4 in 2009 to 114 in 2015, although I should stress that that is not necessarily the only cause of the death of the individual and not necessarily the main cause either, but we have yet perhaps to see the peak in the numbers. I am sure that many of you will agree that the biggest difficulty and perhaps frustration is that the existing legislative framework enables those substances to remain legal, albeit for alternative use, and that they do not come under the traditional radar of the Misuse of Drugs Act on which we have relied to control drugs. That is why, at the request of my predecessor, the Scottish Government formed an expert review group in August 2014. The membership of the group was drawn from a range of expertise from legal policy and operational backgrounds, and I presented its report to the chamber on 26 February this year, and I am grateful to members for their contribution to the debate on that occasion. They had a deliberate and specific legal focus but also considered operational and practical aspects in the context of the existing legal framework. The group presented its report to me on that day in February and made six recommendations on how the existing legal framework might be strengthened, not just in the current law, but how it can be made to work better in practice. I am pleased today to be able to update the chamber on the progress that we are making to respond to the recommendations that have been made. One of the reasons for the popularity of NPS is their seemingly legitimate status. They are sold openly in our communities on our high streets, which is not acceptable. Some head shops are highly visible to school pupils travelling to and from school, and the expert review group recognised that and combined with a range of evidence made a specific recommendation that the Scottish Government worked with the UK Government on new legislation to address the challenge posed by head shops. We welcome the progress to bring NPS under legal control and are working closely with the UK Government on the detail of how the psychoactive substances bill can work in the best interests of Scotland and work effectively within Scotland's legal framework in courts. The bill as drafted does not yet fully reflect the distinct and special specific criminal and civil procedures adopted in Scottish courts. My officials have been working with the Home Office to ensure that the bill can be implemented effectively in Scotland. I will shortly be meeting Mike Penning MP, the Home Office Minister, who is responsible for the legislation and making sure that he receives our support in making the legislation effective. The bill, as proposed by the Home Office, creates new criminal offences to produce supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import and export psychoactive substances. It will proceed through the various parliamentary stages and subject to parliamentary approval will come into force in April 2016. I am also pleased to inform members that through representations made at the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Crown Office have been invited to be part of a UK-wide implementation group to support implementation. Much of the practical work will be done to develop guidance for the police and other agencies to support successful prosecutions. I am further reassured by plans agreed with the Home Office that a specific Scottish workshop will be held in February next year to hear directly from those who will be enforcing the law and preparing for the changes. I know that many members will be reassured that, in future, those who seek to sell NPS in the knowledge of the harms that they cause will face the full legal consequences of their actions. Experience from the Republic of Ireland, where a similar law has already been introduced, suggests that head shops have closed and NPS is less visible. However, we need to be alert to the possibility that other distribution channels will become dominant, such as the internet, and there may be only limited scope to control these, for example banning NPS sales via UK domain names. The expert group recommended that work be progressed to develop a common definition of NPS to guide enforcement agencies and treatment agencies, recognising that that may need to vary. Further work was also suggested in relation to data sharing and managing the flow of information about prevalence and harms between agencies. In that regard, the Scottish Government has been engaging with Scottish stakeholders culminating in the publishing of a questionnaire on 23 September. That enables a structured conversation with the sector that can inform our discussions with the Home Office and guide our own response to the needs of those in Scotland in respect of information sharing and a common definition. A further area being explored is the potential forensic capability that will be required by the proposed law of testing a substance for its psychoactivity. When I meet the Home Office, I will be pressing for a collaborative approach to creating the forensic capacity to equip us to implement the legislation and manage people in treatment in an effective way. That will go some way to developing the forensic centre for excellence that the expert group recommended, and we are supporting the Scottish Police Authority to consider how it might build capacity in that regard. That work sits alongside some specific research that has now been commissioned into the prevalence and harms of NPS, and that work was recently awarded to a partnership between the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Drugs Forum. It is expected that the findings will be available in May of next year. The expert review group acknowledged the requirement to support trading standard services that are considering NPS enforcement action against people selling NPS in our high streets and to assist in removing any inconsistencies in approach across local authorities and helping to see wider adoption of good practice. One of the recommendations was to develop a toolkit and operational guidance with the appropriate stakeholders to assist trading standard staff to tackle NPS learning from experiences in areas such as Angus and South Ayrshire, among others. Following that recommendation, an NPS strategic working group was formed by COSLA, Trading Standards Scotland and Partners to progress that work to develop guidance that will be a vital tool for trading standard staff on the front line. I was delighted to launch the guidance on 15 September, and this trading standards guidance will go a long way to protecting the people of Scotland between now and the introduction of the new legislation. It will ensure that trading standards staff across Scotland are better equipped to remove some of the current barriers in tackling NPS at a practical level. The guidance focuses on the application of consumer protection legislation to NPS and, in particular, on the legal rules that control the sale and supply of unsafe products. It was created in the absence of a bespoke legislative response so far, and there will be a need to test and shape the guidance based on what works in practice. In particular, it acknowledges that the best way to protect local communities from the blight of NPS is to work in partnership with Police Scotland and NHS colleagues. Another of the expert review groups is John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the minister for taking intervention at that point. I'm disappointed that seven minutes into your speech, minister. I haven't heard reference to education and the important role that that plays. You may well be coming on to it, but when you say it's almost exclusively enforcement that I'm hearing from you, education is a key role to play. I'm sure you'll agree. I hear the member's point, but dealing with each of the recommendations and turn, I commit to Mr Finnie. I will be getting on to education shortly. Another of the expert review group's recommendations related to licensing authorities and the attachment of restrictions and conditions to the sale of NPS when issuing public entertainment and similar licences. To progress this, both myself and minister for local government and community empowerment, Mr Biagi wrote to all the Scottish licensing boards in June of this year, and in our letter we requested that local authorities amend public entertainment licences issued in order to ban NPS at forthcoming festivals and to include those conditions for licences that were not yet issued. That is thought to be beneficial as it not only assists in addressing the issue of availability at such events this year but will also help to prepare local authorities ahead of the new legislation. I've asked officials to examine the extent to which local authorities are making use of those opportunities. Turning to education to address the point that Mr Finnie raised, however, even if displacement to other channels is not observed, legislation alone, we concede, it will not solve the problem of NPS. Education is crucial and that will continue to be a high priority for the Scottish Government. The well-established know-the-score information service and choices for life delivered in partnership with Police Scotland, Education Scotland and Young Scot have been supported by the Scottish Government to develop and deliver specific NPS material. The Scottish Government continues to fund CREW, a third sector drug service, to provide a training package and information resources on NPS and emerging trends to drug and youth services across Scotland. I am very grateful to CREW for their engagement and support to me as I attempt to grapple with this very important issue. We have also funded the Scottish Drugs Forum and we have also been funded to improve the capacity and quality of interventions around the NPS and stimuli use in employment and housing services for young people. I was very pleased on Saturday to build on that engagement with young people when I attended an event that we sponsored with the Scottish Youth Parliament to raise the profile of NPS at the event. Young people from across Scotland discussed the best approaches to raising awareness of the dangers of NPS among young people. I think that it was important to get their perspective on that issue. Some initial findings suggested that they felt that the widespread accessibility of NPS was a scary thing, especially when combined with an equally widespread lack of awareness of the risks among their peer group. They also felt that the provision of high-quality information was an essential part of any approach to tackling the use of NPS. Discussions also focused on how a peer-led approach to the issue of NPS was an important factor in tackling that issue. With respect to politicians in this chamber, messages from us probably do not carry as much weight as individuals who are seen to be identified as peers of young people. That is an important factor, and I very much took that on board. The Scottish Youth Parliament will develop and submit a comprehensive findings and recommendations report to the Scottish Government and will also present their findings to the NPS ministerial cross-party working group to inform members of that. I thank the Scottish Youth Parliament members not only for organising the event but for their contribution, and we will take those findings forward into our education and preventative messaging. The subject of NPS is an issue where there is a significant degree of consensus across the political spectrum. That is something that I mentioned to the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament at the weekend. To address those challenges, we have to work together to tackle those substances that present risks to our communities and recognise that there are no easy answers. On the same day that the expert review group published its report in February, I made a statement in the Parliament where I invited my colleagues from across the parties to join me in a ministerial cross-party working group. I am very pleased to say that colleagues from other parties did accept the offer, and a group is now up and running. I hope that members agree that it is providing a good source of information to members across the chamber to bring us all up to date to the latest trends. The group has met twice and continues to examine the work that is under way to build a shared understanding of the problem here from the experts in the field and oversee the work as it unfolds. Most recently, we heard from A and E practitioners on the harms that they are seeing on sometimes a daily basis. I think that I can speak for a number of my colleagues in the group and saying that I was genuinely taken aback at the extent to which individuals are presenting at A and E with what would appear to be psychotic conditions that are active as a result of a medical reaction to the effects of NPS such as overheating following use of stimulants. I have been invited to spend an evening shift in an A and E department to see first hand some of the challenges that professionals face with regards to NPS. I am happy to volunteer if you are willing to come along with regard to NPS and other matters. I would be delighted to take up that offer. The group has a programme of work agreed and will meet into 2016. It is intended that the report of their main considerations will be produced and I will bring this to the wider attention of the chamber in due course. Although the group is not focused on making specific recommendations, I have been delighted with the ideas and insights that are being generated by members across this chamber and they are being reflected in the work going forward. I am very grateful to members of the group for their interest and the consensual nature in which we have been able to conduct our business and the openness with which those who have contributed have engaged with us. In closing, I commend the work that the Scottish Government is doing with others to respond to recommendations made in February by the expert review group. I am sure that members will acknowledge all that is being done and I very much welcome the collaboration and support from members across the chamber. This is a hugely significant challenge to the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland and we must focus our minds on how best we can deliver a Team Scotland approach to contain and then hopefully eliminate the harms caused by new sanctions act substances. The Government motion welcomes the expert review group report recommendations and on behalf of the Labour Party I would contribute to that note of welcome and also thank the group for the hard work that they have done on behalf of the Parliament. Scottish Labour supports the Government motion and we will be voting accordingly at the end of this brief, though important debate on the issue. New psychoactive substances, NPS, known in some communities as legal highs, but perhaps better described as lethal highs in some families are a scourge and a growing menace affecting our society. New psychoactive substances can be legal, some illegal and sometimes both together in a cocktail. Across the European community and Scotland is little different in this respect, the usage of NPS features largely younger age groups and particularly those who attend as clubbers in our towns and cities at night. Mephidrone and synthetic cannabinoid have been the most common NPS available, though, with the cornucopia of chemicals entering the market each month to add to the challenges that we face as a society, there is a changing fashion in the types of substances that are being consumed. Even so, only 1 per cent of drug seizures in Scotland are identified as NPS. That level of recovery does not reflect the numbers of so-called head shops. More than 650 across Europe, with more than a fair share across Scotland and the number of internet outlets retailing legal highs to customers of any age and with any pre-existing medical conditions would suggest that 1 per cent seizure merely touches the tip of the iceberg. We know that the main markets of supply emanate from China and India, but growing profits see laboratories across the globe entering with their enhancements of supplies to the market. Compounds are constantly changing as the illicit chemists try to keep ahead of the law. There are 541 chemical potions that NPS identified by December 2014 in the marketplace, according to the UNODC. The growing involvement of injecting NPS is a trend that is already showing itself, and it is a disturbing trend, given the dangers already identified in connection with the alternative means of ingestion. Kidney fillers are known and psychosis are all weighed at the feet of NPS in terms of identified outcomes for some patients. NPS, as the minister has acknowledged, has been implicated in up to 132 deaths since 2009, although 18 were identified as NPS being the sole drug identified. In those circumstances, the Government's actions at Scottish and UK levels in seeking to stem the growing tide of misuse and abuse is necessary and must be seen to work if we are to protect our citizens, particularly our young people. In terms of the motion, I, too, welcome the UK Government's stated commitment in May this year to introduce legislation banning new psychoactive substances. The provision of up to seven years' imprisonment for those who would produce and deal in NPS is, in my view, an effective deterrent, and I acknowledge the intentions within the legislation to avoid criminalising those who would be caught in possession of NPS. At the Scottish level, the intentions to create a centre of excellence in terms of forensic analysis and creating a database of information and intelligence will fill the knowledge gap that currently exists. It would be useful if greater detail regarding the who, the where, how much it will cost and what success would look like once such a centre of excellence is created would be helpful in order that we could share that knowledge externally and create a confidence that the Government has this matter in hand. I have concerns regarding the abilities of local authorities across Scotland whose trading standards departments are reported to be already struggling to cope with smaller departments but greater demands. My colleague Elaine Murray raised the issue at topical questions coincidentally, but it has implications given the guidance that the Government intends to issue to assist staff in dealing with the challenge. The remaining staff within those departments on the front line will have difficulty in coping with additional guidance, and I am sure that if some explanation can be offered in terms of the impact and additional resources that might be required in that regard would remove doubts in their mind about coping. Although information sharing and common definitions are always crucial in developing a successful plan, I hope that both Scottish and UK Governments will act together to ensure that UNODC and the United Nations Council will take all steps to encourage member states to eradicate those laboratories responsible for the supply of new psychoactive substances across the globe. It is in the interests of world health, and it will also help to deal with international crime groups who profit greatly from this trade. The commitment to obtain an accurate picture in regard to the National Party is to be welcomed. The identification of the need to prepare new packs for education and public service front line is also necessary. New treatment protocols need to be created as do the pathways to divert young people away from substance abuse generally and NPS, particularly in the context of the debate. A commitment to use licensing regulations to prevent head shops at festivals and concerts and to plan regulations where possible to manage town centre estates. Together with their usage and HMRC to ensure that profits from such enterprises are identified and if not subject to the proceeds of crime legislation, levels of taxation are applied and collected. Such action would be highly desirable in persuading those who would take advantage of young people in this environment to adopt other business practices. In the end, the use of NPS, particularly in the context of polypharmacy, is the cocktail of substances such as cocaine, heroin, prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco present a really troubling challenge in maintaining healthy communities capable of sustaining a productive lifestyle for the future. One can hope that the steps outlined in the Government's motion represent a successful first step in our efforts to provide for the future a safe and a healthy environment for all. As was stated by my colleague Mr Finnie, the concentration on education and clear education of the full knowledge of the damage that is done by those substances is crucial to any successful outcome in this matter. I hope that the Government and the wider drug strategy will apply themselves with vigor to ensure that our drug deaths fall and those who create a problematic drug abuse are reduced as soon as is possible. Thank you very much. I hope that today's debate will serve to increase awareness and help to educate the public at large about the horrors associated with taking new psychoactive substances, NPS for short. The fact that NPSs are more frequently termed legal highs and openly on sale online and in-head shops throughout Scotland serves only to confuse the issue. For there's absolutely no doubt, without exception, there are huge risks in the consumption of the so-called legal highs whether taken in capsule form, snorted, smoked or injected for a faster hit and also potentially horrendous consequences. Those include incidents of confirmed deaths, multiple amputations, paranoid delusions, attempted murders, suicidal tendencies and violent and sexual crimes. While it's labelled not for consumption, it serves no other practical purpose. There is no information on dosage as a result of their accessibility, affordability and anonymity of their purchase, they are readily available to young people well under the age of 18. In East Kilbride, the chief inspector warned of a frightening increase in the number of young people in the area admitted to A&E departments after taking potentially fatal legal highs. That followed on from an incident last year when a 13-year-old pupil from the town was rushed to hospital during a school break after taking a suspected legal high. Just this month, the Falkirk herald reported that two children—a 12-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl—were rushed to the emergency department at Forth Valley Royal hospital after ingesting new psychoactive substances from blotter paper. I thank the member for taking intervention at that point. Is the member able to give comparable statistics for alcohol abuse with juveniles? I cannot do it at this point, but I am sure that they could be found somewhere and the comparison made. Louise Grant, a harm reduction worker, confirmed that we are finding more and more people coming through the door who are taking legal highs. People come to us and they are not engaging with addiction services because they think that the drugs that they are taking are legal. In May, 25-year-old Jamie Donnelly died at Forth Valley hospital after taking legal highs. At the same time, a 16-year-old girl was found having a fit in the street after allegedly buying one of the substances. Despite locals in Falkirk launching an angry campaign against a local shop that they blame for peddling legal highs and a special event at Denne High School just before the summer holidays, where local police gave an anti-NPS presentation to pupils, it is evident that the risks are not being hammered home. The stark fact remains that those legal highs are still out there, still for sale and people are still taking them in Lanarkshire, Forth Valley and throughout Scotland. In Edinburgh, with as many as 15 head shops, it is thus becoming the legal high capital of the UK. I warmly welcome the developments that the minister outlined in his opening speech. For, according to the most recent figures for drug-related deaths in Scotland, NPSs were a factor in the person's death in 60 cases in 2013, compared with 32 in 2012. With the speed and scale of the emergence of new substances showing little sign of abating, this multifaceted and escalating problem must and can only be eliminated by adopting a co-ordinated approach. It is encouraging therefore that there has been some substantial progress in tackling NPSs over the past year, including the introduction of the new psychoactive substances bill in the UK Parliament. This draft legislation makes it an offence to produce or supply so-called legal highs and introduces a maximum prison sentence of seven years for those crimes. The recommendations of the expert review group reported earlier this year have now gone out to consultation. They include the need for a clear and practical definition of NPSs, the creation of a forensic centre to lead on the detection and identification of those dangerous substances and the need for improved data collection and information sharing among stakeholders. The problems associated with that were a collection that I want to explore more fully. For example, while Police Scotland recognises the severity of the NPS problem, it was unable to provide a response to a straightforward request for the number since 2013, of new psychoactive substances seized from persons on their arrest. That information would have at least provided a valuable snapshot of what is happening on the ground. Furthermore, when asked about NPSs recovered during a consensual or statutory stop and search, Police Scotland again said that it was unable to provide that information because of problems with the stop and search data. Meanwhile, following a similar Scottish Prison Service information request, it replied that that information is not held by the SPS, as current SPS drug testing equipment is unable to identify new psychoactive substances. Yet, in June, the National Offender Management Service in England and Wales highlighted that NPSs have resulted in serious assaults, disturbed and disrupted behaviour by prisoners, heightened levels of intimidation and increased levels of death. Nor was the Solicitor General able to provide figures for the number of people supplying NPSs who have been convicted under the common law of reckless and culpable conduct when asked for that information in this chamber in February. For the reasons outlined above, I am therefore disappointed that the amendment in my name was not selected for debate, especially as it was intended to highlight the Scottish Government's inclusion of data collection in the consultation on the expert review group's recommendations, which have unequivocal cross-party support. However, I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the Government's motion this evening, despite the fact that it makes no mention to the crucially important issue of data collection. Many thanks and I now turn to the open debate, speeches of a generous six minutes, and I call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Dr Richard Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I think that it is absolutely incumbent on all of us to ensure that we never use the terminology legal highs to describe new psychoactive substances, as that often creates the impression among some folk that they are safe because they are technically legal. I think that that could not be further from the truth. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to implement all the recommendations of the expert review group, and I hope that that will help to tackle the availability and use of new psychoactive substances. Many of my constituents and I have been extremely concerned about the growth and availability of those substances, and it is disturbing that shops selling new psychoactive substances have sprung up in Aberdeen and other areas right across Scotland. We have already seen Aberdeen City Council secure a closure order at one shop because of an, I quote, antisocial behaviour arising from the sale of MPS on the premises. Unfortunately, the owners of this shop move quickly to establish a new premises and are plying their dubious trade once again. In recent weeks we have seen another shop open just yards away from Skeensquares primary school in Aberdeen, and it is galling that, at present, nothing can be done to stop this operation. Parents are rightly concerned about having such a shop on the route to their children's school, and I share their concerns, and I do hope that folks will not have to put up with this kind of situation for much longer. Concerns have also been expressed to me by the Aberdeen Arts Centre and Theatre about the proximity of another shop to their facility. ACT have a lot of young members and volunteers, and they are rightly worried that these young folks are being exposed to MPS on a day and daily basis. It is positive that the Government has said that it will put conditions and restrictions regarding the sale and use of MPS on public entertainment and similar licences, but can the minister broaden the licensing regime so that any shop selling MPS or drug paraphernalia has to be licensed by a local authority? I believe that, if that were to happen, it would stem the flow of such shops, and that would be very welcome by my constituents in Aberdeen and by people right across the country. Education is absolutely vital. At the beginning of my speech, I appealed for us to change our language to ensure that folk recognise the dangers of new psychoactive substances. I pay tribute to the police in Aberdeen and transition extreme, who have held seminars warning of the dangers of MPS, but, in my opinion, those educational opportunities must be expanded, and we must ensure that every young person knows of the dangers of taking new psychoactive substances. They are not safe. Can the minister in his summing up please give us an indication of whether guidance will be given to schools to teach kids about the dangers of MPS, and can he tell us if resources will be made available to organisations such as transition extreme, who are already making efforts to educate young people about new psychoactive substances? In organisations such as transition extreme, they have various experiences that can be brought to bear and help in educating young folk. I recognise that the Scottish Government is working closely with the UK Government on the issue to ensure that the new psychoactive substances bill works well for Scotland. I recognise that the new bill will create new criminal offences to produce supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import and export psychoactive substances, but that is unlikely to be implemented before April 2016, which is still a fair way off. I realise that this is a complex piece of legislation, but I hope that it will be in place sooner rather than later. In my opinion, uncontrolled new psychoactive substances may pose a greater threat than some controlled drugs. We must do all that we can to protect our young folk from those dangerous substances. I hope that today, the Parliament will unite and back that motion. I hope that today we will all say to the UK Government that we would like to see the new legislation implemented as soon as possible. Today, we will commit to ensuring that the language that we use to describe new psychoactive substances is the right languages, so that folk recognise and realise that those substances are extremely dangerous and that they should not buy or take them. I perhaps should have been slightly clearer with my January six minutes. I can give members up to seven minutes. Dr Richard Simpson, to be followed by Graham Day. The history of new psychoactive substances began with MDMA and LSD in the 60s, and by the 80s and 90s MDMA, which is an amphetamine-like substance, became such a problem that it was banned. Of course, criminals then began to change the molecule to get round the ban, and new synthetic semi-industrial chemicals began to appear. The GHB gamma hydroxybutyrate was found in a cleaning fluid for alloy wheels and got people high. Methadrone, or Meow Meow, is a fertilizer. You can buy and sell things legally that have a legal purpose, but when they are subverted into human use and sold in different packaging, which is highly displaying, even if it says not for human consumption, it is going to be consumed. In terms of the sales, the sales are through clearnet websites, but also darkside websites, but also, of course, the estimated 250 head shops in the UK selling these products. But the search by the chemist is constant for legal substances that can be subverted, and the problem with these legal highs is not that they exist because they have always existed in Simon Memorial. Human beings being what they are will continue to seek legal highs, or they will continue to seek highs, whether we call them legal or not. That is a real problem that we have to face. The problems are with quality assurance, which is non-existent, and the fact that we have no real idea about dosage. A legal drug requires extensive testing on cells in vitro, animal studies in phase 1, novel use in humans in phase 2 and condition testing for dosage and side effects in phase 3, and large trials that cost around $1 billion to bring a drug to the market. Even then, they are not guaranteed to be safe. Colleagues, if we think that everything that is out there is that we can make this safe in some way protect people, we are living in a fool's paradise. We have to try hard, but we also have to be very cautious. Every weekend, in pubs, clubs and bedrooms, people are engaging in what is in effect phase 1 trials of new psychoactive substances. There is no idea of what they are taking, no real idea of what the dosage is, and not frankly a situation that is going to be improved by a rolling prohibition to make this a criminal offence. I welcome the fact that the bill is not going to do this for personal possession. The chemists will simply move on to the next product, so we are engaged in whack-a-mole and firefighting. Moreover, alteration to chemical formulae is not that difficult to make, so unless it is the core chemical, the core molecule that is being altered, it would continue to be illegal. That was one of the approaches that we took. However, the temporary class drug orders have been successful and useful, and extending them is happening under the act, I think, is valuable. However, if any of us as politicians think that we can get ahead of the game simply by speeding up the categorisation of new psychoactive substances under the misuse of drug acts, or indeed under new legislation, we are deluding ourselves, we do need new approaches, but it is going to be difficult. One strategy is to control the head shops. Ireland is hugely successful. It introduced the ban in 2010. No evaluation of the act, zero arrestable offences, the head shops have disappeared, but NPS use continues to abound in Ireland, and it abounds now entirely in the criminal area. There is no licensing, but the activity continues. I caution that the bans that are being proposed are going to work and be sufficient, much as we would desire them to be. Surveillance and information is good, but, of course, that is retrospective. The wedynos.org site in Wales, you can send your sample of your NPS to them, you can be sent to their lab anonymously, and three days later you will have an analysis, and that can tell people what is actually happening. For example, the drug Sparkle in Wales is entirely methadrone, but in Edinburgh it is a combination of methadrone and ethylphenidate, which is a little indelevative. The same drug under the same name is different in different places. On one occasion, Sparkle produced such an effect. The person was rendered unconscious for about three days and they discovered that it was nothing to do with the methadrone products. It was a combination of heroin and methamphetamine. In Holland, they test in clubs, and that is something that I would like to see, because people will continue to use it however much we want to stop them. They will continue to use it in clubs. They will continue to use it at outdoor events and big events, and they will continue to use it. People will be able to bring their product and see that what it says on the tin is useful. Colleagues LSD, having been very small, continues to be very small, but the use of ecstasy having reduced has increased again very substantially in the last couple of years. Thousands upon thousands of youngsters are using ecstasy every weekend, and we would want them to be safe. However, I doubt if we are going to—the Government has their website, which is also helpful, but information for these young people is mainly gained through the internet and increasingly through social media, but they communicate with each other as to what particular brand products are there, mainly from China and the Far East. There has been an early warning system in place since 2011 in the EU. There was a G8 agreement on where we should go forward, and a proposed set of EU regulations that the UK coalition has opted out of, believing that the controls were inadequate. However, the new blanket ban is described by Professor Knutt as being based—a policy based on second-hand reporting of flawed data and is extremely worrying. He believes that the death from NPS in 2012 claimed to be 97 was actually less than 10 and probably none. Many are critical of the blanket ban on NPS in Ireland. As I said, there has been no formal evaluation. A surprising number of young people use those substances. In the last survey conducted in Europe, 8 per cent of young people use those substances, and people will continue to experiment whether we try to prevent them or not. I suggest that, colleagues, we look very closely at what is happening in New Zealand. I think that that is a very interesting approach. We will see that they are actually proposing to licence what could be, indeed, legal highs. The producers will have to determine that it is safe. I will finish on this note, Deputy Presiding Officer, even with the extended time that your predecessor allowed me. I think that the current bill has met it, but it will need to be evaluated, and the data will need to have to be collected very carefully. Frankly, criminalising, even the things that we are trying to criminalise, has tended to drive this into the hands of the critical fraternity. In America, there are more states now who are removing the ban on cannabis. That is an experiment that we should watch with great interest. A taxable quality-issured market is not harm-free, but it is likely to be a lot less harm-free. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will be pleasantly surprised if this debate commands very much in the way of column inches in our newspapers tomorrow. The consensual nature of the afternoon, both in terms of members' contributions and the highlighting of interagency, and indeed intergovernmental co-operation, is not the stuff to stir the interest of papers. The subject matter, as I think the cross-party commitment to working together to respond to the challenges posed by NPS indicates, is hugely important. The briefing that members of the ministerial cross-party group in NPS received a few weeks ago from an A&E consultant laid bare for all of us, I think, the nature of NPS's impact on users and the health service, both in the immediate and as regards mental health, longer term. I do not mind emitting—I think that, like the minister did, I was stunned by some of what we heard. The physical challenge is being faced by A&E staff as the attempt to restrain patients in a state of excited delirium in order to administer treatment. The fact that traditional drug testing methods very often produce negative results, leaving staff guessing what patients may actually have consumed. There is a sixth of a teaspoon of synthetic cannabinoid. You can put an adult in a coma for 23 hours. Two micrograms of a particular NPS would put you over the drink-drive limit, and the toxicity of another is such that it dissolves skin tissue. Of course, the emerging evidence of profound effects on mental health. It is important that we get all of that in context. In percentage terms, alcohol and illegal drug misuse continues to impose a greater burden on our NHS and an exact, far greater toll on the population. Nevertheless, NPS is a growing problem, as evidenced by the fact that from 2012 to 2013 the number of drug-related deaths in which NPS was present rose by 150 per cent and in which NPS was implicated doubled. It demands a wide-ranging, considered and appropriate response. I believe that we are seeing the UK Government's Psychoactive Substances Bill as a welcome contribution to tackling NPS. There are issues to be explored around it. The joint response to the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry on the bill from Police Scotland Trading Standards Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Crown Office and Fiscal Service highlights that, but it has the potential to represent a significant step forward and we should acknowledge it as such. The Scottish Government's investment in developing an appropriate forensic response to the spread of NPS is a similarly positive development. The purchase of a nuclear magnetic resonance scanner to fill the scientific void that not even mass spectrometers can fill and the recruitment of specialist staff to deliver the comparator evidence that is presently lacking is important. The Government's recent issue of trading standards guidance, based upon best practice examples—some of which are drawn, as the minister noted, from the area of the country that I represent—will help direct enforcement, particularly as regards so-called head shops until the new bill is enacted. Education is going to be critical. We are told that 4 per cent of 15-year-olds admitted in a 2012-13 survey to using NPS at least once—the actual figure that I suspect is at almost certainly higher. No other score and choices for life are useful vehicles for reaching out to young people, but we need to be sure that we are reaching every group within that age range, including young carers who can find themselves under enormous pressures. I welcome the minister's dialogue with the Scottish Youth Parliament on this issue, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of the work that it will take forward. Of course, we have evidence emerging from increased usage among older age groups, including, amazingly, the 65s+. Not just within the most vulnerable sectors of society, so then tailored messaging on the harms of NPS is going to have to be shaped for everyone. The remaining gaps in our knowledge around NPS, the full extent of online purchasing, is one. What is motivating the spread of usage, the scale and nature of acute and long-term health harms, for example? We need to anticipate potential and welcome consequences of actions that are already taking or going to be taking. I voiced concern in the chamber before about whether bans simply drive supply underground or more accurately on to the internet. It is a concern that the minister echoed in opening, which was noted in the response to the Home Affairs Committee that I noted earlier. In Ireland, as we have heard, they banned headshops and supply through Irish domain names, but they could not control internet activity from elsewhere. While adopting the same approach in the UK main, we too potentially still face the same difficulty. That is not to say that we should not do it far from it. I just note that concern. In another area, I would seek reassurance of concerns of rapid information sharing across the NHS. It is not just routine data that needs to be accessible, but early access to information and new and emerging trends, best practice in responding to some fairly testing scenarios that our A&Es are being confronted with on a weekly basis. Collaboration will be everything as we seek to respond to NPS. I therefore very much welcome the tone and the content of the consultation document that was launched earlier this month, particularly in section 4, referring to the functions of the planned forensic centre for excellence. Given the scale and nature of the challenge that NPS presents, we must avoid reinventing the wheel. NPS does not recognise national or indeed international boundaries, nor must the response to it. I was pleased to see the proposal to link in with other data sharing services such as the UK Forensic's early warning system and the Welsh Emerging Drugs and Identification of Noble Substances project. There is no room for complacency on the issue, but, like others, I commend the work that is supported across this chamber that is being done to counter the menace of NPS, both here in Scotland and at Westminster. The burgeoning use of NPS, coupled with a growing understanding of the dangers, has led to a greater focus on how to control those substances. The UK Government's expert panel review, set and trained by the previous Minister for Crime Prevention, a fellow Liberal Democrat, Norman Baker, highlighted that, after years of stable and declining drug use, the emergence of NPS has been a game changer. That review gave us a wealth of information that has since been augmented by the Scottish Government's later and more focused expert review into the current legal framework that is available to Scottish public authorities to govern the sale and supply of NPS in Scotland. That group had quite a deliberate and specific legal focus, but it also considered operational and practical aspects in the context of the existing legal framework. Following those two reports, we have seen a lot of useful activity. The UK Government has introduced a bill that will apply across all the jurisdictions of the UK. Local authorities and trading standards have worked with police to tackle so-called head shops, although it is worth remembering that it is not only head shops but also, in some cases, corner shops and ice cream vans that are dealing in this lucrative but damaging trade. The Minister for Community Safety has set up a ministerial cross-party group to ensure that we all understand the scale of the problem in Scotland and can take a moment to commend the minister for this inclusive approach and agree that, by sharing information and intelligence in this way, we should be better able to act collectively, and I have found attendance at that group hugely beneficial. I can assure the minister of my support for that way of working. I want to raise some concerns that I have about approach being taken in the psychoactive substances bill, which proposes a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances, with the exception of exempted items such as caffeine and alcohol. In July, the advisory committee on the issues of drugs raised a number of concerns about the bill as it is currently drafted, such as the omission of the word novel, which has widened the scope of the bill beyond that originally intended, that the psychoactivity of a substance cannot be unequivocally proven, that an impossible list of exemptions will be needed, and that the bill unhelpfully uncouples the concept of harm from control of supply, importation and production. Those shortcomings risk derailing or delegitimising the bill as it stands, but, since then, the ACMD has reviewed the definition in the psychoactive substances bill and proposed a revision to the Home Secretary. That reads as follows psychoactive substances, which are not prohibited by the UN drug convention of 1961 and 1971, or by the misuse of drugs act 1971, but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by substances listed in those conventions. That seems to me a much more sensible and more measured approach that could attract support. I have no doubt that whatever shape the bill takes as it progresses, it will herald the end of head shops, but given the extent and reach of internet sales, that will not solve the problem. Indeed, research shows that disrupting a supply market often leads just to displacement of that market. That is why education is as important as enforcement. NPS are game changers in many ways and not least in the impact their use is having in the public health arena. Some of the key harms associated with NPS use are overdose and temporary psychotic states and unpredictable behaviours, attendance at A and E, sudden increase in body temperature, heart rate, coma and risk to internal organs, sometimes with catastrophic or lethal results, hallucination, confusion leading to aggression and violence, and many longer term issues just beginning to become apparent relating to mental health issues, psychosis, paranoia and anxiety. Education must target all users. There is often a focus, and we have heard it already this afternoon, on young people, but there are clearly, as Graham Day said, very many different user groups. It is also crucial that education on NPS and their effects is not just targeted at the potential users of those drug variants but extends to health professionals and other public sector workers such as police, prison staff and teachers. Understanding better the manifestations of NPS poisoning could be a lifesaver. Understanding that acute behavioural disturbance could be the sign of a medical emergency rather than a mental health issue will mean more effective early intervention, perhaps preventing cardiac arrest or acute temperature spikes. Understanding that the aggression manifested when under the influence of some of these drugs it is unlikely to respond to normal restraint methods is likely to save emergency workers from harm. Understanding the mental health impacts will have an effect on the shaping of psychiatric services and addiction services for the future. I support the motion today and trust that the consensual nature of our debate this afternoon will mean that we can continue to make progress in minimising the risks of NPS. Many thanks. I now call on Christine Graham to be followed by Sarah Boyack, a generous servant. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In March this year, a young gorebridge man, David Lewis, died after injecting a psychoactive substance that was called Burst. It took him seven weeks to die and after many operations, Septosemia took his life. Following that, one of my local papers, the Midlothian Advertiser, launched a campaign to ban these substances. I joined that campaign and in the same month, through a third party, purchased a so-called inverted commas legal high from a shop selling e-cigarettes in Dalkeith. That third party was a reform drug addict and he agreed to masquerade as a purchaser, as he too was concerned at how easy such a purchase could be made. The shopkeeper produced a small packet containing a white sparkly powder from under the counter for I think it was £10. The packet had printed on it not for human consumption and another somewhat glamorous name. It seems to me that the very actions of that shopkeeper, the subterfuge, the whole method and conduct of the sale, and he would have recognised that third party and his addictive past led me to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that he knew notwithstanding the printed warning on the packet that purchase was for human consumption and was dangerous. While I will support legislative moves here and indeed elsewhere across the aisles, I wonder why the police and Crown Office have not made use of common law. Alison McKinnon has made reference to the difficulties of definition in the UK legislation and I think that those will persist. I plead in my argument the president of prosecutions and successful at that of glue sniffing. I quote the case of Kallic and Anor, the Lord Advocate, High Court of Justice, on appeal in 1983. Two shopkeepers in Glasgow were arrested and charged in Teralia with supplying to children glue sniffing kits consisting of a quantity of petroleum-based glue in a plastic bag. They gave notice of injection to the indictment when it was served on them, averring that on the charge of supplying. The facts as liable did not disclose a crime known to Scots law because there was nothing illegal about the items that they had supplied. Their plea was repelled at a preliminary diet and they appealed. On appeal, the High Court took the view that even though evil stick glue in plastic bags might be perfectly legal everyday items, the two shopkeepers knew perfectly well what the children were going to use articles for and the charge and the indictment should stand. The court refused to accept that there was any distinction between the supply with knowledge of likely abuse and actual administration of a dangerous substance to a child. The Lord Justice General Emsley said, that there is ample authority for the view that the willful and reckless administration of a dangerous substance to another causing injury or death is a crime at common law in Scotland. It seems to me that the supply of materials for ingestion or injection for purposes of a high court, which are known or likely to cause injury or death, fits the same bill as the successful glue sniffing prosecutions. I do not understand why, to the best of my knowledge, there have not been any prosecutions. Annabelle Goldie raised this in a question herself, S48 stroke 04048, and myself at S4W04048, which was answered on 1 April, and I quote, COPFAS issued guidance to Police Scotland August 2014 prior to the national day of action on 22 August under Operation Redwall. The guidance specifically covered the use of the offence of culpable and reckless conduct and the type of evidence that would be required. It goes on to say, the group considered—this is the review group—considered the use of the common law offence of culpable and reckless conduct and looked at the case of Caliq VHMA. They concluded that the offence of culpable and reckless conduct could be relevant to the sale and supply of NPS in certain circumstances. You see, for me, I do not understand why common law has not been tried and used. That renders redundant the need for a definition, which I think is always going to be tricky, because it is all kinds of exemptions under the proposed bill at the House of Lords. It may be that blockage, and it is referred to in page 36 of the report of the review group, is the route that has been taken, which seems to me to be under unfair commercial practices, in particular consumer protection from unfair trading regulations, where the seller has to be doing misleading actions and or misleading omissions. Of course, the purchasers know what they are doing. They know that what they are buying in many circumstances is dangerous, so that does not fit the bill, but I do not see why that is the only route that has been considered for prosecutions. The great thing about common law is that it finds a way of filling gaps in the law, and it is often much more flexible and less heavy-handed than statutes, which can be terribly clumsy, because it is so hard to define every circumstance in which it can be effective and in which someone cannot rebut or defend a court. I go back to David Lewis, the chap who regrettably and terribly died from injecting this. When his father said of the shopkeeper, these people know what they are doing. Indeed, they do. It is reckless and willful conduct. To me, I would like the minister to answer me, as nobody has so far, why on earth the Lord Advocate of the Police has not taken this route and tried it out, as he so successfully did with glue sniffing in the 1980s? I want to focus on local co-ordination and harm reduction. The challenges caused by NPSs in Edinburgh are particularly distinct, and at the heart of the action to reduce the strain in harm caused to individuals and the wider community has been co-ordination on a local basis. If we want to tackle NPS use effectively and to prevent harm, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. To tackle the specific problems in each city and town, efforts must be local, supported by responsive national agencies and legislation. As others have commented today, the intravenous use of one substance, ethylphenidate, has been the focus of difficulties in Edinburgh. Cheap, considered purer and of better quality than street drugs, harm reduction services report is frequently used in combination with other street drugs, and because it has an intense short-lived high, users re-inject frequently, and that has created a surge in problems for both users and local communities. The Edinburgh alcohol and drug partnership recorded needle distribution growing virtually month on month in the period April 2014 to this March. While NHS Lothian saw increases in infections caused by needle use, including streptococcus, communities, the police and our council, saw a wider impact. Frequent use resulted in users experiencing erratic and sometimes exhibiting anti-social behaviour. Residents in the south side, toll cross and city centre were distressed to come across people with a frequent need to re-inject using their stairs and leaving behind drug-related items. We have also had queues outside head shops early in the morning. Since the temporary class of drug order banned effofenadate, giving police the power to control and patrol high-street head shops and to seize and destroy any substance, there has been a marked change in Edinburgh. Infections and injecting are down, and support services have been able to make progress in the way in which they respond and reduce harm. At the heart of dealing with localised NPS use is ensuring that the council, the police, the NHS and charities such as Comus are enabled to work together. Support services in Edinburgh are pioneering ways to reduce usage, manage cravings and prevent relapse. Responding to that emerged problem. Mental health and emotional support services are particularly crucial to complement that to support people going forward, but we still need more capacity building and training among staff to ensure that services are co-ordinated within the NHS, the police and the council. We need a clear picture about local trends, and it is crucial for A&E departments to treat admissions building into a bigger picture. Much needed data-gathering initiatives are underway. In Edinburgh, NHS Lothian has conducted focus groups, and the needle exchange survey initiative will gather information on the habits of users next month. In tackling the local supply, trading standards have been able to work constructively with the police and those retailers where NPS is not the traditional or mainline business. Those efforts need to be resourced. In Edinburgh, efforts to rely on existing regulations legislation is being investigated, and I call on the minister to commit resourcing to ensure that those options can be fully explored and acted upon. For example, landlords, including the council as a landlord, have a responsibility to ensure that commercial tenants are compliant with the temporary legislation and operate in an ethical manner. Again, support for the minister could help to reinforce that. Recommendations to provide a new definition of NPSs and a framework for testing will further support detection and identification and are welcome. The national framework must not downplay or deprioritise the importance of local progress and work done by local agencies. Caledonian Youth and Crew 2000 had a good track record of passing on samples of legal highs to the police forensic services, but with forensic services centralising under Police Scotland, that relationship and local integration has now been lost. Edinburgh's experience with intravenous drug use in the 1980s was absolutely harrowing and affected the generation. We then had the AIDS control act pioneered by Gavin Strang MP, which enabled local authorities to track in detail infection rates, provide information of the treatment provided and that helped us to control the disease. Since those dark days in the 1980s, Edinburgh has worked hard supporting those who misuse substances and prevent harm to individuals and the wider community as well. Local co-ordination of treatment, rehabilitation and public education have been key to minimising harm reduction. If we look to Wales, the wedendoss system shows how the NHS and justice systems can integrate well and cascade harm reduction guidance to local support services. Originally, an informal mechanism to profile and map harm of samples of unknown and identified drugs by the Cardiff Toxology laboratories pioneered and focused on forensic operation to prevent harm. We need to make sure that national action must ensure that resource and discretion are responsive to local demands and to foster co-ordination in communities across Scotland. Local knowledge and co-ordination with our city has been crucial to achieve effective harm reduction. The Scottish Labour's amendment rightly calls for a co-ordinated plan of action to reduce the damage that is called by NPSs. Graeme Pearson's references to more effective licensing and education, I think, lie at the heart of the way forward. Richard Simpson spoke eloquently of the need to ensure that people of all ages, but particularly young people, are given the information about the real damage that NPSs can pose. Whether that is in our schools, our colleges, our universities or through social media, we need to make sure that there is accurate and thought-provoking information that young people can relate to and crucially can trust. It is a huge challenge, and we need a co-ordinate response. That response needs to be delivered both nationally and locally, and the agencies need to be capable of delivering that resource. This is an interesting debate, not, of course, the first one on the subject. As I think we all agreed last time around, this simply isn't easy. If there were a simple answer, we would have come up with it by now, and we know that there isn't one. Before I look at what we do know, Presiding Officer, I think we might just reflect, as has just been suggested. We might reflect on previous public health issues. AIDS was one. We've been dealing with drugs for generations now. I think we need to recognise that we can do something to help if we get organised and coordinated, but the problem doesn't go away. We have to recognise where we're going to finish, which is never going to be where we really want to be, but hopefully we'll be in a better situation than we are currently identifying. I'd like to start very locally to my communities by reflecting on what has worked and the fact that a petition was put together very quickly later in the year by folk in Forfa who got the idea that there was going to be a head shop, realised that they really didn't want it, got more than 3,000 signatures, which in Forfa must be 40 per cent of the adult population within weeks, and effectively, with help from the council and the police and even some politicians, dare I say it, managed to persuade those who were thinking of actually opening this head shop that it really wouldn't be welcome when they shouldn't do so, and they didn't. I want to pay tribute to Adele, Douglas Spears, Bobby Murray and Nicky Lathley in particular for bringing that petition, which I brought to the Minister for having that enormously valuable effect on their community. So I think I can say simply from that one experience that where communities get organised, they can make that point to those who might be going to bring these substances onto the streets. But I have to reflect that it's less than 20 miles away in Montrose where we still have a head shop and it is still plying edge trade. It is no more welcome, but it is established and it hasn't gone away. I want to pay tribute to the police and other local authorities who have done their best to make life difficult for that shop, but it is still there. I was speaking only yesterday to a head teacher from one of my local high schools, and he was able to reflect on his experience in two schools, one of which was a place where there was a head shop and another where there wasn't. He was absolutely clear that the situation as far as his school children were concerned was chalk and cheese precisely because of local accessibility through a shop. I think that that is entirely consistent with what we have seen in reports, which is that folk tend to get started when they can physically get their hands on their first sample from somebody or some place local to them. What comes from the internet might be the second, third and fourth use. I think there is some evidence that people start with something they can get locally, plainly if they can't get it locally, that makes it far less likely they will ever start. The UK statute, which of course we've referred to, is not going to be a panacea, and I'm very grateful to Richard Simpson for his comments. I thought that was an extraordinarily useful input. Thank you, Dr Simpson. Clearly what's going to happen is that this statute will have precisely the same effect as in Ireland that open sales on the high streets will disappear, but the internet activity won't. Presumably that which gets sold from the boot of cars down the appropriate lane in the appropriate place at the dead of night won't stop either. The criminal world will always find a way of doing what it wants to do. The sad problem of course is that it will be fuelled by the money that it can make doing it, and this brings us back to the old issue that if something's illegal then there's money in it and therefore the criminals will actually do it. If it wasn't illegal then there wouldn't be money in it and therefore it would be easier to control as a general trend in all these discussions. I'd like to just make briefly the point, Presiding Officer, that if this statute is going to come in April that may be some distance away but it's actually a relatively short period. It does seem to me that all those who have got stock are going to want to get rid of that stock and therefore we may see some marketing activity which will be extremely unwelcome over the next six months and we might want to find a way of being prepared for that because I think we can see it coming. If I can pick up on the issue of information, again the point has properly been made that people will now get information about these very new materials online or through the social media, it may or may not be good information. There are sites which will tell you something which would appear to be fairly reasonable about some of the older established drugs. I'm just a bit concerned that it looks as though we have a position where people are going to get bad information or they're going to attribute a degree of accuracy to the information they can find that's unreasonable. I have no idea how we get that information across but education is I think the thing that everybody has spoken about. Somehow or other we have to get people looking at MPS to realise that we don't know much about it and any information which they think you're getting is probably guesswork and that's one of the reasons why they're dangerous because we really don't know very much about them and if they do finish up in A&E then it's very unlikely that anybody in A&E will know what's there even if much about it, even if they could analyse which drug it was which they may not be able to do. Which brings me, Presiding Officer, to another issue. I thought Kevin Stewart's comments about the words we use were entirely appropriate and it came after a speech where one member had actually used the term legal high almost throughout. It is a fact that the implication of legal anything is that it's safe. Doesn't mean it to you and me, we know better. But to folk looking at something which is described as legal tends to think, tends to suggest to them that it's okay and therefore we really must stop using any term that implies these things might be okay because frankly they are extraordinarily dangerous and we do need I think if I can gently say it's to the press to actually understand that. It is irresponsible to suggest that something which is manifestly dangerous should be described as legal. It's just not the way to help our society and would you please stop it. If we're going to a position where these materials say in a year's time are no longer visible on our high streets then I return to where I started. What are we going to do next? Are we going to say that's okay then they've gone away because manifestly they haven't, we know they won't. I'm not sure that I have the answer here but we're going to be in the same place as we are with control drugs. What's the strategy in the longer term is a question which I think we need to be asking very soon because the longer term is not going to be very far away. So I commend everything that the government is doing. I actually do think the UK statute is a step in the right direction because I think it will make a breakpoint in current activity which will be very welcome but we do need to recognise that the future is not going to be sorted out by that kind of statute. It is only going to be sorted out by some serious education and some serious understanding as a result within our society that these things really shouldn't be meddled with because you do so at your peril and I therefore need to encourage the government to work with everybody who will get that message across. Thank you. Many thanks. Many, many thanks. I thank the minister for bringing it here and for opening it. I wonder what the purpose of the debate is. Is it to highlight to the public a problem that they're aware of? Is it to talk up a problem? Is it to address concerns that are widely held? Is it to reduce an informed harm, is it to contribute to harm reduction? The motion talks about progress and of course we will welcome progress. It's very important and as a number of colleagues have said I'm very pleased to be part of the ministerial group that's looking at this and I think the no harm ever comes from discussing things and I think we've had a lot of very informed discussion this fact. The motion talks about engagement with the sector on information sharing and I did, I was let that a while before I am grateful for the minister for intervening about the issue of education. Education to me is key to this, it's absolutely key and I wouldn't want to give the impression that my view that there's an overemphasis and enforcement is anything other than if you like my understanding of how we'll best get the message over that people need to make informed decisions. For instance, in the motion that talks about the serious impact, is it a serious impact? Serious compared to what? There are other comparators and alcohol is the most obvious comparator and we heard some very tragic events about how things turn out in accident emergency but these were relatively rare events whereas we know that the incidents of alcohol and the mayhem that that creates both in the streets, in our towns and villages and dwelling houses and in accident emergency has been an on-going problem. Like others, I very much enjoyed Dr Richard Simpson's contribution, I thought it was very informed, he talked about human nature and what human nature causes us to do, he talked about new approaches, he talked about the role of social media and importantly he said that they will continue to use and I think that that is the reality. I think that at the risk of ending my former colleague in another sphere Mr Pearson, drugs enforcement you could argue has been not a positive outcome in terms of cost-benefits analysis. If the idea was of all this effort to reduce the availability of drugs then that has not been the case and of course this is out with the realm in some respects of the enforcement that it has to do. Thank you. I am grateful to my colleague, I obviously cannot let that remark go unchallenged and I think that he should consider that over the years in other realms of drug abuse the so-called tenor bag that is recognised across Scotland at one time had a purity level of over 40 per cent and now is lucky if it can achieve 10 per cent in purity levels because the supply of drugs into the country has been choked. What I would suggest is that it is not simply a matter of enforcement, it is the proper use of all the tactics that is available to us that gives the opportunity for communities to respond better than otherwise might be the case. I am grateful for allowing time to say that. Mr Pearson makes an important point and that is that enforcement has a role, it is a role as part of a whole. I would like the emphasis to be in education. The Scottish Drug Forum welcomed the Home Office review and in welcoming it said that one of the key issues that limited Scottish response to new psychatic substance was the unknown prevalence and that much of the data came from anecdotal information. I think that that largely remains the case as we heard from the expert from accident emergency. There is a considerable amount of guesswork that goes into it but what I would also like to say from the document that was produced at that time by the Scottish Drug Forum, the director David Little said, and I quote, it is crucial that the review does not solely focus on supply but also looks at why people are using these substances and the impact that has on individuals. I think that it is very important that we do that. We know that review considered the internet and of course the internet is there and it is a very beneficial thing. Many people talk it down and it provides many of the challenges that we have. I think that the Queen's speech talked about the new legislation and talking about it making an offence about a substance for human consumption that is capable of pushing psychoactive effect. We have had a lot of discussion about that because again that may sound something very definitive. It is far from clear. Can I commend one of the aspects of the bill? That is to conclude provisions for civil sanctions. Prohibition notices, premises notices, prohibition notices and premises notices, two breaches of which will be a criminal offence and that was to enable the police and local authorities to adopt a greater response to the supply. I think that that is a proportionate response that is important. In the letter that the minister put out in June of this year, I highlighted in that that he said, there are therefore potentially every bit as dangerous as illicit drugs and no one would argue that and have been implicated in a small but growing number of deaths. We heard from Mr Pearson indeed in his contribution earlier about the poly-use of drugs and if you look at the statistics what I don't want is a situation where people are blowing something completely out of proportion. Alcohol is present in the vast majority of these drug-related deaths as well. The minister also talked about Crew 2000 and Crew 2000 have been in the go since 1992 in response to the rapid expansion of recreational drug use. Kevin Stewart talked about language and language is very important and I understand the frustration at the use of the term legal highs but in another very sensitive matter, similar matter, in this chamber we have discussed the issue of female genital mutilation. The connection there is to a lot of people that meant nothing, the victims of that meant nothing, so yes it's right that we don't infer that legal means safe. I don't take that anyway, it's legal to climb mountains, it's not always safe to climb mountains but it's important that we don't, we communicate with people in the level that they will understand so when the minister likewise talked about peers with a grittus respect to my colleagues in here it's not us in here people are going to listen to it, it is the youth parliament, it is the fine folk of the drugs forum, it is the fine folk of Crew 2000 and they say in relation to this legislation, first of all they say what we've heard from Sarah Boyack and others about under resource and under funded, they say better education is essential so as citizens are well informed and can assess risk the information provided by government has been minimal leaving those who take MPS to guess for themselves. Now that's a phrase I've seen elsewhere and you know if we are going to say don't do it but maybe we need to say why don't do it, they also talk about the least harmful substances such as nitrous oxide should be exempt, no I didn't know what that was, apparently it's laughing gas but again proportionality needs to come into this, we need to look at how we're going to deal if this legislation goes through what the after effects of that work are and again Crew 2000 commend something that I haven't seen elsewhere and that is a UK wide MPS amnesty which would reduce the possibility of redistribution. The consequences of our ban of course aren't just as straightforward as we would imagine, there are issues about people who may return to opiates from the non-opiate MPS and they will have a reduced tolerance and therefore there's the potential for increased overdose risk, mental health problems may exacerbate people who choose to self-medicate, we are again once again going to be driving people who may wish to continue using back into dealing with people who after all are criminals. The other comment that Sarah Boyack made that I would commend is the use of local initiatives that's what's important but we must deal with facts we have to deal with the internet and we have to work collaboratively to reduce harm and bring about informed decision making. Thank you. Name any thanks. No Collin, Roderick Campbell. Up to eight minutes please after which we'll move to closing speeches. Thank you Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate as members will be aware new psychoactive substances are harmful both psychologically and physically presenting problems ranging from kidney failure to psychosis. NPS has been implicated in 132 deaths in Scotland from 2009 to 2013 and I heard what John Finnie said on the use of the term legal high but certainly with the minister that was a term that's best avoided because in my view certainly implies that the associated substances are safe, however we know that they're not safe. We also know that NPS are widely accessible, they can be purchased online or at head shops, 650 shops, as Grim Pearson referred to in Europe alone. Head shops are institutions that show no sign of disappearing from our high streets. As we've heard there is of course no law preventing the sale of goods which are often labelled and sold as plant food or parcels or marked as not fit for human consumption. In addition NPS are readily available in convenience stores and music festivals across Scotland and the UK. Nevertheless we must avoid treating all head shops or music festivals as places that will necessarily harbour criminal activity. We need to approach matters on an evidence basis. But concern in our communities is real. Their courier today reports on concerns of a Perth pensioner about two local shops and what she perceives as a lack of interest in doing anything about it. As members will be aware NPS are risky and have unpredictable side effects with many people ending up in hospital. With so many of these drugs it's impossible to tell what is contained within them before consumption. In 2013 NPS was stated to be the drug implicated in five deaths in Scotland but mixed with other drugs and alcohol NPS can be even more fatal with 60 deaths in 2013 where NPS was implicated at least to some extent. There has of course been a growth in demand and supply of NPS and countries have responded to that trend in three main ways. The first is enforcement. There are a variety of measures that can be used to place NPS under legal control. These include using the European early warning system to identify NPS and place them under control or adding new substances to the 1961 or 1971 UN conventions. In the UK as things stand the British government can use the misuse of drugs act 1971 to control substances by issuing a temporary class drugs order for up to 12 months. At that point the UK government can investigate and recommend a classification if there is sufficient evidence to do so. Over a clear problem with that is that legal loopholes and control legislation have been exploited by drug manufacturers. The second approach of course is education to which Mr Finney has referred. Evidence shows that young people are the most likely to experiment with NPS. In Europe an estimated 5 per cent of people aged 15 to 25 had experimented with NPS and in 2012-13 it was estimated that 2.1 per cent of those in Scotland aged between 16 and 24 had used NPS. Therefore, it is crucial that we focus on educating our young people about the health risks associated with NPS. In Scotland we must continue to support the choices for life initiative and websites such as Know the Score, as Graham Day has referred to earlier on. Education clearly must underpin any future legislation on NPS and indeed NPS policy. A third approach that has been taken by some countries is treatment, however there is very limited information on what constitutes appropriate psychosocial treatment. Presiding Officer, at a time when the number of new drugs available in the market is constantly changing and growing, with over 300 NPS identified in Europe in 2013, we really must seriously consider what we are dealing with and how to approach it, because there simply is no silver bill at solution. As members will be aware, the UK Government introduced a psychoactive substances bill to the Westminster Parliament in May. As the minister has already referred to, the maximum sentence under that bill will be seven years' imprisonment for those who produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import or export psychoactive substances. According to the bill, psychoactive substances are any substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect. However, there are some concerns about the bill, as Alison McInnes has already referred to. The advisory council on the misuse of drugs raised concerns about the use of the term psychoactive substances in the bill, believing that it would have a disproportionately broad scope. Furthermore, the bill's impact assessments was deemed to be inappropriate. The impact assessment was of the impact of new psychoactive substances, rather than all psychoactive substances that is laid out in the bill. Simply put, this made it problematic to list all possible desirable exemptions under the bill as drafted. Of course, psychoactivity cannot be defined through a biochemical test, so there are clear legal difficulties in proving it in a court of law. The only definitive way of determining psychoactivity is by human experience, which is usually not documented. Clearly, the UK Government needs to continue to work with the ACMD and others to formulate advice on how to predict that substances like to be psychoactive. Christine Graham referred to the use of the common law in Scotland, and I will commend that as a member of the faculty of advocates. I should refer to my rest of interest in that respect, but the working party report did make reference to the fact that that was something that could be used to control this. It also referred to three main areas in which it poses problems. To succeed in a prosecution for coupled and reckless conduct, it suggested that the evidence must be prevented to show that the seller knew or was reckless as to the fact that the product was being purchased for human consumption. Obviously, we are well aware of attempts being made to label things as unfit for consumption. Another issue is that harm or potential harm to health is a factor that requires to be proved, so that not all will require analysis of the substance and expert evidence to establish its harmful effects. Can I just finish my point and then I'll take an intervention? Finally, the other matter referred to in this report was that it should be noted that the person prosecuted is more likely than not to be the shop assistant who carries out the sale rather than the person who is perhaps taking the key decisions further up the chain of supply. The fact is that, in the circumstance that I described, the shopkeeper was well aware. It was under the counter. It was in a small packet. It was handed over in a certain way. The whole process was one of subterfuge and a knowledge that it was a so-called reform drug user who was buying it, so I think that he was well aware of what was happening. I wonder if the member would agree with me. Is it time that the Lord Advocate actually took a case and tried it? One minute or thereby, please. I welcome that intervention. Obviously, there are circumstances in which the common law can be used, but all I was highlighting is that there are circumstances in which its use would be more problematic. It is a question of a bit of both, I would suggest to the member. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I welcome the recommendation by the expert review group that the definition of new psychiatric substances should be developed. It is clear that we do need consistency to be ensured across all areas, including research, academia, the NHS and government, etc. Common understanding is paramount. I also agree with the expert review group that consideration should be given as to whether the definition should be based on their chemical compound group or according to their effect, because we must be on the same page. I also welcome the work of the Scottish Government in engaging with the sector on information sharing and developing a common definition. The Scottish Government has been working hard on producing NPS guidance for trading standard staff, which we referred earlier on. Such guidance was published a couple of weeks ago. It is clearly crucial that people work on the same page. We referred also to the instances of the lack of recording of NPS use by Police Scotland and the Prison Service. Again, I would like to get to the point where that information is recorded. We also need to join up national approach with local authorities. Entertainment licences are one obvious step. Posler has a key role to play. In conclusion, I congratulate the expert group on their work done today. I rise to support the motion in the name of the minister, Paul Wheelhouse, and to commend the way in which Paul Wheelhouse, in his ministerial responsibilities, has taken the matter forward. It is essential that we recognise that we are dealing with something new, it is there in the definition, and it is something that we have much to learn about. As a father and a grandfather, it breaks my heart to what each generation, as it comes along, find its particular mind-influencing substance of choice and to see so many young people choose to infuse that substance into their body. We do so much in this Parliament in other areas to reduce the effects of those substances, whether it is alcohol or tobacco or any of the other things that have come along over the years. We see success in some of those statistics as we begin to win the battle and then something else appears. We have seen attempts over the years to bring forward new substances and we have regulated them. However, the onslaught of new and various substances that we face at the moment are raising us to a level of difficulty that I do not believe we have seen before. It has to be said that, seeing the statistics, the number of people involved in taking those substances and having themselves damaged or, on a few occasions, killed by them is still small and we still have a chance to work towards success. However, I believe that the way that the Government is tackling this and the way that it has taken the new psychoactive substances expert review group report to heart and attempted to implement it is a good way forward. However, we have to work at this in every level. It is the case that, all over Scotland, people, even in their own communities, are doing what they can to highlight the problems that exist. In our broth just under two years ago, I was called to a meeting with people at the award-winning our broth cafe project, which has done a great deal of good work with young people within that town. One of the so-called head shops had opened right across the road and, of course, parents were outraged by that. I would like to commend the action that was taken by parents, particularly by my good friend Derek Wan, who was instrumental in bringing that group together for the work that they did. However, I also have to commend the action of local police officers who had the courage to do what few have done in other places and that was to raid the shop and effectively close it down. That kind of action will do a great deal of good where it can be taken. However, as we have seen and heard during the course of the discussion today, it does not always happen. There is a lot of work being done within Scotland's local authorities. Problems that arose in Aberdeen were highlighted at Aberdeen City Council by my colleague councillor Ross Thompson, who has worked closely with me in my parliamentary role to try to highlight that problem as it exists in the north-east. Without the work of local individuals and active councillors in individual council areas, we would not be at the point today where there is the level of understanding that we have limited, though it is. Among the things that have been highlighted in this debate, there are some that we have heard before. The use of the term legal highs is one that we should discourage simply because a substance is not illegal and does not make it in any way harmless. We see exactly the opposite to be the case. We have to improve data sharing to ensure that everybody has the information that they need, whether it is in terms of policing or whether it is in terms of dealing with the health implications of the drugs that are now in the market. At the last meeting of the ministerial cross-party working group, it was a real eye opener, if you excuse that expression, to hear any practitioners, actual clinicians who had experience of dealing with cases within accident emergency units and explain how difficult it is to understand the problems that they are being faced with. They also were able to highlight the problems being experienced by police officers who are having to deal with people influenced by these substances and yet finding that the traditional way of dealing with someone who is abused alcohol or a more traditional drug is simply not the way to treat people on some of these substances. That inability to understand, to translate the needs of those who have used these substances and deal with them in a practical sense is one of the reasons why information and education are crucial throughout our process of dealing with this. Education for those who are likely to use the substances, education for those who will fall into their use, not understanding the damage they can do, but also educating those who will be confronted in some professional capacity by someone who is influenced by a substance which we have little or no information about. There was one disagreement during the course of this debate, which I think was highlighted by the positions taken by Richard Simpson and Christine Graham. Those views are not wildly different, but they expose two alternative approaches. The regulation approach put forward by Richard Simpson, the light-touch approach, perhaps if I can say that, contrasted with Christine Graham's view that we should take a more heavy-handed approach. I find it very hard to accept that we should not be prioritising the removal of these substances from our streets, but I also understand that if they are removed from our streets, we have not removed them from the hands of these young people who are using them. That is why I think that it is important that we also need to recognise, as has been said during the debate, that the countries in which those substances or the raw materials are being manufactured—China and India—also need to be involved at some level in what we are doing. I commend the work of the minister, Paul Wheelhouse, and I commend the way in which he has dealt with this, both in Parliament and dealing with the passage of legislation at Westminster. I think that we are doing this the right way, and let us continue to work together towards our joint aims. Many, many thanks. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been an interesting debate, albeit scheduled at very short notice due to the withdrawal of the inquiry into death bill, but it has been an opportunity to discuss the response to the expert review group and also the work so far of the cross-party working group on NPS and the developments at UK level since we last discussed the issue in February. Many members stress the importance of not using the term legal high because legal can be interpreted as being somehow okay and safe, but I think that John Finnie was right to stress that we need to use the language of the people involved, and there is no point in using terminology that we all understand if the people outside do not understand what we are talking about. The minister quoted from the UK Government's psychoactive substances bill and the offence that it introduces. The bill also excludes the legitimate substances such as food, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, for example, and controlled drugs, which are already regulated, and also excludes certain persons such as healthcare professionals who may use NPS legitimately during the course of their work. The definition of psychoactive substances is still up for discussion, and the Scottish Government is working with the UK Government and I think will be keeping the working group informed of progress on that. However, it is generally considered that although the UK bill will help to stop supply from head shops, other things such as internet supply, although covered by the bill, will be much more difficult to control, as will indeed identification of the laboratories that produce NPS, particularly when they are in China and the Far East. Nigel Donne said in his speech that he thought that that might help to stop first use of NPS. However, if somebody has already tried it and their friends who can get it on the internet, that will be more difficult to control. Richard Simpson made an important comparison with Ireland, where legislation that has been passed some years ago but not really has been assessed, but the use of NPS is still going on. Head shops are not there but the use is still going on, and Alison MacKinnon has also highlighted reservations about the definitions in the bill. I found the one meeting of the working group that I attended, which was just a couple of weeks ago, extremely interesting. It concentrated on the medical and forensic implications of NPS. We heard from Dr Richard Stevenson, an emergency consultant of Glasgow Royal Infirmary on the history of the discovery of various psychoactive substances, and his very graphic account of the symptoms presented in his department, the sort of things that his staff were seeing. He dispelled any illusions that many of those substances are anything other than very dangerous, taking the wrong sorts of dosages that can cause serious psychological damage, psychotic behaviour, very elevated temperature. There are no treatments. There is no equivalent of Naxalone, for example, which counteracts the effects of a heroin overdose, because Naxalone goes into the receptors and kicks out the heroin so that it can get it out of your system. There is nothing that we know of at the moment that can do that for the NPS. The sufferer basically has to be administered a general anaesthetic while attempts are made to reduce their body temperature. He also described how people took cocktails, for example people taking NPS with alcohol, in the hope that they could drink more, so they are also getting the effects of very serious alcohol consumption as well. Dr Hazel Torrance of Glasgow University's Forensic Toxicology department describes some of the screening tests that are currently available, but even where screening tests are available for these uncontrolled drugs, they are not included in the drug-related statistics. Barry James from Police Scotland's Forensic Department, I think that Graham Day referred to this and described how psychoactive substances can be detected in the laboratory using mass spectrometry and more recently in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. I was a bit concerned, however, to learn from him that the NMR machine that they have, a very large, expensive piece of kit, is there but unfortunately is not being used because of the lack of trained personnel. I have also heard that apparently there is quite a backlog of specimens awaiting analysis at the forensic department. Many of the techniques used to determine the structure and function of these very large and complex molecules are very specialised, but it struck me that there is a lot of expertise in our academic institutions, not just in Scotland but across the UK and across the world, because this is a global problem. NPS acts by attachment to receptors in the brain, and how they do so is very complicated, but comparisons of the chemical structures of substances, which exhibit similar effects, could lead to a better understanding of which functional groups and the shapes of molecules can interact with the brain in this way. I feel that there must be other spectroscopic techniques that could assist. I wonder to what extent chemists and biochemists in academic laboratories are being encouraged to undertake research on those topics. I think that there is a lot of expertise out there, and if we understand the functioning of those better, we would not only be better able to detect what might be psychoactive and get a better handle on that, but we might also be able to create substances that could work like Naxalone and kick things out of the receptors. It is very complete serendipity, but the cross-party on science and technology is meeting with the Medical Research Council tonight. It is giving us a presentation on the value and impact of medical research in Scotland. The MRC is one of the major funders of scientific research in Scotland and across the UK, so I hope that I will get the opportunity to raise the issue of whether or not there is biochemical research into NPS and their functionality and detection being done in our academic institutions, because if there is not, that is an area that could well be funded helpfully. Graham Pearson mentioned the issue of trading standards. We spoke about that at Topical Questions today. There are problems in trading standards, not just in Scotland, but in England the situation is even worse. Trading standards are going to have to be resourced and, quite possibly, restructured in order to be able to undertake those additional responsibilities. I wonder if the Scottish Government is aware of any financial resource attached to the UK Government's bill that would enable trading standards departments to carry out this additional and extremely important work, because I think that there should be. Many colleagues talked about the need for education. Richard Simpson said that people have always sought substance which causes a high. That is true, that that has always been the case, whether it is alcohol or whether it is illegal substances. We need to appreciate that and understand that. Finally, I was interested in the contribution of both Margaret Mitchell and Christine Graham, as to whether prosecution could take place under common law as culpable and reckless conduct. In that case, Christine Graham reminded us that it was 20 or 30 years ago. It was gluesmithing that was the problem that we were worried about, so we are moving on from that. Is there an opportunity there? I think that there are a number of issues where there may be opportunities for further discussion and further in different fields. There is a capability of further discussion that might lead us further forward in the fight against these substances. I am very grateful for the opportunity to reflect on today's debate this afternoon, as I alluded to in my opening comments. I have not been disappointed by the quality and collaborative contributions from members across the political divide. If I may say so, I think that today's debate shows our Parliament an extremely good light in taking what is a very serious issue in a matter that is bipartisan and with appropriate forethought—very well thought through speeches, by all concern. I am very grateful to the parties across the chamber for their support for the Government's work. I am looking forward to working with them in due course as we go forward. I particularly thank Alex Johnson and Alex McKinnon for very kind remarks about myself. Members have reflected on a number of areas today, and I will try to do justice to them. There are a few areas of public policy that perhaps bring us together in the way that the NPS has done today. Members have reflected on the devastation that these substances can cause, indeed, and the shock that we sometimes experience in terms of the effects that they have. Graham Day, Alex Johnson, Lane Murray and Alison McKinnon picked up on a very specific point that was raised at the ministerial working group. Members have reflected on a number of constituency issues where that is a serious cause for concern for parents. I was particularly struck by the examples given by Margaret Mitchell, John Jamie Donnelly and David Lewis and Christine Grahame's constituency. The tragic loss of young lice really brings it to a focus. At a local level, I picked up the point that Sarah Boyack made that we need to have a balance between national and local approaches. I will touch on the resourcing issue that has been raised by a number of members in a second. However, it has been reflected that the NPS is not just the drug of choice of rebellious young people, far from it. It is naturally that perhaps people will be drawn to risky behaviour, but the NPS is being used by older and more established drug users. When I visited the crew, I heard that very experienced drug users are often terrified by the impact that it has had on them. They have been used to taking a perhaps similar volume of an illicit drug, taking the NPS equivalent and finding it far stronger than they had expected, and the medical effects are quite pronounced. I think that the challenge of the response is going to have to reflect the complexity of the issue. Despite our desires, politicians define quick fixes and easy solutions, but we all know that there is not one in that case. Even bringing the NPS under legal control will not be the full answer. Elaine Murray reflected that and Dr Richard Simpson reflected on that. I have to acknowledge the points that were made. Even if I do not agree with everything that was said, I acknowledge the spirit of what Dr Simpson was saying about the need to look to control sales that go into the dark internet and other options as well. Graham Pearson was the first to pick up on the injecting trend. That is something that we are worried about in certain locations. He is right to raise that, and Graham Pearson and other members refer to polydrug use. That is clearly a fact that we have to take into consideration in combination with whether alcohol or other illicit drugs and NPS is posing a real risk to people. We need to make them aware of the risks through education. Margaret Mitchell referred to dosage variability and the availability of drugs or NPS being a key consideration locally and nationally. Kevin Stewart quite rightly referred to the criticisms of using legal highs as a terminology and the difficulty, I suppose, in finding an alternative that works for the young people that we are trying to engage with and in terms that they understand and also not give false legitimacy to the use of NPS. Dr Simpson, apart from raising the issue of the dark side websites, pointed out very fairly that people are engaging effectively in phase 1 trials of substances. We have no idea what impact they are going to have on them, and that is clearly a message that we have to get out there. Turning to trading standards, just to point out, I appreciate the wider picture of trading standards that may have been debated today, and I did not hear the responses to that, but just to point out that we have provided some funding, I appreciate limited, but some funding to trading standards Scotland in assisting and implementation of the guidance that we have launched a couple of weeks ago. We do recognise the pressures on trading standards, and this funding will assist in gathering a local picture in each authority on NPS availability and the number of head shops. The funding will also be used to help to fund forensic identification, where that is necessary to identify the substances being sold. It is modest and is in the region of £30,000, but hopefully it will help to address a specific issue. Kevin Stewart also referred to the NPS expert review group and the potential for using a licensing approach similar to New Zealand. The expert review group concluded that there was a real risk that it was doing, so having looked at the New Zealand example, the licensing and sale of NPS would be seen as a way of endorsing the products and confirming their safe use, hence the approach that we have taken. However, I think that he very fairly went on to talk about the need to do more in terms of looking at the role of education and, indeed, just to confirm the next theme to be discussed by the NPS ministerial cross-party working group will be around education and I would like to take the point of guidance for schools to this meeting to pick up on the point that he referred to. Graham Day talked very fairly about tailoring the messages for user groups and understanding the different motivations for purchasing by different groups. I think that the research that we have commissioned will help us to understand better the nature of the demand from different groups, whether it is older users or younger users and hopefully help those involved in the advisory scene to help to tailor the messages and, obviously, the work that we are doing with Education Scotland can pick up on that as well. Alison McInnes—I am sorry, I do not have time, Ms Graham, but I will come on to the point that you have raised, I can assure you. In terms of displacement risk, Alison McInnes referred to that and it is a very important point. We do have to understand the longer-term issues, are largely unknown as well, that is a fair point that Ms McInnes made, and the manifestations of poisoning and the identification of mental health risks are also very well made points. In terms of the police and crown use of the common law, the point that Christine Graham raised, just to assure Christine Graham and other members that police and partners are committed to tackling NPS and using the powers available to them, including culpable and reckless behaviour, until the new legislation comes into effect in April 2016. There are a number of cases pending, and those are with the procreative fiscal. I do appreciate that there is a lot of interest in the chamber in seeing whether those are successful, and clearly we have to judge the independence of the Lord Advocate and the Crown in taking forward cases, but I will make the chamber's views known to Lord Advocate in due course. Sarah Boyack also mentioned, as did Richard Simpson, the Wedinoss project in Wales. I hope that members are reassured that that is featured in the consultation that we have launched recently to look at how we can share information across the UK, and we have been studying the work of the Welsh Government in relation to the Wedinoss project to learn any lessons there. I can reassure him on that. Nigel Don mentioned the forfer petition, and it shows people power having an impact in forfer. As he rightly said, there are still head shops within the near vicinity, so the problem has not been solved. I recognise and welcome the contribution that Alex Johnson and Nigel Don drew attention to of the local community, taking this issue, grabbing it by the horns and tackling it. John Finnie talked about education. I very much agree with him about the importance of education in this whole debate. I think that he referred to having an message around don't do it and why don't do it to sort of look at the reasons why people shouldn't do it. I will go further than that. The young people in Saturday were saying, and it's potentially controversial, but if you are going to do it, be aware of the risks in doing it. We have to listen to the messages that will resonate with them and tailor the message for that audience. A different message might work for an older audience, but I take his point on board. Roger Campbell referred to the importance of education and the impossibility of telling the contents. He is absolutely right in a product. We have to get that message across so that people buying something that looks quasi-legitimate in a packet may not be safe. The variability of the product between one packet and another, even where the branding is the same, can be very significant and therefore they may accidentally overdose. I would like to reiterate my personal thanks to all the members across the chamber for their support in this debate and their support in the work of the cross-party ministerial group that I am leading. I look forward to continuing the engagement with members across the chamber and working with the Home Office to deliver the legislation at UK level. That concludes the debate on progress and implementing recommendations of the expert review group and new psychoactive substances. We now move on to the next item of business, which is decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 14375, in the name of Stuart Stevenson. On the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14403, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse. On the progress on implementing recommendations of the expert review group and new psychoactive substances, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We are now moving to members' business. Members who will leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.