Avian Influenza
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to prevent the spread of avian influenza, following the outbreak in Kirriemuir. (S6T-02277)
I thank Carol Mochan for bringing this to the chamber’s attention. The outbreak is not actually in Kirriemuir but in Kingoldrum. The protection zone’s perimeter is 3km from the infected area, so Kirriemuir sits within the surveillance zone, but not within the protection zone. It is important to clarify that point.
On 10 January 2025, following confirmation of the presence of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in poultry, the Scottish Government activated its plans and immediately declared a 3km protection zone and a 10km surveillance zone around the infected premises, placing controls on poultry, poultry products and other things that could spread disease.
Any remaining birds on an infected premises are humanely culled, disposed of safely and disinfection of the premises is carried out. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is carrying out a veterinary inquiry to assess the source and the potential spread within the area.
I thank the minister for that clarity and his response. This is the second outbreak in the area in recent years. We have been told that avian flu has been detected in two wild birds in Fife and Perth. Farmers across Scotland, particularly in my region of South Scotland, want reassurance that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent future outbreaks, and that high winds and flooding are not weakening those safeguards. Can the minister provide some reassurance on that point?
As the member is probably aware, the pathogen occurs in the wild and it can get into domestic poultry. The advice is very clear that poultry keepers should be carrying out as much of the biosecurity measures as we are required to ask them to do, particularly in the protection zone and the surveillance zone. However, at all times, all poultry keepers should ensure that they take the best biosecurity measures that they have to protect their flocks.
My final question is on links. Avian influenza has devastated wild bird populations across the country. We know that transmission from birds to humans is rare and that the risk to human health is low, but several people around the world have been infected. Can the Scottish Government advise people on what biosecurity steps people and organisations can take to reduce the spread of avian influenza in Scotland?
To my knowledge, there has never been a case of avian influenza passing to a human in Scotland. On very rare occasions, it can be transmitted to humans but, globally, there is no evidence of an occasion of human-to-human spread of the virus.
A number of recent cases in the United States have been associated with outbreaks in wild birds, poultry and dairy cattle herds, but the majority of them have been mild clinical cases. There was one death in Louisiana of an individual who had underlying health conditions, but that was also attributable to an infection of H5N1. There is no evidence that any of the United States strains are circulating in the United Kingdom or Europe, so we do not have any evidence that we have any issues with avian influenza being transmitted to humans.
Will the minister set out the importance of poultry keepers remaining vigilant and ensuring high standards of biosecurity? Can he give us examples of what that looks like in practice?
It is a legal requirement for a suspicion of avian influenza to be reported immediately. That allows the Government to carry out its contingency plans speedily and effectively, and minimises the potential for further impact on other premises and birds.
The best way in which keepers can protect their flocks is by applying the strict biosecurity measures that I mentioned that are principally aimed at avoiding direct or indirect contact between their flocks and infected wild bird species, which is the main route of infection. That can take the form of ensuring that feed and water are stored where they cannot be contaminated by wild birds, and maintaining birdhouses to prevent the ingress of wild birds, rodents or floodwater. Cleansing and disinfecting clothing and footwear before any contact with kept birds is also vital.
Safer Drug Consumption Facility (Assessment)
To ask the Scottish Government what early assessment it has made following the opening of the safer drug consumption facility, the Thistle. (S6T-02279)
I am very pleased that the Thistle started supporting its first service users as of yesterday. Early engagement information will be reported in due course, but I understand that uptake was good, taking into account the presence of some media near the entrance, and that this was the first day of a unique service. There was very positive feedback from the first service users.
I thank all those who were involved in getting the service up and running—the staff, those from the various engagement groups and those from the local community—for their support for the facility, and the relentless campaigners who enabled it to happen.
I will use my first question to look at the policing of the facility. I remind members that my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland.
The Lord Advocate and the police have said that people will not be prosecuted for drug possession in the facility, but can the cabinet secretary outline what the Government expects to happen outwith the facility?
What is the cabinet secretary’s view and the Government’s view, for example, on someone who is in possession of drugs on their way to the facility? Should those drugs be removed if the police have good cause to stop the person and find them to be in possession? What is the cabinet secretary’s response to concerns in the local community that the area could become a criminal hotspot if the police are not policing immediately outside the new facility?
Douglas Ross will understand that that is an operational matter for Police Scotland and that it would not be right for me to comment on or influence decisions that it makes. However, Police Scotland has been involved in the development of the proposal from the beginning, and I am very grateful for its support. It would not have been possible to reach this point without that collaboration and partnership working.
As part of the proposal that went to the Lord Advocate, Police Scotland provided a paper, which was signed off by the chief constable and clearly set out its position. That paper makes the role of police officers clear and explains that the area surrounding the safer drug consumption facility would be policed in the same manner as it was prior to the establishment of the facility—unless otherwise required, due to any new identified risk.
Police Scotland will not alter the approach that it takes to patrolling the community as a result of the facility opening, and it will ensure that all communities in Scotland receive the same standard of service.
There is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding the policing, and I do not think that that will be addressed by the cabinet secretary’s response. He says that it is a matter for Police Scotland, and Police Scotland is saying that it is a matter for the Crown Office. Ultimately, the facility is supported by the Scottish Government, so I do not think that it is unreasonable for parliamentarians to expect a response here today.
Turning to the facility more generally, what does the cabinet secretary believe will be a success of the pilot project? Over the next three years, how will he judge it a success or otherwise? Does he accept that, as the First Minister said yesterday, it is not a silver bullet and that we need more joined-up working across this area?
For instance, if people go into the facility to inject themselves with drugs but need mental health support, they will still face lengthy waiting lists, and there is still a huge shortage of rehabilitation beds in Scotland. Is it not the case that the facility will simply make it more sustainable for people to remain on drugs, rather than getting off drugs and turning their lives around, and that backing the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill would be another element in our fight against the appalling drug deaths rate in Scotland?
I accept that the facility is one tool in the box; I do not think that it is a silver bullet, as Douglas Ross described.
He asked how we would measure the success over the three years of the pilot. It is about reducing harm and deaths in Glasgow. It is also about allowing people we have been otherwise unable to reach with the treatment options that Douglas Ross speaks about to come in and access services that are available at the facility. That is the basis on which the Lord Advocate gave her statement of prosecution policy, which made it clear that this is about allowing people to access a service that they would otherwise not have been able to access. It is the first opportunity for many people to have conversations about things like mental health support and other treatment options, such as residential rehabilitation.
It is not an either/or scenario. The funding that we are putting in is additional to the funding that we have put into areas such as residential rehabilitation, where, since 2021, we have seen bed numbers rise by 20 per cent. We recognise that this is a national mission and that we have to focus on all possible forms of intervention that can save lives. I agree with Douglas Ross that we must face this appalling situation, but we must take all possible steps, including those that feel radical, such as this one, to reach all the people who can potentially benefit from the services that are available across Scotland.
There is much interest in the subject, so I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
I remind members that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
Every death related to drug use is one too many and is utterly devastating for the loved ones who are left behind. Although the facility is not a silver bullet, I am proud of the significant step that has been taken to reduce harms and deaths in one of Scotland’s most impacted cities.
Can the cabinet secretary speak to how the Scottish Government has engaged with those with lived experience and their families to ensure that the facility meets the needs and best supports service users?
I absolutely agree with Clare Haughey that one life lost to a drug dependency is one life too many.
When the First Minister and I visited the safer drug consumption facility on Friday, I was able to speak to bereaved families who were part of the process of establishing it. I also spoke to people with lived experience who have helped to design the facility—the way that it looks and feels—and have been part of the interview panel for recruiting staff, to ensure that the cultural aspects of who is employed and how they approach their work are informed by lived experience. That is absolutely critical to the community’s and service users’ confidence in the facility, and it is critical to the endeavours through which we seek to address harm reduction and the number of deaths.
I am grateful to all those with lived experience, as well as service users and bereaved families, for the input that they have given to get the Thistle to this point.
I share the sentiments of members from across the chamber in welcoming the official opening of the overdose prevention pilot in Glasgow. I was fortunate enough to visit it last week with members of the joint committee on tackling drug deaths and drug harm, and it was clear to me that the facility is equipped to provide an opportunity to reach the established cohort of people in Glasgow who inject drugs in public and to provide them with the support or resources that they might need. I have always said that the facility has to be accessible and integrated with other services, particularly residential rehabilitation, given that the nearest such facility is Phoenix Futures, in Anniesland, which is some 5 miles away.
Can the cabinet secretary reassure members that the facility will be geared towards supporting people where they are at, without judgment or setting tests that people are doomed to fail? Will he advise what assessment the Scottish Government has made of extending the opening hours of the facility from 12 hours a day, as at present? Will he provide an update on the approval of a licence for a drug-checking facility at the site?
I thank Paul Sweeney for his long-standing interest and his campaigning in this field. Like him, on Friday, along with the First Minister, I was able to see for myself the facility and the approach that staff are taking, which is the stigma-free approach that Paul Sweeney says it should be.
The opening hours are a decision for the health and social care partnership to make. We have provided funding to enable the HSCP to get to this point, but it is for the HSCP to determine whether a shift in opening hours is needed or would help with the pilot.
My understanding, from what I heard on Friday, is that the location was picked deliberately to be near where community injecting has been widespread, to provide a service that is as close as possible to that particular element. We hope to avoid community injecting happening or to bring it into a safer space. As I said in response to Douglas Ross, the premise of the Lord Advocate’s statement of prosecution policy is about the facility being a gateway to treatment and the road to recovery. The integration of the services within the facility—Paul Sweeney will know about the wide range of services that are available there—and with residential rehab facilities is crucial to the success of the pilot.
I know that the minister has already been asked this question, but he did not put any specifics on the record. Specifically, what metrics will be used to assess the success of the Thistle? In addition, what lessons will the Government draw from global examples such as analysis by Stanford University’s Professor Humphreys to ensure that safer consumption rooms are part of a balanced and recovery-focused strategy to tackle drug deaths?
As I set out in response to Douglas Ross, the success of the pilot will be based on the harm reduction and the reduction in the number of drug-related deaths in the vicinity. I am, quite rightly, regularly held accountable for the national picture. We can see localised numbers in the drug death statistics, which will clearly demonstrate over time what the pattern is and whether a new pattern is emerging as a result of the measure.
I reiterate that this is just one measure, and the second part of Ash Regan’s question is instructive. This is one part of our national mission that goes alongside the naloxone programme, the expansion of residential rehab, the community and voluntary sector funding that we provide through the Corra Foundation, and a range of other elements, including drug-checking facilities—which Paul Sweeney raised, but I did not address—on which our engagement with the Home Office continues. This is just one part of the wide suite of investments that we are making to reduce the number of drug deaths, and I look forward to seeing an improving picture, as I know Ash Regan does, too.
Douglas Ross asked specifically about the metrics for measuring success. Ash Regan asked the same question, and I will ask the question again, because I am not sure that the cabinet secretary is being anything other than vague. He is definite about the fact that one key measurement will be the reduction in drug deaths in Glasgow—we get that. He then talked about harm reduction. What metrics will be used to measure harm reduction? What does that mean?
I know that Stephen Kerr will be aware of international evidence about the efficacy of drug consumption facilities in reducing wider harms. There is evidence of a reduction in the infections, such as HIV and hepatitis, that come from sharing needles and that type of behaviour. Those are some of the areas of harm reduction that I am talking about.
I would also want to be able to point to increasing engagement with some of the statutory and community services in Glasgow by people we have been unable to engage with previously. The evidence from the first day, yesterday, is that some of the people who were coming through the door were accessing those services for the first time. Those people were able to have conversations on taking a different path, and on starting a road to recovery, for the first time.
I understand that there is some vagueness to that, because the service is a preventative measure that it is hard to measure aside from through hard-nosed drug deaths statistics. However, I hope to point to the safer consumption facility making a difference in those areas.
Air ais
Time for ReflectionAir adhart
Winter Heating Payment