Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have engaged directly with the RCN, its leadership and its lay committee on many points since the decision was taken. With regard to the perceived delay, it was an issue on which I understood that there were very strong feelings from colleagues within the trade union movement, and I engaged with them to hear their perspective before I came to a decision. I took my time to come to that decision, because I recognised the strength of feeling on the matter, but also because of what I was being told and the advice that I was being given on ensuring that we safely implemented the commitment to reduce the working week.

There was no agreement in place about how we would arrive at the 36 hours. Given that the commitment in the pay deal was to get to 36 hours, I believe that I am implementing that deal by getting to 36 hours as of next April. I also believe that I am doing it in the responsible way, by having an implementation plan that takes place over the course of this year and that involves local area partnerships, the Scottish terms and conditions committee and the national trade union representative body. We will see draft plans coming through in May and confirmed plans from boards in October, and that will ensure that our approach to implementation guarantees that 36 hours will be arrived at in April of next year.

I absolutely understand what has been said, and I have engaged on the matter with almost all the relevant trade unions—I still have some to come—but, as I have said, this is Government delivering on the pay deal. We have not reneged. I understand the perception of the phasing of all of this and how people thought that it was going to be implemented, but there was no agreement as to how that would be done from Government. Therefore, I believe that we are delivering on the agreement that we set out in the pay deal two years ago.

We support alcohol and drug partnerships to deliver some of those services. Obviously, our health services are there to deliver, and we have provided increased funding to our health boards and our local authority partners to ensure that they are providing services.

We have already referenced the support that is provided through the Corra Foundation to ensure that community and voluntary organisations are able to respond. The organisations in the community and voluntary sector are trusted and have a wide reach—they can reach much deeper into communities than statutory services can—and the role that they play has to be acknowledged. I certainly acknowledge that, and my commitment to funding those community organisations is clear.

If there are examples of where we need to do more in local areas, or if there is more that we need to do at a national level, I want to hear about that. We would always consider funding for services where the evidence is clear that they are helping to meet a particular demand.

There is not a huge amount of greater detail that I can go into. The work that the improvement hubs will deliver is obvious, but I note that Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s co-ordinating role and its work on ensuring that the pathways are working well are well established, too. As I have said, I do not have a huge amount of detail that I can go into or anything that I can go into in any greater depth—I do not know whether Laura Zeballos or Maggie Page wishes to add anything.

I thank Ms Haughey for raising the issue and the people’s panel for its work on illuminating this as an issue that needs to be addressed. I heard the gentleman on the previous panel make the point that he had not been aware of the naloxone programme but that, when he did become aware of it, he wanted to be involved. That speaks volumes about not just the powerful effect of the naloxone roll-out itself, but the need to ensure that we are not complacent and think that everybody has an understanding of the roll-out, as colleagues around the table do, and the fact that it has gone to various statutory organisations as well as others.

We will consider what more we can do to have an awareness-raising campaign and what might be effective in that respect, and I am happy to come back to the committee with our consideration of how that could work. The very illumination of the issue through the work of the people’s panel will be helpful, as will, I hope, our discussion here. I believe that all of us around the table have agency in being able to raise awareness. Mr Sweeney and the convener said that they had gone through training—indeed, Mr Sweeney was able to say how quick that training was. If we use our own agency as local leaders, that will be just as important as any Government or Public Health Scotland-led campaign in this space.

It is for the Scottish Affairs Committee to carry out its investigation. I hope that it will do so with the sensitivity that the people’s panel and the joint committee have brought to this emotional issue. I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee will explore the evidence and the efficacy of the approach, as well as hearing the testimony of those with lived and living experience who have fought so hard for the facility to be established and who have shaped the way that the service is being run and those who work in it. I hope that those views are taken into consideration and that we have an evidence-based outcome. Obviously, it is for the Scottish Affairs Committee to conduct its business as it sees fit, but that is my hope for its inquiry.

As I said, it is right that we are having a debate—and I think that we have had a very healthy debate in the Scottish Parliament—about the efficacy of the approach and the evidence for why we would want to establish a safer drug consumption facility. It is critical that we keep the debate to those points of evidence and take into account the views of those with lived and living experience, to ensure that we can make progress for the people we need to do better by and to save lives.

Absolutely. That is why it is a three-year pilot. The international evidence is demonstrable—it is there—and we can rebut some of the misinformation that Mr Sweeney has reported with evidence from safer consumption facilities elsewhere in the world. You do not have an increase in community injecting—the opposite is true. You do not have greater levels of discarded drug paraphernalia—the opposite is true.

Crucially, the reason for the momentum behind the campaign for a safer consumption facility was not only the specific nature of those involved but the international evidence, which demonstrates that such a facility reduces harm and saves lives. Mr Doris is right to say that we are seeing some early evidence of its efficacy. I have been able to point to, for example, individuals now engaging with statutory and community services who were not engaging previously and who were not reachable prior to the facility’s establishment.

That said, it will take time for us to assess whether the approach has reduced harm. I am talking about not only whether it has reduced needle sharing and the obvious public health issues arising from that, but whether it has helped to save lives. The marker for whether people think that this is the right thing to do is that there is domestic interest in this, with other cities in Scotland interested in looking at establishing safer consumption facilities, and I believe that there are also international observers of what is being carried out. I think that it is the right thing for us to explore, but it has to be explored on a pilot basis, because we have to look at the evidence to see whether it has worked. That is why we are investing in it over a three-year period.

Yes. In short, I am happy to consider that. There are pretty clear pathways available for people who are seeking any form of medical support or advice. You mentioned 111, which is a route into primary care. There are various routes, but I recognise that a single point of contact, which we are deploying in other areas of the health service such as in cancer support, is something for us to consider. I am happy to take that away and consider whether we could do something in a more streamlined way so that, if that is not possible, people still have greater clarity about where they can access services. There should be no confusion. People should know that they can go through 111 or the mental health support that is available through NHS 24, which colleagues will be aware of, as well as taking the obvious route to access support and treatment through general practice.

I absolutely recognise that, as we heard again from members of the people’s panel today, many of the MAT standards are directed towards opioid dependency. However, many of the standards are applicable to people regardless of their substance dependency. In particular, those that relate to access to mental health support and treatment are in place regardless of the type of dependency.

I recognise in my written response that we need to look at what we can do to provide medicated assisted treatment that goes beyond opioids. Colleagues have had questions about the fact that, as the people’s panel observed, we are seeing a growing level of polysubstance use and, in certain parts of the country, a growing level of use of cocaine, benzodiazepines and other drugs including nitazenes. Clearly, we need to ensure that we are responding to the use of those drugs, too, and that is part of our consideration.

We accept that there needs to be improvement, as I said in my written evidence. In the evidence from the people’s panel, we heard that, although the services exist, we need to explore, with regard to co-ordination and consistency, why they are not being referred to. We will work with the court service and other statutory organisations to ensure that there is awareness of the services that are available and that they are referring people to those pathways. Every encounter should be utilised as an opportunity to ensure that people are made aware of the support that is available to them and to encourage uptake of that support. We will explore that further and see what more can be done to ensure that the recommendation can be fulfilled.

I am grateful to Mr Sweeney for raising the issue. It angers me greatly to see misinformation being spread about a service that seeks to address an issue by using a method that international evidence demonstrates works and that is part of a toolbox to support people to reduce the harm and deaths that are associated with their substance dependency. That is shameful. The evidence can be challenged—of course, we can have a debate about the efficacy of the approach and whether it works, which is why we are piloting the measure. However, to blatantly spread false information is wrong.

All those claims are false. That particular location was chosen for the Thistle because community injecting was already happening there. I have seen no evidence—nothing has been reported to me or anybody else—to suggest that there has been an increase in injecting in the community or, indeed, an increase in the discarding of paraphernalia in the community. That claim is false. It is also not true to say that the drugs that Mr Sweeney mentioned are being provided at the facility. The individuals who are seeking to use the safer drug consumption facility bring their own.

I find it deeply distressing, disappointing, frustrating and upsetting that people are seeking to spread misinformation about a group of people who are incredibly vulnerable and are seeking to use a service in order to reduce the harm that their substance dependency is causing to them. I also find it deeply distressing that the people who work around the facility are being exposed to that type of misinformation and that there is misinformation about the contribution that has been made by those with lived and living experience and by family members of those who have lost their lives, who say that this is the right thing for us to be investing in.

Unfortunately, it is not surprising that people are spreading such misinformation, but I find their doing so deeply concerning. I know that Mr Sweeney shares my frustration about that, which, I suppose, is why he has raised the issue today.