Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is often important to work harder to engage with those with whom we disagree. It is no secret that Mr Malthouse and I have different perspectives on the implementation of a public health approach and on some harm reduction interventions—safer drugs consumption facilities being but one of those. In all fairness, I will say that I have had a number of discussions with him. I have participated and engaged in a number of four-nations meetings, through the British-Irish Council or the UK drugs summit, and we have had lots of correspondence—yes, I am a persistent correspondent of Mr Malthouse. My ethos is to engage him and his Government on the evidence. My correspondence with him on safer drugs consumption facilities has always been about the evidence that they work.

What has been useful about our more recent correspondence and, I suppose, Mr Malthouse’s appearance yesterday, is that he has spoken more, and in more detail, about what his concerns are, and that gives me the opportunity to refute those concerns with the evidence, because the evidence is crystal clear. Again, I can point to evidence from across the world that has been produced by other experts, as well as to our own evidence paper. He sees more obstacles to implementation than I do but, if there is a way for us to work together to overcome any obstacle, my door to that is open. I stress that I seek to engage on the evidence and not the politics.

There are a number of issues there. I hope that the convener will give me a wee bit of latitude in answering properly.

My view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is old—it is nearly as old as me—and that it was written for another time. A lot of the evidence that the task force gathered showed that people feel that it is rooted in drug use being all about personal failings and in the need for punishment. A root-and-branch review is therefore needed because—in my view—the act impedes our taking a public health approach. Other people might argue that it is completely contradictory to a public health approach. It impedes not only work around safe drug consumption facilities, but other harm reduction work. I can give the committee examples, if need be.

The Lord Advocate made a very clear statement to the Criminal Justice Committee last year that she would be prepared to reconsider what is in the public interest, and making another application. However, she also scoped out what needs to be addressed and considered. She spoke about the need for evidence, which I think is the most straightforward part, because the evidence is clear cut. However, she also spoke of the need for detail and precision, and about how all the partners need to be on board, including the police. That is why we are working across all the boundaries.

There are issues and complexities—I will not make any bones about that. I will not rehearse the correspondence that I sent to Mr Malthouse and the correspondence that he sent me. However, I think that the committee will see that it was, in some ways, helpful that he put on the record his concerns, many of which I think can be rebutted. Nonetheless, there are issues around how safe drug consumption facilities are policed, in and around their vicinity.

There is also a need for us to work through all the potential scenarios with our partners. That is why we need to look in detail at operating procedures, at staff training and at information for service users on what is and is not permitted. This is detailed and precise work, and there are difficulties around it.

It would be easier if the UK Government were either to legislate on the matter or devolve powers; I will continue to pursue the matter on the basis of the evidence. However, I am actually more invested in doing absolutely everything that we can to find our own solutions. If we can get to a position where the police and the Lord Advocate are content, so be it.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning.

I am grateful to the three parliamentary committees that have come together to work across their portfolios and for the opportunity to update them on our actions to implement the recommendations of the Drug Deaths Taskforce.

I would like to start by saying that every life lost to a drug-related death is unacceptable, and I once again offer my condolences to those who have lost a loved one. I give my continuing commitment to work across the Government, the Parliament and beyond to save and improve lives.

I put on record once again my gratitude to the task force for its work to date. Its focus on evidence-based recommendations has helped to inform our response to this public health emergency. I emphasise that its work sits within the context of a wider national mission, and we will consider its recommendations in line with those of our other expert groups.

The task force has supported a wide range of innovative tests of change, and those projects have undoubtedly had a positive impact in the localities in which they have operated. The focus now is on learning from the projects and on rapidly expanding and rolling out what we know will make a difference.

I very much believe in evidence-based policy making, and I am committed to following the evidence as it emerges. I have taken on board all of the task force’s recommendations to date and am working to take them forward. A prime example of that is the MAT standards, which set out what people should expect and can demand of services. Their implementation across Scotland will give people access, choice and support through services.

Through partnership with the task force, naloxone is now more widely available, with its distribution to the police and the Scottish Ambulance Service, as well as expanded family and peer-to-peer distribution. Since the start of the Police Scotland test of change, 53 lives have been saved by police officers.

Also crucial are the task force recommendations on stigma, which, as we know, is a barrier to accessing support. Following those recommendations, we launched in December 2021 a national campaign to tackle the stigma that is associated with substance use, highlighting that drug and alcohol problems are a health condition and that people who are struggling with them should receive support and not judgment.

Many of the changes that are needed have been talked about for decades but have not been delivered. Ultimately, what really matters is the impact of implementing the task force’s recommendations as part of the national mission, which is why I am acting quickly to accelerate delivery and why I have asked the task force to provide its final recommendations by July. I recognise that that presents an additional challenge, but I am confident that, with the experience that David Strang and Fiona McQueen bring to the task force’s work, that ambitious goal is achievable.

Thank you. I look forward to discussing with committee members the implementation to date and the next steps. I know that we can work together to tackle this public health emergency.

I am grateful to Mr Findlay for that question, because it highlights the important role of the police in upholding the law. He might be aware that there is a serious organised crime task force, and much of what he describes is firmly in the remit of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans. Nobody would demur on the importance of interrupting the supply of drugs or bringing to justice those who pose the greatest risk to individuals and our communities.

Again, looking at evidence from around the world, we know that more punitive approaches—those in which a criminal justice system is focused solely on enforcement—can result in additional harms and barriers to treatment. I do not know whether the member is aware of the work of the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group, which recently produced some interesting findings and spoke about how it is important that different policies do not work against one another. It is important that policing and how our criminal justice system operates do not become a barrier to people’s access to treatment, and that they do not add to the harms that people are already experiencing.

There is more work to do on engaging communities on what will make them safer. Ensuring that people have access to better and quicker treatment is a huge part of that. Again, all the evidence points to a public health approach as being better for smarter justice in our community and for making communities and individuals safer.

I am not going to contradict the cabinet secretary for justice. However, I routinely provide challenge to my colleagues on what more we can do to ensure that people have access to treatment and support to address their use of substances. For example, I am very clear that, as we work to implement the medication-assisted treatment standards, they must apply in prisons, too. A key and fundamental part—although not the only part—of improving and saving lives is ensuring that our prison population gets better access to healthcare, and that includes drug treatment.

I have recently had some meetings with Ms Robison on strengthening the homelessness prevention duties. There is something very simple, powerful and fundamental about the ask and act duty, because it should not just be a case of asking somebody and then acting by referring them on somewhere else. That might be appropriate at times, but the whole ask and act philosophy is also about how you can act before you refer someone on. It is culturally important in giving a sense of ownership and ensuring more collegiate working across the different workforces.

I am looking closely at the work that Ms Robison is leading, because it contains something important that we might be able to learn from and implement in our drugs policy, and which also connects with the MAT standards. It is all about how we make people’s rights real in reality.

I really appreciate that question, because there are a number of issues around residential treatment, and I am committed to taking a balanced approach to securing a whole system of care. Residential rehabilitation is an important part of that. It has historically been supported and funded less, and this Government is now seeking to address that.

When I made my statement to Parliament in November last year, a whole suite of information was also published, some of which was meant to shine a light on where things were not operating as they should be. Some of it was also about the work that is being done to improve access to funding and improve access pathways, and some of it was about how to improve accountability, within the Government but also at a local level, so that people could see where the funding was going and how many places were being funded by alcohol and drug partnerships in each area.

I know that the pandemic had an impact on some services. I am not sure whether I picked up correctly what Mr Choudhury said, but I am not certain about any on-going concerns. The residential rehabilitation working group continues to liaise very closely with residential rehab providers, and where there are issues to iron out, they will be proactive about it. There is a housing support fund to ensure that people do not have to choose between maintaining their tenancy at home and going into residential rehab. That was set up to mitigate some issues in which the rules for housing benefit were implicated.

I hope that that answers Mr Choudhury’s question.

Absolutely. International evidence is crucial, because many other countries around the world have a far higher drug deaths rate than that in Scotland, and we should be looking at the very best practice not only in Scotland and across the UK but internationally. We have a lot to learn, and I make no bones about that.

I am sure that Mr Findlay will have discussed in detail with the justice secretary things such as Rapiscan scanners. The safety and wellbeing of prison staff and prisoners is of the utmost importance.

It is reflective of what we know about the wider community that we cannot arrest our way out of a drug deaths crisis. It has to be about addressing the root causes of people’s substance use and the bigger and broader agenda of homelessness and poverty. It is also about ensuring that people have access to the treatment that is right for them. Access to treatment and support in prison is crucial when it comes to healthcare. An important survey of prisoners’ health and social care needs will be completed by the spring, if I recall correctly.

Really important work is being led by the recovery community in our prisons. I have visited a number of recovery cafes. We must be focused on addressing the needs of individuals.

There are also broader issues about overcrowding in prison. I think that most commentators would be of the view that our prison population is too large.

Yes, I am. Sorry, Ms Mackay, but I do not think that I caught all of your question, but I am sure that it is about safer drug consumption rooms and the evidence that Mr Malthouse gave to the committee yesterday.

It is a matter of public record that work is being done on a pilot for a safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow. A proposition for that pilot has been made by the health and social care partnership in Glasgow. Very extensive work is being done between the Crown Office, the police, us—the drugs policy division—and our local partners in Glasgow.

Mr Malthouse and I come from different positions on this. I am strongly of the view that there is no disputing the evidence that safer drug consumption facilities can save lives. I refer members to the evidence paper that the Government produced not long ago and that I am sure that we shared with the Criminal Justice Committee at the time. I have also shared an exchange of correspondence between Mr Malthouse and me. He sees more problems than I see. There are undoubtedly issues that need to be resolved, and that is what we are actively engaged in doing.

There are three avenues to pursue with regard to drug consumption facilities. The UK Government could introduce primary legislation, perhaps in the way that Ireland did a number of years ago. It could devolve powers to Scotland and enable us to introduce legislation. The third option is for us to pursue what we can within our powers to bring forward a proposition that is clinically and legally safe for those who use and work in the service.

It is delicate and detailed work, and it has its difficulties, but it is progressing. We are absolutely committed to doing everything that we can, where possible within our powers, to implement evidence-based interventions that save lives.