Chamber and committees

Thank you very much. I am going to move swiftly on to Jeremy Balfour, to be followed by Foysol Choudhury.

If members and the minister are happy to extend the meeting by five minutes or so, I am happy to do so in order that members can ask some follow-up questions. If that is an issue for anyone, please feel free to update us in the chat function. In the meantime, I will bring in Beatrice Wishart.

We have come to the end of the session, but I have a bit of time in hand if members are happy for us to extend the session to around 16:35. I will bring in Gillian Mackay, followed by Russell Findlay.

I will bring in Russell Findlay, who has been waiting patiently, and then, if there is time, I will bring in Foysol Choudhury and Gillian Martin.

I will bring in Gillian Martin to ask the final question.

Thank you very much indeed, minister.

We will move straight to questions, and I will open the questioning by asking about safe drug consumption rooms. As you will know, many experts, people with lived experience and committees such as the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster have recommended the introduction of such rooms, given the contribution that they can make to reducing drug deaths in the UK. Indeed, Douglas Ross has said that he would

“not oppose the introduction of an overdose prevention centre in Scotland, and neither should the UK Government.”

Is the UK Government still resistant to such a move? If so, what are the reasons for taking that position, given the strength of the evidence that seems to be behind the approach?

Thank you, minister. I will shortly hand over to members to open up questioning.

If we have time at the end of the session, I may come back to your point about the legality of safe consumption rooms and the Lord Advocate for Scotland’s current position with regard to looking at such a proposal for Scotland.

I hand over to Russell Findlay.

If we have time, we will come back to members who want to ask follow-up questions.

I am afraid that you are for the moment. We will move on and come back to you if we have time.

That is helpful. I am grateful for those points. Just to clarify, I note that one of the main reasons for keeping the petition open previously was that a number of judicial processes had not been concluded when the committee was considering the petition. My understanding is that that was the basis on which the petition remained open. I note Jamie Greene’s comments, but I am not altogether sure what alternative legal processes are open to the family, in particular, or to others. It is appropriate that we, as a new committee, keep the petition open on the basis of the points that we have made. If members are agreed, that is what we will do.

Before we conclude our consideration, I will bring in Fulton MacGregor and Russell Findlay.