Chamber and committees

It is no secret that Mr Malthouse and I have different views on harm reduction interventions, and we will have different views on the lens through which drug use should be viewed. I very much recognise the role and relationship of poverty and other matters in relation to this issue, and a lot has been written and published about the impact of concentrated levels of poverty and social deprivation.

Where I agree with Mr Malthouse is that there is a moral obligation on us to address poverty. However, as well as addressing the bigger structural changes that need to be made to society, we need to focus on the here and now, and that can be seen in the work that we are doing to invest in and reform services and to move matters forward as much and as quickly as we can.

There is a lot in that question. First, some care needs to be taken with the 1980s narrative. I always find it somewhat triggering to talk about the 1980s, but there is no doubt that those years had a scarring effect. That is something that we need to bear in mind, as we did in response to the financial crash and the spike in youth unemployment, which we knew would have a scarring impact on people’s life chances. In the recovery period following any recession or, indeed, pandemic, we need to focus on reducing the risk of such long-term impacts on our society and our communities.

There is a clear relationship between drug use and poverty. Indeed, last year’s annual report on the drug-related deaths statistics showed that people in our most deprived communities are 18 times more likely to die a drug-related death. That said, I would always urge a bit of caution about looking only at the structural issues in and around poverty. That can make people feel helpless, but no one should feel powerless in the face of poverty, which is, after all, man-made.

In that respect, I should mention the work that we are doing on child poverty and social security. I know that members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee are present, so I will not go through all of those things in detail, but I will just point to one example—and not just because I introduced it. Under the fairer Scotland duty, all public agencies must ensure that the drive to reduce poverty is at the heart of allocating resources and making big strategic decisions.

Ms Whitham also raised an important point about regeneration. In our child poverty delivery plans, the focus of evidence is on, for example, income, work and reducing the cost of living, but the first plan—which I was involved with and which will be updated soon—also looked at not only the impact of drug use, particularly on families, but quality of life. Community regeneration is therefore really important, as it is as much about the resilience of communities as it is about community action.

Yes, I continue to support the use of recorded police warnings, which were recently extended to cover class A drugs such as heroin and opioids. It is essentially a discretion that the police have, and it is based on a wealth of international evidence that shows that, at every twist and turn, our justice system should provide opportunities to divert people from the criminal justice system into diversionary activities or treatment.

I know that Ms Webber and I disagree fundamentally on that approach, but where I think that we can find common ground is on the increase in hospital admissions involving cannabis. Although cannabis is rarely implicated in drug-related deaths, statistics show that it features heavily in hospital and psychiatric admissions, often because of synthetic cannabinoids. The relationship between cannabis use and mental health is, I think, something that we can agree on.

The increase in hospital admissions because of cannabis use can be seen in all ages, but I have some concerns around young people in that respect. Young people have different patterns of drug use. Increasingly, they are moving away from risky behaviours. However, those young people who use drugs are far less likely to use opiates and more likely to use cannabis, MDMA or cocaine. Work is being done to develop bespoke services for young people. That feeds into our work on the prevention material for reaching young people not just in schools but in other settings.

We have a national mission to consider the harms and risks of all drugs, and the best way of reducing those harms and risks. Often, at its nub, that is about getting more people into the right treatment at the right time.

I apologise for the length of that answer, convener.

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.