Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

First, I point to an example of where what we are doing in that area is starting to work better. I gave Ms Mackay this example in the chamber in answer to a question that she asked following my statement on the MAT standards. I am referring to the employment of staff in the Thistle centre and the fact that the design of that service has been carried out with people with lived and living experience. They have been not just a part of it, but central to it—indeed, people with lived and living experience were on the staff interview panel. That tells me that we are starting to get to a better place from the point of view of our work to destigmatise and to value those experiences more highly.

We have more work to do on how we employ those people. However, funding is available for organisations—Maggie Page or Laura Zeballos will remind me of the details—to ensure that people can be supported into the workplace and that there is a route for them to value themselves more highly as they progress. The point about feeling value in themselves was made very strongly when the First Minister and I visited the Thistle and spoke to those with lived and living experience who had helped to shape the service by being involved in the interview process and were participating in its establishment. The feeling of value and worth was incredibly powerful during that visit.

Laura Zeballos might be able to point to the funding that is available for organisations that provide support.

I have noted some of the evidence that has been put forward. I understand the live debates that there are, which the committee will be considering, around the shape of any proposed service and how it would interact with existing health services. It is for the committee to determine that in its stage 1 report and for the Parliament to consider that. My position will remain neutral until that has taken place.

Again, I am trying to be as helpful as possible to Mr Gulhane and to the committee. I have set out in my opening statement that the Government is taking a neutral approach and that, as the lead minister for the bill, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on provisions within it. I note the evidence that has come forward and I understand the debate that is there. We will all have to consider the matter should the bill pass stage 1.

I would be happy to take that point away and to write to you to give you what I can on the financial memorandum considerations.

For the Government, yes, that would be premature. We have nothing further to add, other than our position that we believe that elements in the bill would not pass legislative scrutiny and are not within our legislative competence.

I heard the evidence that the committee took this morning. I have not interacted with NRS on that issue, and I am not sure whether the committee has explored it with NRS, but it might be something to follow up on. We do not have a position on that as yet.

Unfortunately not. Beyond what I have set out in the Government’s memorandum, I must maintain a strictly neutral position to allow the committee and the Parliament to assess the merits of the bill on the basis of what I believe will be a universally free vote, including for those in the Government. My responsibilities as health secretary and lead member for the bill will come in should the bill pass stage 1, and then there will be far more extensive dialogue and discussion and policy positions taken.