Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Yes. I heard that evidence. I can reflect on the situation in my constituency; I know that the local support cafe is looking to work much more closely with the justice system so that there is a supportive element through somebody’s release from custody and they go into a supportive environment that means that they are supported in the community in a much better way. I know that that is being considered more widely. I heard that from the panel this morning, and we are absolutely looking to do better on it.

First of all, services absolutely should be doing that. Mr Doris raises a very challenging case in his constituency, and I pay tribute to him for trying to ensure that co-ordination is provided. He suggests that it has not been and that, as we have discussed in response to previous questions about referrals between statutory bodies and community and voluntary organisations, there should be better co-ordination.

As he was speaking, I was thinking about what the Thistle is seeking to provide. It is a safe space for drug consumption, but it is also part of a pathway for people to be able to get access to services—that was a critical part of the Lord Advocate being willing to provide her letter of comfort—because there are statutory services within it, including housing, social work and various other services.

The evidence that is coming through from the Thistle’s early work is that people are able to engage with those statutory services in a way that has not been seen before. The Thistle is speaking to people who services have not spoken to before. The early evidence suggests that the intention in relation to that pathway, which was critical to the Lord Advocate’s willingness to provide her letter of comfort, is working. However, we have more work to do—I have already acknowledged that—to make sure that there is more joined-up communication between services and that referral pathways are being put in place.

The specific example that Mr Doris gave relates to the need to make sure that there is co-ordination and that every organisation seeks to provide a supportive environment to resolve issues. That should be what we all expect to take place.

Absolutely. I would welcome that.

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.

Paul Sweeney will understand that I cannot give him all of what will be contained in the framework until it is published. He and I share the view—as do colleagues around this table—that it is central for us to tackle the pervasive impact that poverty has on so many aspects of an individual’s life and experience. We have a clear indication of the correlation that exists between poverty and deprivation and the likelihood of people having a substance dependency, which was mentioned by a colleague on the previous panel. We also know from the drug death statistics that there is a clear correlation between poverty and deprivation and someone losing their life to a substance dependency. That is why the Government’s central focus and number 1 priority is addressing child poverty and doing what we can to eradicate it. The same panel member reflected on the fact that we do not have all the tools in the box to do that—decisions that are taken elsewhere also have an impact.

Addressing poverty has an impact on education, on justice and on health. The drivers of ill health are absolutely clear, and the health professional who was on the previous panel will be very familiar with them. Health inequalities and health conditions are driven by poverty. If we could tackle poverty, we would hugely reduce the demand on health and social care services, and we would dramatically reduce the number of drug and alcohol-related deaths. That is why it is right for us to have a cross-Government focus on addressing child poverty.

Through the population health framework, there is a clear focus on doing what we can to resolve poverty, but the health service in and of itself cannot do that. The environmental and social factors that drive people into poverty are outside the control of the health service. We pick up the impact of poverty, and that is why having a co-ordinated approach across Government to address poverty is so important for us. Indeed, that should be an overriding priority of all Governments.