Seòmar agus comataidhean

We know from that information that 13 per cent of beds that were accessed in that timeframe came from alcohol and drug partnership funding, and that there were also publicly funded places from housing benefit and social security. People would be accessing private and charitable funding as well.

Regarding the first quarter of this calendar year, you might recall that we published information on how the emergency funding was used. In the period from January to March, we quickly initiated £5 million out the door, and £3 million of that went to ADPs. Some of that money was for a separate improvement fund that people could apply for. There was also a grass-roots fund. We published information on how ADPs allocated that money, so that is available. We are currently gathering further information from ADPs and, again, we will make that available.

As for what we know about current capacity, earlier this year we published information on how, overall, the 20 facilities in Scotland were operating at about two-thirds capacity, so we know that there is capacity there to be utilised. I have given a commitment to return to Parliament with our milestones over the next five years. That is about how to improve access—and, as Ms Wells rightly points out, it is also about the extent to which we will improve capacity over the next five years. We will come to Parliament with much more detail on that.

Social isolation is also a public health issue. Committee members might be aware that a few years back the Government introduced a tackling isolation and loneliness strategy, and there is a range of investments and funds around that.

With regard to tackling drug-related deaths, I have to point to the lived experience and recovery community, because much of what they do is based on their own, real-life experience and the expertise that they bring to the community.

Mobilising the lived-experience community can help to reach people that services might struggle to reach. The relationship aspect of support is crucially important. The peer navigator system that Medics Against Violence have been strong proponents of in our prisons and hospitals is also really important. Peer navigators with lived experience from organisations such as Aid & Abet make contact with people when they come into police custody. All of that is about making connections and building relationships with people to support and help them in their onward journey, and it goes along with referring them to services.

Ms Mackay has made a really important point. Person-centred care lies at the core of this. We can get into areas of real complexity; I know that there are medication-assisted treatments, including methadone and Buvidal, that are geared towards opioid dependency and opioid substitution therapy, but we have to watch that we do not silo services. The number of deaths in which cocaine was the only implicated drug is comparatively small—I think about 16. We are therefore looking at cocaine in the context of poly-drug misuse. Because that picture is much more complex, we have to take action at the level of the individual, with services engaging with individuals as individuals first and foremost, and working out what support and help they need.

The point about cocaine is important, given the 23 per cent to 25 per cent increase in its implication in drug-related deaths. We have heard a lot about its purity increasing as well as its price being lowered, and in thinking about our approach to services, we also have to bear it in mind that cocaine use is more a feature among younger people. I realise that I am generalising, but it tends to be people over 25 who use opioids, whereas there has been a rise in cocaine use among younger people. As a result, some services will have to be age appropriate, given the different pattern of drug use among young people.

There are no easy answers. We need to think about whole packages of care and support and to get underneath the skin of the reasons why people use drugs and particular substances.

We know that stigma is a huge barrier to people accessing treatment, and that it has a huge impact on people’s wellbeing and on how people are treated in services and the community. Parliamentarians, as well as people in the media, care services and the wider public sector workforce, have a role to play in that situation.

Some of the work around a trauma-informed workforce is really important in this regard, too. Ms Harper raised an issue about the anti-stigma charter that has been developed by lived-experience representatives, in engagement with other lived-experience groups. The purpose of that charter is for it to be used by different organisations and services, and it can be adapted. I would describe the charter as having a core purpose, but it can be adapted to other services.

Part of the national naloxone campaign is about stigma. We are talking about lives that we can and must save, and here is how to do it. It is about engaging the wider population in what they can do, as part of the national mission, to help save lives. Later this year, we will report back to Parliament about a national campaign on stigma.

In relation to the quality assurance and quality improvement that will underpin the on-going work of MIST, when I introduce a target for treatment, which will be at the turn of the year, the indicators that underlie that target will relate to qualitative information that will be informed by our experience of implementing the MAT standards.

The average cost of a residential rehab placement is £17,000, although it is greater in some areas. The length of placements also varies. The residential development working group has looked at that in detail. I do not want to be prescriptive about the length of stay in residential care, which should be person-centred and flexible. As Ms Mackay said, we must recognise that there is a link between residential rehab and aftercare and that there is also a link to detoxification services. Some residential rehabilitation units have in-house detox; some do not. It is important always to think about the journey that people will take and the services, opportunities and care that they need on that journey.

We must stick with people. There is an important role for us in changing how our statutory, NHS and local government services work and how they meet the needs of people who struggle with drugs and the needs of their families.

The third sector has a valuable role. We have taken a belt and braces approach. As well as increasing the investment in ADPs, many of which will enter into agreements with the third sector, we have set up the four multiyear funds that are within the £18 million pot and are available to third sector organisations. The third sector is vital, along with our public services and the lived and living experience community. Those are the three strands of the partnership: the lived and living-experience community, the third sector and statutory services.

A lot would depend on the nature of the care that they are receiving. If we are talking specifically about medication-assisted treatment, that needs to be delivered by someone who is qualified to prescribe. The important thing about the medication-assisted treatment standards is that they make connections with other aspects of treatment—what is collectively known as psychosocial treatment and work to help people to address past trauma. A lot would depend on the type of care required and the type of care available in a local practice.

The funding arrangements for general practice sit with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and I assure you that he engages well and often with the GP community on the host of issues that flow from the GP contract. I have opportunities with the additional resource that we have to reduce drug-related deaths, but it is not prescriptive—I have not said that all that money goes to ADPs or the third sector. It is about investing in services and approaches where the evidence shows that lives can be saved.

I am absolutely committed to getting more information and data that will help us to improve our services and our offering. That will tie every step of our national mission to being based on evidence on the issues that we know exist in Scotland. I think that Paul O’Kane’s question is about how we link information and data. In very general terms, the annual report gives us some quite rich information about substances. That information is also available by local authority and month by month.

It is important that we are able to understand more about other health problems in the context of drug use, and about the involvement of other services. We have some of that information, so we know about such things as drug-related admissions to accident and emergency departments and psychiatric admissions, but there is a time lag in receiving that information. Some of our work with Public Health Scotland is on how to get that type of detailed information more quickly.

Notwithstanding the time lags, in time we can gather quite a lot of information that tells us about the circumstances of people’s tragic deaths. I suggest that we need to know more about people’s lives. Although some of the information that we gather absolutely connects with our lived and living experience strategy and people’s engagement with services locally, other data could tell us more about the lives that people lead, which could help us to shape services.

We also need more data in order to set the quality indicators that will underpin our treatment target.