Seòmar agus comataidhean

On your point about the evidence around heroin-assisted treatment, I should say that it is used more frequently in other countries—in Switzerland, for example, about 8 per cent of people with problem drug use receive it—and there are different models elsewhere that, arguably, are more cost effective. We have a very high-threshold model, partly because of Home Office regulations.

With regard to the national mission, I have been absolutely crystal clear about residential rehabilitation. It is not for everyone but, under my stewardship, we will invest £100 million in residential rehabilitation and aftercare and in improving pathways to accessing it.

The statistics—the evidence—show that more and more people are being publicly funded to access residential care. For me, it has always been a balanced ticket. We need to be serious about abstinence-based recovery and the option of residential rehabilitation, but we must also be fearless about harm reduction.

Accountability is important—I have never made an appearance in Parliament or in front of a committee without talking about accountability. It is probably the thing that I have spoken about most in my current role. I never walk away from my own accountability, and I am always open to scrutiny. We need accountability at each and every level. Families and service users are right to point out where it is not working, because, through our work on residential rehab and MAT standards, we now have more information than ever before about what is and is not working. As we progress with the national mission, we will sort what needs to be sorted.

I will talk about evaluation and the monitoring of resources, but first and foremost, I want to say, as a point of principle, that I do not hear many, if any, debates and discussions about the cost of treatment for other health conditions. It always seems to me that we have more in-depth discussions—or, if I can put it this way, more concerns are raised—about the cost of treating people with drug and alcohol problems. We have to move beyond that, because part of our problem relates to stigma and the perception that exists sometimes in our society that some people are deserving and others less so.

My starting point in all of this is to ensure the right treatment for the right person at the right time. Different treatments cost different amounts of money. There is a difference between the cost of methadone and the cost of Buvidal; residential rehabilitation is considered expensive by some people, and I think that it is fair to say that heroin-assisted treatment is expensive, too. However, I am determined to get the right treatment for the right person at the right time.

The HAT project will, of course, be evaluated by Glasgow Caledonian University, and that evaluation will put all the facts in one place. Heroin-assisted treatment works for some people. Indeed, there is an international evidence base showing that, for people who have very long histories of using, in this case, heroin and other substances and for whom other treatment has not been successful, this treatment provides an opportunity to stabilise them, engage with them and have a discussion about other supports that they might need. The evidence also shows that such treatment reduces the use of street drugs. If, as I have done, you have ever met parents who have lost a child, you will well understand that the priority is not necessarily the cost of a particular treatment, but whether the treatment will work for a particular individual.

I appreciate the opportunity to join the meeting and I commend the three committees that are involved for joining forces and ensuring that there is joined-up scrutiny of our national mission, which aims to be joined up throughout every tier of Government and across Government.

Members will be aware that our work in response to the task force pre-dates the publication of its vital final recommendations. Work on the implementation of MAT standards and on our national naloxone programme has preceded the task force’s final report. Committee members will also be aware that, in January, we published a full response to the task force’s 20 recommendations and 139 action points. As well as holding a debate in Parliament, I shared our response to the 139 action points with the relevant committees. Since then, we have endeavoured to keep the committees and Parliament fully informed about where we are.

Colleagues, particularly those on the Criminal Justice Committee, have been following the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill since January. That bill is of particular interest to me because it will put an end to prisoners being released on Fridays or before a public holiday, which will improve standards of throughcare. The bill will also change how we use bail.

Members will recall that I gave an update yesterday on the Government’s response to the rapid review of better ways to join up healthcare for people with co-occuring mental health and substance use conditions. As you would expect, I have met the Minister for Transport to work through some of the finer detail of the pilot of concessionary travel. We also continue to be very focused on the implementation of MAT standards. The committee will be well aware of the ministerial direction on that and of the monthly and quarterly reporting that different areas are subject to. I will update Parliament on that again in June.

We continue to make progress on access to residential rehabilitation, which is another pillar of the national mission. The monitoring report that Public Health Scotland published yesterday shows that, in the quarter from October to December last year, we had 228 statutorily funded residential rehab placements, which is the highest-ever number. That means that, over the lifetime of the national mission, we have funded more than 1,100 residential rehabilitation placements.

Our national mission reporting arrangements underlie all of that, and members will be aware of the outcome framework that we are working to. We also publish an annual report each year. The most recent one was published in August last year and there will be a further report later this year.

I have had many conversations with people over the piece in different formats. When I came into this post, I had a lot of introductory meetings but, given the independence of Police Scotland and the Crown Office, it is better to have a lot of the discussion at official to official level. The last thing that I would want to do would be to derail any plans or progress because it was perceived that I was interfering with the operational independence of Police Scotland or the Crown Office.

Do you mean every single project?

There is certainly publication around where the Corra Foundation money is allocated. That is publicly available, and I will double check how often it is published. There is a great deal of scrutiny of alcohol and drug partnerships, much of which is published, too, either quarterly or through our annual report.

That is fundamental to the work that I lead on MAT standards, residential rehabilitation and improving support for families. Accountability and scrutiny are important at every level. The Government must model that to demonstrate that we are accountable and will engage constructively with any critique or performance review, and that we expect to find that throughout the system.

We must use every lever that we have available to us, and some of that will involve more regular reporting. We have quarterly reporting of residential rehabilitation placements that details area by area where the placements are being funded, and we can see a general improvement across the country. Similarly, on MAT standards, some areas are subject to monthly reporting and others are subject to quarterly reporting. It is also about investment and our following that investment very closely. There is a belt-and-braces approach. There is much more rigorous scrutiny and regular reporting, but that is coupled with additional investment.

There is a hands-on approach. Given the nature of the portfolio, my officials are in regular engagement with each and every area, and I spend a lot of my time directly engaging with families and local services. I will give the example of the work of the medication-assisted treatment standards implementation support team. We are being pretty hands-on with that. It needs to implement and ensure that we have an acceptable standard of delivery irrespective of where an individual or a family resides, notwithstanding that some areas will need to do things a little differently.

On our investment in family-inclusive practice and the whole-family approach, money has been directed to ADPs, but money has also gone to third sector organisations via the Corra Foundation. Through our multi-agency expert delivery group, we are doing an audit of how ADPs have utilised that uplift. We are currently working through that.

I have been around Parliament and Government for a long time. When I came into this post, I very much brought with me work that had been done in and around social security experience panels, which was about how we build things from the ground up and meaningfully engage lived, living or, indeed, front-line experience, to help build a system or new services. Again, that needs to be core business not only in drugs policy but elsewhere because, ultimately, services will not be as effective as they should be if they are not built in collaboration with the people who are going to use them or need them. That sounds obvious but, historically, many of our systems, such the healthcare system, can be quite hierarchical. With no disrespect to the clinicians out there, there can be a bit of “Doctor knows best”.

Over the past five to 10 years, we have begun to see a shift in mindset. It is about cultural change, which is why the work of the national collaborative is really important at national level, as is the work locally. There is funding for work to take place at local level to meet our expectation that every area needs to engage with lived and living experience. It is a fundamental principle in our work to tackle stigma that those who are impacted by drugs and alcohol have an expertise, and it is not just about listening to their voice—they have a role to play in redesigning services. That actually makes sense for everybody.

My sense—it is just my sense—is that we are further away from the start of this journey and are now closer to a conclusion, although I appreciate that it is perhaps not the specificity for which Mr O’Kane and other colleagues are looking.

I will say, and I hope that this is reassuring for the committee to hear, that, given the journey that the task force underwent and the work in which the Crown Office and Police Scotland were involved, we have come to a point at which we as a country and with all our different partners understand what the evidence tells us.

The question that remains is ultimately one for the Lord Advocate, around what she can and cannot do within her powers around statements of public prosecution policy. Criminal Justice Committee members will remember the statement that the Lord Advocate made to the committee about the need for a “detailed and specific” proposition that the community and Police Scotland would buy into. That is what we have worked towards. I am not the arbitrator or the judge of that work—that duty lies with someone else—but, whatever the outcome of this journey, I will always look to get the right solutions in place.

So far, I have committed to and allocated an investment of almost £40 million for existing or new services. That investment touches upon seven services. Those are in Argyll and Bute; at Harper house in Ayrshire; in the Lothians and Edinburgh alcohol abstinence programme; and the new mother and child recovery house in Dundee. We recently announced funding for the north-east, where Phoenix Futures will take forward a project to address the needs of that area. There is also additional investment for Crossreach in Inverness. Those are among the seven distinct investments in new and existing services or projects. That £38 million will increase capacity by 40 per cent.

I am pleased to say that some of those new services are now up and running. We made a commitment to go from 425 to 650 beds. The investment thus far takes us to 600, with some of those beds already in use.

As well as increasing capacity, we are improving access. We wanted to ensure that the existing capacity within the system was being fully utilised. Our information is now a couple of years old, but some establishments were not full to capacity following lockdown. That is why we directed £5 million of funding for residential rehabilitation and aftercare to ADPs across the country. We should never forget aftercare, which is a crucial part of the whole-system approach.

I hope that is helpful.