Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

Good afternoon, minister. I hope that it goes without saying that I realise that the challenge is huge and complex. I am interested in the overdose prevention safety issue. I have hosted Nanna Gotfredsen, who is a street lawyer from Denmark who pioneered that country’s drugs policy and has been influential in the debate in Scotland.

There have been quite a few exchanges on the subject—you probably heard the comments from the UK Minister of State for Crime and Policing at yesterday’s meeting. In response to Gillian Martin’s line of questioning, the minister of state seemed to put across that he is concerned that, if the 1971 act were to be reviewed to include the ability to pilot safe consumption rooms, that would send out the wrong message. Will you respond to that?

Yesterday, we heard from the United Kingdom Minister for Crime and Policing, Kit Malthouse, and a number of us had an exchange on this subject. He said that it is a very complex issue. As you know, our Lord Advocate might consider the question and she is already consulting the police and so on. Kit Malthouse asked, “If we set up an overdose prevention site in Govan, would you arrest someone who was travelling to Govan from Edinburgh?” I think that there is quite a simple answer to that, but I want to ask you, as a former chief constable.

In Glasgow, we had tolerance zones for what was then called street prostitution. It is not complex, to my mind. If you set up a zone in which you disapply the law, anyone outside that zone would be breaking the law. Is it your view that the question is too complex? I know that you support the setting up of tolerance zones. The minister who is in charge of the 1971 act says that it is really complex. I am not sure that I agree with that.

The minister of state went on to say that he thinks that there are complex questions that need to be answered if we are to legislate in that way. I recognise that, ideally, reform of the 1971 act would be the best position—for other reasons, as well.

As the minister said, provision of safe drug consumption facilities is not a magic bullet. Nothing is. However, the Lord Advocate is on the record saying that she will consider whether it might be in the public interest. It would be complex for any Lord Advocate to make a decision about whether, in the public interest, you would not prosecute under the 1971 act in certain areas if it was a public health issue and prevented deaths. My question is twofold. Do you think that those complexities can be overcome? If the Lord Advocate—who is yet to make a decision—were to make a decision in that vein, would it negate the immediate necessity to reform the 1971 act, because it would have the same effect?

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr Strang, and thank you for the work that you are doing.

My question continues on the law reform issue and is about the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the possibility of creating safe consumption rooms to prevent deaths. You said that it is important to explain to people what we are doing in any reform. In 2018, I hosted a visit by Nanna Gotfredsen, a street lawyer from Denmark who led the charge in the Danish Parliament to change policy on safe consumption rooms. She is very much behind what is going on in Glasgow. I have researched the issue and found that there are 66 cities with such rooms where, apparently, there have been no deaths and there is no evidence of increased drug use.

Do you agree that it is important to have credible evidence on the issue so that we can make a judgment about whether safe consumption rooms are one of the tools that we can use to stop deaths?

I am sorry, convener—the connection cut out for a second.

Do you accept that the evidence so far suggests that establishing DCRs does not send out the wrong message? The evidence that I have seen shows that it does not tend to encourage further drug use.

I totally agree with you that there are questions about how the police would address the situation that you mentioned, but that could be dealt with. I suppose that the Lord Advocate—or, indeed, anyone else—would have to wrestle with a decision on what guidance would be issued in order to address that. I accept that it is complicated, but do you not agree that it could be done?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, minister, and thank you for appearing before us. I will press you further on safe drug consumption rooms. That is not because I do not agree with everything else that you say. I get the point that you make, but there are 66 cities throughout the world with consumption rooms and there have been no deaths at the sites that Gillian Mackay referred to. Moreover, 300 health professionals in England and Wales signed a letter after the Health and Social Care Committee at Westminster called for the introduction of drug consumption rooms.

Are you aware that the Lord Advocate in Scotland, Dorothy Bain, has said on the record that, if she is asked to consider the question in the context of public health and rising deaths, she will deliver a decision about whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute people who use in safe consumption rooms? As you said, minister, there are complicated questions, but such questions can be answered in law. To me, it is clear that we can clarify that, in the example that you gave in Govan, in the public interest and in order to save lives, the law would not be applied in designated areas.

I am happy to support what the convener and Russell Findlay have said, but we need to review whether we should keep any petition open for such a long time. I am content for the time being, but I wanted to point that out.

I do not think that it is necessary to write to the Scottish Government. There is a judicial process and we are being asked to wait and see whether the family decide to lodge an appeal, which they are legally entitled to do. We should leave it at that.