Seòmar agus comataidhean

Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. I thank all committee members for their contributions to the debate. Drug and alcohol use in prison is a public health challenge as well as a justice challenge, and it is pleasing to hear so many members reflect that in their speeches. It is clear that members have given a lot of considered thought to the issue.

In the main, the recommendations in the committee’s report continue to take us in the direction in which we are travelling. There are others, though, that will require an incoming Administration to take them forward.

As the cabinet secretary said, we both welcomed the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee last September. That provided us with the opportunity to make the committee aware of some of the great work that has been carried out by the Scottish Prison Service and health staff to support those with drug or alcohol use issues, and I am pleased that the committee recognises those efforts. As I told the committee, although the number of people in prison who lose their lives from drug misuse is relatively small, two fifths of those in prison self-reported problematic drug use prior to imprisonment.

Many of the contributions have recognised the scale of alcohol-related need in prison. I am grateful for the briefing that came from SHAAP, and I look forward to meeting it to discuss the issues further before Parliament dissolves.

Prison should be somewhere where those issues are dealt with sensitively and effectively. As the Scottish Prison Service’s alcohol and drug strategy outlines, we need to treat substance use as a public health issue and ensure that the care that is provided in prison is, at the very minimum, equivalent to the care that is provided in the community.

We are driving improvement work for prison healthcare through a target operating model that includes improvements in actions for alcohol and drug services. The Public Health Scotland-based MAT implementation support team is also continuing to work to deliver a programme of support for justice and custodial settings. The standards reinforce a rights-based approach to the treatment that people should expect, regardless of the circumstances that they are in or where they are.

On recovery work, we are continuing to provide funding to the third sector to embed a person-centred, recovery-focused approach that benefits prisoners, families and staff. That continues into the transition and resettlement back into the community. Recovery initiatives are now in place across all prisons in Scotland, and I am pleased that the committee has recognised the importance of that work.

The committee has also recognised the importance of harm-reduction measures. In naloxone, we have a treatment that can reverse the effects of opiate overdose. We have expanded access to all prisons, and we are funding the Scottish Drugs Forum to deliver peer-to-peer naloxone supply for prisoners in the estate. We have also made national mission funding available to develop residential rehabilitation services and the associated aftercare that allows access to residential rehabilitation immediately on release from prison. It is for individual prisoners to consider whether that is a path that they want to follow, but, if it is one that they choose, we will fund that pathway.

As the national mission comes to an end, we remain committed to reducing harm and improving lives. We have been working closely with stakeholders, including people with lived and living experience, to develop a new alcohol and drugs strategy to follow the mission. The strategy will be published in the coming weeks, but I can say that our commitment in that area will be evident.

In closing, I repeat my thanks to the committee for its diligence in producing this considered and thoughtful report. I am pleased that it saw evidence from those who are directly affected, and that it visited establishments. It is clear from the tone of the report and from its recommendations that it strengthens our evidence base and drives work forward in this important area.

::Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. I thank all committee members for their contributions to the debate. Drug and alcohol use in prison is a public health challenge as well as a justice challenge, and it is pleasing to hear so many members reflect that in their speeches. It is clear that members have given a lot of considered thought to the issue.

In the main, the recommendations in the committee’s report continue to take us in the direction in which we are travelling. There are others, though, that will require an incoming Administration to take them forward.

As the cabinet secretary said, we both welcomed the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee last September. That provided us with the opportunity to make the committee aware of some of the great work that has been carried out by the Scottish Prison Service and health staff to support those with drug or alcohol use issues, and I am pleased that the committee recognises those efforts. As I told the committee, although the number of people in prison who lose their lives from drug misuse is relatively small, two fifths of those in prison self-reported problematic drug use prior to imprisonment.

Many of the contributions have recognised the scale of alcohol-related need in prison. I am grateful for the briefing that came from SHAAP, and I look forward to meeting it to discuss the issues further before Parliament dissolves.

Prison should be somewhere where those issues are dealt with sensitively and effectively. As the Scottish Prison Service’s alcohol and drug strategy outlines, we need to treat substance use as a public health issue and ensure that the care that is provided in prison is, at the very minimum, equivalent to the care that is provided in the community.

We are driving improvement work for prison healthcare through a target operating model that includes improvements in actions for alcohol and drug services. The Public Health Scotland-based MAT implementation support team is also continuing to work to deliver a programme of support for justice and custodial settings. The standards reinforce a rights-based approach to the treatment that people should expect, regardless of the circumstances that they are in or where they are.

On recovery work, we are continuing to provide funding to the third sector to embed a person-centred, recovery-focused approach that benefits prisoners, families and staff. That continues into the transition and resettlement back into the community. Recovery initiatives are now in place across all prisons in Scotland, and I am pleased that the committee has recognised the importance of that work.

The committee has also recognised the importance of harm-reduction measures. In naloxone, we have a treatment that can reverse the effects of opiate overdose. We have expanded access to all prisons, and we are funding the Scottish Drugs Forum to deliver peer-to-peer naloxone supply for prisoners in the estate. We have also made national mission funding available to develop residential rehabilitation services and the associated aftercare that allows access to residential rehabilitation immediately on release from prison. It is for individual prisoners to consider whether that is a path that they want to follow, but, if it is one that they choose, we will fund that pathway.

As the national mission comes to an end, we remain committed to reducing harm and improving lives. We have been working closely with stakeholders, including people with lived and living experience, to develop a new alcohol and drugs strategy to follow the mission. The strategy will be published in the coming weeks, but I can say that our commitment in that area will be evident.

In closing, I repeat my thanks to the committee for its diligence in producing this considered and thoughtful report. I am pleased that it saw evidence from those who are directly affected, and that it visited establishments. It is clear from the tone of the report and from its recommendations that it strengthens our evidence base and drives work forward in this important area.

::Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. I thank all committee members for their contributions to the debate. Drug and alcohol use in prison is a public health challenge as well as a justice challenge, and it is pleasing to hear so many members reflect that in their speeches. It is clear that members have given a lot of considered thought to the issue.

In the main, the recommendations in the committee’s report continue to take us in the direction in which we are travelling. There are others, though, that will require an incoming Administration to take them forward.

As the cabinet secretary said, we both welcomed the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee last September. That provided us with the opportunity to make the committee aware of some of the great work that has been carried out by the Scottish Prison Service and health staff to support those with drug or alcohol use issues, and I am pleased that the committee recognises those efforts. As I told the committee, although the number of people in prison who lose their lives from drug misuse is relatively small, two fifths of those in prison self-reported problematic drug use prior to imprisonment.

Many of the contributions have recognised the scale of alcohol-related need in prison. I am grateful for the briefing that came from SHAAP, and I look forward to meeting it to discuss the issues further before Parliament dissolves.

Prison should be somewhere where those issues are dealt with sensitively and effectively. As the Scottish Prison Service’s alcohol and drug strategy outlines, we need to treat substance use as a public health issue and ensure that the care that is provided in prison is, at the very minimum, equivalent to the care that is provided in the community.

We are driving improvement work for prison healthcare through a target operating model that includes improvements in actions for alcohol and drug services. The Public Health Scotland-based MAT implementation support team is also continuing to work to deliver a programme of support for justice and custodial settings. The standards reinforce a rights-based approach to the treatment that people should expect, regardless of the circumstances that they are in or where they are.

On recovery work, we are continuing to provide funding to the third sector to embed a person-centred, recovery-focused approach that benefits prisoners, families and staff. That continues into the transition and resettlement back into the community. Recovery initiatives are now in place across all prisons in Scotland, and I am pleased that the committee has recognised the importance of that work.

The committee has also recognised the importance of harm-reduction measures. In naloxone, we have a treatment that can reverse the effects of opiate overdose. We have expanded access to all prisons, and we are funding the Scottish Drugs Forum to deliver peer-to-peer naloxone supply for prisoners in the estate. We have also made national mission funding available to develop residential rehabilitation services and the associated aftercare that allows access to residential rehabilitation immediately on release from prison. It is for individual prisoners to consider whether that is a path that they want to follow, but, if it is one that they choose, we will fund that pathway.

As the national mission comes to an end, we remain committed to reducing harm and improving lives. We have been working closely with stakeholders, including people with lived and living experience, to develop a new alcohol and drugs strategy to follow the mission. The strategy will be published in the coming weeks, but I can say that our commitment in that area will be evident.

In closing, I repeat my thanks to the committee for its diligence in producing this considered and thoughtful report. I am pleased that it saw evidence from those who are directly affected, and that it visited establishments. It is clear from the tone of the report and from its recommendations that it strengthens our evidence base and drives work forward in this important area.

::I absolutely agree that a creative response is at the heart of the issue, as Gillian Mackay and George Adam have said. Clubs need to look at what they can manage. It is a delicate question of keeping tickets affordable but also keeping clubs alive. The answer to the question of whether football ticket prices in Scotland are becoming too expensive for ordinary supporters is, clearly, not a simple yes or no.

Football in this country has always thrived because of full stands, local identities and the roar of passionate communities. I am passionate about football—indeed, about sport—being accessible to everyone, where communities gather, where young supporters fall in love with the sport and, ideally, where no one feels that they are being priced out. Football belongs to the people—the families who save up for season tickets and the kids who dream in club colours. Protecting accessibility is not just good economics but essential to the soul of the Scottish game.

It has been interesting and helpful to hear the views of members on this important issue. However, we also need fan groups and football authorities to contribute to what is an important debate. I therefore propose that we add the topic to next Monday’s agenda for the round-table event on enhancing Scottish football, which I chair and on which Gillian Mackay sits, so that we can have a full and open discussion.

Let us support our clubs but also champion the supporters, who are the lifeblood of Scottish football.

::Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. In Scotland, football is more than a sport. It is a cultural anchor—a weekly ritual that is passed from generation to generation—that makes a significant economic contribution to society.

Gillian Mackay referenced the recent independent academic research by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which revealed that Scottish football contributes £820 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy and supports more than 14,000 jobs. The former figure includes fan spend that is related to matches across the country, with attendances at professional football matches involving a Scottish team in the 2023-24 season topping an incredible 6.8 million. Those figures clearly demonstrate the significant contribution that Scottish football makes to society, which is hugely encouraging.

Supporting a team regularly involves a significant commitment in time and money, whether fans attend only home games as a season ticket holder or they follow their team home and away every week. In Scotland, season ticket prices for home fans in the Scottish Premiership this season vary greatly, from £225 at Livingston to £608 at Celtic. Gillian Mackay is correct to say that there are no set ticket price caps for away fans, and that prices can exceed £30 a ticket, but that is not always the case, with tickets for five of the six Scottish Premiership games this weekend costing £30 or less.

It is important to note that the SPFL rules require that visiting supporters cannot be charged more than home supporters for a similar seat, and that pricing discrimination between home and away supporters is prohibited. It should therefore not be the case that visiting fans are being unfairly treated compared with home fans.

That is also not an issue below the premiership. Outside the top tier, it is commonplace for clubs to offer tickets below £25 to attract supporters. At Arbroath Football Club, for example, terraced away adult tickets cost £21 or £22 this season. Last Friday night, St Johnstone fans paid £24 for a ticket to see their team at Raith Rovers. In the women’s game, prices are much cheaper, with the average Scottish Women’s Premier League match this season costing £9.10 for an adult.

Scottish clubs already actively implement a wide range of pricing initiatives and incentives to ensure that football remains accessible to supporters of all ages and backgrounds. Those measures illustrate that clubs are responsive to affordability concerns, and it is in their interests to be so. This year, for a second consecutive season, Hibs ran its football for a fiver initiative for the club’s fixture against Motherwell in January, at which the offering of tickets at £5 to both home and away supporters led to a full stadium. St Mirren has a grass-roots and family offer. Aberdeen has had a season ticket price freeze for two seasons. Many clubs operate schemes to encourage family attendance, such as the one at St Johnstone that Brian Whittle described.

In the English Premier League, which is the richest league in the world and does not rely on gate receipts to anywhere near the same extent as the leagues in Scotland, there has been a price cap of £30 for away fans since the 2016-17 season, and Premier League clubs have agreed another extension through the 2026-27 season. However, that cap is only for that league—it does not apply to the tiers below in the English Football League, where away ticket prices vary significantly and can exceed £40 for higher-demand games. Interestingly, the cap does not apply for cup games, either, which would be equivalent to the ones that Ms Mackay mentioned.

It is also important to note that there is no price cap for home fans in the English Premier League. The cost of adult season tickets at Arsenal, for example, ranges from £900 to more than £2,000. At Everton, season ticket prices range from £640 to £900, and at Bournemouth this season, adult season tickets cost between £423 and £1,164, so although away ticket prices are capped in the Premier League, home fans pay a premium.

Football is substantially cheaper in Scotland than in England, but I absolutely appreciate that cheaper is not necessarily the same as affordable, and affordability is at the heart of the matter. Supporters’ groups have been vocal on the issue, and I have sympathy with the twenty’s plenty campaign. However, clubs have their own challenges. Operating costs have surged—from energy bills to stadium maintenance to the cost of improving squads. Simply lowering prices is not always economically sustainable for SPFL clubs.

Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. In Scotland, football is more than a sport. It is a cultural anchor—a weekly ritual that is passed from generation to generation—that makes a significant economic contribution to society.

Gillian Mackay referenced the recent independent academic research by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which revealed that Scottish football contributes £820 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy and supports more than 14,000 jobs. The former figure includes fan spend that is related to matches across the country, with attendances at professional football matches involving a Scottish team in the 2023-24 season topping an incredible 6.8 million. Those figures clearly demonstrate the significant contribution that Scottish football makes to society, which is hugely encouraging.

Supporting a team regularly involves a significant commitment in time and money, whether fans attend only home games as a season ticket holder or they follow their team home and away every week. In Scotland, season ticket prices for home fans in the Scottish Premiership this season vary greatly, from £225 at Livingston to £608 at Celtic. Gillian Mackay is correct to say that there are no set ticket price caps for away fans, and that prices can exceed £30 a ticket, but that is not always the case, with tickets for five of the six Scottish Premiership games this weekend costing £30 or less.

It is important to note that the SPFL rules require that visiting supporters cannot be charged more than home supporters for a similar seat, and that pricing discrimination between home and away supporters is prohibited. It should therefore not be the case that visiting fans are being unfairly treated compared with home fans.

That is also not an issue below the premiership. Outside the top tier, it is commonplace for clubs to offer tickets below £25 to attract supporters. At Arbroath Football Club, for example, terraced away adult tickets cost £21 or £22 this season. Last Friday night, St Johnstone fans paid £24 for a ticket to see their team at Raith Rovers. In the women’s game, prices are much cheaper, with the average Scottish Women’s Premier League match this season costing £9.10 for an adult.

Scottish clubs already actively implement a wide range of pricing initiatives and incentives to ensure that football remains accessible to supporters of all ages and backgrounds. Those measures illustrate that clubs are responsive to affordability concerns, and it is in their interests to be so. This year, for a second consecutive season, Hibs ran its football for a fiver initiative for the club’s fixture against Motherwell in January, at which the offering of tickets at £5 to both home and away supporters led to a full stadium. St Mirren has a grass-roots and family offer. Aberdeen has had a season ticket price freeze for two seasons. Many clubs operate schemes to encourage family attendance, such as the one at St Johnstone that Brian Whittle described.

In the English Premier League, which is the richest league in the world and does not rely on gate receipts to anywhere near the same extent as the leagues in Scotland, there has been a price cap of £30 for away fans since the 2016-17 season, and Premier League clubs have agreed another extension through the 2026-27 season. However, that cap is only for that league—it does not apply to the tiers below in the English Football League, where away ticket prices vary significantly and can exceed £40 for higher-demand games. Interestingly, the cap does not apply for cup games, either, which would be equivalent to the ones that Ms Mackay mentioned.

It is also important to note that there is no price cap for home fans in the English Premier League. The cost of adult season tickets at Arsenal, for example, ranges from £900 to more than £2,000. At Everton, season ticket prices range from £640 to £900, and at Bournemouth this season, adult season tickets cost between £423 and £1,164, so although away ticket prices are capped in the Premier League, home fans pay a premium.

Football is substantially cheaper in Scotland than in England, but I absolutely appreciate that cheaper is not necessarily the same as affordable, and affordability is at the heart of the matter. Supporters’ groups have been vocal on the issue, and I have sympathy with the twenty’s plenty campaign. However, clubs have their own challenges. Operating costs have surged—from energy bills to stadium maintenance to the cost of improving squads. Simply lowering prices is not always economically sustainable for SPFL clubs.

I absolutely agree that a creative response is at the heart of the issue, as Gillian Mackay and George Adam have said. Clubs need to look at what they can manage. It is a delicate question of keeping tickets affordable but also keeping clubs alive. The answer to the question of whether football ticket prices in Scotland are becoming too expensive for ordinary supporters is, clearly, not a simple yes or no.

Football in this country has always thrived because of full stands, local identities and the roar of passionate communities. I am passionate about football—indeed, about sport—being accessible to everyone, where communities gather, where young supporters fall in love with the sport and, ideally, where no one feels that they are being priced out. Football belongs to the people—the families who save up for season tickets and the kids who dream in club colours. Protecting accessibility is not just good economics but essential to the soul of the Scottish game.

It has been interesting and helpful to hear the views of members on this important issue. However, we also need fan groups and football authorities to contribute to what is an important debate. I therefore propose that we add the topic to next Monday’s agenda for the round-table event on enhancing Scottish football, which I chair and on which Gillian Mackay sits, so that we can have a full and open discussion.

Let us support our clubs but also champion the supporters, who are the lifeblood of Scottish football.

The Scottish Government extends its deepest sympathies to all families affected by DVT and PE, and we recognise the importance of strengthening early identification.

National health service boards are responsible for developing and maintaining local clinical pathways to support safe and effective assessment of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Clinical guidance is being kept under review, and SIGN 122 is currently on the programme for review. We remain committed to supporting best practice and improving awareness so that tragic experiences such as those that Fulton MacGregor has described are avoided in future.

We expect national health service boards to provide safe, person-centred care for people with postural tachycardia syndrome.

Although responsibility for specific clinical pathways lies with NHS boards, we have allocated more than £137 million to boards this year to help tackle the longest waits for appointments and procedures. That sum includes more than £500,000 for cardiology and £500,000 for neurology, which are the specialties most likely to support people with postural tachycardia syndrome.

I have every sympathy with postural tachycardia syndrome patients and the challenges that they face, and we want patients to receive all the support which they are entitled to.

Primary care teams play a key role in recognising and assessing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Those teams have access to Healthcare Improvement Scotland tools that support evidence-based care for patients at risk, and the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network—SIGN—provides guidance on preventing and managing venous thromboembolism, which primary care and other clinicians can use.

Members of the public can find information on NHS Inform, and the Scottish Government has endorsed Thrombosis UK’s leaflets online. Those resources support awareness and timely assessment. Anyone with symptoms of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism should seek clinical advice promptly.