The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-11849, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on “New Psychoactive Substances Needs Assessment for Tayside, 2014”. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the report, New Psychoactive Substances Needs Assessment for Tayside, 2014, by NHS Tayside, which states that there are now over 350 substances that the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is aware of and over 650 websites in Europe that market new psychoactive substances (NPS) to consumers; understands that, in 2013, NPS were found to be a potential contributor to 60 drug deaths in Scotland; acknowledges the concerns of community groups in places such as Aberdeen, Arbroath and Montrose about the potential impact of NPS and the retail premises that sell them; commends the work of these community groups and agencies in raising awareness of the potential dangers of using NPS, and notes the hopes of many that this work will be taken forward locally and nationally to reduce the availability and consumption of NPS.
17:38
The life of an MSP rarely goes quiet, but if there is one time of year when people have better things to think of, it is between Christmas and new year’s eve. That is why, last year, I was surprised to receive an urgent call in that period.
It was as a result of that call that I found myself attending a packed public meeting in Arbroath. The purpose of the meeting, which had been organised by local community activists, was to highlight concerns about the use of new psychoactive substances—so-called “legal highs”—especially among young people in the area. One of the major concerns was not just the potential effects of those products but the fact that they were so readily available in a number of retail premises in the town.
Since that meeting, things have come a long way. A campaign group was formed in Arbroath, followed by others in Montrose and Aberdeen. Those groups decided to work together. They harnessed social media and subsequently joined other, similar groups south of the border.
The problem is an on-going and constantly evolving one. The manufacturers can quickly change the chemical make-up of these products, meaning that they are always one step ahead of the law. The effects of new psychoactive substances and the prevalence of NPS in our communities can be hard to pin down. That is why the report, “New Psychoactive Substances Needs Assessment for Tayside, 2014” and the large-scale survey on which it is based are such a welcome contribution to the on-going debate on this serious issue.
New psychoactive substances are designed to mimic the effects of existing illegal drugs—or it is claimed that they do so. The range of adverse effects from taking them includes palpitations, agitation, vomiting, seizures, headaches, chest pain, insomnia, sweating, hypertension and delusions. Worse still, as NHS Tayside said in its report,
“users experienced mental health impacts such as paranoia, anxiety and psychotic symptoms while under the influence of NPS.”
A worrying long-term issue is that users have reported dependency developing while on NPS, tolerance of these substances and withdrawal symptoms. As is so often the case, the substances can also make users vulnerable when they become confused and lacking in self-awareness.
Given that wide range of deeply concerning effects, many members will find it astonishing that NPS can be purchased from retail premises in our towns. That gives the substances a veneer of legality that masks the potentially appalling effects of consumption. All too often, toxicology tests on products that are being sold as plant food, bath salts and even incense show that they contain a cocktail of potentially harmful substances, some of which might be illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which leaves the purchaser and the seller open to legal action and a criminal record—if only that happened more often.
When things go wrong, there are knock-on effects on public resources. According to the report, in the majority of cases assistance was sought from the Scottish Ambulance Service. The number of incidents involving NPS has increased consistently since January 2012. As we know, help is also regularly sought from accident and emergency departments, general practitioners and mental health services.
The growing awareness of the dangers of taking new psychoactive substances is to be welcomed, but much remains to be done. There are opportunities to examine the reporting methods used in incidents in which it is suspected that substances have been taken, to look at how users or potential users can be educated about the risks, and to review how organisations such as the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom Government, Police Scotland and the national health service work alongside key partners to maximise awareness of how dangerous the substances are, until such time as the legal loopholes are closed and it is illegal to sell them.
I am reassured that the results of the survey reflect not only the discussions with professional and community groups but what I was told at that meeting more than a year ago and have consistently been told since then. Most respondents to the survey expressed a wish for additional help and support to be available to people who take NPS. The majority wanted awareness to be raised of the dangers of and potential damage associated with NPS, with emphasis on the requirement for more education.
Respondents also wanted to see more availability of support services for NPS users. Some respondents suggested that there should be readily accessible drop-in services or a dedicated NPS service.
The member said that he is looking forward to it becoming illegal to sell NPS. Is he suggesting that there should be a more robust licensing system at local authority level?
As the member is aware, it would not be appropriate for me to make requirements of Government during a members’ business debate. However, it is important that the UK Government and Scottish Government move forward together and ensure that both Parliaments legislate to deal with areas for which they are responsible. That includes action by the Westminster Parliament to make the substances illegal when that is possible, as well as action by this Parliament that will enable local authorities and police forces to take greater action on the ground to close down the shops that have been identified.
I pay tribute to the grass-roots community campaigns that sprang up in response to growing concern about the issue. Their voices have been heard loud and clear, and they continue to move towards their ultimate goal of closing the head shops and banning the so-called legal highs that they sell, making sure that they get them off the streets. I welcome this report and I see it as being hugely influential in the campaign. I commend the authors and those who took part in the survey for the work that they have done.
17:45
The “New Psychoactive Substances Needs Assessment for Tayside, 2014” report makes informative reading and I commend Alex Johnstone for bringing it before the chamber for debate.
It would be impossible to cover every relevant aspect of the report in four minutes, so I will focus on ease of access to NPS and what is being done to disrupt that in the part of Tayside that I represent.
Although there are 650 websites across Europe selling NPS, the report indicated that not only did most people first experience these products through friends or so-called head shops but supply after that introduction was predominantly through shops. People accessed NPS in the first instance directly from shops rather than from the internet by a margin of 6 to 1. When it came to subsequent, on-going usage, the ratio was about 4 to 1.
There is painful, real-life experience to support those figures. Angus woman Laura McKay, who lost her brother Michael to NPS abuse last year, made a very telling and touching contribution to a recent newspaper article on the subject. Refuting suggestions that head shops are doing nothing other than providing the same service that is available online, she made the extremely valid point that if people want NPS, they are not going to wait for an internet delivery if there is a readily available supply close at hand.
The report highlighted the influence of the presence of head shops in our communities, revealing a widely held view about the role that ready access plays in NPS as well as the techniques used by those premises to encourage the purchase of NPS. The report specifically suggests that the fact that so-called legal highs can be purchased from shops gives them legitimacy.
Interestingly, the report says that there is an apparently “strong appetite” among NPS users and people who know users to ban head shops, the reasoning being that by removing the shops from our midst, temptation would be reduced. They undoubtedly have a point. Of the 34 NPS seized by Police Scotland across Tayside between May and July last year, 21 are known to have been purchased from one of seven head shops that were operating within the region at that time.
The good news is that some of those premises are leaving our communities—although the Montrose premises in Nigel Don’s constituency remains open, both shops in Arbroath have closed their doors. That is down in no small measure to the work of Police Scotland.
This is a hugely challenging area for the police. In the absence of tried and tested paths to deal with those who bring these substances into our communities, the police must think outside the box, and they are doing just that. Around a year ago, as the local MSP, I was allowed to sit in on a Police Scotland mini-conference in Arbroath, at which officers from Strathclyde met up with colleagues from Angus to compare approaches to the problem.
What struck me most about what I heard, including in answer to the questions that I posed, was the determination of officers to tackle the matter head on. In that regard, I commend absolutely the action that was taken in early 2014 by local officers, under the command of Chief Inspector Gordon Milne, to seize more than £2,600 in cash from the owner of a shop selling NPS in Arbroath.
The officers concerned took that action with no certainty of being backed up by the full force of the law. It was therefore heartening for them and is surely to be welcomed by this chamber that the Crown Office supported seizure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and forfeiture was subsequently granted, setting a positive precedent and one that proved to be more than a shot across the bows for those peddling so-called legal highs. The head shop in question has now followed another that was set up in Arbroath and has now closed its doors.
Members all too often hear criticism being levelled at Police Scotland and its approach to certain issues. I hope that on this occasion we can unite in commending the efforts of Police Scotland in Angus in seeking to rid our communities of ready access to NPS and that we can all support Chief Inspector Milne, who told the Arbroath Herald newspaper just before Christmas:
“the supply of these substances from shops in our towns and in ways which entice young and vulnerable people to experiment and consume these substances is morally reprehensible and should be stopped.”
The seizure of the money attracted media coverage. However, it is only the tip of the iceberg of the work that is being done by the police—along with the Procurator Fiscal Service and trading standards—in the area of Scotland that I, Nigel Don, Alex Johnstone, Alison McInnes and Jenny Marra represent. Much of what is going on, such as the shaping of potential future approaches aimed at making life extremely uncomfortable, if not impossible, for the traders in NPS, understandably takes place away from the public gaze. However, I understand that an individual from Angus has recently been charged with eight counts relating to the trafficking of NPS. If the case proceeds to trial and ends in conviction, that will send the strongest possible deterrent message to those who are peddling NPS in our communities.
I am sure that members on all sides of the chamber will be watching with interest to see how the situation unfolds.
17:51
I am particularly pleased to participate in this members’ business debate on the NHS Tayside report on new psychoactive substances, as I have previously worked in and around addiction services. I thank Alex Johnstone for bringing the debate to the chamber.
Although there is much media and political interest in new psychoactive substances, there is currently very little robust data on prevalence or patterns of use, which makes it difficult to assess the need to deliver health prevention interventions.
I try to keep up to date in the area of addictions, but I was not aware of the full picture on NPS until the Parliament’s cross-party group on drug and alcohol misuse invited along representatives from agencies and a Glasgow consultant specialising in NPS addiction and treatment to speak at one of its meetings.
It was pretty horrific to say the least, as the consultant gave a blow-by-blow account of his day-to-day work with some of the young people who came to his hospital for treatment. The addiction, which sometimes led to death, was traumatic not only for the young people but for their parents, who had to watch them going through the process.
However, the appearance of novel substances is itself not new. Until 2009, most of the NPS products that emerged were typically sold on the illicit market and were considered to be an area of limited significance. The open sale of NPS marked the start of what is now called the legal highs market. It was facilitated by advances in technology and by globalisation. The internet has provided a platform for information on NPS and made them more widely available, which, combined with ease of distribution and delivery, has had a significant impact.
Those factors, together with changes in the price, purity and availability of similar, more traditional illicit drugs, created a perfect storm that enabled the NPS market to establish itself in Scotland and in the UK as a whole. The range of new substances, and the rate at which they appear, mean that we need to understand the situation and respond differently from how we might have done in the past.
NPS are designed and produced to mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy, albeit that they are created with a different chemical structure to avoid their being controlled under the current legislation.
In the five years since the introduction of European-wide controls, the number of new psychoactive drugs has continued to grow. In Scotland, the level of use is much higher than it is among our European counterparts. There is very little robust data on the prevalence of NPS in Scotland; however, according to the National Records of Scotland, there were 581 drug deaths in Scotland in 2012. In addition, the NHS Tayside report states that NPS was found to be a potential contributor to 60 drug deaths in Scotland in 2013.
Legal highs will become an even greater problem in the future, so the Scottish Government needs to take steps to establish a clear message in our schools and among the wider public of the dangers of NPS.
NPS use results in a cost to society. The total economic and social cost of illicit drug use in Scotland was estimated in 2006 to be just under £3.5 billion per year, with heroin holding the largest share of the market.
In conclusion, the new thinking on the issue, and the refreshed approach, are both timely, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in commending the work of the community groups and support agencies that raise awareness of the potential dangers of using NPS.
17:54
I, too, am grateful to Alex Johnstone for bringing this important issue to the chamber and for the work that he has done on it. Comparatively little is known about the use, impact and perceptions of new psychoactive substances or NPS. That is why research such as the comprehensive assessment by NHS Tayside, which was compiled on behalf of the three local alcohol and drug partnerships, is so valuable. I am impressed that the research drew on the expertise of professionals, sought the insight of community groups and collected some 700 survey responses. It was one of the largest such exercises ever conducted by NHS Tayside’s public health department. The engagement with 120 people with direct experience of using NPS was particularly worth while and illuminating, as their experience and perspective are essential to developing evidence-based responses.
The report will assist in monitoring local trends and identifying appropriate harm-reduction messages and measures. Members have highlighted some of its most significant observations. For example, one is that people are most commonly introduced to NPS between the ages of 16 and 19. Another is that almost 60 per cent of people always take the substances alongside other substances, which range from alcohol to cocaine. Another is that many people have sought emergency medical help for acute mental and physical symptoms that are associated with NPS use, such as psychosis, paranoia and seizures.
I was interested to read in the report that there is a “strong appetite” among customers and the wider public for so-called head shops to be banned, which they believe could “reduce temptation”. That reflects the views of a number of my constituents who are troubled by the emergence of such shops on their high streets. As the public face of an otherwise shadowy international industry, the shops in my North East Scotland region—in Aberdeen, Arbroath and Montrose—have understandably attracted attention and been the focus of significant public concern.
The shops are unmistakable. One even opened just a couple of doors down from the St Andrew’s church drop-in centre for people contending with alcohol or drug addiction. The situation has led to the formation of campaign groups such as Arbroath and Montrose against legal highs. People across Scotland are understandably asking how retail premises can openly display drugs paraphernalia and sell untested psychoactive substances. Despite the professional-looking packaging of NPS, those who buy them are often oblivious to their legality, strength, purity and effect. Just because they are sold as legal, that does not mean that they are safe. Police Scotland advises that analysis of drug-related deaths in Scotland in 2013 revealed that NPS were found to be present in the person’s body in 113 cases and were found to have been implicated in the person’s death in 60 of those cases, as Anne McTaggart mentioned.
Premises in Tayside were recently investigated by the police as part of operation carinate, which was a local response to the trafficking, distribution and consumption of NPS. As we heard, that led to thousands of pounds being forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Yesterday, the Evening Telegraph reported that the owner of three shops has said that it is unlikely that he will continue to sell new psychoactive substances. I am sure that my constituents will welcome that news, which is testament to their determined campaigning and co-ordinated action and to the police’s determination to take action.
The assessment and recent events in Tayside prove the importance of local partnerships and a multi-agency approach to NPS that involves the police, the Crown Office, health services, local authorities and trading standards officers. However, my constituents are also looking to both of Scotland’s Governments to ensure that the law is effective in the face of this new, reckless and volatile industry. That is why I am pleased that Liberal Democrats in the UK Government recently led a review of NPS and that the Scottish Government has identified the issue as a ministerial priority.
In developing practical and sustainable NPS policy, we must listen to communities and front-line professionals, from health workers to youth workers. That is the only way to ensure that they have the tools that they need to bring about change and improve early intervention, education and enforcement.
17:59
I thank Alex Johnstone for bringing this extremely important and timely debate to the Parliament. In the previous debate on the subject, which was on 6 February last year, we were to an extent floundering because of the lack of information. However, since then, the two reports that I have in my hand, which members will have consulted, have significantly informed us, which is useful in its own right.
As members have commented, much of the information in the reports is extremely useful. However, one problem is that most of the information that we have is second hand. That is an important aspect of researching anything. I noticed with some pleasure that the Hot Chocolate Trust in Dundee provided some of the information. As a former trustee of that organisation, I think that it is well placed to know what its clients are saying and will have passed that on very well. Of course, although much of the information is second hand, much of it should be treated with considerable respect, and I am happy to do so.
As others have said, most people first experience such drugs when given them by friends or after finding them in shops. That is why it is extraordinarily important that we get rid of the shops. I am therefore pleased that active groups across our constituencies—I refer to Montrose in particular—have been highlighting the issue.
We know that the drugs can be dangerous, but it is only when we have someone in front of us with experience of the danger that they present that that means something to us. I remember a man from Aberdeen telling me how his partner had become delusional and totally addicted to the drugs and had subsequently died in dreadful circumstances. I am conscious that, if the youngsters in our communities are to be dissuaded from using the drugs, we must ensure that they hear such first-hand experiences. Such education is the most important thing that we can conceivably do. I do not know how we deliver it, but it would work.
I am grateful to Graeme Dey for what he said about the police. I commend the work that they are doing, which he outlined. My conversations with the police indicate to me that they will crack this. They are absolutely determined to do what they can to protect our communities, and I am equally aware that our communities want them to deal with the issue.
Apart from delivering good information and education, restricting the supply of the drugs seems to be the other thing that is important to our constituents. As others have mentioned, there is a difficulty with online sales, which will continue to cause us a problem.
I will address the legislative approaches that the Government might come up with. I am grateful to other members for what they have said, but we have to make it clear that this is not an easy legislative area. I commend the report from an expert panel group that the Home Office published in September—this is a UK-wide debate. It examines various legislative routes that might be taken, which I will put on the record, partly because they might help the minister in his summing-up.
We could try to ban analogues, which are chemicals that look roughly the same. We could also try to legislate for neurochemical equivalents—there is some good chemistry in the report—by picking up parts of the chemical that seem to have the right effect on identified bits of the brain, which can be done by genuinely clever organic chemistry. However, that would involve banning only a particular group of chemicals and dealing with one part of the problem. The trouble that I am having in merely describing that indicates how difficult it would be to get the chemistry right and to define it in any terms that lawyers—never mind courts—could cope with.
The third approach that is outlined in the report involves general prohibition, which essentially says, “If the substance is anything like this kind of chemical and is sold on the basis that it will have that kind of effect, we can probably assume that it is bad and we really ought to ban it.” That is quite a good approach and is what the group recommended. However, the difficulty is that that is not the way in which the Scottish and English legal systems work.
Another approach involves full regulation, which is what we do with current drugs. New Zealand has tried that, and its story suggests that that might not be the best approach and that we would very much want to recommend restricted availability.
The police are to be commended for what they are doing, as are community activists. Communities want these shops out of the high streets and we must do everything that we can on that. However, I stress that we must be careful not to imagine that there is some easy legal fix. “Just ban them” sounds easy, but it ain’t going to work. The issue is enormously complicated.
18:04
I will make only a short speech, as most of the substantive issues have been covered by colleagues. I very much agree with the note that Nigel Don finished on—there is no easy solution to the problem and legislation might not be the answer.
Yesterday, I went to a shop in Dundee to see for myself how attractively packaged these so-called legal highs are. It is an extremely worrying issue, especially because we know that young people—16 to 19-year-olds in particular—are attracted to try the substances. It is also worrying for parents because they know that, although the tag “legal highs” implies that the substances are legal, acceptable and even safe, the reality is that they are not. I am not coming to the chamber today with any hard answers; I just hope that we can look carefully at the issue over the next few weeks so that we do not have the same debate next new year without having moved any further forward.
One thing that I would suggest—we released something on this in the Christmas period—is that we have a more robust system of reporting in our national health service. I understand that there is no reporting system in place that requires health boards to report the number of cases that are presented to hospitals as a result of people taking legal highs, and I wonder whether we could put such a system in place so that we would at least have the data in Scotland to show what is being presented to our hospitals. Once we had the evidence, we could start to identify preventative measures.
18:06
I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Government, as it is the first such opportunity that I have had since taking up my new post. I am pleased to respond on a matter of such significance, and I thank Alex Johnstone for bringing the subject to the chamber today.
Although I could not participate in the debate on NPS in February last year, I am aware that there was much agreement that NPS—or, as they are often inappropriately called, legal highs—present a real challenge to us not just in terms of enforcement and their legality or otherwise, which Jenny Marra touched on, but in terms of the need to educate people and design services that respond swiftly to the growing array of products that are available.
Although NPS are often referred to as legal highs, it is fundamentally important to remind people who are not experts in the field—I counted myself among them until I got this position—that NPS cannot and should not be sold for human consumption. They may pose real risks to anyone who consumes them—Alex Johnstone set out in detail the health risks that they may pose—and only time will tell how significant the long-term health risks are of consuming these products. The motion sets out some very worrying statistics, which were echoed by Alison McInnes and other members, on the association of NPS with fatalities to date and the trauma that is caused to relatives, such as those to whom Graeme Dey, Nigel Don and others have referred.
I am grateful to Alex Johnstone for lodging the motion and I recognise the efforts that are being made in his local area. I am also grateful to the other members who have spoken in the debate, notably Graeme Dey, the constituency member for Angus South, for his support for the efforts of Police Scotland and trading standards officers in clamping down on what they have perceived to be reckless conduct on the part of those selling NPS. I very much welcome that, and other members have echoed that support.
Last year, my predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham, asked all alcohol and drug partnerships to continue to make new psychoactive substances a priority for their areas, considering the needs of their areas and planning and delivering services to respond to those needs. I am delighted that NHS Tayside has picked up the ball by undertaking a needs assessment and acknowledging the considerable concern that the substances are causing to local communities there and elsewhere. That point was addressed in the remarks of Alison McInnes, Graeme Dey and Alex Johnstone, and it reflects the testimony of families whose relatives, sadly, have been killed by NPS.
I very much commend the efforts of the range of local partners in Arbroath and Montrose who have shown real leadership on the issue and have developed a strong partnership to consider the range of legal and other remedies that are available and to restrict the sale and supply of NPS. I was encouraged to read in Saturday’s Courier of the closure of the head shop in Arbroath as a result of that strong partnership approach. That is a significant development and it shows what can be achieved when partners such as Police Scotland, trading standards officers and local communities work together. I know that similar partnership success has been achieved in South Ayrshire, which was the first area to secure the closure of a head shop in those circumstances.
The expert legal group, which was commissioned by Roseanna Cunningham, has visited the Tayside area and spoken at first hand to those on the ground in order to understand better the limitations and opportunities presented by current reserved and devolved law. I am grateful to local stakeholders for supporting the work of the expert legal group in that way.
The expert group was struck by the strong partnership of the local authority, the police, treatment services and schools all pulling together in a comprehensive approach, which echoes the remarks of many across the chamber. I met the expert legal group just before Christmas to discuss the progress that it is making with its work, and I expect to receive its report later this month. The report is being informed by the publication of the UK Government’s own review into NPS, and I will be looking to engage with Home Office ministers in the coming weeks to discuss how we can co-operate further in delivering on this agenda.
I take this opportunity to remind colleagues across the chamber that, in addition to that legal work, the Scottish Government has been leading some thinking at a national level about how we can understand better the who and what of NPS, and develop an evidence base to ensure that our policy response is proportionate and targeted. In August, we published a summary of evidence to date and brought together a group of informed experts drawn from different fields to examine the trends in use, the data being collected and what evidential gaps remain. I am currently considering the recommendations from that group. I hope that that addresses Nigel Don’s concerns regarding the need for more first-hand data to be available in due course. I should point out, particularly to Jenny Marra, that we are also studying the approach taken in Wales at this time to see what relevance it might have for Scotland. We will take on board any messages that come from that.
Our work to support prevention and education continues. I recently visited Crew 2000 in Edinburgh, which I note supplied a useful briefing for MSPs in advance of this debate, to see the prevention and messaging work that we support and to aid my understanding of NPS issues. I found the visit particularly helpful and was struck by the information on the dominance of NPS stimulants and cannabinoid use in the Edinburgh area, and on their strength and how they are often used alongside illicit drugs in a cocktail of substances that people take. Of course, alcohol can also be an exacerbating factor. What also worried me was the emerging evidence that some people are using NPS intravenously, exposing themselves to the risk of blood-borne diseases and, indeed, amputation, to add to the long list that Alex Johnstone set our earlier.
Our continued funding for the web-based know the score programme and the schools-based choices for life programme is a vital part of the national contribution. I was greatly impressed by what I saw at the choices for life studio in East Kilbride, and I welcome the fact that the choices for life team is hoping to be in a position to broadcast from the spring onwards a powerful new NPS-themed video over glow, the network used to educate children. I hope that that addresses the point that Anne McTaggart made about looking for more support in education resources to help inform young people of the risks of using NPS.
I have been struck by the level of political consensus on the issue of NPS in this debate and last February’s debate. I am giving some consideration as to how I might build on that consensus and work with colleagues across the political spectrum to build on the engagement undertaken by my predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham. I will bring forward some thoughts on that in the coming weeks.
Again, I thank Alex Johnstone for bringing this debate to the chamber today. I assure him and other colleagues that I remain committed to working with all those who have something to offer in responding to this challenge. I am encouraged by the progress that is being made in local areas, such as that across Tayside, but we must increase the capacity of all of Scotland to respond, with local ADPs working with community planning partners and nationally commissioned organisations to tackle drugs misuse and support delivery of the road to recovery.
Members have my commitment and that of the Government that we will continue to intervene at a national level to create the best conditions for NPS to be tackled and that we will have an open door to work with colleagues from across the chamber to tackle the challenge of NPS to public health and the wellbeing of communities.
I thank members for their time today and for the valuable contributions that all have made to this debate.
Meeting closed at 18:14.Previous
Decision Time