Chamber and committees

Absolutely. That is why it is a three-year pilot. The international evidence is demonstrable—it is there—and we can rebut some of the misinformation that Mr Sweeney has reported with evidence from safer consumption facilities elsewhere in the world. You do not have an increase in community injecting—the opposite is true. You do not have greater levels of discarded drug paraphernalia—the opposite is true.

Crucially, the reason for the momentum behind the campaign for a safer consumption facility was not only the specific nature of those involved but the international evidence, which demonstrates that such a facility reduces harm and saves lives. Mr Doris is right to say that we are seeing some early evidence of its efficacy. I have been able to point to, for example, individuals now engaging with statutory and community services who were not engaging previously and who were not reachable prior to the facility’s establishment.

That said, it will take time for us to assess whether the approach has reduced harm. I am talking about not only whether it has reduced needle sharing and the obvious public health issues arising from that, but whether it has helped to save lives. The marker for whether people think that this is the right thing to do is that there is domestic interest in this, with other cities in Scotland interested in looking at establishing safer consumption facilities, and I believe that there are also international observers of what is being carried out. I think that it is the right thing for us to explore, but it has to be explored on a pilot basis, because we have to look at the evidence to see whether it has worked. That is why we are investing in it over a three-year period.

First, I point to an example of where what we are doing in that area is starting to work better. I gave Ms Mackay this example in the chamber in answer to a question that she asked following my statement on the MAT standards. I am referring to the employment of staff in the Thistle centre and the fact that the design of that service has been carried out with people with lived and living experience. They have been not just a part of it, but central to it—indeed, people with lived and living experience were on the staff interview panel. That tells me that we are starting to get to a better place from the point of view of our work to destigmatise and to value those experiences more highly.

We have more work to do on how we employ those people. However, funding is available for organisations—Maggie Page or Laura Zeballos will remind me of the details—to ensure that people can be supported into the workplace and that there is a route for them to value themselves more highly as they progress. The point about feeling value in themselves was made very strongly when the First Minister and I visited the Thistle and spoke to those with lived and living experience who had helped to shape the service by being involved in the interview process and were participating in its establishment. The feeling of value and worth was incredibly powerful during that visit.

Laura Zeballos might be able to point to the funding that is available for organisations that provide support.

I have noted some of the evidence that has been put forward. I understand the live debates that there are, which the committee will be considering, around the shape of any proposed service and how it would interact with existing health services. It is for the committee to determine that in its stage 1 report and for the Parliament to consider that. My position will remain neutral until that has taken place.

Again, I am trying to be as helpful as possible to Mr Gulhane and to the committee. I have set out in my opening statement that the Government is taking a neutral approach and that, as the lead minister for the bill, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on provisions within it. I note the evidence that has come forward and I understand the debate that is there. We will all have to consider the matter should the bill pass stage 1.

I would be happy to take that point away and to write to you to give you what I can on the financial memorandum considerations.

For the Government, yes, that would be premature. We have nothing further to add, other than our position that we believe that elements in the bill would not pass legislative scrutiny and are not within our legislative competence.

I heard the evidence that the committee took this morning. I have not interacted with NRS on that issue, and I am not sure whether the committee has explored it with NRS, but it might be something to follow up on. We do not have a position on that as yet.

Unfortunately not. Beyond what I have set out in the Government’s memorandum, I must maintain a strictly neutral position to allow the committee and the Parliament to assess the merits of the bill on the basis of what I believe will be a universally free vote, including for those in the Government. My responsibilities as health secretary and lead member for the bill will come in should the bill pass stage 1, and then there will be far more extensive dialogue and discussion and policy positions taken.

In the course of this session, I will try to be as helpful as possible. I hope that you will note that, in response to Ms Mackay’s questions, I tried to give as expansive an answer as I could. I cannot say anything beyond what I have already set out and what is already in the memorandum that I sent to the committee.

I cannot say much more than I have already said in my memorandum to the committee. However, to summarise the Government’s views, we believe that the bill in its current form is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In particular, we believe that section 15(8), which gives power to the Scottish ministers to specify in regulations a drug or other substance as an “approved substance” to be provided to terminally ill adults to end their own life, appears to relate to the reserved matter of medicines, medical supplies and poisons, as set out in section J4 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

Given that the bill represents a novel and fundamental shift in the role of medical practitioners and the regulatory framework in which they operate—a shift from protecting or enhancing patients’ lives to assisting in the termination of life—we also have concerns that some of the other provisions in the bill may relate to the reserved matter of the regulation of health professionals, as set out in section G2 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is a confirmation of the position that I set out in the memorandum.