Chamber and committees

We are short of time, but do the other witnesses have anything brief to add?

That is very helpful. Thank you.

In my constituency, we have several recovery hubs, which are instrumental in allowing communities to come together. We should help to roll them out across the country as much as we can.

We have heard about the roll-out of naloxone provision and the opening of the Thistle, Glasgow’s second—but its first official—safer consumption facility, which has already been having positive impacts. Since it opened, there have been more than 1,000 visits to the facility, although we have heard that, over the past few weeks, emergency services have been called out on several occasions. That tells me that the facility is helping to save lives, especially now, when there is a highly toxic drug supply in circulation. It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that people across the country realise that there is a really potent supply out there at the minute. If that safer consumption facility had not been there, I am sure that some individuals would have lost their lives.

I remain convinced of the need for more radical pilots, including more drug testing and different models of safer consumption facilities. The people’s panel recognised that in its recommendations and in its thoughts. As we have heard, it made 19 recommendations that provide a strong foundation for future policy discussions.

I will focus on a couple of the recommendations that chime with my thinking. The panel strongly supports the passage of the proposed human rights bill for Scotland and the incorporation of the charter of rights for people affected by substance use. That would ensure equal access to health and quality services. I whole-heartedly believe in the charter of rights that was drawn together by the national collaborative over many months. It should enable people to make their rights real, but, in order for it to do so, we need to have the underpinning of the human rights bill, which must be taken forward as soon as possible.

It is also imperative that we continue to scrutinise the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill. All ideas must be considered.

It is critical that more individuals with lived experience form a large part of the workforce. When I was the minister, I was privileged to attend graduation ceremonies for those who had completed their training, and they are now working on the front lines. That brings a depth of empathy and understanding that no policy can replicate. Empowering those individuals helps to reduce the stigma surrounding addiction and makes recovery journeys more accessible and sustainable.

I briefly highlight that there are dual frustrations that I have felt for ever: an implementation gap and an accountability issue. That can be heard loud and clear in the panel’s report. We have brilliant policies, brilliant ideas and consensus, but we need a framework to assess how policies are being implemented on the ground, because it does not always feel like they are to the people who access the services. There is still much more work to do in that area.

Will the member take an intervention?

I, too, thank the cross committee and the people’s panel for their work in this area. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, we need to do more of that type of thing.

The people’s panel was tasked with answering a pivotal and crucial question: what does Scotland need to do differently to reduce drug-related harms? I thought about that question night and day during my time as Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy.

I came into that role two years into the Scottish Government’s national mission to save and improve lives. Coming from a background in which I worked directly with people who use drugs—and being an affected family member—I had already been able to see and tangibly feel the paradigm shift from treating drug issues as a criminal justice matter to seeing them through a public health lens, with an understanding of the underlying social determinants of health that are all too pernicious in our country.

I recognised the transformational power that lay in the full implementation of the medication assisted treatment standards, whereby people were to be empowered by immediate access to treatment, including by being offered a range of options and the right to make their own informed choices. That was a shift away from the all too often stigmatising nature of addiction services, where stigma and lack of autonomy had felt stubbornly baked in and intractable over many decades. I encountered that time and again when trying to help people to access vital services.

Although great strides have been made in culture change, access to same-day treatment and increasing capacity in residential rehab—we exceeded our target to provide 1,600 placements last year—I recognise that we need to do more. We need an increase in stabilisation provision, as well. We have seen flourishing recovery communities across the country, and we cannot understate the positive impact that recovery hubs have at the heart of our communities.

That is helpful. It is good to have a marker down in relation to the incentive schemes that you mentioned. Although the bill’s provisions may not address the issue, as you rightly point out, the committee needs to be very aware of the issue in the lowlands.

So, it is specifically about dealing with that rather than how we support farmers of deer to ensure that they do not have escapes into the wild.

Good morning, everybody. The convener has already touched on this issue. Given that the goal is to halt nature decline by 2030, when will the Scottish Government seek to commence section 1 to ensure that regulations are introduced within a meaningful timeframe, given the tight timeframe that is in front of us?

Thank you. That is helpful. The bill allows for significant changes to be made to EIA and habitats regulations by way of regulations using the negative procedure, as the committee understands it. Those changes might have significant policy implications for how the regimes operate. Why did the Government not consider the affirmative procedure to be more appropriate for a wider range of circumstances under the powers in part 2?

Therefore, at this point, are officials content that the balance has been struck correctly and that the affirmative procedure will be used for the most appropriate occasions?