Chamber and committees

I thank Jackie Baillie for giving way, and for her well-wishing.

I point out that once the new Lord Advocate took up her position, she laid out to the Criminal Justice Committee the parameters by which she would be willing to look at a proposal for a safer consumption facility. The Scottish Government, Police Scotland and Glasgow health and social care partnership then worked solidly for about six months to bring forward a proposal. That proposal went to the Lord Advocate in June 2022, and I thank her for taking the time to come to a decision on it. However, in response to the suggestion that nothing was done in the intervening time, that is simply not the case.

I share Alex Cole-Hamilton’s desire to see safer consumption facilities and drug-checking facilities being rolled out across the country. Once the safer consumption pilot is up and running in Glasgow, we will evaluate it as soon as possible. After that, and once we understand how the facilities are working in practice, we will have conversations with other areas that might want to have the same type of facility available. We are still constrained, because the pilot is for a specific area, but I am happy to have conversations with the Lord Advocate to see how we can progress that as swiftly as possible.

Our paper also proposes decriminalising all drugs for personal use, alongside holding a wider review of drug laws. The reaction to that proposal from certain quarters was as predictable as it was misinformed. Some have referred to a recent press report that paints a bleak picture of life in Portland, Oregon, where drugs were decriminalised in 2021 and have claimed that that wrought havoc in an already struggling city. I would say that that example indeed carries a lesson, which is that decriminalising drugs alone is not enough. A fully committed public health approach, such as the one that this Government has embarked on, is required to address the health and social problems of which drug use is a symptom.

When Portugal decriminalised drug use more than 20 years ago, it implemented a full range of treatment and support initiatives for people who use drugs, and that example has been followed by a number of other countries precisely because it works to reduce drug-related deaths and to increase take-up of treatment and support.

There are also people who claim that we already have de facto decriminalisation, which will be news to the police, who recorded 22,356 drug possession crimes last year—a figure that was 38 per cent of all crimes against society.

Thirty countries have recognised the harm that is caused by criminalisation and have moved to change their laws. That gives us more than a hint that a change in the law in Scotland would be consistent with the conclusions that experts across this area have reached. The fact is that decriminalisation is no longer a novel proposal. It is a transition that is supported by the chief executives of all 31 United Nations agencies, and it has been their position since 2018, when the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination agreed the first UN common position. It committed to

“promote alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use, and to promote the principle of proportionality, to address prison overcrowding and overincarceration by people accused of drug crimes”.

In our drug law reform paper, we propose further exploration of drug law with a focus on evidence and the reduction of harm. That means having a drug classification system that reflects the evidence of harms caused and not the political or moral judgments, as well as facilitating a conversation about reforms such as the regulation of substances in partnership with the public and the subject matter experts.

As with many things that we now see as common sense, that would have been radical once, but no more. Multiple committees, experts and independent organisations have already called for an urgent review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, including the independent drug deaths task force, so there is a compelling case for changing our drug laws. However, we are currently unable to change those laws in line with international evidence. There are three possible roads out of that impasse.

It will surprise no one when I say that Scottish independence, which would allow us the freedom to make our own laws with, by and for the people of Scotland, is my preferred route to change. However, we know that the need for compassionate evidence-based drug laws transcends political alignment. It is about saving lives.

The second route would be for further powers to be devolved. Given that our two Governments disagree on the issue, the devolution of the necessary powers would allow Scotland to develop laws that properly reflect our different public health approach. That kind of devolution is not unheard of, as regional variations exist in other countries. Canada, Australia and even the United States have different legal frameworks on drugs operating within their countries.

However, the fastest and simplest way forward would be for the UK Government to review and change the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to support a public health approach across the UK.

We would welcome meaningful engagement on the proposals but, despite many attempts, that has not been forthcoming. Up to this point, our proposals have been rebuffed despite the cross-party Westminster Home Affairs Committee just last month recommending a review of the current drug laws and endorsing our position on safer drug consumption. We have long called for agreement from the UK Government to allow us to do that, whether to support us in establishing a full pilot or through devolving the necessary powers to do so.

First and foremost, people who are affected by drugs are people. They are deserving of kindness, respect and dignity. Our drug laws are, quite simply and literally, from another century. We need something that reflects what is required now, and that is laws that are not rooted in prejudice, assumption and moral judgments but are instead based on research, evidence and best practice from around the world. We need laws that reflect lived experience and the experience of families who are affected by drugs. We need caring, compassionate and human-rights-informed drug laws that will save and improve lives.

I end with a thank you and a plea. My thank you is to everyone who has contributed to the national mission, including many in this Parliament, and everyone who has helped to shape our approach to reducing the impact that drug use has on far too many lives and communities in Scotland. My plea is to those who remain to be convinced that drug law reform is required. I ask those people to look at the evidence of what works successfully elsewhere. Why should we not seize the opportunity to improve the life chances of so many people in Scotland?

I move,

That the Parliament believes that every life lost through drugs is a tragedy and recognises that behind each statistic is a grieving family and community; agrees that the scale of the drug deaths emergency in Scotland requires the Scottish Government to use every lever at its disposal to save and improve lives using the best available evidence; further agrees that the principles of the Scottish Government’s national mission should be rooted in a human rights informed, public health approach, not a criminal justice one; believes that the support for people with substance dependency should be in parity with other health conditions, removing unnecessary stigma and discrimination; supports the calls for an urgent review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to fully align the law with the public health response outlined in the Scottish Government paper, A Caring, Compassionate and Human Rights Informed Drug Policy for Scotland, of which decriminalising drugs for personal use is one part, and agrees that the Scottish Government should work constructively with the UK Government to either amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or devolve the powers to Scotland to draft its own drugs legislation that better reflects international best practice.

In Parliament on 7 September, I outlined the Government’s plan to reduce alcohol harms and deaths in response to the alcohol-specific deaths in 2022 and committed to a debate on the plan in more detail. It includes evaluating minimum unit pricing and alcohol marketing consultation responses. We will publish the recommendations of Public Health Scotland’s review on alcohol brief interventions and we have asked PHS to investigate reductions in the number of referrals to services.

Approximately £113 million is available to support initiatives responding to local needs, underpinned by the forthcoming treatment standards and workforce action plan to improve quality and capacity.

Work on renewing the level of the minimum unit pricing is under way, as the impact of MUP is connected to the unit price. It is important that we have a robust evidence base to support any decision on the change of the level of the MUP. As outlined in the programme for government, we will publish our final report on the operation and the effect of MUP later this month in Parliament, alongside a consultation on the MUP’s future around both its price and the continuation of the scheme.

It is important to point out that, in my response to the member’s question, I outlined that there has been no reduction in the funding that has been made available to alcohol and drug partnerships. Indeed, the funding that has been made available to them has increased year on year. Last year, £106.8 million was available to alcohol and drug partnerships, and this year £113 million was made available to them. We asked them to use their reserves appropriately and then draw on the funding. However, that funding is then moved forward and used in other ways in the alcohol and drug partnerships themselves, so there has been no overall reduction in funding.

I will bring back to the chamber a debate to discuss a cohesive plan, because I recognise that members across the chamber are looking to understand what the Government is doing to tackle alcohol-specific deaths and alcohol harm.

The proposals that the Glasgow partnership will put before its integration joint board will include some of the details that Dr Gulhane asks about. The consultation with the community will be vital, because we need to ensure that there is no stigma associated with it and that communities definitely feel as though they have been part of the decision making. We know that between 400 and 500 people are injecting in alleyways in Glasgow city centre, so I anticipate that the proposals will include a city centre location. That is for the Glasgow partnership to set out, and we wait to see what it takes to the integration joint board.

I confirm that we identified 425 beds from the “Pathways into, through and out of Residential Rehabilitation in Scotland” report that we commissioned in 2021. Since then, we have had two rounds of funding for the rapid capacity programme, increasing the number of beds across the country by 172. That represents a 40 per cent increase on the figures that we started with. By the end of this parliamentary session, I anticipate that, through other means, including further money going to ADPs and third sector organisations, there will be an increase to the 650 beds that we have asked for. That will result in a 50 per cent increase in the number of beds available.

It is important to recognise that we need to think about the placements as well as the beds. We anticipate that the 650 beds that we will get to will allow us to have 1,000 publicly funded spaces available every year for people in Scotland to access residential rehab treatment. In the past year, 812 people accessed that service, and the past quarter saw the highest number of referrals to date.

It is important that local areas publicise their residential rehabilitation pathways, and they are on the majority of ADPs’ websites. We are working with Scotland Excel to see whether we can create a directory that would give people choice and scope as to where they could go in Scotland to access the treatment that they need.

I thank Jackie Baillie for her question, but I will point out, before I answer the substance of the second part of her question, that the position that the Lord Advocate took yesterday concerned a very specific proposal that was placed in front of her by us and the Glasgow health and social care partnership. That varies hugely from the original proposal that went to the Lord Advocate previously. Although the law has not changed, we needed a very specific proposal for the Lord Advocate to look at.

Regarding the budget that we have in front of us, I must ensure that people understand that there are no cuts to the budget. Those claims are based on a misrepresentation of a recent answer to a portfolio question, not the total budget available to alcohol and drug partnerships or the third sector, and do not represent the full drugs and alcohol budget. In 2021, the total drugs and alcohol budget was £140.7 million; in 2022-23 the total budget was £141.9 million; and there has again been an increase in the budget, to £155.5 million, for 2023-24.

It is important to point out that no one has proposed any reduction in funding for our community justice response within settings, including in Glasgow and Turning Point Scotland’s 218 service.

It is now for Glasgow’s health and social care partnership to take the proposal to the next meeting of its integration joint board, which I understand is scheduled for 27 September. To proceed, the partnership will need to provide an update to its integration joint board and be instructed to undertake public consultation work, as requested by the Lord Advocate, to establish the evaluation framework for the pilot. That public consultation work is so important.

We have been clear in our commitment to establishing a safer drug consumption facility in Scotland. Following the position from the Lord Advocate, we will continue to work closely with colleagues in Glasgow to agree the next steps and review options around implementation, including funding.

We have engaged Public Health Scotland to do an evaluation and to look at the national mission, where the moneys have reached, and the impact of that, because we need to have a clear picture of where resources are best having effect. I believe the policies that we have put in place, which are evidence based, are helping to turn the situation around, but I recognise the concern that Michael Marra shares with me about the increasing use of cocaine and crack cocaine.

It is interesting to see the rapid switch that has happened in Dundee. I have a close eye on that, because I think that that will mean that the services in Dundee will have to pivot to reflect that cocaine use.

In my travels across Scotland, I have met a number of young people who have presented to services for support and to reduce their cocaine habit. Perhaps that will have started off as recreational and quickly spun out of control.

There are a lot of issues around cocaine. I will work with local areas for them to communicate to me what they are putting in place to ensure that we can respond to that.