I welcome the debate and the opportunity to reflect on one of the most complex and significant public health challenges that we currently face.

Throughout the chamber and beyond, we have tried, with great difficulty, to process the heartbreaking statistics of drug-related deaths that continue to devastate the Scottish population. Each death represents a son, a daughter or a parent who found themselves trapped in a vicious cycle and, tragically, paid the ultimate cost. I offer my condolences to all their families.

According to research that was carried out by Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs, across close family and wider social networks, for each individual using alcohol or drugs, an average of 11 people are harmfully impacted. If someone is a child of a drug user at five years old, on average, their life will be affected until they become an adult. It can take approximately eight years for that child to reach family support for the first time—a combination of services being unable to reach those in need and the endemic stigmatisation of drug users in our society, which further deters individuals from seeking the help that they deserve. I therefore welcome the recognition that progress will be achieved not by a single intervention but by an holistic, person-centred and multimodel approach that places dignity and respect at the forefront of accessible treatment and support services.

We have seen, as part of the Scottish Government’s national mission to reduce drug-related deaths and harms, promising steps that will facilitate the culture shift that is needed to tackle the crisis—a shift to a culture that appreciates the dangers of prejudice and focuses on funding evidence-led interventions that recognise addiction for what it is: not a moral failing, but a chronic disease.

Thanks to work that was carried out by the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce, the identification of key focus areas will serve as a crucial guide moving forward. That has already led to the provision of life-saving assistance through the expansion of naloxone provision. It is not just clinical staff who are now trained in the supply of naloxone but 800 police officers, with 53 life-saving uses having been administered throughout the 2021 pilot programme. Support has also been offered to charities such as Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs, allowing them to roll out an award-winning click-and-deliver naloxone service for family members and friends who could provide that valuable life-saving intervention. More than 4,700 kits have now been issued.

In addition, and to continue the valuable work of the task force, we must seriously consider any and all legislative reform that would reflect the mounting evidence of the advantages of reduced criminalisation. The price of inertia is simply too high. Professor Dame Carol Black’s comprehensive independent review of drugs has confirmed that the current public provision for prevention, treatment and recovery in the United Kingdom is no longer fit for purpose. At present, because the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is reserved to the UK Government, we remain reliant on Westminster determining that the legislation is incompatible with a public health response to problematic drug use. That is hardly reassuring, because, time and again, we have seen the Conservative Government persist with draconian measures centred around harsh punishment for drug users—a tired hangover from the woefully outdated war on drugs campaign of the 1990s.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that logic and compassion will prevail and that the recommendations made by the Drug Deaths Taskforce, including the introduction of safe consumption facilities and more people being diverted from the criminal justice system into treatment and recovery services, will be translated into meaningful action. It is an issue that must transcend party politics. The role of any Government is to protect the health and wellbeing of its citizens, and, when such a disproportionate number of lives are lost each year, it is our duty to reflect on our approach, accept responsibility and implement change.

We need only look at countries such as Canada, where the on-going opioid epidemic sparked the progressive drug policy reform in 2017 that led to the 39 supervised consumption sites that now operate across the country. From 2017 to 2019, despite 15,000 overdoses and medical emergencies in those facilities, not a single fatality was reported on site. Why will the UK Government not allow us to pilot such a scheme in Glasgow when it has clearly worked elsewhere?

According to the National Harm Reduction Coalition, more than 100 safe consumption sites are located in more than 11 countries worldwide, including in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and Australia. We cannot allow ourselves to be shackled by antiquated beliefs. We must go where the evidence leads us, to ensure that avoidable harms and fatalities are, indeed, avoided.

I had the opportunity to walk around my constituency with my colleague Angela Constance, the minister, and we discussed the scale of the challenge that we face. Nothing will improve overnight. However, by redirecting our energy and adopting a more humane approach to drug use and drug users, we can save lives and ensure that Scotland continues to build on its reputation as a progressive and forward-thinking nation.

I take your point about the fact that ring-fenced money allows a specific route to ensure the delivery of Government policy. However, we are all aware that the needs and priorities of local authorities can vary across the country. Several questions have been put to me about the consistency of delivery across all local authorities. Is there a role—I imagine that there is a pretty strong one—for the Government in ensuring consistency across all local authorities in Scotland? What is that role, and has any work been done on monitoring and assessing the consistency of delivery?

Bob Doris has a brief supplementary question.

While you were offline, I was able to ask my questions on teacher recruitment and numbers, so, if it is okay with everyone, I will move on to my line of questioning.

I can pick up on the previous thread quite nicely. Policy agendas, commitments and priorities are set at a Government level, but the responsibility for delivering those obviously lies at a local government level. In relation to local government responsibilities, there is a balance to be considered between having ring-fenced money for specifics and having discretionary funding. I would like to explore the strengths and weaknesses of each distribution method. How has the Government assessed the strengths and weaknesses of providing ring-fenced money and of providing discretionary funding?

In the absence of the convener, I will take over as deputy convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Please continue with your answer.

You referred to the teacher census. Do we have an idea of when the next teacher census will come out? If we could compare the figures between the most recent census and the next one, that would give us tangible results.

I remember from when I was teaching that a certain percentage of teachers prefer to remain on temporary contracts, for one reason or another. It is important to put that on record. Not every single teacher will want to be on a permanent contract.

I also want to ask about supply teachers. The use of supply teachers has been mentioned to me a few times within the profession, especially regarding support for staff absences, which we are inevitably dealing with in the context of Covid. Any comments on the use of supply teachers would be helpful.

I believe that the convener is now back online, so I will hand back to him.

Businesses understand the constraints under which the Scottish Government is operating without its having borrowing powers to fund additional support measures. However, as the First Minister will be aware, the restrictions have, across my Glasgow Kelvin constituency, had an impact on small businesses that can remain open but have experienced a significant reduction in footfall. As we look towards the new year sales, what plans does the Scottish Government have to publicise the Scotland Loves Local campaign further? As we look further ahead, what consideration is being given to bringing forward the next round of funding applications for the Scotland Loves Local fund?

It is so important that everyone who is eligible comes forward for vaccination. What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage the uptake of vaccinations and boosters in our black, Asian, ethnic minority and heritage and culture communities?

It is a pleasure to take part in this lively and timely debate. In solidarity with Tess White—those are words that I did not think that I would say—I am also going to use my lectern.

The committee’s inquiry has the potential to make considered recommendations on how this Parliament works, not just for us, as members, but for the people we serve as elected representatives. I will focus on three important issues that I urge the committee to investigate in depth—the work of the committees, flexible working and support for parliamentarians.

As one of the newest members of the Parliament, I have experienced only the current procedures and practices. I welcome the views of more experienced members and those of my colleague Neil Gray, given his experience of the House of Commons, no matter how archaic it sounds, particularly to people such as me.

The House of Commons is often held up as a model of good governance and parliamentary effectiveness, but I understand why, in 1999, the consultative steering group was adamant that a new Scottish Parliament must be better. The CSG got its principles right. To paraphrase, it said that the Scottish Parliament should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and Government; that it should be accountable to the people of Scotland; that it should be accessible, open and participative in the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation; and that it should promote equal opportunities in all its operations.

As the first woman of colour to be elected to this Parliament, I recognise that it has taken a bit of time to implement the fourth principle. This place is now looking and sounding more like the communities that we serve, but there is more to do. “Nothing about us without us” is an important principle.

The first two principles, on the sharing of power and the Parliament being accountable to the people, are often regarded as the “taken for granted” element of a fully functioning legislature, but I hope that we will take time to take stock of them.

However, I believe that it is the third principle, on being open and accessible, that the impending inquiry is most relevant to. We truly live in a digital age. Against the backdrop of Covid, we all became accustomed overnight to online meetings of all shapes and sizes and to online teaching for all children. Information and communication technology has evolved beyond expectations.

Last night, I read the report of the nine original CSG members, who met in 2019 at the Festival of Politics to reflect on how their report had fared after two decades of implementation. It makes for interesting reading. For instance, it was always envisaged that the committees would be more powerful, consensual and innovative in developing policy. Through successive Scotland Acts, the volume of legislative business has increased way beyond what the consultative steering group envisaged, and, as a consequence, the more aspirational role for our committees might have been lost somewhat. Perhaps now is the time to have a subject committee that has no involvement in scrutinising proposed legislation and can focus purely on how the ideals of the CSG can be enacted in the light of what we now know.

On the practicalities of conducting parliamentary business, I note that hybrid and online meetings have been a blessing for many. Some of our more experienced members may have misgivings, but I have not experienced business in any other way, and the current procedures have demonstrated to Scotland that our democracy can work from our kitchens as well as from the chamber.

The Scottish Parliament’s original design principles included the need for it to be more family friendly in its working hours. To be frank, that has been eroded. If hybrid and online meetings can contribute to achieving that specific aim, that is a lesson that we can benefit from. Some may have concerns about costs, but we should ask what the cost is of not being flexible and inclusive. I hope that the committee will explore the economics of our current parliamentary practices but balance them against the social cost of non-inclusive practices.

Being an effective parliamentarian requires good support systems as well as the flexibility to respond to and engage with constituents and stakeholders. That is as much about the team that we parliamentarians employ to help us to carry out our duties. I urge the committee to broaden the remit of its inquiry to consider the impact of the procedures and practices of the Parliament on MSP staff and not just on elected members.

I would like to see a broader range of data and evidence gathered in investigating the impact of our current practices on the staff of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body as well as on the staff employed through members’ resources. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but perhaps now is the time for the committee to commission its own research, either directly or through the corporate body.

If there is one thing that the status quo is teaching me, it is that a one-size-fits-all approach to chamber and committee procedures does not necessarily make for good governance. I have not heard anything that suggests that parliamentary democracy can be effective only if we are physically present. The committee should broaden the remit of its inquiry, fulfil the consultative steering group’s aims and include everyone who plays a part in our democratic ecosystem.

Perhaps we all need to rely more on the robustness of debate rather than on the robustness of our tables. Perhaps we all need to talk a little more softly and listen a little bit more loudly.