Chamber and committees

I asked our previous witnesses about the underlying trauma and co-existing mental health issues that people with experience of substance abuse often have. Does the three-week deadline in the bill risk sidelining other important work that could keep people in recovery for longer, because there will be a statutory obligation to have them in treatment for addiction?

On the specific point that Forbes Dunlop raised about local facilities and locally run facilities, we are seeing a lot of facilities becoming part of community asset transfers, with local authorities looking to offload some of those assets. One in my region is Grangemouth stadium, which I know Scottish Athletics is involved in. What practical support, if not financial support, can sportscotland give teams and governing bodies, such as Scottish Athletics, that are looking to take over such venues in order to keep them running for the groups that use them?

Good morning.

Does sportscotland collect data on the socioeconomic status of people who participate in sporting activities—both those who do the sport themselves and the volunteers? If so, what does that data show?

Given the gap that exists, how can sportscotland work with local authorities—and how is it doing so—to ensure that access to physical activity is effectively integrated into broader public health and anti-poverty strategies?

What work is sportscotland doing with governing bodies to reduce the cost of participation, particularly for children and young people who want to get involved in club sport outside school? The cost of equipment is a huge barrier to some and will prevent some families from being able to continue physical activity outside school.

As I begin to wind up on behalf of the three committees, I echo the cabinet secretary’s sentiment and send the love and best wishes of the chamber to Christina McKelvie.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this important debate on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Criminal Justice Committee and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. As we have heard, the three committees have undertaken joint scrutiny of the issue of tackling drug deaths and drug harm, and I thank all members of the committees for their diligent work thus far. I also thank all members from across the chamber who have taken the time to contribute to today’s debate, and I echo much of the sentiments that have been expressed.

I also want to thank everyone who contributed to the people’s panel report, which provides a comprehensive overview of the current landscape of drug services and the issues facing service users and their families across Scotland. The report has highlighted the crucial role that individuals with lived experience play in driving change across Scotland, and I am pleased that the recommendations in the report have mostly been welcomed and agreed by the Scottish Government. I hope that that work will provide a strong foundation for change, and I look forward to scrutinising forthcoming policy actions on the back of that important and comprehensive set of recommendations.

On that point, I take the opportunity, on behalf of the joint committee, to offer my sincere condolences to anyone who has lost a loved one to drugs. I also commend the bravery of all those with lived experience who have taken the time to share their ideas and experience with the committee throughout the process, in particular the participants in the people’s panel, whose testimonies and commitment to collaborative working have set an excellent example and helped to highlight the benefits of participative democracy.

The issue of drug harm and drug deaths has blighted Scotland for far too long, and it is incumbent on all of us in the Parliament to work together to mitigate the damage done to individuals and families, with the ultimate goal of saving lives.

This debate and the work of the people’s panel are strong examples of cross-committee collaboration, which I hope will be emulated in the future. For such a complex and nuanced issue, working collaboratively is essential if we are to make progress, and the cross-sectoral nature of the significant challenges that we face in tackling drug deaths and drug harm necessitate such collaboration.

It is clear that there is no quick or easy fix when it comes to tackling drug harm and drug deaths in Scotland. However, what is clear is that progress needs to be measured, and the Parliament will play a key role in ensuring swift Government delivery on the many points that have been raised in the report and in the chamber today.

In her intervention on Collette Stevenson, Emma Harper mentioned anti-stigma training for those who work outside of drug and alcohol services. That is hugely important and reflects some of what we have heard in informal sessions of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. Many of those who spoke to us noted that it was not always drug services that they first got help from. Ensuring that all services are trauma informed is hugely important.

Audrey Nicoll, Stuart McMillan, Carol Mochan and Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned awareness raising around naloxone and increasing the number of people who are trained to use it. I hope that, in addition to increasing the number of people who are trained, the Government is looking at how to train as diverse a group as possible to ensure that everyone who might interact with those who use drugs has the confidence to be able to use naloxone.

Maggie Chapman and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, as well as others, referenced the work that is going on at the Thistle in Glasgow. We should collectively pay a huge tribute to the staff there, who, contrary to some of the coverage of the site, are doing a phenomenal job.

Alex Cole-Hamilton and others mentioned nitazenes, and Emma Harper mentioned the current warnings in Dumfries and Galloway. I hope that we can see progress on drug checking soon. Elena Whitham was entirely correct about the need to roll out more safe drug consumption facilities across Scotland.

From my perspective as a member of the Health and Sport Committee, the debate and report have been useful in highlighting the importance of ensuring that everyone is able to access the services that they require. I echo the points that the convener raised in her opening speech. It is essential that a collaborative approach among all relevant public bodies is in place to tackle the crisis. A single point of access to specialised services would go a long way to reducing the stigma that is associated with accessing assistance for service users and their families, as would ensuring that GDPR-compliant information sharing agreements are in place to allow more streamlined assistance for service users.

It is vital that front-line services and third sector organisations that play a crucial role in tackling drug harm have certainty about funding to allow for long-term planning. I, too, am grateful for the Scottish Government’s commitment to strengthen that and I look forward to ensuring that initiatives such as the drugs mission funds and the fairer funding pilot have the intended effect of providing those services with the assurances that they need.

As Turning Point Scotland highlighted in its response to the people’s panel report, there has been a notable shift in public opinion and growing support for a health-based approach to drug use. That is most welcome, and I share Turning Point’s hope that that shift in attitude will be the impetus that is needed to create a system that is focused on support rather than punishment when it comes to tackling the drugs crisis in Scotland.

I thank the conveners of the Criminal Justice Committee and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for their opening speeches and for highlighting the recommendations that come under their committees’ remits. I share the sentiment that they expressed about, and the commitment to continue, our collaborative approach to scrutinising future policy, which, by necessity, will cross into various remits.

As evidenced by the people’s panel, which has provided an excellent road map for progress with the report, it is essential that we all work together to tackle the crisis. Only through cross-party and cross-remit working can we ensure that services are to the standards that are required for service users.

I again thank everyone who contributed to today’s debate. It has been an open, honest and frank discussion. I share the commitment made by members across the chamber to ensure that promises made by Government in the wake of this important report are delivered swiftly and efficiently for the people of Scotland.

Amendments 86 and 87 seek to strengthen support for carers by ensuring clear timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for local authorities to produce those plans, which leaves carers without the support that they need. Unpaid carers have long reported frustration with delays in accessing assessments and support. Without clear deadlines, carers can be left waiting indefinitely, which undermines their ability to balance caring responsibilities with their own wellbeing. The introduction of statutory timescales will provide much-needed accountability and ensure that carers receive timely recognition and assistance.

Additionally, the amendments would repeal sections 7 and 13 of the 2016 act, which currently allow local authorities to decide whether to prepare a plan or statement if a carer’s identified needs do not meet eligibility criteria. Removing those provisions will ensure that all carers, regardless of eligibility, receive a formal assessment, reinforcing their right to support and acknowledging the vital role that carers play in our system.

I move amendment 86.

I do not have anything to add. I will press amendment 73.

Amendment 73 agreed to.

Amendments 74 to 81 moved—[Gillian Mackay]—and agreed to.

Amendment 131 not moved.

Most of my amendments in this group relate to what the bill describes as sufficient breaks

“from providing care for the cared-for person”.

Significant concerns about that phrase have been expressed by carers organisations. I am sure that it was not meant in that way, but the fact is that many carers do not actually want a break from the cared-for person; they want a break from the act of caring itself. Indeed, they would quite often like to have a break alongside that cared-for person, and that is particularly true for parents who are caring for their children. Therefore, I think that that reference should be left out and something else perhaps put in.

My amendments 131 and 88 seek to define the phrase “sufficient breaks”. I am aware that Jackie Baillie has an amendment on this issue, too, but amendment 131 suggests a “reasonable limitation” on how long people care for and a

“recognition of the carers’ ... right to rest”,

which was important to many of those carers.

As for Jackie Baillie’s amendment 132, I think that a break of two weeks might not be enough for some people. It has to be done on an individual basis. I appreciate Jackie Baillie’s intention in wanting to set out some baseline or limit, but I worry that it might be seen as a ceiling rather than a floor.

I move amendment 73.

Amendments 86 and 87 seek to strengthen support for carers by ensuring clear timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for local authorities to produce those plans, which leaves carers without the support that they need. Unpaid carers have long reported frustration with delays in accessing assessments and support. Without clear deadlines, carers can be left waiting indefinitely, which undermines their ability to balance caring responsibilities with their own wellbeing. The introduction of statutory timescales will provide much-needed accountability and ensure that carers receive timely recognition and assistance.

Additionally, the amendments would repeal sections 7 and 13 of the 2016 act, which currently allow local authorities to decide whether to prepare a plan or statement if a carer’s identified needs do not meet eligibility criteria. Removing those provisions will ensure that all carers, regardless of eligibility, receive a formal assessment, reinforcing their right to support and acknowledging the vital role that carers play in our system.

I move amendment 86.