Chamber and committees

I am interested in any of the other witnesses’ comments on the broad question about measuring success.

I want to follow on from that by pulling some of the threads together and going back to first principles with the Feeley review, which Rachel Cackett mentioned in a previous answer. Can the bill achieve what everyone agreed with regard to the review’s aims, or is there too much focus now on structure as opposed to the investment in social care that we have just talked about? I appreciate that that is a broad question, but I ask Rachel Cackett and then Karen Hedge to comment.

I wonder whether we can look at the relationships that already exist on a local level. Both CCPS and Scotland Excel have expressed concern that the focus on structure could be to the detriment of the existing local relationships. Rachel Cackett has commented on that, which was helpful, and I want to ask Julie Welsh to elaborate on the Scotland Excel concerns. Julie, do you feel that there is a risk that the bill could damage already well-established and successful local relationships?

Nick, do you recognise that many of the things that you have just said are, at their heart, Derek Feeley’s recommendations?

I want to push you on your feelings about the distance between the Feeley review and the current bill. Is the bill focusing too much on structure and not enough on culture?

Do you feel, though, that people become fatigued by structural change? I think that it is fair to say that, in this sector particularly, we have seen various structural changes over many years, and actually what people are driving at is cultural change. Integration, on which we are not quite at the 10-year mark, would be an example of that. What are your thoughts?

It is shocking that this Parliament and, more importantly, the public might not have been aware of the scale and severity of the cyberattack, had it not been uncovered in detail by a freedom of information request from Scottish Labour. That raises significant questions over transparency. Even by the standards set by his Scottish National Party predecessors, the health secretary’s report card in that regard is shocking. In 2017, following the last major cyberattack on NHS systems in Scotland, the then health secretary Shona Robison came to the chamber, made a statement and pledged to launch an inquiry so that lessons could be learned. Will the cabinet secretary explain why he failed to come to Parliament and make such a statement and, furthermore, will he explain what impact this cyberattack has had on waiting times and figures in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde?

In rising to close for Scottish Labour, I reflect that today’s debate has been an important opportunity to discuss a range of issues related to the national drugs mission and the progress that we all want in eradicating stigma around these issues. We know that stigma has an impact on the likelihood of an individual asking for the help they need to start the process of rehabilitation following a period of addiction.

As we have heard from so many colleagues across the chamber, it is crucial that we work to eradicate stigma around drug addiction and drug deaths, as well as shifting attitudes to ensure a more meaningful, open and compassionate discussion as we seek to help prevent more drug deaths and to aid more people on their recovery journey.

In doing that, we must recognise at the outset the tragic loss of so many lives. Let us all remember again that they are not just numbers; they are people who lived in our communities, and they are often family, friends and neighbours. We must start with that at the core of our approach. I was heartened to hear so many colleagues mention that. I thought that Collette Stevenson spoke particularly powerfully in that regard.

We must take a different approach when it comes to stigma. We must take a root-and-branch look at where stigma and wider issues around drugs arise. Our approach must be focused on treating the deep-rooted socioeconomic factors that lead to drug use. It should be a holistic approach that is rooted in public health. The evidence is clear that the most deprived communities are those that are most impacted, and that they have many issues to deal with. We heard from Katy Clark and other colleagues from across the chamber about the sense of endemic poverty and the real structural challenge that exists in so many communities. Most public health experts would say that we must tackle those issues at their very root in order to make the most change. Data from National Records of Scotland has shown that people are 15 times more likely to die of a drug-related incident if they live in one of the most deprived areas, compared with the least deprived areas. Tragically, more than 12,000 people have lost their lives to drugs since 2007, leaving thousands of parents, children and friends behind, heartbroken.

We have heard contributions on the importance of services to support recovery, and particularly the importance of rehabilitation that is person centred and flexible in order to meet people where they are. As we have also heard, it can often be contradictory to assert commitments to tackling stigma and to help people access support services. In reality, there is a reduction in the support services that are available, due to budgets in health and social care reducing and budgets in local government being cut.

Claire Baker was right to highlight the need for greater investment and for greater pace of change from the Government. It is indeed the Government’s responsibility to demonstrate that progress, so that everybody can have confidence in the work of the national mission.

Thank you.

In previous discussions of safe consumption facilities, we have talked about the legal barriers that exist, and I think that the minister would contend that that is a significant challenge to the ability to deliver them. I am interested to understand what analysis officials have done of current legislation that might help to overcome that. Have the provisions in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 been looked at, for example? They put a duty on Government to promote a comprehensive and integrated health service

“to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people”,

and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness sit within that. To what extent have officials looked at other legislation that might help us to move forward?