In the Randolph Hill submission, you spoke about being concerned about an absence of criteria to judge success or failure. Do you recognise that there is not enough detail in the bill to measure success against?

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?

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?

That is helpful. I am keen to ensure that the minister reviews that matter. I am not trying to catch her out or to add to what is an important piece of work, but it is important that we capture those other aspects, so that we can ensure that all our resource is focused. That is particularly important with regard to the resources that are available to communities for work on the broader associated issues, including accidents that are related to drug use and personal safety. Does the minister want to add anything on that?

The figures on drug deaths focus on overdose, and much of our approach has been focused on that. However, it is clear that there are other drug-related issues that can lead to deaths, not least of which are issues such as HIV, hepatitis C, cardiovascular problems and end-of-life liver and lung disease. My understanding is that we do not capture the data with regard to such deaths, so what are your reflections on how we might collect some of that data to ensure that we push the resources to the right places?

Would Dr Gulhane accept that consumption facilities can take many forms and can be based around the community supports that I mentioned? There is a holistic model whereby people can receive different levels of support and use a safe consumption facility.

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.