As we have already heard, Enable Scotland’s report calls for

“a Community First principle for the commissioning of support for all adults and children who have a learning disability in Scotland.”

The report welcomes the community living change fund, which has £20 million assigned to it. However, Enable Scotland says in the report that that

“is not a lot of money per HSCP area, per person”

and that the money has not always led to real and meaningful action for people in communities. Will the minister share evidence of how the fund is being used? Will he commit to further national funding to build the availability of high-quality sustainable support in every community?

I was delighted to participate in Fulton MacGregor’s members’ business debate on the topic last night and to raise the fact that, last year—historically—we removed the ban in Scotland on gay and bisexual men donating blood, which has opened up the ability to donate to a whole new range of people.

What is the minister doing to promote that among communities so that people who may think that the previous stigmatising rule still exists can be told that it does not and that they can become blood donors?

In the summer of 2021, in one of my first speeches in the chamber, I spoke in a debate on this matter. I spoke of the human cost of the drug deaths crisis in this country—of the families and friends who are left behind, and the communities that feel broken. During today’s debate, we have again heard of that cost and, rightly, our sympathies are with all those who have lost a loved one to drugs.

We have also again seen consensus in trying to find solutions. As Claire Baker, my colleague, outlined in her opening speech, there has been an acknowledgement of failure and a declaration of intent by the Government. However, it is now for us to scrutinise the progress towards that.

Scottish Labour agrees that we need to take a public health approach. We have therefore welcomed the announcements that have been made since January 2021 that could help to reduce the number of drug deaths and amount of problematic drug use, if they are implemented with a degree of speed.

It is clear that more needs to be done, not least in light of the upheaval in the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce, which has been spoken about. In common with colleagues, I welcome the appointment of David Strang and am hopeful that his appointment will involve a greater focus on the connection between mental health and substance misuse services, and on using that to achieve the MAT standards—as we have heard, those standards are so important. The questions that Claire Baker raised in her opening speech are key, particularly those on progress to full implementation and on the need for more support for health boards and integration joint boards, as highlighted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Michael Marra, too, spoke powerfully about Scottish Labour’s support for the MAT standards and about the need for greater progress and speed, particularly in his community of Dundee, which I know is so important to him, and particularly on issues such as same-day prescribing. I hope that the minister will pick up on that in her concluding remarks.

Scottish Labour wants to constructively consider all proposals that will reduce harm and support rights of access to treatment. We will, of course, carefully look at the detail of what is brought forward, including the right to recovery bill that was outlined by Sue Webber on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

To be a constructive partner is to want to show the way towards a solution to the crisis through honest assessment and honest conversations. Scottish Labour members will always take that approach. We have been clear throughout about what we think we need to see.

We need to see drug consumption facilities being urgently progressed. I take a moment to highlight the contribution of my colleague Paul Sweeney, which I thought was characteristically powerful, as he spoke of his experience in supporting the work of Peter Krykant in Glasgow. It is clear that we must listen carefully to those experiences of what can be done, what can be achieved for people and the reality of what taking that action means. I hope that the minister will further address what progress could be made in moving that agenda forward.

It is clear that we need further progress on heroin-assisted treatment—we need that to be expanded throughout the country—and we need to see drug checking facilities urgently progressed as part of harm reduction measures to address the drug deaths crisis. All those measures are been outlined by colleagues in their speeches. It is clear that they can save lives. Although it is welcome that the Government is planning to look at the introduction of such facilities, we must ask ourselves why it has taken quite so long.

The consensus in the debate is built on the need to move further and faster in recognising the crisis as a public health crisis. In his speech, Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke powerfully about the need to reduce stigma—Paul McLennan made similar remarks. Stigma persists in so many communities across Scotland. We have to replace the outdated criminal justice approach of years gone by. The Lord Advocate’s statement on the expansion of the use of recorded police warnings is welcome. However, that must be an enabler to get people into better treatment and more services.

It is clear that, to make the most of such a step, sufficient resources must be made available to fund local services. As I have said previously in the chamber, we need to ensure that local services are well funded and that local government continues to be funded to ensure that there is a holistic approach to services across the piece.

In the region that I represent, West Scotland, drug deaths remain high—particularly in Inverclyde, where they are among the highest in the country. We have seen efforts by different organisations in the area to reverse that trend. That is truly inspiring and shows what can be done to tackle the crisis when communities and health and care partnerships work together. However, it is abundantly clear that those services are struggling when it comes to the funding that is available to them.

We have also heard about other interventions today, such as the use of naloxone and increasing the availability of naloxone, particularly in rural areas.

There is consensus in Parliament about the actions that need to be taken, but it is clear that there must be robust scrutiny. We need to be a critical friend of the Government in order to move things forward. We know the human cost of drug deaths in Scotland, the pain that is caused to communities and what must be done in order to move the national mission forward.

I think Fulton MacGregor for bringing this important debate to the chamber and I join him and colleagues in thanking everyone who works in the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, particularly in these unprecedented times.

It is incredibly inspiring to hear of the many thousands of people who take the time to give blood every year. I say to everyone who gives blood across Scotland that what they do truly transforms lives. We are immensely grateful for their efforts.

The online page for the SNBTS amazing stories campaign gives an insight into the positive impact that donating blood can have, but I want to draw members’ attention to a story I read in my local paper about Freya Pennington from Giffnock, which is in my region. Freya, who is seven years old, attends Braidbar primary school and was diagnosed with leukaemia. She had 14 blood transfusions over the course of last year. Her mother Louise spoke of the moment when she realised the importance of donating blood, saying that she had an “overwhelming sense of gratitude” for those who did that. She added:

“If you are on the fence about it, or it’s something you have never thought about, please consider it, as it is so worthwhile.”

Stories like that can make all the difference and it is important that we share them in our constituencies and regions to encourage more people to come forward and give blood.

The SNBTS said last month that there has been a 13 per cent reduction in the number of people donating blood, equating to 13,000 fewer people giving blood in a single year. Colleagues have spoken about the need to do more to bring forward new donors. I am glad that pleas for people to step forward and donate blood are receiving widespread coverage and hope that we will begin to see an increase in the number of people doing so.

Important steps have been taken to widen the eligibility to donate blood. There have been considerable and historic steps forward in the past year following the publication of the evidence-based review by the UK-wide FAIR—for assessment of individualised risk—steering group. I was delighted, and felt quite emotional, to see the group’s recommendation to remove the three-month ban on donations from men who have had sex with men.

Those recommendations were accepted in December 2020. Their implementation in June last year meant that that was the first time since the early 1980s that many gay and bisexual men would no longer be judged against in the blood donation criteria because of who they are. The outdated rules, which reinforced stigma and were inconsistent with safer sex messages, have been consigned to the dustbin of history. It is thanks to the continued efforts of many individuals, and of groups such as the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Equality Network—whose development manager, Scott Cuthbertson, has campaigned on the issue for 15 years—that we are finally able to take this progressive step forward here in Scotland.

I confess that, like many other gay men, I have not given blood since I was in my early teens. I intend to return to giving blood in my community. I am reliably informed that a Tunnock’s tea cake and a cup of tea are still available after donation. Perhaps Fulton MacGregor, Jackie Dunbar and others can assure me of that.

In conclusion, I echo what we have heard from colleagues tonight. I urge everyone in our county to take the time, if they can, to give blood, and think about the difference that doing so makes to the lives of people in our communities. I call on our local authorities to continue to ensure that there is provision of spaces and sites where people can attend mobile blood donation centres.

We have taken huge steps forward, and there should not be barriers to giving blood when it is safe to do so. I would like to see far more people come forward and take the time to save a life, because that is exactly what they would be doing.

We all want to see safe elections, and I associate myself with the comments that were just made about the conduct of the 2021 elections.

However, the matter is about not just the polling date, but the run-up to the election and the campaign itself. We all want candidates to be able to meet voters face to face—obviously in line with public health regulations—because we know how important that is. Is it the minister’s expectation that the campaign will be conducted more face to face, and can he explain to Parliament how the decisions will be taken about any further restrictions due to emerging variants?

Yes.

Thank you, convener. In some ways, ending the session on the subject of public health is quite helpful, because a lot of what we have spoken about this morning is about the need to make interventions in the lives of children and young people. This committee is focused on what positive interventions in terms of policy and legislation can make the most difference.

From a public health point of view, I am keen to understand what interventions the witnesses feel will make the most difference to tackling obesity, drugs and alcohol misuse and non-communicable diseases later in life. How do we get to a place where those interventions are not stand-alone or in a silo but provide holistic family support and work across themes? Someone mentioned there being no wrong door. That is key to the situation. Perhaps we can consider those themes to take us up to our time.

Constituents in Inverclyde who have family members who are living in care homes have contacted me to express their deep concerns about the return to a strict no-visitors policy, which I understand has been implemented on the advice of local public health teams, due to some staff awaiting PCR results. That is contrary to the current guidance, which states that one visitor should be allowed during a controlled outbreak. Indeed, Donald Macaskill, the chief executive of Scottish Care, has expressed concern that there is inconsistency on visiting rules because public health teams and incident management teams have varying interpretations of managed, or controlled, outbreaks.

Will the First Minister clarify the guidance on care home visiting and ask Public Health Scotland to communicate it clearly to local teams to ensure that people who are living in care homes can have regular visitors, as is their right?

Good morning to all who are joining us. Following on from the initial question and conversation, my questions will focus on international relations more broadly. To set the scene a bit on the topic, will the approach to international relations that has been set out in the memorandum of understanding be required often? Is that something that we will—[Inaudible.]

Thank you. That consensus approach and the desire to get it right from the start are really helpful.

In the hypothetical situation that we could not get agreement between the four nations on an international treaty or international concerted action, is it your view that we would need to invoke conflict resolution procedures, or would the UK Government seek to act unilaterally? From the conversation that we have just had, we know that consensus is certainly what we would be aiming for, but we cannot always achieve that. I am keen to get your sense of that.