I would like to make some progress first.

Some of that work is already under way in Scotland. In the region that I represent, we have River Garden Auchincruive. Those involved say that it is not only the people being rehabilitated who benefit; the facility has a positive impact on their families and friends, too. We know that when someone with addiction issues has a strong network of supportive friends and family around them, with the care and stability that that brings, their chances of long-term recovery are far better.

There is much talk of the cost of rehabilitation in its own right, but we should be thinking about the preventative costs too. When someone successfully rehabilitates, it can save money further down the line by reducing crime and cutting down attendance at accident and emergency—and it can potentially even save the cost of a prison space. Of course, the most valuable saving of all is that of a life, not only in preventing a drug-related fatality but in ensuring that someone’s life can be positive, productive, enjoyable and worthwhile. That is what most drug users ultimately want—to be free of their addiction and to integrate back into society.

However, we must also ensure that the money spent achieves the best possible outcomes. Audit Scotland has highlighted the importance of assessing where funds are going and whether they are delivering results. We need robust methods to evaluate the effectiveness of our spending and to ensure that resources are being directed to the most successful initiatives.

That is why facilities such as River Garden Auchincruive in my region are so vital. Its model of recovery is refreshingly different, giving residents not only the time to reflect and rebuild but the skills and support to reintegrate into society. I take this opportunity to invite the cabinet secretary to visit River Garden Auchincruive to see the great work that is being done there and the support that it gets from the local community.

The people’s panel also discussed other initiatives across Ayrshire, including community hubs that have been running successfully in Kilmarnock for almost two decades. The real value of such places is that service users can speak to people who have had similar experiences and have come out the other side. In many ways, that is preferable to units that, as the panel says, treat such matters as more of a tick-box exercise.

It is important to note the good work that is going on to reduce drug-related harm. Of course, the issue is emotive and can be politically charged. We might disagree about the best way forward, but we all share the same ambition of reducing the number of drug deaths in Scotland. Bringing in the views of the wider public is helpful, as it allows us to gain perspective and learn more about what people really think.

Undoubtedly there are lessons for everyone in the report. I hope that we will use the best of it to ensure that drug users across the country receive the support that they need and that Scotland’s regrettable position in terms of fatalities is finally addressed.

Although violence in schools is rising, the Scottish National Party has left teachers, parents and the police feeling powerless to help young victims, whereas violent pupils feel safe in the knowledge that they are unlikely to face significant consequences.

At a recent summit on youth violence, young people who were victims told us that they felt forgotten. They had to change classes, restrict their movements and change their subject choices, while the perpetrators faced no consequences for their actions.

Schools should be places of learning, not places of living in fear. What specific actions has the Scottish Government taken since that summit to improve the safety of our youngsters in schools and to give teachers the power that they need to remove those who are causing disruption?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to deal with violence in schools. (S6O-04375)

Good morning. I will come back to the sexual offences court, as I want to ask about training. You mentioned the specialism that will be in the sexual offences court, but we know that the court will exist in the same court system that we have now. Will you tell us a bit more about who will be trained? Will it only be the people who work in the sexual offences court or will we train everybody who works in the court system? How are we going to embed trauma-informed practice? Which agencies would be responsible for supplying and carrying out the training? What training will be received? Is it going to be a one-time course? Will there be refresher training?

I am just trying to work out how courts will get the training if we are using the court system that already exists. When I first read the bill, I understood that everybody in the court system would get the trauma-informed training. However, we then hear about the specialism that will exist in the sexual offences court. Will you elaborate on your intentions in that regard?

Thank you.

Okay.

Some stakeholders support the new commissioner and some are against the position. Concerns have also been raised about the cost. The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape concluded:

“We also believe that the funding for new supported bodies would be better spent on improving the delivery of public services ‘on the ground’, where greater impact can be made.”

How will the introduction of the victims and witnesses commissioner affect the current commissioner landscape, which the Finance and Public Administration Committee highlighted as no longer fit for purpose?

I think that everybody realises the benefits that could come from having a commissioner, but, as you said, budgets are tight. It has already been said that some of that remit would overlap with the remit of one of the other commissioners. Would it not be as well to put a pause on the post until the full review has been done, or should we carry on?

Good morning, again, cabinet secretary. Your letter of 31 October outlines several proposed areas of amendment relating to the victims commissioner. Can you expand on the thinking behind them?

Towns and villages across the south of Scotland also suffer badly from this issue. I routinely hear from shopkeepers about the fearlessness of violent thieves, many of whom are young people and many of whom have travelled from cities specifically to target smaller communities. The verdict from workers is always the same: the people responsible simply do not fear consequences, because there are none. What plans does the Scottish Government have to finally strike some fear into those reckless and dangerous individuals, so that they know that their actions will have consequences?