Chamber and committees

Reading the letter takes me back to an issue that the committee raised previously, which was that the legislation felt really rushed. The relationship between football banning orders and the legislation should have been clear. Far be it from me to say it, but surely the role of lawyers and Government officials when they are drafting legislation is to match it up with all other legislation. There is an obvious relationship in this case, and we are asking the question with hindsight, and the minister is having to answer that question.

Although the minister is correct to say that it is a matter for the courts, it is for the Parliament to determine what it wants when it legislates. I would have thought that, to a party and to a person, what we wanted was to give maximum powers to arrest people for use of pyrotechnic devices at football matches, which is extremely disruptive. We are now trying to fix the issue with hindsight. It probably should have been drawn to the committee’s attention that the legislation might have a relationship with a pre-existing act. It would not have occurred to me.

Thank you very much.

Following what Rona Mackay has said, I would be interested in spending more time looking at the stalking charges. That offence is broader than domestic abuse and there are issues, with victims having reported failures in the system in relation to the law on that—but that is for another day.

Are we to assume from the paper that the changes under item 3 have already happened or been agreed? The list includes

“creating a standard condition of bail … placing a restriction on granting bail”

and

“allowing certain ... evidence”.

The paper says:

“The 2018 Act created a new offence of engaging in an abusive course of conduct ... For example, when a child sees, hears or is present during a domestic abuse incident.”

That is the point that Russell Findlay raised. It then says, “Further changes included” and lists changes. Are we to assume that those changes have all happened?

That is some good news.

The second question that I will ask relates to the recommendation for unfettered access to information following a death in police custody, which is critically important; it is a question that I put to the cabinet secretary at the time. Given what you said about the exclusion of the Crown—in the case of Alan Marshall, as you are aware, the Crown took a decision not to prosecute any of the 13 officers who held him down before he died in an attempt to get answers at the FAI, but it took seven years to get there—is it possible for that unfettered access to happen? Families want to go in and get information; they do not want to be told that they cannot go in or collect belongings or see what happened.

I thought that the recommendation was interesting, because, if there was a police investigation into a death, how could that commitment be made? However, the cabinet secretary made it. Is it possible to devise such a system? In this case, the family’s view was that there was a cover-up. They would have preferred to have found out exactly what had happened so that they would at least have had their own answers before the FAI. Would it be possible for that to happen without the Crown’s involvement?

Scotland has a higher proportion of drug deaths than any other country in Europe; our fatal drug overdose rate is also the highest in Europe per head of population. The joint committee on drug deaths report highlights that that cannot be explained simply by the link between deprivation and drug misuse. As others have said, each death is a personal tragedy for them, their friends and families and their communities. I think that we all agree that the situation is a stain on Scotland as a nation, and I believe that every single one of those deaths is preventable.

I commend all the speeches this afternoon, from whatever perspective they came, but I want to mention the speeches of Michael Marra and Annie Wells, because I think that they came from their passion in representing communities that are blighted by drugs.

The introduction of safe consumption rooms is an issue that I have been passionately involved in since 2018. Along with Gillian Mackay and Gillian Martin, I questioned the then UK minister, Kit Malthouse, at the joint committee, and pointed out that there were many countries where drug consumption rooms had saved lives and made a difference. I chaired the first meeting in this Parliament that discussed safe consumption rooms, and it was thanks to the work of Recovering Justice that it hosted the wonderful Nanna Gotfredsen, the Danish street lawyer who was instrumental in changing the Danish Government’s policy on that. I also want to praise the work of my colleague Paul Sweeney and Peter Krykant, who have been instrumental in getting a change in policy.

It is clear that Scotland is lagging behind the rest of the UK on tackling drug addiction and overdose. The last opportunity, I believe, is to set a path and to know, as Michael Marra said in his speech, that we can change that for all time. The UK Government’s first Home-Office-licensed drug checking service, run in Bristol by The Loop, a non-profit non-governmental organisation, is expected to start regular testing in the coming months. The service was approved in early 2022. The Loop also introduced event-based drug checking in 2016 and community-based drug checking in 2018.

A Home Office pilot drug checking service was also launched in Somerset in 2019. Furthermore, an online drug checking service funded by the Welsh Government was launched as far back as October 2013, so we can see what work we have to do to catch up. If England and Wales have been able to establish such facilities, there is no reason why Scotland should not have those services by now.

The Scottish Government said in its recent paper, “A caring, compassionate and human rights informed drug policy for Scotland”, that possession for personal supply should be decriminalised in Scotland. However, as others have said, we arguably have the best approach here in Scotland, due to the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain QC, once again proving to be innovative and responsive in relation to personal use.

Two years ago, the recorded police warning scheme was extended to include class A drugs. The scheme enables police officers to show discretion and issue a warning instead of charging an individual for possession, where officers believe that that is appropriate. The scheme has been in place since 2016, but it previously applied to class B and C drugs. Therefore, we already have ways in place whereby people suffering from addiction can be diverted, where that is appropriate.

I want to mention the drugs court that was set up in Glasgow in 2003, which has now been going for 20 years. I ask the minister, in summing up, to update Parliament on the roll-out of drugs courts and how useful they are in 2023.

There is no publicly available data on whether the police warning system is working effectively. For example, we do not know how many people with an addiction have received a warning, what services people have been diverted to or what the outcomes have been. It would be wise to have some evaluation to ensure that individuals are getting the help that they most desperately need.

I believe that the powers to end Scotland’s drugs crisis lie here in Scotland and in St Andrew’s house—in the Scottish Government. They include powers over our entire health system, drug treatment services, mental health services, social care, policing and prisons. The former head of the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce, Catriona Matheson, said:

“the Scottish Government needs to focus on what we can do now in Scotland without trying to divert attention to Westminster and the Misuse of Drugs Act.”

It is also worth bearing in mind that the areas related to UK-wide legislation are only a small subset of the areas that we need to look at. On the ground, there is clearly a lot to be done, and that was reflected in the most recent drug death figures and overdose data. The Scottish Government might truly believe that it is doing everything that it can within its powers to deal with the crisis through the national mission that was announced in January 2021 and the £250 million package, but the true test is in delivery.

I therefore welcome the recent investments for the sector but, as Annie Wells and others have said, the cuts to budgets have had a staggering impact on recovery services. The fact that, after four years, we have a green light for one pilot overdose prevention facility when we are in a public health emergency is very telling. Scotland’s drug deaths crisis is a matter of national shame. Scottish Labour believes that drug consumption rooms will help as part of a wider effort to increase the number of facilities to keep people safe.

The Lord Advocate’s decision will help to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a safe consumption room in Glasgow. John Mason has welcomed that, and I do, too. However, I point out to Parliament that it is important to discuss with the communities and local representatives how the room will actually function. I understand that there is concern that the location for the first consumption room, in Calton in Glasgow, might be a bit isolated, with no bus service. It is important to have those conversations to ensure that we are doing it correctly.

It is important to continue cross-party working to end the scandalous level of drug deaths in Scotland but, ultimately, that is for the Scottish Government, which has the powers to lead on the issue. It must put investment into recovery services and be accountable for its decisions.

I also welcome the investment that has been secured to put Glasgow back on the map as the number 2 in the United Kingdom list of retail centres, a position that it has enjoyed for the past two decades. However, we are already losing shoppers because of the current state of Glasgow city centre. Significant concerns have been expressed about parts of Sauchiehall Street since the ABC went down in the Glasgow School of Art fire. Will the Scottish Government support my call for a robust economic impact assessment to ensure that there is a viable plan for the golden Z, with a delivery team in place? Without delivery, we will not see the result that we want.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the regeneration plans for Glasgow’s golden Z will deliver the jobs and opportunities needed to grow the city’s economy. (S6O-02513)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle repeat offending, in light of a recent report that found that people who experience frequent and serious repeat violence often do not bring this to the attention of the authorities. (S6F-02369)

I welcome the report by the Scottish Government, which seeks to better understand repeat violent victimisation. It found that men who experience repeat physical violence in Scotland live in deprived areas, have experienced homelessness or live in supported accommodation and are in recovery from addiction, whereas intimate partner abuse was highest among women aged 16 to 24 who live in deprived areas. The report talks about local communities led by peer mentors and those with lived experience, who are uniquely positioned to support people who are experiencing repeat violence. That is a slightly different perspective on crime. With that in mind, what can be done to support grass-roots organisations, which the research found are quite limited by insecure funding?

Why 2 per cent?