���˿���

There is certainly scope, and this is a pilot. The health and social care partnership, alongside the Government, will look at the success of the centre being set up as it is, and at what might be possible if we were to explore alternative or increased opportunities. Mr Sweeney made a suggestion in relation to the work that Peter Krykant did. That is potentially part of the exploration, and I am certainly not ruling any of that out, because we want to respond to what the evidence demonstrates works. It is important that we have the pilot so that we can demonstrate that it works. If further innovations could provide greater help and support, both the Government and, I would expect, the health and social care partnership would explore those.

I thank Mr Sweeney for his long-standing interest in, and campaigning on, the issue. I will defer to Maggie Page on the detail to ensure that I do not speak out of turn. NHS Scotland Assure is involved, and there have been delays in ensuring that the facility can be operational.

I would very much welcome that interaction. Again, I go back to Ms McNair’s questions on interaction with UK ministers at a minister-to-minister level. Those conversations have not happened, but I would very much welcome them, and I believe that the relevant health and social care partnership—without wanting to speak for it—would welcome them, too.

With regard to the learning from the facility, I expect that a great number of people will have an interest in looking at the success, or otherwise, of the pilot. In Scotland, we have to contend with a specific, and greater, issue with drug-related deaths. The recent statistics show that there has been a rise in the prevalence of drug-related deaths elsewhere in the UK, but it is not on the same scale that we are seeing in Scotland. I do not wish to diminish in any way the challenge that we have in Scotland, but I believe that there is, and there should be, a wider interest in the success, or otherwise, of the pilot at Hunter Street.

I met the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, pretty early in his tenure, and we are due to meet again soon. However, the issues that we are discussing were not covered in our ministerial discussion.

I will bring in Richard Foggo to talk about interactions that officials have had, but I think that it is safe to say that there is greater recognition from the new UK Government of the importance of taking a harm reduction, public health approach to tackling the issue of reducing drug and alcohol-related deaths. I am hopeful that we will have a constructive relationship on that basis to allow us to see progress on some of the areas that we are discussing. Those areas will include the safer consumption facility and the drug-checking facility, which the convener asked about, but I hope that the interaction of those things with reserved legislation will be open for discussion, too.

I know that there is interest in other areas; Edinburgh is looking closely at such facilities, too. The scheme is a pilot, so we are starting from a smaller place. If it is successful, we can, based on the test-and-learn process, build it up from there.

If it is successful, I expect that we will consider wider participation in addition to the facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow. Those cities have particular challenges, but the issue is facing all communities across Scotland.

I will be honest. I do not know why 1,000 was set as the target, and whether that is the right measure of—I do not think that “success” is the right word, but I think that Ms Wells understands where I am coming from. That target predates my involvement, so I do not know why it is 1,000.

What we can demonstrate is the clear progress that is being made on the availability of residential rehab. Audit Scotland recognised that in its report, to go back to Ms Dowey’s line of questioning.

We need to demonstrate that we are making progress across all areas. We are reducing stigma, thereby giving people the opportunity to access support and breaking down the barriers to that support, as well giving their families the opportunity to receive support. The progress that has been made in access to residential rehabilitation beds is a sign of that progress.

Again, as I say, I honestly do not know the reason behind 1,000 being the target, and it will be for us all to judge whether that is the right measure. The important thing is that demonstrable progress is being made in availability and in the capacity of the system, and that is clear.

I expect that that will form part of the audit work on bed availability that Maggie Page referred to. If we have further detail at local authority or health board level once that work is complete, we will certainly seek to provide that to the committees.

I will come back to the first point that Ms McNeill made, and then I will address her second point, on the gendered aspect. I will bring Maggie Page in on both questions, too.

On the first point, constituents have come to me who are in exactly the situation that Ms McNeill has outlined. They believe that residential rehab is right for them, but clinical decisions have been made that make that more challenging.

That touches on some of the work that we are seeking to do to provide clarity and ensure that guidance is in place with regard to people who present with both mental health and substance dependency issues at the same time. I am clear that we must support people to tackle both issues concurrently, as they drive one another—the substance dependency drives the mental health issues, and vice versa. We need to be clear on that, and I certainly believe that we need to support people in both aspects. I would be happy to return to Ms McNeill’s points in that regard.

On the gendered aspect of this issue, Ms McNeill is absolutely right. The figures are clear on the level of drug deaths among men, and indeed on the prevalence of poverty and the correlation between people living in poverty and the impact of that in terms of substance abuse. I will bring in Maggie Page to talk about this, but we have been developing work on how we target men to ensure that they understand what support is available.

Again, that brings us back to the landscape of destigmatisation, which is so important when it comes to men’s interaction with health services. Mr Sweeney and I are currently participating in Movember, because we need to promote greater awareness among, and provide a greater level of comfort for, people with regard to the need to interact with health services, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be to talk about health. Over the past couple of weeks, Chris Hoy has demonstrated the importance of doing that when it comes to prostate cancer, and it is just as important in this area with regard to the drivers of drug dependency among men and the mental health aspects in that respect.

I will bring in Maggie Page to talk about the specific action that we have been taking in that area and the work that is developing there.

We are considering the recommendations carefully. There is a lot in the report that demonstrates the progress that we have made already. Some of the recommendations, such as strengthening local leadership and providing greater transparency, are areas in which we are already developing work. We welcome the report, and we are still considering our direct response to each individual recommendation, as the report was published only on 31 October.

We take seriously all the commentary that comes from Audit Scotland in general and in this area in particular. We will consider all the recommendations carefully and respond in due course.

Alongside my other updates, I will be happy to provide that information, if there is anything further on which to update the committee.