���˿���

I have a quick update on the point that Jamie Greene raised about the correspondence that was sent to the UK Government from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in relation to the bill. I can confirm that, to date, there has been no reply to that letter, which was dated 10 November.

In view of the questions that were raised in response to the update given by the cabinet secretary and some of the comments made by his officials, and also in view of the Scottish Government’s position on the LCM, I propose—I am happy to discuss this further with members—that we do not put the question of consent today and that we consider the matter as a committee, so that we can obtain more information for further consideration. That is my proposal, and I am interested in hearing members’ views on it.

I call Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Russell Findlay.

No worries. Thank you.

We will ask the clerks to support that follow-up work and to keep on top of that piece of work into the new year.

My ever-helpful clerks have just confirmed that that appears to be connected to a freedom of information request that was submitted by our Liberal Democrat colleagues. It should be in the public domain, but we will see whether we can find it, circulate it to members and incorporate it in our on-going correspondence.

I have jotted down some of the points that members have made. It is clear that concerns still exist about the response that we received from Police Scotland. In relation to that correspondence, I still have questions about training, which I am very interested in, and, in particular, supporting operational supervisors to recognise and respond to changes in a member of their staff, and to instigate the appropriate support before things escalate for them.

In the correspondence from the SPA, I noticed that some of the timescales for processing retirements seem exceedingly long. That raises a concern, particularly where there is a health and wellbeing issue connected to that. For me, the other question that remains is around access to, and referral to, specialist support in circumstances in which the mental wellbeing of an officer or a member of support staff has declined to a point at which referral and access to more specialist support is appropriate. The timescales around that are difficult. Those are some of the issues that I am interested in continuing to scrutinise.

We have covered a number of issues: obtaining data on suicides; establishing whether there is a link with officers’ work roles and the collection of data on that; and the possibility of FAIs. It is important to acknowledge that HMICS, the SPA, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation are committed to addressing the issue, but the view that there is a lot more work to be done is loud and clear. Fulton MacGregor spoke about widening access to the police treatment centres, which is a good point, and the situation with regard to vaccinations, which Pauline McNeill raised, is an issue that has attracted scrutiny and criticism in the past.

Going forward—to pick up on Jamie Greene’s point—it is important that the SPA and Police Scotland have an opportunity to respond. I am happy to propose that we give them some time to respond on the notes of meetings with officers and the suggested follow-up. We could also invite the federation and even the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents to comment, perhaps in 2023. In the meantime, I am keen that we write again to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to request a full and detailed response to the correspondence that we have sent them.

I also propose that we engage with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, perhaps on cases around FAIs, which Russell Findlay raised, and suicides, and raise those issues with it. As I said, we can certainly track down the information around the FOI that was referred to earlier.

Are members happy with that proposal? There is still a wee bit of work to do, but it is all important stuff.

Okay. Perhaps what you were referring to was in relation to the previous agenda item, but we picked up the key points that you were making on that.

We move on to questions on lived experience. I will bring in Gillian Martin and then Miles Briggs.

I move to Paul O’Kane, then I will bring in Alex Cole-Hamilton.

I will bring in Alex Cole-Hamilton.

Our next item is our third evidence session on reducing drug deaths in Scotland and tackling problem drug use. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.

I welcome to the meeting Angela Constance, Minister for Drugs Policy, and her Scottish Government officials: Orlando Heijmer-Mason, deputy director for drugs policy; and Roz Currie, team leader with the Drug Deaths Taskforce response. Thank you very much indeed, minister and colleagues, for joining us—and for forgoing your opportunity to make some opening remarks, minister. We will therefore move straight to questions.

I will jump straight in, if I may. First, thank you for keeping the committees informed about the development of the national mission plan and the oversight group, and for keeping the Parliament updated on a range of developments relating to drug deaths, the medication-assisted treatment standards, substance misuse and the justice system, and other areas of on-going work.

I will open up the evidence session with a couple of questions on alcohol and drug partnerships. The “Changing Lives” report sets out some of the challenges experienced by specific populations, including women and young people. I was disturbed to understand the correlation between deaths of

“women with substance use problems that occur in the perinatal period”

and

“child protection proceedings or having their child taken into care.”

On young people, the report says:

“Drug-related deaths among young people (under 25 years) have risen sharply in recent years.”

Related to that particular issue, action 30 outlines how

“ADPs and services must ensure specific pathways are developed to ensure young people can access the support they need when they need it.”

As a former member of the Aberdeen City ADP, I would be interested to hear any update that you can provide on action 29, relating to pathways for women, and action 30, relating to young people. Specifically, I would like to know about the progress being made by ADPs in developing local pathways to services and support, given their crucial role in ultimately reducing drug harm and drug death numbers.

Thank you very much, minister. I will not ask questions on it just now, but that relates to how important lived and living experience will be in informing specific areas of work. Other members will touch on that later.

I open up the meeting to questions from members, starting with Alex Cole-Hamilton.