³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have discussed that matter with the new leadership of the task force and the task force membership more broadly, and I am confident that it will produce its vital recommendations by the summer. The Government is actively supporting the task force’s work with, for example, a team of civil servants who support it with secretariat tasks and so on.

It has always been the case that we will need to look after the legacy of the task force’s work. Some tests of change will not be completed, but they would not have been completed by the end of this year, which was the original timescale in the task force’s recommendations. Arrangements will therefore have to be made, and we will do that in consultation with the task force and others to ensure that we continue to learn from the evidence as it emerges.

I have made it clear that I am committed to evidence-based policy, but I am also clear that we cannot wait for evidence to be complete, because that will never be the case. We have to take what we know, implement it and be prepared to adapt and change as we move forward.

I very much concur with the view that it is for the Government and this country’s institutions to implement changes, and it is imperative for our democracy that we are guided and scrutinised by the Parliament and parliamentary committees.

Notwithstanding that, there is a role for external organisations and experts in various fields, in particular people in the lived and living experience community, academics and people who provide services on the ground.

The terms of the task force’s remit changed when I came into this post. The task force had been in operation for 18 months when I became the Minister for Drugs Policy, and, at that time, I was very clear that two things were missing or needed to be corrected. Drugs policy should not be seen in isolation and must be connected with every other Government portfolio. Drugs policy needs to be joined at the hip with justice, housing, homelessness, mental health, primary care, education, prevention, poverty and inequality policies, and that is a far bigger job than that of the task force.

I was aware from my early engagement with stakeholders and various party spokespersons and ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ that there was concern about how the Government was performing in relation to tackling drug deaths and that there were concerns in and around the task force. My view was that the Government had outsourced its responsibilities and that I would not do that. I wanted to support the evidence-led work of the task force. My view was that any criticism of the task force should rest, rightly, with the Government and not the task force, which comprises individuals and citizens who give their time and talents to work with the Government. Therefore, there was a refocusing of the role and remit of the task force.

It is, of course, not for a Government minister to indicate to committees how they should proceed with their business. I will say that I very much embrace scrutiny; although it is not always comfortable, it is absolutely necessary, and I assure you that it always leads to better outcomes.

I welcome the joined-up approach that is being taken by the three parliamentary committees that are involved today, because it reflects the work that we are embarking on in the Government to ensure that drugs policy is joined at the hip with other crucial public policy areas and is not seen in isolation. We are trying to get our services to take that joined-up approach in communities.

There is a role for parliamentary scrutiny of the Government on the Drug Deaths Taskforce, the residential rehabilitation group, how we implement MAT standards and the national implementation group, and I am sure that people will be interested in the new national collaborative, too. The national mission is bigger than any one group. There is a lot to scrutinise and a lot to engage with.

It is no secret that Mr Malthouse and I have different views on harm reduction interventions, and we will have different views on the lens through which drug use should be viewed. I very much recognise the role and relationship of poverty and other matters in relation to this issue, and a lot has been written and published about the impact of concentrated levels of poverty and social deprivation.

Where I agree with Mr Malthouse is that there is a moral obligation on us to address poverty. However, as well as addressing the bigger structural changes that need to be made to society, we need to focus on the here and now, and that can be seen in the work that we are doing to invest in and reform services and to move matters forward as much and as quickly as we can.

There is a lot in that question. First, some care needs to be taken with the 1980s narrative. I always find it somewhat triggering to talk about the 1980s, but there is no doubt that those years had a scarring effect. That is something that we need to bear in mind, as we did in response to the financial crash and the spike in youth unemployment, which we knew would have a scarring impact on people’s life chances. In the recovery period following any recession or, indeed, pandemic, we need to focus on reducing the risk of such long-term impacts on our society and our communities.

There is a clear relationship between drug use and poverty. Indeed, last year’s annual report on the drug-related deaths statistics showed that people in our most deprived communities are 18 times more likely to die a drug-related death. That said, I would always urge a bit of caution about looking only at the structural issues in and around poverty. That can make people feel helpless, but no one should feel powerless in the face of poverty, which is, after all, man-made.

In that respect, I should mention the work that we are doing on child poverty and social security. I know that members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee are present, so I will not go through all of those things in detail, but I will just point to one example—and not just because I introduced it. Under the fairer Scotland duty, all public agencies must ensure that the drive to reduce poverty is at the heart of allocating resources and making big strategic decisions.

Ms Whitham also raised an important point about regeneration. In our child poverty delivery plans, the focus of evidence is on, for example, income, work and reducing the cost of living, but the first plan—which I was involved with and which will be updated soon—also looked at not only the impact of drug use, particularly on families, but quality of life. Community regeneration is therefore really important, as it is as much about the resilience of communities as it is about community action.

Yes, I continue to support the use of recorded police warnings, which were recently extended to cover class A drugs such as heroin and opioids. It is essentially a discretion that the police have, and it is based on a wealth of international evidence that shows that, at every twist and turn, our justice system should provide opportunities to divert people from the criminal justice system into diversionary activities or treatment.

I know that Ms Webber and I disagree fundamentally on that approach, but where I think that we can find common ground is on the increase in hospital admissions involving cannabis. Although cannabis is rarely implicated in drug-related deaths, statistics show that it features heavily in hospital and psychiatric admissions, often because of synthetic cannabinoids. The relationship between cannabis use and mental health is, I think, something that we can agree on.

The increase in hospital admissions because of cannabis use can be seen in all ages, but I have some concerns around young people in that respect. Young people have different patterns of drug use. Increasingly, they are moving away from risky behaviours. However, those young people who use drugs are far less likely to use opiates and more likely to use cannabis, MDMA or cocaine. Work is being done to develop bespoke services for young people. That feeds into our work on the prevention material for reaching young people not just in schools but in other settings.

We have a national mission to consider the harms and risks of all drugs, and the best way of reducing those harms and risks. Often, at its nub, that is about getting more people into the right treatment at the right time.

I apologise for the length of that answer, convener.

It is often important to work harder to engage with those with whom we disagree. It is no secret that Mr Malthouse and I have different perspectives on the implementation of a public health approach and on some harm reduction interventions—safer drugs consumption facilities being but one of those. In all fairness, I will say that I have had a number of discussions with him. I have participated and engaged in a number of four-nations meetings, through the British-Irish Council or the UK drugs summit, and we have had lots of correspondence—yes, I am a persistent correspondent of Mr Malthouse. My ethos is to engage him and his Government on the evidence. My correspondence with him on safer drugs consumption facilities has always been about the evidence that they work.

What has been useful about our more recent correspondence and, I suppose, Mr Malthouse’s appearance yesterday, is that he has spoken more, and in more detail, about what his concerns are, and that gives me the opportunity to refute those concerns with the evidence, because the evidence is crystal clear. Again, I can point to evidence from across the world that has been produced by other experts, as well as to our own evidence paper. He sees more obstacles to implementation than I do but, if there is a way for us to work together to overcome any obstacle, my door to that is open. I stress that I seek to engage on the evidence and not the politics.

There are a number of issues there. I hope that the convener will give me a wee bit of latitude in answering properly.

My view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is old—it is nearly as old as me—and that it was written for another time. A lot of the evidence that the task force gathered showed that people feel that it is rooted in drug use being all about personal failings and in the need for punishment. A root-and-branch review is therefore needed because—in my view—the act impedes our taking a public health approach. Other people might argue that it is completely contradictory to a public health approach. It impedes not only work around safe drug consumption facilities, but other harm reduction work. I can give the committee examples, if need be.

The Lord Advocate made a very clear statement to the Criminal Justice Committee last year that she would be prepared to reconsider what is in the public interest, and making another application. However, she also scoped out what needs to be addressed and considered. She spoke about the need for evidence, which I think is the most straightforward part, because the evidence is clear cut. However, she also spoke of the need for detail and precision, and about how all the partners need to be on board, including the police. That is why we are working across all the boundaries.

There are issues and complexities—I will not make any bones about that. I will not rehearse the correspondence that I sent to Mr Malthouse and the correspondence that he sent me. However, I think that the committee will see that it was, in some ways, helpful that he put on the record his concerns, many of which I think can be rebutted. Nonetheless, there are issues around how safe drug consumption facilities are policed, in and around their vicinity.

There is also a need for us to work through all the potential scenarios with our partners. That is why we need to look in detail at operating procedures, at staff training and at information for service users on what is and is not permitted. This is detailed and precise work, and there are difficulties around it.

It would be easier if the UK Government were either to legislate on the matter or devolve powers; I will continue to pursue the matter on the basis of the evidence. However, I am actually more invested in doing absolutely everything that we can to find our own solutions. If we can get to a position where the police and the Lord Advocate are content, so be it.

I am really excited about the national collaborative. I was committed to bringing it forward—in part due to my experience in social security and the work that we did around lived experience with experience panels, and in part because of my days in education, where I saw the benefits of the early years collaborative.

I think that it is absolutely crucial that there is a vehicle that is owned by the voices of the experienced—that it is theirs. I am delighted that Professor Alan Miller, who is Scotland’s leading human rights expert, has agreed to chair the national collaborative. He comes with independence. He is well placed to understand the impact of trauma and has worked with survivors of in-care abuse, through which he brought forward a programme of work that amplified their voices and ensured that change happened. I am thinking in particular of the redress scheme.

I am very confident about the national collaborative. Professor Miller is now involved in a series of engagements—introductory and one-to-one meetings with the sector and with people with lived and living experience. He will work with them to develop a programme of work, including milestones and timescales.

The national collaborative is a very important part of the national mission, because we need to ensure that voices of experience are plugged in to every aspect of that mission. It is also about enabling those voices to inform and drive change, and about what we do being informed by a human rights approach.

Some of the work that we are actively engaged in is on updating prevalence information. We need to update our understanding of the extent, or prevalence, of drug use in our society. There is some existing data; just before Christmas, I announced funding to update it. We need to understand more about prevalence in Scotland. That information is important because it is crucial to introducing our treatment targets.

In direct answer to Gillian Martin’s question—I think that this is a fair critique—I will say that we do not have enough of our people in treatment and we do not do enough to retain them in treatment or to follow them up if they fall out of it; hence, our investment in, for example, non-fatal overdose pathways and outreach. The new treatment target and the indicators that underlie it will therefore be crucial in improving and scrutinising the number of people who are in treatment. As I said to Parliament, we will announce that in the spring

With regard to capacity, much of our work on MAT standards and residential rehabilitation is about not just improving our ways of working but increasing capacity. Workforce capacity is important, so right now we are mapping the shape and size of the workforce in order to identify gaps and to look more at training needs.

The issue of stigma is very pertinent to the workforce; workers, too, often feel quite stigmatised. We will consider a recruitment campaign, but that has to be joined up with other big national workforce strategies across the Government.