Rwyf i'n credu i ddweud o ddwyngio'n duodau o'r mwyllwch ffasgau a ddweud o ddwyngio'n ddwyngio'n dynnu i ddweud i ddwyngio i gyfrifio'r canfysgau. The next item of business is a debate on motion 2761 in the name of Angela Constance on tackling drug-related deaths through the first year of the national mission. I invite members who wish to speak to the debate to press their request to speak buttons or enter R in the chat function on BlueJeans. I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion up to 12 minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Every drug death is a tragedy leaving families, friends and loved ones looking for answers and support. I offer condolences to everyone who has been impacted by a drug death and reaffirming my commitment to them that I will continue to do everything possible to turn the tide on drug deaths in Scotland. This month marks the first year of the national mission to save and improve lives, and it is important that Parliament has an opportunity to reflect on the actions taken thus far before looking ahead to the next steps on our journey. The commitment from all parts of this chamber to reduce drug deaths as quickly as possible is giving a sharper focus and more of a shared understanding of what needs to be done. In the last 12 months, we have laid the foundations for the work ahead, getting in and about the issues that we face, so that we can focus on delivering change on the ground that will make a real and tangible difference to people's lives. We have set out the platforms for change on standards for care, like the match standards, and on residential rehabilitation through the milestones that were set out at the end of last year. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Drugs Death Task Force and the Residential Rehabilitation Working Group for giving us the tools for scaling up and making the necessary changes and improvements going forward. The year ahead begins with the appointment of a new chair to the Drugs Death Task Force. I have asked David Strang to take on this role with immediate effect, and I am delighted that he has accepted. David brings a wealth of relevant experience. He is a former chief constable who has also served as a chief inspector of prisons, and more recently he has chaired the independent inquiry into mental health services in Tayside. His appointment marks a new chapter for the task force, which has been a valued contributor to the work being done across Scotland. I have asked him and his colleagues on the task force to accelerate their final recommendations planned for this year, aiming to get those for the summer. As we focus now on delivery and change on the ground, we need quicker practical advice from the task force, building on what it has already provided and achieved. The First Minister set as a challenge through the national mission, recognising that real change needed an all-scotland cross-government-cross-chamber approach. She set out clear priorities to wrap support around those people who are at most risk through faster and appropriate access to treatment, increased access to residential rehabilitation, better support after non-fatal overdoses and recognising the vital role of front line, often third sector organisations. The national mission was underpinned by additional funding £255 million, with £5 million for the end of the previous financial year and £50 million per year for the next five years. That included £100 million over five years specifically for residential rehabilitation and aftercare. Dedicated national funding for grass-roots organisations and for families and for residential rehabilitation has proved hugely popular, providing direct support to where it is needed. Additional funding has also been used to maintain services during the pandemic, in particular during the lockdown periods when people are more at risk. We have improved emergency responses, increasing the availability of naloxone, which is now carried by ambulance technicians and by police officers in pilot areas. Police Scotland is considering rolling this out nationally, and additional opportunities for naloxone carriage are being explored with our emergency services. Funding has been provided to ADPs for non-fatal overdose pathways. The Glasgow Overdose Response Team is a good example of what is needed all across the country, providing a focused period of support for people after an overdose. The ambulance service has also led the way in the distribution of take-home naloxone and connecting people to services, helping to prevent as well as respond to overdose. Colleagues will have noted the media strategy that ran during the last months of 2021 to raise public awareness of the signs of overdose, the important role of naloxone and, crucially, how to help. During the first year of the mission, I have taken a balanced approach to treatment and recovery, announced support for harm reduction through the match standards and for recovery through increasing access to residential rehabilitation. Both of those are vital and both are part of a whole system of care, of course. I am very grateful for the ministers for taking intervention. I am pleased to hear all the steps that have been taken and the potential of the success, but I can ask what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that, as people are rehabilitated and recovered, their place is not taken by somebody else who is falling into that trap of addiction. Prevention is of crucial importance both within our education system, within our early years, and the work to prevent poverty and mental health. The member makes an important point about prevention. On residential rehabilitation last year, we published details for the first time on the placements that were available and we set up funding streams to ensure that people could access them. In November, I set out plans to increase the number of residential rehab beds by 50 per cent and the publicly funded placements by 300 per cent over the next five years. I signalled the need to move to national commissioning for placements to ensure that I will make a wee bit more progress first. I signalled the need to move to national commissioning for placements to ensure better consistency across the country. To build a system of fast and appropriate access to treatment, we published the medicated assisted treatment standards in May last year and set services a stretched target to have those embedded by April 2022. In December, I provided Parliament with the first six-monthly update on how those standards will be embedded and then sustained and improved. For the first time, we have a commitment of a £40 million plan over five years to implement fast and appropriate access to treatment, making the key links between mental health, primary care and advocacy for housing and benefits. Not just now. The standards will ensure that people have access to the trauma-informed and psychologically informed services. The standards will help to make rights a reality in practice. The standards also include criteria to combat stigma, which remains a significant barrier for people to coming to treatment. In the first half of the year, we supported a group of people with lived and living experience to develop and publish a stigma charter for services to adopt. The additional funding in the first year of the mission also allowed us to run a successful media campaign to raise awareness of stigma, challenging us all to think about how we can all play our part in tackling it, recognising that people need help and not judgment. We need to be aware of the wider impact that drugs have on families, an important part of our preventative approach. I announced the launch in December of a new whole-family framework with additional funding through ADPs of £3.5 million per year. That will help local services to provide support to families who have been impacted by problematic drug use and adopt a whole-family preventative approach in the support that they provide. We have also introduced quarterly reporting of suspected drug deaths for the first time. That allows services to respond more quickly and keeps Parliament informed. That is a very important step forward, but it does not replace the official reports produced annually by national records. I want to roll back a bit. You mentioned percentage increases in the number of beds. Can you tell us the exact number of beds that we are talking about? The ambition that I laid out just before Christmas there, Mr Kerr, in relation to residential rehabilitation, was to, over the five-year period, ensure that we increase publicly funded placements to residential rehabilitation to at least 1,000 per annum. We are moving forward with our commitment to establish a safer drug consumption room to operate within the current legal framework. A new service proposal in Glasgow has been provided and we are continuing to work closely with the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership, the police and the Crown Office to ensure that we have a sustainable approach that is clinically and legally safe for staff and those using it. We are serious about this commitment as we know that these facilities have a strong evidence base in saving lives and helping some of our most vulnerable citizens. A fresh proposal will be made to the Lord Advocate once further detail on operation and policing is developed. Our focus on lived and living experience will be carried forward through the creation of a national collaborative. The independent chair will be announced this month. The national collaborative will be well placed to recognise and understand the impact of trauma and bring together and support the voices of lived and living experience and families, ensuring that they are at the very heart of the national mission to shape and implement a human rights approach that will stand the test of time. In March, I will announce our first treatment target, which reflects the MATS standards. In December, I announced funding for new research into prevalence and the outputs of that research will help inform future targets. By March, we will also have published evidence on the impact of methadone and poly drug use deaths as well as an evidence summary on benzodiazepines, which will inform discussions for an expert group that will meet at the end of January to consider the role of benzodiazepines in treatment and recovery and inform our work on stabilisation services, as recommended by the task force. This year, I will ensure that plans for the establishment of a national care service are an opportunity to improve person-centred care and to put drug and alcohol services on a firmer footing through clearer expectations, standards and accountability. In all of our projects and initiatives, one of the most significant challenges that we face is on workforce. We are currently mapping the workforce, including existing training capacity. Over the next year of the mission, we will be focused on increasing capacity and training to ensure the delivery of the national mission. I will also continue to work closely with ministerial colleagues to focus on action to support people with multiple complex needs, joining up mental health, justice, homelessness and others. I am particularly keen to see more progress around justice issues, which will include better through-care, especially for people on release from prison. I will return to Parliament with justice colleagues in spring. I will continue to press for the introduction of drug checking facilities that could also save lives if we were allowed to do that in Scotland. The task force has funded a project to research and scope the key components that are required to implement drug checking facilities in three areas of Scotland—Dundee, Glasgow and Aberdeen—and we expect applications for the first of those to be submitted to the Home Office by the end of February. Finally, in the first year of the national mission, solid foundations have been laid, but much remains to be done. My focus and that of this Government will be on delivery on the ground where it matters most. I look forward to members' contributions and I move the motion in my name. I now call on Sue Webber to speak to a new amendment 2761.2 up to eight minutes, Ms Webber. I draw the chamber's attention to my register of interests, both as a City of Edinburgh councillor and as a member of the Edinburgh alcohol and drug partnership, and I move the amendment in my name. I welcome the chance to speak in such an important debate. I want to do all that I can to look for the positives, to reflect on the cross-party ambition and willingness to work together to tackle and reduce our country's shocking and shameful drug-related deaths. Today, we are asked to consider the first year and next steps. I know that we all want to see evidence of real improvements in services and support for those who desperately need help, and we want to save people from dying needlessly. However, in Scotland today, people are still being denied access to the addiction treatment that they need, although the drug death rate has almost tripled on the SNP's watch. The SNP's devastating handling of the crisis has been thrown into further chaos by the recent resignation of members of the drug deaths task force, but I would like to acknowledge today and welcome the appointment of Mr David Strang. Ann Marie Ward, chief executive officer of favour, has said, we stood by helplessly while friends become more traumatised by the day. We have witnessed friends and family die, watching the slow car crash as each reached out for help that was more often than not wasn't there. The absence of hope in our treatment systems is not only damaging to service users but to those working in services. I stated yesterday in the debate on mental health and it is just as valid today that how can a workforce that has reached burned out deliver compassionate care when they themselves face periods of stress and anxiety, and they watch people's lives destroyed by substance misuse daily? As my amendment states, the next phase of action must also include preventative measures and policies. Ones that ensure that those are helped with their recovery are not replaced, as Mr Whittle has just said, by more people who fall into that cycle of addiction. To do that, we must understand why Scotland has the crisis that it has. What is unique to Scotland that causes so many drug-related deaths? Only then can we create a preventative agenda that will work to save lives in Scotland. That is one of the reasons that Scottish Conservatives have launched our right to recovery bill, which will ensure that those with addiction issues are able to access the necessary treatment that they require. I have had the invaluable opportunity to speak to stakeholders and those with Lyft experiences who will have submitted responses to the calls for consultation, and I would like to thank them all for taking the time to engage with the bill and for sharing the issues that they still face 12 months on. Some say—and there has been criticism that there are flaws in the bill—that those working with us have hit back. Right now, the treatment system in Scotland lacks the quality, the diversity and the capacity to fulfil its potential in protecting people from substance use-related harms, including drug-related deaths. Stephen Whishart said that the proposed bill does address that. It ensures that equal funding must be provided to allow local authorities and NHS health boards to perform its duties. It also, importantly, shifts the balance of power from the opinion of individual decision makers and to the right of the person to choose what their plan is. We welcome the £250 million to tackle drug deaths. It should not have taken the 14 years to finally realise that the drug policies had failed and that families had been failed and that entire communities were let down and broken. That is why the Scottish Conservatives are pushing forward with our proposals for a right to recovery bill. With the consultation now closed, it was astounding to see the level of interaction and submission from across the country. We have received overwhelming support. Again, I would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who took the time to submit their views on the right to recovery bill. As I said, the £250 million worth of funding is welcome, but the SNP Government has sadly refused to sign up to the UK-wide scheme to help to tackle drug dealing. Project Adder would have provided investment designed to tackle addiction and the supply of illegal substances. My understanding via UK Government officials is that there was no extra resource attached to Project Adder should Scotland participate. If I am blunt, the proposal from the UK Government was to re-bad work that we were already doing and to describe that as Project Adder. I thank the Minister for her intervention, but surely the SNP should be doing everything possible and taking any approach possible to tackle our national crisis, rather than playing party politics yet again and refusing to engage with Westminster. It is tiresome and unnecessary when we all know that we must work together to save lives. Across the country, alcohol and drug partnership meetings have taken on a more upbeat and positive feel for the first time in years. More funding has helped as they strive to have the new match standards embedded within their area by April 2022. However, that is where things start to go wrong. April 2022 is only four months away, yet we have had ADPs across the country starting from very different places. We have ADPs already admitting that they will not be able to establish and embed all those standards by this timeline, including Edinburgh, who have an established pre-existing service with many of the standards. Half of the ADPs who did not respond to the Public Health Scotland survey said that they had yet to set a pathway to residential rehabilitation. Other reasons given for the ADPs not responding to the survey on residential rehabilitation were 42 per cent, because it said that there were no referrals received, and 8 per cent said that there was no staff available to complete the template. That is absolutely astounding. Such variation in services across the country underpins the inequalities that we face. We need to wake up. It is the very reason that people need the right to recovery, as it is clear that the SNP has failed to support residential rehabilitation. The SNP Government only funded 13 per cent of residential rehab places in Scotland in 2019-20, and furthermore, the number of Government-funded places for residential rehab declined throughout 2021, from 47 placements in March to 36 in September. That is some way and is a long way of reaching that 1,000. I want to take some time to acknowledge the invaluable work that is going on in my city, Edinburgh. The Vow project is a Police Scotland service that is consisting of four police officers and three peer mentors. It aims to empower young people involved in the criminal justice system to break the cycle of offending by providing support to people who are deemed to be at significant risk of drug-related harm in the community. The assertive outreach relies on the unique experiences of peer mentors who have lived experience and the police officers that access to a wide professional network of contacts, and they can provide opportunities for training and employment. There is no doubt that this project has saved lives, but funding is an issue. Tackling drug-related deaths should always be a priority, which is why the Scottish Conservatives launched our right to recovery bill. Anne-Marie, chief executive officer of favour today, said that enshrining people's rights in law would ensure access and choice to a plethora of services over and over, and that it is nothing short of incredible. That legislation is a starting point to people being able to access services at the moment that are not even available. I hope that the chamber continues to demonstrate consensus and collaboration on tackling the complex issues that are involved in drug-related deaths. It is our national shame, and we should all support the right to recovery bill by making a recovery, a legislative certainty, in the very least that those people deserve. We are a year on from the First Minister's announcement, and this debate is an opportunity to examine the progress and to focus on the next steps. A year ago, a declaration was made, a national mission was announced, and the acknowledgement of failure was given. A year on, the early indications of progress on reversing the high rate of fatalities in Scotland, by far the highest in Europe and more than three times that of England and Wales, is slow. The recent Police Scotland data showed a slight decrease, but that suggests a plateau rather than progress. Perhaps at this stage, the Government would argue that more progress could not be expected. We are at early stages, but when will it be? The funding commitment is for five years, is that the aim of the national mission, and what will success look like? Today, as we reflect on policy and responses to the crisis, it should be with a critical eye if we are to have confidence that progress will be made and to focus on the further action that is required. Over the past year, I recognise that there has been activity. That includes the medical assisted treatment standards, plans to increase capacity in residential rehabilitation facilities and the expansion of the accorded police warning scheme. Though more investment is needed in all of those, if they are to make a difference. Our amendment talks about the need to fully resource the MAT standards implementation. In June, the minister committed £4 million to the first two standards being implemented as a priority. The six-month update that we had recently did not share any data to demonstrate progress—we will only have the minister's word on that. The commitment is for full implementation by April. Will that be achieved? A briefing today from the Royal College of Psychiatrists highlights the need for more support for health boards and IGBs who are struggling to meet the standards, a focus on leadership and a need for increased staffing levels. Into our amendment talks about barriers to residential rehab, how will the minister ensure that expansion and capacity will address equal access? I am looking for support for our amendment today, but we will support a united voice in Parliament. However, the minister's motion does lack acknowledgement of the failure of the Scottish Government to act much earlier when fatalities began to spiral upwards or to set out a clear course of action. Although I fully recognise that addictions of the modern era in Scotland is fuelled by significant industrial change, unemployment and deprivation, trauma and mental health, the responsibility of government is to respond and the drug-stead crisis represents a failure of government in recent years. It shows the devastating impact of what can happen when focus is not given to critical issues that are allowed to escalate as policies continue on the mistaken path. Life could have been saved if action had been taken earlier. However, although I welcomed several announcements made in the last year, there is still much work to be done. A year ago, the First Minister stated support for adopting safe consumption routes in Scotland and exploring how to overcome the barriers to doing so. In the past year, we have had a number of statements from the Government on the work under way. I was seeking assurances at moving further forward, and I appreciate the minister's comments today on a Glasgow proposal, sounding like it is coming closer, and I support her in pushing forward the plan with other agencies. Although Wales has had a drug-taking service since 2013, we are still to get the pilots started. Although a commitment was given, there is a lack of progress on expanding heroin-assisted treatment, and that is important in reducing fatalities, as well as blood-borne viruses, as the hepatitis C trust has highlighted. Accountability, transparency and scrutiny are essential going forward, and that is why Labour's amendment is calling for an independent review, a kind of audit of activity. I do await more information on the national collaborative that the minister has referred to today and whether it could play a role in the need for this. The First Minister stated a year ago that the importance of a clear focus on what works and the need to evaluate interventions so that we know what works and what does not. A review should not only cover the recommendations of the drug's death task force, but also other measures that will be announced by the Government, so we can assess how effective those interventions are and identify quickly where further change is needed. There is a balance between urgency and evidence-led policymaking. That is a challenge for the minister. I share her frustration at the lack of change, the pace of change, but we must not lose sight of the importance of informed policymaking. The resignations of the chair and vice chairs of the drug's death task force reflect a breakdown in relationships between the Scottish Government and the task force that they appointed. It is unfortunate that, by a pushing for urgency, something that the Government itself had not demonstrated for a long time created a situation of uncertainty and conflict, and steps must be taken to avoid that negatively impacting on the on-going work of the task force. I welcome the clarity today over the appointment of David Strang as the chair, and I wish him well in leading their work. Their contribution is important, and I would urge the minister to work constructively with them and support completion of the work. The task force has already made recommendations, and we need to hear what progress has been made with those, including evaluations and updates. The recent report by the Criminal Justice Committee in the Parliament raised concerns at the lack of progress and implementation of the drug force recommendations and called for much faster progress to be made. We also need increased transparency over the national mission and related work that demonstrates an inclusive report. The national drug's mission implementation group, chaired by the minister, was set up to drive action across Government and services and to oversee delivery of the task force recommendations. It was due to me every three months, but information on the Scottish Government website shows that a meeting took place in June 2021, and it gives no indication of it, whether it has been met since then, and that there are no minutes available. That does little to instill confidence in the process or transparency, so can the minister, when she concludes, advise on additional meetings of the implementation group and outline its current work? The national mission must be more than a statement, it has to save lives and it has to build futures. I move the amendment in my name. I welcome the debate and reaffirming my good wishes to Angela Constance and her work. This is something that all parties want her to succeed on. I also welcome the appointment of David Strang. I know David Strang from work with him over prison reform and some matters relating to constituents. I have always found him to be a man of deep compassion and intellect, so I welcome him to his place. I also start by acknowledging the political progress that has been made on this subject. A year ago, we were debating this on a motion in the name of Monica Lennon, and it was customary for it to be opposition time that was afforded to the drug deaths emergency. I am gratified now that the Government is leading such debates in Government's time, but still progress is painfully slow. Last summer, we know that Scotland hit a particular grim milestone. I am sure that everyone in the chamber is familiar with that, with more than 1,300 people dying of drug overdoses, which is the worst drug deaths Scotland has seen for the seventh year running. Our mortality rate is still three and a half times higher than our English and Welsh counterparts and higher than that of any other European country. While deaths are the main focus of today's debate, it is also worth noting that addiction has devastating consequences both from cradle to grave. In fact, it was revealed just last week by my party through freedom of information that, since 2017, the devastating reality that more than 850 babies have been born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. Not only does this have immediate and painful side effects for newborns such as seizures, tremors and breathing difficulties, but it can also cause serious developmental issues. It is hard to imagine a more difficult start to life, and I have talked about that several times, particularly the work that I did outside of this place in that regard. To solve the crisis and to identify solutions, we have to shift away from the view that addiction is perceived as a criminal issue. We are starting to do that. It is a debilitating and consuming sickness, masking unresolved pain, sometimes born out of mental health conditions, economic circumstances and, in some cases, it is also a right of passage in some communities. To be properly treated, this illness must be met with empathy and a holistic understanding of the factors that contribute to it. That is an approach that the Lib Dems have been campaigning alongside others, particularly in the Labour Party, for a very long time. The Royal College of Physicians advises that, while we are in desperate need of direct policies to tackle drug deaths, we must address the impact that such factors as employment, social security and housing all have as contributing factors to addiction. They say that there must be a joined-up approach and joined-up care across all those stables for people who struggle with addiction to tackle the epidemic from all angles in their words. Presiding Officer, why, then, despite the expertise of the royal colleges, is the Government not always heeding this advice? It was only two weeks ago, as we know, that the head of the drugs task force, Katrina Matheson and her deputy, resigned. Why? Because they said that they could not cope with the Government's drive to meet their targets quickly rather than on achieving them on a sustainable basis. I hope that David Strang has afforded more latitude to complete his work at a rate that works. Sustainable change can be achieved by precise action and expertise. We know that. We only need to look for international examples, such as our neighbours in Portugal, who have grappled with issues such as that and succeeded. That is why I and my party have previously called on the help of the World Health Organization to provide a specialist task force for Scotland, which could help to lend international expertise and solutions that work to help tackle our drugs epidemic head-on. My party has also called for safe consumption spaces for a long time, following the heroic efforts of people such as Peter Criken and, before he came to this place, Paul Sweeney, in providing spaces for safe consumption and clean equipment. The risk of drug mortality reduces considerably by reducing the deadly rate of infections such as hepatitis and other vital impacts. Moreover, we have also campaigned for an increase in rehabilitation services, so it is, of course, encouraging to hear the measures that the Government are working on to award such efforts and to increase the capacity of rehabilitation in this country by 50 per cent, but more can and should be done. We also need to match that with the recognition of problems in our stabilisation services. I have discussed, personally, with Angela Constance, the problems that we face in stabilisation services. I hope that she will address the Government's commitment to that in her closing remarks, because we cannot get people into meaningful rehabilitation until we have stabilised the various chaotic aspects of their lifestyle before that happens. As I mentioned before, more must be done to provide a united approach across different services. Very recently, however, we have heard extremely troubling reports that those in drug and alcohol rehabilitation must leave rehabilitation immediately, otherwise they could lose their council homes and tenancies. It is snatching away people's homes in an appropriate way to treat those who are in such need of desperate help. Considering that it would be perfectly plausible for the Government to use emergency housing funding to help people to keep their homes and tenancies while they undergo this vital treatment, it is something that the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for. Again, I ask for the Government to reflect on that in their closing remarks. The motion that we are debating today also considers safe consumption facilities an important measure and supports all options within the existing legal framework. The law, however, is not as black and white as the SNP would lead us to believe. The Government could be pushing and challenging the boundaries of law to break the legal impasse and properly introduce safe consumption. After all, that was confirmed by the Lord Advocate a few months ago, when my party pushed for a review into the laws. Presiding Officer, above all else, it must be remembered today that every drug-related death that occurs is a tragedy, but the rate and scale of it makes it a particularly Scottish tragedy. It is a preventable loss of life among people in need of compassion and support, not judgment, and help instead of punishment. It is a mark of modern and liberal society of how readily and effectively we offer assistance to those who need it most. As politicians, we can all come to this chamber with our views on how to help people in Scotland at risk of death from drug use, but it is incumbent on all of us to reach out and speak to those with experience. I do not have personal experience, either professionally or personally, and I am acutely aware of that every time I engage on that issue. I have not felt the pain as a mum of seeing my children struggle with addiction, wondering if they will ever become healthy again, wondering if one day I might get that phone call. However, I have spoken to families for whom it is a constant fear. Drug addiction does not have a type, but it does have some very stubborn root causes that some are more at risk of than others. For every intervention that Ms Constance has outlined over the past year, we must remember that poverty is the most egregious of those causes. No one standing up today should ever ignore that root cause, one that is many decades old in the making and one that, in addition to the mitigations that the Government, drugs and alcohol agencies and clinicians can make, sits stubbornly in the room like the proverbial elephant. Ms Constance has said in the past many times that she wants to throw the kitchen sink at this. She says that she will consider anything if it works. I was pleased to see the pledge for £1.1 million over the three years for projects to monitor progress on the interventions that are being made. Those include surveillance projects on new problem drug use, prevalence estimates, hospital-based toxicology studies and improvements to the national drug-related death database. Those projects are vital because we need to know what is working and what is not, because we have no time to waste. We need to leave entrenched political ideology at the door. Some politicians in this chamber have, over the time that I have been here, been far too wary of following other countries' radicals but, ultimately, successful approaches. Alec Cole-Hamilton has just mentioned one of them in Portugal, too stuck on purely abstinence-based recoveries, too quick to dismiss safe consumption facilities, and not recognising that people suffering from addiction can also have caring responsibilities that mean that they need rapid-ironed care and treatment that takes those responsibilities into account. Not only do I believe that some of those entrenched views are stigmatising, I believe that they are unrealistic given the complex nature of addiction. Helping people recover from addiction and stay recovered is our goal. The way that we get there will require myriad approaches, and not all of them are traditional political vote winners. One of the most significant of the Government's interventions is the implementation of the medical medication-assisted treatment standards across Scotland. Still in stigma, we must all be resolute in our assertion that what we are talking about is a health issue, and when to stop constantly referring to it as a justice one for those who are addicted. The tone and rhetoric of some of the Conservative MSP's question of the Lord Advocate on her announcement on the diversion from prosecution was slightly disappointing in that regard. That is a significant move that seeks to aid them in recovery for victims, not compound their trauma by putting them into the justice system. I would also like to implore politicians in the media to please stop using the word shame when discussing the issue, no matter how it is meant. The mental health debate yesterday had some moving and quite personal speeches from MSPs across the chamber, but for some of our citizens, poor mental health leads to reliance on drugs or alcohol, which can turn into life-threatening addiction. This manifestation is not a lifestyle choice, it is very often a symptom of trauma and of poor mental health. If the law is a barrier to recovery, then it simply must be changed. I am looking forward to asking the UK Government Minister of Kent Mall House in early February about the UK laws that prohibit the use of safe consumption rooms in a joint session with the Committee on Health, Social Care and Sport and the Criminal Justice Committee. I come back to where I started, my determination to always consult with those with experience whenever I speak on drugs policy. With that in mind, I asked my colleagues at Alcohol and Drug Action in Aberdeenshire what they think of the policy interventions of the Scottish Government in the last 12 months, and I will end by quoting director Fraser Hogan. He said this. In Aberdeenshire, there are issues not only around opiate users where match standards are very much welcomed, but we also recognise increases in poly drug use within a younger age group. We need to ensure that within the investment plan that we create an adaptive and flexible treatment system, specialist services that will emphasise and include vital preparatory work that is trauma informed, care and stabilisation opportunities, and post care such as reintegration planning for any rehabilitation placement. There is a need to consider broader aspects that ensure relevant assessment processes and a wider wraparound and more joined up of wider health and social providers. Increasing the range of treatment options is essential, but also those involved in delivering them is crucial. It is important to stress that rehabilitation beds in themselves won't succeed even with the best of intentions if we don't have a systems-based approach. Match standards will be a key lever for opiate users at high risk, but we must broaden the standards further, given that many of those suffering non-fatal and fatal ODE are poly drug users with a wide variety of other underlying and social issues. Thank you. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by Paul MacLennan. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm pleased once again to get the opportunity to speak in the chamber on tackling Scotland's drug death shame. Those furthest from society during this pandemic have suffered disproportionately. We have endured nearly two years where isolation and lack of public contact has been the mandated position, but for those caught in addiction, isolation and lack of contact is the worst of all worlds. Without doubt, Covid will have significantly impacted drug and alcohol consumption and death. Much has been said over the past five years in the chamber on the subject, and it's fair to say that although it took far too long for the Scottish Government to acknowledge the severity of the issues with the First Minister admitting that the Scottish Government have taken the rail of the ball, action has been taken at long last, much of which I have to say had been repeatedly called for by the Scottish Conservatives, especially on the reinvestment and rehabilitation beds that have been so drastically cut. In the last debate in the last term, the Scottish Conservatives recognised that the debate had to move on, and despite serious reservations, we voted with a Government motion that included exploring the viability of such consumption rooms. In terms of safe consumption rooms as the most effective way of deploying public funds and tackling addiction issues, I have to say that those reservations remain, but the debate on solving this crisis cannot be allowed to hang on that particular issue. So as the Government motion says, this debate is about the first year of the new measures, the effectiveness and what steps have to be taken next. We've had a year of putting measures in place to tackle the immediate crisis, helping those with the most urgent and chronic addiction problems and ensuring that they get the treatment that they desperately need, something that the Scottish Conservatives would like to enshrine in law with that right to recovery. Of course, this is an understandable first step. However, I would like to discuss how we ensure that as we help each person with the rehabilitation and recovery, that their place is not just taken by somebody else who has fallen into that addiction trap. In other words, how we develop policies that help to prevent people stepping into that life in the first place or, at the very least, catch the problem as early as possible before it reaches the crisis point. That, of course, is more complicated, it is more long-term. Nonetheless, it is absolutely critical that we address that. Understanding the reasons for addiction, specifically why Scotland has such a poor record, is a critical first step in developing a strategy to tackle addiction. I think that the minister and I have debated and discussed something before, and I think that that debate will probably continue. According to the conclusions from a conference on the matter of life and death at which there were some 110 organisations associated with prevention and treatment of drug and alcohol abuse, some of the main causes of drug and alcohol misuse include marginalisation and exclusion, loneliness, lack of social structure, poor relationships, lack of protective factors, self-medication, associated with massing of the pain of bases and previous trauma, stigma, self-deprecation, barriers to achievement and homelessness. I joined the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. Of course I will. Thank you very much for taking the intervention. The list of reasons why people take drugs there, the one that was blatantly missing that I could see, was poverty. Would you not accept poverty as a major contributor at drug use? Brian Whittle I thank Mr Fair for the intervention because that was my very next sentence. I joined the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster in the last session of Parliament for its investigation into deprivation and addiction. It concluded that, although deprivation does not necessarily cause addiction, deprivation and inequality make the above more acute, leading to a more likely situation in which there is an inability to access quality treatment and help, a lack of access to general community services, an unmet complex health need and a lack of effective support structure. Although, in Mr Fairlie's intervention there, he rightly cites poverty, in that particular committee that was chaired by one of his own, the conclusion was that it was not necessarily the cause of addiction. However, there are interventions that are successful around the country. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. There are many people and organisations out there in the front line who have lived experience doing great work. Much of the solution is about supporting work that is already there. I think that the most effective tools that the Scottish Government have at their disposal to tackle the scourge of addiction and death from addiction lie in education and in health and in the third sector, the responsibility for which has been totally devolved to this Parliament for 20 years. I would say to this chamber that successive governments' inability to create legislation, investment and focus to this issue is an abject failure of this Parliament. Make no mistake that the Scottish Government has a significant toolbox to radically alter the approach to addiction and therefore to the outcomes. I would highlight within those actions that we must recognise, non-clinical interventions, that this is not an attempt to replace clinical services, rather that it is augmenting them. I fear that we are medicalising human distress. Clinical and third sector partnership solutions must include financial partnerships. I know that the Minister recognises that, but we have had those conversations before. There are too many instances where the third sector organisations who are interacting with the most isolated of patients are not getting access to the funding that the Scottish Government has deployed. The suggestions are, if I may, a range of support within one location, a one-door approach. Services are working together to reflect the needs of individuals and families in the treatment plan. Services are available within communities in a sense of feeling connected, sharing information and continuity of care, that need for a more joined-up working between addiction services and community mental health. Long-term solutions will lie and I understand why Scotland has such a disproportionate bad record in drug deaths and addiction, and I would like to hear an appropriate response and hopefully the minister will answer that in the summer. Long-term, to tackle this crisis, the solution must include prevention. I call Paul McLennan to be followed by Michael Marra. One year of the national mission, a mission to save lives and improve lives. In preparing the speech, I reminded myself of the main aims of the national mission, fast and appropriate access to treatment and support through all services, improved front-line drug services, including the third sector. Services are in place and working together to react immediately and maintain support for as long as is needed, increase capacity in and in use of residential rehabilitation, and more joined-up approach to cost policies to address underline issues. I recently met Meldap, Mid and East Lothian drug partnership, to discuss how I could help and add value to the mission in East Lothian. East Lothian has seen a slight drop in drug deaths from 18 to 14 last year. Most of the deaths, like many in Scotland, were long-term users with existing issues, and many were multiple drug users. Again, like Scotland, many were from a poorer background, but not all. That is 14 lives in East Lothian lost and 14 families suffering. Over the next five years, £250 million will be spent on addressing the crisis, and the Scottish Government has determined that every penny of additional funding will make a difference. The first year of the mission has seen many discussions, consultation and honest frank discussions that we need to move on to implementation. The Scottish Drugs Task Force was set up in 2019 and looked at some key strategies. I want to focus on a few of those. The first one is stigma. I do not think that we underestimate that at all. For years, we have heard phrases banded about, these are just a junkie, just a pothead, they are just a waster. People threw about the comments without thinking about the impact. Stigma affects individuals, families and communities. People with drug and alcohol problems often see themselves in a way that reflects the prejudice and judgement of others. That is still not there, that is not going away. Sometimes this overrides any sense of self-worth or self-esteem. There are also strong links between stigma, wellbeing and mental health problems, as we have already heard. I want to reflect on a constituent who I have known for a long period of time. Our families grew up probably 200 or 300 yards away from each other. I have seen them struggle with addictions over that period of time. It is about 30 years. I have seen them verbally abused by other people on the local high street and on a number of occasions. I have seen them in tears because of that. One time, he came up across and spoke to me and said, Paul, I just need help.  That stuck with me. His mental health has suffered. He is a cute lad who realises that he just requires that joint approach that we are talking about. On family members, I know that some people were on the drugs and alcohol across party groups this few weeks ago. We heard about family members also affected by stigma. That can limit their ability to get help for their loved ones. It is tiring from them. That was the word that we kept on hearing. It is tiring, it is tiring, it is tiring. We also stopped them from seeking help from themselves, family support. On that point of stigma, I have also heard the horrible phrase that there is a hierarchy of death. What that means is that what appears on the birth certificate will determine how the family is treated. If drug death appears on a health certificate, they tend to be stigmatised as well, if you would agree with that. I think that one of the key things is that we have now moved on from this, saying that we have almost been criminalised as a student to other health problems. I think that that is a really important point. I am glad that the member brought that up. The other thing is that communities with problem substance use are also stigmatised. That can be used in cases when substance use is higher, it just seems to be higher. That means that the whole community can be defined by substance use. I have been a councillor for 15 years, and I have heard that there are certain types of people who live there in that house. Communities are often referred to that. Again, that brings down communities and makes them feel bad. That can cause communities and residents to feel cut off and isolated. Again, we need to make sure that we are working with communities to make sure that that does not go on. Why does tackling stigma matter? It can make people feel uncomfortable asking for help and then can reach a crisis point. I think that when I mentioned the chap who came and spoke to me, that was part of the problem. He was seen to be stigmatised. That also stops issues in mental health and physical health, housing and a debt that has also been addressed, because it is a much broader problem than that. The other thing that I want to talk about is the medication assisted treatment, and I think that that is really important. It is all about access, choice and support. That is key. What do the standards mean for people who use and provide the services and support? One thing that I probably asked the cabinet secretary to touch on when she winds up is how do we monitor that on a local authority basis? That needs to be consistent right across the country. It means that people who can get a prescription on their treatment support can request the day that they present on any part of the service. People also have the right to involve others, and we have talked about family support. The few times that I have been in a cross-party group on drugs and alcohol, that is one key thing, is how much that family support is relished. Staff also need to help people to choose this form of support. We need to ensure that information again around independent advocate services is available and people feel able to use them to discuss the issues that matter to them. Again, that needs to be as local as possible, and it needs to be consistent across Scotland. Again, I am about to ask the cabinet secretary to refer to that. How do we monitor that? We need to make everyone aware that the treatment is not conditional on Amstons, from subsidies or uptake from other interventions and information and advice on recovery opportunities within the community that is well known. What do the standards mean for staff across all the services as well? That is a really important part. We have to think about who is providing the services. Staff can feel confident and supported in discussing and offer all treatment and care options for Mark in the first day that a person presents. Where the staff member is not trained to do this, he should be able to use a clear pathway to refer a person on to the same day to colleagues who can. In conclusion, we have made an encouraging start. We have raised the awareness of the national mission, but as MSPs we have a role to lead in our communities, making it a mission for our constituents, our constituencies and the advocates for people and their families. Before I call Michael Marra, can I just ask members who wish to speak in the debate to please make sure that they have pressed their request to speak buttons? Much has already been said on the recent developments around the drug death task force. I do not intend to take up too much of my time reviewing the unfortunate set of circumstances. Governments do not get everything right and some governments get very little right, but we should welcome when, if they believe that their approach is not working, they do actually change course. We are all concerned as to the pace of progress. It cannot be allowed to replicate the glacial pace of recognition and acceptance of responsibility from the Government of this astonishing national shame. The cost of that neglect and delay is measured in lives more than it is by time. The impact on my home city of Dundee, the north-east region that I represent and of course the whole country are huge. Our community remains deeply frustrated that the situation is still of such desperate failure with continuing trends of death, destruction and devastation to families and communities across Scotland. As our amendment and our actions have shown so far, Labour strongly supports the MAT standards and wishes to see them in practice consistently across the country with the urgency that the minister consistently speaks of. Those reforms, to be implemented universally in a matter of weeks, are being demanded at an unprecedented pace, but are of course responding to an unprecedented situation. The minister I know will hear more even regularly than I do the well-founded concerns of agencies and experts on how this can be achieved, but we cannot allow inertia to prevail. Neither can we ignore the huge distances that some services have to travel. I would like to place on record my thanks to the minister and the minister for social care for meeting with myself and the Breakin healthcare group before Christmas to hear about the fantastic work that they are doing and the challenges that they face. The goodwill and receptiveness from ministers was evident and appreciated from the meeting, but I still left with very real concern about how those MAT standards will be implemented in rural and semi-rural areas, which have lost so many health services over the last 14 years. Of course, even in Scotland's urban areas, the reality of service access meets the rhetoric of ambition that is set out in this chamber. In Dundee, the absence of a function in same-day prescription service has been central to the tragedy that continues to plague the city. It is now three years since the publication of the Dundee Drugs Commission report, which had at its core the need for these services to be operational and working in tandem with support for people. Since the report, far more than 195 people have died. That number reflects the public statistics and not those that we have lost since last summer. It is a trend that has continued upwards for a decade and which shows no signs of reversing. The two-year assessment by the independent commission on what has happened with the implementation of the report is now concluded. I have not had sight of that report, but given the many discussions that I have had, I would be greatly surprised if it were to say anything other than very little change has taken place. Services have been rebadged. Tests of change, as those things are now called, have been started. I can see nothing that has radically altered the situation facing Dundonians. None of the urgent action that is needed to meaningfully improve the life chances of those in need of support. It may sound pessimistic, but those more than 200 lost Dundonians in the grief of their families is the fatal proof. David Strang is no stranger to the challenge of systems that resist change rather than embrace them, given how slow the implementation of his report into mental health services in Tayside has been. A Scottish Drug Forum report assessing progress towards the implementation of MAT standards across the country has found that just 8 per cent of participants in their research had access to the same day prescribing. The internable delays in Dundee service change must not be tolerated across Scotland. The debate marks the first anniversary of what the minister has called the national mission. It is a mission with, unfortunately, a little real success to show. In all honesty, I find it difficult to describe what the realistic evidence-based intent of the mission is. Does he agree with me that we need to get to grips after why Scotland is caught in such an addiction trap before we can actually get to a proper solution? I absolutely agree with that point. If it is a mission that we should all share, then everyone must know the story and the intent.  That is a key question. Why, when we have the same drug laws as the rest of the UK, are Scotland's drugs deaths three and a half times as high? A year on, Scotland has yet to hear the answers to those vital questions from the minister of this Government. What has come through the Dundee drug commission is a picture of what the local problem has been, the character of it, the kinds of drugs, and what situation the why and the where was absolutely critical to any form of proper analysis that the public can buy into. I want to hear more from the minister in that regard. In order for there to be leadership out of this crisis to walk alongside families, individuals and communities, we need to hear that story of why. In the early part of the last decade, under this Government prescribing policy changed to stop the dispensing of volume. That led directly to an illicit street market for cheap, toxic replica drugs. It is the most lethal policy error of devolution and it has opened a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. Why did it happen? What warnings were made and ignored? How can we avoid this happening again if the tragedy is not recognised and explained? I hope that the conclusion of the task force may be a moment for the minister to answer these questions, the questions of why and to tell a painful story to which we must all write a better ending. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate this afternoon. Like colleagues across chamber, I, too, would like to offer my condolences to family, friends and loved ones of those who have lost their lives. I appreciate the huge amount of work that the minister and the task force have put in place already, and I thank them all. Today, I would like to focus my contribution on two areas. One is tackling stigma and action to address drug-related stigma, and two, the naloxone treatment for people struggling with addiction in rural areas of Scotland. Drug-related stigma is damaging not only to the individual in terms of their mental health and the sense of self-worth, but it also discourages people from coming forward to obtain the help that they need. The minister and Paul MacLennan and Gillian Martin have spoken about stigma already, and by addressing stigma and the silence and alienation it causes, we can make it easier for people to seek help that will benefit everyone. I absolutely welcome and endorse the vital and important work of We Are With You, which includes stigma reduction and is supported by the Scottish Government, and the stigma charter that is described by the minister. It is good that active measures are being taken forward to address stigma, and that will be one issue that is discussed in my upcoming meeting with Dumfries and Galloway's alcohol and drugs partnership chair. In my previous role as a clinical nurse educator prior to coming to Parliament, I had absolutely great value in the role of education for all health specialties, and I support the fact that education can be delivered in different ways, especially during the pandemic, as face-to-face seminars have not been available. We need to reduce prejudice, discrimination and stigma associated, and I have had feedback from the nurses and support workers who work in alcohol and drug services who even feel discriminated against themselves for actively assisting people who have a need for medical help, support and intervention so that recovery from harm can start. There still persists the view across the public that people experience the harmful use of drugs and alcohol are just low lives and criminals who do not deserve anyone's help. They need our help, they are our sons and our daughters and our friends and family members, but we need to support them. Even attracting health workers into jobs and alcohol services is difficult enough, so we need to do whatever we can to reduce stigma around that as well. I have witnessed myself in my professional career the negative consequences of using stigmatising language like addict, alcoholic, druggy and junkie, and that needs to change. In November last year, I picked this issue up with NES, National Education for Scotland, to ask if an online education module or modules could be created that could be aimed at teaching health and care staff who do not work directly in alcohol and drug services, what stigma is and ways to address stigma. Health and care staff who do not work directly in alcohol and drug services quite often come into contact with persons who engage in harmful use, with illicit opiates and prescribed substances and alcohol as well. Online education could include allied health professionals such as pharmacists, physios and occupational therapists too. NES responded to me saying that education modules were intending on being created, but I have not seen that on the ground yet. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister if this is something that is being taken forward and any timescales for online modules completion and publication so that this education for health professionals that are not working directly in the services can be taken forward. Even third sector organisations would benefit from anti-stigma advice and learning so that they can help to engage and ensure that persons can access the treatment that they need without discrimination, prejudice and judgment. Again, accessible online learning could be a key way to help to deliver anti-stigma education for professionals in healthcare across Scotland. I welcome the minister's comments on that. I will now address Naloxone and its provision in rural areas. I welcome that during the pandemic families of those who use opiates as well as other professionals who work in drug services have been allowed to fly, take home and Naloxone kits to anyone who might be more likely to witness an overdose. It is welcome that the intention is that Naloxone is being given to police officers across Scotland to assist with attending cases of suspected overdose. Across areas of rural Scotland, however, there have been concerns raised about the places for availability of Naloxone and the number of people who are being given Naloxone to use who are trained to use it. We know that Naloxone via nasal delivery by the police that are trained and injection by others who are trained is the first line defence against overdose. In Dumfries and Dalloway, 30 per cent of non-fatal overdoses are people who do not access services, so other places need to be considered in order to support delivery of Naloxone kits. That has occurred in some places really successfully, such as Aberlawer and Dumfries. I ask the minister if she can assist local ADPs to identify and assist with Naloxone pickup available at sites where people do access sites that are less formal, non-medicalised places. In conclusion, I ask the minister to give an assurance that rural Scotland is absolutely part of Scotland's national drugs mission and that people who live rural have equal consideration for all pathways of treatment for their alcohol and drug harm and continue to pursue that as a public health and not a criminal issue. I again thank the minister for his last year's work. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Harper. Dylan Mackay, who also joins us remotely, will be followed by Stephen Kerr and Ms Mackay in six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, extend my condolences to anyone who has tragically lost a loved one to drug overdose. As the motion points out, drug-related deaths are tragic, preventable and unacceptable loss of life. They are a symptom of people who use drugs being denied the rights and dignity that they are entitled to. I want to focus on the particular phrase from the motion that notes the need to continue to build on the work of the drugs death task force and other expert groups to implement evidence-led interventions that reduce deaths and improve lives. I think that we can all agree that we need to improve the lives of people who use drugs, but I must put the question to those that oppose to harm reduction measure and decriminalisation. How can you improve someone's life by criminalising them? How can we take a human rights approach by prosecuting people for their addictions? Prosecution and punishment have no place in this conversation, and I am reassured by the Government's clear focus on intervention that will reduce harm and improve access to treatment and support. I am pleased to see the recognition that safer consumption facilities are an important public health measure that could save lives. As members will know, in June last year, my amendment called on the Scottish Government to investigate, as a matter of urgency, what options it has to establish safer consumption rooms within the existing legal framework was supported by the majority in this chamber. I am very grateful for the minister's update on that, and I sincerely hope that all stakeholders will engage with it in a constructive manner to ensure that we can save lives. The motion also recognises that no single intervention will be enough on its own, and that is crucial. We need a package of measures and a range of treatment options. It would be a failure of this Parliament to focus on one solution and ignore others. I accept that safe consumption rooms are not a silver bullet, but neither is any other intervention or treatment. I am concerned about the intense focus on residential rehabilitation. We, of course, need to expand provision of residential rehab and everyone who needs and wants to access it must be able to do so. I have said before in this chamber that it will not be the right option for everyone, and it should not be prioritised over other treatment options. A truly person-centred approach to the drugsteth crisis will recognise that people need to be able to access the treatment and support that works for them and that drug use comes in many different forms. Constituents have expressed concerns to me about the fact that, in conversations about drug overdose, opiates are often the focus, and not enough attention is paid to polydrug use and benzodiazepines. I know that work on the issue is already being carried out by the drugsteth task force, but it is vital that we continue to highlight it in Parliament. Like others, I was concerned to hear of the resignation of the chair and vice chair of the drugsteth task force. I am grateful to the minister for an update on a new chair, and I sincerely hope that that will not stall the progress that is being made. The publication of the medication-assisted treatment standards was a huge step establishing same-day access to treatment. That will reduce the risk of people dropping out of treatment and improve accessibility for vulnerable groups, such as people experiencing homelessness. There is also evidence that it reduces heroin use, HIV and hepatitis C risk, as well as overdose and criminal charges. The living experience of people in medication-assisted treatment was recently surveyed by a team of 13 researchers at the Scottish Drugs Forum. They found that access had improved as waiting times have reduced, although waiting periods were still too long, and that, although some participants reported greater choice of medication, decisions on choice and dose were not always shared between the person and the prescriber. That suggests that we still have some way to go before treatment is fully person-centred, but it is encouraging. I eagerly await further progress in this area as a step towards creating flexible treatment services that take account of an individual's circumstances, needs and crucially wishes. As we seek to improve the lives of people who use drugs, we must tackle infections such as hepatitis C, which are drivers of health inequalities. According to the hepatitis C trust, despite a dramatic interest in people completing treatment for hepatitis C in recent years, infection rates have not fallen. Around half of people who inject drugs have had the virus at some point, and one in four are currently infected, making hepatitis C the most common blood-borne infection for people who inject drugs. 90 per cent of new infections occur through the sharing of contaminated injecting equipment. Take consumption rooms would therefore be an important tool in the fight to reduce the spread of hepatitis C. The trust is clear that efforts to eliminate hepatitis C will be wasted without the implementation of evidence-based harm reduction services such as needle and syringe programmes, opioid substitution therapy and heroin-assisted treatment. We also need to increase knowledge and awareness of blood-borne viruses, which disproportionately affect people who inject drugs, including among those who work in addiction services. The Scottish Drugs Forum has said that the understanding and perceptions of front-line staff about HIV, for example, are often still informed by things that happened in and practice from the 1980s. There is often a lack of understanding about new treatments, which mean that people can now live long healthy lives, albeit that there is no risk of infecting their sexual partners. We need a dual approach that seeks to reduce the risk of people becoming infected but also reduces stigma through education. As we progress through the national mission and look to next steps, I would be grateful if we could begin to look at in-depth how we can support families and children who have family members with drugs or alcohol issues. Reducing adverse childhood experiences will ensure that we do not continue to perpetuate the trauma associated with drug and alcohol misuse, but, above all, we need to respect the humanity of people who use drugs and restore the dignity, rights and choice that too many have been denied for too long. Ms Mackay, I now call on Stephen Kerr who will be followed by Paul Sweeney again in six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I congratulate all colleagues who have contributed to this debate. There is a broad range of consensus across the chamber on this issue, but I have to agree with colleagues on the far side of the chamber, Michael Marra and Claire Baker in particular. While it is important that we look forward and work together, it is important that we understand what has happened in the past. The function of the chamber is to act as a forum for democratic accountability. Therefore, I make no apology in reminding the chamber that the First Minister herself admitted in April 2020 that the Government had taken its eye off the ball in relation to drugs deaths. That is why we were experiencing a thousand drugs deaths a year. Jim Fairlie may sigh out loud all he likes, but that is the nature of a parliamentary process that we look at what has happened and try to understand from the mistakes that have been made so that we can go forward with the consensus that we all seek on this very difficult issue. I was disappointed to learn from a freedom of information request that, for example, despite all the rhetoric and all the promises, the First Minister had not met any of the 31 drugs and alcohol partnerships since the election, out of thought, given the emphasis that she has rightly put on the issue, that she would have found time to do that. We saw, just before Hogmanay, the resignation of Catriona Matheson and Neil Richardson from the drugs deaths task force. I do welcome David Strang to his role and wish him well, but I think that there are important questions to be asked in relation to comments made by Professor Matheson just last night on BBC's reporting Scotland, where she seemed to cast doubt on the Government's intent to create policy on the basis of evidence. For example, she said, and I quote, If there is a rush to get things tied up, where does that leave the evidence? Is it about being seen to do something rather than doing the right thing? That is my concern. Many people will be very concerned to have heard those words on television last night from Professor Matheson. Further on, in relation to the circumstances that led up to her resignation, Professor Matheson said, and that came straight out of the blue. It was just three weeks after we'd received our letters of engagement for the second phase of engagement with the task force work, which stated in those letters of engagement that the work would go on until December 2022. I think that we've heard that David Strang's work will go on until July 2022. Professor Matheson went on, so what was behind that, and it crossed our minds, is this an attempt to kind of force our resignation and sideline the task force altogether? That was one consideration. I think that the minister should take the opportunity to address those comments in this Parliament, because Professor Matheson went on to make a far more serious comment, which was about the breakdown in the relationship between the minister and the task force. We didn't have the full support of the minister any longer, she says, and that ultimately made us concerned about what was driving this and the politics behind it, I suppose. The concern is that when politics comes into this, and that's across the political spectrum, and that's the point that I accept, by the way, from Professor Matheson, unfortunately that evidence and an evidence-based approach can get squeezed. I think that the minister perhaps could make a response to those comments for the sake of the record and for the information of this Parliament. Alex Cole will take that opportunity and reassure Mr Kerr that the task force and the work that it undertook receives my full support, and that is why I am seeking to implement, for example, the new medication assisted treatment standards. I wish Professor Matheson well. I thank her for her contribution. There is, of course, always a tension between acting on evidence that is never complete and acting now, and the reality is that we have to find that balance and do both. I thank the minister for her comments and I will come back to the idea of action, which I think is what we all need to focus on indeed going forward. I would like to just recognise the comment that was made and offered by Alex Cole-Hamilton, who I don't think is any place, that the figures that were released last week that showed the number of babies that have been born addicted to drugs totaling 852, in fact, since 2017. That is an important issue, which was brought home, I think, to many millions of people on a Christmas day, in an episode of Call the Midwife. Many people, like speakers that have come before me and including me, will not have seen the effects of children being born in those circumstances, and it brought vividly home all of the realities. I know that it is only a drama, but often those mediums can be very powerful in terms of impacting in the public's mind, and in my mind especially, the reality of the suffering that is born included in that suffering are those newly born babies. The bottom line is that it is surely past time for the Government to get a grip on this issue. It is very much a time for us to put firmly our eyes on the ball, and other political issues should indeed be set aside in favour of the national mission that a colleague over here described in great detail, and I was appreciative of the tone of his remarks. One of the things that concerns me though is that whenever we debate this issue in this chamber, there is very quickly a resort to the old constitutional battle lines, which becomes a matter of lining up to blame someone else for things that we can and should be taking care of in Scotland, given the devolved powers that this Parliament and the Scottish Government enjoys. Therefore, I would appeal to colleagues not to fall into that habit, not to create those battle lines and stop blaming it, and realise that the last 15 years more could have been done and should have been done, and it is now promised to be done. The work of this Parliament and its various committees will be to gauge not just the tone of the rhetoric, the expressions of intent, all of which are good, the energy that is being applied to the delivery of the rhetoric and the intentions. All of this is good, but at the end of the day it will be what happens, what changes and what improves that really matters. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to start by putting on record my thanks to the Minister for bringing this debate to the chamber today. I am struggling to think of a more serious issue that we could be discussing in this Parliament. It has already been outlined by colleagues that 1,339 people have died of an avoidable, drug-related death last year. Without action, I fear that that number will increase again in the next set of figures. I read the Government motion with interest, and I am struggling to disagree with much of it. It is probably fair to say that there is broad consensus on the measures needed to tackle this crisis, but the concern that I have is with the speed and pace of the change required. I intend to keep my remarks to what I believe is the single most important change that we could make, not the only, but the single most important change that we can make, and that is the introduction of overdose prevention sites. That will not come as a surprise to the Minister, given our previous interactions and my personal experience of volunteering at the unofficial pilot project in Glasgow. I welcome the Minister's intention to bring forward a revised proposal for an official pilot in the city to the Lord Advocate in due course. There are lots of assertions made about overdose prevention sites, whether they can be established within the existing devolution settlement, whether they are effective and whether they will save lives. Put quite simply, the answer to all those questions is yes. They can be established within the current devolution settlement, they are effective and they will save lives. How do I know, because I have seen it first hand, I volunteered with Peter Criken week in, week out and was never arrested or charged with any offence, meaning that they can clearly be established within the current legal framework. If they were illegal, I would have been lifted and charged, meaning that I likely would not be standing here, and the fact is that I was not. I saw overdoses being reversed and over a dozen lives being saved in front of my house, so I defy anyone in this chamber to tell me that they do not work. The evidence is in cross-reversal. I saw vulnerable young men and women failed by many other aspects of the state, being shown dignity, compassion and respect for the very first time, regardless of what traumas they had endured, leading them to substance misuse, but it cannot just be left down to volunteers to fill the gap. Peter took into his care as part of the unofficial pilot, a 21-year-old girl, and she overdosed in front of him three times. She was sleeping in a tent in an alleyway in Glasgow because she had been sexually abused and she was fearful of reaching out to any sort of care or official services because she had suffered so badly previously as a result. Peter frequently broke down because he was terrified that he would turn up the next day and she would be dead. That culminated in him being triggered because he was a recovering addict, to the point where he relapsed and his own life was then at risk. I had to feel the fear of my friend potentially not picking up the phone to me. That is a lived experience for hundreds if not thousands of Scots, and it is something that we cannot tolerate any more. That was another learning experience as a result of the unofficial pilot in Glasgow. My heart breaks whenever I hear politicians from whatever side dismiss over those prevention sites or worse when they hide behind constitutional grandstanding, because every time they do, critical time is wasted. I am happy to give away. Brian Whittle, I am very grateful to the member for taking the intervention. I want to be absolutely clear here that when we are talking about the effectiveness of the services that he discusses, my reservation is about deployment of that resource. I would like to see the evidence that says that deployment of that resource is better in that particular way than it is perhaps in moving downstream in other ways because we have a finite resource. Also, the issue around in my constituency is very rural and how the safe injection rooms would impact or would not impact on the rural community. I do not stand here and make the point that it is a panacea that it will be suitable in every set of circumstances. What I am saying is that it does work, and the evidence from over 90 cities in the world demonstrates that it works. The body of evidence internationally is incontrovertible. The evidence from the unofficial pilot in Glasgow is incontrovertible. Lives are saved. For the relatively small and modest investment, the impact is significant. It also leads people into a sense of engagement, which then leads them into a pathway that is potentially into recovery. Let us not make the perfect enemy of the good here and raise expectations and set standards that people are doomed to fail to meet. That is where we have to be, meeting people where they are at with their lived experience. The drugs are either taken in filthy alleyways or taken in sterile conditions. That is the choice before us today. Every six hours in Scotland, someone dies of a drug related death. That means that by the time we go to bed, at least one more person will have died, leaving behind heartbreak and agony for their loved ones. The frustrating thing is, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we know that it is now possible. In evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, the Law Society of Scotland stated that, in order to establish overdose prevention sites, there would need to be either a change to the misuse of drugs act, a UK Government competence, or there would need to be a prosecutorial discretion from the Crown Office in procurative fiscal service not to prosecute in certain circumstances. We now have that prosecutorial discretion. The Lord Advocate stood with the minister sitting just now, a matter of months ago, and said that the possession of substances classified under the misuse of drugs act of 1971 would no longer be prosecuted. What are we waiting for? Whilst I welcome the intention of the minister to bring forward revised pilot proposals, we already have that body of evidence there, so we need to expand that rapidly into a national network. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government or the Minister when it comes to this issue. I just think that they are down a deep hole having taken their eye off the ball for so long, but the realities are not moving fast enough, and some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland need them to move much faster. So to conclude my message to the Government with regards to overdose prevention sites is pretty simple. Set them up or I intend to introduce legislation in this chamber to make them to do so. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Swinney. I now call the final speaker in the open debate, co-cab Stewart, after which we will move into closing speeches and everybody who has participated in the debate should be in the chamber. Ms Stewart, around six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I fully welcome this debate and the opportunity to reflect on what is one of the most complex and significant public health challenges that we currently face. Throughout this chamber and beyond, we have tried with great difficulty to process the heartbreaking statistics of drug-related deaths that continue to devastate the Scottish population. At each death, a son, a daughter, a parent who found themselves trapped in a vicious cycle and then tragically paid the ultimate cost and my condolences go out to all of them and their families. According to research carried out by the Scottish families affected by alcohol and drugs across both close family and wider social networks, that each individual using alcohol or drugs, an average of 11 people, were harmfully impacted. If you are a child of a drug user at the age of five years old, for instance, on average their life is going to be affected well into approaching adulthood. It can take approximately eight years for that child to reach family support for the first time. A combination of services unable to reach those in need and the endemic stigmatisation of drug users in our society, which further detars individuals from seeking the help that they deserve. As such, I welcome the recognition that progress will not be achieved by one single intervention but by a holistic person-centred and multi-model approach, which places dignity and respect at the forefront of accessible treatment and support services. As part of the Scottish Government's national mission to reduce drug-related deaths and harms, we have seen promising steps that will help to facilitate the required culture shift needed to tackle this crisis, one that appreciates the dangers of prejudice and focuses on funding evidence-led interventions that recognise addiction for what it is—not a moral failing but a chronic disease. With thanks to work carried out by the Scottish Drug Death Task Force, the identification of key focus areas will serve as a crucial guide moving forward and have already provided life-saving assistance through the expansion of naloxone provision. Consequently, it is not just clinical staff who are now trained in the supply of naloxone but also 800 police officers with 53 life-saving uses being administered throughout the 2021 pilot programme. Support has also been offered to charities such as Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs, allowing them to roll out an award-winning click and deliver naloxone service for family members and friends who could provide this valuable life-saving intervention, and over 4,700 kits have now been issued. In addition and in continuing the valuable work of the task force, we must seriously consider any and all legislative reform that will reflect the mounting evidence of advantages of reduced criminalisation. The price of Inesha is simply too high and Professor Dane Carroll-Blatt's comprehensive independent review of drugs has confirmed that the current public provision for prevention and treatment and recovery in the United Kingdom is no longer fit for purpose. As the misuse of drugs act is reserved to the UK Government and as present we remain reliant on Westminster to determine that the legislation is incompatible with a public health response to problematic drug use. This is hardly reassuring as time and time again we have seen the Conservative Government persist with draconian measures centred around harsh punishment for drug users, a tired hangover from the woefully outdated war on drugs campaign of the 1990s. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that logic and compassion will prevail and that the recommendations made by the drug death task force, including the introduction of safe consumption facilities and diverting more people away from the criminal justice system and into treatment and recovery services, will be translated into meaningful action. It is an issue that must transcend party politics. The role of any Government is to protect the health and wellbeing of its citizens. When such a disproportionate number of lives are lost each year, it is our duty to reflect on our approach, to accept responsibility and to implement change. We only need to look at countries such as Canada, where the on-going opioid epidemic sparked progressive drug policy reform in 2017, leading to the 39 supervised consumption sites that now operate across the country. In those facilities between 2017 and 2019, out of 15,000 overdoses and medical emergencies, not a single fatality was reported on site. Why will the UK Government not allow us to pilot that in Glasgow, when it has clearly worked elsewhere? According to the National Harm Reduction Coalition, there are now more than 100 safe consumption sites located in over 11 countries worldwide, including Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and Australia. We cannot allow ourselves to be shackled by antiquated beliefs and must go where the evidence leads us to ensure that avoidable harms and fatalities are indeed avoided. In conclusion, having had the opportunity to walk around my constituency of Glasgow, Kelvin, with my colleague and minister, Angela Constance, we were both able to discuss the scale of the challenge that we face. Nothing will improve overnight. However, by redirecting our energy and adopting a more humane approach to drug use and drug users, we can save lives and ensure that Scotland continues to build upon its reputation as a progressive and forward-thinking nation. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Stewart. We now move to the closing speeches and I call Paul O'Kane for around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In the summer of 2021, in one of my first speeches in the chamber, I spoke in a debate on this matter. I spoke of the human cost of the drug's death crisis in this country, the families and friends who are left behind, the communities who feel broken. Across the debate today, we have once again heard of that cost and, rightly, our sympathies are with all those who have lost a loved one to drugs. I think that we have also seen once again the consensus that exists in trying to find solutions. As Claire Baker and my colleague outlined in her opening, there has been acknowledged by the Government of failure and a declaration of intent made, but it is now for us to scrutinise the progress towards that. Scottish Labour agrees that we need to take a public health approach, and so we have welcomed an instance made since January 2021, which could help to reduce the number of drug's deaths and problematic drug use if implemented and if implemented with a degree of speed. It is clear that more needs to be done, not least in light of the upheaval in the drug's death task force that has been spoken about by colleagues today. However, in common with colleagues, I would like to welcome the appointment of David Strang and be hopeful that his appointment will see a greater focus on the connection between mental health and substance misuse services and, indeed, using that to achieve the match standards, because, as we have heard in the debate today, those match standards are so important. The questions that Claire Baker raised in her opening are key, particularly on progress to full implementation and the need for more support for health boards and IJBs, as highlighted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Michael Marra also spoke powerfully about Scottish Labour's support for match standards, but the need for greater progress and speeds, particularly in his community of Dundee, which I know is so important to him, particularly around issues such as same-day prescribing, and I do hope that the minister will want to pick up on that in her concluding remarks. I want to constructively consider all proposals that will reduce harm and support rights to access treatment. We will carefully look at the detail of what is brought forward, including, of course, the recovery bill, which was outlined by Sue Webber on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Being a constructive partner is being one that wants to show the way towards solution to the crisis, but wants to do that through honest assessment and honest conversations. I think that that will always be the approach that we on this side of the chamber will take, because we have been clear throughout about what we think we need to see. We need to see drug consumption facilities urgently progressed and I just want to take a moment to highlight the contribution of my colleague Paul Feeney, which I thought was characteristically powerful as he spoke of his own experience supporting the work of Peter Kraken in Glasgow. I think that it is clear that we must listen to those experiences very carefully of what can be done, what can be achieved for people and the reality of what taking that action means. I really do hope that the minister will further address what progress can be made in moving that agenda forward. I think that it is clear that we also need further progress on heroin-assisted treatment to see the expansion of that through the country. We need to see drug checking facilities urgently progressed as part of harm reduction measures to address the drug's death crisis. Those have all been measures that have been outlined by colleagues in their contributions, and it is clear that they can save lives. I welcome that the Government is planning to look at the introduction of facilities. I think that we do have to ask ourselves why it has taken quite so long. I think that consensus today in this debate has built on the need to move further and faster in recognising the crisis as a public health crisis. Alex Cole-Hamilton in his contribution and Paul MacLennan in his remarks spoke really powerfully about the need to reduce stigma, and the stigma that persists in so many communities across Scotland. We have to replace the approach of the outdated criminal justice focus that we have seen in years gone by. Indeed, the Lord Advocate's statement on the expansion of the use of recorded police warnings is welcome, but it must be an enabler for getting people into better treatment and more services. It is clear, however, that to make the most of such a step, we need to ensure that there are sufficient resources made available to fund local services. That is something that I have said in the chamber before, but we need to ensure that local services are well funded and that local government continues to be funded to ensure that there can be a holistic approach to services across the peace. Indeed, in my own region in West Scotland, we know that drugs deaths remain high, very high and ever-clied among the highest in the country. We have seen the efforts of decent organisations there to reverse that trend, and it is truly inspiring and shows what can be done to tackle the crisis when communities and health and care partnerships work together. However, it is abundantly clear that those services are struggling in terms of the funding that is available to them. We have heard about other interventions today around the use of naloxone and increasing the availability of naloxone, particularly in rural areas. As I begin to draw my remarks to a close, I think that what is clear is that there is a consensus in this chamber about the actions that need to be taken. However, it is clear that there must be robust scrutiny and strong critical friend of the Government in order to move that forward, because we know about the human cost of drugs deaths in this country. We know the pain that has caused the communities, and we know what must be done in order to move the national mission forward. Thank you very much indeed, Mr O'Kane. I now call on Craig Hoy to conclude for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to start my contribution to today's debate by thanking those who have participated in it, the minister, Angela Constance. I was going to say that, in relation to her ministerial colleagues, the minister is a breath of fresh air. I think that that is probably true, but particularly if she can match her words with actions, then I think that we would all wish her well in that role, because Scotland will benefit. To thank Sue Webber and Emma Harper, Claire Baker—all good contributions—and Alex Cole-Hamilton, who talked about the neonatal effects of drugs. I think that that is an important issue that we should return to, and Paul MacLennan, who talked about the 14 lives that were wasted in East Lothian last year. I say that they were wasted rather than lost. I also thank Gillian Mackay and Cocab Stewart and Paul Sweeney, who, quite rightly, talked about the fact that that issue is probably the most important that we will discuss in this Parliament. Paul Sweeney talked about drug consumption rooms, which I must say that I was and probably still am sceptical about. However, after hearing a speech of the quality of Paul Sweeney's today, I think that we all have a duty to go away and to think seriously and to think again. Drugs are rightly an emotive issue, and while there will always be differences of opinion, I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone who seeks to limit the damage that they do. The debate has been an opportunity to reflect on the terrible toll that addiction takes and the damage caused by a stigma. I was going to say to people and their families, but I mean something much wider. It gets close and extended family members, friends, your friends, families, colleagues, neighbours and anyone whose life intersects with those unlucky enough to set down a path of drug addiction. Peaceful loving homes destroyed by the strain caused by drug abuse, as Michael Marrow referred to in his home town Dundee. As Paul O'Kane said, life shattered and communities broken. Presiding Officer, as Stephen Kerr and Sue Webber pointed out, tackling drug-related deaths should unite this chamber. The need to tackle this should be a matter of consensus, but it does not, and I think that Stephen Kerr was right in this. It does not mean that we should not level criticism where it is warranted. We should remember that, in 2022, Mark Scotland's 15th year under SNP rule, and sadly we know that, over those 15 years, drug-related deaths have almost tripled. To the credit, however, the SNP has acknowledged that this is a huge issue, and I welcome the minister's commitment to tackling it, and, as she said today, to developing a sharper focus and a shared understanding. I hope now that the new national mission on drugs will start to change things. Brian Whittle talked about how the pandemic has exacerbated the issue, but there must come to a point where the pandemic, on this and so many other issues, is no longer used as a convenient excuse. I really do not mean this to be political in any way, shape or form, but I am going to come back to the point that Mr Whittle made about the Scottish Select Affairs Committee where he cited that poverty was not necessarily the contributing factor. I have looked at the notes of that entire committee and they keep talking about poverty being one of the main problems in driving addiction today. If we are going to find a solution, we have to find the cause, and it is one of the main causes of drug addiction, and it is something that we have to tackle. When a politician tells you that they are not going to be political, we should be sceptical. I think that there is a dispute over the account there, but I will leave him and Mr Whittle to take that one out of this chamber. In Scotland today, drug users are still, sadly, unable to access the support that they need. As we have heard today, Scotland's drug death is three and a half times worse than the rest of the UK and the Western Europe. People from the most deprived areas of Scotland are 18 times as likely to have a drug related death than those in the least deprived areas. There is clearly a link, but I am not sure exactly precisely what that is, but I would welcome this House and others to look into it. We have heard today how the SNP has historically failed to support residential rehabilitation, and, despite recorded drug deaths reaching a record high, just seven more rehab beds were delivered across Scotland last year. In fact, the number of Government-funded placements for residential rehabilitation declined throughout 2021. In terms of what to do next, there still seems to be some level of confusion at the top of the Scottish Government. I watched, like Mr Kerr, Professor Katrina Matheson on the TV news last night, and I saw the minister too. I wonder whether, after years of inaction and cuts to front-line services, the Government is now trying to make up for that. We must be cautious to make sure that doing something fast means that it will necessarily be effective. Scotland's appalling high number of drug deaths is a national shame, and that is why the Scottish Conservatives are bringing forward a right to recovery bill to ensure that the right to life-saving treatment for addiction is enshrined in law. We are very grateful to everybody who has taken the time to respond to our consultation, and we are delighted that the proposals have received an overwhelmingly positive response. I have a sense still, despite this action, that the Scottish Government is not taking the issue seriously enough. I therefore urge the Government to support our bill when it comes forward. I also encourage the Government to work closely with the third sector, with alcohol and drugs agencies, with the police, with the NHS and with the prison service, because they all have vast experience in this area. Working together, we can, I believe, right their wrongs. We can never reverse the damage done in the past, but we can reverse the recent trends. We can prevent drug addiction and end this national disgrace once and for all. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hoy. I now call on the minister to conclude the debate. It would be very grateful if you could take us up to our own decision time, Ms Constance. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I also start by thanking members for their contributions and thank members across all political parties. The support and scrutiny of Parliament, I very much welcome and appreciate it, because that will help us build on the foundations, it will help us push on, it will help us scale up and it will help us all drive change and improvement through the second year of the national mission and beyond. I also say to Mr Kerr and Mr Sweeney that, much to the annoyance of many of my colleagues, you rarely hear me mention the constitution in a drugs debate. I do not, of course, ignore the impact of things like the Misuse of Drugs Act, which I believe limits our public health approach, but I hope that you would agree that much of my attention has a really disproportionate focus on the powers and the opportunities that we have here in Scotland. There are a lot of points that I wish to address and I will do my best to do that. If the Liberal Democrat amendment had been accepted by Presiding Officer, I would have accepted that, Mr Cole-Hamilton. One of the things that I will do this year is to bring forward our approach and plans around stabilisation services. That fits with some of our work in and around national procurement. I am sure that you will have noted the national residential family service that we are supporting financially that will open later on this year, as well as our dual housing support fund, which is to ensure that people do not have to choose between maintaining their place in residential rehabilitation and their tendency. In terms of the Tory amendment, I very much welcome and support the comments around the voluntary sector, which I have given long-term funding commitments to and the remarks that have been made in and around prevention. I am very grateful to the assurances that she has made to me through her remarks. I wonder if she can confirm to the chamber that residential rehab is not an exact science, it is not a hotel and sometimes occupancy will dip well below a normally sustainable level. Can she confirm that these services will be supported when they lie fallow sometimes? It is a valid point, but there is more that we can do to ensure that we utilise existing capacity and build on that capacity. With the reference to our colleagues in the Conservative benches, the only reason that I cannot support your amendment today is that I fear that it is trying to get me to give 100 per cent guarantee to sign up to a bill that I have not yet seen. However, let me reassure you that your bill, along with Mr Sweeney's, if he brings forward— Through the chair, please, minister. Indeed, Presiding Officer, let me assure chamber that Mr Ross's bill and Mr Sweeney's bill, if he brings forward propositions, will always be given a very fair hearing from this Government indeed. Time and time again, there is no monopoly of wisdom, and we are trying to march forward together. I agree with much of the direction of travel that is in your amendment. It is unfortunate that it deletes all of mine, but I do think that we have some common ground. It is an insertion that does not actually delete the Government's motion. The proposal is to make a rather long motion at the end of the day, but it is an insertion. Minister. I think that if I read it correctly, it deletes after line 1, or the effect of the insertion is that it removes all of my motion apart from line 1. One of the issues that I have addressed repeatedly over the past year is why Scotland, but let me do so again for the record for chamber. There are three reasons why we have the unenviable position of having one of the worst drug-related death rates in the world, if not the worst. Reason number one is that the prevalence of drug use and problematic drug use in Scotland is almost double what it is south of the border. An existential question is to why that is, and I am not going to seek to address it between now and decision time, but it does touch upon prevention and the need for diversion. It is core that it touches upon why we have a national mission that seeks to join drugs policy at the hip with education, the work to address adverse childhood experiences, the work to address poverty and inequality, the work to make our justice system more humane, the work that we do to empower the voluntary sector and the work to address homelessness and mental health as well. The second issue is around benzodiazepines. The benzodiazepines is an issue across the UK, absolutely, and will not deny that. However, if you compare Scotland to England, the implication of benzodiazepines in drug-related deaths has increased since 2009 by 450 per cent. South of the border is 50 per cent. I think that while I would have a different opinion from Mr Marra as to why we have seen that increase, I will say that we absolutely need a better treatment offer. That is why we are bringing forward the work on stabilisation services and it is also why we need more of a consensus among clinicians, but certainly not. Michael Marra, when the minister addressed the question, I suppose that my concern is that we should explore the why that has happened. It is my understanding that this is a public policy issue that is partly being created by the removal of volume scripts. We have to make sure that we do not open other Pandora's boxes in the same way. If we do not learn the lessons of things that we have done wrong as a country, we will repeat them. I agree with that. That is why we need a consensus among clinicians and that clinicians are not the only part of that, but they are a key part in terms of taking an evidence-based approach. The third reason is that I am going to be very candid and very blunt to not have enough of our people in treatment. That is largely on us. I have never sought to deny that. That is why at the core of the national mission is to get more people into treatment or recovery. That is right for them, not right for me, not treatment or recovery that suits any of our ideological positions, but treatment or recovery that suits the needs of individuals. That takes me on to harm reduction and residential rehabilitation. We have sought a balanced approach here. We need to be—this is not a stultified debate between recovery versus harm reduction. Actually, it is all of the above and more. I will accept that, in terms of residential rehabilitation, I know from my time of social work that we start from a low base. I will say that in the first part of 2021, with the additional funding that was released by the Government, there were 212 residential placements that were funded. That is almost the same as the funded placements in the entirety of 2019. I accept that that is a small indication of a forward move. We do indeed have some way to go. We need to see year-on-year improvements to reach that goal of 1,000 publicly funded residential care placements per year. I often hear dreadful statistics recorded back to me in news articles and in debates. Actually, I have published most of those statistics because I have been determined that we will shine a light on where there are gaps or where there are no care pathways. Similarly, I can address some of the issues around harm reduction, given the very important briefings that we all receive from the Hepatite Sea Trust and the Royal College of Psychiatry. I just say that the actions that they seek are very much part of my agenda, and I give that reassurance to Gillian Mackay. I have also never demurded from the fact that implementing MAT standards is absolutely crucial, but it is an absolutely massive task. I say to Paul McClelland and Claire Baker that that is why, like with the work that we have done with residential rehabilitation, we will indeed publish that granular detail area by area about the progress that has been made post April at my next parliamentary update, specific to MAT standards. I am serious about that. We need to embed. All will not be well after April, and we will need to sustain that improvement, but that is why we have increased the missed team. There are more hands on deck to assist with that work. We have increased the funding that is available to support that work. I am conscious that time is short. I pay close attention to what happens in the great city of Dundee. We need to do more to turn expressions of interest on heroin-assisted treatment into hard commitments, but the evaluation of the Glasgow project, which will be published at the start of this year, will help with that. I want to say to Mr Sweeney that I always really enjoy his contributions and your call to go where angels fear to tread. The work around overdose prevention facilities is detailed and delicate work. I am having to find ways to do that within our own powers. The Lord Advocate made very clear to the Justice Committee about what needs to be addressed prior to her considerations, and that is exactly what I am working on. I will correspond with Mr Sweeney on the issues around drug-checking facilities. I thank everybody who has participated once again. We have made progress with other preventable deaths, so change is possible. Change is not always comfortable and nor should it be. I do not make any apologies for that. I will also say that there is not one group, not one MSP, not one minister who is bigger than the national mission. That is a collective and cross-cutting endeavour. We have laid important foundations, but we still have 1,001 bricks to lay. We will lay those bricks one by one, putting words into actions, and we will build a better Scotland—one that leads and not one that lingers. That concludes the debate on tackling drug-related deaths through the first year of the national mission, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is amendment 2761.2, in the name of Sue Webber, which seeks to amend motion 2761, in the name of Angela Constance, on tackling drug-related deaths through the first year of the national mission, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.