Seòmar agus comataidhean

First of all, services absolutely should be doing that. Mr Doris raises a very challenging case in his constituency, and I pay tribute to him for trying to ensure that co-ordination is provided. He suggests that it has not been and that, as we have discussed in response to previous questions about referrals between statutory bodies and community and voluntary organisations, there should be better co-ordination.

As he was speaking, I was thinking about what the Thistle is seeking to provide. It is a safe space for drug consumption, but it is also part of a pathway for people to be able to get access to services—that was a critical part of the Lord Advocate being willing to provide her letter of comfort—because there are statutory services within it, including housing, social work and various other services.

The evidence that is coming through from the Thistle’s early work is that people are able to engage with those statutory services in a way that has not been seen before. The Thistle is speaking to people who services have not spoken to before. The early evidence suggests that the intention in relation to that pathway, which was critical to the Lord Advocate’s willingness to provide her letter of comfort, is working. However, we have more work to do—I have already acknowledged that—to make sure that there is more joined-up communication between services and that referral pathways are being put in place.

The specific example that Mr Doris gave relates to the need to make sure that there is co-ordination and that every organisation seeks to provide a supportive environment to resolve issues. That should be what we all expect to take place.

Absolutely. I would welcome that.

Absolutely. That is why it is a three-year pilot. The international evidence is demonstrable—it is there—and we can rebut some of the misinformation that Mr Sweeney has reported with evidence from safer consumption facilities elsewhere in the world. You do not have an increase in community injecting—the opposite is true. You do not have greater levels of discarded drug paraphernalia—the opposite is true.

Crucially, the reason for the momentum behind the campaign for a safer consumption facility was not only the specific nature of those involved but the international evidence, which demonstrates that such a facility reduces harm and saves lives. Mr Doris is right to say that we are seeing some early evidence of its efficacy. I have been able to point to, for example, individuals now engaging with statutory and community services who were not engaging previously and who were not reachable prior to the facility’s establishment.

That said, it will take time for us to assess whether the approach has reduced harm. I am talking about not only whether it has reduced needle sharing and the obvious public health issues arising from that, but whether it has helped to save lives. The marker for whether people think that this is the right thing to do is that there is domestic interest in this, with other cities in Scotland interested in looking at establishing safer consumption facilities, and I believe that there are also international observers of what is being carried out. I think that it is the right thing for us to explore, but it has to be explored on a pilot basis, because we have to look at the evidence to see whether it has worked. That is why we are investing in it over a three-year period.

I am grateful to Mr Sweeney for raising the issue. It angers me greatly to see misinformation being spread about a service that seeks to address an issue by using a method that international evidence demonstrates works and that is part of a toolbox to support people to reduce the harm and deaths that are associated with their substance dependency. That is shameful. The evidence can be challenged—of course, we can have a debate about the efficacy of the approach and whether it works, which is why we are piloting the measure. However, to blatantly spread false information is wrong.

All those claims are false. That particular location was chosen for the Thistle because community injecting was already happening there. I have seen no evidence—nothing has been reported to me or anybody else—to suggest that there has been an increase in injecting in the community or, indeed, an increase in the discarding of paraphernalia in the community. That claim is false. It is also not true to say that the drugs that Mr Sweeney mentioned are being provided at the facility. The individuals who are seeking to use the safer drug consumption facility bring their own.

I find it deeply distressing, disappointing, frustrating and upsetting that people are seeking to spread misinformation about a group of people who are incredibly vulnerable and are seeking to use a service in order to reduce the harm that their substance dependency is causing to them. I also find it deeply distressing that the people who work around the facility are being exposed to that type of misinformation and that there is misinformation about the contribution that has been made by those with lived and living experience and by family members of those who have lost their lives, who say that this is the right thing for us to be investing in.

Unfortunately, it is not surprising that people are spreading such misinformation, but I find their doing so deeply concerning. I know that Mr Sweeney shares my frustration about that, which, I suppose, is why he has raised the issue today.

It is for the Scottish Affairs Committee to carry out its investigation. I hope that it will do so with the sensitivity that the people’s panel and the joint committee have brought to this emotional issue. I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee will explore the evidence and the efficacy of the approach, as well as hearing the testimony of those with lived and living experience who have fought so hard for the facility to be established and who have shaped the way that the service is being run and those who work in it. I hope that those views are taken into consideration and that we have an evidence-based outcome. Obviously, it is for the Scottish Affairs Committee to conduct its business as it sees fit, but that is my hope for its inquiry.

As I said, it is right that we are having a debate—and I think that we have had a very healthy debate in the Scottish Parliament—about the efficacy of the approach and the evidence for why we would want to establish a safer drug consumption facility. It is critical that we keep the debate to those points of evidence and take into account the views of those with lived and living experience, to ensure that we can make progress for the people we need to do better by and to save lives.

The charter’s publication was a critical moment, not only in Scotland but internationally, in understanding and embedding the rights of people who seek to access services. I found it an incredible day to be part of, as I heard from international experts and academics who talked so positively about the progress that was being made in Scotland and held up Scotland as an example for others to follow in relation to embedding the rights of people to access the services that they need. That was a positive development. The First Minister was present for the charter’s unveiling in December, and we are committed to it.

We want to ensure that we get the human rights bill right, that the drafting of it works and that there is support in the Parliament for it so that it can progress. We are taking the time to ensure that that is the case, which is why we partially support that recommendation from the people’s panel. We need to take the time to ensure that we get the bill right and deliver for people, because we understand its importance. We will continue to work on that matter in order to make progress.

I will need to come back to Mr Doris on that particular point, unless my colleagues can provide any further detail on it. We are certainly keen to ensure that any perceived barriers to organisations sharing data and referrals are removed, and that there is much smoother communication not only between different parts of the health service but between the health service and social care and, in this case, ADPs and those in the community and voluntary sector who are delivering services for those who need, and are seeking, treatment. We are working and engaging on that, but I will come back to Bob Doris on the exact detail that he asked for.

I again thank Ms Haughey for raising this issue and the panel for giving their experience of the situation. It concerns me, too. The information is there, and we have been very clear with health boards and with alcohol and drug partnerships about the implementation of the MAT standards.

Alongside the consideration that Ms Haughey has offered on the role that Gregor Smith, the CMO, could play, I should say that I regularly engage with the British Medical Association’s general practice committee and the Royal College of General Practitioners. The issue is perhaps something that I could raise in my next discussions with them, to ensure that there is awareness among GPs and that they are accessing the information that is available. That would help to provide the consistency that we were discussing right at the start of this session in our responses to Mr Balfour’s questions, ensuring greater consistency in the application of the MAT standards and access to other services that are available.

I look forward to being able to contribute to that debate, convener.

We have been asked to do so, and we are part of that discussion. Laura Zeballos will be able to respond on that.