Hansard

I thank members for their valuable contributions this afternoon, which have highlighted the complexity of the issue. Between us we have covered every potential upside and downside of various suggestions. It is useful, though, that we recognise that not all suggestions are without pitfalls.

It is clear that the challenges that Scotland faces from the new drugs are common to other parts of the UK and internationally. If we are to tackle the issue, no one sector can do it alone and no one country can do it alone.

Throughout Scotland, through different initiatives and organisations, a lot of work is taking place to respond to the supply and use of these new drugs. Again, as a country we cannot do that alone.

Following the national event that I hosted last April, I made the new drugs a priority for Scotland’s alcohol and drug partnerships. I asked ADPs to report on any local needs assessments of the impact of new psychoactive substances on local populations, and their responses. It is encouraging that ADPs are delivering local training events to raise awareness among the public and workforce, and gathering data to help inform the development and delivery of local strategies to address the use of the new drugs.

It is also reassuring that local drug trend monitoring groups, comprising representatives from the statutory and third sectors, have been established throughout Scotland, from the Borders and Grampian to greater Glasgow and Clyde. Those networks are vital in sharing information on new drug trends and co-ordinating local responses, including disseminating health alerts and facilitating training. I hope that that good work can continue.

I was delighted to see that two projects—mid-Galloway youth productions’ film “Legal Highs—Don’t Do It!”, and the new drug trend awareness programme in the Scottish Borders—were shortlisted for safer communities awards in 2013. Both projects raise awareness of the dangers of new psychoactive substances, with the Borders project winning the prevention and problem solving category. I know that all members would wish to join me in congratulating them on that.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in November, the Parliament discussed the Government’s response to the independent expert review on opioid replacement therapies, including the development of an alcohol and drug quality improvement framework, the principles of which are equally important for those affected by the new drugs.

Claire Baker mentioned visiting an organisation in Kirkcaldy. Yesterday morning, I, too, was in Kirkcaldy, not to visit the same organisation but to visit FIRST—Fife Intensive Rehabilitation & Substance Misuse Team—which provides drug support services in Fife. FIRST told me that people were beginning to present with issues related to the use of the new drugs. It made a strong comment that the use of the drugs is in no way confined to teenagers. One of the difficulties about this debate is that we fall back into the easy assumption that we are talking about an age group, that is, teenagers. We need to remind ourselves that that is not necessarily the case. It is therefore vital that we help the workforce to respond and that we ensure that measures are in place to know when progress in someone’s recovery journey is being made.

I thank Mary Scanlon for reminding us of the huge challenge that this issue is for the NHS. Indeed, clinicians on last year’s working group discussed the issues that confront them when somebody turns up at A and E and they have absolutely no idea what has been taken and no likelihood of knowing it before they have to help deal with the issue there and then. Mary Scanlon has rightly reminded members that if somebody in their 50s or 60s is admitted to A and E, it would probably never occur to anybody at that stage that it might be related to the new drugs.

I reassure Elaine Murray—as I should have at the start—that I am happy to accept the Labour amendment. I had forgotten that she has a very pertinent professional expertise to bring to the debate. She may have lost one or two of us during her remarks, but nevertheless it is helpful to be reminded that members in the chamber have a lot of expertise.

A number of members, including Alex Johnstone, Graeme Dey and Alison McInnes, mentioned the head shops in Arbroath and Montrose and Sandra White flagged up the shops in her constituency, emphasising the in-your-face reality on the high street. More than one member will have grimaced at the idea of loyalty cards and BOGOF offers in that particular market.

Many members mentioned education. As well as the enforcement summit that we will hold, I have outlined the various initiatives that we are promoting to bolster the ability of know the score to help support services and raise public awareness of the dangers of such drugs across Scotland. Of course, the recourse to Facebook is to get information on to a very widely used forum. As with everything pertaining to online activity, there is an upside as well as a downside, as Kezia Dugdale reminded us. That also applies to testing, which will be part of our considerations, including investigating the Welsh initiative. However, testing is a challenge when the product itself is constantly changing, so there is never a simple, straightforward answer.

In response to Kezia Dugdale’s earlier question, I can say that the survey fieldwork for SALSUS started in August. It will be finished at the end of this month and it will be reported on in autumn, so she will be able to look out for that.

Graeme Pearson made an interesting suggestion about the potential involvement of revenue and customs officers, which I will take on board, as well as Alison McInnes’s suggestion about guidance for trading standards officers.

Willie Coffey, Kezia Dugdale and Mark McDonald emphasised the internet traffic—we all know how difficult the internet is to control. I reassure members that everything, including use of the licensing powers, will be explored.

Claire Baker raised the issue of available data. I assure her that we have made significant improvements to our data collection tools. I have also commissioned research to understand more fully the prevalence and use of those new drugs in Scotland. That research will inform future policy and practice on the issue.

I will also be asking our nationally commissioned drugs organisations—the Scottish Drugs Forum, the Scottish Recovery Consortium and Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs—to further support and contribute to our response on new psychoactive substances in 2014-15. The issue of those new drugs will also be raised as a challenge to our independent expert stakeholder groups, including the Drugs Strategy Delivery Commission, the national delivery group and the national forum on drug-related deaths.

We all have a responsibility to work together to respond to the huge challenges that new drug trends bring to Scotland; only by working together will we address the supply and use of new psychoactive substances in our country. This afternoon’s debate was an example of how the Parliament can constructively bring to bear its collective understanding and knowledge on an issue on which—as we all recognise—there are no easy answers.

A number of members made constructive suggestions, and I reassure each and every one of them that those suggestions will be examined incredibly carefully. I hope to be able to get back to individual members on any specific issues that arise from the points that they have raised.

I hope that other members in the chamber will feel, as I do, that today’s debate has been an extraordinarily useful two hours. I hope that when we next return to the chamber to discuss the issue, although that may not be very soon, we will all feel that this debate has been a stage along the way in our progress.

Presiding Officer, I wonder whether you really need the extra 15 seconds, and whether or not you wish me to sit down.