Hansard

I start by acknowledging the contributions of the three colleagues who will be leaving Parliament after this session. Maureen Watt and I share a love of Malawi, and I have very much enjoyed working with her in developing the relationship that the Parliament and Scotland as a whole have with the warm heart of Africa. I recall that she and I were part of the same delegation, headed up by our former colleague Karen Gillon, that was sent to Malawi. We spent some time instructing classes in Minga school, just outside Lilongwe, although I am reassured that educational attainment in those classes has gone up since we departed the scene. I wish Maureen Watt all the very best.

Neil Findlay gave a characteristically uncompromising valedictory speech, but it was shot through with insight and was deeply emotional. As he did, I acknowledge the contribution that the Daily Record has made, particularly in pushing the case for decriminalisation. We should not underestimate the significance of that contribution.

Neil Findlay may be leaving this building, but he has certainly left a lasting impression on me. I still bear the scars from his football boots in my knee, after a typically uncompromising take-man-and-ball effort as the goalkeeper of the Scottish Parliament team, as we defeated the MPs at Parkhead. I wish that, at that stage, he had kept his feet on the bloody ground—apologies for that unparliamentary language, Presiding Officer.

I am looking forward to hearing Jenny Marra’s speech—I had rather hoped that I would have heard it before now. She has spoken with authority on pretty much any issue, but particularly on drugs and the drug deaths scandal. Through her passion, insight and tenacity, she has done as much as anybody to push this agenda forward, and I very much thank her for that. In fact, I even forgive her for beating me hollow to the community MSP of the year award, which she rightly walked off with at the awards a few years ago. I wish her well in whatever comes next for her.

This has been a very different debate. I know that we usually sum up such debates by saying that the debate has been very interesting, helpful and constructive, but I think that today’s debate genuinely has been. The tone and tenor of the debate has been very different from that of some debates that we have had in the past. Part of that is to do with the candour. There has been candour from the Government, whose motion does not pull any punches and is expressed in a way that we would not have seen a few years ago. The fact that the motion is expressed as such is very welcome.

The minister opened the debate by talking about Scotland’s national shame, James Kelly talked about the failure of devolution and Donald Cameron talked about a collective shame. That speaks to the significance of the issues that are under discussion today, and we find ourselves in a much better place than we have been in previous debates.

Donald Cameron was also right in acknowledging Angela Constance’s approach. When I worked with her on the education brief, we might not have always agreed, but I always found her approachable and willing to collaborate and explore the ideas that I brought to her. That is absolutely the approach that needs to be taken in relation to our drug deaths crisis. She talked about building on the lived and living experience in the panels that will instruct policy, and that is welcome, although Neil Findlay made the telling point again that those voices need to challenge as well. I am sure that that will be the case.

We should not mistake accepting that what has been done today is not good enough for saying that nothing that has been done until now is of value. As we look ahead to what we need to do more radically, we need to identify the stuff that works and needs to be preserved. As Donald Cameron suggested, we need to be more broad minded. In that sense, Peter Krykant’s brave work has shown what is really possible when we move beyond rigid assumptions of what we can and cannot do. James Kelly and—to her credit—Ruth Maguire made the essential point that we absolutely need to move beyond the debate about the constitution.

I welcomed Angela Constance’s reference to ensuring that there are no barriers, or low barriers, to treatment and that what is needed will be provided where it is needed. I commend Jenny Marra for making the point that, although we can all welcome the plan that has been set out, because it takes us far beyond where we have been—“light years away” from where we are now, she suggested—we need to ensure that we are able to deliver that plan, not just through statutory services but across the third sector. I also welcome the self-evident acknowledgement of the need to integrate mental health in addiction services.

I welcome the additional funding—over and above the £20 million for rehab—for addressing the problem that The Ferret deserves credit for its perseverance in profiling and highlighting, which is the impossible choice that some face between retaining their tenancy and accessing the treatment that they need. That situation was wholly unacceptable and I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment of it and the funding that it provided for it. I also acknowledge Miles Briggs’s reference to the work of Norman Stone. Neuroelectric therapy is one of those ideas that I hope will now be given proper consideration as part of the strategy.

As I said in my opening remarks, it is for the incoming Government to identify and agree its agenda, but a statement in favour of decriminalisation from the outgoing Parliament will be difficult to ignore, particularly if it is adopted unanimously. Neil Findlay is right—Scotland’s drug deaths scandal is the shame of the Parliament since its inception in 1999, but the past five years has been particularly horrendous. I hope that today’s debate and vote can help ensure that the next Parliament does so much better.