No changes to drug laws even if consumption room is a success, says minister
The Thistle Centre opened earlier this year after a decade-long wrangle between the UK and Scottish governments, with the latter seeking an exemption from the Misuse of Drugs Act to ensure users of the facility are not prosecuted.
Eventually, Scotland's top law officer ruled it would not be 'in the public interest' to seek to prosecute users of the service, which allows people to inject drugs, paving the way for it to open.
Appearing before the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster on Wednesday, Home Office minister Dame Diana Johnson said the law will not be changed.
Asked if the Government could rethink that stance if the Thistle proves to be a success in driving down Scotland's high drug death rates, the minister said: 'We look at evidence, we have experts, we have the ACMD (advisory council on the misuse of drugs) who offer advice, we look at evidence all the time.
'But I just really want to be clear with you, we do not support drug consumption facilities, it's not our policy and we will not be amending the Misuse of Drugs Act.'
Liberal Democrat MP Angus MacDonald said his 'jaw just dropped open' at the minister's statement.
'If the Thistle turns out to be a great success within a year, I would be so excited about rolling that out everywhere,' he said.
He added that it is 'the most wonderful way' of stopping people dying and can act as a pathway to rehabilitation.
After the minister repeated the Government's stance, Mr MacDonald said: 'You're basically condemning thousands of people to death, in my opinion.'
But Dame Diana rejected his assertion, saying: 'I don't accept that, with the greatest of respect.
'This is not the only thing that we can do to deal with drug misuse and I think the UK Government is very clear that there are a number of measures that can be used.'
Labour MP Chris Murray also pointed out that it was Dame Diana who chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee which in 2023 released a report supporting a drug consumption room pilot.
Picking up on that point, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn questioned what evidence she had to have changed her view.
'Mr Flynn, you're a very experienced member of this House and you know that when a Member of Parliament becomes a minister, their personal views are irrelevant because they are there to represent the views of the Government,' she said.
'The recommendation that was made in that Home Affairs Select Committee report in the previous parliament was based on a group of politicians, cross-party, including your own party, that sat down and reached those recommendations together.
'That is very different to a Government policy that I am setting out today.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024. Following the ruling, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the commission's approach 'has been fair and appropriate throughout'. She continued: 'Our six-week consultation period represents a balance between gathering comprehensive stakeholder input and addressing the urgent need for clarity. We're particularly encouraged by the thousands of consultation responses already received and look forward to further meaningful engagement through the rest of the process. 'The current climate of legal uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics who rightly expect clarity about their rights. A swift resolution to this uncertainty will benefit everyone, including trans people.'
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The co-directors of For Women Scotland and campaigners celebrated outside the Supreme Court in London after the ruling in April (Lucy North/PA) The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Other campaigners have protested since the ruling (Andrew Matthews/PA) Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024. Following the ruling, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the commission's approach 'has been fair and appropriate throughout'. She continued: 'Our six-week consultation period represents a balance between gathering comprehensive stakeholder input and addressing the urgent need for clarity. We're particularly encouraged by the thousands of consultation responses already received and look forward to further meaningful engagement through the rest of the process. 'The current climate of legal uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics who rightly expect clarity about their rights. A swift resolution to this uncertainty will benefit everyone, including trans people.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Not a shot that's been fired across SNP's bows, it's a cruise missile
It's a totemic place for the SNP. In 1967, Winnie Ewing's by-election success in Hamilton shifted the SNP from the periphery of politics. Today, however, the town is less hallowed ground for Scottish nationalists and more field of woe. The story which should be taken from the Hamilton result isn't of Labour's win, but of SNP defeat. A shot hasn't just been fired across the SNP's bows, it's a cruise missile. This was the SNP's battle to lose and lose they did. John Swinney talked up a two-horse race between his party and Reform, dismissing the notion of a Labour win. He looks pretty foolish today. That the SNP could go down so badly to a Labour Party which has riled and alienated voters since Keir Starmer took office is remarkable. Labour won the general election with 34%. Today, that's down across Britain to about 23%. In Hamilton, however, Labour secured almost 32% – barely a change since Starmer took power. The SNP fell nearly 17%, losing a seat previously held on a majority of 4582. These are catastrophic figures for the SNP. Even Reform's rise – it came third on 26% – isn't as significant. Reform's vote in Hamilton broadly replicates its UK-wide support. So what's happened to the SNP? Well, first of all the nationalists are nowhere near as smart as they think they are. For a long time, luck was on their side. Tony Blair's administration was tarnished with war, Gordon Brown was done in by the financial crash, and years of Tory misrule played into nationalist hands. Read more: The SNP could pose as the sane opposition to London. You don't need world-class strategy and policy if your opponents are doing all the hard work for you. Claims that the SNP ran the greatest electoral machine or had the cleverest advisors were guff. However, when you've been in power nearly 20 years you can no longer pretend to be the opposition. That outsider status is working well for Reform, but the SNP are now more status quo than either Labour or Conservatives. They're an enduring symbol now of all the mistakes that the political world has wrought on citizens in recent years. The SNP has never recovered from alienating many of its progressive supporters in the wake of Nicola Sturgeon's resignation. The ensuing leadership contest revealed a level of social conservatism which shocked leftwing voters who had once backed Labour but shifted to the SNP. That – and the poison of multiple scandals – is why the SNP got hammered at the general election. Those voters haven't returned. And nor will they, for what does the SNP offer? There's been failure after failure. The word 'independence' was barely uttered during the recent campaign. If the SNP is scared to speak about independence, what's its purpose? Independence has decoupled from the SNP. The party can no longer rely on Yes voters backing nationalists. Voters long ago saw behind the Wizard of Oz curtain. The SNP managed for years to talk the talk when it came to government – with great rhetoric on climate change, child poverty, education, health and policing – but it never walked the walk. There's only so long voters will tolerate being made to feel gullible. The SNP suffers from 'the boy who cried wolf' syndrome. No matter what it says now, it's just hot air as far as many voters are concerned. The leadership took the people for granted. Evidently, the SNP has tried over the years to mitigate the worst of Westminster's excesses with policies like the Scottish Child Payment, but you can't dine out on that forever. It's like a forgotten film star showing you cuttings of their glory days. What could be more sad? Then there's the boredom factor: the SNP has been in power so long that many fancy a change, just to move the furniture around. The party ran a campaign that focused on its opponents, not on what it could offer the people. Labour ran a highly-local campaign fixed on local concerns. The SNP hierarchy is also increasingly irritating. Angus Robertson's attitude on the BBC's live coverage of the by-election was a masterclass in patrician sneering. The party comes across as entitled and full of its own self-importance. Privilege is not a good look for politicians these days. A few more humble types in prominent positions might serve nationalists better. It's also become such a bloodless party. This isn't to suggest that the SNP embrace outright populism, but if Starmer's managerialism is off-putting, Swinney is close to funereal at times. If the SNP thinks it can hold on to Holyrood at next year's Scottish election by simply giving us more of the same, then Hamilton should be taken as necessary corrective medicine. Quite simply, the people want politicians to make their lives better and the SNP are not doing that. Indeed, the people seem to be saying that even the clunking, u-turning, impossible to like policies of Starmer are more in accord with them than the SNP. That is bad.
