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
The Herald Scotland
17 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
Scotsman
19 minutes ago
- Scotsman
SNP ministers accused of secrecy over £2m Grangemouth carbon capture study
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... SNP ministers have been accused of secrecy after refusing to publish a £2 million study into whether a pipeline that will connect Grangemouth with a key carbon capture project will fall flat. The 'alarming' move comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves is poised to confirm at her spending review this week whether the Acorn carbon capture project for St Fergus, near Peterhead, will finally receive the funding it needs to get off the ground. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Carbon capture technology is seen as being essential to Scotland and the UK reaching net zero | POOL/AFP via Getty Images The previous Conservative UK government only granted the Acorn project reserve status and ploughed funding into carbon capture and storage projects south of the Border instead. This comes as finance secretary Shona Robison asked Chancellor Rachel Reeves to award funding for the Acorn carbon capture project and to ensure Scotland receives a share of GB Energy funding that matches its contribution to UK clean energy goals, ahead of the UK spending review. She also called on the Chancellor to 'prioritise growth' and to fully fund the employer national insurance increase for Scotland's public services. Ms Robison urged the UK Government to abandon some of its 'damaging policies' such as cuts to welfare support for disabled people, to scrap the two-child benefit cap and to reinstate a universal winter fuel payment, ahead of the review on 11 June. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She said the Scottish Government had not yet been provided with 'clarity' on spending priorities. The delays to the project has been partly blamed for SNP ministers rolling back climate targets, with the Acorn plans initially hoped to be up and running before 2030. But now, the Scottish Government has refused to release the results of a feasibility study into the pipeline, despite confirming the document was completed in March. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad SNP ministers handed over £2m to National Gas last year to assess whether it was possible to turn an old 174-mile gas pipeline that runs from Grangemouth in the Central Belt to St Fergus, Aberdeenshire into 'Europe's largest carbon capture pipeline'. Officials have refused to release details of what the study shows, despite campaigners requesting it under Freedom of Information law. Acting Energy Secretary Gillian Martin during a visit to drone manufacturer Flowcopter in Loanhead, to mark the publication of the Scottish Government's Green Industrial Strategy | Andrew Milligan/PA Wire Concerns have been raised about carbon capture technology, which campaigners warn simply allows oil and gas companies to continue burning fossil fuels. Under the technology, harmful carbon emissions are prevented from being released into the atmosphere and instead trapped and injected into the seabed. Fears have been raised about leakage, with the technology not yet tested at commercial scale. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad During a trip to St Fergus in 2023, then prime minister Rishi Sunak also raised concerns about the technology, warning that it would be a boost 'if we can get it to work'. Now, campaigners have warned that any further public funds for the Acorn project would benefit major oil companies, including Shell, which have made £90 billion profits in recent years and Harbour Energy who recently laid off 250 staff despite paying out almost £1bn to shareholders in the past three years. The UK government has already pledged £22bn to the carbon capture industry, a move which the Public Accounts Committee branded a 'high risk gamble' that could push up household energy bills. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad First Minister John Swinney has vowed to increase the public handout from the Scottish Government for the Acorn project beyond £80m. But that is contingent on the UK government first backing the project - amid doubts the funding could be axed in the spending review amid a perilous economic backdrop. Friends of the Earth Scotland's climate campaigner Alex Lee said: 'The public are again being forced to pay for the oil industry's greenwashing carbon capture plans, and it is deeply alarming that we don't even get to see what our money has unearthed. 'Plans to run a 280km high pressure carbon pipeline through towns and villages are fraught with danger and uncertainty because this has never been done before in Scotland. Have the people who live along the route of this pipeline proposal been informed of the risks and consulted on these proposals? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'It is a farce that ministers have been talking up carbon capture for 20 years and only now are they checking whether it would even be feasible to do this. 'When working climate solutions are crying out for funding, there should be no public investment in dodgy scams like carbon capture.' Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves and Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband during a meeting of the National Wealth Fund Taskforce in 11 Downing Street. PIC: Justin Tallis/PA Wire Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said: 'The Greens have always been sceptical about putting too much reliance on untested carbon capture technology, and we are firmly opposed to using it as an excuse for more fossil fuel extraction or burning. 'Even its advocates don't think it will make any impact on our emissions in the near future, so the priority has to be the action we know how to take right now - cutting road and air traffic levels, insulating homes and shifting to clean heating, and supporting communities to change land use. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Climate action isn't rocket science and we don't need to wait for new technologies to get off the drawing board - we just need to do what we know works.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Scottish Government provided National Gas with a £2m grant to support a study to explore the technical feasibility and viability of repurposing an existing gas pipeline for the transportation of carbon dioxide. 'The conclusions of the study were requested under environmental information regulations. However, for reasons of commercial confidentiality these can't be released. 'The Scottish Government fully supports the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and we have been advised by the Climate Change Committee that they 'cannot see a route to net zero that does not include CCS'.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A UK government spokesperson said: 'We are delivering first of a kind carbon capture projects in the UK, supporting thousands of jobs across the country, reigniting industrial heartlands and tackling the climate crisis.
Scotsman
19 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Labour's shock win in Hamilton is a reminder to all of us the SNP has years of baggage
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Only the SNP can stop Reform, the First Minister had insisted, just days before another electoral humbling for his party. John Swinney and friends had crafted a narrative that Labour were damaging Scotland's economy, overseeing austerity and, as a result, had no chance of winning. What he perhaps forgot was those same charges could be applied to the SNP, and for 17 years, not less than one. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We as pundits, journalists, and indeed many politicians got sucked into this narrative. Sir Keir Starmer's popularity had plummeted. The winter fuel allowance changes, two-child benefit and difficult economic forecast meant Labour could no longer be trusted, and voters were excited to go to the polls and make their feelings clear. This, of course, was nonsense. Voters perhaps put more weight on years of uncertainty than they did the struggles of a new government, which in hindsight seems obvious. It was less than two years since Scotland came second last among the UK nations for science and maths and was below England on all measures. People are still waiting on the NHS app, costing them £17 million, which now will not launch until 2026. That's to say nothing of wait times or the numerous scandals that have engulfed the SNP. John Swinney's stances on the EU, Donald Trump and migration, among others, have won plaudits (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images Then there was the candidate himself, or your new MSP Davy Russell as he's known, who endured car crash TV appearances when he actually showed up. Scottish Labour insisted he was a strong candidate known in the local area and didn't need to do too much media. It was all a bit Boris Johnson hiding in the fridge, but it worked. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It was also down to the Prime Minister, who declined to campaign in Hamilton during a visit to Scotland. All of this combined gave us the impression that the party was giving up, not wanting to taint Starmer with a defeat. In truth, it may have been that his attendance would have been a detriment, rather than an asset to the campaign. All of which is to say, I can see how we all got it so wrong, but that doesn't make it right. We had been warned, of course we were. It was only in March that an Ipsos survey found Scots are more negative than positive about the Scottish Government's performance. But Labour's teething issues, the SNP narrative and a candidate not conforming to what was expected rattled us, allowed us to focus on what was in front of us, rather than the years of failure if we'd dared to turn around. For Labour, this is a stunning victory, validation of their strategy and perhaps hope that Holyrood could indeed be in their grasp. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I recall one MP saying to me many months ago that voters were leaving Labour, but not to anyone else, they were undecided. The party gambled when reminded of the SNP record, they would come back. That roll of the dice has paid off.
