Patricia Ferguson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is well aware of the ongoing issues with Royal Mail and the concerns of many Members and constituents about the delayed delivery of hospital appointment letters and other important correspondence. The Communication Workers Union advises that the problem of delivery office staff turnover is worse in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Does he share my concern that the imminent Scottish Parliament elections bring a fresh cause for concern? Voters anxiously awaiting their polling cards and postal ballots will be understandably concerned about the possibility of being disenfranchised by any delay. Does he agree that Members of the House should be reassured by Royal Mail that it has adequate staffing to discharge its responsibilities regarding the smooth running of May’s election?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Any support for Scottish hospitality businesses is welcome; however, the recent Scottish Budget simply tinkers around the edges, with many businesses still in line for a 400% tax hike. Does my hon. Friend agree that a fundamental overhaul and redesign of the current system is required so that we can deliver stronger economic growth in Scotland?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Instruments such as this draft order alter Scotland’s devolution settlement and require inter-governmental co-operation: areas that fall squarely within the remit of the Scottish Affairs Committee. For that reason, as members of this Committee will know, the Scottish Affairs Committee has scrutinised the draft order and published a report to aid Parliament’s consideration of the instrument. I should put on record that I am grateful to the Scotland Office for its engagement with us, and that our correspondence is of course published on the Committee’s website. I wish to make it clear that the Committee remains neutral on the issue of assisted dying. Our report does not comment on the substance of that sensitive matter, but it does draw Parliament’s attention to some unusual features of the draft order. Given the relative rarity of section 30 orders, our interest is in the legal and constitutional implications of the order. I will give an overview of those issues in my remarks, but I will first take the opportunity to express my gratitude to my fellow Committee members, some of whom are here today, for their thoughtful consideration of the issues. This statutory instrument would use powers under the Scotland Act to extend, in a narrow and time-limited way, the Scottish Parliament’s law-making powers. It would do that to enable the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill to become law if the Scottish Parliament so decides. During the Bill’s scrutiny stages in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government identified three areas that relate to reserved matters under the Scotland Act. If the UK Parliament does not take legislative action, the Bill as it currently stands would be outside the Scottish Parliament’s competence. The specific way in which those issues are being resolved through this order gives rise to three observations that I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to. The Governments have adopted a two-stage, bifurcated approach to address the three competence issues. The draft section 30 order will only resolve the issues related to the “regulation of medicines and medical devices”. The other two outstanding competence issues, relating to the “regulation of medical professions” and “employment and industrial relations”, are expected to be resolved via a section 104 order. A section 104 order would make consequential provision after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That requires the relevant provisions to be removed from the Bill before it is passed by MSPs. The Scottish Affairs Committee asked the UK Government why they adopted the two-stage approach, rather than addressing all the competence issues in one go. In response, the Government said that their approach would allow the Scottish Parliament to debate “with clarity” how the Bill’s “core” issues will be handled, rather than issues that might arise as a consequence. They also said that section 104 cannot be used to confer powers to make subordinate legislation, which the Bill’s provision on substances and devices for assisted dying would require. That explains why not all issues were dealt with using a section 104 order, but it does not explain why some issues are being dealt with by a section 104 order rather than this section 30 order. Our report highlighted that this approach has implications for effective scrutiny. In particular, it means that while the Scottish Parliament will have clarity over how issues relating to substances and devices will be handled, there will be no such clarity in respect of the other two competence issues. The Scottish Government have already indicated that some provisions will need to be removed from the Bill before the final stage 3 vote. It would not be possible for MSPs to assess the section 104 order, which will be used to fill the legislative gaps, before the Bill is passed. Our report suggested that any uncertainty could be remedied by the UK Government publishing their section 104 order in draft, before the Scottish Parliament’s stage 3 consideration. Given the draft order’s constitutional significance, we also recommended that the instrument should be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee; I note that that the approach has been taken in the other place. However, Members will know that this recommendation was not adopted by the Government, which is disappointing. On that point, I will take this opportunity to gently highlight to the Minister that it might have been courteous and helpful for the Department to have written to the Scottish Affairs Committee before this Delegated Legislation Committee was scheduled to respond to that specific and time-sensitive recommendation. Our report also casts light on the ongoing role retained by UK Ministers within this draft order. The manner in which the draft order confers powers relating to medicines and devices means that these powers are only nominally transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State will retain the ultimate say over how those powers are used. It is clear that the approach has been agreed by both Governments. However, our report highlighted that it is a novel, though perhaps not unprecedented, approach. The default approach is that, when a matter has been devolved, the Scottish Parliament confers powers on Scottish Ministers, who are then answerable to the Scottish Parliament. However, this section 30 order envisages that some regulations resulting from the Act could be made by a UK Government Minister acting alone. Those regulations would not be subject to scrutiny by MSPs. This approach is unusual, as the Scottish Parliament does not normally confer powers on UK Ministers. Will the Minister clarify in her response how the remaining competence issues will be resolved and what consideration the Government have given to implications for effective scrutiny? Finally, our report draws special attention to the time-limited nature of the draft order. While time limiting a section 30 order is not in itself new, this one is slightly different. The powers that the draft order confers would effectively expire if the current Bill does not complete its final stages before the Scottish Parliament elections this year. When questioned on this approach, the UK Government confirmed that they are willing to devolve competence only in respect to the specific Bill currently under consideration. However, what is less clear is how the time limit would affect subsequent amendments to the primary legislation further down the line—for example, if the Scottish Parliament wish to change the regulation-making powers of the Act. For the benefit of the Committee, I hope that the Minister will outline in her response whether the Scottish Parliament would be able to amend or repeal the Act’s regulation-making powers in a future Scottish parliamentary Session. The draft order has important constitutional implications. It is right that these issues have been properly scrutinised, and I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report will be useful to the Committee and to the wider House. The Department has responded to the Committee’s report, and that response will be considered by the Committee at our meeting tomorrow. We will make every effort to ensure that the response is published before the House votes on this instrument. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points I have highlighted, particularly regarding the need for clarity on any forthcoming section 104 orders, the novel role for UK Ministers and the implications of the proposed time limit.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he tell the House how the Prime Minister is considering strengthening the role of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, given his commitment to improving standards in public life?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Scottish Affairs Committee in 2024-25 and Industrial Transition · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has given a good explanation of some of the Committee’s work. Does she agree that one of the most impressive things that we have seen this year has been the commitment of the apprentices at BAE Systems and elsewhere, such as at Babock International? They are young people with a clear idea of what they want in their lives and how they are going to achieve it, recognising that the jobs that they are being equipped to take in the shipbuilding and submarine-building industry are going to give them a lasting career. Seeing that was particularly inspiring. It was also good to see the skills that they were achieving at BAE Systems through the skills academy created by the company.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Female Genital Mutilation · Hansard source

  More

  By its very nature, FGM is a hidden tragedy for many women and girls, and it is important that prosecution rates are increased. One way to do that would be to emphasise and publicise the use of FGM protection orders, which can help to prevent the carrying out of FGM both here and abroad, and now apply in all UK jurisdictions. Will the Solicitor General advise what action the Department can take to make the possible use of such orders better known?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Female Genital Mutilation · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for female genital mutilation.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for such a strong statement this afternoon. She has rightly highlighted the disgraceful use of rape as a weapon of war in this conflict, but it happens in many other conflicts around the world, from Ukraine to Myanmar. May I urge her to use her office to lead international efforts to bring the perpetrators of this disgraceful violence against women and girls to justice, wherever that violence may be happening and no matter how long the process takes?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing the debate. I know how interested she is in these issues, and how much she cares about them, so it is good that we are having this debate today. I make no apologies for enumerating some figures that I think we would all do well to remember. As we have heard, for the second year running, the Occupied Palestinian Territory was the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. In 2024, Israeli armed forces were responsible for 7,188 grave violations against Palestinian children. That means that Israeli forces were responsible for more than one in five of the total number of verified grave violations committed globally in 2024. The verified number of Palestinian children killed and maimed by Israeli forces in 2024 was 3,867. Most instances were caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. As of July 2025, over 40,500 children in Gaza were estimated to have been injured. The occupied Palestinian territory is now home, shamefully, to the largest cohort of child amputees in modern history. As of July 2025, at least 21,000 children were living with permanent disabilities, which included traumatic brain injuries, burns, complex fractures and hearing loss. The Save the Children report, “Children and Blast Injuries”, explains that the reason for that is because children are uniquely vulnerable to blast injuries, as they are more likely to die as a result of attacks, or to suffer more severe physical harm, in comparison with adults. The situation is compounded by the rise of new weapons technologies such as cluster munitions, and the increase of conflict being conducted in cities, with bombs and drones often striking—in fact, targeting—schools, hospitals and homes. The report makes a number of calls on the Government, one being to publish what would be the first-ever cross-departmental children in conflict strategy. I hope the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) mentioned education in conflict zones. It is an issue that the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown raised a number of years ago. He said that those living in conflict zones have the right to expect medical care, and that children in conflict zones should have the right to expect an education, in spite of what is going on around them, no matter how difficult that might be. I am sure that we all have a view about the board of peace that has been created to look after Palestine and Gaza. I have many concerns about it, but I want to talk about one today: the fact that there is only one woman on the board of peace. I do not for one moment suggest that men do not care about children, but I think that women have a particular perspective. They are often the people who are now left to look after children with no support, often having lost their breadwinner. The Government could use any influence they have to advocate—

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my constituent Favour Deedam and her colleagues in Unison’s migrant worker network for sharing their experiences, views and concerns about the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain. I am grateful to the many constituents in Glasgow West who have shared their histories and their concerns, and of course I am also grateful to the petitioners. One of the most important but too often undervalued roles in our society is that of the care workers—the people who look after our elderly family members and the most vulnerable people in our communities. Many of those carers are skilled, and they are often studying and achieving national vocational qualifications to equip them to do their job to the very best of their ability. In spite of their qualifications and dedication, they are just not well paid. As 31% of those employed in the health and care sector are now from overseas, it is clear that our NHS and the care sector could not function without them. As we have heard, the Government’s proposals would mean that for lower-paid workers in the public sector, the waiting period for indefinite leave to remain will increase to 15 years. I suggest that a person’s value to our country should not be measured just in terms of their salary; it should reflect their value to our society. People working in the health and care sectors should be judged on their contribution to our society. Let us remember that the people we are talking about pay taxes, pay national insurance and are often very constructive members of our communities too. Research by Unison indicates that, of the more than 3,000 people who have come to the UK recently to work in the care sector, 15% paid money to an employer for the privilege; 31% had problems with their pay not being given to them on time; and some were not paid for travel times between care visits or were penalised when they were ill. Many reported racial abuse, including verbal and physical abuse. I suggest to the Minister that a reform that we could usefully put in place for these people would be to establish a better way of granting visas to such staff. Too many have visas linked to their employment but arrive to find that there is not actually a job for them, or else the company holding their visa fails and staff find themselves in financial hardship. Often, the threat of a visa being revoked or of a worker being returned to their home country is used to stop people speaking up about poor conditions. As Unison argues, a sector-wide sponsorship scheme, run by a public sector body, would take away those fears and reduce the costs incurred when a worker moves jobs. Looking at the Government’s proposals—

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Given that we reckon that some 30% of posts in the NHS and care sector are taken up by people who have come from overseas, at what point will the reforms that he referred to just now get us to the point where we can do without that 30% of people? It strikes me that, before we do anything along these lines, he needs to do an awful lot of work with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that the balance can be had.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is a very serious individual and his statement was very serious. It helpfully enumerated that the majority of pensioners on lower incomes are women and that women make up the majority of those depending on pension credit. The anger that WASPI women feel about the steep increase in age is very understandable. Many of those women paid what my mother used to call “the small stamp”, which makes their situation even more vulnerable. I accept that the Secretary of State’s statement is largely about the ombudsman’s decision. Will he indicate what conversations he has had with the ombudsman, specifically about why he made that recommendation? Will he also tell the Chamber what communication he has had with the WASPI women about his decision?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  At a time when the Government are promoting a duty of candour to ensure that all public servants, including Ministers, have a legal duty to act with transparency and frankness, and when the Scottish Government have indicated that they hope that that legislation will apply in Scotland too, does the Deputy Prime Minister support calls for the current First Minister, a former First Minister and a former Health Minister to appear before the inquiry into the deaths of adults and children as a result of contaminated water at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, a scandal widely thought to be the worst since devolution began?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the way in which he laid out the debate, and the petitioners for taking the time to give us their views. As we have heard, fireworks can be a source of entertainment and play a very important role in cultural celebrations, but, sadly, for many people and animals they are a source of anxiety, distress and danger. Product safety and the sale of fireworks are consumer safety issues and so reserved to Westminster. Current regulations prohibit the sale of fireworks to the public except during certain periods of the year: Chinese new year, Diwali, bonfire night and new year. However, the easing of restrictions, while intended to allow the marking of significant cultural celebrations, creates extended periods when private backyard or back-garden displays can occur sporadically with no prior warning. The extended easing of restrictions over bonfire night has been highlighted by veterans charities as a particular point of concern. The bright flashes of light, loud bangs and smell of smoke lingering in the air can trigger PTSD in veterans. Moreover, that period of sale coincides with the period during which we remember those who have fallen in war and compounds the distress already associated with that time. The unpredictability of backyard displays also places an unnecessary burden on vulnerable groups in our society and on pet owners, preventing them from planning ahead and putting precautions and coping strategies in place to limit the distress. In Scotland, when and where fireworks can be discharged is a devolved issue. As we have heard, some measures have been introduced to further restrict their use. In response to the antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks, the Scottish Government’s Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 provides local authorities with the power to designate firework control zones. In Glasgow, three such zones were implemented last year between 1 November and 10 November, although, frustratingly, the bid for a zone in my constituency was rejected by Glasgow city council. Residents living within those zones have reported a calmer environment, a quieter evening and a better experience, but Glasgow as a whole still recorded the highest number of firework-related calls to the police in Scotland—in fact, double the second-highest reported number, which was in Edinburgh. Sound does not observe boundaries and does not understand the limitations of zones, and residents living in control zones noted that firework-related noise continued to be an issue, so there is a question of how to police such areas. To tackle noise and antisocial behaviour effectively, the implementation of a city-wide control zone would have made more sense, but the current legislation does not allow that, which seems to me a real problem. The Scottish Government’s 2022 Act also legislated for the establishment and implementation of a new licensing scheme, which would require members of the public to obtain a licence before being allowed to purchase, possess or use fireworks. However, at the end of last year the First Minister announced that the implementation of the scheme would be paused due to its complexity, which I understand, and the cost of introducing it.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend. I was just saying that as well as its complexity, which I understand, another reason for not introducing licensing in the way that the Scottish Government originally wanted to was the cost, which seems particularly ironic given that they have had a record devolution settlement for the second year running. I understand his point, and his constituency neighbours mine. In previous years—fortunately not for some time now—we had instances in my constituency of thugs, frankly, using scaffolding poles to fire fireworks at the police, who ended up having to bring in the riot squad to deal with it. That kind of behaviour cannot be allowed, and any action that is taken must show understanding that not everyone is a good actor. Apart from anything else, I do not actually think the Scottish Government’s licensing scheme would work. We need measures that are easily understood and easily enforceable. As we have heard, silent or much quieter fireworks and organised displays seem to be the way forward. If we do not listen to what people are telling us, we will continue to perpetuate an environment that detrimentally affects animal welfare and the welfare of vulnerable groups in our society. This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I hope that we will all resolve, and the Minister will agree, that we should not be back here having it again next year.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent of mine requires to renew his driving licence annually because of his age. He applied for a renewal in September 2025 and has now been told that his hospital consultant was asked for verification of his ability to drive in January 2026. Unfortunately, his consultant has not yet received such a request. Meanwhile, my constituent has lost three job offers because he does not have a valid driving licence. The Leader of the House is not unfamiliar with the issue of delays at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Given this particular case and what we have heard in previous weeks, I wonder whether a debate about the problem of delays at the DVLA is now appropriate.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is aware that the Scottish Affairs Committee recently conducted an inquiry into the Thistle safer drug consumption room in Glasgow. I hope that this innovative facility will help to cut drug death numbers in Scotland, but does he agree that the Thistle on its own cannot end the drug crisis? Does he therefore agree that a real-terms cut of £1.3 million to alcohol and drug services was entirely the wrong move in yesterday’s Scottish budget?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Storm Goretti · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is rather a long way away from Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, but I do live in a part of the country that is not immune to major storms. The Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair, has undertaken an inquiry into connectivity, particularly in the islands and in rural areas. It has been reported to us that, after a recent storm, islanders on the isle of Tiree were without any connection to even the 999 service for six days. That is clearly unacceptable and should not be happening anywhere on these islands. The point made to us already in the early part of our inquiry is that people want resilience, and resilience is difficult when connectivity is very poor to begin with. Will the Minister look at the issue of resilience, so that people across the country have some assurance about future activity?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her strong words. Like many hon. Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are very concerned about not being able to contact friends and family who are still in Iran. I join my right hon. Friend in applauding and congratulating the female activists in Iran, who have been relentlessly targeted by this oppressive regime, on fighting very bravely for their freedom this week. When the time comes—I sincerely hope it comes very quickly—will she ensure that their voices and their actions can be part of building a new democracy in Iran?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this debate on the Government’s response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report on the pilot safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow, known as the Thistle. The Committee began this inquiry in January 2025, amid ongoing concern that Scotland faces the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. In 2024, 1,017 deaths were recorded, alongside harms including blood-borne viruses and injection wounds. Preliminary figures for 2025 suggest that those numbers are increasing. There is a suspected 8% increase in drug deaths in the first nine months of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. Those deaths and drug-related harms are very much concentrated in Glasgow, although not exclusively so. To address that, Glasgow City Council Health and Social Care Partnership and other partners launched the Thistle. The Thistle is located on Hunter Street in Glasgow’s east end, and it is the first sanctioned UK safer drug consumption room. In its first 10 months, the Thistle has had 522 unique visitors and has supervised over 6,000 injecting episodes. During this time there were 78 medical emergencies on site. Now, that might sound like a bad thing, but this means that there have been 78 instances where people have received professional medical intervention, which they might not otherwise have received. This medical intervention treats overdoses and potentially saves lives. There have been no fatalities at the Thistle in the year since it opened. Our Committee heard that, as a single service, the impact of the Thistle is expected to be highly localised. It is unlikely to shift the dial on national drug death figures, and it is not designed to do so. The question of cost was an ongoing theme throughout the inquiry. The Thistle is being funded by the Scottish Government, and up to £2.3 million per year has been committed for the duration of the three-year pilot. The Thistle is undoubtedly expensive to run. However, evidence suggests that facilities such as the Thistle can provide value for money by generating savings elsewhere in the health service. Such facilities can reduce costs associated with public injecting, including the costs of hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs and treating blood-borne viruses. Preventing just six to eight cases of HIV annually could potentially generate savings equivalent to the annual cost of the Thistle. It is right that the Thistle’s costs were properly considered in the Committee’s inquiry because it is a gold-standard model. That means that the value-for-money and harm-reduction capability of a less sophisticated model remains untested. However, with over 1,000 deaths in 2024 alone, the Committee is clear that the scale of Scotland’s emergency necessitates a commensurate response and significant investment. The report also emphasises how vital a drug checking licence would be in combating drug-related harm. We explained how such a licence would allow support services to better understand drug trends across Glasgow, and to take action in relation to them. That could be key in ensuring that the Thistle achieves maximum effectiveness. We recommended that the Home Office urgently complete its assessment of Glasgow’s application for a drug checking licence at the Thistle, and I was very pleased to see that the application was approved in October last year. With this licence, Glasgow will become the first city in Scotland where people can legally test drugs for dangerous contaminants. We know that applications for further drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen and Dundee have also been submitted to the Home Office, and we await the outcome of those applications. I will now make some remarks about the impact of the Thistle on the local community, which has quite rightly been the subject of much media reporting. I highlight how our report emphasises the importance of supporting the community surrounding the Thistle. The concerns of the local community must be taken seriously, which is why our report recommended proactive engagement through the community forum and the development of a responsive communication strategy. Amid the media commentary, we should also bear in mind that it may take time for the local effects of the Thistle to be fully understood. We are reassured that the ongoing independent evaluation is monitoring the levels of discarded paraphernalia, and the pilot’s wider impact on the community. That is vital, and it will ensure that debate about local impacts is informed by accurate, objective data. In November last year we published the Government’s response to our report. There is some positive messaging in the response, which we welcome, and the Government have said that they are firmly committed to tackling drug-related harms and to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government. The response also noted “the importance of evidence-based and high-quality treatment, which engages vulnerable people who use drugs.” Both those points very much align with the spirit of our report. When it comes to the Thistle itself, however, I must express some disappointment at the substance of the Government’s response. It states that the Government will “welcome any evidence” emerging from the evaluation of the Thistle. However, it also states that the Government have “no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971” to permit the operation of such facilities anywhere in the UK. It is difficult to see how full and proper consideration can be given to the Thistle’s evaluation unless the Government are at least open-minded to considering legal changes. As our report says, “Any intervention found to be effective at saving lives and reducing harm should not be dismissed.” Experts and evidence, rather than preconceived ideas, should determine the facility’s future. I directly asked the Prime Minister about this issue during a public session of the Liaison Committee in December. Given the scale of Scotland’s drug crisis, I asked whether he would reconsider the Government’s opposition to amending the law if the Thistle’s evaluation shows it to be effective. He said that the Government had looked at it but does not intend to do so. He also said that legal decisions pertaining to the Thistle are best taken by those in Scotland, and that this should not lead to a UK-wide changing of drugs law. Unfortunately, that response appears not to recognise that drugs law is reserved. In her response to this debate, I hope the Minister will help us to understand how the Government can welcome evidence while remaining closed as to what that evidence might say. Since the publication of our report, the issues we raised have only become more prescient. Interest has developed in additional safer drug consumption facilities elsewhere in Scotland. In Edinburgh, a feasibility study for a similar facility was undertaken in late 2024. That work confirmed strong local need for a facility, and identified two potential sites in the city. Then, in September 2025, the Edinburgh integration joint board announced plans to launch a formal public consultation early this year as part of developing a business case for a facility. The Lord Advocate’s current statement of prosecution policy, however, would not cover any other sites. It is specifically worded in such a way that it covers the Thistle facility and nowhere else. That prosecutorial statement indicates that it is not in the public interest to prosecute people at the Thistle. Our report concludes that relying on separate prosecution policies for multiple facilities is undesirable. If there are to be other safer drug consumption facilities beyond Glasgow, it is even more important that the UK Government address the issues highlighted in our report by establishing a clear legal basis that applies across Scotland. That would require legislation by the UK Government and Parliament. The issues covered in our report are more relevant now than ever, because drug consumption trends in Scotland are changing rapidly. Inhalation is becoming much more prevalent. We highlight the expert medical advice from Dr Saket Priyadarshi and others that shows that inhalation is a safer method of consumption than injection. Introducing an inhalation space could expand the reach of the Thistle by attracting those who smoke and inhale drugs rather than inject them. Dr Priyadarshi describes how it would reduce the appalling physical harm caused by injecting at wound sites. The Thistle does not currently have inhalation facilities. Such facilities would be prohibited under both reserved and devolved legislation, most notably Scotland’s smoking ban. Our report makes it clear that, for the Thistle to be effective, it must be able to meet the needs of the population it is trying to help. An inhalation room could therefore be key to maximising the Thistle’s effectiveness, and a fair evaluation of the facility’s full potential efficacy could be inhibited without one. Since the publication of our report, the Glasgow City integration joint board has announced plans potentially to provide an inhalation space within the Thistle. The board has approved plans to develop a full business case to explore it, and our report calls for any application to enable an inhalation space to be considered by the UK Government on its merits. In response to our report, the Government said that it “does not support” enabling inhalation. The Government suggest that it would be for the Lord Advocate, rather than the UK Government, to grant an exemption to reserved legislation. I hope the Minister might reflect on the logic that granting exemptions to reserved legislation is best done by the Lord Advocate through prosecutorial discretion rather than by the UK Government, who retain responsibility for drugs law. I have one further point. The Thistle is already operating, and it may evolve to provide more services in future. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly likely that similar facilities may be established elsewhere in Scotland. All of that is happening whether the UK Government approve or not. To a certain extent, that reflects the proper operation of devolution and Scotland’s separate legal system, which enables Scotland to take a different path from the rest of the UK. However, as our report sets out, it would be undesirable for the Thistle or any other future facility to operate, potentially indefinitely, under the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial discretion. The UK Government should recognise these realities, and if the Thistle is deemed a success, they should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a full, sustainable legal framework for such facilities. If they do not do so, the Government would be permitting the current unstable legal position to persist. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Minister.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. It is clear that, across this room, we all share the goal of tackling the harms caused by problem drug use. However, in the face of the crisis that we have talked about today, I do not think we can afford to dismiss any potential remedy, so I take this opportunity to once again encourage the Government to follow the evidence. As we have heard, there will be an evaluation of the Thistle published in three years’ time, but some interim work is likely to be done before then. As part of our inquiry, the Committee also visited drug consumption rooms in Oslo, Bergen and Lisbon—those in Oslo have been going for more than 20 years. Around the world, there is a lot of hard evidence demonstrating that these facilities have a part to play not only in eradicating drug use, but in controlling the way in which drugs are used. Drug consumption rooms are not the only intervention available to us, nor should they be. They are complementary to and should work in tandem with vital recovery services, as well as other harm reduction interventions. Our Committee has been clear that these facilities are just one tool available to address problem drug use—and that is what they are about: problem drug use. With Scotland continuing to record the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe, our response has to match the scale of that crisis. I am very grateful to Members from around the House for their contributions this afternoon. I thank my friend and co-Committee member, whose constituency I cannot remember—the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—for his contribution this afternoon. Both he and his SNP predecessor on the Committee, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), played a very constructive part in bringing together our report. I am sure that he, like me, was very impressed by the mobile facilities that we saw when we visited Lisbon. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), whose constituency name is much easier for me to remember, is obviously a great champion for his community. He is absolutely right that the views of the community must be heard, but the community also need more regular feedback about what is being done to address their concerns. That is one of the things we highlighted in our report, and I want to highlight it again today. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) was absolutely correct that we need a package of measures and that our approach needs to be evidence-based. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his contribution. He is right that this is not simple, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that in the time the Thistle has been open, 78 overdoses have been dealt with on the premises. If they had not taken place in the Thistle, those overdoses would likely have taken place on the street or in those people’s homes, where they would likely have been alone, and might have resulted in increased deaths. One thing we know from the evidence is that there has never been a death from an overdose in a safer drug consumption facility anywhere in the world, and that history now goes back over 20 years. We must remember that and have it at the forefront of our minds when discussing this problem. Thank you for your steady chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all hon. Members for their time and thoughtful contributions on this important issue; I hope they will keep an open mind. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that naloxone is widely used in Scotland by paramedics and the police. As a councillor on Glasgow city council, I had the opportunity to be trained in its use, and I have a vial of it that I can carry around—fortunately, I have never had to use it. However, I wanted to make the point to the hon. Member that the main driver for considering a safer drug consumption room in Glasgow was the fact that, in 2015, we had one of the biggest outbreaks of HIV infections ever seen in Europe. That was tracked back to the sharing of needles and the fact that people were injecting. That is what sparked the whole discussion about whether Glasgow needed a safer drug consumption room. So this is not just about the criminality or treating those who are already addicted; it is about preventing those blood-borne viruses, which are so harmful to people in their individual lives, but which also have such a devastating effect on our health services. It is about more than just misusing drugs; it is about a whole-society approach.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  One of the things that is advantageous about the Thistle is that it does not exist in a vacuum. It can refer people on to other services such as housing— many of the people being dealt with are homeless, unfortunately—and it can also address mental health issues and send people forward to the requisite services that they need to access. It can also do basic things such as allow people the opportunity to have a shower and get some clean clothes—the basic necessities that the rest of us take for granted. In that way, it does more than just address the relatively straightforward issue of injecting; it also tries to help people with the problems they experience day to day.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming today’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland of £140 million of local growth funding for Scotland, including £60.9 million for the Glasgow city region? Does he agree that this funding, together with the record Budget settlement for the Scottish Government, demonstrates that Scotland really is at the heart of this Labour Government?