Dr. Jo-Hanna Ivers:

It is really worth clarifying that at the heart of the assembly was this notion not to have this lasting punishment for people who use drugs but also to recognise that they need support, and again to bring it back to the evidence base, so they get diverted into this brief intervention. What we know about brief intervention is that it is an incredibly staunch hard science that has been tested in terms of its efficacy so you can absolutely take it to the bank. Yes, I am on the record as saying 90% of people will use drugs without consequence, which means 10% or up to 15% in other jurisdictions might be addicted. What we know is that there is another population that is kind of hidden and that is anywhere up to 30% back who are using in a harmful or a hazardous way. When we screen that population, two things happen. The high majority of people, up to 20% of them, will get the information, adapt their behaviour and have the intervention they need to change it and the recovery capital to move on and all the rest. However, there is 10% of those people who are at risk. They are holding it together and when they get a health intervention, they then need specialist care. Therefore, we are also talking about a hidden population. It is worth going on the record for that, particularly when we are emphasising why this health-led approach is necessary, or more specifically why are we making everybody go for a screening they may not need. The point is that a lot of times people need stuff they are either not willing to talk about, they have not joined the dots or they do not want to put themselves in a stigmatising position. Again, we are talking about hidden populations. It is important to note that. I thank the Leas-Cathathaoirleach for giving me the time.