���˿���

The money should come from the wider Scottish Government budget. We could spend all morning discussing where it could come from—undoubtedly, my priorities would be different from yours, Mr Mason. However, it is important. For far too long, that group of people has not had support from the Parliament or multiple Governments. How often have we stood up—annually, when we get the figures—and said that this is Scotland’s national shame and that something must be done about it, but without anything ever changing?

The only thing that changes is that the figures get worse and worse. Sometimes we get a slight dip, but then the numbers go back up again. We cannot continue doing the same thing time and again and expect different results. Therefore, I think that putting the provisions into law and giving people the reassurance that the treatment that has been deemed as being right to provide them with will be helpful not just to the individuals involved but to Scotland. As a country, we are shamed by our annual figures for the number of our fellow Scots who die needlessly from drugs and alcohol.

Yes, absolutely. As I said, the main aim of the bill is to save lives, but if improved data can better inform the decisions of the Government and the Parliament, that will also be a benefit of the legislation. That is why the proposals that are included in the bill about reporting to the Parliament and the costs that are associated with that in the financial memorandum are important to improve that data set.

On raising awareness, the bill has continued to shine a light on the appalling tragedies that we see in Scotland every year from drug and alcohol deaths, and we should continue to do that during the process of the bill and until we get those figures down.

The fact that we are still not just the worst in the United Kingdom for drug and alcohol deaths but the worst of many countries across Europe—for drug deaths, we are certainly the worst across Europe—shows us that this is a problem that we must tackle. In my view, it should have been tackled some time ago, but we are where we are. In 2025, we can send a very strong signal by passing this legislation, putting it into law and starting to save lives by ensuring that people get the treatment that is right for them.

There are two routes that we could go down. We could use the data that is available—which I, as the member in charge, accept is not ideal. That view is shared by many. Alternatively, we could look at that data and then add 10, 20 or 50 per cent; however, I would then be coming before this committee and struggling to defend that in any way.

I have looked at how this committee has scrutinised members’ bills and Government bills, and I think that it is right for it to look for the figures presented to be backed up by data, which is what we have tried to do with this financial memorandum.

I have also heard what the committee has said in the past about providing a range, which is why there is a range, with lower and upper-end expectations. Also, if the bill is passed, by including a proposal for annual reporting to Parliament, there is an opportunity for us to have better data to inform our decisions. Although, ultimately, the bill is designed to save lives and improve opportunities for people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, there is another benefit, in that we will be able to gather better data across Scotland, which can inform our decisions, including financial ones.

On the impact of the bill that some respondents to your call for evidence cited, there was a lot of discussion about wider issues that affect people with addiction being included in the bill. That was not possible, because the bill is a non-Government one and so has to be quite narrow in scope. We have done as much as we can within that narrowness, but there are undoubtedly areas of spend in public life that are affected and impacted by people being addicted to drugs or alcohol that are not included in the bill. However, the bill will not stop that spend or prevent that issue from being looked at going forward.

We address the issue of capital in the financial memorandum. The Scottish Government has been clear that it wants to get up to 650 residential rehab beds by March of next year, which is in 12 months’ time. The Government believes that it is on course to achieve that, and I hope that it does. Therefore, a large proportion of the funding that is needed for that has already been guaranteed by the Scottish Government, in previous budgets and the current budget. There is £160 million there, which is the baseline that we used for our calculations. A large proportion of that will be spent on increasing the number of residential rehab beds.

It is important that we recognise that in the financial memorandum. Although we do not separate out the capital costs, there is no need to do so, because there is that commitment from the Government, which it has backed up with its funding commitment of £160 million.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. It is a real pleasure to be in front of you today—I hope that I am still saying that at the end of your scrutiny. For me, it marks another significant step forward for the bill, which I have been working on for some time. I know that the scrutiny of your committee and that of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, which begins its evidence taking next week, will be important.

The latest statistics show that the number of annual drug deaths continues to rise and has more than doubled in the past 10 years. Scotland’s drug death rate is more than twice as high as the rate in Wales and almost three times higher than the rate in England and Northern Ireland. Drug deaths are 15 times more likely to occur in our most deprived areas than in our least deprived areas, with areas in Glasgow and Dundee that are represented by members of this committee being particularly badly affected.

However, it is not just an issue with large urban areas. Despite having relatively low figures, my own area of Moray has seen big percentage increases. Between 2020 and 2021, a 70 per cent increase in drug deaths in Moray represented the highest increase anywhere in the country.

The bill covers alcohol addiction as well as drug addiction. The number of alcohol-specific deaths is at its highest level since 2008—again, the highest anywhere in the United Kingdom—and it is four times as high in our most deprived areas as in our least deprived communities. I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say that that is a national scandal.

Every four hours, on average, a Scot will die because of drugs or alcohol. They will die a needless and avoidable death because they were not given the right care and support at the right time. This is a national emergency and it deserves to be treated as such.

When the Parliament was reconstituted, the late Donald Dewar said that it should deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. I genuinely believe that there can be no better issue to make that statement true than the drug and alcohol emergency that we are facing. I say that not to make a political point but simply to reinforce to the committee the gravity of the situation and the motivation for introducing the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill.

I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been involved in the formation of the bill to this point. As a member who has never sought to introduce a bill, I had not previously been involved in the work of the non-Government bills unit, but it has done a huge amount behind the scenes to bring us to this point today. I also thank the front-line experts who have been crucial in forming the bill and getting us to this stage. In particular, I would like to mention Stephen Wishart, Annemarie Ward and Faces & Voices of Recovery UK—FAVOR UK—who have been the real driving forces behind the bill.

To give a brief overview, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill gives every person who has been diagnosed as having a drug or alcohol addiction the right to be informed about the appropriate treatment for their addiction and to be provided with that treatment. The bill sets out a procedure for health professionals to follow in determining treatment, including explaining the treatment options to the patient and encouraging them to participate in the decision-making process as much as possible. It also sets out a process and a right to a second opinion when treatment is deemed to be inappropriate or when no treatment is deemed to be appropriate. The bill requires that treatment that is identified be made available as soon as is reasonably possible and no later than three weeks after the determination is made.

The bill also requires that Scottish ministers publish and lay an annual report on the progress that has been made towards providing the treatments for drug and alcohol recovery. Finally, the bill requires Scottish ministers to prepare a code of practice that sets out how the duty to fulfil the right to treatment will be carried out by health boards and others, such as integration joint boards.

As this is the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I expect that many of the questions will be on the financial implications of the bill. I will not pre-empt what members might ask, but I will make one point, if I may. The figures that are included in the financial memorandum represent the best estimate of costs using the data that was available to us. However, as Audit Scotland said in its 2022 report on alcohol and drug services,

“it is still difficult to track spending and how it is being distributed and monitored.”

Further, Alcohol Focus Scotland said in its submission to the committee:

“We believe that the financial working that has been done exposes a significant and worrying gap in the available data.”

Also, in his letter to members of this committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care said:

“it is extremely challenging to estimate demand and unmet need.”

In the light of those challenges, although I understand the view that those numbers are at the lower end of the expectations, they are the best figures that can be produced with the data that we have at the moment.

As Dame Carol Black said,

“£1 spent on treatment will save £4 from reduced demands on health, prison, law enforcement and emergency services.”

Therefore, although there are significant spending commitments in relation to the bill, there are also savings to be made—and I think that we can all agree that the biggest saving is the lives that will be saved by people getting the help and support that they need when they need it.

I know that there will be some who are just as passionate about wanting to tackle our shameful drug and alcohol death rate as I am but who disagree with the approach in the bill. To those individuals and organisations—and, indeed, to this committee—I say work with me to get this right. We are at the beginning of the process and there will be time for amendments, which I will look at in good faith—but do not let the perfect stand in the way of the good.

We cannot miss this opportunity to put the need to take action against this national scandal on a legal footing. It is right that the bill and the issue be given the time to be debated and considered by this committee and this Parliament. I believe that people with drug and alcohol dependencies, their families and those who have tragically lost loved ones deserve no less.

That will not be in my letter.

I can give you that assurance.

That is very difficult. I mentioned the tipping point to the convener a couple of times. When that tipping point occurs, it will be determined by a number of factors. I go back to Mr Mason’s point about how many people from among that 24 per cent, or whatever figure we are looking at, come forward at any given time.

Another member said that the bill is ready to work, and it is important that it provides the support and assistance that people need immediately, from day 1. That is why the increase in the number of residential rehab beds is crucial. The Government’s meeting that target next year will indicate how we will perform in that area. However, picking a date when the short-term benefits become long-term savings is difficult to do at this point.

I now know how the press team felt when Donald Rumsfeld was speaking about known unknowns and suchlike all those years ago.

I have wrestled with that challenge throughout the process. When I first saw the outcome of the financial memorandum, I expected the figure to be higher—there is no doubt about that—and I actually think that I might have had an easier time at committee if it had been significantly higher. That is because the respondents are very clear that they think that it is an underestimation of the amount of money required. However, I cannot back that up. In coming up with the figures in the financial memorandum, we looked at other methodologies, and they all had significant pitfalls that would have met with the same problems that you are discussing today.

On fiscal responsibility, I go back to Dame Carol Black’s point that £1 in intervention gets us £4 back elsewhere in the system. Yes, we may end up spending more than £198 million, but we will end up saving more lives and we will also end up saving more for public services generally through the savings that she has identified.

Sorry.

That is based on trying to determine whether the change would be 50 per cent or two thirds, so the band is actually quite limited. That goes back to the answers that I gave to Mr Mason. That is my answer to that point.