³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have looked at this for Scotland, because it has the biggest problem in the United Kingdom and across Europe. As for going down the legislative route, I know from discussions about Ms Smith’s bill in my committee that some are concerned about putting things on a statutory footing and into legislation instead of just allowing processes to take their course.

The fact is that these processes are not working. People are being told that treatment is the right option for them, but they are not able to get it, because of availability, because of cost and for a number of other reasons.

That depends on whether I have another 90 minutes in front of your committee, convener, because I might not be willing—[Laughter.]

There is one point that I had thought that I would get in earlier. On residential rehab beds, it was a commitment of a former First Minister to increase the percentage of drug and alcohol treatments that is made up by residential rehab from 5 per cent to 11 per cent. The figure of 11 per cent is included in the financial memorandum, at paragraph 35, because that is the European average. Again, the idea is to get our figures up. It is important to get on record the point that the aim is to get us up to levels that are seen elsewhere in Europe.

Thank you.

I do not dismiss COSLA’s concerns in any way. As we have seen, local authorities across the country are dealing with significant financial challenges, and the funding that goes into a number of those areas has been stretched and, in some cases, reduced over many years.

I believe that that situation is slightly different from the one the bill is about. The bill is about providing a right to addiction recovery using the models through the NHS, integration joint boards and local authorities. Ultimately, however, it will be down to the Scottish Government to decide how that funding is distributed.

Even without the bill—if it does not pass into law—the challenges that COSLA has identified in its submission will still exist. People will still need the support for which COSLA suggests there is not sufficient funding. We come back to the wider question for the Government, the committee and the Parliament about funding for local government more generally.

It is important to recognise that the bill does not seek to replace any other forms of treatment or support. Those will continue, and rightly so. The bill is about ensuring that there is a legal footing on which to give people the option of treatment such as rehabilitation and recovery, and guaranteeing in law that that can and will be provided.

Aberdeen ADP made that point very clearly in its submission to the committee, and I agree that that is crucial. The Highlands and Islands, which I represent, is one of Scotland’s most rural areas, and it makes up 44 per cent of Scotland’s landmass, from Shetland to Argyll and Bute. I am absolutely determined that the bill will have the same impact on people who live in our remote and rural areas and island communities as it will on those who live in urban settings and bigger cities.

Paragraphs 70 to 76 of the financial memorandum are very clear in indicating that we want to ensure that the provision is universal and is promoted accordingly. We set out in some detail how the bill could affect island communities, and we look at some of the issues that could affect smaller communities, such as people’s ability to get a second opinion and how we would ensure that those who made assessments had the relevant training. That is why the bill includes an initial estimated cost of £200,000 for training people to do the assessments. On-going training for NHS staff and others should, I hope, be included if the bill is passed into law, as I hope it will be. If the bill is passed, training will be available throughout urban and rural communities, and the offer will be there for people to get the treatment that they want and deserve.

I go back to the costs in the financial memorandum, which suggest that initial training will cost an estimated £200,000. We have taken the figure from other legislation that the Parliament has passed. If we are to have a universal service, it is absolutely crucial that people in the islands can receive initial training so that they can carry out the assessments that would become the basis of treatment options for the patient.

On staffing, we could look at the wider issue of recruiting people to serve in island communities. I know a number of people who have come to the Highlands and Islands from more urban communities in order to change their lifestyles. We draw people from all over Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom, to some of our more remote and rural locations, and they bring their experience with them. We have tried to inform the financial memorandum by putting the training costs up front.

The evidence of how the bill would make savings in the future has come from front-line experts, who have been crucial in informing the bill. They have told us that people would be able to get the treatment that they needed when they needed it, which would allow them to deal with their addiction issues at that point. That would undoubtedly save repeat returns to general practitioners and other medical services, because the problem would, I hope, have been dealt with in the initial phase, rather than getting worse and more complex, which would require repeat visits to GP practices and other professionals.

I go back to what the cabinet secretary said in his letter about hidden demand. Demand is hidden to the extent that people are not getting the treatment, but the demand is still there—there are still people in our communities who are suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. They are accessing some, but not all, services. They might not be accessing the services that are right for them. They need help and support. Some of that will come through the bill if it becomes law, but some of that is already being, and will continue to have to be, delivered.

First, on the issue of employer national insurance contributions, the bill was lodged long before that decision was taken by the new UK Government.

If we adjust the £3.5 billion figure for inflation, it goes up to £4.3 billion. I believe that the savings could be significantly higher. Some people might question Dame Carol Black, but I think that her report for the UK Government was extremely comprehensive. A point that has been used by a number of charities and Governments to encourage more appropriate intervention at an earlier stage is that spending a little now could lead to significant savings in the future. I think that the figure, which in Dame Carol Black’s initial report is given as £4 being saved for every £1 of intervention, could be even higher. A number of organisations continue to cite the figure, because early intervention and a treatment-focused personalised approach can make a huge difference.