���˿���

The commitment to 650 beds by March next year is one that I have challenged Neil Gray on in the chamber. He believes that he is on course to achieve that number, and I want him to do so. This is not a political point on which the failure of the Government can be seized by opponents. We all want the Government to deliver and achieve that.

If that happens by March next year, what we propose in the bill could ensure that people get treatment, and there will be opportunities elsewhere to look at savings. As more people get treatment when they need it, their issues will be dealt with at that time, instead of their becoming more complex and chronic. Intervention later is far more costly to the Government.

I think that the Scottish Government has been right to seek financial recompense for that to support services here, in Scotland. We can see that there will be a huge challenge for public bodies such as the Government, councils and charities. I agree with that argument, which has been well rehearsed in Parliament and by this committee.

On where we would find the funding, the upper estimate is that the bill would cost £198 million annually. The Scottish Government’s budget is just shy of £64 billion, and I believe that savings can be found within it. In my previous role as a party leader in this Parliament, I often came up with suggestions—not all of which would have found favour with the people in this room—about how to find savings.

The answer is yes and no, if I am honest. Anyone who meets organisations that deal with addiction will find some split opinions. Some people believe that residential rehab is the right and only approach, and others believe that it is not. Therefore, I understand why there will be conflicting views on the bill. Not everyone who is working in the sector will agree with the bill’s approach. That is why I reiterate that the bill would not replace other mechanisms or opportunities that exist to help and support people but would, I hope, complement them.

The people who will be entitled to residential rehab and other forms of treatment that are identified in the bill will be the ones who need it: a medical expert will have determined the right approach for them. Crucially, the bill will ensure that treatment cannot be refused for any reason. It must happen within, at the longest, three weeks of the determination, although we hope that it would happen far sooner. I think that giving the legal guarantee about the treatment that has been determined to be right for an individual, and for that individual to feel part of the treatment, are crucial.

Yes—we want to get 50 per cent to two thirds of those who come forward for treatment completing treatment. Again, this relates to a point that the committee has rightly asked about before. We did not want to say just that there should be a 50 per cent increase: we thought that putting in a range would be more helpful to the committee through considering the projected costs of a lower end and an upper end.

East Ayrshire ADP mentioned that we focus an awful lot on the DAISy data in our financial memorandum, but it was important that we looked at that, because the figures and data points could then be translated into the financial memorandum.

I take on board your point about local authorities. We have tried to get as much data as possible. I went out and spoke to a number of health boards during the formation of the financial memorandum. I am very keen to open up further discussion about social care and social work costs with local authorities, if that would be helpful—it probably would be. However, I go back to the point that I made to the convener, which is that those costs currently exist and will continue to exist whether or not the bill is passed.

That is a crucial point. That is why treatment must begin within three weeks, as we have written into the bill, although we would like it to happen far sooner. We included that three-week period because the figure is used by the Government at the moment—95 per cent of people should already be getting treatment within three weeks. We mention that in paragraph 66, which says that

“95% of referrals resulted in treatment starting within three weeks or less.”

The longer the time, the more chance there is that the person becomes disenfranchised from the proposal and the treatment option that has been determined for them. We want the bill and the publicity that surrounds it to give people the confidence that, when they get a medical assessment of their need, they can get treatment as quickly as possible, in order to save them from changing circumstances leading to their not completing the treatment.

That is a very good question. Indeed, it was one of the questions that I was asked quite often when the bill was formally launched last May. We already have targets on, for example, cancer treatment times, but what happens if we do not meet them?

The annual reporting to the Parliament will, I think, put greater onus on ministers. They will have to be accountable to the chamber and to representatives, and therefore, if the bill goes through, it will be for members in the next session of the Parliament, whoever they might be, to hold Government ministers to account. Some, depending on who is in Government and who is in Opposition, might demand that ministers resign over that. I am not in any way saying that that should happen—I am just saying that we have put in the bill an opportunity for the Parliament to scrutinise delivery against its aims, and I think that that will be an important role for the Parliament, as we move forward.

Yes, I believe that we can say that with some certainty. As I said in my opening statement, the number of drug deaths is 15 times higher in our most deprived areas than it is in our least deprived areas, and the number of alcohol deaths is almost four times higher in our most deprived areas than it is in our least deprived areas. The legislation will make the biggest impact in those communities.

We have spoken about the hard-to-reach areas and the unmet demand. I hope that people will come forward to get the help and support that they need, because we can see that theirs are the communities that suffer the most from drugs and alcohol, so they are the communities that can benefit the most from the proposed legislation.

I cannot do that with the bill. As I said to the convener, non-Government bills must sometimes be quite narrow in focus. There are issues that we have not touched on yet, although we probably will with the lead committee, around housing and homelessness and suchlike, which are very often associated with addiction issues, which we cannot get into with this legislation, despite many of the front-line experts being keen that we are able to do so. I do not think that we can extend the scope of the bill. It will be for others to look at that, and I encourage them to do so.

The bill deals with people who are diagnosed with an addiction, but I understand that that is not everyone who suffers from alcohol misuse. However, by stipulating a diagnosis of addiction, we can get the required medical intervention and the treatment that is needed to deal with that addiction. That is why that is stipulated so clearly in the bill.

With that caveat—that is, in the manner that we are proposing—my answer would be no. That is my understanding. We have looked at that, and we have also—