³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Again, I could go on, as I did in a previous role, about savings that the Government could make in major projects. We could discuss ferries, for example, or we could discuss the money that was wasted on the information technology system for farm payments back in 2016. We could discuss—

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.

Just relieving that pressure is, in itself, a saving. The budgets are, as you say, extremely tight. We have had discussions about that in the Parliament on a number of occasions. However, the point is that, through early intervention, savings will be made going forward. No one has been able to prove to me that Dame Carol Black is wrong in her assumption that every £1 spent on intervention on addiction issues and drug problems will not make that £4 saving for the wider public service.

That has been discussed in meetings of the Parliament’s cross-party groups on drug and alcohol addiction that I have attended. There are certainly opportunities in the proposed legislation relating to direct funding that has become available and continues to become available.

The industry is sometimes criticised for not doing enough, but it seeks to put in funding where it can tackle problem drinking and addiction. I know that from my work with the Scotch Whisky Association and the CPG on Scotch whisky. As you will know, Mr Hoy, from the CPG on beer and pubs, the sector is aware of that and it seeks to direct available resources to a number of projects to prevent people from becoming addicted in the first place and to help people who are suffering from addiction.

That is an important point. The national mission completes next year, so, at the moment, the money that is associated with the national mission is not guaranteed going forward. I think that it must be—we need significant levels of funding in the future, and by making the bill law in this session of Parliament, we would be guaranteeing that funding. That will send an extremely important signal to people with addiction issues that the funding is backed up by the Parliament. It will also send an important message to Government that this continues to be a priority for members across the Parliament.

I hope that I have not strayed too much into the political territory today, because there is very good cross-party support for the bill from members of the governing party and from Opposition members who want to see our appalling drug and alcohol death rates reduce, and who want to see people surviving their addictions and getting the help and support that they need.

By putting this into law, we would also be guaranteeing funding into the next parliamentary session and beyond, which will be crucial as the national mission, which is currently scheduled to finish next year, comes to a close and the Government looks at further opportunities to deal with the issue.

Well, it is accurate in terms of the data that we have in front of us, so I give it a 10 on accuracy, based on what we have. If your question is whether I think that it will cost £198 million every year, the answer is no—I cannot give that commitment, because of the significant variation in the figures and the range that we have had to include. Ultimately, it could be seen as a failure for me if the bill ends up costing more money but, if that is because more people have the confidence to come forward and seek the treatment that they want and need, I will accept that criticism, because more people will be helped as a result.

I would say that £160 million of the current budget is not enough, which is why I am asking that we spend more money on this issue. I will go back to the point that I could have picked a figure that is wildly different from the £198 million that we get to for the increase required for the bill, and still not have been able to give you an accurate figure on your scale of zero to 10.

I was going to say that we always look for international comparisons, but the reason might be that other countries do not have Scotland’s shocking drug and alcohol death rates. The fact that we are the worst in the United Kingdom and across Europe means that we have to do something different here, and I think that it is incumbent on the Parliament to look outside the box. As I said to Mr Mason, if we continue to do the same thing time and time again, we should not be surprised that the results—that is, the number of people dying—remain the same. We have to look at something different, which is why I think that having this unique approach in Scotland is right.

I said it in jest.

Things have definitely come out since the bill was introduced and the financial memorandum was written. I mentioned Audit Scotland’s 2022 report; its 2024 report came out after the financial memorandum was submitted. I am therefore happy, whether instructed or otherwise by the committee, to look at some of the areas that have materialised since the financial memorandum was submitted and to look at some of the updated issues and challenges that are faced by both the sector and other bodies that have made compelling submissions to the committee.

I repeat, however, that a lot of Audit Scotland’s concerns are over wider funding issues that come down to the challenges for local government and national Government and, as you have said, the changing circumstances that are due to UK decisions.

That comes on top of the baseline of £160 million, which would take the total budget up to £198 million.