���˿���

Well, they are able to dictate what they believe is right for them, but, as you will be aware, the medical professional must still comply with the guidance in what is called the orange book and look at whether that treatment is right for the patient. I could be struggling with addiction and think that X was the right approach for me, and I would make a very forceful case for that, but if that did not meet the criteria in the orange book and the medical professional did not agree with that, they could say, “No, that treatment is not right for you.”

An individual would have the right to a second opinion, which, as with the original determination, would be given in writing, so that the person would have something that they could scrutinise. We have spoken already about the vulnerability of many of the people who are involved here—it is important that they have something in front of them that they can look to challenge or accept.

It goes back to your point about what the bill would do, Mr FitzPatrick. It would provide an uplift of between £28.5 million and £38 million—between 17.5 per cent and 24 per cent—in the drug and alcohol budget. The national mission budget is £160 million to the end of this session of Parliament. It is hugely important and I want to see it extended. We need more resources going into the national mission, because this is still a national crisis with which we must get to grips.

It can, through the act of smoking. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health is in the opposite committee room at the moment, but I know that the Government is looking at other measures to tackle addiction to nicotine and, indeed, new substances that we thought only a few years ago would help people to overcome their addiction. The bill focuses on drugs and alcohol, and the definition is based on the definition in the Road Traffic Act 1988.

I hope that, by putting the issue in law and raising it in that way, we avoid, in the future, getting to the point where people are denied the treatment, as they currently are. A consequence of the bill would be the reduction of that risk, because people would get the treatment within a far more constrained period of time than is currently the case. That goes back to the capital increase that is mentioned in the letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The Government is already doing a lot of work, and there would be the uplift in the budget. Currently, it is a risk, but I hope that the risk will be reduced if there is more availability.

It would be 17.5 per cent from the low end and 24 per cent from the high end—so, from £28.5 million to £38 million.

Yes. That is why it also enhances the provision of the national mission—again, something that we all support. The £160 million funding will continue only until the end of this parliamentary session. If the bill is passed, it will send a very strong signal that the funding should continue beyond that—but another Government could repeal the bill.

The capital cost of increasing the availability of residential beds is covered by the Scottish Government’s target to increase that availability by March 2026. The cost of running those beds and such like is then included in the bill. The difficulty in trying to find a figure for that is due to the length of time for which someone can stay in residential rehab. Some people stay for a matter of days and weeks—the longest time someone spent there was 156 weeks—so it is very difficult to pin down a precise cost. Going back to Ms Whitham’s point, the capital element has not been understated but is in a different element of the budget. Therefore, it was not required in the financial memorandum for the bill.

I understand the uniqueness of what I am proposing, but, as I tried to explain during my opening statement, we are dealing with a unique set of circumstances and we will have to think outside the box. We cannot continue to do what we have always done and hope that solutions will be found in that way.

I think that what the cabinet secretary was alluding to last week in response to Dr Gulhane’s questions is that what is being proposed is new because we have never specified a particular treatment in legislation. Of course, we do not specify a particular treatment. Section 1(5) lists a range of treatments, including

“any other treatment the relevant health professional deems appropriate.”

Indeed, not providing treatment is an option.

As I said in my opening statement, it is for the individual, when they are not recommended for any treatment, to seek a second medical opinion, and that second opinion will look at the individual’s circumstances. Therefore, yes, I understand that we are proposing something that is different and new, but, as other witnesses have said, we need something different and new, because the current approach is still leading to far too many people losing their lives due to drug and alcohol misuse each year.

They would have all their current rights. The bill would not take away any of the other rights that exist or that could exist in the future. The bill seeks to complement what we already have.

The procedure set out in section 2 of the bill is bespoke for the treatment of alcohol and/or drug addiction. In my view, it is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of McCulloch vs Forth Valley Health Board, which was the example cited.

No, there is no hierarchy at all. I should say that this is not stipulated in the bill—it is left to the Government. It could be in the code of practice, but I do not anticipate anything like that being stipulated in any way.

All the medical professionals, as is outlined in the bill and as was highlighted in my earlier discussions with the convener, are deemed to be medical professionals as per the terms of the bill and the accompanying notes; therefore, one does not take precedence, and their judgment or view is not deemed to be superior to that of any other.