���˿���

The clarification includes the fact that three weeks is the ceiling. Some people will be ready and available to receive the treatment that is right for them on the same day, and that should be available, too.

As Ms Fraser said, we chose that definition because it comes from section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Neither nicotine nor caffeine would cause a person to lose control, which is the issue here.

No. That is what I was going to come on to. I know that the use of the term “diagnosis” has come up quite a lot, and I would be keen to look at that, depending on what your committee decides about whether elements of the language could be exclusionary. I think that the cabinet secretary even said that it would never be my intention, as the member in charge of the bill, for it to be exclusionary. So, if that is an unintended consequence, I will look to address that at stages 2 and 3.

At the moment, the bill is drafted as it is because any treatment starts with a diagnosis—that is why it was put in that way. However, given the evidence that I have heard, I am certainly willing to consider the point.

I should have mentioned to Ms Whitham that, on her point about families being included, the code of practice is also mentioned in the bill, and elements of that could be strengthened in the code of practice. The bill also allows for Parliament to consider the draft code of practice before it is published. I hope that that reassures those who have concerns relating to Ms Whitham’s final point.

I am relaxed that the former chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Dr Chris Williams from the Royal College of General Practitioners are relaxed and comfortable that there would be existing sound governance arrangements in place for that. That is why we have come up with the term “relevant health professional”.

I suppose that that goes back to the narrow focus of a member’s bill. I can look at only one element of the drug and alcohol issues that people face. However, the bill does not step on the toes of any other issues. It does not supersede anything else that has gone before it or will go after it; it looks specifically at the treatment element. Anything around trauma-informed diagnosis or support would continue and would in no way be affected by what is in the bill that is in front of us. It is an extremely important element of the overall package to help people to overcome their addiction issues.

I heard that evidence, and it is a point that Mr Harvie’s colleague Gillian Mackay raised a number of times, including last week. I am sorry to labour the point, but it bears repeating: the bill would not stop any of that multidisciplinary working, and it would not prevent any of the good working between the third sector and a number of different organisations. It would add treatment options in the narrow area of drug and alcohol addiction, but it would not prevent, stop or in any way diminish the work done by others; I hope that it would work in collaboration with it. It would simply add tools to the toolkit, so that people could seek the support and help that they were looking for.

It goes back to what people are seeking from recovery services and what they are not receiving from them. The largest proportion of the cases that I hear about involve people who have addiction issues with drugs and alcohol, so that is the bill’s priority. That does not mean that we cannot look at Mr Harvie’s point. Perhaps the Government or other members could consider introducing a bill that looks specifically at those issues.

Yes, there is a very strong indication of that. I welcome the fact that the Government has remained neutral on the bill. It has not said that, because of the assumptions in the financial memorandum, the bill is simply unaffordable. It has waited to see your consideration and it has considered the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report, so it still has open eyes and ears about what the bill seeks to do and the costs of that.

It was important to get the bill to stage 1 to allow further consideration and tease out the details that all the members of this committee have raised. Some of those details have been in support of the bill, some have challenged it and some are about things that will have to fundamentally change. If we were to shut off the debate now, that would send a worrying and alarming signal—to people who seek to use these services today and in the future and, indeed, to wider society—that we have reached the peak of our ambitions to tackle drug and alcohol misuse in Scotland.

There is no doubt that there are considerable challenges within the NHS workforce. With a couple of NHS staff members sitting around this table, you will hear that on a regular basis. However, in the financial memorandum there is specific funding for additional training of medical professionals for what will be an additional workload—I am in no doubt about that, which is why the cost is included in the financial memorandum’s considerations. That puts the onus on the Scottish Government to deliver that training through its partners. I know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities raised concerns about finance, but the COSLA representative also said that he was absolutely supportive of the bill’s intentions.

Our taking the bill to the next stage and the Parliament’s ultimately passing it would indicate to the various bodies and the workforce that we must focus on the issue in Scotland, which I hope would start to drive down the appalling figures of drug and alcohol deaths in the country.

Obviously, some training is available, because people are currently doing those assessments, but there would have to be further training to increase the cohort of people who are able to do them, because demand would increase. We know that many people seek help and support through the various treatment options and do not get it—they are already assessed as being appropriate for the treatments that are listed in the bill, but they are not getting them. One element of that is the capital costs and such like. Hopefully, others will be encouraged by the bill.

I am sorry, but I cannot remember who—it might have been Ms Wells—talked earlier about people in our most deprived communities becoming aware of what is in the bill and their legal right. I will see it as a success if we improve that awareness and if there is more demand on our hard-pressed health professionals because more people feel comfortable about coming forward to discuss the recovery journey that they want to take to overcome their addiction issues. I hope that that is backed up by adequate support in the financial memorandum.