���˿���

Mr Torrance, I know that you have a personal interest in the area—you have made that very clear—and are involved with the Fife Alcohol and Drug Partnership. Your interest has been very helpful to me during the committee’s consideration of the bill.

Clearly, the bill puts an onus on Scottish Government ministers. There is a budget uplift that has to be delivered—we will get into that—but, when I spoke to the Finance and Public Administration Committee about the financial memorandum, concerns were raised about the role of social work departments and local authorities.

Ultimately, the desire is that, under the bill, the Scottish Government would deliver the rights in law. The Scottish Government would then work with ADPs, integration joint boards, councils and others to deliver them, and it would be for the Scottish Government to take that work forward. I think that it is right that the Government is given the flexibility to implement the bill in the way that it believes will deliver the outcomes that the bill seeks.

There is also an important reporting mechanism that allows ministers to be held to account in the Parliament—we will probably come on to speak about reporting. There is a huge deficiency in the numbers that we are able to properly gather on those who are suffering from drug and alcohol misuse. Indeed, many people have spoken about a missing cohort of people who are not included in any official statistics. Having that reporting to Parliament, so that it could hold the Government to account on the elements in that process, would therefore be an important part of both the legislation’s progress and how it is monitored in the years to come.

Yes. That is hugely important. It goes back to Ms Whitham’s point that any family member or another advocate can come along with someone who is seeking help and support to overcome their addiction. It is vitally important that they are part of the decision-making process—I think that that is one of the most positive elements of the bill—and that they feel supported in seeking that support, because there will be concern. We are dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and individual advocacy plays an important role in people getting the rights that they deserve, which I hope the bill will enshrine.

It is important to state that section 3(1) contains a three-week ceiling—and it is very much a ceiling, because it also states that the treatment should be available

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

That can be on day 1, as soon as the person presents and has met with a medical professional and a treatment has been determined for them.

The point has been rehearsed in some of the evidence that the committee has heard and that it has received in submissions. The reason that the three-week period was chosen was because that is the national standard: 90 per cent of people should wait no longer than that three-week period for specialist treatment. It ties in with what we already have. However, I understand that, for some people, far more urgency is required.

On your question about when the clock starts and stops, it starts when someone seeks help—when they go to a medical professional to get a determination, when they are requesting a certain treatment or having a discussion about the treatment. It does, however, stop and restart if they are not satisfied with the option that is provided by the medical professional and want a second opinion, or if they are not happy or satisfied that no treatment has been suggested. The clock, and the three-week period, would start again when they sought a second opinion.

First, on rehab, the Scottish Government’s priority is to increase the number of rehab beds by March 2026. Indeed, the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, wanted to take the percentage of people getting into rehab from 5 per cent up to around 11 per cent, which is the European average. If I stressed that option in my opening remarks, it was because it is an area in which we are currently seeing development. I know that you have a great deal of experience in this area, as the former Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing.

In many ways, I am trying to work alongside the Government’s current strategies. The investment that the Government is making to increase the number of beds and its ambition to get us up to levels that are similar to those in other European countries can be complemented by the bill. However, section 1(5)(g) provides for

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

so that opens up the opportunity for other options.

I take on board the point—I am not saying that it is a criticism—that you make, which is that the bill is looking too much at abstinence. There are a number of elements in it that would support that option, but there are also a number of elements that would allow other treatment options to be made clear and available.

I will give some examples. Some of the funding would go towards ensuring that there are sufficient medical professionals available to make the determinations on treatment options. Another point is that the bill puts the person at the centre of the process; they would be involved at the very beginning, when they say what they would like. A person may say that rehab is right for them; other people may say that a methadone script is the best approach for them, and the bill would not prevent them from getting methadone and continuing with it.

It is about taking a patient-centred approach and enshrining in law a legal right so that people have more power, when they go into those meetings, to say what they want. Unlike Liam, who wanted rehab, they will not be told, “Probably not,” and then go on to a waiting list for months. The bill would shut down the prospect of someone waiting for months or, indeed, years. We currently have examples of such waits. People who are offered rehab or a number of the treatment options that are listed in the bill are not getting that treatment—it is simply not happening.

I believe that the committee has had evidence from a number of people that there are too many people out there in Scotland right now who are seeking help and are not getting it. The bill would give them the legal right, in law, to get that treatment.

To go back to the point that I made to Mr Torrance, the Government would then be scrutinised on that. If Government ministers have to answer for that in Parliament—as you and Ms Whitham had to do, and, indeed, on different subjects, as Mr Harvie and Ms Haughey previously had to do—they will be held to account. They will then work hard with partners, be they ADPs, integration joint boards or social work departments in local authorities, to deliver it.

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.