���˿���

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.

I think that that relates to section 2(1) of the bill. As I said to Ms Harper, I would be happy to amend that. Yes—it is section 2(1)(d), which states:

“the treatment determination is made following a meeting in person between the relevant health professional and the patient”.

In relation to being able to get an appointment, the uplift in the drug and alcohol budget would be to increase training, so that, hopefully, the number of medical professionals that are available to consider such cases would increase, meaning that there would be more availability. That would also ensure that there is full consideration and—to go back to Mr Harvie’s point—that the patient feels that they are involved and that there is engagement with the medical professionals who are taking an important decision for that individual’s future.

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.

Again, I would say that the wider psychosocial aspects would in no way be impinged on if the bill were to go through. A number of treatment options are specified in the bill, because we are taking a narrow focus on just this element of the drug and alcohol addiction journey that people go on. As Annemarie Ward said in her evidence, if there is criticism that the bill is too narrow in scope, perhaps that just means that the bill aims to do one small thing in the best possible way. That is quite a good way to look at it.

I understand those concerns, but I hope that I can reassure you, Ms Harper, and the rest of the committee that the bill would in no way diminish the other aspects of drug and alcohol rehabilitation for those who seek help and support but would simply add to them.

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, on her point about families being included that elements of that could be strengthened in the code of practice, which is also mentioned in the bill. 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.