���˿���

I really believe that it does, because it would give people an opportunity to have their voice heard. First of all, a person’s voice is heard in the deliberation on the best treatment option for them. I welcome the fact that, last week, the cabinet secretary said to Ms Mochan that we need to

“go further ... in a co-ordinated way that works for individuals and how they wish to access services”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 20 May 2025; c 31.]

and that we need to do that in a way that works for them.

There is a gap in the individual element of care that Ms Mochan was getting to and the cabinet secretary was agreeing with. Empowering people to be involved in their own treatment options helps. We have also heard from others that they hope that the bill will support compliance with individuals’ human rights. It would allow them to feel that they have a voice in their own decision making and treatment options, and, crucially, if they disagree with those, they would have the right to a second opinion.

They might still disagree with the second opinion if it says that no treatment is right for them or if the treatment that they have asked for is not appropriate for them, but that is left to medical professionals. I am sure that we will get into that later on. I hope that that will further destigmatise those who are struggling with drug and alcohol abuse, because they will be empowered to get the treatment and support that they believe is right to get them on the road to recovery.

The point is very well made. I would not say that I had a dilemma, but I had the option of saying nothing in section 1(5) apart from the last point—that is,

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

The worry was that such an open approach would make scrutiny at this committee and the finance committee difficult, because it would not be specific enough. How would you then budget for the treatments and hold the Government to account for it? Reporting is extremely important, and the bill will deliver that, but it would have become far more challenging with a very open-ended section 1(5).

Therefore, we looked at a list of options, and those are the ones that I included, but I am very willing to look at amendments that add some of the points that you have suggested. If a strong case can be made that including other treatments would provide more balance—if that is the concern—we could add them to the list in section 1(5).

As for whether that makes the bill less clinical and more political, I do not believe it does. There are reasons for having the list of treatments as drafted—the treatments that have been included—and there will be reasons why people will wish to lodge amendments to add to the list. Ultimately, there is the catch-all of

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

which takes away the political element.

That said, I go back to the point that I made in response to Mr FitzPatrick: there is already a political drive to increase the amount of rehab beds in Scotland, which I think we all support. When we get the increase in rehab beds that the additional funding coming through the bill will help to deliver, I want people to have the right to get them. At the moment, people are being recommended for rehab and are being told that it will take weeks, months or, in some shocking and unacceptable cases, years for them to get into the rehab facilities that they need to access.

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.

It means people who, at present, treat people with drug and alcohol addiction. It could be a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner—people who are authorised to prescribe any of the treatments that are listed in the bill. I picked up from the evidence from Dr Peter Rice and Dr Chris Williams that there are concerns that the definition might result in independently contracted GPs and pharmacists making treatment determinations—I think that that was your question, convener. Dr Rice said that he was relaxed and Dr Williams said that he was comfortable with the position because of the sound governance arrangements that would be in place.

There will obviously be opportunities for people to take legal action, but I know that the cost will be of significant concern for some. Legal aid options will be available. A number of standard options are in place to allow people to appeal any determination. I listened closely to what the Law Society and others said on the issue, and I think that it is right that, when something is enshrined in law and a guarantee is given to people, they should be able to appeal should the outcome not be the one that they are looking for.

I also hope that, ultimately, by enshrining the rights in law and by shining a light on the issue in your committee and in Parliament, we will send a very strong signal that the rights should be delivered and that, when medical professionals believe that someone deserves and is entitled to a certain form of treatment, they should get that. I hope that that would negate much of the need to take anything into the legal sphere, because people would understand that the right for people to get the help and support that they need and want had been enshrined in law by the Scottish Parliament.

I heard that loud and clear. I put in that requirement to begin with because I wanted to give as much support as possible to an individual seeking help, and I felt that that face-to-face interaction would be important. Of course, you can still have face-to-face interaction in rural or island communities. As I represent the Highlands and Islands, I know—as does Ms Harper, as a representative of the south of Scotland—that those communities have built up resilience in relation to some of the challenges of meeting in remote and sparsely populated areas. However, I cannot disagree with anything that Ms Harper or the witnesses have said. That is why I am keen and would be happy to look at an amendment at stage 2 to widen the scope of that provision. To go back to the point that Ms Whitham and the convener made, I do not want anything to be exclusionary. It would be absolutely an unintended consequence of my trying to give an individual as much support as possible through having that in-person meeting if people from the islands or the more remote and rural areas were then excluded.

To go back—because I jumped ahead with Ms Whitham—there has been a strong theme throughout Ms Harper’s questioning about the impact in our rural communities, which is why I looked again at the Auditor General’s report of just last year. It says:

“Progress in providing person-centred services is mixed. Not everyone can access the services they need or is aware of their rights.”

That is what is currently happening—it has nothing to do with the bill. The report goes on:

“People face many barriers to getting support, including stigma, limited access to services in rural areas, high eligibility criteria and long waiting times. People who already face disadvantage experience additional barriers to accessing services and there is more to do to tailor services to individual needs.”

That sums up what I am trying to overcome through the bill. However, I accept and acknowledge that the stipulation that a meeting must be “in person” would exclude certain people, which is why I would readily seek to change that at stage 2.

I know that that has come across quite a lot from the witnesses. In section 1(5), there is a list of treatments, but there is also a catch-all at the end that states “any other treatment” that is deemed “appropriate”. Although I can understand why some people think that the bill is heavily reliant on an abstinence-based approach, it is not exclusively so. Any other form of treatment could be added at any point—section 1(6) allows Scottish Government ministers to add to that list. I hope that that will reassure you that, although that may be a perception, it is certainly not the intent, and, in the detail of the bill, more options are available, and there may be further options in the future.

The bill must have an influence on the types of service that receive investment. As we know, not enough money has gone into rehab facilities in the past, which is why some of them have closed. That is why, in the national mission, the Government has increased the amount of money going towards them.

As for your concern about debating particular treatments, so that we include some and do not include others, and about whether that takes away from the clinical decision, I would say that, no, it does not. I trust the doctors—indeed, one is sat next to you—to make the clinical decision that they think is right for the patient in front of them. They have to adhere to the orange book guidelines, and they will still have to adhere to them, regardless of what is in the bill and any future amendments.

They also have the option of choosing no treatment at all. Despite all the options being listed in section 1(5), the doctor could say that none of them was appropriate or suitable for an individual, and therefore no treatment would be provided. The doctor, medical expert or nurse practitioner would have the opportunity to say that no treatment was suitable for the patient.

I think that it would empower them in that they would be involved in that conversation. If you were the medical professional from whom I was seeking help, I could mention the options suggested in the legislation, and I could say, for instance, “I think that option 1 is the right one for me.” We could then have a discussion, perhaps with a family member or an independent advocate present, and the medical professional would make their determination, based on their meeting with the patient or the person seeking support and on all their relevant medical training. The financial memorandum covers further training for medical professionals to deal with such situations.

Therefore, I think that the bill would empower individuals—it would empower them to know that, if the medical professional said that the person met the criteria for a given type of treatment, they would be entitled to it within three weeks. At the moment, you could tell me that I am entitled to something and I could sit on a waiting list for months. That is where the empowerment would come from.

I am not sure that there is particular demand from people to use the list of services in section 1(5) of the bill if they are addicted to caffeine or nicotine. There are other ways that they can overcome that addiction. I am not trying to minimise it in any way—I have never been a smoker, but I know how challenging it can be for people to overcome that addiction. However, they do not lose control. We based the determination of addiction and the substances that people can be addicted to on the element of control. The statistics that we are all concerned about are the number of drug and alcohol addictions that lead to people dying, which is where we see the biggest need.