���˿���

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.

Yes.

I do. As I said in my opening statement, I have listened intently to all the evidence that you have received so far. I was encouraged to hear that, in the written evidence that the committee received, a majority of the submissions were in favour of the bill. We have heard a lot of people raising questions not about the general principles of the bill but about some of the bill’s specifics, which I hope can be addressed through amendments—if we get to that stage. The majority of people who responded to your committee’s call for evidence were in favour of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill, and the response to my consultation was 70 per cent in favour of the bill.

With regard to your question on the inconsistencies, we have also heard a lot of positives. The cabinet secretary said that the Government supports “the intention” of the bill, and many others said the same.

However, Dr Sue Galea-Singer said that she does not believe that what the bill stipulates is required, because it is already being done. In response to Brian Whittle, who had suggested that the provisions of the bill are not already happening across Scotland, she said that she did not accept that. However, in the same evidence session, she said:

“the system is not working.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 25 March 2025; c 25.]

I found that evidence session to have elements both of believing that the current system is working and of accepting on the record that the current system is not working. That is why I hope that, in making your determination, you will look at the raw figures, which tell us all that we are not doing enough. Some elements of current policy are working very well and suit the needs of some people, but a record number of people are still dying from drug and alcohol misuse, which shows that we are not dealing with the biggest issues.

I agree that some people have said that the bill is not required because things are working when it is very clear that they are not.

It is a potential consequence at the moment. If someone has been told that they are the right fit and their circumstances mean that residential rehab is the right approach for them but they are on a waiting list for months or years, do not get into residential rehab and then overdose—as in the example that I gave—or die through further complications, their family is, at the moment, entitled to take a civil action against a health board or other authority.

The additional spend on its own is important, but, to go back to the very first point that was made by Ms Whitham, we are dealing with a unique situation here. In the past, we have increased the budget for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and we have also reduced it, and things are getting marginally better, if at all. Therefore, it is not just about budgeting but about the legal framework, this right being enshrined in law, and reporting. None of those things would be improved or enhanced by adding to the budget alone. In the round, the bill provides a number of mechanisms to deal with this unique problem that we have not looked at so far, and it could make a big difference.

Once the budget uplift is enshrined in law, the Government will accept it going forward. To go back to Mr Harvie’s point, the Government would have to introduce primary legislation to take away the right.

The bill would send a very strong signal and indication that this is an area that we should be focusing on. Although it is not a small amount of money, it is not an unachievable budget uplift for an area that every party leader, politician and representative in the Parliament agrees needs to be tackled. We are talking about spending an extra £38 million in Scotland to deal with an issue that is uniquely bad in Scotland. That is not to say that people do not die in other parts of the UK or across the world from drug and alcohol misuse, but more of them die here every year. There are historical reasons for that, as well as reasons related to developing drugs, which Ms Harper discussed, but it is our national shame. If we cannot deal with it through this bill and with an increased budget, I am not sure that we will ever truly tackle the issue and get those numbers down, preventing people from losing their lives and their families from being left distraught over the loss of a loved one.