���˿���

“Repeal” is the word that I was looking for during the past 10 minutes—apologies that I did not find it as quickly as you did, convener.

It certainly is not.

The capital cost of the increased residential rehab provision will already be covered by the Government in the national mission. In drafting the bill, I have taken the Scottish Government’s ambition to increase the number of residential rehab beds as being delivered. Therefore, the uplift in the drug and alcohol budget that would be required under the bill does not need to account for that increase in beds, because that is already in process and is happening up to March 2026. I agree that the costs of that provision are significant, but the Government has already committed to meeting them. Therefore, the bill looks at spending over and above that.

That is why one of the submissions to the Finance and Public Administration Committee said that I had understated the capital costs. I had not understated them; the costs are already being met through the Scottish Government’s ambitions to increase the availability of those beds in residential rehab. We did not need to double count the cost of that provision in the financial memorandum for the bill.

That is hugely important. As I said in my opening statement, drug and alcohol deaths are, sadly, far more prevalent in our most deprived communities than in our least deprived communities. There is particular mention in the financial memorandum of a process that we would go through and funding that would be allocated to make people aware of their rights, should the bill be passed by the Parliament. That would be important.

The bill has been drafted by front-line experts. I am the person who will take the bill through the Parliament, because that has to be done by an MSP, but I have to pay special credit to Annemarie Ward from Faces & Voices of Recovery UK and Steven Wishart, who drafted the bill and have been the driving force behind the change that they hope it will elicit.

From discussions with front-line experts, I know that they are aware of what is happening in the Parliament, and they are aware of the possibilities should the bill progress and become law. Therefore, there is already awareness out there in communities and among front-line experts who deal with people with drug and alcohol addiction issues.

Beyond that, there is a financial element in the financial memorandum that would allow us to make it clear to people, particularly those in the most-deprived communities, that the new law would help and support them.

It absolutely seeks to level the playing field, because, as the committee heard in evidence, too many people who are being recommended for a number of the treatment options that are set out in the bill are not receiving that treatment. We have introduced the bill to enshrine that right in law because, at the moment, people who are seeking that help are not receiving it.

With regard to the concern that that might move resources away from other areas in the health budget, as I said, there is a range of funding projections for the bill, from £28.5 million to £38 million, and I have been very clear that the uplift in funding for drug and alcohol treatment should come from the Scottish Government central fund. In my note to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I suggested where I believe that that money can come from—by reducing the civil service head count in Scotland. I know that the Scottish Government is looking at that.

In my view, the bill would not take money away from other drug and alcohol services or from other health services. I have found the funds in other areas of Scottish Government funding so as to address the concern that Ms Whitham expresses about the need to not take the focus or funding away from other areas of healthcare in Scotland.

I do not think so, and I can point to a number of ideas to support that view.

First, the budget required for the bill would represent a significant uplift. There would be an increase from £28.5 million to £38 million, which again shows that the bill would be adding something, not taking from other areas.

The bill would also be important in helping those in third sector organisations who work with people with addictions, because they would be able to see that an individual with whom they were working, and who needed one of the treatments listed in section 1(5), would get it. If the treatment was agreed by the medical professional, workers would know that the support would go to that individual and that they would not have to worry about someone such as Liam being put on a waiting list for four months and then taking an overdose and dying while on it. I think that the bill would help with the work that they are doing, and they would know that those individuals would be guaranteed the care that was deemed appropriate for them.

The patient comes in and can discuss the options that they believe are right for them. The clinician—the medical professional—can say, “I agree with you and I recommend you for it,” “I disagree, and maybe another option is the correct one,” or, “No treatment is the correct option for you.”

Of course, a second opinion is your right at the moment. One of the biggest differences would be the timeline. This should happen as soon as is practically possible and with a three-week ceiling.

To go back to Ms Harper’s point about the clock starting and stopping, I would say that this is about trying to get the process to happen as quickly as possible. It is also about enshrining that right in law, which brings me back to my points about holding the Government accountable for this. When the Government has to meet those standards and has to be accountable for doing so, there is more of a drive to get the investment into the various different options that we have discussed this morning.

The legal right to addiction recovery enshrines in law that it should happen as soon as is practically possible and within a maximum of three weeks.

That is not my understanding, because that would be a consequence of drug—particularly alcohol—addiction, whereas the bill is looking at dealing with the addiction elements. I know that there were questions in some of the committee’s previous sessions about addiction to things like nicotine—Mr Whittle even jokingly referred to chocolate and such like—but the bill is very specific about drug and alcohol addiction, and about dealing with the addiction part. In my view, liver failure is a consequence of addiction and would be dealt with in the normal way, through a transplant request.