Seòmar agus comataidhean

The committee heard quite a bit of evidence that requiring a diagnosis of a medical professional risks being exclusionary to those who are seeking treatment and potentially exacerbates feelings of stigma. How do you respond to that?

You have clearly stated that you do not think that there is a hierarchy of the services that somebody should be able to go for, so your bill encompasses all the different options that are available to individuals. I have listened to you speak about a budget uplift of up to 24.5 per cent, which is significant in this area. I would always argue that we need more money in this area. However, having previously signed off on allocations towards the creation of new residential rehabilitation provision, I know that just one facility costs tens of millions of pounds.

How would we not see a reduction in the money that goes to other areas where we need all the provision that is available to people—namely, harm reduction, the community rehabilitation model that we have in community facilities, psychosocial support and substitute prescribing? Knowing the cost of residential rehab, stabilisation services and crisis services—all of which we do not have enough of—I wonder how we can square that with ensuring that all options are available for individuals.

You narrated how much stigma there is in health and social care. Would the bill help to break down the barriers to individuals to accessing treatment? As opposed to adding stigma, does it have the potential to reduce stigma?

Finally, we have heard quite a bit from family members about the role that they play in supporting their loved ones when seeking access to support and treatment. What thoughts did you have about them when you were considering the bill? I understand that the scope of a member’s bill needs to be quite narrow, so perhaps that was why they were not included in the bill as drafted. Is the role of family something that you would seek to look at going forward?

When you were discussing residential rehab, a question came into my mind about the variety of provision across the country. A directory has been created that gives to people who are seeking residential rehab a little bit of information about what a particular rehab service provides. Have you thought about whether people’s decision making also pertains to choosing to go to X rehab? There are rehabs that are faith based, rehabs that require abstinence before you attend, and rehabs that you can go to while you are still using and that will stabilise you in the facility. Rehab is not the same across the board, and I wonder whether you have given any thought to that.

At the moment, the reality is that ADPs commission rehab facilities to send their service users to, and that facility might not be local to where the person resides. There are a lot of competing issues for individuals, and I wondered whether people would have the right to make a specific choice. I take your point, though, that people could not have their top three or whatever.

Last week, the witnesses expressed a sense of urgency about devising a sectoral negotiating body, but their perspectives slightly differed. A union representative was quite relaxed about and supportive of the LCM and stated that it would not threaten the progress that the fair work in social care group has made. Other witnesses felt that the bill had already created a delay and that refocusing on it would further delay implementation in a sector that urgently needs a means to ensure parity across the sector. Given that there does not appear to be total agreement on the way forward for sectoral bargaining in social care, will the Government consider further consultation on the issue?

Would the bill give other individuals who face other conditions the understanding that they would perhaps have the right to seek legal standing in their pursuit of treatment? If so, could that deprioritise spending in other areas, or does your bill seek to level the playing field?

In the evidence that we heard from the Dogs Trust, Police Scotland and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, they felt that the bill needed to be strengthened regarding domestic abuse. We also heard from the Crown Office that it felt that the existing domestic abuse legislation, as you have narrated, would be enough to deal with that situation.

I understand that, in relation to the United Kingdom Government, there is a proposal called Ruby’s law, which was brought forward because of a gap in the legislation in relation to the Pet Abduction Act 2024 and the family law concerning domestic abuse. Ruby’s law seeks to remedy that gap. I do not know whether you have had any regard to those proposals. Incidentally, in that case, it was a cat and not a dog, but it is the same issue of an abuser perpetuating domestic abuse against a victim using a pet.

That was helpful, because I was going to ask you about underreporting. You have answered that question, so thank you.