Seòmar agus comataidhean

If we adjust the £3.5 billion figure for inflation, it goes up to £4.3 billion. I believe that the savings could be significantly higher. Some people might question Dame Carol Black, but I think that her report for the UK Government was extremely comprehensive. A point that has been used by a number of charities and Governments to encourage more appropriate intervention at an earlier stage is that spending a little now could lead to significant savings in the future. I think that the figure, which in Dame Carol Black’s initial report is given as £4 being saved for every £1 of intervention, could be even higher. A number of organisations continue to cite the figure, because early intervention and a treatment-focused personalised approach can make a huge difference.

The commitment to 650 beds by March next year is one that I have challenged Neil Gray on in the chamber. He believes that he is on course to achieve that number, and I want him to do so. This is not a political point on which the failure of the Government can be seized by opponents. We all want the Government to deliver and achieve that.

If that happens by March next year, what we propose in the bill could ensure that people get treatment, and there will be opportunities elsewhere to look at savings. As more people get treatment when they need it, their issues will be dealt with at that time, instead of their becoming more complex and chronic. Intervention later is far more costly to the Government.

I think that the Scottish Government has been right to seek financial recompense for that to support services here, in Scotland. We can see that there will be a huge challenge for public bodies such as the Government, councils and charities. I agree with that argument, which has been well rehearsed in Parliament and by this committee.

On where we would find the funding, the upper estimate is that the bill would cost £198 million annually. The Scottish Government’s budget is just shy of £64 billion, and I believe that savings can be found within it. In my previous role as a party leader in this Parliament, I often came up with suggestions—not all of which would have found favour with the people in this room—about how to find savings.

The answer is yes and no, if I am honest. Anyone who meets organisations that deal with addiction will find some split opinions. Some people believe that residential rehab is the right and only approach, and others believe that it is not. Therefore, I understand why there will be conflicting views on the bill. Not everyone who is working in the sector will agree with the bill’s approach. That is why I reiterate that the bill would not replace other mechanisms or opportunities that exist to help and support people but would, I hope, complement them.

The people who will be entitled to residential rehab and other forms of treatment that are identified in the bill will be the ones who need it: a medical expert will have determined the right approach for them. Crucially, the bill will ensure that treatment cannot be refused for any reason. It must happen within, at the longest, three weeks of the determination, although we hope that it would happen far sooner. I think that giving the legal guarantee about the treatment that has been determined to be right for an individual, and for that individual to feel part of the treatment, are crucial.

Yes—we want to get 50 per cent to two thirds of those who come forward for treatment completing treatment. Again, this relates to a point that the committee has rightly asked about before. We did not want to say just that there should be a 50 per cent increase: we thought that putting in a range would be more helpful to the committee through considering the projected costs of a lower end and an upper end.

East Ayrshire ADP mentioned that we focus an awful lot on the DAISy data in our financial memorandum, but it was important that we looked at that, because the figures and data points could then be translated into the financial memorandum.

I take on board your point about local authorities. We have tried to get as much data as possible. I went out and spoke to a number of health boards during the formation of the financial memorandum. I am very keen to open up further discussion about social care and social work costs with local authorities, if that would be helpful—it probably would be. However, I go back to the point that I made to the convener, which is that those costs currently exist and will continue to exist whether or not the bill is passed.

That is a crucial point. That is why treatment must begin within three weeks, as we have written into the bill, although we would like it to happen far sooner. We included that three-week period because the figure is used by the Government at the moment—95 per cent of people should already be getting treatment within three weeks. We mention that in paragraph 66, which says that

“95% of referrals resulted in treatment starting within three weeks or less.”

The longer the time, the more chance there is that the person becomes disenfranchised from the proposal and the treatment option that has been determined for them. We want the bill and the publicity that surrounds it to give people the confidence that, when they get a medical assessment of their need, they can get treatment as quickly as possible, in order to save them from changing circumstances leading to their not completing the treatment.

Just relieving that pressure is, in itself, a saving. The budgets are, as you say, extremely tight. We have had discussions about that in the Parliament on a number of occasions. However, the point is that, through early intervention, savings will be made going forward. No one has been able to prove to me that Dame Carol Black is wrong in her assumption that every £1 spent on intervention on addiction issues and drug problems will not make that £4 saving for the wider public service.

That has been discussed in meetings of the Parliament’s cross-party groups on drug and alcohol addiction that I have attended. There are certainly opportunities in the proposed legislation relating to direct funding that has become available and continues to become available.

The industry is sometimes criticised for not doing enough, but it seeks to put in funding where it can tackle problem drinking and addiction. I know that from my work with the Scotch Whisky Association and the CPG on Scotch whisky. As you will know, Mr Hoy, from the CPG on beer and pubs, the sector is aware of that and it seeks to direct available resources to a number of projects to prevent people from becoming addicted in the first place and to help people who are suffering from addiction.

That is an important point. The national mission completes next year, so, at the moment, the money that is associated with the national mission is not guaranteed going forward. I think that it must be—we need significant levels of funding in the future, and by making the bill law in this session of Parliament, we would be guaranteeing that funding. That will send an extremely important signal to people with addiction issues that the funding is backed up by the Parliament. It will also send an important message to Government that this continues to be a priority for members across the Parliament.

I hope that I have not strayed too much into the political territory today, because there is very good cross-party support for the bill from members of the governing party and from Opposition members who want to see our appalling drug and alcohol death rates reduce, and who want to see people surviving their addictions and getting the help and support that they need.

By putting this into law, we would also be guaranteeing funding into the next parliamentary session and beyond, which will be crucial as the national mission, which is currently scheduled to finish next year, comes to a close and the Government looks at further opportunities to deal with the issue.