Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, it is accurate in terms of the data that we have in front of us, so I give it a 10 on accuracy, based on what we have. If your question is whether I think that it will cost £198 million every year, the answer is no—I cannot give that commitment, because of the significant variation in the figures and the range that we have had to include. Ultimately, it could be seen as a failure for me if the bill ends up costing more money but, if that is because more people have the confidence to come forward and seek the treatment that they want and need, I will accept that criticism, because more people will be helped as a result.

I would say that £160 million of the current budget is not enough, which is why I am asking that we spend more money on this issue. I will go back to the point that I could have picked a figure that is wildly different from the £198 million that we get to for the increase required for the bill, and still not have been able to give you an accurate figure on your scale of zero to 10.

I was going to say that we always look for international comparisons, but the reason might be that other countries do not have Scotland’s shocking drug and alcohol death rates. The fact that we are the worst in the United Kingdom and across Europe means that we have to do something different here, and I think that it is incumbent on the Parliament to look outside the box. As I said to Mr Mason, if we continue to do the same thing time and time again, we should not be surprised that the results—that is, the number of people dying—remain the same. We have to look at something different, which is why I think that having this unique approach in Scotland is right.

I said it in jest.

Things have definitely come out since the bill was introduced and the financial memorandum was written. I mentioned Audit Scotland’s 2022 report; its 2024 report came out after the financial memorandum was submitted. I am therefore happy, whether instructed or otherwise by the committee, to look at some of the areas that have materialised since the financial memorandum was submitted and to look at some of the updated issues and challenges that are faced by both the sector and other bodies that have made compelling submissions to the committee.

I repeat, however, that a lot of Audit Scotland’s concerns are over wider funding issues that come down to the challenges for local government and national Government and, as you have said, the changing circumstances that are due to UK decisions.

That comes on top of the baseline of £160 million, which would take the total budget up to £198 million.

There will be different forms of treatment for different people. For some, rehab is the right approach. We rely heavily on that in the bill, because many of the organisations speak about the benefits of rehab. Faces and Voices of Recovery UK said that

“quality residential treatment can help improve mental and physical health, reduce offending, improve employability and enhance social functioning.”

For some people, that approach will absolutely be the right one to take, while a variety of treatment options will be right for others.

The number of people who are treated and supported would, indeed, increase with the proposed legislation, but I would not want to pick a figure out of thin air. I would not try to provide alternative figures that were not backed up by the data. That is the difficulty. I get what you are saying about taking the 57,300 figure and then looking at the wider number of people who will require treatment. As I said in my opening remarks, the cost is at the lower end of expectations, but it is very difficult.

It is telling that, in its response to the bill, the Scottish Government did not provide a figure for the alternative level of funding that it thinks would be required. I know that it has done so with other bills, but it could not come up with a figure to suggest what my bill would cost.

It is an overall figure. Perhaps we can look at the matter through parliamentary questions. I would be keen to lodge some to get more information, if that is possible. The report was not looking at Scotland in particular—it was done for the UK Government—but people can see that the financial benefits are well above the £4 to £1 ratio, and the personal benefit of lives being saved is perhaps the most crucial benefit.

That is a very good question. I stress, and will continue to stress throughout the process of the bill, that it does not seek to supersede or replace any other forms of support; rather, it is to complement that support.

In the financial memorandum, we look at the number of people who are suggested for residential rehab and certain other treatments who do not complete that treatment. The bill is about the cohort of people for whom experts have determined that those treatments are the right approach, but for reasons of time or cost, or for multiple reasons that we do not yet know about, they do not complete the full treatment that has been suggested. We want to give people the legal footing of a guarantee, backed by law and passed in the Parliament, that, if they are told that a treatment will help them with their drug or alcohol addiction problems, they will get that treatment. It would not prevent people from getting other forms of help, support and treatment but would complement, as you said, what is already in existence.

No. The research that we did was through health boards and ADPs. Some of the figures and data will be fed in through the ADPs and integration joint boards, which obviously have council representatives on them. I am happy to go away to try to get some figures, because they would be helpful for you and for other members.

But I do not really want to get into that political point.