Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that, by putting the issue in law and raising it in that way, we avoid, in the future, getting to the point where people are denied the treatment, as they currently are. A consequence of the bill would be the reduction of that risk, because people would get the treatment within a far more constrained period of time than is currently the case. That goes back to the capital increase that is mentioned in the letter to the Finance and Constitution Committee. The Government is already doing a lot of work, and there would be the uplift in the budget. Currently, it is a risk, but I hope that the risk will be reduced if there is more availability.

It would be 17.5 per cent from the low end and 24 per cent from the high end—so, from £28.5 million to £38 million.

Yes. That is why it also enhances the provision of the national mission—again, something that we all support. The £160 million funding will continue only until the end of this parliamentary session. If the bill is passed, it will send a very strong signal that the funding should continue beyond that—but another Government could repeal the bill.

The capital cost of increasing the availability of residential beds is covered by the Scottish Government’s target to increase that availability by March 2026. The cost of running those beds and such like is then included in the bill. The difficulty in trying to find a figure for that is due to the length of time for which someone can stay in residential rehab. Some people stay for a matter of days and weeks—the longest time someone spent there was 156 weeks—so it is very difficult to pin down a precise cost. Going back to Ms Whitham’s point, the capital element has not been understated but is in a different element of the budget. Therefore, it was not required in the financial memorandum for the bill.

Thank you, and good morning. As members know, I have attended all the public meetings that the committee has held on the bill and have listened to the evidence that you have received in the past two months. Although I might not agree with everything that has been said, I take the opportunity to thank those who have made contributions. Should the bill pass stage 1, I will work with the witnesses you have heard from to address their concerns where I can, and I extend that invitation to committee members and to Parliament as a whole.

The specifics of the bill are not before the committee at this stage. Instead, the question is simply whether the bill and the issues that it seeks to address are worthy of further consideration and whether this committee and Parliament should continue considering further measures to tackle drug and alcohol deaths in this country.

I know that the committee is aware of the statistics, but I believe that they bear repeating. The number of drug deaths in Scotland has more than doubled in the past 10 years, and the rate of deaths is 15 times higher in our most-deprived communities than in the least-deprived ones. Alcohol deaths in Scotland are at the highest level since 2008 and are four times higher in our most-deprived communities than in the least deprived. Both of those death rates are the highest in the United Kingdom. This is a crisis made in Scotland and one that can, and must, be fixed in Scotland.

Members might disagree about the solution to this crisis, and we might have a range of views on the content of the bill, but we can all agree that the current approach is not working. That is not a view—it is a fact. Currently, a Scot dies every four hours because of drugs or alcohol. None of us can consider that a success. No one can look upon that fact with complacency. Put simply, we are not doing enough. Those are not statistics—those are real people who are being failed every day.

Deborah had struggled with addiction for more than a decade and was facing sentencing for shoplifting, which is a crime that she committed to pay for her addiction. At her drug treatment and testing order assessment, she begged to be put into rehabilitation, as she did not want to continue with methadone treatment. Her lawyer argued for her request to be met, but that was rejected as being out of scope of the DDTO and she was put back on to methadone. Deborah died of an overdose only a few months later.

Liam had a history of childhood trauma, homelessness and severe mental health issues. He asked for rehab after multiple arrests for drug offences but was placed on a four-month waiting list and told to engage with community services. It was while on that waiting list that Liam overdosed and died.

If the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill helps just one person to survive—if it helps just one more person live life to the full and not die a needless death—I will consider it a success, but I believe that it can do much more than that.

The bill sets out a procedure for a health professional to follow in determining what treatment is appropriate following diagnosis of such an addiction. That includes explaining the treatment options to the patient and encouraging them to contribute their views during the decision-making process. It also sets out a process and a right for a second opinion when a health professional considers that the treatment that the patient wants is not appropriate for them or when the health professional concludes that no treatment is appropriate.

The bill requires that, once a determination is made as to treatment, that treatment must be made available as soon as is reasonably practical and no later than three weeks after the determination is made. One of the key issues that was identified during the policy development process was the number of people who are referred for treatment who do not get that treatment or for whom receiving it takes far too long. The bill seeks to ensure that, in the future, they will receive that treatment—because it is provided at the right time for them and it is the treatment that suits them—and that the treatment they are referred to will be provided irrespective of cost and other considerations. The bill also requires the Scottish ministers to publish and lay an annual report on progress made towards providing the treatments for drug and alcohol addiction recovery.

Finally, the bill requires the Scottish ministers to prepare a code of practice that sets out how the duty to fulfil the right to treatment will be carried out by health boards and others, such as integration joint boards. As the financial memorandum states, the bill would increase funding to alcohol and drug services by up to £38 million annually.

Crucially, the bill takes nothing away. It does not seek to change existing services; it only seeks to add to the treatment options available.

In the Parliament, we say time and time again that drug and alcohol deaths are a tragedy. Every year, the figures are published and the language gets stronger and stronger—there is talk of “crisis”, “scandal”, “shame”, “national mission” and “priority”—but, beyond those words, the sad reality is that we are not doing enough.

The issue has not been given the attention that it warrants, but, by passing the bill at stage 1, we can give the legislation and other proposals the due consideration that they deserve, we can give some of the most vulnerable people in our society hope that their cries for help have been heard by their Parliament, and we can ensure that the deaths of Deborah, Liam and thousands of other Scots were not in vain.

I understand the uniqueness of what I am proposing, but, as I tried to explain during my opening statement, we are dealing with a unique set of circumstances and we will have to think outside the box. We cannot continue to do what we have always done and hope that solutions will be found in that way.

I think that what the cabinet secretary was alluding to last week in response to Dr Gulhane’s questions is that what is being proposed is new because we have never specified a particular treatment in legislation. Of course, we do not specify a particular treatment. Section 1(5) lists a range of treatments, including

“any other treatment the relevant health professional deems appropriate.”

Indeed, not providing treatment is an option.

As I said in my opening statement, it is for the individual, when they are not recommended for any treatment, to seek a second medical opinion, and that second opinion will look at the individual’s circumstances. Therefore, yes, I understand that we are proposing something that is different and new, but, as other witnesses have said, we need something different and new, because the current approach is still leading to far too many people losing their lives due to drug and alcohol misuse each year.

They would have all their current rights. The bill would not take away any of the other rights that exist or that could exist in the future. The bill seeks to complement what we already have.

The procedure set out in section 2 of the bill is bespoke for the treatment of alcohol and/or drug addiction. In my view, it is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of McCulloch vs Forth Valley Health Board, which was the example cited.

No, there is no hierarchy at all. I should say that this is not stipulated in the bill—it is left to the Government. It could be in the code of practice, but I do not anticipate anything like that being stipulated in any way.

All the medical professionals, as is outlined in the bill and as was highlighted in my earlier discussions with the convener, are deemed to be medical professionals as per the terms of the bill and the accompanying notes; therefore, one does not take precedence, and their judgment or view is not deemed to be superior to that of any other.

I think that that relates to section 2(1) of the bill. As I said to Ms Harper, I would be happy to amend that. Yes—it is section 2(1)(d), which states:

“the treatment determination is made following a meeting in person between the relevant health professional and the patient”.

In relation to being able to get an appointment, the uplift in the drug and alcohol budget would be to increase training, so that, hopefully, the number of medical professionals that are available to consider such cases would increase, meaning that there would be more availability. That would also ensure that there is full consideration and—to go back to Mr Harvie’s point—that the patient feels that they are involved and that there is engagement with the medical professionals who are taking an important decision for that individual’s future.