Seòmar agus comataidhean

If people have a right to action in the courts and qualify for assistance, it is only right and proper that justice should be allowed to take its course. Enshrining that in law allows people to take it to the next level. I know that, in submissions or oral evidence, people were concerned about the costs of judicial review, and I accept that going to the lengths of a judicial review is extremely complex and financially burdensome, but other areas and avenues, such as legal aid support, would be available. As I have said, if people have the right to that assistance and qualify for it, they should be able to use it.

What I am saying is that the bill does not tie the hands of future Governments, because, if it is passed, the Government can pass legislation to remove it from the statute. Sorry—I probably did not explain that well.

I want to speak about stigma first, because Ms Harper has spoken about that issue quite a bit, particularly in relation to people in rural areas. We will probably come on to talk about that, but the issue was also mentioned in the Audit Scotland report “Alcohol and drug services”, which was published in October. I hope that the bill will be passed by the Parliament, but Audit Scotland and the Auditor General for Scotland were already speaking about stigma in relation to drug and alcohol services, so we already have a problem to overcome.

I agree with the cabinet secretary’s comments last week about our making positive strides to de-stigmatise those who are suffering from drug and alcohol misuse. I also agree with people who have commented on the bill that the very fact that the Parliament is looking at the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill means that we are shining a light on an area that has not had enough attention in the past.

I do not agree that the bill’s provisions would be exclusionary. As I said, they would not take away from any existing services; they would simply add to the available treatment options. The bill looks only at a particular element of drug and alcohol misuse—the treatment element—and does not take anything away from any of the other great services that operate in Scotland or services that could be provided in the future, because it provides for a number of opportunities for Government ministers to add to elements of the bill, whether those are treatment options or other services.

Yes.

I am saying that I do not believe that the bill is inconsistent with that judgment, and I will try to explain that if I can.

The Law Society has an opinion, which I have looked at with those supporting me. I do not believe that the bill is inconsistent, but I understand why the Law Society raised the issue. I think that the Law Society was raising a potential concern instead of guaranteeing that the bill would fall foul of that.

The Supreme Court decision sets out a specific scheme for people seeking help with drug and alcohol addiction. Under the bill, a health professional would be responsible for providing an explanation of each of the treatments listed and of any other areas that they considered appropriate, along with an explanation as to their suitability. The decision as to suitability would still rest with the clinician, so the bill would not require a health professional to say that a treatment would be suitable, nor to recommend a treatment as being the appropriate one. The Supreme Court decision basically looked at the question whether the doctor was negligent in failing to discuss an alternative treatment that she did not consider to be reasonable.

No, it would not prevent that. That is a good point, because we often worry about provisions in legislation being timed out and things moving on rapidly. There is provision in the bill for Scottish Government ministers to add treatments to a number of different sections of the bill as they wish. The code of practice, which would be discussed, debated and agreed in the Parliament, can also be refreshed.

It is important that there are opportunities for the Government to add to what is in the bill, because the situation in 2025 will not be the situation in a couple of years’ time or at the end of the next parliamentary session. Things will have moved on, both medically and, I hope, in the communities where there are drug and alcohol deaths. If the bill is passed, I would hope to see the number of deaths reduce, though the problem will sadly not be eliminated. There will be further challenges that the Parliament and the next Government will have to grapple with.

That is a very good point. It will be an extremely important issue locally. I go back to the point that I made earlier: the national mission has committed £160 million for drug and alcohol services, and the bill seeks to substantially increase that through an uplift of between 17.5 and 24 per cent. However, the funding from the national mission will continue only until the end of this parliamentary session. We cannot tie the hands of future Parliaments and Governments, but, by enshrining this in law, we are giving the strongest possible signal that it needs to be prioritised going forward.

I accept that the current Government has made strides in increasing the funding for this area. It accepts, as we all do, that we have not made as much progress as any of us wanted or hoped to see. Therefore, the funding increase is crucial, but it must be in place going forward, too, so that fewer—or perhaps none—of those facilities will have to close in the future. There is adequate funding, and funding is included in the bill. In my letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I suggested where I would find that money. Between the Government and the 10 members sitting around this table, we could have 10 different solutions for where that money could come from, but it is vital that we see that uplift in those services.

I believe that it is. I go back to the point that I made to Dr Gulhane: there are opportunities for the Government to amend the bill going forward and to increase the options that are available. Mr FitzPatrick, you will know that the issues that you dealt with a number of years ago, as the minister responsible for drugs, are different to those that the cabinet secretary who has that responsibility in their portfolio has to deal with now. It is an evolving issue. What is not changing is the large number of people who are dying every year from drug and alcohol misuse—that is why I feel so passionate about bringing the bill forward. However, that does not mean that there is no capacity for the bill to change in a few years’ time, when there are changes in the drugs that people are using, how they are using them and so on.

The medical professional will know what work has to be done by the patient, the third sector and others to get somebody ready. However, if, having gone through the process of meeting with the individual, remotely or in person, the medical professional is saying that the individual is ready for residential rehab, that person should get that treatment within three weeks. That is why it is part of the medical assessment.

Yes. The course of treatment should start within three weeks. Currently, if the course of treatment is X, there will be other work that needs to be done in advance of that. However, once the determination is made that the right approach is a particular treatment option listed in section 1(5) of the bill, that treatment will have to start within three weeks.