Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that it would empower them in that they would be involved in that conversation. If you were the medical professional from whom I was seeking help, I could mention the options suggested in the legislation, and I could say, for instance, “I think that option 1 is the right one for me.” We could then have a discussion, perhaps with a family member or an independent advocate present, and the medical professional would make their determination, based on their meeting with the patient or the person seeking support and on all their relevant medical training. The financial memorandum covers further training for medical professionals to deal with such situations.

Therefore, I think that the bill would empower individuals—it would empower them to know that, if the medical professional said that the person met the criteria for a given type of treatment, they would be entitled to it within three weeks. At the moment, you could tell me that I am entitled to something and I could sit on a waiting list for months. That is where the empowerment would come from.

I am not sure that there is particular demand from people to use the list of services in section 1(5) of the bill if they are addicted to caffeine or nicotine. There are other ways that they can overcome that addiction. I am not trying to minimise it in any way—I have never been a smoker, but I know how challenging it can be for people to overcome that addiction. However, they do not lose control. We based the determination of addiction and the substances that people can be addicted to on the element of control. The statistics that we are all concerned about are the number of drug and alcohol addictions that lead to people dying, which is where we see the biggest need.

Yes.

I do. As I said in my opening statement, I have listened intently to all the evidence that you have received so far. I was encouraged to hear that, in the written evidence that the committee received, a majority of the submissions were in favour of the bill. We have heard a lot of people raising questions not about the general principles of the bill but about some of the bill’s specifics, which I hope can be addressed through amendments—if we get to that stage. The majority of people who responded to your committee’s call for evidence were in favour of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill, and the response to my consultation was 70 per cent in favour of the bill.

With regard to your question on the inconsistencies, we have also heard a lot of positives. The cabinet secretary said that the Government supports “the intention” of the bill, and many others said the same.

However, Dr Sue Galea-Singer said that she does not believe that what the bill stipulates is required, because it is already being done. In response to Brian Whittle, who had suggested that the provisions of the bill are not already happening across Scotland, she said that she did not accept that. However, in the same evidence session, she said:

“the system is not working.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 25 March 2025; c 25.]

I found that evidence session to have elements both of believing that the current system is working and of accepting on the record that the current system is not working. That is why I hope that, in making your determination, you will look at the raw figures, which tell us all that we are not doing enough. Some elements of current policy are working very well and suit the needs of some people, but a record number of people are still dying from drug and alcohol misuse, which shows that we are not dealing with the biggest issues.

I agree that some people have said that the bill is not required because things are working when it is very clear that they are not.

It is a potential consequence at the moment. If someone has been told that they are the right fit and their circumstances mean that residential rehab is the right approach for them but they are on a waiting list for months or years, do not get into residential rehab and then overdose—as in the example that I gave—or die through further complications, their family is, at the moment, entitled to take a civil action against a health board or other authority.

The additional spend on its own is important, but, to go back to the very first point that was made by Ms Whitham, we are dealing with a unique situation here. In the past, we have increased the budget for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and we have also reduced it, and things are getting marginally better, if at all. Therefore, it is not just about budgeting but about the legal framework, this right being enshrined in law, and reporting. None of those things would be improved or enhanced by adding to the budget alone. In the round, the bill provides a number of mechanisms to deal with this unique problem that we have not looked at so far, and it could make a big difference.

Once the budget uplift is enshrined in law, the Government will accept it going forward. To go back to Mr Harvie’s point, the Government would have to introduce primary legislation to take away the right.

The bill would send a very strong signal and indication that this is an area that we should be focusing on. Although it is not a small amount of money, it is not an unachievable budget uplift for an area that every party leader, politician and representative in the Parliament agrees needs to be tackled. We are talking about spending an extra £38 million in Scotland to deal with an issue that is uniquely bad in Scotland. That is not to say that people do not die in other parts of the UK or across the world from drug and alcohol misuse, but more of them die here every year. There are historical reasons for that, as well as reasons related to developing drugs, which Ms Harper discussed, but it is our national shame. If we cannot deal with it through this bill and with an increased budget, I am not sure that we will ever truly tackle the issue and get those numbers down, preventing people from losing their lives and their families from being left distraught over the loss of a loved one.

“Repeal” is the word that I was looking for during the past 10 minutes—apologies that I did not find it as quickly as you did, convener.

It certainly is not.

The capital cost of the increased residential rehab provision will already be covered by the Government in the national mission. In drafting the bill, I have taken the Scottish Government’s ambition to increase the number of residential rehab beds as being delivered. Therefore, the uplift in the drug and alcohol budget that would be required under the bill does not need to account for that increase in beds, because that is already in process and is happening up to March 2026. I agree that the costs of that provision are significant, but the Government has already committed to meeting them. Therefore, the bill looks at spending over and above that.

That is why one of the submissions to the Finance and Public Administration Committee said that I had understated the capital costs. I had not understated them; the costs are already being met through the Scottish Government’s ambitions to increase the availability of those beds in residential rehab. We did not need to double count the cost of that provision in the financial memorandum for the bill.