Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are two routes that we could go down. We could use the data that is available—which I, as the member in charge, accept is not ideal. That view is shared by many. Alternatively, we could look at that data and then add 10, 20 or 50 per cent; however, I would then be coming before this committee and struggling to defend that in any way.

I have looked at how this committee has scrutinised members’ bills and Government bills, and I think that it is right for it to look for the figures presented to be backed up by data, which is what we have tried to do with this financial memorandum.

I have also heard what the committee has said in the past about providing a range, which is why there is a range, with lower and upper-end expectations. Also, if the bill is passed, by including a proposal for annual reporting to Parliament, there is an opportunity for us to have better data to inform our decisions. Although, ultimately, the bill is designed to save lives and improve opportunities for people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, there is another benefit, in that we will be able to gather better data across Scotland, which can inform our decisions, including financial ones.

On the impact of the bill that some respondents to your call for evidence cited, there was a lot of discussion about wider issues that affect people with addiction being included in the bill. That was not possible, because the bill is a non-Government one and so has to be quite narrow in scope. We have done as much as we can within that narrowness, but there are undoubtedly areas of spend in public life that are affected and impacted by people being addicted to drugs or alcohol that are not included in the bill. However, the bill will not stop that spend or prevent that issue from being looked at going forward.

We address the issue of capital in the financial memorandum. The Scottish Government has been clear that it wants to get up to 650 residential rehab beds by March of next year, which is in 12 months’ time. The Government believes that it is on course to achieve that, and I hope that it does. Therefore, a large proportion of the funding that is needed for that has already been guaranteed by the Scottish Government, in previous budgets and the current budget. There is £160 million there, which is the baseline that we used for our calculations. A large proportion of that will be spent on increasing the number of residential rehab beds.

It is important that we recognise that in the financial memorandum. Although we do not separate out the capital costs, there is no need to do so, because there is that commitment from the Government, which it has backed up with its funding commitment of £160 million.

Professor McKendrick produced 20 recommendations in that report, and the Scottish Government agreed with, or partly agreed with, 19 of them. The one that you disagreed with was about extending his remit into tertiary education. I have heard the reason for that, but do you want to explain the reason for that further and say whether that continues to be the position of the Scottish Government?

When did you find out that it would be £15 million? When did you know what your board would have to work with?

Was it maybe just at the time of the announcement?

Why are we sat here in 2025 still discussing this? The committee’s inquiry is quite short, and every witness so far has spoken about the benefits of a unique identifier. The commissioner for fair access said that progress had been made—he felt that it was one of his recommendations that was really gaining momentum. However, why has it taken until this point? I have not heard anything yet, apart from cost alone, to suggest that a unique identifier could not have been implemented quite some time ago. Are we missing anything?

Could I ask a wider question about the housing situation for students? We spoke to participants on Monday night about that being one of the potential barriers: it is not just about getting the grades to get into university. You mentioned earlier that some people have been declining their offers because of family circumstances—maybe they have to go out and work rather than go and study, so university is becoming unaffordable for some.

Yesterday, I had a virtual meeting with representatives from the Highlands and Islands Students Association—William Campbell and Shannon MacCallum—and they gave me an example and permission to share it with you today because, although it is a local issue, it needs a ministerial point of view. They have a fellow student who has to travel daily from Angus to Fort William because she cannot afford the student accommodation in Fort William. She can afford to do the travel only for part of the time, then the cost becomes prohibitive.

What do you recognise as being the challenges, particularly around student accommodation and its affordability, to widening access to higher education? What solutions can the Government offer?

You have mentioned the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which what I had a call about with the representatives yesterday. You will know the route between Angus and Fort William. Can you imagine doing that daily to study because you cannot afford the student accommodation and—in some cases—because of the unavailability of student accommodation?

Could we have Ms Duncan-Glancy’s microphone on? That is perfect now, thank you.

What are the issues, then?

Is it the case that, if it asked for £15 million or more, it would be in the best position to get that, and that, if it asked for £7.5 million, there would be money for other organisations?

I understand why you want to exhaust all your options, but given where we are now in this parliamentary session, will there be a fail-safe deadline when you have to make a decision on whether to introduce primary legislation? If you have exhausted your options and it requires legislation, when would that be introduced? Parliament would need time to pass that legislation.