Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, but let me be clear: it is not a silver bullet. It must work in tandem with a number of other initiatives that the Government is operating and exploring and those that it will look at in the future. However, I think that giving people this right would ensure that people like Liam would not die while on a waiting list. Where it is deemed by a medical professional to be appropriate for people to seek the help and support that is right for them, they should not be left on waiting lists, struggling to get the support and recovery that they want and need.

To go back to Mr FitzPatrick’s point on residential rehab, I should probably have used this quote from FAVOR UK, which I cited to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, too:

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

That is the real difference that rehab facilities can make for people. That is why there is a demand for them and why people who are seeking that help and support—and their families—are so frustrated when they are left on waiting lists for weeks, months and, in some cases, years.

Convener, if I can, I would like to make a final point, which came up more in the finance committee than in this committee. The Dame Carol Black report—which, I accept, is about NHS England—suggests that for every £1 that we, as a society, spend on drug and alcohol recovery services, we can save £4 in other services. It is money that can very much save lives and help our services going forward.

The period of three weeks starts from the treatment being agreed with the medical professional—from the point at which the medical professional says, “This is the treatment you should get.” Therefore, the medical professional would include that consideration in their determination. However, as I have repeated a number of times, people are being told by medical professionals and others that they are suitable for residential rehab—I am sorry to go back to that example—

—but they are not getting a place, because the beds are not available and there is no capacity. Where the determination has been made that someone should get a particular treatment, they should not have to wait. I do not believe that they should have to wait even three weeks; they should be able to get treatment as soon as possible, but that is all part of the medical professional’s determination of what treatment is right for that person.

It might be that residential rehab is not right for her or it might be that that is the best approach. In which case, efforts can be made with partners to look after her children while she is away, and then, when she comes out of residential rehab, the family can get back together again. However, it might be that other treatment options listed in the bill are right for her or that some of the other treatment options that are not listed but are available under that catch-all provision could also support her. The current support for a mum with two kids will be maintained and will continue to be delivered.

One of the other examples that I was going to use in my opening remarks was about a young woman who was pregnant. She was addicted to drugs and tried to get off them during her pregnancy. She was worried that her child would be taken away from her if she could not do so, so she wanted to get into rehab before she had her baby. She was not admitted to rehab, and, because of complications, she delivered prematurely. The baby was born with addiction issues and was removed from her, regardless. That individual has now totally disengaged from all the services. That is an example of a tragic case of someone trying to get help to turn her life around before she became a parent and it just not working for her.

It is a very difficult issue to balance. However, the treatment is the top priority. People would be told which treatment they were entitled to—hopefully, it would be the treatment that they were keen on—and then we would look at the options that were available to them. There would be more options should the bill pass, because we would have a significant uplift in the budget to deliver more facilities across the country. As you said, some ADPs provide out-of-area treatment, because a lot of communities do not have a local facility. Across the Highlands and Islands, we have very few facilities compared to the central belt and, particularly, the west of Scotland, where there are more facilities available.

I will come to Mr Davenport in a moment, but just for clarity in my own mind, you are saying that since last July—or almost a year on—there has been no further engagement by the Minister for Higher and Further Education or his officials on the development of the bill and on how it will affect SDS staff.

Thank you very much. It is partly my fault for asking open questions, but we have taken 23 minutes just to get through some of the issues that I wanted to ask about. It is really useful to get all of this on the record, but I want everyone to have their say, and if we can have short questions and short answers, that will help us get through this session.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy.

On this issue, I call Joe FitzPatrick.

Ms Jackson, can you respond to the headcount point first of all? Are you aware of the numbers that would be affected? What is the change doing to staff morale? Are some happy with it? Are some deeply concerned?

I wrote down the point that you made that the bill has been brought forward without any proper discussion with your staff and members who are staff at SDS. Why would that be the case? Why would you not want to engage with the staff who are going to be directly affected by this?

Before you do, I have a brief supplementary on the same topic. Ms Collins, you mentioned a lack of ministerial direction. Has that progressively got worse? Why did you choose to mention that?