Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I believe that it is, because we have included in the bill the ability for ministers to increase some of its provisions. Section 9(1) says that a “drug”

“includes any intoxicant other than alcohol”.

What is meant by “alcohol” is clear, but, because “drug” means “any intoxicant”, if a new drug comes on the market that is deemed to be an intoxicant, it will be covered by section 9(1).

You also mention the MAT standards, which are important. Last week, we heard a lot from the cabinet secretary and witnesses about the standards. Again, the bill seeks in no way to replace the MAT standards but to work alongside them. The committee will be aware of this, but it is important that others understand that the MAT standards have no statutory underpinning. The bill would make statutory provision. That is the difference; the bill provides a legal framework. People have an ambition to deliver the MAT standards, but the standards have no statutory underpinning.

I gave that quite a lot of thought. I am trying not to be overly prescriptive and I do not want to say too much in the bill. There are elements of that that could be included in the code of practice. It is important that people who are entitled to residential rehab, in the view of the medical professional, get it in some form.

Drafting the bill is difficult, because we have not achieved even the Scottish Government’s target for additional beds—it is due by March 2026. We do not know where all the beds will be. Some will be with independent providers and some will be available through the health service. It was a decision not to include any specific choice. It is not like people will get their top three options, but I absolutely agree that services are very varied in what they offer and how they offer it.

That would go back into the discussion that the individual would have with the medical professional. The medical professional would determine a course of treatment that people could follow to hopefully overcome their drug and alcohol addiction issues, not a specific destination that that person should go to. I would be happy to look at that, but I worry that it would add complexities that would make it more difficult to deliver the bill. We could certainly tease that out during future stages, because it deserves wider consideration.

I mentioned nicotine because it came up in earlier evidence sessions. Mr Whittle discussed the idea that some people could be addicted to nicotine and some people could be addicted to chocolate. The definition in the bill relates to substances that intoxicate people and to which they become addicted. Someone can become addicted to prescribed drugs, so that would be covered under the bill.

Ms Fraser, do you want to add anything?

It does not sound as though we have very happy witnesses in front of us. We will delve more into the issues as we go along but, first, I want to look at how we got here. In that regard, I particularly want to hear from Ms Jackson and Mr Lewis, because of the views expressed in their submissions and their responses to my question.

I do not want to paraphrase you, Mr Lewis, but it sounds as though you are deeply disappointed by the lack of engagement with the Scottish Government, given that this is a change that will affect your members and staff working for those organisations. Is that correct?

In our previous evidence session, we heard quite a bit about private or independent providers versus colleges. Can you tell us a bit about your interaction with private providers, as businesses and business organisations, and about how it compares with your interaction with colleges that provide apprenticeships?

I might just go to Jackie Dunbar, who has some questions, and then we will come back to you, Mr Davenport.