Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is not my understanding, because that would be a consequence of drug—particularly alcohol—addiction, whereas the bill is looking at dealing with the addiction elements. I know that there were questions in some of the committee’s previous sessions about addiction to things like nicotine—Mr Whittle even jokingly referred to chocolate and such like—but the bill is very specific about drug and alcohol addiction, and about dealing with the addiction part. In my view, liver failure is a consequence of addiction and would be dealt with in the normal way, through a transplant request.

There is a huge lack of data, which has hampered some of the deliberations that I have had on the bill. It certainly caused challenges when I went to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, because the members on that committee understandably want precise examples of and costs for everything. In his letter to this committee and the finance committee—it was a joint letter to both committees that are considering the bill—the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care was open about how difficult it is to gather data on this issue and to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of some of the options that are currently available.

The reporting element of the bill would therefore provide much greater clarity going forward. There would be an onus on organisations to report, because a report would need to be laid annually before the Parliament and a Government minister would have to present that report and be held accountable for it. The report would allow politicians across the political spectrum to question the Government on how it is dealing with the proposals and the procedures that are set out in the bill and also the wider issues around drug and alcohol addiction and rehabilitation.

Yes. As other witnesses have alluded to, it would shine a light on the issue and ensure that some of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our society get their say within the Parliament. Good, sound, evidence-based policies need data, and there is currently a deficiency in such data. I do not think that that has been questioned by anyone you have heard from in your evidence sessions or in submissions, nor in the evidence that the finance committee took. There is a gap in the data. By improving that, we can surely improve scrutiny of the Government, health boards, integration joint boards and others, and also help our policy making in the future.

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.

Thank you, and good morning. As members know, I have attended all the public meetings that the committee has held on the bill and have listened to the evidence that you have received in the past two months. Although I might not agree with everything that has been said, I take the opportunity to thank those who have made contributions. Should the bill pass stage 1, I will work with the witnesses you have heard from to address their concerns where I can, and I extend that invitation to committee members and to Parliament as a whole.

The specifics of the bill are not before the committee at this stage. Instead, the question is simply whether the bill and the issues that it seeks to address are worthy of further consideration and whether this committee and Parliament should continue considering further measures to tackle drug and alcohol deaths in this country.

I know that the committee is aware of the statistics, but I believe that they bear repeating. The number of drug deaths in Scotland has more than doubled in the past 10 years, and the rate of deaths is 15 times higher in our most-deprived communities than in the least-deprived ones. Alcohol deaths in Scotland are at the highest level since 2008 and are four times higher in our most-deprived communities than in the least deprived. Both of those death rates are the highest in the United Kingdom. This is a crisis made in Scotland and one that can, and must, be fixed in Scotland.

Members might disagree about the solution to this crisis, and we might have a range of views on the content of the bill, but we can all agree that the current approach is not working. That is not a view—it is a fact. Currently, a Scot dies every four hours because of drugs or alcohol. None of us can consider that a success. No one can look upon that fact with complacency. Put simply, we are not doing enough. Those are not statistics—those are real people who are being failed every day.

Deborah had struggled with addiction for more than a decade and was facing sentencing for shoplifting, which is a crime that she committed to pay for her addiction. At her drug treatment and testing order assessment, she begged to be put into rehabilitation, as she did not want to continue with methadone treatment. Her lawyer argued for her request to be met, but that was rejected as being out of scope of the DDTO and she was put back on to methadone. Deborah died of an overdose only a few months later.

Liam had a history of childhood trauma, homelessness and severe mental health issues. He asked for rehab after multiple arrests for drug offences but was placed on a four-month waiting list and told to engage with community services. It was while on that waiting list that Liam overdosed and died.

If the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill helps just one person to survive—if it helps just one more person live life to the full and not die a needless death—I will consider it a success, but I believe that it can do much more than that.

The bill sets out a procedure for a health professional to follow in determining what treatment is appropriate following diagnosis of such an addiction. That includes explaining the treatment options to the patient and encouraging them to contribute their views during the decision-making process. It also sets out a process and a right for a second opinion when a health professional considers that the treatment that the patient wants is not appropriate for them or when the health professional concludes that no treatment is appropriate.

The bill requires that, once a determination is made as to treatment, that treatment must be made available as soon as is reasonably practical and no later than three weeks after the determination is made. One of the key issues that was identified during the policy development process was the number of people who are referred for treatment who do not get that treatment or for whom receiving it takes far too long. The bill seeks to ensure that, in the future, they will receive that treatment—because it is provided at the right time for them and it is the treatment that suits them—and that the treatment they are referred to will be provided irrespective of cost and other considerations. The bill also requires the Scottish ministers to publish and lay an annual report on progress made towards providing the treatments for drug and alcohol addiction recovery.

Finally, the bill requires the Scottish ministers to prepare a code of practice that sets out how the duty to fulfil the right to treatment will be carried out by health boards and others, such as integration joint boards. As the financial memorandum states, the bill would increase funding to alcohol and drug services by up to £38 million annually.

Crucially, the bill takes nothing away. It does not seek to change existing services; it only seeks to add to the treatment options available.

In the Parliament, we say time and time again that drug and alcohol deaths are a tragedy. Every year, the figures are published and the language gets stronger and stronger—there is talk of “crisis”, “scandal”, “shame”, “national mission” and “priority”—but, beyond those words, the sad reality is that we are not doing enough.

The issue has not been given the attention that it warrants, but, by passing the bill at stage 1, we can give the legislation and other proposals the due consideration that they deserve, we can give some of the most vulnerable people in our society hope that their cries for help have been heard by their Parliament, and we can ensure that the deaths of Deborah, Liam and thousands of other Scots were not in vain.

There is no doubt that there are considerable challenges within the NHS workforce. With a couple of NHS staff members sitting around this table, you will hear that on a regular basis. However, in the financial memorandum there is specific funding for additional training of medical professionals for what will be an additional workload—I am in no doubt about that, which is why the cost is included in the financial memorandum’s considerations. That puts the onus on the Scottish Government to deliver that training through its partners. I know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities raised concerns about finance, but the COSLA representative also said that he was absolutely supportive of the bill’s intentions.

Our taking the bill to the next stage and the Parliament’s ultimately passing it would indicate to the various bodies and the workforce that we must focus on the issue in Scotland, which I hope would start to drive down the appalling figures of drug and alcohol deaths in the country.