Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, I would say that the wider psychosocial aspects would in no way be impinged on if the bill were to go through. A number of treatment options are specified in the bill, because we are taking a narrow focus on just this element of the drug and alcohol addiction journey that people go on. As Annemarie Ward said in her evidence, if there is criticism that the bill is too narrow in scope, perhaps that just means that the bill aims to do one small thing in the best possible way. That is quite a good way to look at it.

I understand those concerns, but I hope that I can reassure you, Ms Harper, and the rest of the committee that the bill would in no way diminish the other aspects of drug and alcohol rehabilitation for those who seek help and support but would simply add to them.

The point is very well made. I would not say that I had a dilemma, but I had the option of saying nothing in section 1(5) apart from the last point—that is,

“any ... treatment the relevant health professional deems appropriate”.

The worry was that such an open approach would make scrutiny at this committee and the finance committee difficult, because it would not be specific enough. How would you then budget for the treatments and hold the Government to account for it? Reporting is extremely important, and the bill will deliver that, but it would have become far more challenging with a very open-ended section 1(5).

Therefore, we looked at a list of options, and those are the ones that I included, but I am very willing to look at amendments that add some of the points that you have suggested. If a strong case can be made that including other treatments would provide more balance—if that is the concern—we could add them to the list in section 1(5).

As for whether that makes the bill less clinical and more political, I do not believe it does. There are reasons for having the list of treatments as drafted—the treatments that have been included—and there will be reasons why people will wish to lodge amendments to add to the list. Ultimately, there is the catch-all of

“any other treatment the relevant health professional deems appropriate”,

which takes away the political element.

That said, I go back to the point that I made in response to Mr FitzPatrick: there is already a political drive to increase the amount of rehab beds in Scotland, which I think we all support. When we get the increase in rehab beds that the additional funding coming through the bill will help to deliver, I want people to have the right to get them. At the moment, people are being recommended for rehab and are being told that it will take weeks, months or, in some shocking and unacceptable cases, years for them to get into the rehab facilities that they need to access.

I really believe that it does, because it would give people an opportunity to have their voice heard. First of all, a person’s voice is heard in the deliberation on the best treatment option for them. I welcome the fact that, last week, the cabinet secretary said to Ms Mochan that we need to

“go further ... in a co-ordinated way that works for individuals and how they wish to access services”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 20 May 2025; c 31.]

and that we need to do that in a way that works for them.

There is a gap in the individual element of care that Ms Mochan was getting to and the cabinet secretary was agreeing with. Empowering people to be involved in their own treatment options helps. We have also heard from others that they hope that the bill will support compliance with individuals’ human rights. It would allow them to feel that they have a voice in their own decision making and treatment options, and, crucially, if they disagree with those, they would have the right to a second opinion.

They might still disagree with the second opinion if it says that no treatment is right for them or if the treatment that they have asked for is not appropriate for them, but that is left to medical professionals. I am sure that we will get into that later on. I hope that that will further destigmatise those who are struggling with drug and alcohol abuse, because they will be empowered to get the treatment and support that they believe is right to get them on the road to recovery.

Again, I would say that the wider psychosocial aspects would in no way be impinged on if the bill were to go through. A number of treatment options are specified in the bill, because we are taking a narrow focus on just this element of the drug and alcohol addiction journey that people go on. As Annemarie Ward said in her evidence, if there is criticism that the bill is too narrow in scope, perhaps that just means that the bill aims to do one small thing in the best possible way. That is quite a good way to look at it.

I understand those concerns, but I hope that I can reassure you, Ms Harper, and the rest of the committee that the bill would in no way diminish the other aspects of drug and alcohol rehabilitation for those who seek help and support but would simply add to them.

As Ms Fraser said, we chose that definition because it comes from section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Neither nicotine nor caffeine would cause a person to lose control, which is the issue here.

No. That is what I was going to come on to. I know that the use of the term “diagnosis” has come up quite a lot, and I would be keen to look at that, depending on what your committee decides about whether elements of the language could be exclusionary. I think that the cabinet secretary even said that it would never be my intention, as the member in charge of the bill, for it to be exclusionary. So, if that is an unintended consequence, I will look to address that at stages 2 and 3.

At the moment, the bill is drafted as it is because any treatment starts with a diagnosis—that is why it was put in that way. However, given the evidence that I have heard, I am certainly willing to consider the point.

I should have mentioned to Ms Whitham, on her point about families being included that elements of that could be strengthened in the code of practice, which is also mentioned in the bill. The bill also allows for Parliament to consider the draft code of practice before it is published. I hope that that reassures those who have concerns relating to Ms Whitham’s final point.

I am relaxed that the former chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Dr Chris Williams from the Royal College of General Practitioners are relaxed and comfortable that there would be existing sound governance arrangements in place for that. That is why we have come up with the term “relevant health professional”.

I suppose that that goes back to the narrow focus of a member’s bill. I can look at only one element of the drug and alcohol issues that people face. However, the bill does not step on the toes of any other issues. It does not supersede anything else that has gone before it or will go after it; it looks specifically at the treatment element. Anything around trauma-informed diagnosis or support would continue and would in no way be affected by what is in the bill that is in front of us. It is an extremely important element of the overall package to help people to overcome their addiction issues.

I heard that evidence, and it is a point that Mr Harvie’s colleague Gillian Mackay raised a number of times, including last week. I am sorry to labour the point, but it bears repeating: the bill would not stop any of that multidisciplinary working, and it would not prevent any of the good working between the third sector and a number of different organisations. It would add treatment options in the narrow area of drug and alcohol addiction, but it would not prevent, stop or in any way diminish the work done by others; I hope that it would work in collaboration with it. It would simply add tools to the toolkit, so that people could seek the support and help that they were looking for.

It goes back to what people are seeking from recovery services and what they are not receiving from them. The largest proportion of the cases that I hear about involve people who have addiction issues with drugs and alcohol, so that is the bill’s priority. That does not mean that we cannot look at Mr Harvie’s point. Perhaps the Government or other members could consider introducing a bill that looks specifically at those issues.