Chamber and committees

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.

Yes, there is a very strong indication of that. I welcome the fact that the Government has remained neutral on the bill. It has not said that, because of the assumptions in the financial memorandum, the bill is simply unaffordable. It has waited to see your consideration and it has considered the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report, so it still has open eyes and ears about what the bill seeks to do and the costs of that.

It was important to get the bill to stage 1 to allow further consideration and tease out the details that all the members of this committee have raised. Some of those details have been in support of the bill, some have challenged it and some are about things that will have to fundamentally change. If we were to shut off the debate now, that would send a worrying and alarming signal—to people who seek to use these services today and in the future and, indeed, to wider society—that we have reached the peak of our ambitions to tackle drug and alcohol misuse in Scotland.

Obviously, some training is available, because people are currently doing those assessments, but there would have to be further training to increase the cohort of people who are able to do them, because demand would increase. We know that many people seek help and support through the various treatment options and do not get it—they are already assessed as being appropriate for the treatments that are listed in the bill, but they are not getting them. One element of that is the capital costs and such like. Hopefully, others will be encouraged by the bill.

I am sorry, but I cannot remember who—it might have been Ms Wells—talked earlier about people in our most deprived communities becoming aware of what is in the bill and their legal right. I will see it as a success if we improve that awareness and if there is more demand on our hard-pressed health professionals because more people feel comfortable about coming forward to discuss the recovery journey that they want to take to overcome their addiction issues. I hope that that is backed up by adequate support in the financial memorandum.