Chamber and committees

Yes—we want to get 50 per cent to two thirds of those who come forward for treatment completing treatment. Again, this relates to a point that the committee has rightly asked about before. We did not want to say just that there should be a 50 per cent increase: we thought that putting in a range would be more helpful to the committee through considering the projected costs of a lower end and an upper end.

East Ayrshire ADP mentioned that we focus an awful lot on the DAISy data in our financial memorandum, but it was important that we looked at that, because the figures and data points could then be translated into the financial memorandum.

I take on board your point about local authorities. We have tried to get as much data as possible. I went out and spoke to a number of health boards during the formation of the financial memorandum. I am very keen to open up further discussion about social care and social work costs with local authorities, if that would be helpful—it probably would be. However, I go back to the point that I made to the convener, which is that those costs currently exist and will continue to exist whether or not the bill is passed.

That is a crucial point. That is why treatment must begin within three weeks, as we have written into the bill, although we would like it to happen far sooner. We included that three-week period because the figure is used by the Government at the moment—95 per cent of people should already be getting treatment within three weeks. We mention that in paragraph 66, which says that

“95% of referrals resulted in treatment starting within three weeks or less.”

The longer the time, the more chance there is that the person becomes disenfranchised from the proposal and the treatment option that has been determined for them. We want the bill and the publicity that surrounds it to give people the confidence that, when they get a medical assessment of their need, they can get treatment as quickly as possible, in order to save them from changing circumstances leading to their not completing the treatment.

Just relieving that pressure is, in itself, a saving. The budgets are, as you say, extremely tight. We have had discussions about that in the Parliament on a number of occasions. However, the point is that, through early intervention, savings will be made going forward. No one has been able to prove to me that Dame Carol Black is wrong in her assumption that every £1 spent on intervention on addiction issues and drug problems will not make that £4 saving for the wider public service.

That has been discussed in meetings of the Parliament’s cross-party groups on drug and alcohol addiction that I have attended. There are certainly opportunities in the proposed legislation relating to direct funding that has become available and continues to become available.

The industry is sometimes criticised for not doing enough, but it seeks to put in funding where it can tackle problem drinking and addiction. I know that from my work with the Scotch Whisky Association and the CPG on Scotch whisky. As you will know, Mr Hoy, from the CPG on beer and pubs, the sector is aware of that and it seeks to direct available resources to a number of projects to prevent people from becoming addicted in the first place and to help people who are suffering from addiction.

That is an important point. The national mission completes next year, so, at the moment, the money that is associated with the national mission is not guaranteed going forward. I think that it must be—we need significant levels of funding in the future, and by making the bill law in this session of Parliament, we would be guaranteeing that funding. That will send an extremely important signal to people with addiction issues that the funding is backed up by the Parliament. It will also send an important message to Government that this continues to be a priority for members across the Parliament.

I hope that I have not strayed too much into the political territory today, because there is very good cross-party support for the bill from members of the governing party and from Opposition members who want to see our appalling drug and alcohol death rates reduce, and who want to see people surviving their addictions and getting the help and support that they need.

By putting this into law, we would also be guaranteeing funding into the next parliamentary session and beyond, which will be crucial as the national mission, which is currently scheduled to finish next year, comes to a close and the Government looks at further opportunities to deal with the issue.

Well, it is accurate in terms of the data that we have in front of us, so I give it a 10 on accuracy, based on what we have. If your question is whether I think that it will cost £198 million every year, the answer is no—I cannot give that commitment, because of the significant variation in the figures and the range that we have had to include. Ultimately, it could be seen as a failure for me if the bill ends up costing more money but, if that is because more people have the confidence to come forward and seek the treatment that they want and need, I will accept that criticism, because more people will be helped as a result.

I would say that £160 million of the current budget is not enough, which is why I am asking that we spend more money on this issue. I will go back to the point that I could have picked a figure that is wildly different from the £198 million that we get to for the increase required for the bill, and still not have been able to give you an accurate figure on your scale of zero to 10.

I was going to say that we always look for international comparisons, but the reason might be that other countries do not have Scotland’s shocking drug and alcohol death rates. The fact that we are the worst in the United Kingdom and across Europe means that we have to do something different here, and I think that it is incumbent on the Parliament to look outside the box. As I said to Mr Mason, if we continue to do the same thing time and time again, we should not be surprised that the results—that is, the number of people dying—remain the same. We have to look at something different, which is why I think that having this unique approach in Scotland is right.

I said it in jest.

Things have definitely come out since the bill was introduced and the financial memorandum was written. I mentioned Audit Scotland’s 2022 report; its 2024 report came out after the financial memorandum was submitted. I am therefore happy, whether instructed or otherwise by the committee, to look at some of the areas that have materialised since the financial memorandum was submitted and to look at some of the updated issues and challenges that are faced by both the sector and other bodies that have made compelling submissions to the committee.

I repeat, however, that a lot of Audit Scotland’s concerns are over wider funding issues that come down to the challenges for local government and national Government and, as you have said, the changing circumstances that are due to UK decisions.