I remind the Parliament that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Having adequate staffing levels is key to ensuring the provision of high-quality services. Will the minister provide an update on current CAMHS staffing levels and on the Scottish Government’s work to invest in our mental health workforce?

I remind Mr Ross that the committee looks at the evidence that it receives in its entirety—that includes written evidence as well as oral evidence—and that the witnesses who came to the committee were agreed on a cross-party basis by the committee.

That is how the committee chooses the people and organisations that come before it to give evidence. Although I accept what Mr Ross said, there was some support for the bill from the organisations that we heard from, but they also criticised elements of it.

Evidence that was submitted raised particular concerns that certain aspects of the bill’s provisions would exacerbate stigma for those who are experiencing harm from drug and alcohol use and would risk creating additional barriers to their accessing treatment. The committee also heard concerns about how the bill might interact with existing legal frameworks and strategies that are aimed at tackling drug and alcohol harms. More fundamentally, many of those who gave evidence raised concerns that, in a context of finite resources, establishing a legal right to treatment could create a significant risk of litigation and might set an unhelpful legal precedent for the creation of similar rights to the treatment of other conditions.

There was a general consensus among witnesses, particularly those working on the ground in front-line services, that the bill places too much emphasis on abstinence-based treatment over harm reduction. We also heard evidence that abstinence-based treatment pathways will not suit everyone and that, depending on where they are in their treatment and recovery journey, many individuals benefit more from harm-reduction interventions.

I remind Mr Ross that the committee looks at the evidence that it receives in its entirety—that includes written evidence as well as oral evidence—and that the witnesses who came to the committee were agreed on a cross-party basis by the committee.

That is how the committee chooses the people and organisations that come before it to give evidence. Although I accept what Mr Ross said, there was some support for the bill from the organisations that we heard from, but they also criticised elements of it.

Evidence that was submitted raised particular concerns that certain aspects of the bill’s provisions would exacerbate stigma for those who are experiencing harm from drug and alcohol use and would risk creating additional barriers to their accessing treatment. The committee also heard concerns about how the bill might interact with existing legal frameworks and strategies that are aimed at tackling drug and alcohol harms. More fundamentally, many of those who gave evidence raised concerns that, in a context of finite resources, establishing a legal right to treatment could create a significant risk of litigation and might set an unhelpful legal precedent for the creation of similar rights to the treatment of other conditions.

There was a general consensus among witnesses, particularly those working on the ground in front-line services, that the bill places too much emphasis on abstinence-based treatment over harm reduction. We also heard evidence that abstinence-based treatment pathways will not suit everyone and that, depending on where they are in their treatment and recovery journey, many individuals benefit more from harm-reduction interventions.

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the implementation of its international strategy, how and by what mechanisms it is engaging with the Governments of other European nations. (S6O-05029)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Scotland is demonstrating via that strategy that we are a country that is able and prepared to play its part as a member of the international community, and it is clear that countries want to engage with Scotland. Scottish Government offices are an essential component of that. How does the Scottish Government actively assess the reach of those offices and their importance in pursuing the Government’s objectives and commitment to tackling global issues such as the climate emergency?

Our second agenda item is taking oral evidence from the first of two panels of witnesses, as part of the committee’s inquiry into attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder pathways and support.

I welcome Glenn Carter, head of Scotland office, Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists; Anya Kennedy, divisional lead occupational therapist, Royal College of Occupational Therapists; Dr Pavan Srireddy, vice-chair, Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland; and Dr Chris Williams, vice-chair, Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland.

We will move straight to questions from Brian Whittle.

You talked about the “you said, we did” model of adapting services and responding to feedback, but how do you involve that community in developing services and pathways?

I think that Louise Bussell wants to come in.

Could witnesses be more concise with their answers, please? We have a lot of questions to ask after this theme. Thank you.

Elena Whitham has a very final brief supplementary.