Chamber and committees

I recognise the hard work on which Mr Ross has embarked while introducing his member’s bill. Having taken a member’s bill through the Parliament in the previous session, I know how much hard work it is for a member and their team, and how much support from the excellent non-Government bills unit is involved.

I also understand and acknowledge the principles that lie behind the bill. The minister already described the wider approach and policy measures on housing, employment and healthcare that are necessary to address recovery from addiction.

I would like to make a couple of pages of progress.

Every life that is lost due to alcohol and drugs has a devastating, heartbreaking and tragic effect on families and communities.

For the debate, I will keep my comments focused on the evidence that we took, as I am a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I will also focus on the stage 1 report.

I would like to continue, if Mr Findlay does not mind.

Indeed, two members have already used stigmatising language in the debate. I agree with the comment in the report that some of the language in the bill can be considered stigmatising. The requirement to have a diagnosis of

“‘addiction’ ... risks creating stigma”,

which might discourage

“individuals from putting themselves forward for treatment.”

An example of repairing the language would be to change the word “addiction” to “substance use disorder”, or “addict” to “a person with a problem with problematic drug use”. It is really important that we help to support people and take the stigma out of this. That is backed up elsewhere in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, which reflects what I am saying about stigmatising language.

As a member who represents a rural region, I will highlight the requirement in the bill for a right to an in-person appointment. That would disadvantage people who are resident in remote and rural areas.

No, I will continue speaking, because I have a couple of pages left of my speech that I would like to finish on.

During and since the Covid pandemic, we have seen the advances of Near Me appointments and video consultations—they should be taken into consideration should the bill progress. Video or remote consultations suit people in rural areas for a number of reasons, such as those relating to travel, transport, time and privacy.

The committee also heard concerns about the three-week timescales for individuals to commence treatment that are proposed in the bill, which might cause challenges in the quality and choice of treatment and could, again, lead to restrictions of treatment.

I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. As can be seen throughout the report and heard from speakers across the chamber, there are many calls for changes to be made, and so many proposed alterations would require additional scrutiny and additional time. Some of the requested changes are not insignificant and would leave the bill significantly different from the original bill that was proposed. For that reason, I cannot support the bill at stage 1.

A lot of time and consideration was given to my member’s bill, and we took months of evidence on Douglas Ross’s bill at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

I will focus on the evidence that we took at the committee. We need to ensure that our policies are effective to help to support some of the most vulnerable people in society. Our committee heard directly from individuals and organisations and conducted an open consultation for anyone to give their views on the bill. The responses were many and varied, so I will pick up just a few.

The Highland alcohol and drugs partnership said:

“The Bill, as it is currently drafted, is unlikely to bring the transformative change that is urgently needed”.

The Scottish Association of Social Work submitted:

“We also have reservations about the current requirement to be abstinent before accessing some medical interventions. We believe that this represents a barrier to early help and for some people may be one that they cannot overcome.”

Aberlour said:

“we believe the Bill is too narrow in its idea of the treatment that should be available. The focus appears to be on residential rehabilitation that is abstinence based.”

I will cover a few points from the stage 1 report, including points made in the executive summary. Committee members have already referred to a number of clear points.

The families and carers of individuals who are experiencing harm from drug or alcohol use expressed disappointment that the bill makes no reference to the crucial role that family and carers play in supporting an individual through their treatment and recovery. However, I note that Mr Ross is prepared to re-examine that if the bill progresses.

Our report calls on Douglas Ross to consider further how trauma-informal practices can be properly reflected in the bill.

We heard evidence regarding the use of language and definitions. I feel it myself, as I have raised the issue of stigmatising language on numerous occasions in debates and questions in the chamber. There should be a minimum requirement for education to be provided to any health professional, as anyone in healthcare could come into contact with a person who is experiencing harm from substance misuse.

The general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing has said:

“Health and care services would cease to function without migrant nursing staff.”

Does the First Minister agree with that statement, and will he outline what assessment his Government has made of the impact of the Labour Government’s new immigration rules on vital essential workers in Scotland’s national health service?

Good morning to youse all. Crofts might be abandoned or just left, and then people might say that that was for rewilding. The whole purpose of crofting is about communities—getting people into rural areas, tackling depopulation and having community benefit. Is consideration for the environment not about supporting communities as well?

I have a quick question about grazings committees first. When do grazings committees meet? Are they required to meet every six months or whatever over the three-year period?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Crofting law is complex. Section 26 of the bill, on “Rectification of the Crofting Register”, would allow the keeper to correct inaccuracies, with notice and consultation. In that regard, how can the keeper and the Crofting Commission ensure that, post registration, things such as changes—rectification is the word that is used—to boundaries do not cause legal uncertainty for new owners, lenders or other interested parties, particularly if previously excluded land is later added to a croft?

Referring back to what I said about correcting inaccuracies with notice and consultation, and thinking about the register of crofts, the crofting register and the land register, how does it all work together? Do some bits need to be sorted, or do changes need to be proposed, essentially to make the whole registration process clear and straightforward for everybody, so that we can simplify it a bit?