Members of three Scottish Parliament committees have urged that a joint approach to the scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s work to reduce drug deaths and tackle drug harm must continue following May’s election.
In the report, one MSP explains that the approach emphasised the importance of the shift from seeing drug problems in Scotland as a crime and justice issue to seeing them as a health and social issue.
The committees worked together during this parliamentary session to look at the impact of the measures recommended by the Scottish Drugs Deaths Taskforce.
As part of their work, the committees commissioned, and worked with, a people’s panel, which called for “brave and bold action” to reduce the harms created by drug use in Scotland.
The Members’ report praises the benefits that this approach had on communication between committees, collaboration on tackling this important issue, and the breadth of scrutiny.
"There's still much work to be done to tackle this issue of urgent national importance."
— Social Justice and Social Security Committee (@SP_SJSS) March 6, 2026
Audrey Nicoll MSP, Convener of the Criminal Justice Committee said: “Taking a cross-committee approach to the issue of how to tackle drug deaths and drug related harms has brought everyone’s expertise to the table.
“It has been encouraging to see so many members working together to tackle this issue of urgent national importance.
“However, this issue is not resolved. As our legacy report makes clear, our committees’ work must continue next session.”
Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Sport and Social Care Committee, said: “Thank you to everyone who helped inform our scrutiny of these vital issues, including the members of the people’s panel, who collaborated so well to help recommend what further steps can be taken to prevent drug deaths and harms.
“Cross-party and cross-remit working in the next session will be essential if we are to effectively tackle these issues, and ultimately end the pain caused by drug harms and drug deaths in Scotland.
Collette Stevenson MSP, Convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, said: “I am pleased with the impact that our committees’ work has had this session, and it was good to see the recommendations of the people’s panel that we commissioned be agreed to and acted upon by the Scottish Government.
“Drug deaths are not abstract statistics. My heart goes out to every single family that is affected. MSPs must continue to work together next session and do everything possible to tackle this issue.”
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee published its report today into Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and autism pathways and support.
The Committee calls for urgent action to deliver a national plan that ensures autistic people and people with ADHD can access clear, consistent pathways to support across every health board in Scotland.
The Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to accept the recommendations in the National Autism Implementation Team (NAIT) Adult Neurodevelopmental Pathways report.
It also notes the Scottish Government’s intention to review implementation of the National Neurodevelopmental Specification for Children and Young People through its new task force.
The Committee expresses concern that many people wait years for neurodevelopmental assessments and that some health board areas have closed waiting lists. It emphasises that long waits harm individuals and may prevent people from making a full contribution to society.
The unprecedented demand for neurodevelopmental assessment is recognised by the Committee and the need to put certain thresholds in place before a referral is made. But the Committee warns that this approach can be seen as gatekeeping and can cause delays to accessing assessments and support.
The report further highlights evidence that long waiting times can push people into crisis, which can increase complexity of the support needed and put additional pressure on services. It calls on the Scottish Government to work with health boards to deliver a shift towards early, progressive support, in line with the principles of the Population Health Framework.
The Committee also heard evidence that long NHS waiting times can push people towards private diagnosis at significant cost, risking a two-tier system.
The Committee calls for a comprehensive review of assessment processes across all areas, leading to a National Standard that guarantees consistency, responsiveness and support across Scotland.
Given current waiting times, the Committee calls for consistent high-quality communication with people on waiting lists, including accurate, supportive, up-to-date and neuro-affirming information that meets the needs of each individual.
Countering claims that neurodevelopmental conditions are subject to over-diagnosis, the report instead notes evidence that rising demand for assessments reflects historic under-diagnosis and improved understanding of these conditions. The report recognises that diagnosis can validate lived experience and help people access adjustments, support and medication if needed.
While the Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment that diagnosis should not be a prerequisite for support, it remains concerned that, for many individuals, the lack of a formal diagnosis can create a barrier to accessing support. The Committee calls on the Scottish Government to set out actions to prevent diagnosis status becoming an artificial barrier to receiving support.
To improve fairness and consistency, the Committee calls for a plan to deliver mandatory training for everyone involved in making referrals to neurodevelopmental pathways and all health and social care staff in patient-facing roles.
The Committee supports a whole systems approach across health, social care, education and other sectors to improve awareness, reduce stigma and strengthen support for those with neurodevelopmental conditions.
It calls on the Scottish Government to set out what it is doing to advance whole society action, including workforce planning, funding distribution that supports integration, inclusive education, support for families with multiple neurodivergent members, and stronger collaboration across public services.
On publication of the report, Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee said:“Our inquiry has shone a light on the myriad issues those with neurodevelopmental conditions face in accessing and receiving support from Scotland’s NHS.
“We acknowledge the huge rise in demand for assessment and diagnosis and the huge pressure this places on services. But we are concerned that inconsistent care pathways and a lack of support can leave some feeling isolated and unable to access the support they need.
“We are concerned to have heard evidence of long waits for assessments or closed waiting lists, meaning some individuals are unable to access support due to where they live or because they haven’t been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental condition. It’s clear things need to improve.
“We’re calling for urgent delivery of a national plan so that autistic people and/or people with ADHD are able to access clear, consistent pathways to support regardless of where they live in Scotland.
“We’re also calling on the Scottish Government and health boards to work together to undertake a comprehensive review of the assessment process in order to introduce a National Standard for assessments that guarantees consistency and quality of access throughout Scotland.
“Our Committee wants to see a whole systems and whole society approach to ensure autistic people and/or people with ADHD can access equitable and timely pathways to assessment, treatment and support across Scotland.
“Thank you to all of the individuals who shared their personal experiences of ADHD and autism with us and helped inform our inquiry.”
Other findings in the report:
The report also stresses the need for consistent national data on referrals and waiting times. The Committee calls for steps to enable routine quarterly reporting of data on referrals and waiting times for autism and ADHD, underpinned by national guidance, and for longer-term work to culminate in a comprehensive dashboard.
The Committee pays tribute to third sector organisations that support people who have not received, or are waiting for, diagnosis. It welcomes ongoing commitments such as the Autistic Adult Support Fund and calls for clearer plans to place third sector funding on a sustainable long-term footing.
Both ADHD and autism are neurodevelopmental conditions.
ADHD is characterised by a group of symptoms that includes difficulty in concentrating, hyperactivity and impulsive behaviour. It affects around 5% of school-aged children, and between 2.5% and 4% of adults.
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a lifelong developmental condition that affects the way a person communicates, interacts and processes information.
It is often characterised by social and communication difficulties and by repetitive behaviours. Current estimates indicate about 1 in 34 people are autistic, just under 3% of the population.
HOLYROOD’s Health Social Care and Sport Committee has said it is disappointed by an ongoing lack of transparency in data gathering and analysis, which makes it very difficult to assess the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the Scottish Government’s approach to mental health spending.
The findings are part of the Committee’s Pre-Budget Scrutiny 2026-27, which this year focused on mental health spending. Spending on mental health services now stands at around £1.5 billion and has risen in recent years.
The Committee acknowledge there is general support for the priorities set out in the Scottish Government’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy and accompanying Delivery Plan, but regrets that it remains very difficult to identify links between those priorities and how mental health budgets are spent.
It calls on the Scottish Government to provide additional data to illustrate how and to what extent mental health budgets can be linked back to the priorities identified.
The Committee is calling on the Scottish Government to provide data on actual spend on mental health services to allow for better evaluation and to help inform spending decisions.
While acknowledging the current landscape is complicated, even more so as a result of the integration of health and social care, the Committee say the Government must do more to provide detailed analysis of current spending to inform current and future policy.
Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said: “Our pre-budget scrutiny this year has been focused on the Scottish Government’s spending on mental health but what we have found is that issues of transparency, data availability and analysis has limited our ability to effectively scrutinise policy and funding.
“More importantly, this limits the Government’s ability to understand the effectiveness of funding for mental health services and where spending could be better targeted to improve outcomes.
“We’re calling for more transparency, and better data and analysis to improve evaluation and to better inform spending priorities.
“Better data capture and analysis could also help inform preventative approaches to mental health funding and highlight areas where ring-fenced funding could be effective. We look forward to the Scottish Government responding to our report.”
The reported negative impact of a lack of long or even medium-term certainty around budgets is also highlighted and the Committee is seeking reassurance from the Scottish Government that the Spending Review can provide a degree of long-term certainty for services and the third sector.
Health and social care is the largest portfolio area in the Scottish Government’s budget, accounting for over £21 billion of spend, equivalent to around a third of the entire Scottish budget. Within this total, spending on mental health services now stands at around £1.5 billion and has risen in recent years.
Holyrood’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is seeking views on a Bill which would mean cosmetic treatments such as fillers, Botox, chemical peels and microneedling would be subject to greater regulation.
The Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill is seeking to regulate the provision of certain non-surgical procedures, where a non-surgical procedure is defined as a procedure that pierces or penetrates an individual’s skin.
If passed, it would mean the treatments identified by the Bill would have to be administered by a registered healthcare professional, in a registered healthcare setting.
The Bill would make it illegal for under-18s to receive these treatments.
The Bill would also introduce enforcement powers for authorities and would give Scottish Ministers powers to impose further restrictions or to change the list of procedures covered by the Bill, through regulations.
Some of the procedures covered by the Bill include:
Ablative laser treatment e.g. laser skin resurfacing
Cellulite subcision e.g. cellulite dimple removal or Cellfina®
Chemical peel e.g. skin peel or facial peel
Dermal microcoring e.g. Ellacor® Treatment, removal of tiny cores of skin using hollow needles.
Intravenous procedure e.g. IV drip therapy, beauty IV drips
Microneedling e.g. skin needling, Dermapen® microneedling
Thread Lift e.g. PDO (Polydioxanone), PLLA (Poly-L-Lactic Acid), cat or fox eye thread lift
Speaking as the call for views was launched, Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said:“Our Committee is aware that the use and administering of non-surgical procedures for cosmetic purposes has grown hugely in popularity over the last few years.
“But we are also aware of concerns that there may be risks when those providing treatments aren’t suitably trained to do so.
“This Scottish Government Bill proposes to strengthen the regulation of who can receive and administer these treatments, and where these can be carried out.
“We are seeking the views of business owners on how this could impact their business. We’re keen to hear the experiences of individuals who receive these treatments, whether positive or negative, on how the changes proposed could impact them.
“We are also keen to gather the views of health professionals and organisations on whether they support the proposals in the Bill. So please get in touch.”
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee highlight a series of concerns with the Bill and say it will require significant amendments, should it proceed to Stage 2.
The Member’s Bill, introduced by Douglas Ross MSP, seeks to give people diagnosed with drug or alcohol addiction a statutory right to receive treatment from a relevant professional.
The Committee recognises the strength of evidence received throughout its Stage1 scrutiny which revealed a high level of dissatisfaction with availability and access to support services for those experiencing harm from drug or alcohol misuse.
However, the Committee’s Stage 1 report also highlights widespread stakeholder concerns that the Bill’s focus is too narrow and could lead to a deprioritising of prevention and early intervention when tackling harmful drug and alcohol use.
The Committee says it has heard substantial evidence of the significant strain those working in drug and alcohol services are currently under and says the Bill could potentially exacerbate pressure on the workforce and resources.
Fears that the three-week statutory deadline in the Bill could compromise treatment quality, limit choice, and increase relapse risk are also highlighted. The Committee raises concerns that this treatment deadline could end up putting further pressure on over-stretched resources.
There are also concerns that the costs of implementation set out in the Financial Memorandum are a significant underestimate and the Committee concludes that the Bill may result in resources being diverted from addressing the needs of individuals in order to achieve legal compliance with the Bill.
The Committee points to ‘strong evidence’ that the right to treatment outlined in the legislation could set a dangerous precedent and expectation for a similar legal right to treatment for other conditions.
Further concerns are also raised by the Committee that an unintended consequence of the Bill could be a significant rise in litigation, in cases where health services are unable to meet the legal rights set out in the Bill.
Stakeholders’ doubts about whether legal rights alone can overcome cultural, capacity, and resource barriers, and concerns over proposed enforcement routes as being too costly and complex are highlighted by the Committee.
There are also concerns about the way the Bill might interact with the existing legal framework governing the rights of people suffering harm from alcohol or drug use.
Should it proceed to Stage 2, the Committee calls on Douglas Ross to consider further ways of ensuring that the Bill works in tandem, rather than in conflict, with the existing policy and legal framework.
Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said: “Our Committee recognises the long-standing and serious harms that drug and alcohol misuse can have on individuals and families across Scotland.
“The number of people suffering from drug and/or alcohol use in Scotland is still far too high and our evidence made it clear that more must be done to tackle these issues.
“However, a majority of our committee do not believe this Bill is the correct vehicle to effectively support those suffering harm from alcohol or drug use.
“Our report highlights our serious concerns with the Bill in its current form and it is because of those concerns that a majority of our committee is unable to recommend to Parliament that the Bill should proceed to Stage 2.
“We acknowledge the Bill’s aim of helping those suffering from drug and alcohol misuse. However, our evidence has highlighted that the Bill in its current form could negatively impact individuals who are suffering and put even greater strain on services that are already deeply stretched.
“On behalf of the Committee, I am grateful to everyone who has provided evidence and informed our scrutiny of the general principles of this Bill.”
Douglas Ross MSP responded: “Disappointing that Holyrood’s Health Committee has said the Right to Recovery Bill should fall.
“But Parliament doesn’t have to agree. This Bill would guarantee a legal right to treatment. With lives lost every day, I hope MSPs back further work on it.”
Other key findings in the report:
the Committee notes concerns that the Bill places a particular emphasis on abstinence-based types of treatment over harm reduction, rather than focusing on what is best for each individual
the Committee voices concerns that the Bill could prove exclusionary, in that individuals who have not received a diagnosis of addiction would not be able to exercise the right to access treatment conferred by the Bill
the Committee notes a range of concerns about the language and definitions used in the Bill. For example, the Committee highlights suggestions that a more appropriate alternative term to “addiction” would be “substance use disorder”, as defined by the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”
the Committee is concerned by the Bill’s lack of acknowledgement of the crucial role families and carers play in supporting individuals, the role of multi-disciplinary teams, and regrets that the Bill makes no direct reference to the critical role of independent advocacy.
Public Support for Right to Recovery Ignored
Annmarie Ward of FAVOR UK (Faces and Voices of Recovery) said:We have published a detailed statement responding to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s Stage 1 report on the Right to Recovery Bill.
“The statement sets out why the Committee’s decision ignores overwhelming public support, repeats long-debunked myths, and privileges government-funded institutions over families and lived experience.
“Scotland remains the drug death capital of Europe. Nearly 80 percent of consultation respondents supported the Bill, yet the Committee has chosen to defend the status quo rather than recognise the urgent need for enforceable recovery rights. This deserves immediate scrutiny.”
The Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is seeking views on the Scottish Government’s mental health spending for 2026-27, as part of its pre-budget scrutiny.
The Committee is considering the effectiveness of current spending and whether investment is aligned with the right priorities.
In 2023-24, mental health services received £1.5 billion in funding—equivalent to 9% of total NHS expenditure. The Committee is now seeking views on whether this level of investment is appropriate, how spending decisions are made, and the extent to which preventative approaches are being supported.
The Committee is particularly interested in:
The adequacy and transparency of current mental health spending;
Evidence of preventative investment in mental health;
Whether national priorities—such as CAMHS, suicide prevention, and community-based support— are the right priorities for mental health investment and to what extent these priorities are reflected in mental health service delivery.
The Committee’s scrutiny takes place ahead of the publication of the Scottish Budget, expected later this year, and aims to inform Scottish Government’s spending decisions while they are still in development.
Speaking as the call for views was launched, Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said:“It’s vital people dealing with mental health issues are able to access appropriate and effective care, support and treatment.
“That’s why we are scrutinising the funding for these services and ensuring any money spent is going to the right places to help people get the support they need.
“Through this call for views, we want to hear from individuals, professionals and organisations about what’s working, what’s not, and where investment should be focused for the greatest benefit.
“Your insights will help us hold the Government to account and ensure that mental health services are properly resourced and effectively delivered.”
HOLYROOD’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is launching an inquiry into treatment pathways and support for Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
The inquiry aims to:
Understand why waiting times for diagnosis and management of ADHD and ASD are reportedly long, including the drivers of increasing demand;
Understand how these conditions are diagnosed and managed;
Examine the impact of high demand and delays on individuals and healthcare staff;
Explore solutions to improve capacity of services, referral pathways and support.
Both ADHD and ASD are neurodevelopmental conditions. ADHD is characterised by a group of symptoms that includes difficulty in concentrating, hyperactivity and impulsive behaviour, while Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a lifelong developmental condition that affects the way a person communicates, interacts and processes information.
As of March 2025, there were 42,530 children waiting for neurodevelopmental assessments in Scotland (across all health boards except NHS Grampian, who could not provide data).
The Committee is asking individuals and their families to share their experiences of accessing pathways to treatment and support for ADHD and ASD. They also want to hear from individuals who work supporting those with ADHD or ASD.
As part of the inquiry, the Committee will also be writing to relevant organisations directly to seek their views.
Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said: “Our Committee is launching this inquiry because we are concerned by reports of long waits for neurodevelopmental assessments in Scotland.
“Data from Scotland’s health boards shows that eight NHS boards currently report waiting times exceeding three years for these conditions.We want to learn what is causing these delays, explore potential solutions and find out ways to improve treatment and support for individuals with ADHD or ASD.
“We’re keen to hear personal experience of any issues faced in terms of diagnosis, waiting times and access to care and support. We also welcome any positive experiences and examples of good practice which could potentially be rolled out across all of Scotland’s NHS health boards.
”The insights we gather will be a vital element of our scrutiny and will help to inform the questions we pose to support organisations, healthcare providers and the Scottish Government in future evidence sessions.”
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is a Member’s Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament by Liam McArthur MSP on 27 March 2024.
The Committee has highlighted a number of areas which it says will require further consideration at Stage 2, should MSPs vote to approve the Bill at Stage 1.
Concerning those rights set out in the European Convention of Human Rights that may be affected by the Bill, the Committee notes that individual MSPs will need to consider a number of ‘important factors’ before deciding how to vote at Stage 1.
These include the extent to which the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between providing a right for terminally ill adults to access assisted dying and the requirement to protect vulnerable groups; and the likelihood that the Bill may be subject to a human rights based legal challenge that could result in eligibility for assisted dying being extended over time.
Should the Bill progress to Stage 2, the Committee says that creating an independent oversight mechanism or assigning responsibility to the Chief Medical Officer for monitoring its implementation could help to strengthen safeguards in the Bill and its compliance with human rights requirements.
The Committee concludes that the requirements that individuals must be at least 16 years of age and must have been ordinarily resident in Scotland for at least 12 months prior to making a request for assisted dying may require ‘further clarification’ should the Bill progress to Stage 2.
The Committee acknowledges that the definition of terminal illness in the Bill does not include a life expectancy timescale and that this would mean widening eligibility for assisted dying to include individuals who, although living with an illness or condition that is progressive and untreatable, may not be approaching death for a considerable period of time.
However, it also recognises that life expectancy can be very difficult to predict and that determining whether an individual does or does not meet the eligibility criterion of being terminally ill is ultimately better left to clinical judgement.
The Committee has also concluded that the issue of conscientious objection for healthcare workers will require further attention should the Bill progress to Stage 2, to ensure the relevant provisions of the Bill provide an appropriate level of legal clarity and certainty for all parties involved in the assisted dying process.
Concerns from those opposed to the Bill around the issue of coercion are highlighted in the report and the Committee welcomes Liam McArthur’s commitment to look at reviewing and updating guidance on coercion should the Bill be approved at Stage 1. The Committee emphasises the importance of comprehensive guidance to ensure health practitioners can assess coercion effectively and to allow the related offence created by the Bill to be appropriately policed.
The Committee’s report notes a number of competence-related issues involved with practical implementation of the Bill, were it to become law, which have also been recognised by Mr McArthur. Should the Bill progress beyond Stage 1, the Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to open dialogue with the UK Government in order to resolve these matters, to enable the Bill to take full legal effect.
Speaking on publication of the report, Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said: “Our Committee understands the strength of feeling about this Bill and that assisted dying is a complex and sensitive issue.
“We have considered this Bill and the issues related to it in great detail, hearing views from a variety of individuals and organisations, and from those both for and against assisted dying. Ultimately, our Committee believes the Stage 1 vote is a matter of conscience for each individual MSP and as a result has made no overall recommendation as to how they should vote on the general principles of the Bill.
“However, should the Bill progress to Stage 2, we have highlighted a number of areas which we feel will require further consideration before the Bill can become law. These include issues around human rights, coercion, eligibility criteria, provision of assistance, self-administration and conscientious objection for healthcare workers.
“We also recognise that there are particular complexities associated with those aspects of the Bill which extend beyond the limits of the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament. If the Parliament approves the Bill at Stage 1, there will need to be an open and constructive dialogue between the Scottish and UK Governments to resolve these issues and to allow the Bill to take full legal effect.
The Convener added: “I’d like to thank all of the individuals and organisations who provided evidence to our Committee.
“Their considered and detailed responses have aided our scrutiny of this Bill and we hope our report can help inform Members as they decide whether to vote for or against the proposals at Stage 1.”
Other key findings in the report:
The Committee highlights the substantial evidence it has received on the importance of palliative care and expresses its hope that, irrespective of the outcome, the current debate will provide a catalyst for further improvements to be made to the quality and availability of palliative care services in Scotland.
The Committee calls for further consideration of issues around capacity should the Bill reach Stage 2. This includes the resource implications for medical services assessing the capacity of those requesting assisted dying; and ensuring the capacity of people with a mental disorder is assessed in a way that is fair and non-discriminatory, while also giving suitable protection for vulnerable individuals.
The Committee highlights concerns over the risk of “doctor shopping”, where an individual’s initial request for an assisted death is declined and they seek another medical practitioner’s assessment. Should the Bill progress to Stage 2, the Committee say it may be beneficial to explore further amendments to guard against “doctor shopping”, including creation of a central register of psychiatrists or an independent body or ethics committee to oversee, monitor and review medical practitioners’ decisions.
The Committee recognises the intention that, should the Bill become law, assisted dying would be delivered as an integrated part of existing healthcare services rather than a stand-alone service. At the same time, it emphasises the importance of monitoring the impact of the Bill on existing services. It also suggests that certain aspects of assisted dying might be better delivered on a stand-alone basis, in particular to ensure consistent access across the country.
The Committee also emphasises the need for a combination of further amendments at Stage 2 and detailed guidance on self-administration and provision of assistance as part of the assisted dying process to ensure absolute clarity and appropriate protection for all parties involved, should the Bill become law.
The Committee notes Mr McArthur’s willingness to explore further the possibility of creating an “opt-in” model of participation in assisted dying for health practitioners and says this warrants further debate should the Bill progress to Stage 2.
The Committee notes the potential inclusion of a sunset clause (meaning the legislation could not remain in force beyond a defined period without a further vote in the Parliament) may be the subject of further discussion, if the Bill progresses to Stage 2.
Responding to the report by the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on Liam McArthur MSP’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, Ally Thomson, Director of Dignity in Dying Scotland said: “I welcome the Committee’s report and the fact that MSPs will have a free vote on extending compassionate choice to dying people who need it most in the coming weeks. For too long the status quo – a blanket ban on assisted dying – has caused dying Scots anguish and desperation.
“In forcing people to travel abroad, stop eating and drinking or take matters into their own hands in it is lacking in both compassion and safety. The most dangerous thing Parliament could do here is nothing.
“I am pleased that the committee has noted from evidence provided that assisted dying can comfortably sit alongside palliative care and that where an assisted dying law based on terminal illness and mental capacity alone, such as the one proposed for Scotland, has been introduced there has never been a loosening of the eligibility criteria.
“I’ve spoken to countless terminally ill people who are desperate for the peace of mind that this Bill would bring, and to so many who have watched someone they love endure a terrible death and don’t wish anyone else to suffer in a similar way.
“I know that many will wish that these experiences were covered more fully in the report. The upcoming vote gives them all hope that needless suffering can be consigned to the past.
“As MSPs come to their own decision’s I urge them to listen to the experiences of their constituents, reflect on the evidence from countries like Australia and New Zealand and vote for more compassion, choice and safety.”
HOLYROOD’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is seeking views on a Bill which would enshrine the rights of persons addicted to drugs or alcohol to receive treatment for their addiction.
The Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 May 2024 by Douglas Ross MSP.
The Bill would provide people who have been diagnosed by a health professional as addicted to either alcohol or drugs, or both, to be provided with treatment. Those diagnosed would have a say in what treatment they receive and the treatment would be made available to them within three weeks of treatment diagnosis.
If a health professional decided no treatment is appropriate, or that the treatment which the person wants is not appropriate, then they must inform the individual in writing why this is the case.
Individuals could seek a second opinion from a different health professional if they did not agree with the original decision.
Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said: “The tragic impact of alcohol and drug addiction is clear and is an issue this Committee takes extremely seriously.
“We’re keen to hear views on whether people agree with the purpose and extent of the Bill and whether it will help those facing drug and alcohol addiction. We want to know what the key advantages and/or disadvantages are of placing this right to receive treatment, for people with drug and alcohol addiction, in law.
“We also want to hear views on the proposed procedure for determining treatment, and timescales for providing treatment.
“We want to hear from individuals, charities and support groups who work in this area, health organisations, local and national government, the legal sector and academics. We look forward to hearing your views.”
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is calling on the Scottish Government to take urgent action to address the specific challenges faced by remote and rural communities in accessing and delivering healthcare services.
The Committee’s inquiry has found that recruitment and retention of staff is one of the key challenges to effective delivery of services in remote and rural areas. The report highlights the availability and affordability of housing, and access to education and training as significant barriers to recruiting and retaining staff.
The Committee is calling on decision-makers to recognise the extent to which a lack of available and affordable housing is acting as an indirect barrier to healthcare provision in remote and rural areas of Scotland, by making it very challenging for healthcare workers to locate themselves within the communities they wish to serve. It calls on relevant NHS Boards, local authorities, professional bodies, trade unions and other key stakeholders to work together to find practical solutions to these problems.
Another barrier highlighted in the report is the lack of locally available training and development opportunities for staff. The Committee is calling on the Scottish Government and the new National Centre for Remote and Rural Health and Care to set out how they will improve the availability and suitability of local training and development opportunities.
Difficulties with accessing healthcare services in remote and rural areas were repeatedly raised during the Committee’s evidence gathering. These include practical challenges for patients attending in-person appointments and the often substantial additional travel and accommodation costs, which the Committee say must be addressed.
The Committee highlights significant variations in policy on reimbursement of patient travel costs, depending where an individual lives and whether or not they are in receipt of benefits. It calls for a fairer and more consistent policy for reimbursement of travel and accommodation costs to be developed.
The importance of technology and digital infrastructure in facilitating access to healthcare in remote and rural areas was also raised repeatedly during the Committee’s evidence gathering.
While recognising that some will continue to prefer face-to-face appointments, the Committee is calling on the Scottish Government to set out the specific actions it is taking, or that may be required at UK Government level, to improve digital access to healthcare services in remote and rural areas.
The Committee commends existing good practice in the provision of remote and rural healthcare services, including that demonstrated by third sector organisations. However, it concludes that more action is needed to ensure this good practice is more consistently and widely shared across different organisations and areas.
Clare Haughey MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said:“Our inquiry has shone a light on the unique challenges facing remote and rural healthcare services, both for those accessing and those delivering those services.
“The evidence suggests that often healthcare policy is developed as ‘one size fits all’, which fails to address the particular needs of remote and rural communities.
“We want to see a whole system approach which designs services in a way that is more flexible and responsive to local needs – while systematically learning from the good practice that is out there.
“We believe that developing a tailored approach to healthcare service delivery that reflects local challenges and circumstances should be an overarching priority of the new National Centre for Remote and Rural Health and Care.
“We also look forward to the forthcoming publication of the Scottish Government’s Remote and Rural Workforce Recruitment Strategy and how this strategy will address some of the workforce-related issues our report highlights.
“The voices of people who live in remote and rural areas and work or receive care in these settings have been at the centre of our inquiry and we thank them for their vital contribution to this report.”
Other findings in the report include:
The evidence gathered by the Committee suggests that the current NRAC funding formula fails to meet the specific needs of remote and rural areas. The Committee reiterates previous calls for this formula to be reformed to take better account of the specific challenges and associated higher costs of healthcare delivery in those areas, which include an ageing population, depopulation, and the greater requirement for small scale service delivery.
The Committee says it has heard extensive evidence of the specific challenges associated with implementing the 2018 General Medical Services (GMS) contract in remote and rural GP practices, in particular the practical challenges associated with trying to develop multi-disciplinary teams. The Committee is calling on the Scottish Government to explore the extent to which a revised, more flexible approach to implementation of the contract, specifically in remote and rural settings, might help to improve the sustainability of these services.
The Committee highlights evidence of acute pressures on the provision of social, palliative and end of life care services in remote and rural areas and warns that the tendency of an ageing population increasingly living in more remote and rural areas of the country will mean demand for these services will increase significantly in the years ahead.
