PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR RIGHT TO RECOVERY IGNORED?
A majority of a Scottish Parliament Committee is unable to recommend the general principles of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill be agreed to.
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.
You can read the full statement here:
https://facesandvoicesofrecoveryuk.org/public-support-for-right-to-recovery-ignored/
“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.”
