Meeting of the Parliament 09 October 2025
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.