Seòmar agus comataidhean

By its nature, it is difficult to establish that data set with certainty. Based on Mr Gulhane’s professional engagements, he will be familiar with why that is the case. People have various engagements with health professionals and others, which helps to provide a level of data, but other people do not, so such data is more difficult for us to substantiate.

In Glasgow, part of the Thistle’s success is that people are, for the first time, interacting with that service and the wider services that are offered in the centre, such as those relating to housing support, social work and education. We are capturing information that shows that many people who engage with the Thistle have never engaged with any statutory service before, and that intervention is giving them the opportunity to have a recovery pathway for the first time.

That illustrates how challenging it is to get the fuller and more accurate picture that Mr Gulhane is looking for. It is challenging to get accurate data, because of the complexity of human society and the fact that people will be at varying stages of recovery, with many, understandably, hiding their situation not only from statutory services but from their family members, loved ones and wider social groups.

Public Health Scotland reports on various elements that Mr Gulhane referenced, but getting the data is a challenge, as I am sure he will understand.

There are various avenues open to them. The most obvious ones are the statutory providers’ complaints processes. As MSPs with constituents, we would all have interaction with those processes, in relation to ensuring that the principles and the law that Ms Davidson has set out are being applied.

As I said, the MAT standards that we have set our local delivery partners the challenge of meeting in the last quarter demonstrated that we are beyond the 90 per cent target. That shows that there is still work to be done to make sure that we are delivering a system that meets the expectations of the MAT standards and that we are seeing timeous support and treatment being provided. However, it also demonstrates my expectation regarding the broad and supportive culture for people who are in the situation that Mr Whittle outlined in the first instance in relation to being able to access treatment and support at the earliest point of interaction with services.

Should that not be the case, there are various mechanisms through which people can seek redress, the most obvious of which is a health board or an alcohol and drugs partnership’s complaints process.

That issue should be explored with the member in charge of the bill. I do not think that I can go beyond what I set out in my written evidence. I have provided a bit more clarity on where the concerns arise—one such area relates to rural and island communities. If the bill is agreed to at stage 1, we will, in responding to the committee’s report, take a stronger position on those aspects, as we will on the wider bill.

That is correct.

What we did not do with the cancer waiting times was legislate as to what the treatment would be. My understanding is that the bill sets out what the treatment should be, which, as I said earlier, is a significant departure from the rights that people have in other aspects of health and social care. As I said in response to Mr Whittle and Ms Whitham, we have already set out the MAT standards, which set clear expectations around treatment times, on which we are seeing good performance, although there is always room for improvement.

I do not take a position on what the bill is legislating for. I have already set out that we are neutral on that, but I am in agreement, in principle, on the intention of supporting more people towards treatment. It is for the member in charge of the bill to address Mr Gulhane’s point about legislation for waiting times or treatment elsewhere in health and social care. I believe that this would be the first time that we would be specifically legislating for a right to a particular treatment—a right that is not available elsewhere.

Yes. I set out the work on the MAT standards, which is well established. We are making progress in other areas when it comes to broadening the availability of treatment support, such as the work to expand publicly funded residential rehab capacity. The Government is now meeting its commitment, and we need to sustain that support and potentially expand it.

As I said at the outset, my firm view is that no one particular area will resolve the issue for everybody. We need a multitude of options to be available to people via various organisations—statutory, community and voluntary ones—to ensure that we respond to people in a way that meets their needs. The national mission’s breadth and depth help to provide that, although we clearly have more work to do.

That does not take away from the fact that far too many people are tragically dying from alcohol or drug dependency, and we are committed to continuing to support people to find a route to recovery, which has to be multifaceted and multidisciplinary. We have to reach people in all communities, and we are committed to delivering that aim.

Could you frame that question again, please?

The tools are there as guides for local decision makers in ensuring that there are safe staffing levels. As I said, they are intended to be dynamic and flexible to respond to local need and clinical demand. As Christopher Thompson set out, HIS is working on developing the tools to ensure that they are responsive—the tools are works in progress. As a result of the legislation and the work that the Government is doing with boards on supplementary staffing, significant work is on-going to ensure that establishment staffing levels are appropriate. A considerable benefit is coming through as a result of the legislation and the on-going work that is being done by HIS and by boards.

Obviously, we will keep under review what we publish. We have to publish the board’s responses, which we will get at the end of next month. We will keep under review and consideration the data that is published alongside that.

We will see what the reports from boards say. I have not had sight of those, and they are not due to arrive with us until 30 April. Challenges remain across the system in ensuring that we have sufficient staffing levels. I will not shy away from that, but I think that this, alongside some of our work with the nursing and midwifery task force, our work on GP attraction and retention and our work with the royal colleges and others on attracting and retaining staff in all disciplines, will help us to build towards ensuring that we continue to have the high-quality and safe clinical environments that people expect.

I am not going to pretend that, on every shift in every ward, staffing is at appropriate levels, because I know that we are sometimes short. However, this is about ensuring that we get to that point. Improvements in that respect will have been made over the past year, and I am looking forward to the reports demonstrating that.