Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are you saying that the BBC was not the source of that perception?

It still feels as though there is quite a lot of confusion about where that came from and the way it has been handled is extremely unfortunate. If there is any suggestion that anybody at “River City” was told something that was not true by the BBC, you should investigate that seriously.

I move on to the impact of the decision. Hayley Valentine clearly set out the issue of making sure that the BBC is producing output that people want to watch. Even the folk at “River City” understand that there are changing tastes. They do not have their heads in the sand. However, the BBC needs to do another thing beyond producing content that people want to watch—it also needs to create the ecosystem for the industry, including training opportunities and first job opportunities, on a scale that justifies it. One reason why I think that there should be a broadcaster like the BBC—a large, dominant, publicly funded broadcaster—is to create that ecosystem, because nobody else will do it.

Can you confirm that you do not expect the new six and eight-part productions to create the same level and scale of career opportunities and training opportunities as “River City”? How do you intend to replace that for the longer term so that the BBC is making that permanent, on-going investment in opportunities that mean that in 10, 20 and 30 years we will have an increasing and diverse cohort of folk working in the industry?

Good morning. I will follow up the same theme that Emma Harper started and that Joe Fitzpatrick continued: the list of treatments that you have made clear is non-exhaustive, not prescriptive and can be changed. Specific issues might have been considered for such a list but have not been included, such as harm reduction. There are those who make a case for heroin-assisted treatment not as a default, but because it has been shown to be effective in certain circumstances and successive UK Governments have allowed it. I am interested in exploring not only that but the question whether any list—even a non-prescriptive, non-exhaustive one—is the right way to go.

You said that the bill would increase the range of treatments that are available. Although you might be strongly of the view that it would increase the pressure on Government and public sector bodies to invest in capacity, it would not actually increase the range of treatments that are available. You also said that it would empower individuals to access the treatment that they believe is right for them, but the bill’s achieving what you have described would not sit well, it seems, with the points that you have just made about clinical judgment in each case.

Surely, any bill that is composed of a list, as this one is, will place an emphasis on the things that are included in the list and risk de-emphasising others. Effectively, providing a list makes a political judgment in place of what should be a clinical judgment. By taking a list-based approach, are we not mistaking a political judgment for what should be a clinical one?

Nicotine can lead to people dying.

Thank you for the clarity. I am still a little unclear about the rationale for saying that intoxication, as such, determines the right to access the treatment considered under the terms of the bill. New substances are coming on to the market all the time, and a drug could come along that is lethal and highly addictive but that does not cause intoxication leading to a loss of control. I do not want to overstate the issue, as it may have been considered already during a previous evidence session, but it is a little unclear to me why intoxication—which is clearly a relevant safety issue in road traffic offences—is relevant to people’s access to addiction recovery services.

I can see why it is relevant to road traffic law, because you need to be in control of a vehicle. Could Mr Ross explain why intoxication is relevant to addiction recovery, whereas addiction to a legal or illegal drug that does not intoxicate would not be treated in the same way?

I do not disagree with your points about investment in capacity. Investment in public services is a political decision. However, do you understand the concern about what you have just suggested? It means that when we get to stages 2 and 3, we will be deciding ourselves, as MSPs, on the case for and against particular treatments and debating amendments to include them in a list. My worry is that that is not our judgment to make and that it would inevitably impact on the types of service that receive investment and, almost automatically, the types that do not receive increased investment.

So, in fact, the bill would not empower individuals to access the treatment that they believed was right for them—to use your words from earlier.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I do not think that I have any relevant interests to declare. My voluntary entry in the register of members’ interests shows that I am a member of some organisations that might choose to give evidence to the committee, and I will mention that if it happens.