11/10/2025
Response to Concerns About the Scope and Extent of the Right to Recovery Bill
âItâs disappointing to see the same âconcernsâ being used to justify voting down a Bill that 80% of public respondents supported. Most of these points donât stand up to scrutiny they describe the very problems the Bill was designed to fix.
1. âWe already have rights under existing lawsâ
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Scotland already has the Patient Rights Act and Human Rights Act, yet thousands are still denied detox and rehab because thereâs no statutory duty to provide them. The Right to Recovery Bill would have made those rights real and enforceable, not just theoretical.
2. âIt needs investment, training and system changeâ
Exactly thatâs the point. The Bill would have forced government and services to invest and reform. Saying, âwe canât pass it because weâre not readyâ is like refusing to install fire alarms because you havenât yet bought batteries. You pass the law first, then you fund the implementation.
3. âIt doesnât change practical accessâ
Tell that to the thousands on waiting lists or stuck in maintenance scripts for decades. The Bill would have guaranteedaccess to detox, rehab and recovery support something the current framework explicitly does not. A legal right changes the culture of gatekeeping and rationing that people face every day.
4. âIt duplicates current standards (like MAT standards)â
If those standards were working, Scotland wouldnât have the highest drug death rate in Europe. MAT standards are guidance, not law. Theyâre inconsistently applied and unenforceable. The Bill would have given them legal teeth.
5. âIt doesnât cover gambling or polysubstance useâ
Legislation always starts with a defined scope. Itâs entirely normal to amend and expand laws once enacted. Using that as a reason to block any progress is a classic bureaucratic dodge the perfect excuse for doing nothing while pretending to care.
6. âCultural change canât be legislatedâ
No, but culture follows law. Every major public-health shift, from seatbelts to smoking bans, began with legal rights and duties. Recovery should be no different.
The truth is this: the Bill wasnât rejected because it was unworkable. It was rejected because it was uncomfortable, it would have made governments and service providers accountable. Thatâs why it was opposed.â https://www.facebook.com/share/16Umc79WV8/?mibextid=wwXIfr