From the very beginning, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill has been stonewalled not by the public, not by people in recovery, but by the very government-funded quangos that claim to represent them. Organisations like the Scottish Drugs Forum, Scottish Recovery Consortium, and others embedded in the National Mission have consistently refused to engage in good faith with the content of the Bill. Instead of educating their networks, staff, or so-called “lived experience” panels, they have either ignored or deliberately misrepresented what the Bill is actually about.
This is not conjecture. The FAVOR UK Myth Busting document—plain, accessible, and published in early 2022—has now existed for over three years. It directly answers nearly every myth, fear, and distortion repeated during the Scottish Parliament’s informal engagement sessions. And yet, not one of the major quangos appears to have circulated it to the people they brought to those sessions. Not one helped participants understand that the Bill guarantees rights, doesn’t mandate abstinence, and does not threaten harm reduction services.
Instead, what we witnessed in those evidence sessions was the predictable result of professional negligence: participants confused about basic facts, parroting institutional lines, or outright misled. The sessions were not just flawed—they were structurally tilted against the Bill by the absence of fair information and informed consent. It is astonishing that people were asked to give views on legislation they were never properly briefed on, while the agencies charged with advocacy and support stayed silent or sowed confusion.
The following comparison lays bare exactly where those distortions occurred. It outlines where participants in the informal sessions—through no fault of their own—were misinformed, misled, or manipulated into repeating long-standing myths that FAVOR UK had already debunked, publicly and accessibly, for years.
Here is a comparison between the “Notes from informal session on 18.02.2025” and the FAVOR UK Myth Busting document, highlighting key areas where participants appear to have been misinformed, misled, or have absorbed common myths about the Right to Recovery (Scotland) Bill:
🔹 1. MYTH: The Bill Is Focused on Abstinence and Rehab Only
Participant View (Session Notes):
- Several participants expressed concern that the Bill is too focused on abstinence and residential rehab.
- Some feared it ignored harm reduction and the diversity of recovery pathways.
- Others implied it was “one-size-fits-all” or even punitive.
Clarification (Myth Busting Document):
- The Bill is explicitly about all forms of treatment, not just abstinence or rehab.
- It states: “The proposal is about ALL available treatment options that are already available. These would be available to ALL people… regardless of any other fact”.
- The legal right would protect choice, not prescribe a singular route.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
Participants bought into the myth that abstinence or rehab is being legally privileged over other forms like harm reduction, when in fact the Bill secures equal access to all recognised treatments.
🔹 2. MYTH: The Bill Undermines MAT Standards and Introduces a “Worse” Timescale
Participant View:
- Group 1 and others criticised the three-week timescale, comparing it unfavourably to MAT Standard 1’s “same-day” aim.
- Some interpreted the Bill as setting a maximum wait rather than an enforceable right within a broad care framework.
Clarification:
- The Bill is not replacing or overriding MAT Standards.
- Rather, it gives legal weight to the promise of treatment, offering a mechanism to challenge delays and ensure accountability.
- The myth-busting paper states: “The MAT Standards… do not allow for a legal challenge where necessary”.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
Some participants misunderstood the Bill as conflicting with MAT standards, when in fact it would complement and reinforce them by making treatment rights legally enforceable.
🔹 3. MYTH: Families Are Not Included in the Bill
Participant View:
- Group 2, largely composed of family members, was vocal in saying the word “family” wasn’t mentioned in the Bill.
- They felt completely excluded and feared the Bill undermined whole-family approaches.
Clarification:
- The Bill did originally include reference to families, psychosocial care, and accommodation, but this was removed because such breadth is not legally permissible in a Member’s Bill.
- The myth-busting document explains: “Only Government bills can have such a scope… we are hoping the consultation leads to these being inserted back in”.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
Families were misled to believe they had been excluded deliberately, rather than due to legal constraints. Their view that it represents a step backwards is based on this mistaken assumption.
🔹 4. MYTH: The Bill Will Lead to Legal Costs and Burden the System
Participant View:
- Participants worried about legal costs: “Who pays for this?”
- Some believed people would be forced to go to court to enforce their rights.
Clarification:
- Judicial review is not the default remedy; it’s a last resort, and in practice rarely used.
- Legal aid is likely to cover eligible individuals and costs are ringfenced, not taken from treatment budgets.
- The document notes: “Many petitions for judicial review are resolved at an early stage… expenses often not due to or against any party”.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
There’s been significant fearmongering around legal cost burdens, based on a false understanding of how civil rights enforcement operates.
🔹 5. MYTH: The Bill Creates an Adversarial Relationship Between Patients and Providers
Participant View:
- Some claimed it would “disempower” patients or harm therapeutic relationships by making services feel “legalistic”.
Clarification:
- This claim is directly refuted. The myth-busting paper notes: “Legal rights exist in homelessness, children’s services and mental health – and it hasn’t destroyed relationships there”.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
The belief that giving people rights creates conflict is not borne out by evidence in comparable sectors.
🔹 6. MYTH: People Don’t Need This Law Because They Can Already Access Treatment
Participant View:
- Multiple groups said “rights already exist” or that the Bill is “not needed”.
- Others said rights could be realised via existing MAT, GP pathways, or collaborative projects.
Clarification:
- Existing “rights” are not enforceable. The Bill provides legal recourse if access is denied or delayed.
- Favor UK clarifies: “Guidance, policy or strategy… would be enforceable” only if underpinned in law.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
Participants equated promises and policy with legal entitlement, which they are not.
🔹 7. MYTH: The Bill Discriminates Against Those Who Don’t Want Treatment or Who Relapse
Participant View:
- Concerns were raised that it was too focused on “those who want help” or that it doesn’t understand relapse.
Clarification:
- The Bill acknowledges relapse and is not about denying support after setbacks.
- In fact, it aims to make the system flexible and non-punitive. As the myth-busting states, “Relapse is a normal part of recovery” and legal rights would apply at any stage.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
Fears that people will be “kicked off” support are not supported by any clause in the Bill or explanatory notes.
🔹 8. MYTH: The Bill Is “Political” or “Motivated by One Group’s Interests”
Participant View:
- Some claimed the Bill is politically driven or favours abstinence organisations like FAVOR UK.
- One participant said it feels “one-sided”.
Clarification:
- The Bill is a cross-party initiative supported by a wide range of individuals and organisations from all perspectives.
- It offers a neutral framework to guarantee choice, not push a particular treatment model.
✅ Misinformation Identified:
This myth may stem from mistrust or professional territorialism, not evidence of bias in the Bill’s content.
✅ Summary Table: Misguidance vs. Clarification
| Misinformed Claim | Corrected by Myth-Busting Document |
|---|---|
| Bill is about abstinence only | No, it protects access to all treatments |
| Timescales worse than MAT | Bill complements MAT and adds accountability |
| Families are excluded | Only due to scope limits on Member’s Bills |
| Legal costs will rise | Legal aid available; minimal court use anticipated |
| Will harm therapeutic relationships | Rights exist in other sectors without conflict |
| Treatment rights already exist | Not legally enforceable currently |
| People can be denied help after relapse | The Bill protects ongoing access, including after relapse |
| The Bill is politically biased | It is neutral and empowers all treatment choices |
There are several additional inaccuracies or misleading impressions in the Notes from Informal Session on 18.02.2025 that do not reflect the actual content or intent of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill. Some are subtle distortions, others are based on flawed assumptions or misinformation. Here’s a breakdown of a few more key examples:
🔹 1. “People don’t have the capacity to make rational decisions – and the Bill fails to recognise this”
(Group 2)
Reality:
This is a deeply stigmatising statement that assumes people struggling with addiction are by default incapable of autonomy. The Bill does not assume or require full capacity at all times, and like in any other health context, capacity assessments and safeguarding procedures already exist. The legal right is about access—not about forcing decisions on someone who is unwell.
✅ Falsehood:
The Bill does not presume total rationality nor deny the need for support. It allows for advocacy, second opinions, and nomination of trusted individuals.
🔹 2. “Giving people rights will cause adversarial legal fights and break trust with providers”
(Groups 2 & 3)
Reality:
This is a classic scare tactic used in many sectors when rights legislation is proposed. In practice, other sectors like homelessness, mental health, and child protection operate within legal frameworks without destroying relationships. Rights protect people—they don’t alienate them.
✅ Falsehood:
There is no evidence that legal rights undermine therapeutic relationships. In fact, rights-based systems build accountability and transparency, which foster trust.
🔹 3. “The Bill is unnecessary because people already have a right to treatment”
(Repeated across groups)
Reality:
No such enforceable right currently exists. There is no statutory obligation in Scotland that guarantees a person access to timely, appropriate, or person-centred addiction treatment. The Bill seeks to remedy that exact gap.
✅ Falsehood:
Confusing policy promises (like MAT standards) with legal entitlements is a category error. Without the Bill, there is no recourse when someone is denied treatment.
🔹 4. “The Bill gives GPs too much power and assumes they know about addiction”
(Groups 2, 3 & 4)
Reality:
This is partially valid in terms of concern about GP knowledge—but it misrepresents the Bill. The Bill doesn’t force GPsto be the only gateway. It explicitly allows for referral, second opinions, and shared care planning, which could involve third sector partners, addiction specialists, or advocacy workers.
✅ Misleading:
Rather than centralising power in medics, the Bill creates checks and balances to challenge bad decisions and widen access. This myth weaponises a valid concern (lack of GP training) to argue against a broader right.
🔹 5. “The Bill is vague and doesn’t define what treatment people are entitled to”
(Group 1 & others)
Reality:
This misunderstands how health legislation works. The Bill is an amendment to the NHS (Scotland) Act, and therefore aligns with what is already defined as treatment under existing frameworks. It intentionally allows flexibility to adapt to future treatment options.
✅ Misleading:
Expecting the Bill to list specific treatment modalities is like expecting the NHS Act to list every antibiotic—it’s not how law is structured.
🔹 6. “This will take money away from harm reduction and third sector services”
(Group 3)
Reality:
The Bill doesn’t divert money—it creates a legal obligation to fund all treatment options, including harm reduction, if those are what the individual chooses. It strengthens, not weakens, the diversity of treatment pathways.
✅ Falsehood:
The Bill promotes equity of access—not exclusivity. If anything, it offers third sector services legal standing when they are the most appropriate provider.
🔹 7. “The Bill focuses too much on rehab and not enough on recovery”
(Group 4)
Reality:
This is an opinion shaped by the narratives of those who oppose the Bill, not the Bill’s text. It mentions recovery throughout and frames it as a rights-based process, not a one-off intervention. The emphasis on person-centred care, challenge mechanisms, and aftercare demonstrates a broader understanding of recovery.
✅ Falsehood:
The claim that recovery isn’t central to the Bill is demonstrably false. Many criticisms appear to project the biases of harm reduction ideologues onto a neutral piece of legislation.