Official Report 839KB pdf
We move to the debate on motion S7M-01200, in the name of Angela Constance, on addressing the harms of health misinformation.
15:09
I am very pleased to open the debate on addressing the harms of health misinformation. Nothing is more important to us than our health and the health of those we love. We are fortunate to have a national health service that provides high-quality healthcare, free at the point of use. Across Scotland, healthcare professionals work every day to prevent illness, promote wellbeing and provide care when people need it most.
Effective healthcare requires hospitals, clinics, medicines and treatments, but it also depends on public trust. The “Scottish Health Information Integrity Strategy” marks a significant step in providing NHS Scotland, educators and patients with the tools to compete with health misinformation and it places Scotland at the forefront of international efforts to address harms arising from false and misleading health information.
Understandably, people feel strongly about their own health and that of their friends and family, and sharing health information is entirely natural. The sophistication of false and misleading health information today means that we are all susceptible to sharing it. More often than not, people share health information out of concern for others and with the best of intentions. That is why we talk about information integrity. Most false and misleading health narratives are shared for very different reasons, and the response must be different.
In health, we challenge the narrative rather than the individual. Health misinformation can be viewed as a signal of the information that people need. When good information is delayed, absent or inaccessible, falsehoods fill the vacuum. Our strategy is about providing good information. Access to accurate, evidence-based health information helps people to make informed choices about their health and wellbeing. It supports productive conversations between patients and healthcare professionals, enables effective public health action and underpins trust in our health and care system.
Today, that has become more important and more challenging than ever before, because the availability of information is unprecedented. People can access vast quantities of material on almost any subject at the touch of a screen. Information that once required professional advice or extensive research can now be found instantly. That transformation has brought significant benefits. People are more empowered to engage in decisions about their care, access to knowledge has become more democratic and patients are often better informed and more actively involved in managing their health.
However, those benefits also bring risks. Health and scientific advances have always attracted false and misleading narratives. Throughout history, false claims, misconceptions and misunderstandings have accompanied developments in medicine and public health. The difference today is the speed and scale at which misleading information spreads.
Content that is inaccurate, misleading, unscientific or entirely false can reach millions of people within hours. Information that is designed to provoke fear, anxiety or anger is often shared before healthcare systems, researchers and communicators have the opportunity to understand what is happening. As a result, people are making health decisions in an information environment that is crowded, complex and not always aligned with the best available evidence. The consequences are significant.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the situation that she is outlining for us regarding the crowded landscape and the perennial attack of misinformation is complicated even more by the fact that the most powerful man in the White House is adding to it, given his hugely significant global platform?
The motion that is before us today certainly calls on every member of this Parliament to act with integrity in how we use information. It is not for me to advise the President of the United States of America, but it would be helpful if he spent less time on X or Twitter or whatever it is called these days.
I go back to a crucial point. Health misinformation can, as we know, undermine confidence in interventions such as vaccination programmes; reduce support for public health advice during emergencies; delay people seeking appropriate medical advice; increase pressure on NHS services; and cause financial harm through ineffective or unnecessary products, tests and treatments.
Health misinformation can deepen health inequalities by targeting specific communities with false narratives or by creating distrust among groups that already face barriers to healthcare. Perhaps most harmfully, it corrodes public trust. False narratives undermine trust in institutions, professionals and scientific evidence. Reduced trust then creates the conditions for further misinformation to flourish. It is a cycle that can be difficult to reverse. Public trust in the NHS is one of our health service’s great strengths and remains our strongest defence against harmful health misinformation. Protecting and maintaining that trust must be central to our response.
Public concern about false information is growing. Increasing numbers of people report regularly encountering misleading information online. Healthcare professionals express growing concern. During the development of our health information integrity strategy, many clinicians and public health experts highlighted patient interactions that were shaped by false or misleading information that was encountered online.
The challenge continues to evolve. The emergence of artificial intelligence brings enormous opportunities for healthcare. AI is already helping to drive innovation in research, diagnostics and public health. However, it is also transforming the information ecosystem. Creating and disseminating convincing false content has become easier than ever. Deepfakes and other forms of AI-generated content are becoming increasingly sophisticated and will soon be impossible to distinguish from authentic material. A fabricated video that appears to show a healthcare professional, scientist or public figure making false claims about health interventions could influence behaviour long before its authenticity is questioned. That means that we must be alert and agile, and we must ensure that Scotland’s health and care system is adapted to today’s information environment and remains adaptable for the future.
There are important lessons to take from the Covid-19 pandemic, which demonstrated the importance of trusted information during periods of uncertainty and how quickly false narratives can emerge and spread during health emergencies, when demand for reliable information is high. If good information is not made available to the right people by the right means at the right time, bad information will flow in. The Scottish Government’s standing committee on pandemic preparedness recognised that in its report “Pandemic Ready: Safeguarding Our Future Through Preparedness”. Among its recommendations are the need for Scotland to develop the capability to identify and address challenges arising from false narratives during future pandemics and to strengthen resilience to the harms of poor-quality information.
The recommendations highlight an important point: it is not enough simply to produce trustworthy health information. Health institutions must also understand when harmful false narratives are emerging and respond appropriately, ethically and proportionately when such narratives present risks to public health.
It is against that backdrop that the “Scottish Health Information Integrity Strategy” has been developed. The strategy represents Scotland’s first comprehensive approach to addressing harms that are associated with false health information. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first national health information integrity strategy anywhere.
The strategy recognises that the situation presents more than a communications challenge. It requires a comprehensive response, with co-ordinated action across health and social care and beyond.
The strategy is structured around three pillars. The first is leadership and co-ordination. Addressing harmful health misinformation requires clear leadership, strong partnerships and effective collaboration, and the strategy sets out a framework that brings together expertise from the Scottish Government, NHS Scotland, public health agencies, academia, educators and other partners to ensure a coherent national approach.
The second pillar is about building Scotland’s resilience to false health information. The strongest defence against misinformation is an informed and confident public. Building resilience means improving access to trusted information, supporting digital literacy, strengthening the understanding of how false information spreads and helping people to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape. It also means engaging respectfully, listening to concerns, communicating clearly and meeting people where they are.
The third pillar is rapid response to false health information. Where harmful narratives emerge that pose a risk to public health, Scotland must have the capability to identify them, assess their impact and respond appropriately. That capability is increasingly important as technologies, platforms and patterns of communication evolve.
The approach that is set out in the strategy is guided by important principles.
I do not disagree with any of that, but what practical impact does the cabinet secretary think that the Government will be able to make, and in what timescale will that be achieved?
That is a fair point. The strategy is designed to be practical in its implication and implementation and, therefore, helpful not just to Government but to our stakeholders and partners. However, it is important to recognise that the technology around us is evolving all the time. There are positives to that, but there are also risks. There is a sense that we all need to pick up the pace on that across the public sector.
As I started to say, as well as its practical implication, it is important that the strategy is underpinned and guided by principles. The first is to do no harm. Responses to health misinformation must be safe and proportionate. Even well-intentioned interventions can have unintended consequences if they are not implemented carefully. For that reason, our emphasis will remain on building trust, addressing concerns early and supporting access to reliable information.
Secondly, our approach must be ethical and transparent. Public trust depends on openness and accountability. Decisions about how misinformation is identified, assessed and addressed must be guided by clear ethical principles and transparent processes.
Thirdly, we will continue learning from others. The challenge does not stop at national borders, and valuable work is taking place around the world. Scotland will continue to learn from emerging evidence and best practice.
Fourthly, our approach must be co-produced. Solutions are far more effective when developed alongside those they serve. Communities, patients, educators and young people all have a vital role in shaping effective responses.
Fifthly, we will build on the strengths and assets that are already present in Scotland. Trusted relationships, local networks, public services and community organisations all form part of the solution.
Finally, we will adopt a culture of continuous improvement, learning from experience and adapting the evidence and approach as it evolves. Implementation of the strategy’s recommendations is under way, and work is progressing across NHS Scotland and the wider health system to strengthen capability, improve co-ordination and support health literacy. That work will continue to evolve as the evidence develops.
The information landscape does not stand still, but by taking a measured, evidence-based and trust-centred approach, Scotland is well placed to meet the challenge. At its heart, the strategy is about helping people to access information that supports better health; it aims to protect and build confidence in the healthcare professions and scientific evidence, strengthen our resilience in our communities and ensure that Scotland is prepared for the future challenges.
I welcome the publication of the strategy and the work that is under way to implement the recommendations. I invite members to support the motion in my name and I indicate that I will support the Labour Party amendment and the Conservative Party amendment.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the increasing risk of the global spread of misinformation relating to public health on social media, including through the use of AI-altered content; recognises that accessible, science-based and trustworthy health information is essential to supporting people to make informed decisions about their health, maintaining confidence in public health interventions and improving health outcomes; acknowledges the importance of taking an ethical approach to information integrity, and that misleading or false health information has a detrimental impact on society; notes with concern the rise in vaccine misinformation that has been spread in society since the COVID-19 pandemic; agrees that anyone who is eligible for life-saving vaccinations should be able to access the care that they need without the risk of harmful misinformation causing unnecessary concern or fear; further agrees that every Member of the Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that they use factual, science-based and trusted sources of health information from the NHS, public bodies and academia to protect public health, and that members should collaborate to tackle the rise of harmful online misinformation.
15:24
I look forward to more detail on what we have just heard. There is obviously a lot behind that, so it is hard to know whether we agree or disagree.
I want to pick up a couple of things that the cabinet secretary said. She said that everyone here should act with ethical principles and integrity, and I am happy to say that I am sure that we are all going to do that.
The cabinet secretary also said that “do no harm” is an important point. It certainly is, and sometimes we need to look at what the evidence is. It is possible to glance through the motion—as I think that Willie Rennie did—and think, “Well, it means well—I’m sure the details will be fine.” However, we should look at a few things.
The Scottish Government’s motion refers to “concern” about
“the use of AI-altered content”.
That is fair enough—it is a concern. It is a concern that, all the time, the algorithms bring up advertised content, often from big companies, and then the most-searched content on a subject, even if it is not the closest match to what someone is looking for. I am sure that everyone uses AI; I am sure that we have all done it for this debate.
The Scottish Government also
“notes with concern the rise in vaccine misinformation … since the COVID-19 pandemic”.
It is a good point. In 2023, a Scottish Government study as part of post-shielding research found that only 29 per cent of the public trusted health information from the Scottish Government on Covid-19.
A maxim in science is that science is never settled—there is no absolute final word. We would be wise to consider that. Perhaps people believe less in the Government health information since the Covid years because almost everyone has their own experience of ill health and, despite being assured every day by our former First Minister during Covid of absolute facts, those sometimes changed when the advice changed.
Everyone had to test for Covid and stay at home for 10 days if a test was positive and then, at some point, if they were well, they could go to work and stop testing. Viruses mutate and Covid is undoubtedly still about, but that was how it happened.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, thank you—I have a lot to go through.
People are not daft. They distrust advice from companies and from people with a financial interest. Vaccine companies have made huge profits risk free due to commercial indemnities. Indemnity might have been reasonable during the Covid crisis, but those companies still have it: a get-out-of-jail-free card. It does not matter how much evidence or anything else comes forward; they can continue to say, “Please vaccinate every year,” and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
Let us look at some of the evidence—[Interruption.] Sorry—who spoke? Did someone ask to come in?
The member must be allowed to speak.
People are not daft, and the Scottish Government has to take responsibility for its agencies’ own advice. We cannot rely on commercial companies; I do not know whether the cabinet secretary was suggesting that, but we certainly cannot.
There is an arguable fact about Covid in its origin story. People can believe that a bat 1,000 miles away from Wuhan was transported to a wet market and gave a respiratory virus to a pangolin or similar, and somebody then ate it and got the respiratory virus. That did not sound terribly convincing at the time.
Interestingly, the World Health Organization still maintains that, on the balance of probabilities, that might be the case. China, which bankrolls the WHO, would certainly have accused anyone at the time who tried to challenge that narrative, which most people now think has turned out to be misinformation. If you find a survey on it, you will see that most people believe that the virus came from an accidental release from a Wuhan laboratory that was carrying out gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
We cannot just believe what we are told—the science is never settled. The motion calls for
“accessible, science-based and trustworthy health information”.
That is music to my ears. I am a veterinary surgeon; I read a lot of research, and I have often thought that there should be more engineers, doctors and nurses—I do not think that they are in the chamber, but there are some—and scientists in the Parliament. I have often thought that biology should be compulsory in schools so that people can understand health and medical issues.
Reform’s amendment calls for information to be “unbiased”. People should be able to make their own fully informed decisions for themselves and their families, so where will they get that information? What about the BBC? It is not Reform members’ favourite, but it is certainly the favourite of some others in the chamber
Five days ago, the BBC—through its BBC verify service, so it must be right—reported the running costs of the Covid vaccine damage scheme at £83 million. Admittedly, a lot of that relates to process, but it is still a lot. The rising number of claims is the cause, and we should note that those claims are still coming in—they are not just legacy claims. Members in this chamber have heard from such people in the past.
The yellow card scheme is a United Kingdom system, but Scotland signs up to it. It monitors suspected adverse drug reactions, including deaths. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency recognises that all vaccines and medicines have side effects. Anyone who has been given a medicine and read about the side effects has probably thought, “Hmm, I don’t know if I am going to take that, that sounds quite bad.” Of course, however, we all do—we all make an informed judgment and we decide whether we are going to take these things.
Something that is acknowledged in the leaflet that is given to people who receive a Covid vaccine is that they should wait for 15 minutes before driving. I do not know whether any of the members in the chamber have ever done that, or have even read the leaflet, which is handed to people as they go in. The reason for that advice is in case the person who receives the vaccine gets anaphylaxis, which is a known side effect.
The Government cannot just hand out blanket recommendations and ignore the evidence. People can claim for damages following a vaccination and their case is found to be valid, and the vaccines that are eligible for such a payment are those for Coronavirus, diphtheria, haemophilus influenzae type B, flu and so on.
The issue is so well recognised that the Covid inquiry heard from the vaccine injured and bereaved, who told us that they felt that they were almost being pushed into the shadows during the pandemic, and that they are “the uncomfortable truth”.
The inquiry heard from a father of two boys who had a high-powered job until suffering a side effect—vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia—and falling into a coma for four weeks—
The member did not take any interventions, so she will have to bring her remarks to a close.
So, we must be unbiased. Our amendment calls for unbiased information, which people should be able to access without the risk of being accused of spreading harmful misinformation.
The Government needs to set an example. Was it misinformation when NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said that its new hospital was safe?
You should set an example.
I am setting an example for the people who have been ignored.
Was it misinformation when the health board said at the inquiry that the hospital was safe, and then admitted later that it knew it was unsafe?
The Government is either responsible for those agencies, or it should be very careful about what it takes responsibility for. The tenor of the Government’s motion suggests that it is taking a much more authoritarian approach, and it does not have the information for it.
I move amendment S7M-01200.3, to insert at end:
“; agrees that in addition to being factual and evidence-based, information must be unbiased and balanced to allow people to make fully informed decisions and calls on the Scottish Government, in its own decision-making, to follow the example it expects others to; notes that a 2023 study, commissioned by the Scottish Government, found that only 29% of the public believed that its own current COVID-19 guidance was trustworthy, demonstrating the need for the Scottish Government to understand the role that it has played in the public losing trust in health information that it issues; believes that health information covers everything related to health, and considers statements that the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital was safe, when some wards were known and later found not to be, to constitute misinformation.”
15:32
I thank the cabinet secretary for holding this important debate, and I welcome the content of her speech.
We live in deeply uncertain times. The rise of social media, the misuse and abuse of information, and the plethora of unreliable and incorrect information on public health issues demand that action is taken.
Regrettably, dangerous misinformation in the public health sphere is not new. We all remember the example of the campaign that was led by the now-discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield that claimed that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine caused autism. There was no evidence for such a statement, and the result of the campaign was that thousands of children did not receive the life-saving vaccinations that they needed. All that Wakefield’s campaign did was sow the seeds of mistrust in medicine, and it turned out that Wakefield was not just a dangerous quack, he was a fraudster who sought to financially gain from his claims.
We need to challenge those who seek to spread dangerous mistrust in our medical and scientific sectors, and expose the reasons for their deception. Medical disinformation can come from any corner, and we would be turning away from an uncomfortable truth if we did not admit that one party in particular has a clear problem with disinformation.
Dr Timothy Kelly—remember him?—the Reform candidate in East Kilbride and Strathaven, claimed that the Covid-19 vaccine, which is regarded to have saved countless lives, was neither safe nor effective. Further, Reform invited Aseem Malhotra to speak at its conference, where he blamed the Covid vaccine for causing cancer in the royal family. Indeed, the leader of Reform, Nigel Farage, is co-founder of Action on World Health, a very shadowy organisation that is dedicated to opposing the WHO and undermining its central messages.
Misinformation has potentially dangerous consequences, and I think that some parties in this chamber—one in particular—need to be mindful of that.
I think that the cabinet secretary would concede that vaccination levels are too low. In Scotland, last year, we had 28 laboratory-confirmed measles cases. We experienced an earlier flu season, driven by influenza A, all while thousands of eligible Scots did not get their flu vaccine in time. Human papillomavirus vaccine coverage has declined over the past 10 years, and childhood vaccine take-up is down. That does not only present issues now, because low vaccine uptake creates a ticking health time bomb. That is why it is in all our interests to drive up vaccine uptake and tackle misinformation at every turn.
That is why our amendment calls for greater flexibility for primary care teams, so that they can ensure that all those who need vaccinated get vaccinated. In particular, I am thinking about general practitioners in rural areas who use the opportunity of patients’ being in their practices to vaccinate them. We need more flexibility to make sure that we capture more people in vaccination programmes.
Although we agree with the spirit of the Government’s position, there is a certain irony in its rhetoric, because trust is essential, and the Government itself is guilty of providing misinformation about the future of Monklands hospital, its failure to deliver transparency for the victims of the Eljamel scandal, and, above all, its complicity in the cover-up of the reason for deaths at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. We agree with the Government that action must be taken to tackle misinformation, and I just hope that it realises—and that we all realise—that we all have a key role to play in that effort.
It is time to call out the quacks and the dangerous influencers who seek to spread misinformation, but it is also time to demand more from our Government and to demand transparency and truthfulness at the very highest levels.
I move amendment S7M-01200.1, to insert at end:
“; is concerned by declining childhood vaccination rates and continuing barriers to access to vaccination programmes, and believes that additional flexibility is required for trusted primary care teams to improve vaccination uptake.”
I call Miles Briggs to speak to and move amendment S7M-01200.2. You have up to six minutes.
15:36
This is an important debate and a reminder of how our society and we as individuals are seeing a significant change in how we access—and how we can trust—information in relation to our health. Misleading information can lead to real harms, as we have heard, and it has led to people not engaging with or taking up our world-leading public health vaccination programmes. That is at the heart of the issue, because it undermines those programmes’ ability to deliver population-level immunity.
The motion rightly diagnoses the problem, but we also need to use this opportunity to prescribe some solutions. As the cabinet secretary said, trust is at the heart of that. A recent Canadian study showed that people trust their friends, neighbours and work colleagues on social media more than they do journalists or Government leaders—and, to be honest, I do not think that was just about President Trump.
Let us face it: today, we are all broadcasters of information. Social media spreads ideas far and fast, and everything that we share, like and comment on multiplies the power of that information to all our followers, influencing the views and beliefs of friends, family and, yes, total strangers. Unfortunately, there is a lot of false and misleading health information out there. Ahead of today’s debate, I did a simple Google search on some health conditions and looking for advice, and, to be honest, I was shocked at where it takes you—from claims that sunscreen causes skin cancer to perhaps the most challenging and constant myth around vaccines, which is that they cause autism, as has been raised. That myth continues to be shared online and driven towards parents, including in online parent chat rooms, and it has had hugely damaging consequences.
We need to look at how we can turn that around, because, as Jackie Baillie outlined, we are already seeing examples of how that impacts on our health in Scotland. Misinformation around the MMR vaccine has contributed to vaccine hesitancy on the part of many parents, and, as has been said, Public Health Scotland has already reported 28 lab-confirmed measles cases in 2025 and eight in the first quarter of this year. Since 2024, Scotland has also experienced substantial increases in cases of whooping cough.
I can recall many of the challenges that we saw during the Covid-19 pandemic around misinformation and mistrust, particularly among our ethnic minority and eastern European communities, resulting in significantly lower vaccine uptake rates during the pandemic and since.
One part of the debate that has interested me, and which we need to recognise, is people’s increasing disconnect from the family doctor. As has been debated, we must consider the difficulty in accessing GP appointments and how that is also causing people to seek information in different ways. GPs are the most trusted source of health information, so if people cannot get an appointment to see or speak to a medical professional, they will look for health information on the internet and are often directed to these so-called patient chat rooms. The question that we should be asking ourselves is how we can build information resilience in our society.
On Monday, I attended the launch of Movember’s report on men’s health in Scotland. I segue to that because there were a number of key recommendations in that report, which I hope that the Government will consider. The report is stark, especially around the evidence that shows that around 13,000 Scottish men died prematurely in 2024. That is 35 men dying prematurely every day in Scotland. The report calls for a public health approach to addressing online harms and disinformation affecting boys and young men, building on the Scottish Government’s “Online Safety Taskforce Action Plan 2026/27”. That also needs to be taken forward in relation to health information for men and boys and the different ways in which we engage in seeking health information.
The report specifically calls for a men’s health action plan, which I believe is needed. Although the Government responded by saying that it was not looking to take that forward, I hope that ministers will look again and positively engage on a cross-party basis. That could be at the heart of addressing a number of the Government’s priorities in relation to men and boys.
The report states:
“While a woman’s relationship with her health and healthcare is established early during adolescence, built around her reproductive and sexual health needs, young men tend to have fewer touchpoints with the health system, reducing opportunities to develop ‘health literacy’”.
The lifelong skills needed to understand and look after ourselves are complex to develop, and that also includes access and understanding of online information. That is why the Scottish Conservative amendment includes a specific ask, which is
“to review how all public health information can build trust, improve health literacy and open routes”
to supporting people into services
“as part of a more coherent national approach to service redesign and public policy.”
The days have passed when people accessed their information from health information leaflets on GP practice coffee tables, but we need to make sure that NHS Scotland is fit for the future. We need to make sure that the digital and information ages, in which people now live, provide the bespoke and accurate public health information that we all want to see.
I move amendment S7M-01200.2, to insert at end:
"; supports the development of a new national approach to health literacy, that enables people to find, understand and use public health information to make informed decisions about their health and to support others to do so; notes the recent Movember report on men’s health in Scotland and its call for a public health approach to addressing the online harms and disinformation affecting boys and young men, building on the Scottish Government’s Online Safety Taskforce Action Plan; further notes that such an approach should be adopted as a cross-government priority, and calls on the Scottish Government to review how all public health information can build trust, improve health literacy and open routes into support and services, as part of a more coherent national approach to service redesign and public policy."
15:42
I thank the Scottish Government for lodging the motion. As many people have said, this is undoubtedly a prevalent and defining issue of our time, accelerated by the pervasive impact of social media on everyday lives and, it is fair to say, hastened at such a pace that Governments all around the world are struggling to catch up with it. It is therefore important that we consider the wide-ranging impacts of misinformation on our health, specifically in Scotland.
As we learned from the Covid pandemic, when we have disease outbreaks, countries that operate as lone actors—because they think that they can pull up a drawbridge to keep diseases out—are completely delusional in a world and an economy that are knitted together at every level, with overlapping supply chains and operations.
On a small scale, misinformation can look like an Instagram fitness guru saying that if people drink celery juice for a month, their skin will clear up and they will have great bowel movements. A harder example would be politicians, for years, peddling myths in society about how HIV and AIDS spread or saying that they affect only gay men. The myths around autism, which we have spoken about already, have stirred up the type of eugenics thinking that says that a dead child is often better than a disabled one.
We know that social media algorithms are built to give people what they want. For example, misinformation on diet culture can be funnelled to someone with an eating disorder when they are just trying to google for help.
Tackling misinformation is not simply a matter of producing more facts; it is also about building trust and helping people to develop the skills to assess the information that they encounter.
Naturally, everyone in the Parliament, across the political spectrum, bears a responsibility to address misinformation. Yesterday, we heard a lot of opinions about how international affairs should not concern us, but health is a strong example of where they should. Health does not care about borders and it impacts on all of us.
I started by highlighting concerns. However, I recognise that, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, with the modern advances in health technology, we have never been better equipped to address such issues.
Patients and members of the public can now encounter health claims from influencers, commercial organisations and AI systems alongside information from doctors, scientists and public health organisations. The difficulty is that those sources can look equally authoritative and factual, even though their quality and accuracy could be very different.
We can mitigate the impacts of global health issues and disease outbreaks with effective screening, planning and preparation. However, doing that effectively requires empirical truth to be the driving factor behind decisions. If truth is not what is driving policy and decision making in Scotland, how can we maintain trust across the board? That matters because health information influences real decisions. People’s decisions about whether they choose to vaccinate their child, whether they seek medical advice about symptoms, whether they follow treatment for cancer or whether they use an unproven alternative therapy can have significant consequences for those people, their wider communities and society. Vaccination provides the clearest example of why that matters: as Jackie Baillie mentioned, falling vaccination coverage creates the conditions in which diseases that were previously well controlled can return.
It is important to say that misinformation is not the sole reason for changes in levels of vaccination uptake or mistrust in healthcare. Decisions about vaccines are influenced by many factors, including access to services; socioeconomic circumstances; trust in institutions, which Miles Briggs alluded to; previous experiences of healthcare among those in the minority ethnic community; and the accessibility of reliable information.
A key aspect of our addressing health misinformation is long-term interventions such as education. Media, digital and health literacy are becoming increasingly interconnected. People need to know not only how to find information but how to question where it came from, understand evidence, recognise conflicts of interest and distinguish between genuine expertise and content that merely looks authoritative.
As has been mentioned, the growth of AI makes that challenge even more urgent. It can make health misinformation considerably more convincing because it can almost instantly generate fluent, personalised and apparently authoritative answers. I have heard from GPs who say that patients have come to them and said, “I asked ChatGPT first; this is what it told me,” and what it had said was completely bonkers. That is unhelpful for both parties. AI systems can produce inaccurate or fabricated information and present it with confidence. Systems that appear to be helpful can give people information that is incomplete, misleading or plainly wrong.
Scotland’s health information integrity strategy recognises that responsibility cannot sit only with one organisation or one profession. The Government, the Parliament, NHS Scotland, Public Health Scotland, schools, universities, community organisations, charities, healthcare professionals, researchers and technology companies all have different roles to play. I agree with the cabinet secretary that tackling misinformation should not mean shutting down debate; it should mean making it easier for people to distinguish evidence from speculation, expertise from unsupported claims and reliable information from content that is designed primarily to attract attention.
The Scottish Greens will back the Government’s motion and support the Labour and Conservative amendments on the dangers of medical misinformation. I hope that members in the rest of the chamber will consider the need for us to come together again and back this stance, not only on misinformation in relation to health but on the misinformation that is going around the world in relation to welfare, disability, diet culture, the rights of sex workers, housing, immigration and much more.
15:49
I thank the cabinet secretary for having this debate. I am pleased to follow Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill’s excellent speech, which included many of the excellent points that I am about to make—what can you do?
In many ways, today’s debate is fundamentally about trust: who do we trust, what information do we trust and what sources of information do we trust? As we know, trust in our institutions is, by many measures, at a very low level. When people are scunnered by a feeling that things are going backwards, that systems are failing and that problems are being left unsolved, some people just switch off altogether. Others turn to sources of information and commentary that, in the past, would have held far less weight than they do today.
That dynamic is potentially most harmful when it comes to public health, where the wrong information at the wrong time can have devastating consequences. The internet and social media have opened up the world and given almost instantaneous access to information, but they have also opened the door to misinformation and to people who are willing to exploit uncertainty and fear. That has been complicated further by the meteoric rise of artificial intelligence, whereby, as we have heard, even a simple Google search can now produce an AI-generated answer.
Increasingly, people are turning to AI for health advice rather than speaking to a doctor or another healthcare professional. Some people are turning to popular YouTubers or social media personalities with enormous reach and influence. Those people often generate fear around particular health conditions or negative health outcomes and then market products that they claim will prevent that harm or cure that illness. We need to be clear and robust in calling out falsehoods when they appear, particularly when they have the potential to cause real harm or, ultimately, cost lives.
However, there is an important point to be made about how we do that. If someone does not trust evidence-based health information, talking down to them or shaming them is unlikely to change their mind. We need to make sure that people feel able to ask questions; no question about their health should be off limits. People should be able to raise concerns, challenge information that they have seen and get clear, accessible answers from a trusted source.
One way in which we could do that is by making better use of the NHS app. We should have a comprehensive NHS digital service that puts reliable information from a source that people know they can trust and access to services at their fingertips. We know that the MyCare app was significantly delayed before its launch earlier this year and that what it offers falls below what it could provide. The wider roll-out of features and enhancements that the Government has said will come soon is needed so that people can benefit from a combination of reliable, evidence-based information from a trusted source and easier access to healthcare services.
I refer the member to the NHS Inform website, which provides a lot of the information that he is talking about.
I absolutely take that point. I do not dispute what Clare Haughey said, but there is something quite powerful about people having an app at their fingertips. Increasingly, people have the ChatGPT app or the Claude app at their fingertips, which enables them to get immediate feedback that is tailored to their situation. Something along those lines, provided by the NHS, would be really powerful and would really help.
All of that matters, especially as we head towards winter. Doctors, nurses and other staff who work in our emergency departments are already hugely up against it, even before the full force of winter pressures has begun to hit. The roll-out of flu vaccination is hugely important not only in protecting vulnerable people, but in taking some of that pressure off the NHS. However, distrust in vaccination, which was prevalent before the pandemic and has increased since then, has made that job more difficult. We must keep making the case for vaccination by providing clear, accessible and evidence-based information.
That brings me to the responsibility of members of this Parliament. We all have platforms. People listen to what we say and share what we post, and, increasingly, we can reach thousands of people. That gives us a responsibility to ensure that what we share is accurate and evidence based, and that it comes from sources that we and others can trust. Of course, that does not mean that we should not question things—we absolutely should question the Government, challenge decisions and raise concerns—but, when it comes to public health, we should always be focused squarely on the public good, on positive outcomes for people, on clarity and on evidence. Ultimately, the aim should be very simple: to ensure that everyone has access to reliable information and the services that they need to prevent ill health, to make informed decisions about their health and to give them the best possible chance of a positive outcome when they need treatment. That is how we rebuild trust, and it is a responsibility that falls on all of us.
We move to the open debate.
15:55
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am an NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde bank nurse.
The concept of misinformation is not a new one, and it is increasingly pertinent in today’s world. In the health context, misinformation can take many forms. It can include false claims about the causes of ill health, misleading information about vaccines, inaccurate dietary advice, unproven treatments or exaggerated claims about the benefits and risks of particular interventions. The consequences can be particularly serious in a health context, because people may use information found online to make decisions about their own health or the health of others.
A recent study from King’s College London showed that one in seven of the respondents used AI chatbots for health advice. A fifth of those said that the technology did not encourage them to seek a professional opinion, and a similar proportion decided against doing so because of something that a chatbot told them.
In January, an investigation by The Guardian newspaper showed that Google AI overviews were placing at the top of online searches not just inaccurate health information, but potentially dangerous information, including on pancreatic cancer, liver function tests and women’s cancer tests.
Last year, researchers at University College Cork published a report regarding online searches for information about reduced fetal movement. They found that more than half of the search results contained misinformation, primarily from US commercial websites, which contradicted clinical guidelines in the UK and Ireland and which could delay crucial medical assessments if followed.
I will give a final example. The UK used to be really good at beating measles. In 2017 the World Health Organization declared that the disease had been eliminated. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Last year, there were almost 1,000 confirmed cases in England and 28 in Scotland, mostly in young children. In Scotland, second-dose MMR vaccination rates hover around 91 per cent; across the UK as a whole they sit around 85 per cent. Global vaccination rates have fallen, and many experts blame, in part, the spread of anti-vax conspiracy theories, including ones that rehash absolutely discredited theories about links between the MMR vaccine and autism.
All of those examples highlight how crucial it is to nurture trusted information touchpoints between the healthcare system and those who access it. If there is a vacuum, misinformation such as anti-vax messaging can slide into that space and become the dominant narrative.
None of us are as immune to misinformation as we would perhaps like to think. Ipsos polling for the Academy of Medical Sciences found a 41 percentage-point gap between how difficult people think it is for others to spot misleading health information and how difficult they believe it is for themselves. It is understandable how misinformation can take root when people are vulnerable, anxious, overwhelmed or searching for answers. The Ipsos research also shows us that those most likely to be affected are those who are already facing health inequalities, which can lead to delayed care and can worsen outcomes.
Tackling health misinformation must be part of our wider efforts to reduce health inequalities and to help people make informed decisions about their health. That is not about discouraging people from learning about their health; it is about empowering them and making trustworthy sources accessible and prominent. That is why I welcomed the publication of “The Scottish Health Information Integrity Strategy” last year. It was developed by multiple stakeholders and provides a framework for a co-ordinated, evidence-based and ethical response to health misinformation. Among the key planks of the strategy are building trust and resilience, strengthening health literacy and developing and supporting trusted and reliable networks and voices, so that those are the ones that people turn to when they need advice or support.
I particularly wish to emphasise and welcome the part of today’s motion that underlines the fact that
“every Member of the Scottish Parliament has a responsibility”
to use and amplify
“factual, science-based and trusted sources of … information”.
The Scottish Council on Global Affairs made that point last month in a report about misinformation and disinformation in Scotland more generally, as part of its state of the world series.
A member of this Parliament is on the record as saying that they
“persuaded many other people not to have”
the Covid-19 vaccine and
“would like them stopped”.
Quite frankly, that beggars belief. To be crystal clear, I note that misinformation on vaccines is dangerous. Misinformation in any health area is dangerous, and members should know better than to contribute to false claims and put the safety of Scots at risk by pushing those claims on to the public.
The SNP Scottish Government will always stand up for the sharing of accurate and detailed information when it comes to not only health, but all policy areas. We must have a collective agreement across this Parliament to ensure that the harms of health misinformation are not pushed forward by any party. I hope that we can have a constructive debate this afternoon and that we can reach consensus on that important point.
16:00
Misinformation is nothing new—the “Oxford English Dictionary” records use of the word as far back as the 16th century—and bad health advice is not new, either. For generations, folks have been told to sweat out a fever, that going outside with wet hair will give them a cold, and to put butter on a burn. I confess that I might have spread some misinformation over the years, but I am still coming to terms with the reality that a hot toddy will not actually cure a cold.
The World Health Organization regards misinformation as false information that is shared without intent to mislead. Those who share it might believe it to be true or informative and they have no malicious intent. In contrast, disinformation is false information or propaganda that is deliberately used to mislead. Over recent years, fake news has become increasingly familiar, and false information of all types now travels even more quickly. The World Health Organization has a term for when that volume of information overwhelms reliable advice during a health emergency—an “infodemic”.
If we cast our minds back to the Covid-19 pandemic, we can see that the most overt impact of misinformation was increased vaccine hesitancy. Misinformation was amplified globally from the highest levels. President Donald Trump repeatedly promoted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19 before any reliable evidence could establish whether it worked, and the US Food and Drug Administration went on to warn of serious cardiac risks.
During the Covid pandemic, Scotland saw some dreadful disinformation. In September 2021, Scottish schools were deliberately targeted with misleading information about the vaccination programme. Headteachers received hoax letters about vaccines complete with fake NHS logos and a supposed consent checklist to distribute to pupils. Schools also received anti-vaccination leaflets and petitions, and pseudo-legal cease-and-desist letters were circulated directly to local authorities and secondary schools. Deliberate false information was dressed up to look authoritative using an NHS identity in an environment where parents and young people should expect trustworthy health information.
Misinformation can have consequences far beyond confusion or anxiety. One of the starkest examples concerns pregnancy during Covid. Public Health Scotland found that, between December 2020 and October 2021, 104 Covid infections during pregnancy were associated with admission to critical care. Of those, 102—98 per cent—occurred in women who were unvaccinated when diagnosed. Vaccination rates among pregnant women were substantially below those among women of the same age in general. The “Scottish Health Information Integrity Strategy” records how false claims about vaccine safety and fertility contributed to uncertainty and fear among pregnant women.
Sadly, disinformation did not disappear with the pandemic. In evidence to the Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee last year, Dr Pavan Srireddy of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland warned of widespread misinformation surrounding neurodevelopmental conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Research examining popular ADHD content on TikTok found that more than half the videos studied were misleading. With people increasingly turning to social media for health information before speaking to a health professional, that is very concerning.
However, tackling misinformation cannot simply involve the Government or politicians telling people that they are wrong. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde provides an interesting example of that. In 2024, it spoke directly to people living in prisons about vaccination. The discussions identified misconceptions—including that younger adults did not need vaccinations—information voids and the need for simple messages. The health board’s response was to have people living in prison help to make short films for their peers, and material was developed for prison radio, with messages delivered through people to whom the audience could relate. People are more likely to listen to information that comes from sources that they understand and trust. That is why the emphasis of the “Scottish Health Information Integrity Strategy” on building trust and resilience is so important.
There is no single solution. We need good public information, health literacy, trusted community voices and rapid responses when harmful falsehoods circulate. It is regrettable that the Parliament lacks the power to tackle online harms and the algorithms that amplify health claims. To date, the UK Government has failed to address those concerns adequately. However, we all have a responsibility to ensure that what we say and share builds trust and does not undermine it. Politicians in the Parliament must be held to a higher standard and should not promote false claims to the public.
16:06
I thank the cabinet secretary for securing this important debate.
Medical misinformation is nothing new. If we walk up the road from the Parliament to the Surgeons Hall museum, we see that we have reached many of our medical milestones through trial and error, often with fatal consequences. Human biology is complicated, and our understanding is incomplete. Thankfully, medical practice has moved forward and our knowledge has improved over generations, reinforced by years of research.
Delivering quality research can take years; spreading falsehoods can take seconds. What is new is how quickly lies can spread. We increasingly take advice on everything, from diet and weight loss to supplements and steroids, from people we do not know who are motivated by business interests to satisfy sponsors, or just by a desire for attention.
There is huge frustration among health professionals that they are not being listened to. Patients are increasingly dismissing advice provided by trained professionals in favour of false promises and bad advice from influencers and AI. According to a survey published in The Times, one third of young adults believe that influencers have more up-to-date health information than doctors. It also found that nearly half of Britons are spending more than £120 a year on supplements that they find on social media.
The threats from medical misinformation are not limited to reduced vaccination rates. Other threats include a sharp rise in the sale of black market weight-loss drugs, an increase in steroid sales to young men, harmful advice on how to give birth and the adoption of unusual and unhealthy diets.
I promise to support the cabinet secretary in her work to support trust in NHS staff and in going to them for advice. Our GPs should have long-standing relationships with their patients. Our digital systems should be better connected. We pushed for such improvements at the election, and they need to be made.
UK research institutions such as the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research fund quality research at our universities that informs Scotland’s NHS policy. They were crucial to the delivery of vaccines quickly during the pandemic.
Having strong regulatory bodies means that treatments are safe and effective and that our doctors receive clear rules against commercial influence. We can see the dangerous impact on public health when such institutions are dismantled and defunded, as they have been in the United States.
Some members will prefer not to talk about the vested interests that are disrupting our public health policy. They say that all health choices are simply about personal freedom. The reality is different. The poorest suffer the most from health misinformation and its consequences. They are targeted by harmful content from organisations that hold their personal information. In deprived areas, it is harder to access health services and it is easier to access unhealthy products, and vaccination rates are lower and death rates are higher. We need to stop health misinformation if we are to reduce our health inequalities.
Although I welcome the publication of the report, the Government cannot just comment on current trends; it must act. I want us to continue to plug into a valuable UK-wide network of research institutions that provide advice and accountability. We must find ways to support our health workforce to ensure that patients listen to them, and we must be tough on those who seek to exploit our healthcare for personal gain.
16:11
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests and declare that I am a serving councillor on Dundee City Council.
It is a bit extraordinary: I had not expected to hear Michael Gove’s name mentioned three times today, so I am sorry that I am mentioning him again. Some 10 years ago, in the heat of the Brexit debate, he famously stated:
“the people in this country have had enough of experts”.
Brexit, which was fuelled by misinformation and disinformation, set the scene, and we now live in a world where people can say anything based on any set of alternative facts that they find useful or profitable. Post truth is now the water that we have to swim in, in which appeals to the emotions of fear and rage can drown out reasoned arguments, facts or straight scientific evidence. Navigating that blizzard of misinformation, disinformation and downright falsehoods is the new normal, and it is more important than ever that we challenge it, because, as we have heard, it causes significant harm every day.
It is particularly galling because Scotland is, has been and, I hope, always will be a nation that produces world-leading experts, and none more so than those in medicine and health. Alexander Fleming gave the world penicillin. Joseph Lister gave us antiseptic surgery. James Young Simpson introduced chloroform anaesthetics. The list goes on.
Research in Scotland continues to be on the cutting edge of medical discovery. Only last month, in my city, a team of scientists at the University of Dundee’s drug discovery unit discovered that an antimalarial compound that they had developed was effective in malaria treatment and prevention. They are at an early stage of taking trial evidence but, if evidence can prevail over misinformation, that breakthrough could help millions, if not billions, of people. Scotland should be proud of its experts and its expertise.
I will highlight three diseases that could, in my lifetime, move from the incurable category to the eradicated category: cervical cancer, HIV and hepatitis C. Each journey to eradication involves overcoming misinformation and disinformation and building trust.
First, I will address cervical cancer. It used to be one of the leading causes of cancer deaths among women. Now, we have the HPV vaccination, which is administered in Scotland to boys and girls in secondary 1 and can be offered to people up to the age of 25. The HPV vaccination protects boys and girls from HPV-related cancers: cervical cancer, head and throat cancers and genital cancers. It also prevents boys from passing on the virus to their partners.
We now know that there have been no cases of cervical cancer caused by the HPV virus in fully vaccinated young women since 2008, when the vaccination programme was introduced. We have, in effect, eliminated cervical cancer among girls who are immunised. That was unthinkable 20 years ago.
Although coverage of the vaccination programme in Scotland is the highest in the UK, uptake has not reached 100 per cent, as we have heard. There has been a decline over recent years, particularly among young people from more disadvantaged groups. Although 90 per cent of girls in the most affluent areas get the vaccine, only 75 per cent of girls in the most deprived areas do so. For cervical cancer to kill any young woman in Scotland is unacceptable, but it is completely unacceptable that it is more likely to kill young women from more deprived areas. We must tackle the misinformation and disinformation that are being spread.
Secondly, I want to speak about AIDS and HIV, which continues to kill people around the world, often due to gross disinformation. In January 2020, the public health minister was my mighty predecessor, Joe FitzPatrick. He announced the target of 2030 for the elimination of HIV transmissions—thank you, Joe. That has been made possible by pre-exposure prophylaxis, which reduces the risk of contracting HIV by 99 per cent and blocks the HIV life cycle. However, people must take the medication for it to work. Thankfully, since 2017, nearly 14,000 people have done so, thanks to Joe. In the 1980s, we could not have imagined that eradication was possible, but it is, and Scotland could be the first country in the world to eliminate HIV transmission.
Lastly, I want to speak about hepatitis C, an infection that is shrouded in misinformation. In 2020, NHS Tayside and the Hillcrest Futures harm reduction service were able to achieve the world’s first micro-elimination of hepatitis C, in Tayside. Hillcrest Futures told me how much work that took: it had to challenge outdated information and explain that modern direct-acting antiviral treatments work more effectively and do not have the dire side effects of previous treatments. It was only through building trust over time that people could be supported to make informed decisions and engage with the treatment—and they did.
The member must come to a conclusion.
I am concluding.
Scotland hopes to eliminate hepatitis C, which is a major public health concern, over the next couple of years. Let us keep up the good work and ensure that we do.
Michael Gove—I am sorry to mention him again—was wrong about a lot of things, but he was particularly wrong on this: the people of this country have not had enough of experts; in fact, it is more important than ever that we listen to some of them. Let us not let misinformation and disinformation get in the way, and let us hit our targets.
16:17
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for introducing the debate. Health misinformation has always presented a huge challenge, but more so now than ever, given the ability for instant communication that comes with social media and, even more dangerously, the power that comes with generative AI. AI has dangerous potential to allow false—or, what is perhaps worse, misleading—information to proliferate at an uncontrollable rate. The need to take action grows more urgent every day.
It is incredibly important to note that the use of automation and artificial intelligence, as in the case of social media, is not necessarily an inherent social harm. AI is a tool and, like all tools, its impact on society can be determined by how it is used.
When AI is used safely, such as for automating frustrating work in our busy public services, to allow those who work in and support the public sector to focus on what they do best—helping people who live and work here—it can have a hugely beneficial impact on our society. With human oversight, it can be used to analyse data and identify important trends in our country and the actions that we can take to support people better. Specific forms of artificial intelligence have been used to push the frontiers of medical science in attempts to discover new treatments. That is when the tool is used for good.
When it is used for the worse, it can automate fake social media accounts and spread disinformation and misinformation across the internet, as other members have mentioned. We have heard stories about the devastating use of image-generation AI to misrepresent and degrade individuals. It is becoming increasingly difficult to identify artificially generated media, although it is still possible at this point. For example, I expect that I might not be the only person in the chamber who has had to explain to a family member or close friend that the video they have recently seen of a dog saving a baby from a waterfall is, very sadly, not real.
As the cabinet secretary has mentioned, the window in which we can relatively easily identify falsified content is closing much faster than everybody had hoped. This weekend’s news that the three largest AI labs have come together to call for a slowdown in AI development to allow increased regulation should be one that concerns us all. It is rare that an industry calls for increased regulation of itself.
Just last week, three researchers warned that artificial intelligence could kill off humanity within a decade, with one of the researchers resigning from his role in protest. He was publicly backed by one of his former colleagues, Evan Hubinger. Evan is the lead in the company’s alignment division, which is focused on ensuring that AI models do what we tell them to do. He put the chance of AI eventually killing all humans at 10 per cent. I do not know what other members think, but those do not sound like great odds. We have an absolutely fantastic Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, but I do not expect her to personally save us from AI.
The need for vital further regulation of AI has been highlighted in today’s motion, and yesterday we agreed to pause planning consideration for hyperscale data centres in Scotland following the Minister for Public Finance’s motion. I am glad that the Scottish National Party is leading the way here on calls for the regulation of AI companies. When it comes to misinformation and disinformation, as members of the Scottish Parliament we have an important role to ensure that we educate ourselves on the evidence, so that when we are confronted with misinformation or disinformation we can challenge it strongly. As the cabinet secretary’s motion eloquently puts it, members have
“a responsibility to ensure that they use factual, science-based and trusted sources of health information from the NHS, public bodies and academia to protect public health”.
Health misinformation is a deeply dangerous issue that can have serious consequences for individuals, but also for the whole of society. To be clear, I echo the comments of other speakers, particularly Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill and Adam Harley, that, when it comes to our health, it is essential that we rely on trustworthy information, medical professionals and well-supported academic evidence.
Health decisions should never be based on rumours, social media posts or information from unreliable sources. If we have concerns about our health, the people we are best placed to discuss them with are qualified medical professionals, who can provide accurate advice and guidance based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence.
As health misinformation continues to spread, it not only impacts individuals but can undermine public trust and contribute to poorer public health more generally. We have seen that happen in the past, particularly with misinformation surrounding vaccines and various health conditions. That is why it is important that we question the information that we see, check where it comes from and ensure that what we believe about health is supported by reliable evidence.
Ultimately, tackling health misinformation is about not just correcting false information but protecting people, building trust in our healthcare and creating a healthier and better-informed society. I look forward to supporting the cabinet secretary’s motion and working with colleagues across the chamber, from different parties, to tackle misinformation and disinformation so as to protect our communities.
16:22
The risk of the global spread of misinformation relating to public health, particularly via social media, is of concern to us all and represents a huge challenge in our times. Indeed, experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine are worried about a surge of harmful health information in areas such as vaccines, reproductive health, disease outbreaks, and climate and health. That coincides with people increasingly turning to influencers, unverified wellness apps and AI chatbots for health advice that, as Clare Haughey pointed out, can turn out to be misleading, inaccurate or even dangerous.
Health misinformation is not new, but the scale, the speed and the impact of it that we are seeing today are unlike anything in modern history. In 2025, the American Psychological Association released a consensus statement that underscored health misinformation as one of the most urgent threats to public health. The World Health Organization has called it an “infodemic”, which, as Martyn Day pointed out, means an overabundance of information, both accurate and not, that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy guidance when they need it most.
The consequences of misinformation go well beyond online confusion. It leads to an erosion of trust in clinicians, science and healthcare systems; delaying or avoiding care, including the refusal of preventative services; worsening disease severity and outcomes; and an increased strain on public health infrastructure. Clinicians and health leaders often encounter patients whose health benefits or decisions have been shaped by misinformation long before they have had contact with the patient.
Misinformation and conspiracy theories persuade some people to avoid taking their children for important childhood vaccinations or to take unproven treatments. The AI chatbots that hallucinate clinical details not only put individuals’ lives at risk but will eventually lead to a sicker, less productive population.
The re-emergence of infectious diseases that were once considered defeated or tightly controlled is one of the most pressing public health crises of the 20th and 21st centuries. Quite simply, medical misinformation costs lives, and the scientific community is quite clear that it must be tackled, confronted and fought in a robust way.
However, that is not easy when we have a US President who has warned that pregnant women should stop taking paracetamol for fear of giving their children autism—a claim with no basis in scientific fact. The White House health secretary, Robert Kennedy, has claimed that some people have a harder time giving up antidepressants than they would heroin. Vaccines have been a common target for the current US President, who has falsely correlated vaccination with autism, and for his health secretary, who has challenged the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine and the diphtheria, tetanus and polio—or DTP—vaccine. Such claims from the most powerful man in the world are not easy to counter, and those madcap and dangerous claims are finding traction around the world and, sadly, even in this chamber.
Deputy Presiding Officer, you would not believe the nonsense that we had to listen to at Westminster, but at least the Tories had the good sense to suspend a former MP who compared the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust, which is both irresponsible and offensive in more ways than I have time to explain.
Technology is moving really fast, as are cynical ways to mislead and exploit people by using that technology. As we have heard, sadly, gone are the days when patients who were worried about particular symptoms would seek the advice of their GP or another qualified medical professional. Increasingly, people are prey to health misinformers and platforms with their own agendas—often commercial or political—via AI and social media. Without any medical training or oversight, they advise people on vaccinations, whether they be against Covid or those designed to keep babies and young people safe from a whole range of diseases such as polio, whooping cough, meningitis, sepsis, measles or rubella. That can have serious and deadly consequences, and this is a serious public health emergency that must be confronted.
The Covid-19 pandemic taught us something very important: falsehoods can spread as fast as any virus. Some people believe that we now have a whole generation—some would call it a “lost generation”—that simply does not know where to turn to for trustworthy advice. That is why the only answer to the situation is to provide people with high-quality health information that answers their questions and addresses their concerns. I am very interested in the approach of countries such as Finland, which is preparing for the next infodemic with a national media literacy programme that involves teaching children and adults how to identify and resist misinformation.
Ms Gibson, you must conclude.
We need a co-ordinated approach to monitoring the dangerous health misinformation that is circulating around the UK and further afield. One of the aims of the proposed new network would be to monitor for health misinformation attacks on key topics and to collaborate on social media and online interventions that could counter such attacks. Currently, there is no western or global co-ordinated approach, so we appear to be losing the argument. Scotland needs to act, but we cannot act alone.
16:28
This is my first attempt at summing up a debate without having already written a speech, and I will do my best—please bear with me.
I again thank the Government for securing the debate. On the whole, there has been a lot of consensus in the debate, which I welcome. The cabinet secretary spoke about the unintentional sharing of false information that can happen, which is a really good point that speaks to the need for us all to educate ourselves about what, among all the health information that we might find online, constitutes information that we can trust and that we know has come from a trusted source. That is as much for MSPs and other people in the chamber as it is for the general public.
The cabinet secretary made a point about the need for effective collaboration as part of the Government’s new strategy. I would say that that work needs to be done in collaboration with the UK Government, especially when it comes to the digital element of some of those harms. There is a real need to work collaboratively there.
Jackie Baillie mentioned how misinformation on the MMR vaccine started much of the wider mistrust of vaccines since then, which has made the issue grow arms and legs. I very much agree with the point that she made about the need for flexibility when it comes to receiving vaccines, especially in rural areas.
Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill made some excellent points and mentioned stark examples of harm. She made an important point about the need for an international and cross-border approach, including sharing vaccines with other countries that need them or taking different approaches to the online space.
Martyn Day made good points about the unintentional sharing of falsehoods. I, too, cannot come to terms with the fact that a hot toddy apparently does not cure a cold.
Miles Briggs spoke about his alarm at some of the health advice he had seen online following a quick Google search. I have to say that we can put some of that at the feet of lazy journalists who like to share the latest bit of health information, so there is perhaps a bit of correlation over causation happening. We need to be aware of when the aim of an article is to get a quick click so that it will be shared on social media.
Mr Briggs also made an important point about men’s health, and I agree with him on that. Scottish Liberal Democrats are minded to support his amendment, the Labour amendment and the Government motion.
16:31
One of the negative side effects of being a health spokesperson that I have found in the time that I have served in Parliament is that it has turned me into a hypochondriac. I do not know whether the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, the Minister for Community Care and others who speak on health have found the same.
I make that point not in jest, because there is a serious point to make. When people across our country feel unwell, they often turn to their phones to seek information on the internet. As Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill said, if they can build up the confidence to go and see their GP, that results in their saying that they have googled their symptoms and have found their problem. If we walk that back, we find that that is not often the case, but the internet is where people will access their health and public health information, so we need to be wise to where people now seek it.
That is why Adam Harley’s point was important—I return his compliments. When we are talking about people not trusting our health information, the last thing we should do is talk down to them and say that they are stupid or that they need to change their minds. We need to give them the facts.
I very much welcome the briefings that members received ahead of today’s debate. I thought that Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland provided a very useful piece of information by pointing out that the Patient Information Forum trusted information creator—PIF TICK—mark is where we should be looking for a UK-wide recognised quality standard of health information. I had not heard of it until this debate, so we need to make sure that that is promoted more widely.
Martyn Day made important points in his contribution, and perhaps also highlighted that he is not going to be appointed the Parliament’s medical adviser any time soon. He summed up the key point that we have all wanted to get across in the debate: that we need to look towards how we transform our health service, but that that should be done with technology at its heart.
There are criticisms about where the NHS app has gone in Scotland compared with the information that is readily available in England at the moment, but that will represent a great opportunity for many people to manage their health conditions. We all want to see person-based self-management in the future, but many people will seek information online rather than from a medical professional, so we need to make sure that it is right.
Heather Anderson made several important points. I suggest that she does not watch the new reality TV show “The Wargame”. She may be for the former First Minister, but she might not like the other contestants on that programme. There is a serious point to make on hepatitis C, because in relation to the elimination programme on which Scotland has been world leading—Tayside, in particular, has made welcome progress on that—we are falling backwards, and we need to recognise that.
We will need to work hard to catch up on that, and we must do so urgently. The seek-and-treat target has not been met, and in many health board areas that work has not been undertaken, especially with difficult populations such as the prison population. I hope that, in the coming months, the Government will make a statement to Parliament on how that will be addressed.
To conclude, the issue of online misinformation will not be solved by politicians, but we can look towards developing a new national approach to health literacy so that people—our fellow citizens—can find, understand and use public health information to make the informed decisions that we all need to take about our health, and to help others whom we might be supporting.
16:35
As we have heard from members around the chamber, access to good and reliable healthcare advice is essential, but there are far too many places where misinformation exists. Martyn Day’s confession about spreading misinformation inadvertently was amusing, but it demonstrates how harmless people think that sharing information is. Nevertheless, I would like him to share his sources for the hot toddy comment.
The cabinet secretary said in her opening speech that some people share misinformation unknowingly and out of concern for others. I was pleased that she mentioned meeting people where they are to give them information. Health information can often be technical and jargon heavy in nature, and making it plain and easy to digest is essential because that is what AI is doing, which is what we are battling against.
Irshad Ahmed mentioned the need to support GPs and other clinicians in dealing with the misinformation that people are bringing in when they have asked ChatGPT about their symptoms. That is an essential part of all this.
My colleague Kayleigh Kinross O’Neill mentioned how education, health and other parts of Government policy can overlap to ensure that we upskill people to interrogate information. That is essential in preventing people from passing on information that they may not know is untrue. It would be good to know how the strategy is being shared across other parts of Government to make sure that they all play their part in tackling health misinformation and upskilling children and young people in particular to ensure that they can interrogate the information that is in front of them.
Although some people share misinformation unknowingly, we have to be aware that others do not have such good intentions. In the previous session, the Parliament resoundingly passed my member’s bill, which became the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024, which was designed to ensure that women can access abortion care safely and with dignity. In February 2025, the vice-president of the United States was on the stage at the Munich security conference saying things that were categorically untrue about information that the Scottish Government had shared about the act.
There are global players who are very willing to undermine the confidence that we are trying to provide the public with, and abortion care is absolutely on the front line of that. Safe access zones were the first small step in making abortion care easier to access and less traumatic. The bill faced huge opposition and there was huge misinformation about it; it took a full chamber effort to challenge that, and I am hugely grateful to colleagues who played their part in that.
If we are to make progress on abortion care—on the two-doctor rule, for example—we will face that level of misinformation and challenge again. It will take all those in the chamber who are willing to continue to make progress.
Social media is a fantastic tool, but we have heard repeatedly, over several years, about the issues with information on those platforms. The speed at which information can be shared versus how quickly the Government can respond is a difficulty to which we are yet to find a neat solution.
Jackie Baillie mentioned the misinformation around the MMR vaccine, which shows that this is not a new problem—misinformation on vaccines goes back decades. Confidence in those life-saving healthcare interventions is hard gained and easily undermined. Making vaccines part of everyone’s routine healthcare is essential, so the work that we do has to focus on building parents’ confidence in getting their children vaccinated and getting the habit in early. Fantastic work is already being done at antenatal appointments, on midwife visits and through health visitors to encourage parents in that regard. Everyone with whom I came into contact when I had my baby last year was excellent at answering questions with empathy and dispelling myths when they were raised. Creating space, especially for first-time parents, to ask questions without feeling silly is essential if we are to have a well-informed population.
However, that can easily be undermined, particularly by some of the trends that we see in America, where people hold so-called measles parties to intentionally spread the disease in the hope that deliberately making children unwell in that way will make them acquire immunity, completely ignoring the potential complications for those kids. That seems both extreme and ridiculous, but the popularity of such parties has risen in the past decade or so. Research from Columbia University partially credited them for the measles outbreak in New York in 2019, saying that it is likely that that was the result of increased contact between children in the one-to-four age category, likely through measles parties.
We need to ensure that we do not rest and let ourselves believe that it is impossible that that trend could come here. We need to make sure that parents know that vaccinations are the best way to acquire immunity.
The situation is not all bleak, though. We have overcome misinformation before. I was once groaned at in this chamber for saying that I was too young to remember the misinformation of the 1980s around HIV. Jackie Baillie was there, and was one of the ones who groaned.
I am doing it again.
I see that.
Battles against misinformation that we have fought and won do not live on for ever in the minds of those who are taking policies forward. We need to ensure that we continue to share what we have already done and that that informs what comes next. I follow Heather Anderson in committing my party to doing everything that we can to work towards the HIV elimination target.
This entire chamber has the duty to tackle health misinformation, and I believe that there is a coalition of the sensible across the chamber that is willing to do that.
16:41
I am grateful to the Scottish Government for bringing this important topic for debate in the chamber this afternoon. We will support the motion and the Conservative amendment, and I welcome the health information integrity strategy, which will be an important piece of work.
It is vital that all our health and care policy is built on the basis of robust evidence and comes from a place of compassion and a desire to understand the experience of those who need support. Those must be the qualities that guide day-to-day practice in services, and our political rhetoric and debate must likewise combine the qualities of sound evidence on the one hand and compassion and empathy on the other. Both are needed if we are to retain the trust and confidence of those we serve and tackle misinformation.
I experienced health misinformation in a number of ways in my previous career in autism services—I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests in that regard. I was working in front-line autism support roles when the famous Wakefield study wrongly linked autism to the MMR vaccine, which several members have alluded to this afternoon. That study was based on flawed methods and problematic evidence and reached unsound conclusions, and it was subsequently retracted by many of its co-authors. Not only was that one study problematic, but we also have sound evidence to refute its claims from population-level studies, such as the Yokohama study in Japan, where the MMR vaccine was withdrawn but prevalence rates of autism continued to rise on exactly the same trajectory as before.
The flawed Wakefield study sowed the seeds of a long decline in vaccine uptake and had two disastrous outcomes. First, there was a rise in measles outbreaks, which we have heard about today from Gillian Mackay and Clare Haughey. Measles is a life-threatening disease for infants that had been all but eradicated; it can have very serious long-term effects for people who catch it in childhood. Secondly, there developed a stigmatising narrative about autistic people as being somehow less than others, and about autistic children as being undesirable. I associate myself with Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill’s comments in that regard.
I am afraid that that trend of misinformation has continued in the long term. More than 20 years after that first study, I found myself on the radio debunking the falsehood from the US President that paracetamol taken in pregnancy caused autism—another unfounded conclusion. That assertion had already been proven by European studies not to be the case and was based on the misapprehension that autism is a homogenous phenomenon with a single cause. Once again, there was a stigmatising narrative about autistic people.
Since that time, I have heard of US-based scholars for whose scientific research there have been funding cuts, sometimes in the middle of projects, because it did not fit the political narrative. We saw unfounded assertions about vaccines flourish during the Covid pandemic that claimed lives at an alarming rate. So, the stakes are high. We must never allow Trumpian politics, which sows misinformation and stigmatises disability, to take hold in our country. I welcome Patricia Gibson’s comments about the US President’s role in that.
We would do well to follow the maxim that we must first do no harm. Therefore, I have been heartened to hear colleagues across the chamber this afternoon make speeches that align with that thought.
Several of us have spoken about autism, vaccines and measles. I was heartened to hear Heather Anderson’s important contribution on HIV, HPV and hepatitis C and to hear, in Miles Briggs’s contribution, that we need a gendered, and sometimes a cultural, lens with regard to providing health information and tackling misinformation. Being sensitive to the different needs of different demographics will be an important part of the information integrity strategy. Adam Harley said that, if we are to tackle misinformation, it is not just the information that we put out there that is important but where it sits.
As members on the opposite side of the chamber have said, it is right that we understand, and have rigorous evidence on, the effects of vaccines, when they are undertaken, but it seems odd that the party that lodged an amendment that mentioned one-sided evidence did not mention the tens of thousands of people across these islands who lost their lives during the Covid pandemic or the thousands of lives that have been saved by those vaccines. I am an asthmatic who had a very early Covid infection, with quite long-lasting effects, so on the basis of sound information, I could not roll my sleeve up quickly enough to have the vaccine.
Those of us who are part of our national conversation have a responsibility to ensure that sound information gets to those making decisions about their health and that misinformation is called out and rebutted. Our media have a responsibility to report health news proportionately and with care, valuing expertise and scientific consensus over sensationalism and click rates. Social media platforms have a significant responsibility to stop the spread of misinformation, a theme that is likely to run through much of the work of our Parliament, whether that is about health information, misogyny or the wellbeing of our young people. The tech giants must be properly regulated, and we need to work with the UK Government to achieve that.
As politicians, we have to hold ourselves to high standards in the discourse that we embrace, use robust evidence as the basis for public policy, and show compassion and care in the words that we use and the stories that we tell about what we are trying to achieve for those we serve.
16:46
I am an employee of the NHS. I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing this debate to the chamber and my fellow members for their contributions. Let my party be absolutely clear from the outset: the proliferation of deliberately deceptive or harmful medical advice is a serious issue. When individuals are defrauded or physically harmed by predatory actors advocating fake cures, the law should step in, just as it does with any form of fraud or malpractice. Any attempt to empower, or to control or curate information must be dealt with judiciously.
However, the wording of the motion reveals deeply concerning legislative potential and trends in modern governance: the unintentional establishment of a de facto monopoly on truth, the demonisation of legitimate scepticism and political leaders’ absolving themselves of their primary democratic responsibilities. The public’s trust is not something that the Government is entitled to; it is something that the Government must earn.
The motion calls on us to rely solely on trusted sources, including public bodies, and further defines those under the three pillars detailed by the cabinet secretary. However, history teaches us that science advances not through blind compliance but through rigorous scepticism. When we label any deviation from the official narrative as misinformation, we strangle the very engine of scientific process. True science requires the unbiased presentation of all facts, not just the convenient ones.
Let us look at the official data: according to the Scottish Government’s own Public Health Scotland data, during the pandemic, the landscape of risk was highly stratified. For example, healthy children faced an incredibly low statistical risk from acute respiratory viruses, and yet the official public health messaging pushed an aggressive one-size-fits-all counter-measure strategy, and children are still scheduled for Covid vaccinations today, regardless of consideration of any underlying conditions. When independent clinicians raised early concerns regarding specific documented risks, such as the elevated incidence of myocarditis in young males following mRNA therapeutics—a risk later formally acknowledged by both the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—they were initially branded by mainstream political institutions as purveyors of unnecessary concern and unhelpful narratives.
Further, in February 2022, Public Health Scotland stopped publishing weekly hospitalisation and death data by vaccination status, citing the misrepresentation of raw statistics by anti-vaccine groups. When the state uses its platform to suppress nuance, it does not protect public health but undermines it. Sometimes, the most dangerous misinformation downstream is the oversimplified absolute proclaimed by a Government authority.
When I have a patient in front of me and I am recommending an intervention, I tell them five things: what the intervention is; what the rationale is; how it will remedy the condition; what the complications are; what the alternatives are; and what happens if we do nothing. I believe that the rise of what the motion calls “vaccine misinformation” is actually a direct symptom of the public feeling that we were denied a balanced, informed view in favour of emotional forcing.
During the roll-out of various public health programmes, the traditional, cautious definitions of clinical efficacy were blurred. For instance, looking at the data regarding vaccine uptake and transmission rates, public health authorities initially implied that those interventions would completely halt transmission, a claim that real-world epidemiological data quickly disproved. When the state implements measures such as vaccine passports for workplace mandates—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
I appreciate the opportunity to intervene. I hope that, in the tone and tenor in which I led the debate, I demonstrated that it is important that we tackle misinformation in a manner that does not infringe freedom of expression or scientific debate.
Do the member and his party agree that there are bad-faith actors who have weaponised misinformation or disinformation as attacks on freedom of expression, and that there are bad-faith actors who have deliberately avoided any recognition of nuance and reduced the debate to the lowest common denominator?
I agree with that completely. The point that I am trying to articulate is that the drafting of the motion and the Government’s past record in attempting to manage debate has meant that nuanced, legitimate scepticism has been steamrollered over and not properly allowed into the debate in order to formulate a final policy that is balanced.
If we want to improve health outcomes, we must treat the Scottish public like adults. Coercion destroys trust. We cannot have trust where we have no choice. We must provide transparent and unvarnished statistical realities, including the absolute risk reduction rates, and trust individual citizens to make the right decision for their own bodies. I welcome the attempts made in the motion, but I do not accept any attempts to limit what can be said.
Finally, I must address this Government’s dangerous habit of contracting out political responsibility to unelected experts and institutions. Expert panels, advisory committees and academic bodies are vital—they provide data—but they do not possess elected authority and must never be used as procedural shields for political leaders.
We saw this repeatedly throughout the pandemic and its aftermath. Decisions to close schools, lock down communities and disrupt cancer screenings, which led to a measurable and tragic rise in non-Covid excess deaths and late-stage diagnoses, were frequently defended by ministers claiming that they were simply following the science. Science does not make policies; ministers make policies. Science can tell us that a virus spreads, but it cannot weigh the societal cost of a child missing a year of education, the economic ruin of small businesses, or the mental health crisis that is currently gripping our youth. When political leaders contract out their judgment to a closed circle of approved experts, there is a danger that an echo chamber will be created, with an absolution of the leaders’ duty to balance competing harms.
Reform UK stands for a return to democratic accountability. We do not need a Parliament that acts as a rubber stamp for technocratic consensus; we need a Parliament that interrogates that consensus.
In conclusion, the motion asks us to collaborate to tackle online misinformation by potentially narrowing the scope of acceptable debate. The antidote to bad information is not censorship; it is more transparency. If the Scottish Government expects the public to adhere to high standards of truth, it must lead by example with its own decision making.
Health information is not a selective category; it covers everything that impacts patients’ wellbeing. When statements were made assuring the public that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital was safe, at a time when specific wards were known—and later proven—not to be safe, that constituted not just a failure of communication, but misinformation. We cannot defeat misinformation out there if we permit it within our own institutions.
Can you wind up, please?
That concludes my contribution.
Perfect timing—thank you.
16:54
I thank the vast majority of members who engaged in the debate in good faith and made important contributions. The fact that there have been 16 speakers shows its significance. I did not quite expect the range of examples of misinformation that would be raised, from fitness influencers and diet culture to vaccines, wellness and hot toddies. We have certainly covered a wide variety of types of misinformation and the ways in which they are spread. Patricia Gibson reflected on the scale, the speed and the impact of the spread of misinformation—we should be mindful of that.
When she opened the debate, the cabinet secretary set out the case for action and the reasons why the “Scottish Health Information Integrity Strategy” matters. The strategy has been developed in response to the changes that are affecting health systems around the world and increasingly influencing how people access information, make decisions about their health and engage with public services.
The strategy, which was published in October 2025, was co-developed with the World Health Organization. It sets out the framework for
“a safe, coherent, evidence-based and ethical approach”
to addressing false and misleading health information. It sets out a national approach to ensure that the general public have ready access to accurate information to help them to make the right decisions about their own health and wellbeing. It will help Scotland’s health system to adapt to the unprecedented volume of online health information and respond effectively when widespread misinformation poses a real risk to public health. It is built on the latest research, and will evolve as evidence changes, helping to ensure that people have access to reliable health information so that they can make the best choices for their own wellbeing.
The strategy is also a practical guide and was designed with implementation in mind. It has 22 recommended actions, which are being implemented with partners. It is preventing harm from poor health information, which is, after all, a global challenge. We are at the forefront of actions on health information. We regard the strategy as world leading and, we, as a country, can be incredibly proud of it.
I take this opportunity to encourage students to get their meningococcal group B—MenB—vaccines, and to tell all those who are eligible for a flu vaccine to take up the offer. That will not only help their own health but take pressure off our NHS as we head into the winter.
It is clear that vaccines save lives. In 2024, the World Health Organization found that immunisation had saved about 154 million lives in the past 50 years. That is equivalent to six lives every minute of each of those 50 years, 101 million of whom were infants. There are diseases that were once commonplace, such as smallpox and polio, that we can now consider to be practically eradicated. We have made so much progress in that area.
Does the minister accept that the Covid vaccine has had a huge number of referrals relating to serious adverse effects—20 times those of all other vaccines? Not all vaccines are the same.
As elected members, we in this Parliament all have a responsibility not to undermine vaccinations. Vaccinations save lives and we have a responsibility to our constituents and to the wider world to make sure that that is recognised.
Thinking about the impact of where we have come in this area, I note that Heather Anderson reflected movingly on the range of different vaccines that have been introduced over time. She noted the work that is being done in Dundee to eliminate malaria, and the work on cervical cancer, including the particularly stark statistic that there have been no cases of cervical cancer in vaccinated young women since 2008. That is remarkable—again, we should be very proud of the progress that has been made on it. She paid tribute to Joe FitzPatrick—I concur—and his work to introduce PrEP, which has been administered to 14,000 people and is helping to protect people from exposure to HIV. She also mentioned the important work that Hillcrest Futures is doing on the micro-elimination of hepatitis C, which is an ongoing challenge.
Over the weekend, I had the privilege to attend the exhibition of the UK AIDS memorial quilt at the Tramway in Glasgow. The stigma and pain of the spreading of a virus to which there was no cure was wrought through the quilts that are on display. I would recommend that everybody take the opportunity to see that exhibition before 27 September. The exhibition remembers the lives that were lost at a time of great stigma and pain. We have made huge progress in the period since, but the virus still affects too many people. I would also like to thank Ally Van Tillo, who recently passed away, for starting that project and for making a huge difference in commemorating those who lost their lives.
As many members have mentioned, people now encounter health information in places that were not designed to share such information, such as online networks and digital communities, or through means such as ChatGPT. The fact that those apps give information that is not reliable and cannot be trusted is something that we should all be quite worried about. I encourage people to seek out important sources of information from their own practitioners and from NHS Inform, which is a reliable source of information that we, as elected members, should inform all our constituents of to ensure that they get the information that they need.
Trust in health professionals remains high. Members have talked about trust, which is a key aspect of the health information integrity strategy. I encourage everyone to seek trusted information from GPs. We have walk-in clinics where people can get advice. Miles Briggs mentioned men getting access to such information. I understand that, in Shetland, men are dropping their kids off for sports activities and seeking advice from the walk-in GP clinic there. That service is really important, because they might not have got that advice otherwise. It shows the value of such services, where underserved communities or people who might not even be considered to be underserved can get that kind of advice.
Other members, including Irshad Ahmed, mentioned the need for young adults to get information. The inequalities issues have also been mentioned. It is important that we ensure that people have access to such information.
There is a range of advice out there—there are pharmacists, optometrists, dentists, allied health professionals and audiologists. Whatever health query someone in Scotland has, they can be assured that there will be people who can help them and whom they can trust to get that information to them.
The false and misleading health information that we are talking about today undermines that trust. It can weaken confidence in healthcare professionals and institutions; discourage people from seeking medical advice; contribute to delays in diagnosis and treatment; and affect confidence in public health interventions. In some circumstances, it can deepen existing inequalities by creating additional barriers for communities that already experience poor health outcomes. It can cause real harm. The relationship between trust and information is one of the most important themes running through the strategy.
People often seek health information because they are worried and uncertain. They are not sure what is affecting them, and they look for advice for themselves or somebody close to them. Some people share information because they think that they are being helpful. The strategy recognises the reality of that situation and the motivations that people might have for sharing that information. As Adam Harley and others reflected, we need to meet people where they are. We should not shame them or make them feel uncomfortable. We should answer their questions as best we can and direct them to the appropriate sources of information so that they can feel confident in the information that they get.
The strategy also recognises the importance of trusted voices in our communities. People do not receive information only from Government, public health agencies or healthcare organisations. Family members, friends, community leaders, charities, educators and local organisations all play an important role in shaping our understanding and influencing decisions. Those trusted relationships in communities are a real asset to people in Scotland, and we should make the most of them.
At this point, I would like to recognise Margaret Lance, an HIV campaigner who passed away in 2025, who was such an important voice in the African Scots community. She worked for Waverley Care. She did incredible work to make sure that those communities were not missed from public health messaging. She was a trusted source to people of all ages and backgrounds in that community. I put on record my thanks to her and say that we all very much miss her and her contribution.
The strategy recognises that the strongest defence against misinformation is an informed and confident public. There have been lots of challenges in that regard over the years. Some members reflected on the Covid pandemic. I think that we forget, in retrospect, just how scary that time was, when a virus about which we knew very little was spreading. The public health responses were made very much in that context. It is easy to look back now and criticise decisions that were made or things that were done or not done. Everybody did the very best that they could in the circumstances that were handed to them. It was scary.
In my family, my uncle Eric was one of the very early people we believed—there was no test, so we could not tell—to be affected by the virus. He worked as an air conditioning engineer, so he probably had access to everybody’s viruses, which were flowing through the systems. That has affected his health on an ongoing basis. We are glad still to have him with us, but it was a very scary time and people did not know exactly how to tackle that virus. I pay tribute to everybody who worked on the vaccines to bring them to us with the speed and the alacrity that the situation required.
Presiding Officer, I am now concluding—I can see you staring at me sternly. I had a lot to get in, and I apologise if I have not reflected everybody’s comments in my summing up. I thank everybody for what they have contributed; it has been an incredibly useful debate.
I want members to be assured that implementation of the plan is already under way, and I encourage everybody to engage with it. We also need to recognise our own roles here. The role that we all play, as individuals and as elected members, is important. We have a responsibility to share good, reliable health information through NHS Inform and the channels that are available to us. I encourage everybody to do so.
That concludes the debate on addressing the harms of health misinformation.