Chamber and committees

Like my colleagues, I will discuss the momentous global challenge that antimicrobial resistance—AMR—presents in an evolving world. I will attempt to limit repetition, but there will be some.

In 2022, we face the imminent danger of climate Armageddon. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report outlines that current plans to address climate change are not ambitious enough to avoid catastrophic events. We also continue to fight the Covid pandemic—a global health crisis that is far from over. Those existential threats exacerbate inequality, poverty and displacement and tie directly into the battle against AMR.

Antimicrobial resistance is not a new challenge, nor is it on the horizon. It is with us now. As with the climate and Covid, scientists have been raising the flag of concern for years but we have not yet seen robust mitigations or the necessary global leadership.

We recently got the data from the global research on antimicrobial resistance project, which showed that AMR is third among the leading causes of death globally. A few members have already mentioned that, this year, up to 700,000 people will die from antibiotic-resistant infections around the world. That figure is worth repeating again and again.

The latest report from the UK surveillance programme for antimicrobial utilisation and resistance tells us that antibiotic resistance has increased by 4.9 per cent in the past four years. Covid has taught us that preparation is key and that inaction is abdication. Failure to act now means that countless families will be grieving in future.

What is needed? First, we need a strong system for monitoring the impacts of rising AMR in Scotland. The Scottish Government has been looking into recording AMR or antibiotic resistance as a cause of death and I would welcome an update from the cabinet secretary on where we are with data recording.

Secondly, we need to start slowing the increase of AMR through strengthened infection prevention and control, enhanced hygiene and improved sanitation. As Emma Roddick said, washing our hands is key. Scotland’s world-leading patient safety programme is an excellent foundation for managing AMR. For example, in Scotland, infections from C diff and MRSA have dramatically reduced in over-65s—by 80 per cent and 94 per cent, respectively—under the SNP Government.

Thirdly, we need to have initiatives to address the systematic misuse and overuse of antibiotics, which has resulted in microbes developing resistance to antimicrobial drugs. Worldwide, the food sector needs to urgently listen to the WHO and its calls for farmers and the food industry to stop using antibiotics routinely to promote growth and prevent disease in healthy animals. Going back to the issue of overuse, my colleague John Mason hit the nail on the head with his comments on TB and leprosy.

A further challenge is the severe lack of research and development for new antimicrobials. The way that pharmaceutical companies operate, with their dependence on sales for returns on investment, is not conducive to addressing AMR.

The UK’s pilot scheme introducing a fixed-fee model to finance the development of antibiotics is innovative and encouraging, but to respond to the existential threat of AMR we need a global scientific response. The rapid development of Covid vaccines shows us what really is possible, and we can and must remove constraints on collaboration between scientists.

I am encouraged that Scotland has adopted a one health approach to tackling AMR since 2016. The acknowledgment that the health of humans, animals and the environment are interconnected is really vital.

I close by recognising those who tirelessly work on this issue. The scientists and public health experts have already achieved so much in the fight to hold back the next pandemic, but they cannot fight the war alone. They need the backing of legislators, big pharma and individuals to make sure that, this time, we prepare properly for the next pandemic. It absolutely will happen if we do not put the right steps in place.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not think that my vote registered, but I would have voted no.

I thank Jeremy Balfour for bringing his motion to the chamber. I must also give a wee shout out to an inspirational family member with Down’s syndrome—I will call him Mr T—who can wow you with his music knowledge and make you smile every day of the week.

Like my colleague in Westminster, Douglas Chapman, I want to offer supportive comments on the Down Syndrome Bill for England and Wales. The bill sets out to destigmatise Down’s syndrome, improve services and deal with issues such as long-term care. It will require the UK Government to publish guidance on the specific needs of people with Down’s syndrome and how those needs should be met. With legal protections in place, it is hoped that the bill will make it easier for people with Down’s syndrome and their families to secure the services that they need and to challenge authorities that are not acting on their duties.

However, although I support the intentions behind the Down Syndrome Bill, I believe that the approach laid out by the Scottish Government has clear advantages as it looks to secure and sustain the transformative change that is overdue for people with Down’s syndrome who live in Scotland. The Scottish Government is committed to introducing a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill as part of the programme for government. In addition, a welcome learning disability commissioner role will be created. The bill and the associated commissioner will ensure that the rights of people with Down’s syndrome, among others, are respected and protected.

The inclusive rights-based approach in Scotland—a pan learning disability, autism and neurodiversity approach—is attracting a lot of attention from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is because it avoids the situation in which one group is singled out and prioritised over another in the delivery of public services. Instead, our approach recognises people’s distinctive needs while protecting the rights of all those with learning disabilities.

Organisations such as Down’s Syndrome Scotland have told me that they are encouraged by the timetable for developing and introducing the learning disability bill in Scotland, and they are equally impressed by the Scottish Government’s determination to ensure that people with lived experience are fully and meaningfully engaged in the consultation on the bill’s scope, ambition and policy position. Their voices are so important. The Scottish Government’s programme provides the community—and that is parents, carers and adults with Down’s syndrome—with the time and the space to meaningfully express their views in ways that are inclusive, accessible, respectful and rights based.

When I spoke on the international day of persons with disabilities, I focused my speech on the importance of the words “nothing about us without us”. One of the criticisms of Dr Liam Fox’s bill is how few people with lived experience were included in its development. I applaud the Scottish Government for taking an alternative approach, one that champions the voices of the community. Given the Scottish Government’s more inclusive approach that embraces the rights of people with all learning disabilities, it will be crucially important to recognise and explicitly identify people with Down’s syndrome within the definition of learning disability as set out in the learning disability bill in Scotland.

Those new pillars and provisions build on work that is already under way in Scotland to bring about lasting change for people with Down’s syndrome and their families and carers. Eddie McConnell, the chief executive of Down’s Syndrome Scotland, believes that we are opening a new chapter with the learning disability bill in Scotland and I wholeheartedly agree with that. I hope that the Down Syndrome Bill also heralds a new chapter in the UK Government’s approach and thinking that is far more centred on lived experience. As I said earlier, nothing about us without us.

I am also interested in any comments that the cabinet secretary may have in response to third sector organisations and professional bodies that have recently raised further concerns for those they represent who are in a high-risk health group or working environment about the impact that the end to asymptomatic testing will have on their health and wellbeing, as well as on their confidence and their ability to carry out their professional duties.

How will the measured lifting of Covid restrictions support the construction sector to get back to a normal level of delivery and, by extension, support the delivery of affordable housing plans?

Given the relentless pressure on NHS Lanarkshire acute care, with local hospitals currently operating beyond 100 per cent capacity, what more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that the public is aware of the right place to access non-critical care services, and that such provision is available?

To ask the Scottish Government whether the number of people in hospital with Covid-19 recently reaching the highest level since the pandemic began has impacted on its modelling and risk assessment regarding the ending of free testing for the general population from 30 April. (S6O-00933)

A couple of weeks ago, we heard strong evidence about the importance of the single electronic patient record and the need for easy, seamless and secure access to shared health and care records at the point of care. We were told that the single electronic patient record will improve continuity of care and ease frustration for patients and workers. Last week, we heard evidence from digital professionals, and good progress seems to have been made on a central cloud-based platform that will allow different systems to talk to one another. There was also mention of pilots in the data strategy engagement programme.

Can you provide a bit more information on the positive progress that we have made towards creating a national digital platform? Will you commit to keeping the committee updated on that work?

Changing how the public access primary care is key to making this a reality: alternative pathways must deliver for patients. In evidence, we have heard about long waiting lists that can encourage patients to default to going to the GP. How will the Scottish Government improve staff capacity and reduce waiting times? Is there enough investment in recruiting staff to deliver the Scottish Government’s vision?

I know that a few of my colleagues have questions, so I will leave it there.