Chamber and committees

How much of a risk do the bill’s provisions pose to the confidentiality and safety of patient data? Is it possible that Scottish patient data could be provided to private companies?

The Deputy First Minister’s statement repeatedly references reducing poverty, and the Scottish Greens have long supported the introduction of a universal basic income to address that. Although I appreciate that the Scottish Parliament does not currently have the powers to introduce a universal basic income, I welcome the SNP’s manifesto commitment to introducing a minimum income guarantee as an interim measure. Although it is not referred to in the Covid strategy document, will the Deputy First Minister provide an update on timescales for the introduction of a minimum income guarantee?

The Scottish Greens’ co-operation deal with the Scottish Government includes progress on fair work for the social care workforce as a priority, so I am pleased to see swift action being taken to ensure that the workforce gets more than the living wage, and that there are vital funds to support the wellbeing of our front-line NHS workers. [Interruption.]

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the uplift in social care pay is just the first step in establishing parity between health and social care workers, and that we will look to improve pay and working conditions further as we work to establish the national care service?

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, people who are vulnerable to flu, such as those with mild to moderate asthma and young children, were not in the original priority groups for the Covid vaccine. I am concerned that, as the flu and Covid booster vaccine programmes are run simultaneously, there is a risk that some people may incorrectly assume that they are not eligible for, or do not need, a flu vaccine. How will the Scottish Government ensure that those who are eligible for the flu vaccine are aware of that and attend their appointment?

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the on-going economic impact on Scotland of Brexit. (S6F-00322)

The people of Scotland never voted for Brexit. We now face soaring energy prices and forecourts are running dry. A labour shortage affects sectors from care to haulage. We are even threatened with shortages of Irn Bru if the situation is not urgently addressed.

The Conservative response to that is the pathetic offer of a three-month visa for EU truck drivers. It is clear that the Tories have nothing to offer Scotland but cuts, hardship and cruelty. Their latest plans for replacing EU subsidies yet again take powers from this Parliament and threaten our plans for a green recovery.

Is the First Minister concerned about that latest power grab, and will she reaffirm her commitment, as outlined in our co-operation agreement, to offering the people of Scotland a way out of Boris Johnson’s Brexit Britain with a referendum on Scotland’s future, before the end of this session of Parliament?

Sorry.

The reason why the Tories decide not to offer solutions is that they simply do not have any.

In the previous debate on the vaccination certification scheme, I made the point that, with Covid cases still too high and vaccination rates among some age groups slowing, we needed to take action. Although cases have fallen recently, the fact remains that our health and social care services are under enormous strain, and while the virus circulates at such high levels in a partially vaccinated population, the risks of variants and long Covid loom large.

We need to urgently drive up vaccination rates and suppress the virus but, with furlough ending, our options are limited. A return to lockdown measures would means job losses and economic turmoil. The scheme offers a solution to that problem by allowing us to take proportionate action without reintroducing restrictions.

I recognise that the scheme cannot work in isolation and that it must be part of a wider strategy. It is important that there are continued efforts to address vaccine hesitancy. There have been many harmful comments on social media about unvaccinated people being selfish or conspiracy theorists. We all know that there are some who maliciously spread misinformation about the vaccine, and they should rightly be condemned, as what they are doing is dangerous. However, we will get nowhere by similarly condemning or dismissing people who are anxious or frightened, or who just do not realise the danger posed to them by Covid because of the perpetuating narrative that only those who are older or have underlying health conditions get sick. People rarely respond well when they are shamed or browbeaten. We need to reassure and persuade those who are hesitant that the vaccine is safe and effective, and that it presents the way out of the pandemic.

I do not want to dismiss the moral and ethical concerns that members have raised about the certification scheme. I have said before in the chamber that I respect their position, and we should of course continue to pay close attention to those concerns. I know that the Government has worked hard to address issues such as digital exclusion. We must ensure that any actions that we take to tackle Covid are proportionate, and it is right that the scheme will be kept under review.

It has been pointed out that Scotland is not an outlier on the issue. The Government amendment refers to the recent announcement from the Welsh Government that, from 11 October, anyone over 18 will have to show either an NHS Covid pass to prove their vaccination status or a negative test result in order to enter nightclubs and attend certain events. As we heard from Paul McLennan, many other countries have introduced similar schemes. I recognise the point about adding a requirement to show a negative test, but I appreciate the current practical issues with that, which the Government has laid out. A vaccination certification scheme is part of the Conservative UK Government’s winter contingency planning.

The Tories’ hypocrisy on the issue is not surprising. Their obsession with putting economic growth before lives is apparent in this debate and in their complacent attitude towards other mitigations such as mask wearing. The Tory approach to tackling the pandemic has seen a removal of furlough, a cut to benefits and the opening up of international travel, when importing new variants could pose a risk to Scotland’s recovery from Covid.

In Scotland, we have to mitigate that recklessness by using the limited powers that we have, and now the Tories want to remove the safeguards that we can put in place. Any responsible Government has to do what it can to limit the spread of the virus using the powers that it has—[Interruption.] I am in my last minute.

It is clear that the Conservatives have no interest in such responsibilities. I therefore say to the Tories: instead of coming to the chamber with a one-line motion that seeks to put a halt to one of the few options that are open to us to drive up vaccination and lower transmission, why not come with suggestions for how, after the UK Government’s decision to end furlough, we suppress the virus? I challenge the Tories to go back to their colleagues at Westminster and argue for the extension to furlough to give us more options. The least they could do is attempt to offer some solutions.

I would like to extend my condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one to a drugs overdose.

During the debate on drug-related deaths in June, I spoke about dignity— the dignity of people who use drugs and how they are so often robbed of it by a system that seeks to punish them for their addiction. We cannot treat drug-related deaths as the public health emergency it is while we continue to criminalise people.

This is a health debate, which is being led by the Tories’ health spokesperson, so I hope that we all agree that it is a health issue, not a criminal justice one. Yet I have to admit that I do not understand some of the tone from the Conservatives during the debate, or some of the content of their motion. It begins by calling drug-related deaths a “humanitarian crisis”, but a few lines later it calls for people who are found in possession of drugs to continue to be criminalised. How can we solve a humanitarian crisis by criminalising those who are most affected by it? We must abandon the failed war on drugs, which stigmatises people and actually makes it more difficult to access treatment and support.

We need a harm-reduction approach. In June, the majority of members supported my amendment that called on the Scottish Government to investigate, as a matter of urgency, what options it has to establish legal and safe consumption rooms within the existing legal framework. Safe consumption rooms have been operating in Europe for 30 years, and there is evidence that they result in immediate improvements in hygiene, safer drug use, and wider health and community benefits. The Scottish Greens have long maintained that safe consumption rooms are an important public health measure that would play an important role in preventing drug-related deaths. I know that work on that issue is progressing, and I look forward to hearing updates in due course from the minister.

As the Government amendment notes, the Scottish and UK Parliaments should consider any evidence-based proposal that can help to save lives, including a right to recovery. On the issue of rehabilitation, it is clear that residential rehab provision needs to be greatly expanded, so that everyone who needs it can access it.

I thank Sue Webber for my promotion, but I am not a member of the Government.

To quote a Scottish Drugs Forum briefing:

“For some people in some situations, residential rehabilitation will be vital and effective.”

However, some people might be afraid that they will lose their tenancy if they enter rehab, and some might have caring responsibilities. It is vital that treatment services are as accessible as possible and that people who enter rehab are protected from negative consequences, such as homelessness.

Follow-up after discharge is also vital. When people leave residential rehabilitation, they are at increased risk of overdose, as their tolerance to drugs has been lowered. It is important that we recognise that people do not leave rehab cured and that they need on-going support. Residential rehabilitation provision must be well integrated with other health and care services, so that no one is left struggling to cope alone after they are discharged.

We must also consider that abstinence-based recovery will not suit everyone. As I have said before, we would not demand that someone stop smoking before we treated them for lung cancer. A range of treatment options must be available. Scotland has only about 40 per cent of people who need it in treatment at any one time, whereas England has 60 per cent. However, many people who use drugs have been in treatment at some point in their lives, so we have significant issues around retaining people in treatment. Services must be flexible and person centred and must take account of changing needs. Community-based provision such, as drop-in cafés and peer support networks, must be made available alongside residential rehab.

I will support the Scottish Government’s amendment, because it recognises the need for a focus on harm reduction and treatment. I am also very supportive of the content of Claire Baker’s amendment, but I note that it will be pre-empted by the Government’s. To tackle this crisis, we need to treat people with compassion, not judgment, and to offer them support, not condemnation.