Chamber and committees

I need to make some progress. I am genuinely sorry.

The report was produced in conjunction with clinicians, and it is worth stating that the recommendations on the new neonatal model of care are underpinned by strong evidence that population outcomes for the most premature and sickest babies are improved, with regard to delivery and care, in units that look after a high number of these babies, as we have heard from other members.

Outcomes for very low birth weight babies are better when they are delivered and treated in neonatal intensive care units with full support services and experienced staff. Therefore, babies who are born at under 27 weeks, who are lighter than 800g or who need complex life support will receive specialist complex care in these units.

It is important to stress that, although that will result in care for the smallest and sickest babies being delivered in a smaller number of specialist centres, no units will close as a result, and University hospital Wishaw will continue to provide excellent care of babies that require treatment in a neonatal unit. Local neonatal units will continue to provide care, and babies will be returned to their local area as soon as they are well enough.

However, that is certainly not to dismiss how distressing it can be for parents whose babies are treated outwith their local area at what will already be a very emotional time. I absolutely recognise the points that were raised by Mark Griffin, among others, about the issues when a baby is in one health board area and the family is in another. We need to ensure that families receive all possible support and that as many of those issues as possible are taken care of.

It is vital that babies receive the best care available, but it is equally vital that we support parents and carers, and I would be grateful if the minister could advise what emotional support is available to families whose babies are being treated outwith their local health board area.

These changes are the result of expert advice and are being made so that the smallest and sickest babies can receive the best neonatal care possible. They are a sign of Scotland’s improving neonatal healthcare, but it is so important that we take people with us and that we continue the dialogue with worried staff, parents and carers who also just want to see the best for their babies.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Prison Service regarding supporting and enabling families of prisoners to have better access to visiting their loved ones while they are in prison. (S6O-02530)

As the cabinet secretary says, the times that some prisons have for visits, especially children’s visits, make it very expensive or impossible for some families to visit their loved ones. For example, getting to HMP Shotts from any distance, particularly on public transport, for 9.30 am on a weekend is just not possible, and Perth prison has no weekend family visits at all. That means that visiting is expensive. Overnight accommodation might be needed or children might need to be taken out of school, and if they cannot do that, they barely see their relative. None of that is good for rehabilitation, maintaining family ties or the wellbeing of the children involved. What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that families of prisoners are not punished in those ways?

That is great—thank you.

Good morning. I will come back to Philip Whyte on something that Emma Harper picked up earlier about preventing people from falling into poverty and ensuring that they have enough money to live on in the first place. With that in mind, what impact does the panel believe that the introduction of a universal basic income or a minimum income guarantee could have on the health and social care system in terms of reducing strain and costs?

Before I begin, Deputy Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being in the chamber this afternoon as I, too, am ill. I invite Sue Webber to apologise for her insensitive and incorrect comments earlier, when she said that the Greens have not even bothered to turn up. I am more than happy to take an intervention if she would like to correct the record or apologise but, if she does not, I will move on.

As many others have done, I offer my condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one to drugs and pay tribute to those organisations and individuals who have campaigned tirelessly for drug law reform. I also want to thank those who have provided briefings for today’s debate.

The Scottish Greens have long called for a public health approach to drug-related deaths. We need to offer support and not judgment, compassion and not punishment. Punishing people for their addiction simply does not work but serves to further entrench stigma and prevents people from seeking help. As others have mentioned, 1,051 people died in 2022 due to drug-related causes—that is 1,051 preventable deaths, 1,051 grieving families and 1,051 devastated communities.

Although any reduction in deaths is welcome, we still have so far to go. We need to be using every tool in our arsenal to reduce harm and prevent further loss of life. Any harm reduction strategy must include safe consumption rooms and I am pleased to see the progress that is being made on that point, including the Lord Advocate’s statement last week. It has not come a moment too soon, however. Safe consumption rooms have been operating in Europe for around 30 years and we know that they reduce the risk of overdose and can put people who use drugs in touch with services that can help them. They also reduce the risk of disease transmission and the prevalence of discarded needles. Their introduction is long overdue.

When it comes to reducing the number of drug-related deaths, we must follow the evidence. However, too often, outdated legislation that aims to criminalise people for their drug use blocks progress. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is hugely outdated. As we know, this past month, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee published a report that concluded that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 need to be updated to support greater use of public-health-based drug interventions. The evidence is stacking up and more and more voices, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Global Commission on Drug Policy and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership UK, among many, are calling for the legislation to be updated.

I whole-heartedly agree with the motion when it says that the

“Scottish Government should work constructively with the UK Government”

on this, or that the powers to do so should be devolved. Scotland needs drug legislation that is fit for the 21st century and has human rights at its heart. Introducing new legislation will have many benefits, not least allowing the roll-out of safer consumption rooms across Scotland. It will also facilitate the roll-out of other important public health measures, such as heroin-assisted treatment and drug testing.

Scotland has already made progress on heroin-assisted treatment. We have already heard that the Home Office has allowed a dedicated service to operate in Glasgow. The Scottish Drugs Forum has already reported impressive early results from that programme and Scottish Greens fully support the opening of facilities in other parts of Scotland where people could benefit.

We must see drug checking progressing at pace to ensure that people are not injecting drugs that are cut with substances such as cement. Checking would also allow people to know the strength of what they are injecting, which by itself would save lives.

I turn to focus on stigma, which kills. It prevents people from seeking treatment and means that they are seldom met with the kindness and compassion that they deserve when they do ask for help. Media narratives, or the words of those in this chamber, too often focus on personal or lifestyle choices and demonise people who use drugs. Those narratives ignore the fact that Scotland’s high level of drug use is rooted in the harsh climate of de-industrialisation during the 1980s that devastated communities across the country.

Drug use is often inextricably linked with issues such as poverty, multigenerational trauma and poor mental health. Most high-risk drug users come from already marginalised communities. Despite that, the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce said that people who come into contact with services are often reduced to being a “drug problem” when they need a person-centred system that recognises their multiple and complex needs and the various ways in which they are stigmatised and marginalised and that does not reduce them to categories or labels. I have long advocated for stigma training for all those who work in front-line services and think that it should be extended to MSPs.

A first step in building a better and more caring system would be to ensure that it is underpinned by good quality legislation, based on the principle that people who use drugs are individuals who deserve to have their needs met. New drugs legislation will help to tackle stigma.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, drug-related deaths should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal one. The Greens therefore believe that drug use should ultimately be decriminalised and we will always call on the UK Government to engage constructively on the issue. In the absence of any action from Westminster, powers must be devolved to Scotland so that we can create a society in which no one is criminalised, stigmatised, marginalised or demonised for their drug use.

I recognise the strength of feeling on the issue in the Parliament and I thank everyone who will contribute today. The fact that we are so tight on time is heartening and points to how seriously the Parliament takes the issue.

I know that work is going on in many offices across the Parliament to tackle the issue, and I thank those who attended one or both of the round tables that I have chaired. I thank campaigners such as Laura Young, the Marine Conservation Society, ASH Scotland, Asthma + Lung UK, the British Heart Foundation, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Daily Record, The Inverness Courier and the many others who have helped and contributed to the campaign so far. There is more to do and more round tables to come, and I encourage everyone to join the discussion.

I thank the Scottish Government—particularly my colleague Lorna Slater—and Zero Waste Scotland for the work that was commissioned on the environmental impact of single-use vapes, which my motion mentions. The review estimated that the total emissions that were associated with single-use vapes in 2022 were between 3,375 and 4,292 tonnes of CO₂. That is the equivalent of the emissions from 2,100 cars on the road. It also showed that the weight of packaging and materials that are discarded as a result of single-use e-cigarette consumption in Scotland is between 800 and 1,000 tonnes a year. Other figures show that 1.3 million single-use vapes were thrown away every week in the United Kingdom last year, although that figure is likely to be far higher now.

This is a looming environmental catastrophe. Local authorities and waste-processing companies are concerned about the fire risk that is associated with the incorrect disposal of such devices. In addition, the devices are difficult to recycle, as they are made of mixed materials, and the lithium batteries are particularly resource intensive to make. Many discarded batteries are ending up on our beaches and in green spaces, as well as in our towns and cities. I have seen discarded batteries between cobbles in Edinburgh and at home in Falkirk. Some of our most iconic streets are being littered by the products, and the sheer number of them being thrown away is astonishing.

In the middle of a climate crisis, the last thing that we need is to have another polluting single-use product, and a ban on disposables is the minimum that we need in order to protect the planet. There are also issues with the packaging for refillable vapes, and we need to address that now to ensure that we are not merely moving the litter problem down the line.

There is an issue with illegal vapes. We do not know if they are any more environmentally damaging than others. Their composition is much more difficult to find, especially when new products come on the market. Preventing their importation by examining the current registration and licensing scheme should be a priority. We will need a four-nation approach to ensure that the importation of vapes is tracked. I will be writing to Scottish Government and United Kingdom Government ministers in the coming days to ask them to work with me on a way forward.

It is essential to consider the health, environmental, trading standards, licensing and regulation issues as a whole when we are dealing with single-use vapes. To reduce the number of vapes that are discarded, we need to help people to give up nicotine altogether; regulate, tax and license the products better; stop the supply of single-use vapes to young people; and—as I know is crucial for many members—prevent young people from being tempted to take up vaping. We need retailers to step up and do what they can to reduce the environmental and health impact of the products.

I wrote to retailers to ask them to put the products behind cover and to treat all nicotine-based products in the same way. I got very few responses. Those that I did receive said that retailers would wait to comply with whatever regulations were introduced.

We should be using our current regulation-making powers to make retailers put the products behind cover. We need to introduce plain packaging, and ensure that flavours are removed or restricted heavily, so that we do not have blue bubble gum, candyfloss or rainbow unicorn, to name a few. I expect that, in discussing flavours, we will hear the usual cries that adults enjoy colours and flavours, too. This may be coming from me—someone who loves a pick-’n’-mix or two—but I know no adult who would be influenced by the name “Rainbow Unicorn” to try a vape. However, I do know plenty of young children who would be tempted by it. Advertising and the presence of the products in television programmes and social media needs to be taken seriously, and I am grateful to the Advertising Standards Authority for—it wrote to me in the past couple of days detailing this—the action that it is already taking to address that. We need to remain vigilant, however.

We often get branded as killjoys when we try to good things in environmental and public health policy areas, and we may be seen as stopping people from doing things that they enjoy, but the issue is far too important for us to be worried about being seen in that way, and I encourage colleagues from all parties to take a bold stance on the matter. For the sake of the environment and—importantly for all of us—for the sake of the health and wellbeing of today’s children and young people, that has to be done. They should have been the generation with the lowest-ever rate of nicotine addiction. That is still absolutely achievable but only if all of us put their needs at the forefront of our minds.

Will the member take an intervention?

The paediatrician who we heard from at the round table on Monday raised the concern that we are trading two health-harming products off against each other, rather than recognising the health-harming nature of vapes. Does the member agree that we need to recognise this health-harming product and treat it on its own, rather than trading it off against cigarettes?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise to Mr Kerr for interrupting, but I want to hear what he has to say. Could I very gently ask for your guidance about asking members to speak through their microphones?