Chamber and committees

I am sure that Craig Hoy is aware that I am not the Minister for Transport. I suggest that he puts his proposals to her and finds out what she has to say.

As we have heard, a higher proportion of people attend football matches in Scotland than do anywhere else in Europe. Our fans enjoy a wonderful reputation internationally for the support that they provide and the atmosphere that they create. On the rare occasions on which incidents occur, the police and other bodies already have the powers that they need to deal with them. Frankly, it is irresponsible to make sweeping generalisations about football fans and their behaviour.

This afternoon, members have shown the value and benefit of football to our communities, and I want to shine a light on the fantastic work that is carried out by some of the many football clubs, and their supporters, in my Central Scotland region.

The difference that Motherwell FC, as a fan-owned club, makes to its local community should not be underestimated. In December last year, the club teamed up with Samaritans, Breathing Space, Childline and the local charity Chris’s House to launch a charitable kit that encouraged fans who were struggling to speak up, speak out and be heard. All profits that were made by the club on the kits were split equally between the four charities, which provide a vital first point of contact for people who need to talk or are feeling suicidal.

In 2021, which was a year that was disrupted by lockdowns and restrictions on numbers and travel, a social return on investment report found that Motherwell Football Club Community Trust brought benefits of £13.64 million to the local community. As the official charity of Motherwell Football Club, the trust uses the brand name of the club and the power of football to bring about positive change in the local community through programmes that bring health and wellbeing benefits, tackle isolation and increase participation in sport.

In recent months, supporters of Motherwell have raised thousands of pounds for mental health charities. At Christmas, they organised a toy drive, and they regularly participate in food bank collections, an activity that is replicated by the fans of other clubs who support food bank groups across Scotland.

Similarly, Falkirk Football Club’s community foundation is a community leader and provider of sport, health, education and employability activities to children, young people and adults. The community’s wellbeing is integral to its work, and tackling deep-rooted issues is of the utmost importance to it. One initiative that stands out is its hugely successful partnership with Falkirk & Clackmannanshire Carers Centre. The partnership has resulted in more than 600 season tickets being gifted to carers and cared-for people in the current football season. Its work is invaluable and, last year, it had 3,603 unique participants through the door, making up more than 250,000 hours and providing 1,312 SQA qualifications, allowing local people to develop skills and opportunities to secure future employment.

Football is very much a force for good, and fan ownership clearly has its benefits for those clubs. We need to understand what barriers there are for other clubs joining them and how we can facilitate that. Fan groups such as the Hampden Collection and the Scottish Football Supporters Association do phenomenal work to preserve our footballing heritage and encourage fan engagement. We need far more of that at national level.

The ludicrous proposal that we are discussing, which, thankfully, has been withdrawn, was an infringement of the civil liberties of football fans. The demonisation of football fans is clear from the outset of the proposal. Although the title of the paper references sporting events, the word “football” is used 35 times in the document, yet no other sport is mentioned.

Although I welcome the cross-party concern, it is important to highlight the fact that the harsh treatment of football fans is not a new concept, and we all have a responsibility to stand up to and challenge it wherever we see it. The proposals were unmanageable. It was suggested that supporters could buy alcohol in a pub only with a substantial meal. That sounds like something that we would hear in a sitcom instead of reading it in an official document published on a Government website. The knock-on effect for small businesses could have been significant, with pubs and restaurants near football stadiums relying heavily on passing trade on match days. In a cost of living crisis, we should be creating opportunities for traders and not putting them under further pressure.

The strength of feeling is emphasised when we see Rangers fans in agreement with Celtic fans, political parties in agreement across the chamber and the SFA in agreement with supporters groups.

However, we must remain vigilant. The proposal has been removed for now, but there is nothing to prevent something similar coming back. If it does, together, we must condemn any more such attacks on our football fans. I pay tribute to the fans who highlighted the proposal on social media in the first place.

We must support fan groups, build on and empower their work, increase fan ownership of clubs and get more Scotland games on free-to-view TV—I fully support Stuart McMillan’s calls for that. We need to do more to promote women’s football, as Collette Stevenson said, and provide parity for women players.

Fans are a phenomenal resource and support to their clubs, and everything that we can do to support them benefits football across the country.

Grand.

To get straight to the point, before they were taken off the table, the proposed restrictions on travelling football fans were unwarranted, unworkable and entirely out of touch, and they were rejected by the SFA, the SPFL, the SWPL, clubs and fan organisations. They served little purpose other than to demonise law-abiding citizens. Our football fans should be celebrated.

Is work under way on putting vapes behind covers, as currently happens with cigarettes? One of the biggest concerns that we are hearing from parents is about the pervasiveness of the products, especially in shops. They can be reached by toddlers, because they are on the ends of aisles in some shops. If that was happening with cigarettes, we would rightly be outraged: vapes contain the same addictive ingredient. Is consideration being given to putting vapes behind covers?

Yesterday, I hosted a round-table meeting that was attended by Emma Harper and other colleagues. We heard from paediatricians and parents who are concerned about the addiction that children are currently suffering and the potential long-term health impacts. We have never needed large-scale nicotine cessation therapies for children before, but that is potentially looming. Many of the nicotine-replacement therapies that we currently have are licensed only for children aged 12 and over, but we have anecdotally heard about children as young as eight using vapes who might need support. What work is under way to develop pathways and support and advice for young people and parents who are facing such addiction?

It is being reported in the press this morning that the UK Government is likely to announce a ban on disposable vapes in the coming weeks. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to a consultation on banning them. However, harm is still occurring while that work is under way. Many vaping products are displayed in shop windows alongside sweets, or at the end of aisles, in full view of children and young people. I wrote to retailers, asking them to proactively put vapes behind cover, but many declined, saying that they will comply with any legislation that is introduced. The Scottish Government plans to use its current regulation-making powers to move quickly to put vaping products out of sight—in particular, out of the sight of children. Are additional measures, such as plain packaging or restriction of advertising, being considered?

Given the cabinet secretary’s comments and the particular vulnerability of people in hospital, what guidance has the Government issued about the use of high efficiency particulate air filters and air sterilisation, particularly in hospitals, to prevent airborne transmission of Covid-19?

I echo the minister’s condolences to all those who have lost a loved one. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement, and I welcome the Lord Advocate’s statement. I want to follow other colleagues by paying tribute to campaigners, particularly Peter Krykant, who have worked tirelessly on the issue.

What engagement has the minister had with the UK Government, and is she satisfied that it will work with the consensus here, in Scotland, to allow a pilot safe consumption room to proceed?

I begin, as others have, by offering my and my party’s sincere condolences to Winnie Ewing’s family and friends. I know that, for many in the chamber, she had an impact on not just their political journey but their personal life.

Winnie Ewing’s impact on Scottish politics and her party is undeniable. There was a historic by-election win for the SNP in Hamilton; she advocated for independence on the international stage; and she reconvened the Scottish Parliament. That is an honour that no one else will ever have. I hope that we can also take this time to remind ourselves that this place has to go on to achieve everything that was hoped for in the very first session.

Winnie Ewing has undoubtedly left her mark on the political landscape. She represented in politics at a time when it was unusual, to say the least, to see women taking a prominent role. That is a reminder to us that we need to continue to value women in politics and help all of us to bring everything that we can to the job.

We have to recognise the unique situation that we are in with both Fergus and Annabelle here as sitting members. Winnie Ewing’s loss to the party and the independence movement is obvious, but the loss to her family is profound. Finding the words to express that loss and convey how sorry I truly am is almost impossible. The gravity of grief, let alone having to navigate that grief in the public eye, is great, and it takes a great deal of strength to be able to sit through such a session. I hope that the outpouring of feeling and the formal marking of their mum’s death bring Fergus and Annabelle some comfort. Grief is a process, and I hope that, long after this debate concludes, colleagues around the chamber will continue to provide a listening ear.

Winnie Ewing achieved what many of us hope to do in our lifetimes. She has a tangible legacy written into the history books, with people who love her to continue to tell her stories—the triumphant ones of winning elections and, undoubtedly, the deeply personal ones of fun. Those are the things that paint the picture of a life well lived, and add colour and light when grief can weigh heavy.

I want to finish with a poem that was sent to me by a friend at my own time of loss. I hope that those across the chamber who feel Winnie’s loss will find some comfort in it.

“Don’t think of her as gone away, her journey’s just begun,
Life holds so many facets, this earth is only one.
She’s in a place of warmth and comfort where there are no days or years.

Think how she must be wishing that we could know today
How nothing but our sadness can really pass away,
And think of her as living in the hearts of those she touched,
For nothing loved is ever lost and she was loved so much.”

I, too, thank Carol Mochan for bringing forward the debate, and offer my condolences to anyone who has lost a loved one to alcohol misuse. I also thank Alcohol Focus Scotland and SHAAP for their tireless efforts to tackle alcohol-related harm. Every alcohol-related death is a preventable tragedy.

This is a human rights issue. As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to act on it. Many others have covered recovery and treatment services. My contribution will focus on the other side of the issue: prevention and the specific actions that we need to take to address the alcohol deaths emergency. Inevitably, that will mean tackling alcohol marketing, which encourages people to start drinking and to drink at higher levels.

We know that exposure to alcohol marketing is a cause of youth drinking. Decades of research have concluded that alcohol marketing leads young people to start drinking earlier and to drink more. Clearly, allowing the industry to self-regulate is not working. In a UK survey, 82 per cent of 11 to 17-year-olds reported having seen alcohol advertising in the past month.

Alcohol marketing affects not just young people. It encourages consumption and risk-taking behaviour among heavier drinkers, causes higher craving levels and fosters positive alcohol-related thoughts. That can seriously impact people who are struggling with their alcohol use, or who are in recovery.

Alcohol advertising makes drinking seem more attractive and encourages high consumption. Restricted alcohol marketing benefits everyone. In fact, it is recommended by the World Health Organization as one of the most effective ways of reducing consumption and the health and social harms that alcohol causes.

Other European countries have already taken action. Ireland recently introduced legislation to ban alcohol advertising during sporting events and—crucially—events that are aimed at children. It is also restricting alcohol advertising outdoors and on public transport, as well as how and where alcohol can be displayed in shops and supermarkets.

Scotland would do well to follow Ireland’s lead and be bold in its efforts to tackle the proliferation of alcohol marketing. Measures recommended by the alcohol marketing expert network include restricting advertising outdoors and in public places, in sports and event sponsorship and in retail display and promotion. Those measures should be introduced as soon as is practicable and I look forward to hearing any updates that the minister has about timescales for upcoming consultations.

I turn to the introduction of an alcohol levy. I have long believed that the polluter-pays principle should be applied to the sale of alcohol. The alcohol industry makes huge profits from the sale of alcohol and should contribute towards mitigating the harm that is caused by the products that it sells. Retailers should not be allowed to keep the additional profits that they make from minimum unit pricing, which should be invested into prevention and treatment services.

Alcohol Focus Scotland also advocates for the introduction of an alcohol harm prevention levy. That would be raised through a supplement on non-domestic rates for retailers and applied to premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises. I have raised that matter in the past and I would be grateful if the minister could update the Parliament on the Government’s current position on the proposal and advise what consideration is being given to introducing such a levy.

There are many actions that we can take to tackle alcohol-related harm. Now is not the time for timidity or hesitation. Too many lives and too many families are being destroyed. We must act and we must do it now.