Chamber and committees

I thank my friend for giving way. I had the opportunity with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to visit the Scottish Law Commission to discuss some of its work on the issue. During that visit, one matter that was raised was the fact that, although people who worked in manufacturing and construction industries were heavily affected, people living in the same household could be affected due to contact with clothing. It is a very insidious killer, which we must also take cognisance of.

I thank my friend Michael Marra for bringing this critical and urgent matter to the attention of Parliament today. I commend the work of the Dundee drugs commission and those with lived experience for feeding their expertise, insights and views into the commission’s comprehensive initial 2019 report, as well as its 2022 review in response to the drug deaths crisis in Dundee.

The report makes reference to the staggering 1,339 drug deaths in Scotland in 2020. Although the most recent figures show that the number of drug deaths in the year leading up to March 2022 was 1,187, there is still an alarming, preventable rate of deaths in Scotland that is well above the UK and European averages.

As my friend Mercedes Villalba said, we know that there is a link between deprivation and drug dependency. Dundee, like my constituency in Glasgow, has its own unique challenges when it comes to poverty. Female and male life expectancies in Glasgow are the lowest in Scotland, at 78 and 73 years respectively, with Dundee’s male life expectancy also sitting at around 73 years. We must take cognisance of the huge trauma that that causes for communities in our respective cities, which lies at the heart of a lot of the difficulties that we have in dealing with the crisis in our midst.

What really frustrates me in reading the report is that there are simply not enough people with lived experience driving the change and the reform. That is critical in what the commission is trying to say to the Government. Indeed, the primary recommendation is that a major health needs assessment for drug users be carried out to inform public and third sector agencies about what needs to happen, but that response has not yet been implemented. Without a major health needs assessment having been undertaken, it has been difficult for the commission to be prescriptive about what Dundee needs with regard to new service creation. I advocate for that practical and specific tool, because it will be at the core of what we can do to fight the drug deaths crisis in Dundee and across Scotland more broadly.

Colleagues will be aware that I am consulting on my proposed bill to establish overdose prevention centres in Scotland. Such facilities serve the purpose that their name suggests in preventing overdoses and saving lives, and I strongly believe that they will be a critical part of Scotland’s response to the drug deaths crisis. The introduction of such facilities across the world has proved to be an effective way to reverse overdoses, prevent overdoses, engage with people who are currently at the margins of society and provide people with resources and support in relation to issues that stem from their addiction.

I have seen the benefits of that approach at first hand, and I pay tribute to Peter Krykant from Cranstoun, who is in the public gallery today, for the work that it has done to drive the pace in Scotland. It has done far more than any Government agency. I have volunteered with my friend Peter, and we saw at first hand the impact that the unofficial pilot had in Glasgow. Nine overdoses were reversed and eight lives were saved, because two overdoses related to one individual. In addition, 900 injections were supervised.

However, we found that one of the most important parts of the work was the interaction and the building of self-esteem and a sense of validation among people. The approach provides an interface for people to start to engage and get support. Even things as simple as a protein shake and a Mars bar were things that they really needed, and they found a way to validate themselves.

The recent New York pilot is another perfect example of the efficacy of OPCs, with 110 overdoses having been reversed there between November last year and February this year. The impact is striking.

It is a source of extreme frustration that the Dundee drugs commission’s recommendations have not yet been fully implemented, some two years on from the initial report. I fear that the lagging response in Dundee is indicative of the national picture, in which things are moving too slowly as the deaths mount up and up.

I will mention once more the most recent annual drug death figure: 1,187 people died a drug-related death between March last year and March this year. There is an urgent need for quick and cohesive action. In Dundee, that means the comprehensive and urgent implementation of all aspects of the commission’s recommendations. In Scotland more broadly, that means establishing a framework and licensing scheme for overdose prevention centres as soon as possible. I hope that my bill, which is out for consultation, will drive the pace of that change.

I was alarmed to hear that a new social housing development in Dalmarnock in the east end of Glasgow is not being connected to the adjacent athletes’ village district heat network. Does the minister not share my concern and agree that there are huge opportunities for municipal development of those district heat networks that could refinance local government? Will he commit to developing a municipal strategy for ownership and development of district heat across Scotland?

I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Sarah Boyack and I support the Government motion.

The member for Airdrie and Shotts and I are veterans of the 2017-19 UK Parliament. We had front-row seats for the tragic and horrible spectacle of the constitutional vandalism that the Conservative Party perpetrated on this country. I was nine years old when the Good Friday agreement was signed, so I have only ever known peace in Northern Ireland. It was, therefore, appalling to see peace and my generation’s prospects being threatened.

In wrestling with the difficulties of the 2016 Brexit vote and considering how to make sense of it and deliver a workable solution, it quickly became clear that there were only three options. The whole UK could remain in the single market and customs union—or something that was very closely aligned to that—or there could be a hard border in one of two locations: between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland or between the island of Ireland and Great Britain.

The Conservatives, under Theresa May and later Boris Johnson, made three promises that were logically incompatible—I summarise that as the Brexit trilemma. They promised that we could leave the single market and customs union but have no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and no border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That was simply impossible to achieve: something had to give. The fantasy that things could be squared off was impossible to deal with in that session of Parliament, which led to the disastrous outcome of the 2019 general election and the no-deal—in all but name—Brexit with which we ended up.

Option A was the 2019 withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol that Johnson negotiated with the EU, which broke the promise that there would be no border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Johnson lied to the Democratic Unionist Party—his erstwhile partners in sustaining the Conservatives in power—when the UK agreed to a de facto customs border in the Irish Sea, with checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Now, Johnson brazenly and outrageously denies that he agreed to that and, to try to cover his tracks, he threatens to renege on the deal. If the UK reneges on the withdrawal agreement with the EU, that will undermine the Good Friday agreement by forcing a return to a border on the island of Ireland, thus breaking promise 3, which was that there would be no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. In effect, that will result in a no-deal Brexit and economic disaster for the UK—and, of course, the United States will never sign a trade deal with the UK if it does that.

The UK will then try to claim that the EU is to blame for this disaster and for that border. That is the most outrageous lie that has been perpetrated on the people of this country—including people who perhaps voted in good faith against what they thought was EU bureaucracy and so on, but without fully understanding the implications of the problem that would be faced with Ireland.

Theresa May’s 2018 deal with the Irish backstop pretended to achieve the fantasy of squaring off the situation, but in reality it would have kept the whole UK de facto in the EU customs union and single market for goods, if no other solution could be found, which would have broken the promise to leave the single market and customs union. Effectively, Theresa May was held hostage by her back benchers.

That deal was rejected by the UK Parliament. I am proud to say that I worked as much as possible with colleagues across parties to achieve as much as we could by way of compromise to secure agreement to remain in the customs union and single market and to achieve that alignment. There was Ken Clarke’s proposal, for instance. We worked as much as we could on that. However, the vandals on the back benches of the Conservative Party put paid to that, which led to May’s resignation, to Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister and to the whole thing unravelling.

What we saw through 2017 to 2019 was the most appalling constitutional vandalism, and we are now wrestling with the consequences of it. That is why we should reject the proposals and reject everything that the Conservative Party has visited on this country—the misery that it has visited on this country over the past five years.

Would my friend recognise that an average cost per prisoner per year of £35,000—about the same as it costs to board a pupil at Fettes College in Edinburgh—is also a massive waste of public money, particularly given the constraints on public finances at the moment?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I support amendments 72 and 73, in the name of my friend Mercedes Villalba, a member for North East Scotland, because of the criticality and urgency with which we need to address the cost of living crisis that is facing hundreds of thousands of Scots. I am afraid that we simply cannot wait until 2025, because too many people will be financially crippled by that point. That will harm us all; it will harm our communities and rend the social fabric of Scotland itself.

Since 2010, rents in Glasgow are up by 41 per cent while average wages are down by 3 per cent in real terms. That is being further compounded by the pressure of inflation, which is now topping 10 per cent. That cannot hold.

During the pandemic, I unfortunately found myself unemployed. As a mortgage holder, I had the luxury of having a six-month mortgage holiday. That was vital to ensure that I did not lose my flat and end up homeless. Unfortunately, private renters and even social renters are often not in that luxurious position. That is why this Parliament must act to defend the weakest and those who have lost out most during the pandemic. We have seen an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest. Huge surpluses were accumulated by those with assets, while those who are barely able to make ends meet found themselves plunging further and further into financial distress, with all the psychological torment that that entails.

We saw further pressure being heaped on that situation when the UK Government cut universal credit by £20 a week—money that was vital for me to make ends meet. About 83,000 Glaswegians are affected by that £1,000 a year being ripped out of their income and it is enough to tip them over the edge into arrears and a situation in which they are vulnerable to eviction and to losing their tenancies. That is not sustainable in our economy and, with £86 million a year being taken out of the Glasgow economy, it is not good enough. This Parliament must act today to safeguard those people.

The proposals in amendments 72 and 73 make economic sense. We have some of the highest housing costs as a share of household income in Europe—indeed, in the world. That is unsustainable. It is also a reason why Scotland’s economy is so unproductive: because so much of our national income is tied up in housing costs. Often, that money goes to people who collect rents and do not offer anything to our economy. They do not invent things or create products, goods or services that add value to our economy.

That is why we need to control the situation and push that money into productive areas of economic development. It is why we need to help to redress the balance, moving income back from the richest—those who own the investment assets—to the people who rely on earned income to make ends meet and who go out into the economy and buy goods and services. The measure would support economic recovery.

The argument about article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR being used is a bogus, straw-man argument that has been used multiple times by, ironically, landlordism interests to try to prevent increased protection for consumers. We have seen it attempted, but it has not succeeded once anywhere. I do not know of a single case that has been successful. To rely on such an overused and abused argument is really shameful on the part of the Scottish Greens.

Even in 2009, in Ireland, when all repossessions were effectively banned until 2013 and tens of thousands of people stopped paying their mortgages, in effect living rent free, not one case went to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that the law did not allow a remedy for property owners. I do not think that that argument is justifiable, and it is shameful for it to be presented from the left of politics in this country. That is why we need to take a stand to defend the weakest in our society. I expect better from all parliamentarians who believe in the rights of social justice.

The minister knows full well the scale of the cost of living crisis and the misery that millions of people are living through at the moment. The reality is that people need that underspend money in their pockets, not sitting in a Scottish Government reserve being saved for a rainy day. Will the minister tell us why he believes that it is appropriate—or, indeed, fiscally prudent—for the Scottish Government recently to announce the potential loss of up to 30,000 public sector jobs during this cost of living crisis, while sitting on an excessive £420 million resource underspend? That money could be used right now to alleviate the hardship faced by millions of households across Scotland.

I welcome the news that there has been progress on the work that is being done on overdose prevention centres. The minister and I whole-heartedly agree that those centres are desperately needed, particularly in a city like Glasgow. My proposed member’s bill on drug deaths prevention is out for consultation at present.

However, what Glasgow also needs is full implementation of the MAT standards to which the Government has committed. I find it appalling that Glasgow—the city with the highest drug death rate in Scotland—has not fully implemented a single MAT standard by the target date. I accept that the minister has said that that is not good enough, but what exactly are she and the Scottish Government doing to turn it around? Every time that we miss the target, more people are dying. No amount of warm words will fix that.

I am delighted to contribute to the debate and to support the motion in the name of my friend Mark Griffin.

The cost of living crisis is the biggest challenge that families across Scotland and the wider UK face. Inflationary pressures, stagnating wages and geopolitical upheaval have resulted in a perfect storm. Food prices, energy prices and fuel prices are all up. In the past year, the cost of an average family’s food shopping has increased by almost £400. Energy prices have jumped by more than £700 per household and they look set to increase by the same again in October. Fuel prices have increased by almost £1 a litre, which means that the average family car now costs £100 to fill up. In addition, our housing costs are among the highest in Europe, with that rent-seeking behaviour sapping our real productive potential across the economy.

While all of that is happening, wages have stagnated for more than a decade. Even people who are offered a wage rise this year are not likely to be offered a rise that will be high enough to keep up with rising inflation.

We should be in no doubt that that combination of price increases and compressed wages is really biting hard. Citizens Advice Scotland estimates that one in every five people in Scotland now runs out of money before pay day. The stress that that causes to families every month is frightening.

The Poverty and Inequality Commission estimates that one in four children in Scotland lives in poverty, that one in five working-age people in Scotland lives in poverty and that 61 per cent of working-age adults who live in poverty are living in a household in which someone is in employment. Are we going to accept that that is the norm or pretend that the situation will not get significantly worse by the end of the year?

It is essential that we understand the underlying factors that are driving inflation. Brexit, labour market shortages and the post-pandemic clamour are undoubtedly playing their part, but there is also an egregious economic power grab at play here. This week, IPPR Scotland and Common Wealth published research highlighting that net profits for companies are up by a staggering 33 per cent compared with before the pandemic and that 90 per cent of those profits have been made by just 25 companies. At a time when workers have been told by the Tories and some in the SNP that their demands for better wages are increasing and exacerbating inflationary pressures, we should understand that excess profits are a much greater driver of inflation. We should be considering profit restraint measures and the redistribution of profits to ensure greater equality of income. Taxing investments at the same rates at which we tax income is an underutilised and underappreciated tool that we have at our disposal.

The demands for pay restraint come at a time when railway workers are taking strike action for better pay, terms and conditions. I put on record my unequivocal and complete solidarity with them, because workers have been ripped off for too long. Having been blamed for the failings of successive Governments to address the structural fragilities at the heart of our economy, they have decided to stand up and be counted by using their power to collectively bargain. I pay tribute to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers for its work. Rather than criticise unions for democratically representing the views and wishes of their members, we should encourage other sectors to unionise and collectively bargain for better working conditions. If workers are not able to use their power to collectively bargain, they are left begging from the owners of capital.

We need to tackle the current crisis with a clear understanding of the underlying structural problem. Frankly, neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government is doing much in that regard. Contrary to what the Bank of England’s governor tells us—