Chamber and committees

You spoke about displacement. A report from the Institute of Economic Affairs has suggested that minimum unit pricing is responsible for a certain amount of displacement to higher-value categories. It says that the policy has resulted in an extra 8.2 million litres of pure alcohol being sold in the 50p to 64p per unit category and a further 0.4 million litres being sold above 70p per unit. What investigatory work has the Scottish Government commissioned into that level of displacement, and do you recognise the argument that the policy has pushed consumers towards the mid-range rather than away from alcohol in its entirety?

I thought that one of the intentions was to reduce the amount of alcohol that people are drinking. What I am suggesting is that that has not happened; they are still drinking the same, if not more, alcohol, but they are buying it in a higher-value category.

Thank you for drawing attention to the inequality that women face in accessing services. If 51 per cent of the population are struggling to access services that are being developed, that should probably be the number 1 priority, given the make-up of this committee.

The number of alcohol-related hospitalisations and deaths is eight times higher in the most deprived areas of Scotland. We should all be ashamed about that. We really need to figure out how to target and support those communities. Support mechanisms for alcohol misuse are often far more sparse in deprived areas than they are in the most affluent areas. What can we do to narrow the gap and target deprived communities?

My question follows on from Gillian Mackay’s point. It has been revealed that one of the impacts of minimum unit pricing is that Scottish consumers have contributed £270 million more than was projected, in terms of their spending on alcohol. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to the possibility of ring-fencing proceeds from alcohol to be spent on rehabilitation and treatment? The current model feeds the revenue straight back into the supply chain.

I welcome the chance to speak in the debate. We can all agree that more action should be taken to tackle antisocial behaviour that involves fireworks misuse, which can cause so much harm to our emergency workers, to people who are sensitive to loud noises and to our pets. I say to those in the chamber who do not know it that I have a lovely puppy who is involved in a competition.

Dogs Trust has contacted us to remind us that

“Dogs generally feel safer and more secure when they can predict and control their environment, so fireworks, which are inherently loud, bright, unpredictable, and difficult to escape from, can cause dogs immense stress and this has a negative impact on their welfare. Fireworks can elicit undesirable behavioural responses ... such as avoidance (hiding away), not eating, trembling/shaking, panting, not being able to settle, agitation ... These are physical manifestations of”

dogs

“trying to cope with a perceived threat”

that they do not understand. I do not know how Alfie will react to fireworks—he is only four months old—but I will be glad to know that he will not be as stressed in the next period.

However, the fact that we know that something needs to be done does not mean that we should rush the decision-making process. The bill is being rushed through Parliament so that the SNP Government can avoid proper scrutiny.

The consultation showed support for taking tough action on fireworks misuse, and we agree that tough action needs to be taken to tackle antisocial behaviour with fireworks, but the law is being rushed through Parliament and is poorly drafted. Bad law will not fix the problems that the public clearly want to be addressed.

There has not been enough time to scrutinise the bill, which has significant flaws. There has not been a single full sitting day between publication of the Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report and Parliament’s debating the proposal. Standing orders state that a stage 1 report must be published at least five sitting days before Parliament considers the bill’s general principles, and that has not happened in this situation.

The bill’s proposed licensing system has not been fleshed out, the firework control zones are confusing and the bill’s impact on the growth of a black market and the future of the fireworks industry—online and in person—has not been made clear.

Antisocial behaviour that involves fireworks has been a long-standing issue in Blackburn, which is in the Lothian region. Individuals have misused fireworks at various times of the year, and especially around bonfire night—5 November. Over several years, the antisocial behaviour around bonfire night became more intense and problematic. In 2017 and 2018, police in riot gear were called in to deal with the situation because it got so bad. Because of that, Blackburn bonfire night action group was formed. Some members of that group are not convinced about how firework control zones will be policed and they think that the zones could have the reverse effect to that intended.

It would be good to have measures to tackle antisocial behaviour in place by bonfire night this year, but it is not Parliament’s fault that the SNP Government wasted so much time that it could not introduce the bill earlier. Police have highlighted potential enforcement issues with the bill, and the fire service has pointed out that firework control zones might simply shift the location of antisocial behaviour. Those issues must be addressed before the bill becomes law.

The Scottish Conservatives support doubling the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker. Under current legislation, the maximum sentence for that is 12 months.

I am closing, thank you.

It is up to me—sorry.

The SNP’s ban on prison sentences of 12 months or less means that those who are convicted under the bill will avoid prison.

Although we are broadly supportive of the intentions of the bill, the SNP Government has failed to provide sufficient details of its proposals so far. The SNP Government needs to give Parliament sufficient time to scrutinise the changes that need to be made to the bill, and they must all be addressed before it becomes law.

The city region deal for Edinburgh and south-east Scotland was signed off by six local authorities, the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. The deal included 5,000 new homes in Winchburgh. Thanks to a West Lothian official, we know that Transport Scotland blocked an attempt to make the construction of a new station at Winchburgh a condition of planning permission for the houses. With a hammer blow of taxes hanging over the families who choose to live in Winchburgh but work in Edinburgh, will the cabinet secretary now prioritise funding for the station, which will provide a genuine alternative to the car for many?

I echo the comments that have just been made by my Labour colleague Carol Mochan.

Antibiotics are among the most powerful tools in healthcare, and they underpin every aspect of modern medicine. We need them not just when we are poorly at home with an infection, but when we are going through significant life-changing procedures such as chemotherapy and hip and knee replacements. Antibiotics work by killing bacteria, but in the same way that the Covid-19 virus mutates and evolves, so can bacteria, thereby developing resistance to antibiotics.

Antimicrobial resistance poses a substantial threat to human health. It is estimated that, by 2050, AMR could claim as many as 10 million lives a year worldwide—more than cancer and diabetes combined. Michael Marra made that point earlier. Already, AMR infections are causing an estimated 700,000 deaths each year globally, while it is estimated that, in the UK, AMR causes at least 12,000 deaths per year. AMR is not a vague threat that is happening elsewhere: it is happening in the UK, it is getting worse and it will continue to do so. Professor Jennifer Rohn of University College London has said:

“AMR has very much not gone away, and in the long term the consequences of AMR will be far more destructive.”

Although we have seen a welcome decline in total antibiotic use across the UK and in Scotland, their use continues to increase in hospitals.

The good news is that a great deal of action is under way. The O’Neill report, which was commissioned by David Cameron, was groundbreaking. It has been highly influential around the world, and 135 countries have finalised action plans on tackling AMR. Last year, the UK Government used its G7 presidency to try to deliver more tangible progress, as it did the previous time that it held the presidency in 2013, which was very welcome. As Dr Gulhane said, only 40 new antibiotics are currently in clinical trials, which should concern us all.

The UK Government is working with the devolved Administrations to tackle AMR effectively, including through its national five-year action plan. The five-year national action plan, which was developed in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, identifies three ways to fight AMR. They are:

“reducing the need for, and unintentional exposure to, antimicrobials;

optimising use of antimicrobials;”

and

“investing in innovation, supply, and access.”

Alongside its five-year strategy, the UK Government also published a long-term ambition for AMR. That document set out a vision

“of a world in which antimicrobial resistance is effectively contained, controlled and mitigated.”

It laid out nine ambitions for the UK. They are to

“Continue to be a good global partner ... Drive innovation ... Minimise infection ... Provide safe and effective care to patients ... Protect animal health and welfare ... Minimise environmental spread ... Support sustainable supply and access ... Demonstrate appropriate use”

and “Engage the public”.

With that, I would like to mention Ms Roddick’s comments, which were a reminder to us all that antibacterial agents do not impact on viruses. Ms Roddick also reiterated the instances in which antibiotics are not useful.

In July 2019, the UK Government announced that its investments in combating AMR included £32 million of capital funding to support AMR research, which included £19.1 million for AMR research at four National Institute for Health and Care Research biomedical centres, and £8.8 million for two NIHR health protection research units on healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance.

The UK is also working internationally on AMR. In September 2019, the Department of Health and Social Care announced a £6.2 million package of funding

“to strengthen existing surveillance systems tracking AMR trends across Africa and Asia”.

In our 2019 manifesto, the Conservatives pledged to turn our attention to the great challenges of our time, including solving antibiotic resistance. In order to do that, we committed to the fastest-ever increase in domestic public research and development spending to meet our target of spending 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product on R and D across the economy. Some of that new spending would go to a new agency for high-risk, high-payoff research, at arm’s length from Government.

Furthermore, at last year’s autumn budget and spending review, the UK Government increased public R and D investment to record levels, which equates to £20 billion by 2024-25, which is why it is important that we reinforce co-operation globally and across the UK, and why a Scottish approach is unnecessary.

However, we will do the same as the rest of the world. Although we will support the Scottish Labour amendment today, we need to reduce the gap in funding between Scotland and England, and come up to and match what is done elsewhere. We have to play an equal part.

The progress that we have seen in recent years is welcome, especially the UK Government’s new subscription-style payment model for antimicrobials, which will incentivise companies to invest in the area. The new subscription-style payment model is a win-win for healthcare systems and industry. It demonstrates that NHS patients can benefit from a secure supply of new antimicrobial drugs, while pharmaceutical companies can reliably forecast their return on investment.

AMR is a serious issue and one on which we must continue to work together. It is heartening to see the UK Government taking positive steps to ensure that not only is action taken now, but that plans are put in place for the future.

I have only one question. In your report, you note that there is no overarching strategy for tackling health inequalities in Scotland, despite the endemic nature of the persistent and acute inequalities that exist. We have just heard about some of the activity that you are undertaking in that regard, such as on weaving the strands of spending across different portfolios. What conversations have you had with the Scottish Government on the need to establish urgently an overarching strategy on health inequalities that would act almost as a linchpin as we recover from the pandemic?