Chamber and committees

I thank Alex Kerr for taking an additional intervention. He championed the figures that Ireland is exhibiting, but does he recognise that that is because Ireland is subject to a 3 per cent deficit ceiling and a 60 per cent debt ratio? Does he understand what would have to happen to our public services and infrastructure in Scotland for us to meet those stringent conditions that are imposed by the EU?

Will the member take an intervention?

Does Alex Kerr recognise that, if he got his dream and we rejoined the EU, unlike the liberty that we have, under the Westminster system, to administer our budget—admittedly, that is being done quite badly at the moment—we would be subject to a 3 per cent deficit ceiling and a 60 per cent debt ratio every year?

Is it Murdo Fraser’s understanding, as it is mine, that any new member of the European Union is obliged to join the single currency, the euro? Admittedly, that is without a specific timeline, but it is to happen when the economic realities allow and, unlike in the case of Denmark’s current opt-out, there will be no option to opt out for any new acceding states—is that his understanding?

I restate that the EU would impose a 3 per cent deficit ceiling and a 60 per cent debt ratio on Scotland’s budget. Unlike most EU states, our population tax base is spread across a vast relative area, including remote and island communities, meaning that our public infrastructure will not bear those fiscal conditions. If we are having an honest debate about a future independent Scotland in the EU, will the cabinet secretary define how many nurses we would lose, how many schools would close, how many ferries would not sail and how many police we would cut, all to satisfy the demands of a benevolent EU superstate?

I thank Liam McArthur for bringing this motion to the chamber, and I congratulate his son on his participation and achievement over in Canada.

This motion is of critical importance to constituents across the Highlands and Islands, because short-haul flights are not a luxury there—they are a lifeline. They are vital links for the reasons that were eloquently set out by Liam McArthur in his speech.

Loganair’s recent decision to scale back services from Inverness sent shockwaves through our communities. It exposed a fragile reality: when commercial operators face unsustainable costs and consolidate routes, it is our most vulnerable citizens who pay the price through fewer opportunities, higher fares and greater uncertainty.

I would like the debate to focus on what is within the Scottish Government’s power to fix. We have responsibility for transport infrastructure, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and the public service obligation framework, and those powers give us the means to make a lasting difference. I therefore welcome the Government’s swift commitment of funding to restore critical Inverness air services from October. That intervention prevented an immediate crisis, and ministers deserve credit for acting when communities needed support most. However, emergency funding is a sticking plaster and not a long-term solution, and islanders cannot be left living month to month, uncertain whether they will reach a mainland hospital appointment or whether a vital connection will operate.

The evidence of disruption is stark. Delays and cancellations have risen by 15 per cent, with technical faults cited as the main causes, and business surveys suggest that 40 per cent of local firms have suffered direct financial loss or reputational damage because of air travel disruption.

This is about far more than just convenience or even the immediate economy; it affects the entire infrastructure of island life. If we consider public sector recruitment, we find that a specialist doctor might be willing to work in the islands, but they are human beings with families—their partner might not be able to take their job with them or work in an island economy; therefore, reliable connectivity can determine whether that family can make island life viable and whether communities can recruit the professionals they need.

We must therefore move from crisis management to proactive strategy. In an ideal world, that would mean more aircraft, well-staffed air traffic control, modern infrastructure, affordable fares and a full schedule, but given the fiscal and market realities, we know that we will probably not be able to deliver all those things at once or anytime soon. However, I reckon that one foundational priority is achievable: reliability and consistency. Even if the number of flights is limited, people must be able to rely on the services that are scheduled. That certainty allows patients, families and employers and public bodies to plan with confidence.

A further suggestion would be to have a dedicated fund, down the line, for a standby aircraft and crew system that are based in the region. Right now, a single mechanical fault in the morning cascades into a full-day shutdown across the planning matrix.

Finally, exploration of enhancing the public service obligation framework, with strict reliability clauses to ensure that the operator meets minimum performance thresholds, would go a long way to giving the public confidence that the operator will be held accountable if the service is not meeting that minimum threshold.

We have shown that we can fix the immediate problem; now let us show that we as a whole Parliament can work together to secure these lifelines for a generation, however that might be defined, by building a service that islanders can truly trust. In support of the spirit of the motion, I urge the Government to work across the Parliament to deliver a long-term strategy without delay.

17:33

I thank the minister for the detailed answer. She will be aware that the delay forced Scottish patients to wait significantly longer than those in England, causing needless suffering and further complications with their condition, including the potential need for a transplant. Does she agree that it is yet another example of an unnecessary duplication of services by the Scottish Medicines Consortium? Will she acknowledge that the delay demonstrates how Scottish patients are losing out on the potential union dividend of a single, efficient regulatory system?

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it took a year longer for sparsentan and Kinpeygo to be approved for use by NHS Scotland in the treatment of kidney disease than it did for them to be approved for use in England. (S7O-00256)

I declare an interest as an employee of the national health service.

I am an employee of the NHS. I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing this debate to the chamber and my fellow members for their contributions. Let my party be absolutely clear from the outset: the proliferation of deliberately deceptive or harmful medical advice is a serious issue. When individuals are defrauded or physically harmed by predatory actors advocating fake cures, the law should step in, just as it does with any form of fraud or malpractice. Any attempt to empower, or to control or curate information must be dealt with judiciously.

However, the wording of the motion reveals deeply concerning legislative potential and trends in modern governance: the unintentional establishment of a de facto monopoly on truth, the demonisation of legitimate scepticism and political leaders’ absolving themselves of their primary democratic responsibilities. The public’s trust is not something that the Government is entitled to; it is something that the Government must earn.

The motion calls on us to rely solely on trusted sources, including public bodies, and further defines those under the three pillars detailed by the cabinet secretary. However, history teaches us that science advances not through blind compliance but through rigorous scepticism. When we label any deviation from the official narrative as misinformation, we strangle the very engine of scientific process. True science requires the unbiased presentation of all facts, not just the convenient ones.

Let us look at the official data: according to the Scottish Government’s own Public Health Scotland data, during the pandemic, the landscape of risk was highly stratified. For example, healthy children faced an incredibly low statistical risk from acute respiratory viruses, and yet the official public health messaging pushed an aggressive one-size-fits-all counter-measure strategy, and children are still scheduled for Covid vaccinations today, regardless of consideration of any underlying conditions. When independent clinicians raised early concerns regarding specific documented risks, such as the elevated incidence of myocarditis in young males following mRNA therapeutics—a risk later formally acknowledged by both the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—they were initially branded by mainstream political institutions as purveyors of unnecessary concern and unhelpful narratives.

Further, in February 2022, Public Health Scotland stopped publishing weekly hospitalisation and death data by vaccination status, citing the misrepresentation of raw statistics by anti-vaccine groups. When the state uses its platform to suppress nuance, it does not protect public health but undermines it. Sometimes, the most dangerous misinformation downstream is the oversimplified absolute proclaimed by a Government authority.

When I have a patient in front of me and I am recommending an intervention, I tell them five things: what the intervention is; what the rationale is; how it will remedy the condition; what the complications are; what the alternatives are; and what happens if we do nothing. I believe that the rise of what the motion calls “vaccine misinformation” is actually a direct symptom of the public feeling that we were denied a balanced, informed view in favour of emotional forcing.

During the roll-out of various public health programmes, the traditional, cautious definitions of clinical efficacy were blurred. For instance, looking at the data regarding vaccine uptake and transmission rates, public health authorities initially implied that those interventions would completely halt transmission, a claim that real-world epidemiological data quickly disproved. When the state implements measures such as vaccine passports for workplace mandates—

I agree with that completely. The point that I am trying to articulate is that the drafting of the motion and the Government’s past record in attempting to manage debate has meant that nuanced, legitimate scepticism has been steamrollered over and not properly allowed into the debate in order to formulate a final policy that is balanced.

If we want to improve health outcomes, we must treat the Scottish public like adults. Coercion destroys trust. We cannot have trust where we have no choice. We must provide transparent and unvarnished statistical realities, including the absolute risk reduction rates, and trust individual citizens to make the right decision for their own bodies. I welcome the attempts made in the motion, but I do not accept any attempts to limit what can be said.

Finally, I must address this Government’s dangerous habit of contracting out political responsibility to unelected experts and institutions. Expert panels, advisory committees and academic bodies are vital—they provide data—but they do not possess elected authority and must never be used as procedural shields for political leaders.

We saw this repeatedly throughout the pandemic and its aftermath. Decisions to close schools, lock down communities and disrupt cancer screenings, which led to a measurable and tragic rise in non-Covid excess deaths and late-stage diagnoses, were frequently defended by ministers claiming that they were simply following the science. Science does not make policies; ministers make policies. Science can tell us that a virus spreads, but it cannot weigh the societal cost of a child missing a year of education, the economic ruin of small businesses, or the mental health crisis that is currently gripping our youth. When political leaders contract out their judgment to a closed circle of approved experts, there is a danger that an echo chamber will be created, with an absolution of the leaders’ duty to balance competing harms.

Reform UK stands for a return to democratic accountability. We do not need a Parliament that acts as a rubber stamp for technocratic consensus; we need a Parliament that interrogates that consensus.

In conclusion, the motion asks us to collaborate to tackle online misinformation by potentially narrowing the scope of acceptable debate. The antidote to bad information is not censorship; it is more transparency. If the Scottish Government expects the public to adhere to high standards of truth, it must lead by example with its own decision making.

Health information is not a selective category; it covers everything that impacts patients’ wellbeing. When statements were made assuring the public that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital was safe, at a time when specific wards were known—and later proven—not to be safe, that constituted not just a failure of communication, but misinformation. We cannot defeat misinformation out there if we permit it within our own institutions.