Chamber and committees

It would probably be inappropriate of me to pre-empt the presentation of the budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. However, Ms Baillie is absolutely correct that we have been using the measures that she has suggested to uprate the office and staff cost provision.

This has been a compelling debate. It has been uncomfortable for me at times and I hope that it has been uncomfortable for everyone. None of us should feel that we have the moral high ground or that we lack personal responsibility for what we have been discussing. I can say to Foysol Choudhury that we will support the Labour amendment and I say to those who have asked specific questions of the Conservatives that I will come to those in my summing up.

I begin with a couple of observations. Kenneth Gibson reminded us in a motion that he lodged today that, a week on Saturday, it will be 20 years since the events of 9/11 took place in New York. That was the catalyst for the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. I remember that day, which I imagine all of us are old enough to remember. I felt a profound sense of shock not only at the events but at the realisation that the whole period of cold war foreign politics that I had grown up with, and which had been in a hiatus, had suddenly been replaced with a completely new form of politics and threat that was going to dominate events in the years ahead.

Some 58 nations supported the incursion into Afghanistan, which was at first intended to end the threat from al-Qa’ida and the use of Afghanistan as a base for international terrorism. We succeeded in that objective. I think many of us accept that the subsequent war in Iraq, whatever its merits—and that is a separate debate—diluted the effort had been made in Afghanistan. That war took the eyes of the international community and of the countries that had been part of the invasion of Afghanistan and its hoped-for rebuilding off the prize of a better Afghanistan in future.

Despite all the work that we did on education for women, which Pam Gosal and others touched on this afternoon, there came to be a growing realisation as time went on that the hopes of that first democratic election were not being fulfilled. The Government of Hamid Karzai, which sought to try to centralise Afghanistan around Kabul, was alienating many of those in the regional provinces and there was an emergence of an internal civil conflict, with which we then found it almost impossible to wrestle.

As we come to the most recent events, I think that the departure was a disgrace, and I look to the United States as the principal body of culpability. In two presidential elections in America, we have been presented with candidates who were either unfit for office, deeply polarising or unsuited to office. This is the first time in my lifetime that that has happened.

Whatever I felt about American Administrations—from Eisenhower in Korea; through Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam; Reagan in Grenada; Bush and an exemplary first incursion repelling the invasion of Kuwait; to Clinton and the Balkans; and subsequently Bush and Obama—I may have disagreed, but I thought that there was a basic level of competence. I do not see that today, and if people across the world think that America has given up on them, why should America expect them not to give up on it? I saw a headline in the Chinese communist national newspaper saying that people in Taiwan should look to Afghanistan and see their future. That is deeply disturbing for us, as part of a NATO alliance that has relied inherently on the strength of the United States.

Of course, in Saigon, it collapsed in an ignominious fashion, although it did at least manage to dump the hardware in the sea rather than leaving it for those who were taking over. America did recover its authority after Vietnam, and we just have to hope, even as we stand here in some dismay, that that can yet happen again, because America has to be a crucial part of our international western response to events.

At the moment, it seems that there is a lot of wishful thinking abroad that the Taliban will be different, but the early signs are not encouraging. Women have been expelled from university in Herat and told that they can no longer work, and huge numbers of people have been summarily executed, yet there are those in the Overseas Development Institute in London and in UNICEF who say that there are grounds for optimism.

A real subject for international debate—we have not touched on it in this debate—may yet be what happens if the Taliban do not deliver. Do we simply then withhold all aid and support from the people of Afghanistan as a penalty for its imposed Government, or do we recognise that we still have a moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, notwithstanding the actions of the subsequent Government? We need to touch on that.

There have been some compelling contributions to the debate. I listened to Bob Doris, Katy Clark, Foysol Choudhury and Pam Gosal, who all talked with passion about the people of Afghanistan and our responsibility, and I hope that we accept that it is a collective responsibility. Let us not find ways together to be cynical and undermine the challenge that is now before us. We are an excellent country at welcoming and incorporating people into the United Kingdom, and in operation warm welcome we should be willing to succeed and not find excuses and reasons to hope that we will fail.

I will not get into the numbers debate, but two questions have been asked of us this afternoon and I want to be clear that the commitment from the UK Government—I think that I saw an exchange between the cabinet secretary and others on this—is that

“Relevant Afghan citizens ... already in the UK with limited leave can apply for indefinite leave to remain at any time, despite the Immigration Rules currently stating they must have competed at least 5 years with limited leave before they are eligible”.

The criteria are that they have worked for the UK, they are at risk of death, which is a pretty comprehensive provision in the current circumstances, or that they are otherwise eligible as set out in the relocations and assistance scheme. I do not feel confident to go beyond that today, but I am prepared to work with the Scottish Government to bottom out what that commitment actually represents.

Secondly, we have been asked about our commitment to international aid. I and my predecessor were absolutely clear that we did not agree with the UK Government’s decision to reduce the international aid budget, although we understood the economic circumstances of the moment, and I have called for and will continue to call for its earliest possible restoration. However, I point out that the aid budget is not a cash sum, it is a percentage of GDP. That requires a strong and growing economy. There is not much point in willing a bigger percentage if one is not also going to will a stronger and bigger economy at the same time. The amount of aid that we are able to give, whatever the percentage, depends on the strength of our economy as a country, but we are saying in our amendment that we want to see that percentage restored.

I recognise that my time is up. I will finish by saying that collectively, as a chamber, a country and a people, we owe one heck of a debt to all the people who helped us in Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan whom we sought to help, and we must honour that in full.

I thought that you were going to say that time was up, Presiding Officer.

When Ivan McKee has time to get off his high horse, will he focus on the aspect that I asked about, which is the opportunity for Scotch whisky? Australia was our eighth-biggest market last year, worth £113 million to the Scotch whisky industry. Since the announcement of the agreement, what specific conversations has Ivan McKee had with the Scotch whisky industry about how the Scottish Government can work with it to ensure that we maximise the opportunity? Assuming that he has not bothered to do that, will he commit to doing so in the weeks ahead?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the announcement that the United Kingdom-Australia free trade agreement will remove tariffs of up to 5 per cent on Scotch whisky. (S6O-00056)

One welcome success of the pandemic has been the support offered to the First Minister by signers. On behalf of the deaf community of my constituency, I thank the signers for the outstanding and sustained job that they have done. However, that belies a much more complicated pathway for the deaf community to public services and particularly to general practitioner services.

Initially, many members of the deaf community received letters saying that they should make telephone appointments—I assume that was inadvertent. Subsequently, online appointments have often taken place without a signer. When a signer is provided, they can join the consultation from anywhere in the UK. Sign language, just as any other language, has nuances and many in the deaf community are concerned that very delicate matters relating to their health are not being properly translated. They are looking to have the right to direct face-to-face contact with GP services once again. They look to the First Minister to champion that, so that they can enjoy that right at the earliest opportunity.

Many people have put off seeking a GP consultation for far too long. Will the First Minister intervene to allow such consultations to take place?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the research led by Newcastle University and published in The Lancet into outcomes arising from minimum unit pricing. (S6O-00024)

I can confirm to the minister that they are welcome. Obviously, they vindicate the decision of those of us who supported the policy from its inception. However, there is one caveat in the research that is a cause for concern, which has been reported in The Scotsman and elsewhere. The exception to the reduction of sales is that those in high-purchasing, low-income homes do not seem to have changed their habits. Professor Eileen Kaner from Newcastle University, who is one of the study’s authors and is also a director of applied research collaboration, said:

“it is a concern ... that ... households did not adjust their buying habits, and spending simply increased as a result of the MUP policy.”

It was always a concern that low-income households would simply increase their spend on alcohol from fixed incomes at the expense of other things and that there would be considerable consequential long-term harms. What is the Scottish Government’s response to that? Can anything more be done? Does the Government intend to review the level of minimum unit pricing in the near future?

I welcome you to your position, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I congratulate Audrey Nicoll on her debut speech. I look forward to hearing more from her as this session of the Parliament progresses.

There is, of course, an enormous challenge to deal with in relation to Covid recovery—the consequences of the pandemic and its on-going complications. We know that there is a backlog in cancer and mental health care, and I hope to work with the cabinet secretary in as non-belligerent a way as possible to resolve the issues. We all understood that, in postponing much care, we were compounding a problem, but we must also recognise that there was a problem to compound. The challenge and the task ahead are huge.

When I welcomed the cabinet secretary to his position, I referred to the proposed developments on mesh, following the First Minister’s meeting with mesh survivors in November 2019, because those developments, too, were partially—and understandably—postponed. The questions that I will ask him are slightly peripheral to today’s debate, so I hope that he will contact me after the debate to update me. He is the fifth health secretary, in the third consecutive session of the Parliament, to have to contemplate tackling the consequences of the worldwide mesh scandal—a wholly self-inflicted health crisis in countries everywhere. In Scotland, the scandal was highlighted by the heroic efforts of some heroic women who enabled Scotland to become almost a beacon for people across the world who have been trying to advance the response to the mesh issue.

Let us remember that the mesh scandal cost lives—the first death was that of Eileen Baxter—and ruined lives. It is, therefore, fundamentally important that we finally resolve the issue in this session of Parliament.

First, I ask the cabinet secretary about the case record review that his predecessor announced on 10 February. Before the previous session ended, I asked at First Minister’s question time whether the review’s terms would be amended as Professor Alison Britton had requested. I understand that the terms have now been agreed. I also asked whether Dr Wael Agur, who has the great confidence of many of the mesh women, would be included in the process, as I hoped that he would be. I am delighted to say that Dr Agur has contacted me to say that the Scottish Government has invited him to work with Professor Britton. Both developments are welcome, and I would be interested to know the timetable for the review, which is under way.

Secondly, the cabinet secretary’s predecessor, Jeane Freeman, announced on 24 March—to the absolute delight of mesh survivors—that a bill would be introduced

“as a priority early in the next session”,

to provide for retrospective payment and restitution to the women who travelled outwith the United Kingdom—principally to see Dr Veronikis in the United States—for the costs associated with their operations. I would very much welcome the cabinet secretary saying when—early in this session—he intends to introduce the bill, because those women have waited and suffered long enough and are looking forward to the issue being dealt with as quickly as possible.

Thirdly, will the cabinet secretary update us on the status of the proposed consultation on a patient safety commissioner?

Finally, we now know that mesh extends way beyond being a calamity for women. Women were organised and were able to bring the issue to the fore, but 10,000 hernia mesh operations, using exactly the same materials, take place in Scotland every year, affecting men, women and children. Some have died and some have suffered the same horrendous consequences. Does the cabinet secretary intend to ensure that there is a much wider review now of the use and application of mesh within the health service, in order that we can draw an end to the scandal of mesh and the damage that it is doing to thousands of our fellow Scots?

I have almost finished, Presiding Officer.

After 14 years, there can be no more honeymoon. We are entitled to expect focus, action and delivery. We will work with ministers where and when we can and oppose rigorously and robustly where we have to.