Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

There is welcome cross-party agreement on, and support for, the actions to tackle child poverty that the cabinet secretary outlined, including the doubling of the Scottish child payment. Many people in the sector are, however, asking what is preventing ministers from taking steps to double the Scottish child payment as soon as possible. The cabinet secretary said that it will be

“by the end of this parliamentary session”—

which is some five years away—and said in the same paragraph that the Government would look to double the payment “as early as possible”. Why will the Scottish Government not commit to a date for delivery?

A key area on which the cabinet secretary did not touch is the Scottish Government’s record on children who live in temporary accommodation. The most recent Scottish Government statistics show that 7,900 children are living in temporary accommodation, which is a 9 per cent increase on the figure for 2019-20.

We all know that a safe and stable home is vital to a child’s wellbeing and development. After 14 years of Scottish National Party Government, the situation is getting worse and worse, especially here in the capital. Will the cabinet secretary say what plans the Scottish Government will put in place to ensure that we end the problem of households that include pregnant women and children living in temporary accommodation? How will the Government prioritise the issue?

I have no interests to declare.

The Covid-19 pandemic presented a set of challenges that no one in the chamber had ever faced: a global health crisis of a type that had not been seen for more than 100 years. We all accepted that we needed to act swiftly and collectively. When ministers suggested that 100,000 of our fellow Scots could lose their lives to the disease and that councils and the military might have to undertake mass burials, we were all shocked and concerned, as Gillian Martin outlined, and we worked constructively to facilitate the powers that ministers said they needed at the time in the national interest. The variation of some regulations was also justified at earlier stages of the pandemic.

However, today’s debate must acknowledge that we have come a long way since the start of the pandemic. The First Minister has admitted that the Scottish ministers got things wrong due to a lack of consultation. It is therefore concerning that ministers have left us with only three sitting days until recess to consider the measures and the intended—and often unintended—consequences that they will have. Ministers say that the powers will be extended for an initial period of just six months, but it is likely that they will be extended for a longer period. As I have outlined, the emergency response at the start of the pandemic was appropriate at the time, but it is not appropriate for ministers to try to keep hold of the powers, and there has been a failure to genuinely consult businesses and individuals whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by the consequences of the further extension of the powers.

Today, the First Minister committed, in principle, to the lifting of restrictions, which is due entirely to the success of the United Kingdom’s vaccination programme. The question is why it is therefore necessary to consolidate the powers beyond the return of Parliament after the summer recess. Both those things do not go hand in hand. Full consultation and cross-party input and discussion over the summer would allow for proper scrutiny and for the negative impacts of the extensions to be fully understood by the Government. I agree with my colleague Murdo Fraser that it is simply unnecessary to extend the exceptional powers in the way that the bill provides for without that vital scrutiny.

In relation to housing, as a few members have touched on, the initial coronavirus acts provided protections to students and tenants and made reasonable accommodations regarding notice periods and council tax. This has not been mentioned in the debate, but it is important to note that, during the pandemic, landlords have actively and responsibly tried to support tenants and small businesses to meet the rent payments and challenges that we know from our constituency mailbags many people have faced.

As has been highlighted, extending the evictions ban, and therefore postponing the work of tribunal proceedings further, might only deliver more uncertainty and build up new problems for renters, rather than leading to the long-term sustainable solutions that all members want to see. Before the pandemic, the average amount of debt that was owed by tenants who were being evicted for rent arrears was, at the point that a tribunal decided to grant an eviction order, 8.9 months of rent arrears. During the pandemic, with the powers in place, the average amount has risen to 13.3 months of rent arrears.

I know from discussions that I have had with housing and poverty organisations since taking over my portfolio that there is a growing concern at the significant increase in unmanageable rent debt. There is no doubt that many tenants face significant financial difficulties due to unemployment or to a reduction in take-home pay during the pandemic.

The Deputy First Minister is not in the chamber at the moment. As my colleague Murdo Fraser said, we welcomed the establishment of the tenant hardship loan scheme when it was announced last November, and I welcome what the Deputy First Minister outlined today regarding the £10 million grant fund. However, the devil will always be in the detail, and I look forward to seeing the criteria and knowing how that will be delivered on the ground.

As we emerge from lockdown and hope to see the restrictions lifted, there is concern about the long-term impact that poor credit scoring will have on tenants seeking rentals and on the rental sector, especially here in the capital where the private rental market comes at a higher price.

In relation to local government, it is a concern that the bill seems to give local authorities powers to continue restricting access to meetings, to delay the publication of reports required by statute and to further relax local planning guidelines. Our previous debates about FOI and access to information show that that must urgently be looked at so that we can properly scrutinise decisions taken by local government. It is vital to fully scrutinise decisions and to hold local authorities, as well as the Scottish Government, to account.

Although it is essential to move cautiously, it is more important than ever to remember that the decisions that we take impact on people’s livelihoods and businesses and on the fragile economic recovery that we all want to see. Parliament should be able to do the important job of properly scrutinising Government decisions. The Deputy First Minister says that he will allow eight weeks for consultation in the future. We have an eight-week period ahead of us in which we could have done that consultation and then come back to look properly at the regulations. SNP ministers are preventing the Parliament from doing that work, and that is regrettable. I hope that they will think again as we take the bill forward in the coming days.

I absolutely agree with the member on that point. For five years, I have argued with ministers about a workforce plan. Although we have not heard it mentioned today, I know that that is also part of the minister’s work, and we need it to be prioritised. There is sometimes too much moving around of NHS staff, who rightly get burned out in this service and, as has been mentioned, often feel demoralised in the work that they have to do to pick up the pieces.

A key part of the issue is looking towards how we support patients having rights. For too long, people with substance abuse issues have felt that they have no rights. That is why I fully support the Scottish Conservative calls for a right to rehab. If we are genuinely going to deliver person-centred drug addiction services, which we all want, accessing rehab must be a right and not an afterthought or added extra. I do not doubt that that will present many challenges. In many cases, it will be resource intensive, and I welcome the resources that have now been outlined. However, addiction maintenance services have only got us to the drugs deaths crisis that we have today, so we need reform and a new approach.

As I mentioned last week in the Scottish Government debate on building a fairer Scotland and addressing inequalities, the issue of access to healthcare has been raised by many stakeholders over many years. I welcome some of the reforms that the minister has outlined. However, when she sums up, I hope that she outlines whether the Scottish Government will also now commit to reviewing access to healthcare for people who are living with addictions, as well as for people who are homeless. I especially hope for reform around access to and registration with general practitioners. Last week, I raised the case of my constituents having to queue for just 10 available appointments. That is one of the critical areas that we need to see reformed.

My final point, which the minister and my colleague Sue Webber have touched on, is that it is extremely important that we focus on the changing nature of addictions, drug use and drug deaths. For example, an explosion of self-prescribing has taken place during the pandemic. Here in Edinburgh, the area that I represent, NHS Lothian published figures for 2019-20 that showed that the number of hospital admissions for opioids increased by 24 per cent. There has been a significant trend in the number of hospital admissions for cocaine abuse, which has risen by more than 300 per cent. The number of hospital admissions for cannabinoid abuse has also increased by 64 per cent, and the number of hospital admissions for the use of sedatives and hypnotics has doubled during the past five years. Those are worrying trends, and we need to see more than a one-size-fits-all—

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

The Scottish Government has an awful lot of work to do, and we all want the minister to drive forward the agenda. As Michael Marra said, outcomes and not processes must be at the heart of all the reforms. I want to see more detail about what the treatment targets that have been outlined will mean, because such targets are often not met in this country. Patient pathways are patchy and must be formalised. Standards of care must be delivered and reformed.

I hope that the minister can act in the spirit of urgency and emergency response that we have seen in the cross-Government working during the pandemic, and that we will get constant updates to make sure that we genuinely start to turn around the drug deaths crisis in Scotland.

I note from the outset that I hope that today’s debate is the start of regular updates, debates and cross-party working on this most critical issue, which faces all our communities in Scotland.

More should have been done much earlier. Families have been failed. Entire communities have been let down and left broken, as Sue Webber said at the start of the debate. It is for members in this session of Parliament to make sure that SNP ministers deliver change and are held to account. I welcome the approach that Angela Constance has taken, and Scottish Conservatives have tried to work constructively with her since her appointment.

From speaking to people who are in services or trying to access services today, it is clear that we are at only the very start of the necessary reforms that can make a real difference. We need to start looking at how we can turn around the unacceptable levels of drug-related deaths and harms in our society.

Members have mentioned those working on the front line. Many such people have told me that they expect to see a higher number of drug-related deaths for the 2020 period when the figures are published next month. The pain and heartbreak for many families across Scotland is therefore set to continue. The negative impact that the pandemic has clearly and understandably had should not be underestimated, but it cannot be used as an excuse either.

I will spend some of my time focusing on the experiences of a family that I know personally. My childhood friend Jamie Murray died from a drug-related death. Jamie was found dead in a flat in Perth on 1 September. In his system was a cocktail of drugs including methadone, heroin, street Valium and cocaine.

Jamie’s mum, Jane, bravely spoke out about the chaotic approach that Jamie faced when he tried to access support services and rehab. Much of what I want to say are the words of Jane Murray, because I think that it is vital that we understand the experience of those who, in Scotland today, are desperately trying to support their loved ones with addiction issues and to navigate access to services, which is so often so complicated. For too long, many families have felt excluded and have had to fight for everything for their loved ones while facing stigma and often feeling that they are being blamed by services.

Jane said:

“I used to go with Jamie to meetings, where he would be handed leaflets about methadone programmes, but when he’d beg to be sent to residential rehab, he was told there wasn’t any funding.

He’d ask to get taken off methadone as the side effects are so awful, but when he asked to have his dose reduced or to try a different treatment, he was simply told ‘no’.

It was soul destroying and easy to see why he felt like he was on an endless roundabout with no way off.

And despite the fact that it was supposed to be family meetings we were attending, all the professionals ignored me and just spoke to Jamie, who clearly was very ill and unable to think clearly.”

As others have done, I thank all those who are working in drug and addiction services across Scotland. From the many visits that I undertook across Scotland while I was serving as shadow health secretary, I know that it is one of the most challenging healthcare jobs in Scotland today. However, a key area of improvement—I welcome the minister’s focus on it—is the need to urgently address the issue of continuity of care.

Jane, again, was critical of the system that is supposed to help addicts. She said:

“As soon as Jamie would build up trust in one worker, they would move on, leaving him to start at the beginning again.

What we did see was catastrophic policies which did not involve methadone reduction, but they did insist that if anyone had a dirty test they were out of the program after one strike.”

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome you to your position in Parliament and congratulate Monica Lennon on lodging this important motion for debate—I was pleased to give it my full support. I also congratulate my friend and colleague Meghan Gallacher on her excellent speech, and I welcome her to the Parliament.

In her contribution, Christine Grahame set out an important historical context. I do not necessarily agree with the conclusion that she reached regarding a national apology, but the first part of her speech set the context, which many of us find completely alien and shocking.

Debates such as this make me desperately want to see the day when Parliament can open its doors and let the public back in. I think that we would have seen a full public gallery for tonight’s members’ business debate, and I have no doubt that the people who are watching want their voices to be heard in the Parliament.

The forced adoption scandal has clearly directly affected mothers, and this evening we have heard from many members, in harrowing terms, about the unimaginable impact that the scandal continues to have—every waking moment of their lives—on the mothers who are still alive. However, we must also consider the impact that it has had on children and fathers.

I will use the time that I have this evening to speak about my constituent Marjorie White, who is 70. A former nursery teacher, Marjorie believes that she is one of the oldest forced adoption babies in Scotland today. Marjorie spent 30 years searching for her father, Peter McAllister, only for him to sadly die before they could meet in person. She says that the frustration and sadness of being unable to hug her own dad, and of having only a few short conversations on the phone, was truly devastating and traumatic for them both. Marjorie was deeply affected by the sheer waste of it all. She has spoken out now because she believes that the children of forced adoption were never given a choice and many of them are suffering equally today.

Marjorie believes that Scotland needs to find a way to make records more accessible to individuals who are trying to trace their parentage. We have not really touched on that aspect in the debate. Marjorie spent her whole adult life searching for her father and was able to discover the link; however, for many people, the current systems put up barriers to their being able to find out about their past. It is important to consider that, because, with advances in modern medicine, people want to investigate whether they are at risk from genetic diseases, cancers and other illnesses that might be passed through the generations. That is an important aspect of the debate, because it is only possible for people to investigate if there is a way for them to access family medical records. That is a debate for another day, but it is one that we should have, because people are asking the Parliament to consider the matter.

It is increasingly important—and, arguably, now a basic human right—that individuals know whether they are at risk from a genetic disease. I would welcome a response from the minister, perhaps in writing, about how that aspect of the debate can be considered.

The true extent of the scandal whereby mothers were forced to give up their babies for adoption between the 1950s and 1980s because they were not married is only now being truly understood. As others have done, I thank the Sunday Post and, most important, campaigning journalist Marion Scott, for the relentless campaign that they have led over a number of years to uncover the personal stories, which were difficult for the affected people to tell. For many women, that period of our history destroyed their right to a family life, and they have had to live with their experiences in secret.

Today, many of them will be reading stories about the scandal or watching interviews about it on national television—they might even be watching the debate. That will be retraumatising for them. In many cases, it will also be difficult, if not impossible, to tell their partners, children and grandchildren about that period of their personal history. Therefore, we need to ensure that consideration is given to what support must be made available for the women who come forward. I hope that ministers will start discussions about that as soon as possible.

Like Monica Lennon, I pay particular tribute to Marion McMillan, who is a truly remarkable lady. She has driven forward the campaign and should be incredibly proud of what she has achieved for so many women. Many people owe her a great deal for the strength that she has shown. If it had not been for her bravery in telling her heartbreaking story, many people would never have known about this dreadful human rights scandal in Scotland whereby 60,000 mums had their babies taken away and families were torn apart. The damage done was incalculable. It is only now that we know how many people were impacted, although it might be that we are really only starting to scratch the surface of the scandal.

I welcome the First Minister’s commitment to examining how a national apology can take place. That would give Marion and many other women not closure but the opportunity to know that the nation acknowledges the pain that they have been through. I hope that the Scottish ministers will take care as they consider that and make sure that the Government gets it right.

The minister will be acutely aware of concerns regarding fair funding for local government. I have consistently highlighted the underfunding of City of Edinburgh Council and the previous attempts to cut the council’s central grant, most recently in relation to the proposed £3 million cut to the 2019 budget. As an Edinburgh MSP, the minister will be aware of that.

With that in mind, do Scottish National Party ministers plan to deliver a new financial framework after the pandemic that will ensure that councils will receive a set percentage of the Scottish Government budget, so that we finally see fair funding for local government?