Chamber and committees

I am pleased to hear that other theatres and boards have some capacity to assist NHS Lanarkshire. Is the cabinet secretary aware of any other health board that has had to cancel cancer procedures? Is any other health board in Scotland warning that it, too, could declare a code black or, to give it its correct term, the highest risk level, which is black?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. It is regrettable that, on the eve of COP26, we have the UK and Scottish Governments at loggerheads when we need constructive dialogue to tackle the climate emergency.

The cabinet secretary acknowledged in his statement that there are concerns about the performance of carbon capture technologies and their consistency with climate targets. Friends of the Earth Scotland has questioned whether CCS is falsely positioned as a climate solution when the technology is largely unproven and untested. What is the Scottish Government doing to unpick those concerns and allay those fears? Can the cabinet secretary give an assurance that the technologies are not being seen as a silver bullet and that other measures that can help in the short term, including improved access to public transport and improved energy efficiency, will be continued at pace?

I believe that this is Paul McLennan’s first members’ business debate, so I congratulate him on choosing such an important topic and thank him for his commitment to being a mental health champion, which is a call to action to all of us to be champions of mental wellbeing. That brings me to the minister, who I welcome to his new role as the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care, which is an important job. I am sure that the minister is telling colleagues across the Government that they all have to be part of the solution.

Thinking about the pandemic and its impact on the workforce across social care and the NHS, I am concerned about levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among front-line staff and I worry about those on low pay and those unpaid carers, particularly women, who take on the greatest burden of the caring work. However, the minister is well placed to look at what has happened to older people and disabled people during the pandemic and to ensure that we address the isolation that many colleagues have acknowledged today. That is why Anne’s law is so important and relevant to mental health.

Colleagues have talked about the fact that we all have mental health issues and all have to be champions of mental health in this place. I continue to be concerned about what sometimes appear to be endless waiting times, the worrying statistics around rejected referrals and people speaking out and saying that they are not okay but are not sure where to turn. At the weekend, I was fortunate to meet local heroes from across Scotland who are doing their bit in their communities to show that kindness and provide that cup of tea and an open door to people.

However, we have to recognise that, despite all the good work and good effort from ministers and many across the public and private sectors, the system is still not quite right. We need to see system change, which is why I am passionate about supporting a constituent from my Central Scotland region, Karen McKeown, who has an excellent petition in front of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Members, including Tess White from the Conservatives, spoke strongly in support of the petition. We therefore have an opportunity to listen to people with lived experience who know the change that needs to happen.

I was pleased to hear many colleagues mention the construction industry in the mental health context, because as the continuing convener of the cross-party group on construction, I want us to look at that area. Paul McLennan and I will take away what members have said about it. I hope that the minister can come along to a future meeting of the group, as I know from his previous work in local government and building standards that he has a keen interest in that area.

I have a lot of empathy for people affected by alcohol and drug misuse, and I know how that intersects with mental health and wellbeing. When I was in my teens and early 20s, I had to reach out for help and had counselling. I worry about young people who have had to be at home during the pandemic and were not in school, but particularly when there was substance misuse in the home. I am keen to hear from the minister what more can be done to support those young people and their families.

Many stakeholders have sent briefings for the debate that have all made important points. In particular, Scotland’s Mental Health Partnership is looking for a radical refresh of the mental health strategy, which is why Karen McKeown’s petition is important.

I invite colleagues and anyone listening to join me, Clare Adamson MSP and others at Strathclyde country park on Sunday, where FAMS is hosting its “Let’s Walk and Talk About Mental Health” event, at which the minister would be welcome. That is a public way for us all to show that we are all human and all have mental health issues, and that if we continue to talk about that openly, we can address stigma and get the system changed.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of a backlog in toxicology analyses, how many final post-mortem reports following a sudden or unexplained death were not issued within the 12-week target in 2020 and 2021. (S6O-00237)

I thank the Lord Advocate for the detail in her response and I welcome her to her new role.

I do not have time to respond to all of that answer, but I note that this has been a deeply upsetting period for many families, because before the pandemic bereaved families experienced long and agonising waits for final post-mortem reports. Instead of being told that it could take around 12 weeks to receive a report, many were told that it could take 12 months and some were told that it could take two years.

I am pleased that there have been improvements, but under the new service level agreement between the Scottish Police Authority’s forensic services and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, what robust measures will be put in place, and are families being consulted? Will the Lord Advocate meet me and affected families to make sure that we never get the issue wrong again?

I would like to bring us back to the UK energy crisis. A report that Citizens Advice published last week found that consumers who are moved to a new supplier typically pay £30 a month more than before.

Jonathan Brearley said that all of Ofgem’s work is about supporting the consumer. How can Ofgem ensure that effective competition is promoted in the wholesale and retail markets while ensuring that energy is affordable to all consumers?

The issue is important. Citizens Advice goes on to say that many more people will face fuel poverty this winter and could face

“turning off their fridges and freezers, relying on hot water bottles for warmth and requesting support to buy extra duvets and blankets.”

None of us wants to live in such a society.

Energy companies and charities have called for the introduction of a social tariff—that is different from what Anna Rossington has talked about—for those who are already in fuel poverty, which would offer a tariff below the price cap. How could that be implemented to ensure that the most vulnerable households are protected from the recent price increases? More generally, given our interest in net zero, how can we be sure that the journey to net zero will not push households further into fuel poverty?

Good morning to the panel and to Professor Turner’s cat, who made a nice appearance a moment ago.

I return to your report, Professor Docherty, about which Mark Ruskell has asked questions already. You were modest about the attention that the report has received and some of the headlines that it prompted, but you are a former non-executive director of ScotRail and Transport Scotland, so you are a person of influence.

Your report is correct in saying that Scotland’s rail network has a central role to play in our meeting Scotland’s climate change targets, and you made an important point about making the shift from car to train. I am not sure, and the public is confused, about how the proposed service cuts, closures of ticket offices and job losses will help us to meet those climate change targets. Surely, those measures will make that objective more difficult—making people feel less safe and secure, and making train travel less accessible to them—and run counter to the race to net zero.

There are also concerns about the equality impact of some of those proposals. We are hearing a lot in the media now about women’s safety and about the rise in hate crime against disabled people and people of colour on our railways. If we want to change behaviours and give people the confidence to get on the trains, how will all those cuts help?

Thank you, Professor Docherty. I have found my notes from earlier, when I was scribbling down what you were saying in response to Mark Ruskell. You talked about having a plan for doubling the number of rail passengers. I am not sure whether that plan exists yet, but I am interested in what you think it should include.

Going back to public confidence and mood, during the pandemic, people were advised not to use public transport and, if they were travelling by car, not to car share. How do we use public messaging to shift that advice? I have not heard a lot of new advice telling people to get back on the bus and train. Morale is very low among key transport workers including rail workers, there is an industrial dispute and the number of strikes might increase during COP26. How do the Government, Transport Scotland, ScotRail and the trade unions cut through all that and find some agreement, so that we can get the travelling public back on to public transport and out of private cars?

I am grateful for that update. It is clear that it is not acceptable for correspondence from Scottish ministers to be ignored by UK ministers, and I hope that that issue will be resolved. However, it appears that there have been differences in how the Welsh Government has interacted with the UK Government. Perhaps colleagues on the other side of the chamber could provide insight into that, because that is another point of frustration. Scottish Labour does not have access to the legal advice that either Government gets, so we need more transparency on that.

The cabinet secretary and Donald Cameron spoke well and fairly about the fact that there is lots of agreement about what the bill seeks to achieve. There is little policy difference.

I turn to the amendments on forest risk commodities and deforestation. Alice Lucas, writing for the Fairtrade Foundation, reminds us that

“poverty and deforestation fuel each other in a negative cycle”

and that deforestation is

“wreaking havoc on the planet and its people”.

Today, many of us are wearing challenge poverty week badges. It would be good to be using our time to debate and discuss climate justice and to look at the impact of poverty, but here we are debating legislative consent instead.

To be honest, we are not quite sure how we have reached this point, but it seems to us that there should have been much earlier engagement and discussion between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will not be for Labour members to solve that, but we urge people to work more closely together. To make real progress in tackling the climate and nature emergencies, we need both Governments to work together to deliver strong environmental protections.

I move amendment S6M-01512.2, to leave out from “further calls on” to end and insert:

“is disappointed that the UK and Scottish governments have failed to have early and constructive dialogue on the environmental protections that are required, and believes that parliamentary time would be better spent on measures to address the global climate emergency.”