Agenda item 3 is consideration of two negative instruments. Scottish statutory instrument 2025/259 makes changes to the salary earnings bandings of the employee contribution tables from 1 April 2025 to ensure that the tiering of pay bands remains in line with annual increases in the pay of members of the schemes. The instrument also delivers a number of other policy changes, as well as making a series of technical and miscellaneous amendments to the national health service pension schemes.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument at its meeting on 30 September and made no recommendations in relation to it, although it welcomed the fact that the instrument corrects errors that that committee had previously identified in a 2023 instrument. No motion recommending annulment has so far been lodged in relation to the instrument.

I put on the record that I am a member of the NHS superannuation and pension schemes.

If members have no comments, I propose that the committee does not make any recommendations in relation to the instrument. Are members content to note the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. At our next meeting, on Tuesday 4 November, the committee will commence stage 2 proceedings on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting.

No—Emma Harper’s question was a supplementary.

Thank you, Mr Arthur. We will move straight to questions. I put on record the fact that I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

An issue that has been raised consistently throughout the inquiry, in the written and the oral evidence that we have received, is that of waiting times for diagnosis, for children and for adults. While I am sure that committee members will have more to say about adults who are seeking a diagnosis, I want to ask specifically about children.

Over recess, I met a constituent whose child has been waiting several years for a diagnosis. They spoke very highly of the support that they have been receiving from their child’s educational establishment and the third sector support that they have accessed. However, they feel that they are no further forward in gaining a diagnosis for their child, which they believe is vital for them as a family. I am sure that you and your officials are well aware of the waiting times issue. What is the Scottish Government doing to tackle that? How quickly can we expect waiting times to be reduced?

I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance and evidence, and I suspend the meeting briefly.

We will come on to data specifically a bit later on in the session, so I will leave it there and move to Sandesh Gulhane.

I was delighted to see the First Minister visit Malawi this month. As he will be aware, my constituency has strong ties to that country through Blantyre in South Lanarkshire being the birthplace of David Livingstone.

Can the First Minister provide more details on the partnership between Malawi and Scotland through the Blantyre-Blantyre programme—which I understand the Scottish Government supports financially—particularly in relation to how the project can positively benefit our two countries?

As convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate on the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill. As the Parliament will be aware, the committee published its stage 1 report on the bill on 23 September. The report is the culmination of an extensive and far-reaching programme of scrutiny, and I draw members’ attention to the evidence and the recommendations that it sets out.

Before I speak to the substance of the report, I thank those individuals, organisations and wider stakeholders who engaged with the committee during its scrutiny and, in particular, those who had the courage to share their lived experience of accessing support services for harm from drug and alcohol use. The committee’s informal engagement and call for evidence, the latter of which received 129 responses, were critical in providing an evidence base for the report and they gave committee members a tremendous insight into not just the potential impact of the provisions in the bill, but the wider issues that are involved in tackling alcohol and drug harms across Scotland.

The extent of the committee’s consultation and its lengthy programme of oral evidence reflect how seriously it took its role in scrutinising the bill. As is highlighted in the concluding recommendations on the general principles of the bill, the report acknowledges the overwhelming amount of evidence that we heard of a high level of dissatisfaction with the current availability of, and access to, drug and alcohol support services across the country. I assure the Parliament and all those who engaged with the committee that our members are acutely aware that more needs to be done in that area.

Scotland has long-standing and serious issues associated with drug and alcohol harms. Although I commend the good work that is being done at every level to tackle those issues, it remains the case that every single drug death is a tragedy. It is our duty as representatives to ensure that we explore all avenues that we can to improve the current public health situation in Scotland and, ultimately, save lives.

That said, it is also incumbent on the lead committee in any scrutiny process to be forensic in its analysis of the provisions in the bill that is before it. I believe that I speak for all members of the committee when I say that I commend any policy that is intended to improve public health outcomes for the people of Scotland, but it would be remiss of any committee not to consider whether, in practice, the bill that it is scrutinising is capable of delivering its intended aims. Having considered all the evidence, and noting the member in charge of the bill’s recognition of the need for the bill to be substantially amended were it to progress to stage 2, a majority of the committee members concluded that they are unable to recommend that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. That decision was not taken lightly, but it reflects the many concerns that the committee heard about the bill’s focus and scope during its stage 1 scrutiny.

The report identifies various provisions in the bill that the committee concluded would require significant amendment in order to be workable. I will highlight to the Parliament some of the key practical challenges that are associated with implementation of the bill as drafted. They include the requirement for individuals to have received a diagnosis of addiction to be able to exercise the right to recovery that would be established by the bill, the requirement for individuals to attend in-person appointments, and the proposed maximum timescales for accessing treatment.

Many contributors to our scrutiny of the bill raised concerns about the bill’s lack of recognition of the role of the wider multidisciplinary team and the importance of trauma-informed approaches and a whole-family approach, as well as some of the language and terminology used in the bill. The evidence that was submitted to the committee—

In January 2017, I stood up in the chamber to speak in my colleague Bob Doris’s debate on proposed jobcentre closures in the Glasgow region, including Cambuslang jobcentre in my constituency. After a huge effort from the local community, local organisations, trade unions, activists and elected members, Cambuslang jobcentre was saved. Eight years later, communities in my constituency find themselves in exactly the same situation, albeit under a Labour Government rather than a Tory Government at Westminster.

The Department for Work and Pensions has announced that Cambuslang jobcentre is to close, with all services being relocated to Rutherglen. In 2017, my colleague Jamie Hepburn made the point that the decision to close particular jobcentres seemed to be driven by the fact that lease arrangements for buildings were coming to an end. Strangely enough, the DWP’s lease in Cambuslang is due to end in early 2026.

The DWP has claimed that the jobcentre’s proposed closure is part of its plans to leave “older, poorer-quality buildings”. That supposed justification would be risible if it was not so insulting. Cambuslang jobcentre is situated in a bright, accessible, modern building in a central location in the town. It is co-located with other vital services including the award-winning employment champion Routes to Work South, which has just celebrated its 20th year of operation. In fact, the jobcentre is in such a great location that the DWP invested more than £200,000 of public money in new doors and closed-circuit television just a couple of years ago. The DWP rationale simply does not wash with the residents of Cambuslang and it does not wash with me.

Hundreds of local residents have now signed my petition against the closure, and many of them have shared their stories with me. Those people would be seriously impacted by any closure, and I am thankful for their candidness. Time and again, I have heard fears around accessibility, travel time and the threat of punitive sanctions for being late or missing an appointment.

Cambuslang community council is a well-kent and well-respected organisation that is rooted in the communities that its members serve and it knows them inside out. It has been unequivocal in its opposition to any closure, citing the disproportionate impact that it would have on vulnerable people and those who live in areas of deprivation, and I agree with it entirely. The community council is fiercely protective of local services—it successfully launched a banking hub in the face of the withdrawal of high street banks, for example—and I commend its continued commitment to Cambuslang.

I also put on the record my thanks to the many local businesses and shops that have displayed the poster about my campaign and petition.

In 2017, the previous UK Government said that, if it would take 20 minutes for people to reach a named alternative by public transport, there should be a public consultation on any proposed jobcentre closure. My constituents in Halfway, Drumsagard or Lightburn would face around a 90-minute walk, or a journey of at least 30 minutes on public transport, to Rutherglen jobcentre. My constituents in Greenlees would face up to a 45-minute journey using public transport.

Frankly, it feels like the latest decision has been made by someone who could not point to Cambuslang on a map, let alone be bothered to look at the building on Google maps, download a bus timetable or google local representatives’ names. There has been absolutely no consultation whatsoever with local communities, service users, elected members, trade unions or Department for Work and Pensions employees.

At a meeting of South Lanarkshire Council on 1 October, the SNP group lodged a motion that called on the council to unite in condemning the proposed closure. I am delighted to say that the motion was passed unanimously, with councillors of all political parties and none coming together to stand up for the community.

In 2017, Labour members lined up to condemn the prospect of jobcentre closures, including in Cambuslang. Where are Anas Sarwar and Pauline McNeill today? Where are they when a jobcentre in their region is again under threat?

Back then, our Conservative colleague Annie Wells spoke very honestly about her concerns about the proposed consultation process, or lack thereof. I appreciate that that must have been a politically uncomfortable position for her to take, given that there was a Tory United Kingdom Government at the time. It is for that reason that I commend one local Labour councillor for speaking up for her constituents in the council chamber and for publicly stating:

“The evidence that the DWP has given for the relocation definitely does not stack up. There is nothing that stacks up that justifies closing the jobcentre.”

I am deeply concerned that not one of our Labour colleagues has signed my motion or stayed to listen to the debate. That speaks volumes to my constituents about how much their regional Labour representatives care. It is disgraceful that there has not been a cheep from the Labour MP on the matter, either.

It has been 11 weeks since I wrote to the UK Government to request an urgent meeting and to relate my constituents’ concerns. I have yet to receive a substantive reply, let alone a date for a meeting. I ask the minister to write to the DWP to chivvy it along and make it aware that my constituents are so concerned about the closure of Cambuslang jobcentre.

I am not alone. Local Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors have shared that they have not received replies, either. Perhaps Andrew Western, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, who made the announcement in July, has had other important DWP-related matters on his mind. After all, on 15 September, he provided an MP with an answer as to on how many days the union flag had been flown over DWP buildings.

Altogether, the UK Government’s behaviour has been nothing short of disgraceful. It has provided a flimsy rationale that does not stand up to any sensible scrutiny. It has not even matched the previous Government’s extremely low threshold to trigger consultation. It has flat-out ignored elected members’ requests for meetings and further information. In the face of increasing pressure from all sides, it has repeated the same worn-out lines in the local and national press.

I was proud to stand up for Cambuslang jobcentre in 2017, and I am proud to do so today. I am proud of the resolve of the local residents, communities, activists and organisations in my constituency, which I stood alongside in 2017 and which I am standing alongside today.

The motion is about protecting local services and about dignity and respect in relation to how we treat vulnerable groups in our communities. It is about giving my Cambuslang constituents access to a vital service and helping them to access benefits, work and training opportunities. I will continue to campaign for the DWP and the UK Labour Government to lift the threat of closure of Cambuslang jobcentre and to secure its future.

I remind Ms Webber that I am speaking on behalf of the committee—not on behalf of my party and not on behalf of the Scottish Government. However, in her opening speech, the minister set out some of the work that the Government is doing, which includes increasing the number of rehabilitation beds and services.

The committee heard about the significant strain that those working in drug and alcohol services are currently under, and related concerns about the knock-on impact that staffing requirements associated with the bill might have on the workforce, including on recruitment to multidisciplinary roles.

My committee fully recognises the need for concerted action to address the public health crisis that the country continues to face in relation to drug and alcohol harms. However, after careful and considered scrutiny, a majority of members have been unable to recommend that the general principles of the bill be agreed to.

This is a serious topic that requires careful and considered policy approaches to save lives. It is incumbent on those in the chamber to ensure that any legislation that it considers in the area makes a real difference and does not inadvertently create additional barriers to treatment and recovery for service users or place additional unnecessary strain on service providers.

However the chamber decides to vote today, I welcome the robust debate that Douglas Ross’s bill has prompted, and I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively and constructively with colleagues to help tackle the on-going public health crisis that has plagued our communities for far too long.