Chamber and committees

Yes—my question is directly for Clare Morrison. There is a system called ALISS—a local information system for Scotland—which is used to signpost people to local services. Do pharmacists use it?

I have a wee supplementary question on general practice. The Scottish Government has established the Scottish graduate entry medicine programme, which is a four-year training programme to support general practices in rural areas. Are you aware of, or do you have experience of, ScotGEM?

We know that social prescribing—singing in a choir for pulmonary rehabilitation, walking football and so on—works and makes people feel good. However, are we measuring the benefits accurately enough? Is there a risk that social prescribing will be seen as a replacement for what is perceived as more appropriate care?

The receptionist is primarily the person who takes the phone calls and triages cases. I have heard that some GPs in my area answer the phones and triage calls, identifying themselves as Dr X or whoever, and that their experience has been different and not as traumatic. Could we measure that approach? I am not suggesting that we require GPs to triage, but is it worth considering different experiences? Is there a perception that a receptionist who answers the phone does not have a clue about how to triage, when in fact they are pretty much specialists at that? Should we look at how attitudes differ, depending who answers the phone?

Are the link workers who are signposting people using the ALISS system, which is the national Government-funded local information system for Scotland? I am aware that there might be issues around keeping that system up to date. That is my first question—are the link workers either directing people through ALISS or using it themselves?

Secondly, Dumfries and Galloway basically dingied ALISS and set up its own DG Locator service, which is updated at regional rather than national level. Do you have any thoughts about how we should direct people? Is it the link worker’s job to link into the ALISS system or other systems?

I have another wee question. Previously, we have talked about additional skills to deliver additional services. For example, in one of our members’ business debates, we spoke about the fact that optometrists are often the first people to detect type 2 diabetes, and that would lead to a referral for a blood glucose check. Could that check be delivered in an optometry setting? It would require people to receive additional training to ensure they had the right level of competency and skill.

There we go.

I will pick up on what Jess Sussmann just said and relate it back to her comment about support for art. I had a case of someone who wanted to use self-directed support money for art therapy to help them tackle social isolation. Their proposal was refused, because it related to art and was therefore not seen as important.

Jess, how do you feel about that sort of support being used to benefit people and tackle social isolation in that way? I know that art therapy is really good for that. I see that you are shaking your head. What are your thoughts on that?

I heard the cabinet secretary’s response to Maggie Chapman. The UK Government has just announced that it will impose a 35 per cent tariff on top of existing tariffs on a range of imported goods from the Russian Federation, including fertilizers, wood, beverages, spirits, vinegar and cereals. How does the Scottish Government envisage that increase in tariff affecting food security here, in Scotland?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I forgot to mention earlier that I, too, am a practising NHS employee who has been a vaccinator for the past two years, since the vaccines were introduced.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I welcome “Scotland’s Strategic Framework Update”. I want to be crystal clear: Covid-19 is still with us, as we heard from the First Minister earlier. Although vaccination is protecting us from the worst impacts of the virus, infected people are still requiring hospital attention, including intensive care support. Thankfully, that requirement is now less than we previously experienced.

The publication of the updated version of the Covid-19 strategic framework marks the point at which we move away from legal restrictions and instead rely on personal behaviours, adaptations and mitigations. I welcome the fact that the requirement for face coverings has been extended a wee bit, and I welcome the other measures that have been put in place. This is an important point in our national journey through and out of the pandemic, and our return to normality must go hand in hand with a continued determination to look out for and look after one another.

We all have a part to play in ensuring a safe and sustainable recovery by continuing to follow public health advice on getting vaccinated, testing as regularly as appropriate, wearing face coverings when required or recommended and keeping rooms ventilated. All of that still matters, even as we lift the remaining legal requirements. We know how successful face coverings have been in protecting one another from the virus, and it is absolutely vital that we look to support and protect people. I know that it is not as comfortable to wear a face covering as it is to not wear one, but we must ensure that people who want to continue to wear them feel that they can do so without fear of being judged. I would support any action to make available FFP2 masks, which are more secure fitting and protect the wearer more effectively than other standard face coverings.

The threat of new variants remains. In the past 14 days, we have heard of the emergence of a sub-lineage variant called deltacron BA.2, which is another variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It appears to be even more transmissible than the already highly transmissible omicron variant. Professor Adrian Esterman, who is a former World Health Organization epidemiologist, said that the BA.2 variant is “pretty close to measles” in transmissibility, and measles is

“the most contagious disease we know about.”

It is therefore right that the strategic framework update sets out how we will respond to future threats at national level. The strategic intent has been revised from a focus on suppressing cases to a focus on managing Covid effectively using adaptations and health measures, which include vaccination, treatment, surveillance, strengthening the resilience of health and social care in general, and adaptations in behaviours and physical environments.

The update sets out a clear framework of threat levels and potential responses, which provides as much clarity as possible for planning purposes and retains crucial flexibility to ensure that responses are effective and proportionate.

I highlight the Support in Mind Scotland briefing that we received ahead of the debate. We must continue to recognise how people’s mental health has been affected during the pandemic, including people who had a mental health diagnosis prior to Covid. I acknowledge that tailored direct mental health support must continue.

On vaccinations, I understand that, currently, 34.5 per cent of people in Ukraine have had a first dose of the vaccine, which compares with 73.1 per cent of people in Scotland. I would be interested to hear from the Deputy First Minister about how we can commit to helping people arriving from Ukraine—who we welcome—to access their first, second or, if appropriate based on clinical need, additional dose.

I support the motion, I welcome the framework and I look forward to the Deputy First Minister’s response.