Chamber and committees

The data in Public Health Scotland’s dashboard is really helpful. We can look at the data for all of Scotland or break it down by age group, choice of option or local authority. It shows that people up to the age of 18 have predominantly chosen option 1, which is direct payment, and that most people over 18 have chosen the option that involves help from the local authority or a combination. I found all that data interesting when I was analysing it.

I learned previously that people do not really equate self-directed support with what the local authority gives them. They say, “The local authority is doing this for me,” rather than, “This was my choice.” Should we in some way enhance people’s knowledge about what the self-directed support options 1, 2, 3 and 4 are so that people know that they are making a personal choice even if they have chosen the local authority option?

In each of your organisations, there are budgetary constraints. You have mentioned that already. Would any of you be happy to tell us about a good example of work that your organisation is doing to achieve the revised plan outcomes?

Good morning, everybody.

The amendments in my name in the group are not controversial, so I hope that members will agree that they are useful in helping to provide clarity on established safe access zones in Scotland.

Amendments 44 and 45 would remove the need for the Scottish ministers to publish the list of safe access zones after updating it with new protected premises, because the list will already be published. The amendments would ensure that the Scottish ministers are required to maintain the list and ensure that details are up to date. That will ensure clear and proper communication with the public so that everyone is clear about where the safe access zones are.

Amendment 45 would also strengthen the requirement that a safe access zone cannot take effect until at least 14 days after the list is updated, by adding a new subsection to make that easier to identify.

Similarly, amendments 47 and 48 would remove from sections 7 and 8 respectively the need to publish the list when the list is updated following an extension or reduction of safe access zones. That is, again, because the list is already published. The timescales for revised zone sizes taking effect remain unchanged, but they are put in a new subsection in both sections 7 and 8, and are at least 14 days after the list is updated for an extension to the zone size but on the day of the list being updated for a reduction in the zone size.

Although my amendments do not have a policy impact, they are, nonetheless, important changes to make the bill clearer and more easily understood. It is always a guiding principle that this Parliament must pass laws that are accessible and comprehensible by the people whom they impact. However, in this case, where the issues are so challenging and of such personal significance, that duty must be at the forefront of our minds.

Finally, during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, I was interested in ministerial oversight of the creation, extension or reduction of safe access zones, and I welcome the conversations that I have had with Gillian Mackay in that regard. I hope that members can support my amendments, which will help to make the bill clearer.

I was going to bring up the issue of the Republic of Ireland and the traceability that it has put in place. Greyhound racing is quite central and important for people in the Republic of Ireland. Down the line, I am interested in following up work on having one microchip database for the whole of the UK, because I am interested in that part of it.

I have another question about the licensing. The GBGB has anti-doping guidance and it has set percentages for how many dogs will be tested for amphetamine, cocaine and other banned substances. Would a licensing scheme have guidance to require vets being on premises to test X number of dogs to be tested for banned substances, for instance?

Some retailers now sell vapes to customers who order pizzas to be delivered to them. My understanding is that their age is not verified when vapes are delivered along with the pizza that they have just ordered.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. A couple of different points have come to mind while I have been listening to all the questions and responses. I am interested in issues around digital technology and innovation, and in how remote and rural areas can or cannot benefit from that.

During Covid, we saw that the use of NHS Near Me and the attend anywhere service was beneficial. How can we harness what we have learned so far from the use of digital technology in order to support remote and rural healthcare?

Good morning to you—and I see that we also have online engagement this morning.

I declare an interest: I am a registered nurse, and I am the co-convener of the cross-party group on lung health in the Parliament.

I am interested in the data. If you are suggesting that vaping is how people quit smoking, I would comment that I know people who have been vaping for 10 years. Is there a tail-off in some of your data? My understanding is that vaping is not good for the lungs. It causes asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nicotine is addictive—it is bad for you and it can cause hardening of the arteries. There are some issues around blood pressure increase and so on. I would be interested to hear about data on how long people vape for once they stop smoking cigarettes.

You have mentioned travel and transport. The Highlands and Islands have a travel scheme whereby patients get travel and accommodation provided for free in order to access healthcare. In other remote places such as Dumfries and Galloway, patients are means tested for travel reimbursement purposes. Is there a plan to review the Highlands and Islands travel scheme to see whether there is potential to apply it to other remote and rural areas where patients are being means tested, as I have described?

Good morning to you both—actually, it is almost good afternoon. Earlier you probably heard me asking John Dunne about the exclusion of the submissions of 307 respondents to the UK-wide consultation. I am interested in your thoughts on the rationale behind those exclusions. You probably heard me asking about conflicts of interests, for instance.