Chamber and committees

It gives me great pride to rise for the Liberal Democrats.

I congratulate Gillian Mackay on an excellent speech and I extend good wishes to all those who will make their first speech today. It has been evident for some days that the intake of new MSPs has brought with it a welcome breadth of new talent. I wish them well and I look forward to working with them.

Shortly before new year’s eve in 2019, Chinese public health officials first alerted the World Health Organization to the human transmission of what was being referred to in the hospitals of Wuhan City as “animal pneumonia”. Back then, it all seemed so far away and, in those early days, our principal concern as members was over the Scots who were in that part of China and were unable to leave it. Then, suddenly, the virus was here.

I will never forget the Opposition briefing at which the chief medical officer and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport appeared, ashen faced, to tell us that the virus could no longer be contained and that our public health priority was to protect our NHS from being overwhelmed. Schools and businesses would close, home working would become the new norm and we would have to teach our children the meaning of the word “lockdown”.

As the NHS mobilised, so too did our communities. In that, we have seen humanity at its greatest. I am sure that colleagues of all parties will share my sentiment as I speak of the gratitude that we owe our communities. In my constituency of Edinburgh Western, local hospitality businesses delivered free meals to the vulnerable, and mutual aid groups made a colossal effort to ensure that vulnerable neighbours were not left isolated or without support.

While we should be proud of our communities, we should be doubly so of our care workers and key workers. The nation owes them a debt that I do not think we can every truly repay.

However, in those weeks of high infection, amid the frantic efforts to prepare for an expected tsunami of Covid cases, part of what was done in preparation undoubtedly led—inadvertently—to catastrophe. When the histories of Scotland’s pandemic are written, the tragedy of that story will be found in our care homes.

The minutes of the Scottish Government’s Covid advisory group of 2 April 2020 cover several topics, but two points stand out in particular: first, that our scientists were struggling to understand how the virus was moving around in Scottish hospitals despite infection control measures; and, secondly, that it wanted to speed up the movement of elderly patients out of those hospitals and into Scottish care homes.

The international health community had been screaming about asymptomatic viral transmission since January, yet the decision was taken to accelerate the movement of more than 3,000 hospital patients whose Covid status was unknown—and of dozens who had even tested positive—into care homes that were working desperately hard to keep residents safe and to find personal protective equipment. That put a time bomb into the heart of the most vulnerable communities in our country. The response to outbreaks in our care homes was brutal—isolation and the misery of separation.

I do not blame any one person for those realities or those decisions, but it underscores the need and the urgency for the Government to commission an independent public inquiry without delay. That inquiry should not be about politics but should be about catharsis, healing and learning for the remnants of the virus and for any future pandemic that may visit our shores.

In that spirit, I thank the Government for its efforts to include Opposition members in the pandemic response. Ministers and cabinet secretaries made themselves available and responded swiftly—in some instances, to individual cases of constituents who had been left behind or who were unfairly disadvantaged.

When I raised the reality that Edinburgh zoo was just weeks from permanent closure if the Government’s timetable for reopening was not amended, I was gratified that I was taken seriously and that the zoo was given the latitude that it needed. When, along with Monica Lennon, I raised the plight of new parents who had spent their pregnancies shielding and were now adrift from support networks, they were granted permission by the Government to visit one another indoors.

Those exchanges showed what the Parliament can accomplish through consensus. We are going to need much more of that—for the wedding and events industry, which still lacks clarity about how the easing of restrictions will allow it to come back into profit; for those with additional support needs who are still prevented from accessing long-stay or short-stay respite services; and for the young people who did not expect to have to sit life-qualifying exams but who now face a diet of assessments without a clear appeals process.

We often talk about life before the pandemic, before we were confined to our homes, when we could hug our loved ones and go to the pub with as many of them as we chose. Aspiring to get back to life before the pandemic is a low bar to set, because before the pandemic students from our poorest communities were being failed by a system that is widening the attainment gap, our communities were being torn apart by the drug deaths emergency—the worst in the developed world—and children suffering from mental ill health faced the longest queue in our NHS.

We need to put the recovery first, and that starts by recognising that the pandemic is far from over. This morning, I had cause to speak to the headteacher of Davidson’s Mains primary school in my constituency for the second time in as many days since an outbreak of Covid closed her school on Tuesday. Twelve classes are now isolating and community transmission is surging. I ask the cabinet secretary to reassure my community in his closing remarks that the outbreak commands the full attention of his Government.

The first debates of a new parliamentary session strike a different tone from those that we were used to in the closing days of the previous session. The eyes of the country are fixed on the chamber in anticipation and expectation. Our success in living up to that expectation will be measured by how we build consensus, how quickly we respond to emerging areas of greatest need and how we resist the divisions of the past.

I am sure that members are gratified to hear about the measures to deal with the hot spots in Glasgow, but hot spots and outbreaks of Covid-19 are not limited to Glasgow. As I said in my speech, Davidson’s Mains primary school in my constituency was closed on Tuesday, and 11 classes are now self-isolating. There are dozens and dozens of infections there. Can the cabinet secretary reassure people in my community that the Government’s focus is very much on them and that they will receive due attention?

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has consistently flagged the existence in Scotland of a problem whereby insufficient efforts are made to obtain the views of people with diminished capacity. That was previously the case in mental health tribunals, but it is clearly evident here, too. If we had incorporated the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into Scots law, that would not have been allowed to happen. When will the minister’s Government introduce legislation to that end?

Some days in the proceedings of the Parliament carry a certain gravity beyond that of normal business: the swearing in of new MSPs, as happened last week; the occasion of first speeches; and the appointment of a new Government. On such days, it is incumbent on Opposition members such as myself to put aside any ill feeling or enmity, and to wish with all sincerity good fortune to those who are appointed to high office. Despite the amendment that I will move, I offer those good wishes. However, Liberal Democrats cannot support the appointment of a cabinet secretary for the constitution.

On Tuesday, the First Minister signalled a welcome change in both tone and direction. Her first act was to create a ministerial office that was dedicated to the national recovery from Covid-19. However, that was immediately undermined by her appointment of a cabinet secretary who will exist first and foremost to advance the cause of independence. The Government has stated that the role also covers Europe. However, the impact of Brexit will be felt by and dealt with in every ministry that is established today; it should by necessity now become everybody’s problem.

We must therefore recognise the appointment for what it is. When Angus Robertson left Westminster, he was appointed to lead an independence-supporting think tank. Today, with his appointment to this role in Government, it feels as if the work of that organisation has been brought into public ownership.

The country will face big, important questions in the coming years—on mental health, the drug deaths emergency, climate change and educational attainment. However, for Liberal Democrats, the answers to none of those lie in the tired old arguments about currency and borders. As such, we believe that not one minute of ministerial or civil service time should be afforded to such a brief.

The reshuffle has conflated the vital and substantial issues of mental health and social care into one junior ministerial role, whereas we Liberal Democrats would much rather have seen them both being elevated to a Cabinet-level role, given the gravity and severity of the problems arising in those areas.

The First Minister offered the electorate a clear and unambiguous commitment in the election campaign that the national recovery would come first, and yet her appointment of such a minister undermines that commitment. That is why I will move my amendment.

Laying aside that note of opposition, I will use the remainder of my time to recognise some of those who are being appointed to the Government today—in particular, those from the 2016 intake, such as Mairi Gougeon and Tom Arthur, who are both being promoted today.

I do not know any member who does not like Kate Forbes personally. She had the role of Cabinet Secretary for Finance thrust upon her just days before the country was caught in the teeth of a public health emergency that will have far-reaching economic consequences. She has met that challenge with heart and inclusivity and we wish her well.

To Humza Yousaf, who was appointed yesterday to the health portfolio, I say that I know that everyone here wants him to succeed. Lives will depend on his actions. Beyond the crisis that has been caused by Covid-19, he should not lose sight of the emergencies in our health service that predate the coronavirus pandemic, such as the glacial waits for first-line mental health treatment and the countless thousands of our fellow Scots who are suffering and in pain due to the backlog of deferred operations.

Finally, I welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville to her place as education secretary. I have always been impressed by her; she has a formidable work rate and strong values. She will need them in her role, for I fear that she inherits a crisis in the making in relation to the assessments that have replaced this year’s exam diet.

To serve your country from a ministerial office is a privilege craved by many but afforded to very few. Each minister carries a weight of hope and expectation from the Parliament and the communities that we are here to serve. I wish everyone appointed today well—congratulations and, for all our sakes, please make good choices.

I move amendment S6M-00062.1, to leave out “Angus Robertson.”

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is writing to all those in the G41 and G42 postcode sectors to ask them to get tested. We know that surge testing works best when you go door to door. Any medical intervention should always be voluntary, but uptake is heightened when the opportunity for a test appears on people’s doorstep. What considerations has the Government given to that measure?

Liberal Democrats have long argued for reform of the Home Office to strip it of its more draconian powers, which we saw deployed yesterday. In our democracy, there will always be times when circumstances demand an urgent act of public protest. Even in a pandemic, such acts must be supported to happen safely.

Therefore, will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the current guidance relating to peaceful public protest in the context of the current Covid restrictions? Will he give further consideration to how acts of public protest can be supported to take place safely in the future?

made a solemn affirmation.