I’m gonnae be good. I’ll behave.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate as this Parliament considers how best to tackle Scotland’s changing population. I support the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron.

Today’s motion talks about the importance of an effective migration system that meets Scotland’s “specific needs”. It also talks about the cultural and economic contributions of the people who choose to live here. There is certainly much truth in those sentiments; my Conservative colleagues expressed similar sentiments when the issue was debated and discussed a few years ago.

However, although migration is clearly important in ensuring that Scotland’s tax base continues to grow, it is just as important to look at the changes and challenges within Scotland’s current population.

The Government motion talks about the

“distinct demographic challenges that Scotland faces”.

As our amendment points out, those challenges are “multi-faceted”. Although it is true that Scotland’s population growth is projected to come from migration alone, it is also the case that the most significant trend in Scotland’s population is that it has been steadily ageing for the past 40 years. As my party’s spokesperson for older people, I am clear that addressing the challenges that are created by that trend will be just as important as any new approach to migration could be.

The percentage of the male population who are aged over 65 has risen from 11 per cent in the early 1980s to nearly 18 per cent in the most recent figures to have been published. By the end of the 2040s, the number of people aged 75 or over will have nearly doubled from the number just 10 years ago. At that time, according to some estimates, nearly 23 per cent of Scotland’s population will be of pensionable age.

I disagree with that. We have identified that Scotland has a problem, but other countries across Europe have similar problems. We need to make sure that we are trying to do all that we can, and the United Kingdom has certainly done that in recent times.

All of what I have said is true in spite of the fact that people who move to Scotland are generally younger than the average age of the population. It is a good thing that older people in Scotland, like those throughout the United Kingdom, are able to live longer lives. However, we need to be honest about the challenges that that situation creates and how we will deal with them.

Although people who choose to settle here are usually younger than the Scottish average age, it is also true that people aged over 50 make up a third of the Scottish workforce. We know that the workforce is ageing continuously. Not only that, but the number of people aged 65 and over who are employed has more than doubled from the number 10 years ago. Those individuals remain an important part of the Scottish workforce. They are a vital asset to businesses in every sector and every part of the economy. With a continuously ageing population, that will only become more true in the future. Given that, it is clear that supporting people to remain in work for as long as they wish to do so should become a priority for the Scottish Government.

The changing labour market means that reskilling and retraining have never been more important, but the skills landscape is in places confused and complicated, and it needs to change. That is especially important for older people, who are less likely than younger workers to move into new jobs. We need to make doing so easier for them. Providing more lifelong learning opportunities is an excellent way of allowing older people to change career paths, even at a late stage in their working lives. As things stand, however, there are simply not enough opportunities in that respect. Recent research suggests that older adult learners are particularly disadvantaged in Scotland, and that people who are disabled are even more disadvantaged.

Last week’s promise of a new and reformed skills landscape gives us hope. There is no question but that we want to change and improve what is happening in that area. However, I fear that the reforms may be too little, too late for many people, because they will fail to provide a system that can truly capitalise on older people’s potential.

Scotland can and should be an attractive destination for those who choose to migrate here, and it should also be one of the best places in the world for people who are growing old to live in. With the age profile of Scotland’s population continuing to increase, the challenges will continue, so it is important that we unlock the potential in our workforce.

Along with my Conservative colleagues, I will continue to push for policies that will deliver the skills and the economy that we need. Some of those skills will, no doubt, come through migration, as they have done in the past. However, many of them will come through acknowledging the challenges that are created by an ageing population, and through working to ensure that people can continue to work for as long as they choose to do so, which allows them to contribute to society. We must understand that housing, transport links and employment all play their parts.

Why is Scotland less attractive than other parts of the UK? We need to come up with the solutions in order to ensure that we succeed.

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate as the Parliament considers how it will carry out its business in the most effective way possible, just as the Scottish public rightly expect.

As with many modern Parliaments, the Scottish Parliament has always strived to be flexible, open and accommodating to members from all different backgrounds. It is therefore to this Parliament’s credit that Scotland was ahead of the curve in responding to the pandemic and introducing changes to ensure that all members could participate in parliamentary business.

Although remote or virtual contributions were originally introduced as a necessity, members will agree that the period helped shine a light on what were old ways of thinking. With committee evidence-taking sessions, for example, the hybrid format has significantly expanded the potential pool of witnesses. The committee process is a vital part of the scrutiny provided by the Parliament, and there is no doubt that certain aspects of the process are now more effective, because of the hybrid format.

However, it is clear that the introduction of virtual contributions to the chamber, particularly in debates, has not been entirely unproblematic. Although such contributions are more seamless now than when they were first introduced in 2020, it is clear that there is a problematic divide between contributions made in the chamber and those made remotely. Although many important improvements and contributions have been made through the virtual format, it cannot be said that, even with their heartfelt contributions, those who are not in the chamber but in a remote situation are as deeply involved in a debate.

The chamber is where members can participate in the cut and thrust of debates; indeed, as has often been pointed out, the situation is only made worse by the fact that those making such contributions can neither make nor receive interventions. Losing the spontaneity of responding to others’ remarks has been a price that people have not felt prepared to pay; I hope that the proposed hybrid platform is able to address the issue properly, and I look forward to seeing that happen. It should be up to members to decide how they contribute to debates. After all, the Scottish public expect to see MSPs representing them as effectively as possible in Parliament, and they will be able to judge for themselves whether that is the case.

Given Parliament’s role in holding the Government to account, it would be reasonable that such an approach is discarded for ministers. It is important that ministers are subject to the highest possible levels of scrutiny, which is something that can take place only in the chamber.

The Parliament is already a better place as a result of the hybrid measures that were introduced two years ago, but there is still much more work to be done to ensure that those measures complement parliamentary business and do not detract from it or diminish the Parliament’s role. It remains the case that in-person contributions to Parliament are very much to the fore.

We all want a Parliament that can accommodate members from as many different backgrounds as possible. I know that that can be achieved without diluting the Parliament’s vital role in our democracy, and, by setting aside time for the debate, we have set a clear goal to help to achieve that. Alongside other members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I will continue to work collectively to strike the balance that is required to ensure that we accommodate, support and encourage members, including new members. As we have heard, many new members joined the Parliament this session, and it has taken them some time to get used to the format, which is not the same as in previous sessions. We have a lot to learn and a lot to give.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what work has been done to close the attainment gap. (S6O-01365)

Will the review look at improving skills support for small and large businesses? Will the Scottish Government consider introducing an export monitoring scheme, as we have previously proposed?

The statistics show that the attainment gap for pupils achieving A to C at national 5 and higher has widened in the past year, with the gap at higher level nearly double the 2021 figure. Given that the gap is getting wider, has the Scottish Government failed to tackle its supposed defining mission?

A recent report by Public Health Scotland has found suicide to be the leading cause of death among young Scots. Ministers have described every suicide as being “a tragedy” and have said that suicide prevention is the key priority for the Scottish Government.

Given that priority, what action is being taken to ensure that youngsters who are affected by suicide get access to the services that they require to reduce this appalling situation?

I am very grateful for the opportunity to open my members’ business debate. The importance of NHS out-of-hours GP services should not be underestimated. Indeed, according to Healthcare Improvement Scotland, primary care out-of-hours services are a fundamental part of our healthcare. The services provide support to those who require medical assistance outwith normal GP surgery hours and involve a number of healthcare professionals, agencies and support staff. They work together to provide a high quality of integrated service for patients, with many individuals going above and beyond their normal remit.

I said in my original motion for the debate that Healthcare Improvement Scotland and many GPs have collectively acknowledged that the quality and safety of out-of-hours care is extremely important. However about four years ago things appeared to slowly but surely be making an about-turn.

In April 2018, I lodged a motion with deep concern after the decision by the Fife health and social care partnership to close the Glenrothes hospital out-of-hours service. In May of that year, I sought assurances from the former health secretary that there would not be any further service reductions. The health secretary responded, indicating that recent changes were a short-term measure to ensure that appropriate levels of patient safety were maintained. I also took part in Jenny Gilruth’s members’ business debate on the very subject of Glenrothes, as well as participating in Willie Rennie’s members’ business debate about the St Andrews out-of-hours service.

The primary care emergency services at the hospitals in Glenrothes, Dunfermline and St Andrews all remained closed after they were forced to be suspended due to staff shortages in 2018. Meanwhile, NHS Forth Valley had been escalated to stage 3 on the NHS board performance escalation framework. All those concerns have sadly proved not to have been in vain as we are now facing grave issues in many of our out-of-hours services the length and breath of Scotland.

Assurances were sought from the constituency member for Clackmannanshire and Dunblane and the Clackmannanshire Council leader. In a press statement in December 2021, they indicated that they had received assurances from the health board that it was committed to providing services in Clackmannanshire. I have been contacted by a number of highly concerned, even frightened, individuals about what is taking place in Forth Valley’s out-of-hours service. I am shocked and dismayed to have received reports now that that is being dismantled slowly but surely.

Prior to NHS Forth Valley control, the Clacks emergency doctors service was working Monday to Friday and at weekends, with two doctors and three doctors overlapping, plus another doctor on standby and a receptionist, a car and a driver. The Falkirk doctors service was also working Monday to Friday and at weekends, with receptionists, drivers and two cars. The Stirling doctors service operated from Monday to Friday and at weekends, with rural Stirlingshire being covered by its own GPs.

When NHS Forth Valley took over the services, it had five GPs, supplemented with local GPs covering at high level with four GPs and four drivers. All centres were fully staffed seven days a week, apart from Clackmannanshire, which lost an overnight GP as soon as NHS Forth Valley took over and where the service started to be diminished. Months later, Clackmannanshire was reduced to one GP in the evenings, with many patients having to travel to other centres when the Clackmannanshire-based GP was on visits.

A reply to a freedom of information request that was sent to me recently showed staffing levels fluctuating over the following years, with the Clacks centre being systematically run down from 2017. That began with the centre being closed on public holiday weekends due to shortages. The running down of the centre continued with the shortening of opening hours at weekends, followed by regular weekend closures, and now it is open only three evenings a fortnight.

Despite the claim in the FOI response that the health board would like to continue with the three centres, I am repeatedly informed that there has been a removal of drug bags, drivers, cars and receptionists from Clackmannanshire and Stirling over the past few months. NHS Forth Valley had five vehicles a few years ago, then it had four vehicles and then it was reduced to two vehicles at Larbert, with only one car operating on occasion. Moreover, on the days that Stirling and Alloa have a clinician, no driver or drug bags are available at those centres. Staffing levels are at a fraction of the initial levels that were indicated.

Calls to Forth Valley via the NHS 24 line are triaged into the following categories: a doctor to be phoned; patients to attend a centre within one hour, two hours or four hours; and patients to receive home visits within one hour, two hours or four hours. During Covid all those calls were triaged by NHS 24 and retriaged to NHS Forth Valley. That is still the case today, despite the pandemic being all but over. Now Forth Valley has adopted a policy of “comfort-calling” by non-clinical staff to apologise for the delays and to ask the patients whether they still want to remain on the list.

As we have seen historically, when Forth Valley goes into escalation that means that the standard diminishes. Indeed, on occasion, we have gone into the black level, which is the top priority, and there has been no service at all.

In conclusion, staffing levels and GPs’ co-operation are vitally important. Forth Valley assured their patients that they would have a good service, and they did have a good service at one point. Now we find only one clinician on duty for a population of around 300,000 patients. That is causing real concern and is compromising patient care. Clinicians, drivers and receptionists have all been cut despite there not being any drop in the demand. Indeed, Forth Valley call demand is such that, in reality, a quarter of calls cannot be answered because of the lack staff.

This is a wholly unacceptable situation and one that needs to be addressed by the cabinet secretary as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing his response in summing up

GP out-of-hours services are vitally important. Therefore, the Scottish Government and local health boards need to strive to ensure that they are maintained, retained and sustained. At the moment, they are failing patients and putting lives at risk.

I am very grateful for the honour of being able to pay tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I was extremely saddened by the awful news of Her Majesty’s passing. I possess a deep and enduring admiration for our longest-reigning monarch, not least due to her tireless work and service to the community and the Commonwealth.

The Queen had the ability to ensure strong bonds in our United Kingdom, and she played a crucial role in supporting international co-operation. She was instrumental in binding the diverse nations of the Commonwealth together. She had a deep love of Scotland and has often been quoted as saying that she found true happiness and tranquillity here. She cared deeply about the community on royal Deeside, as she did about all parts of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth.

I had the privilege and the pleasure of meeting Her Majesty on a number of occasions, the pinnacle being when I received my MBE at Holyrood palace in 2016. I shall never forget the brief but highly entertaining and amusing conversation that we had that morning.

It is astounding to think that she became Queen when she was only 25 years old. She had an enormous undertaking on her young shoulders, but she took it on and followed it through all her life. The loss of Her Majesty is immeasurable to our country and to the Commonwealth. The period of national mourning has given us all the opportunity to pay our respects to the late monarch. Scotland and Edinburgh played a pivotal role in showcasing Scotland to the world. It also gave us the opportunity to ensure that she received the send-off that she rightly deserved.

I had the opportunity to be in London over the past few days, where hundreds of thousands of people chose to pay their respects by waiting in line or by laying flowers for the late Queen. There was an outpouring of grief but also of the pride of a nation. I pay tribute to the armed forces and everyone who was involved; they performed their duties impeccably and ensured that the state occasion was one to remember.

However, we must remember that the monarch was a much-loved mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. My thoughts and prayers are with the royal family at this emotional and solemn time. God save the King.

Good morning, Mark. You have outlined the need for such a group to come together with others and to collaborate. That represents an opportunity, because the existing groups are of quite long standing and they will have been looking at the system over the past session and even prior to that. You mentioned connections, and there is no doubt that those exist.

You said that you want to influence future Government policy and that the group would consider how to achieve that. How do you envisage that taking place? If you have an agenda to that effect—ensuring that you are running parallel with Government policy or aiming to influence it—how would you achieve it?