Seòmar agus comataidhean

The question is brief, and I do not want to put the minister on the spot, so I would appreciate getting an answer later. What is happening is all very laudable, but policing is a huge problem because most of the activity takes place in far-flung places in the hills and woods, where there is nobody about. The minister knows that already. Can consideration be given to additional policing for wildlife crime?

I congratulate the member, who is my colleague on the cross-party group on animal welfare, on securing this debate and on the temperate speech that he delivered. I am pleased to support the motion and to endorse the principles that have been expressed by Revive, a group that includes the League Against Cruel Sports, OneKind, Common Weal, Raptor Persecution UK and Friends of the Earth—that is some coalition. Indeed, OneKind gave a presentation on those principles recently to the cross-party group on animal welfare, which I chair.

We make clear distinctions between what may be labelled pests, domestic animals and pets, yet they have everything in common. They are sentient, with distinctive means of communicating with their species and their predators, and their drive is to survive, to procreate and continue their species. We also, therefore, have also much in common with them.

Over the decades, our knowledge of the animals around us—hidden in our woods, underground, in our fields and in our homes—has grown as the media of television and film has exposed their lifestyles. Last night, watching “Springwatch”, I saw a bee, Osmia bicolor, which lives alone and builds a protective nest for its eggs in discarded snail shells. It then blocks the entrance with stones that it has carried there and, finally, upturns the shell so that the entrance is hidden. How clever is that?

Today, as I drove through the constituency, twigs flew up from beneath the bonnet and I realised that the pigeons had returned to nest in my Acer Drummondii tree—they build their nest in the same place each year, just above my car, and toss unsuitable building material on to it. The mice, which run between the cottage walls in the winter, have migrated back under the shed and into the small dyke. Mr Smokey, using all his ancient feline instincts and skills, keeps them at bay—now, that is what I call justified control. In the morning, before daylight, our resident blackbird wakes everyone—and every roosting sparrow in the holly tree—with his glorious song, and the early lone grey squirrel raids the bird feeder.

During the early months of Covid, we were put in our place. As a result of the fear of that possibly deadly virus, there were no cars on the streets and the wildlife around us soon reasserted itself, taking over those deserted streets. That small living organism, Covid, bypassed them and went straight for us. We, as a species, are not invincible. Why say this? Because we are privileged to hold the fate of these insects, birds and animals in our hands, and some of these hands lay snares, set traps, shoot and poison—and, sometimes, they do that to protect creatures that are bred solely for sport, usually for the other privileged.

I cannot support that in principle. In practice, we have the poisoning of birds of prey that are hunting for food to survive and feed their young; we have animals that are horrifically trapped in snares, tearing at their own flesh to escape; and fox hunting continues.

I turn to three of the principles that have been mentioned. First, is there a justification for control? I cannot see a justification for breeding animals just for sport. Secondly, does the method of control prioritise animal welfare and cause the least harm to the least number of animals? The use of snares does not do that; it is indiscriminate. Thirdly, is the decision to control based on the situation or simply the negative characterisation of the target species? That applies to, for example, the culling of deer when their welfare is a concern, so I can support that.

Applying those principles is in our interests. As the highest species of animal, we are only custodians of the wildlife around us. It is also in the interests of the diverse, intriguing and essential variety of wildlife that surrounds us every day, and which we often fail to see.

I sincerely thank Sharon Dowey for securing the debate. I, too, wish to commemorate all the lives that were lost and those who were injured both physically and mentally, including British troops, civilians and Argentinians.

I also recognise the professionalism and courage of our armed forces. As well as three Falkland Islanders, in total, 904 military personnel were killed in the conflict. Of those, 255 were British military personnel, and 649 were Argentines. British forces reported that 775 were wounded in the war, with 115 being captured between April and June. Meanwhile, 1,657 were reported wounded among Argentina’s military personnel, and more than 11,000 were captured.

I will go back 40 years, because, for me, those people might not have lost their lives or been injured. Before a shot had been fired, pretty well none of us knew where the Falklands were or what the UK Government had to do with it. As I travelled on the bus to my law studies, I recall how horrified I was to hear passengers in front of me cheering that we should “bash the Argies”.

As we came to learn more, we found out that there had been an incursion on the island by metal workers with some Argentinian marines, who raised the Argentinian flag, which raised the alert. The island was thousands of miles from our shores and had a population in the low thousands. The islanders were not British citizens—citizenship was granted to them only after the war. Of course, I shared the concerns for their wellbeing and safety, but I know that I was not alone in having grave concerns about launching into a war. The country was not united in the decision to attack, nor in the way in which the war was conducted.

There was, I believe, an opportunity to resolve the dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands by diplomacy. It might have failed, but it was not given enough time and space.

Will the member take an intervention?

A vulnerable constituent, who is a young man with Asperger’s syndrome, rents a small cottage on a farm in Peebles. His predicted electricity bill was £35 per month, but he is actually being billed £1,500 a month. Technicians have advised that he is probably receiving bills from the farm, so he is now sitting with a so-called debt of nearly £4,000. Despite the efforts of my office to get E.ON Energy to respond, and even to get in touch with its chief executive, we have had radio silence. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, with all the bad publicity surrounding E.ON’s profits and its recommendation that customers should get in touch if they have financial difficulties, that does not inspire confidence?

We disagree about that, but I will talk about the press coverage at the time and how the press behaved.

The sinking of the General Belgrano, an ageing Argentinian cruiser, caused the loss of 323 Argentinian lives on 2 May 1982, after it was attacked as it sailed either to or out of the 200-mile exclusion zone. I do not know the ins and outs of what was correct, but the matter is certainly still disputed. There was retaliation two days later, of course, with an attack on HMS Sheffield, which was sunk off the coast of the Falkland Islands, killing 20 men. There was no going back after that.

I recall—before even one British ship had sailed—the increasingly feverish warmongering, which was fuelled, in particular, by a circulation war between The Sun and the Mirror. The Sun had a bloodthirsty stance from the start, which included inviting readers to sponsor Sidewinder missiles and offering free “Sink the Argies” computer games. It never relented. The Sun splashed with the poster front page, “We’ll Smash ‘Em”, printed over pictures of Winston Churchill and a bulldog. Finally, there was the infamous “Gotcha”.

The Sun became increasingly frustrated with politicians who were attempting to negotiate a settlement—I agreed with them—to avoid a “shooting war”, as it was called. At one point, the US Secretary of State, Al Haig, was accused of

“standing in the way of war”

because of his efforts to avoid bloodshed. The paper even urged the Government to reject an offer of peace talks from the Argentine military regime, with the headline “Stick it up your junta”, which became its catchphrase for the war.

Not all the press was like that, of course, but, for good measure, The Sun described the BBC and the “pygmy” Guardian as “traitors in our midst”. The Mirror was a “timorous, whining newspaper”. The Mirror retaliated by saying that The Sun had

“fallen from the gutter into the sewer”.

That language worried me at the time. I was worried about how we were considering the dangers, in particular the dangers that we were putting our troops into in war. Very few politicians have experienced the front line of war, excluding my colleague Keith Brown. Those who speak about it speak very differently of conflict, including at Westminster, and I always listen to them.

Dr Johnson, in seeking to prevent an earlier Falklands conflict, said:

“It is wonderful with what coolness and indifference the greater part of mankind see war commenced. Those that hear of it at a distance, or read of it in books, but have never presented its evils to their minds, consider it as little more than a splendid game”.

I return to the lives lost and damaged. They must not be forgotten—I have not forgotten them—but I have also not forgotten how the loss of those lives might have been prevented, with intelligence and diplomacy being tried first and tested to its limits before putting our armed forces into conflict. Some 1,000 died, and thousands more were injured. We owe it to them and their descendants, and to our armed forces today, to exhaust every diplomatic international avenue before ever resorting to the brutality of war.

In fairness, I think that Murdo Fraser will concede that I was describing the gung-ho attitude of a particular tabloid newspaper, which gave me concern about how the public then began to own such an attitude.

I thank the minister for his very full answer. Given that there have been significant impacts on the mental health of older people in particular, many of whom were isolated for long periods during the pandemic, and that they are now even more isolated and stressed as they struggle on their pensions to cope with the rise in inflation to 9 per cent, does the minister agree that it is high time that the Tory Government took immediate action to raise the state pension and ensure that the 40 per cent of pensioners who do not claim pension credit get it? Does the minister agree that that would certainly improve their mental health and wellbeing?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address any mental health and wellbeing issues arising from people experiencing loneliness, in part due to restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-01121)

Point duly taken, Presiding Officer.

I will start with what we all agree on: the consideration and dedication of our care workforce. I think that we also agree that we want people who need care to receive that care at home or as close to home as is practicable. The practicality will depend on the level of care and, of course, the level of funding available.

I will confine my contribution to care of the elderly, and I will start with the positive. Free personal care was introduced in 2002. It is by no means perfect, but it was introduced under the Labour-Liberal Executive and supported by the SNP. It is a recognition that helping someone to dress or to open a can of beans and heat it, for instance, should not incur a charge, as that would not be charged for in a hospital setting. According to the most recent information that I could find, in 2017-18 it cost nearly £500 million, and of course, that cost is rising. In 2019, the Scottish Government introduced legislation to provide such care to the under-65s, at a cost of £2.2 million.

Secondly, there was the integration of the funding of health and social care. In 2016, the Scottish Government legislated to bring together health and social care in a single, integrated system. That was not easy. It was intended to stop the competition between NHS budgets and social care budgets, by giving the money to the health boards in the first instance. That was an important step forward. It has had its successes, but it has also had its difficulties.

Both of these examples recognised the reform that was needed as the ageing population grows. Being a septuagenarian, I am, regrettably, part of that ageing population, so I appreciate the physical difficulties that arise as age interferes with your lifestyle—notwithstanding all that you try to do.

Covid has exacerbated the need for radical reform and the extent of the demand. Therefore, I welcome the intention to create a national care service, which sets out—this is for Dr Gulhane, in particular—inter alia, to provide for consistency and improvement to be led at the national level, but ensuring that service provision is locally accountable and responsive to the needs of communities and that services are designed at a local level, with the input of those with lived experience.

Let us see how that develops. I do not read a power grab into that. I read consistency in the level of the services, but with the delivery and design at local level—the best of both worlds.