Seòmar agus comataidhean

The First Minister will be aware of the serious adverse events review and subsequent NHS Lothian action plan that was published recently following the death of my constituent Amanda Cox on 10 December 2018 shortly after the birth of her son, Murray, when she became disorientated but it took seven hours to find her in a stairwell, dying from a brain haemorrhage.

Does the First Minister agree that, although the recommendations in the action plan for better hospital closed-circuit television, better signage and the observation of headaches in pregnant women—it is disgraceful that such recommendations need to be made—came more than three years too late for my constituents, every national health service board in Scotland should not only be aware of them but act on them so that nothing similar happens again? That would give the family some very slight comfort after that dreadful tragedy.

Accused, but not guilty I plead.

To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding reducing VAT on fuel to help mitigate increases in the cost of living for households in Scotland. (S6O-00873)

I have a suggestion for the cabinet secretary to take to that meeting. Without disclosing my workings—I will not give members the headache that I gave myself—I have calculated that if we take fuel costs at £1.63 per litre at the pump, a 50-litre tank costs nearly £82. Of that, nearly £29 is fuel duty, with a further £13 or so in VAT, which is levied on the raw cost plus the fuel duty, doubling the pump price. That is £42 in tax that goes straight to the Treasury.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the elephant in the room is fuel duty and that, in these extreme times, it would not be a bad idea for the Treasury to waive fuel duty for a period? That would save our public services—the national health service, the police and so on—from inflationary fuel costs, it would reduce transport costs, which are inflating fuel prices, and it would reduce our increasing energy bills, both commercial and domestic.

I note the proposal for welcome hubs and, if necessary, temporary accommodation. I suggest that the Scottish Government could start by using premises that are in its ownership for welcome hubs and accommodation. For example, in Edinburgh, we have Holyrood palace a stone’s throw from the Parliament. It is, I understand, owned by the Scottish Government, has lots of space—more than 200 rooms—and is largely underoccupied.

I do not know whether the member is aware that one of the horrors that are associated with microchipping is that, often, the criminals will remove the microchip from the animals that they steal, sometimes in dreadful ways.

Indeed—there is a role for the Scottish Sentencing Council.

The motion refers to the impact on owners, which, we can infer, should have an impact on sentences. However, to the best of my knowledge, the existing victim impact statements do not alter the weight of evidence, nor the value of any reports commissioned by the court, nor usually the sentence, although—and this is unusual—they may do so in the matter of serious crime, for example rape.

To give an example, two burglaries in an empty domestic property may have different impacts on different people, even though the events are identical. The burglar sneaks in through an unlocked door, lifts a computer and leaves. One householder in that situation is upset but angry, having left the door unlocked; another feels totally insecure in their home and violated by someone uninvited having been there. It would be difficult to argue that, all things being equal other than the impact on the householders, the penalties should be different. What is without contention is that data on dog thefts, both reported and prosecuted, and with outcomes, should be collected. That is an important move forward, and things should be changed in that respect.

Accepting, as I do, that animals are sentient beings and not things is another complication. Can we really argue that the theft of a dog should be equated to the abduction of a child? I do not have answers to such questions, but they have to be addressed. Legislation is tricky stuff, as we all know, and I have touched on just some of the difficulties, but I reassure Maurice Golden that I support his proposal. I will see his bill when it is introduced, and I hope that it functions properly, but we all know that issues such as those that I have mentioned must be addressed to make legislation that is sound and functional.

I thank Maurice Golden for securing the debate, which I welcome. I acknowledge that the theft of dogs is on the rise, although we know that actual figures—for the reasons that he has given—are not available; I will come to that later.

Sometimes guilt, and certainly heartbreak, ensues when you have a much-loved pet stolen. You will not know what has happened to the dog, or anything about its future or how it has reacted to being removed from its home—all those things I appreciate. In my day, when my family had the companionship and affection of Roostie, our Irish setter and much-loved member of the family, she would sometimes go missing, but thankfully she had always simply wandered off. We soon found her, usually on the river bank at the bottom of the garden, or she trotted home herself.

We would have been distraught if she had been stolen. Even then, dog theft was virtually unknown. We are now in a different world, with demand outstripping supply and the high value, in monetary terms, that is put on dogs.

That is where I start. We are much more informed now and know that all animals are sentient beings—although, as pet owners, we have always known that, certainly of our dogs, with their individuality and personalities. They are indeed one of the family.

Now to the detail, where the devil always lies. I note that although Roddy Dunlop, who is dean of the Faculty of Advocates and a dog owner himself, appreciates the motivations behind Maurice Golden’s proposed bill, he considers that the offence is already covered by the common law on theft and that, although well intended, a separate offence, presumably with a maximum sentence of five years, would reduce the existing available sentencing range. Roddy Dunlop’s view is that, if sentences are not currently suitable, the independent Scottish Sentencing Council has the role of setting sentencing guidelines and ensuring consistency across the courts—taking into account other issues that the member has raised. I am not supporting that point; I am just raising it, together with other matters.

Is Sandesh Gulhane, as a medical practitioner, saying that there should not be a mandatory requirement to wear face coverings while Covid is on the increase in Scotland, as has been indicated in the advice of the chief medical officer and the clinical director?

Will the member advise me on whether all Covid infections in Scotland are home grown? They could be coming into Scotland from other parts of the UK or from abroad. He is making a false argument without the evidence.

Managing Covid-19 effectively and getting the right balance between public health and the economy changes as we progress through the pandemic. I agree that we must adapt as the virus moves—we hope—from being pandemic to being endemic.

A minority of the public is already giving up the wearing of face masks in supermarkets. It is not always possible to sanitise trolleys or even hands. It is time to remind ourselves, weary though we all are, that Covid is alive and kicking among us. Retaining a legal requirement to wear face coverings is a small sacrifice to make in the short term.

In support of that position, I will focus on the comments of Professors Gregor Smith and Jason Leitch, both of whom recommend caution. Scotland’s chief medical officer has said that data shows that some older people are beginning to adapt their behaviour by reducing their contacts slightly, while their use of face masks is also up. But older and disabled people require other people to protect them, which means that those others should be wearing face masks. Asked what advice he would give to ministers, he said:

“I think that a cautious approach at this point in time is probably the right approach.”

Professor Jason Leitch, Scotland’s national clinical director, has spoken about his worries about the state of the pandemic in Scotland, but he added that he was “not panicking” about increasing case numbers. He said:

“You should still be cautious, particularly around those who are vulnerable”.

Therein lies the rub. Who are “those who are vulnerable”? Being in the older age group, I am thankful, like others, for the vaccinations. Wearing face coverings helps, but not if the majority are not wearing them and keeping their distance. Goodness knows, I find it difficult to breathe through a mask, like many other folk do, but many are complying for the time being.

We can tell when somebody is elderly, but there are also folk who have underlying health conditions and are therefore especially vulnerable to Covid. When we wear a face mask, we are protecting them, not ourselves. We might pass them in a shop or sit beside them on a bus or train and we will not know about their vulnerability. That is the point. Some of those people have been isolating for years, and they should be free, even if some of us have to give up some freedoms.