Seòmar agus comataidhean

I emphasise that I fully support including glass recycling in the DRS and that I deplore interference by the UK Government in a fully devolved issue. My concern has always been about the practicalities of glass recycling. Will the minister confirm that Circularity Scotland will have those issues resolved and that glass recycling will be in place in many businesses by the launch next year?

Will the member take an intervention?

I have to admit that, until recently, when I heard a news programme about it, I was unaware that the hospital at home service existed. That was my failure. I note that the Scottish Government’s motion states that it is

“a cost effective alternative to acute care”,

but, more importantly, that it

“provides very good clinical outcomes”,

which is what we all want. It also frees up hospital beds and, of course, the staff to service them.

Hospital at home is a short-term, targeted intervention that provides acute-level hospital care in an individual’s own home or in a homely setting. So far, it has led to a 53 per cent increase in the number of patients who are being managed by such services. It has prevented more than 11,000 people from spending time in hospital during 2022-23, thereby relieving pressure on A and E and, importantly, the Scottish Ambulance Service.

What is also important is that those patients were in the comfort of their own home, surrounded by the familiar, all of which, in my view, aids better physical and mental health. I will quote one patient, who said:

“I was delighted, it was unbelievable ... It was totally different to being in hospital. One thing I haven’t mentioned is the fact that it’s the personal ... between the two of us, I wasn’t just a number. It makes a difference.”

Midlothian’s hospital at home team has the acronym MERRIT, which stands for Midlothian enhanced rapid response and intervention team. It is an acute care team, based in Midlothian community hospital, which offers an assessment of a patient’s medical needs in their own home, or in a care home, by using a holistic, multidisciplinary approach during the acute phase of their illness. The service offers an opportunity to identify a potentially unwell patient, better persuade a patient to accept hospital admission as a safer place of care or direct them to a more appropriate service.

However, it should be recognised that there might be specific circumstances in which remote triage might also be appropriate, such as when the patient has been seen within the past 24 hours by a GP or another clinician; when there is a clear indication of a known recurrent or stable condition; or when examination findings are unlikely to change the appropriate place of care. In other words, as other members have said, it is about giving the right treatment in the right place, which might be either in hospital or at home.

I will give some examples of the criteria for referral to the hospital at home service. For Midlothian’s service, the patient must be resident there. In addition, their personal care requirements must be able to be met in the community: that is to say that they will be safe at home, either caring for themselves, having an existing package of care or receiving the support of their family.

There is also strict guidance on not referring patients with, for example, chest pain, acute stroke, asthma, suspected deep vein thrombosis, a suspected fracture or another suspected acute surgical emergency or, indeed, where the patient or their family is unwilling for them to stay at home. A discussion should be had with the person in their own home about what is most suitable for them.

NHS Borders’ hospital at home service started admitting patients only in April 2023 and so is the newest such service in Scotland. Rurality is an issue, but such areas can still be covered. Borders general hospital is far away for many people.

I welcome the progress that has been made on hospital at home, which seems to me to be a plus all round—and, in particular, to patients if it is practicable for them to be assessed and treated in familiar surroundings, which must be good for them.

The Scottish Parliament reconvened on 1 July 1999, 300 years after it was abolished, as part of the process of union with England. For the benefit of the sole occupant of the Labour benches, the two occupants of the Tory benches and the deserted Liberal Democrat benches, I quote the words of Donald Dewar, who was the first First Minister:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament. Through long years, those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now they are a reality. ... Today, we look forward to the time when this moment will be seen as a turning point: the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland, when we revitalised our place in this our United Kingdom. This is about more than our politics and our laws. This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves. ... The past is part of us. But today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament. A voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future. Walter Scott wrote that only a man with soul so dead could have no sense, no feel of his native land. For me, for any Scot, today is a proud moment; a new stage on a journey begun long ago and which has no end.”

I was there; I heard those lyrical words at the rebirth of this ancient Parliament.

I repeat:

“A journey begun long ago and which has no end.”

Many of us were then inexperienced, taking our first steps into formalised politics and learning how to be effective—in my case, as an Opposition back bencher and committee convener.

Twenty-four years on, this Parliament has matured and defined its Scottishness, social democratic values and distinctive priorities. I am proud of free personal care, which the Labour-Liberal coalition brought in, and the SNP’s minimum unit pricing, free prescriptions, concessionary fares, free childcare and the more recent child payment.

I have observed six Governments in my six sessions here. Not one of them has been perfect, but they have all been accountable at the ballot box to the Scottish electorate, which has spoken loud and clear for the second time and delivered an overall majority that is indisputably committed to Scottish independence.

Now, a Government that we did not vote for—there are only six Scottish Tory MPs to the SNP’s 45—denies and even defies devolution, let alone the democratic right of the people to a referendum, as it interferes in devolved areas. What next? What will happen around, for example, nuclear power, against the will of Parliament, which controls planning law, and against the will of the Scottish people? Power devolved is, indeed, power retained; for the current Tory Government, it is power regained, which is a red alert to all who support devolution, if not independence.

We have, as a nation, travelled so far in nearly a quarter of a century, regaining our Scottish voice. The remedy lies where it must—with the Scottish people, who are sovereign, and not with Westminster. Let people use their voice loud and clear at the next election. Only independence gives them the Government and the policies that they vote for. To this chamber, that is democracy.

Following the answers to Claire Baker’s questions, I refer to the review that the First Minister raised. Can the review address the professor’s comment that there are tests that can detect amyloid, which is a major contributor to dementia, and that there are drugs that can clear that, but the Government infrastructure is not in place to deliver either of those?

The evidence has been very interesting. We talk about “the islands”, but my understanding is that there are 93 populated islands in Scotland. There is huge diversity—some populations might be in single figures, but there are also large populations. There are big differences in demographics, the distance from the mainland and so on. I am interested in the actions of steering groups on islands and in the input from the grass roots, given all that diversity.

Can you give me an example of an island with a very small population—I do not know if you will be able to name it; it might be wrong to do so—that put forward proposals that were not feasible? What was your response? I imagine that diplomacy would be involved here, too. Can you also give me an example of an island with a large population that came forward with proposals not just for sustaining its population but for increasing it—which, after all, is what this is really about? What came from that?

Is that as far down as you go? I think that there is an island with one person on it—I take it that they are not involved in that project, or are they? Is there a cut-off point where you say, “This is the population number below which we will not be engaging”?

I am trying to understand this. I do not envy the task that you face, given such diversity, but the target, I imagine, is to sustain our islands and increase population as best we can, so it would be really handy if you could give me an example of an island whose population is, say, under threat and needs to be sustained and increased. What proposals came from that kind of community, and what was your response to it? Similarly, what proposals came from an island such as Skye, let us say, which does not need so much help and—I do not know—is buzzing along happily, and what was the response? That would give me an idea of how effective and realistic the grass roots are. I think that you said that one of the important things was building confidence in some of the islands that they could do something, but that would have to be tempered with realism and finance.

I have silenced them all.

Good—