Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am something of an insomniac and, as is typical, I woke up at 3 am this morning and turned my small bedside television on to News 24, so I saw minute by minute the developments at the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and I saw the invasion of and declaration of war on Ukraine by Putin.

I listened to the submissions by the Ukrainian representative—some were painful—as he heard about the attacks on his homeland. Something he said really caught my attention. He challenged the Russian representative to produce minutes of a meeting in 1991. I had no idea what he was talking about, but I looked into it.

As we know, Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council—one of five, along with China, France, the UK and the US. The council is, ironically, a legacy of what happened post world war two. Any member can veto any substantive resolution, so we are stuck. Russia, along with the four other members, is charged with maintenance of international peace and security—not with disrupting it. Obviously, Russia cannot remain a member. My understanding is that it takes a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly to suspend or expel a country from the UN—but that is unlikely.

However, there is another avenue to explore. Russia was not always a permanent member of the Security Council—the Soviet Union was. Was it legal, therefore, for Russia simply to step into the shoes of the Soviet Union in 1991? It is an entirely different country, with different territorial boundaries—although Putin, in his political madness, obviously has plans for other surrounding countries.

There is a precedent. In 1971, under Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist Government, the Republic of China was replaced on the UN by the People’s Republic of China, which does not include Taiwan. Of course, Taiwan is still not a member of the UN. Under UN General Assembly resolution 2758, the General Assembly recognised the People’s Republic of China as the rightful representative of China in the UN and gave it the seat on the Security Council.

I am not an expert on international law, but I am not aware of any such resolution to recognise Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union, whose territory changed considerably.

That might seem to be dry legal stuff, but is that a route to expelling Russia from its permanent seat on the UN Security Council? That is a real test for the United Nations. The League of Nations failed. It is a test to see whether, with legalities, the UN can expel the disgraceful and atrocious behaviour of Putin from the UN Security Council.

The QC described the actions of the council as “reprehensible”. The parents’ voices were ignored for four years. There was an internal inquiry and the parents were told that it was done and dusted—nothing to see here, please move on. They had to press for a successful criminal prosecution and for the independent inquiry, which took four years.

I asked the parents what they wanted to ask the Scottish Government. This is it: will the First Minister consider making it mandatory that, when children are in the care of a local authority and issues of child protection arise, investigations are not in-house, because there is more than a whiff of a cover-up in this case?

Given the fact that, during those four years, many of the relevant officers have retired or been employed elsewhere—one has even promoted to chief executive of another council—disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant and, in fact, redundant. Will the Scottish Government therefore consider exploring extending the principle of corporate crime to councils and their officials?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I have only four minutes but, if you are going to say something interesting, I will take your intervention.

I beg your pardon. The member used the term “businesses” to describe dental practices. That is what I am reflecting on; it is not a criticism. We have a hybrid situation, where the NHS is contracting to provide services through professionals who also have to make profits, take on partners and run businesses. There is the same conflict in GP practices, and we must be frank about that and address it.

The minister addressed the fact that, if we add together everything that she said at the beginning of her speech, £112.5 million of public funding has already gone out to dentists. Finlay Carson talked about his constituency, which is in Dumfries and Galloway. Where the provision of dentists is insufficient, from 7 February, there has been an offer of £25,000 over two years for dentists to go into areas where there is a difficulty with retention, such as Kelso and Berwickshire—not my patch, but in the Borders—and parts of Dumfries and Galloway. That offer is subject to certain criteria around recruitment and retention. I accept that there is a difficulty, but the Government is endeavouring to address that.

In the real world, which I live in, we have fixed budgets. Every time I hear Conservative and Labour members call for funding, I ask myself, “Where is your money tree that neither I nor the Government have in our back gardens?” If, collectively, those parties want such things, they should say where the money is coming from and have it in their budgets.

This is a path that we are taking; we will not get there tomorrow, which is obvious from what the minister said.

Your headline news is very good for the tabloids. “Preventing the collapse of NHS dentistry in Scotland”—what a headline. [Interruption.] I will come to that in a minute.

Mr Gulhane made an interesting point. Although, along with other medical professions, dentists received a 3 per cent pay rise last year—in recognition of their efforts during the pandemic and in line with the recommendation of the independent United Kingdom review body on doctors and dentists remuneration—as Mr Gulhane reminded us, their practices are businesses, not services. That is not a criticism of dentists but a fact. They are in contracts with the NHS and there is a conflict—[Interruption.]

They are businesses, just as many general practices are. You used the term, Mr Gulhane.

I thank all those in the medical services, but I will focus on dentists, who have been endeavouring to deliver essential services in the unique and difficult situation of the past two years, which continues. It is obvious that dentists, in particular, with their necessary use of aerosol procedures, as well as the intimacy of dental contact with patients and the design of their facilities, have found it particularly difficult to tend to their patients. People are also avoiding treatment, for fear of Covid.

As in other areas—this is not confined to the health service—the backlog has been unavoidable, although none of us could have predicted how far it would go. However, the pace is picking up in delivery of services. Our concern about and understanding of why we are here now should be agreed. However, the hyperbolic nature of the Conservative motion reminds me more of “We’re all doomed! We’re all doomed!” from “Dad’s Army”. God bless Private Frazer.

Douglas Ross referred to “personal responsibility” but, in my supermarket at the weekend, there was more than one group without face coverings. By no stretch of the imagination were they all exempt—so much for their personal responsibility!

Will the First Minister remind us all that wearing face coverings in public places, lateral flow testing and isolation, rather than being for the person who does those things, are for others and that they protect not only that person’s family and friends and work colleagues but, more important, people whom they pass by, whom they will never know, who may be very vulnerable to the virus that they may give them?

What is the First Minister’s response to the actions of Kurt Zouma, the Premier League footballer for West Ham, who tormented one of his cats for fun and posted a video of his actions on social media for the entertainment of others? Does she consider that the laws on animal welfare in Scotland are sufficiently robust to deal with such horrific actions should they occur here?

There has been a shift, post-Covid, from a commuting business model to a balance of commuting and tourism and leisure travel. Will the Scottish Government consider investigating the provision of integrated ticketing that offers discounted access to tourism destinations? On the Borders railway, that could include the National Mining Museum, the great tapestry of Scotland and Abbotsford. Co-ordination with the management of those places might increase travel on the railway.