Seòmar agus comataidhean

They will get £2,500.

So, what is the 50 per cent figure? That is a 50 per cent reduction, is it?

I have no questions, convener—mine have been asked already. They were about guidance. You have answered questions about guidance on what isolation means. Rachael Hamilton touched on that. Do you have anything further to say?

I want to understand the compensation. How much money are we talking about? Is it based on market value at the time? How does it work?

I know simply from my casework about the pressure on mental health services. It is a pressure that, in my 24 years as an MSP, I have not seen before. Although I wish that referrals could be accelerated, I recognise that the volume of referrals has risen. Several factors are causing unforeseen pressure on services. One is Covid. Another is the cost of living and inflation in energy and food bills, with inflation on the price of food reaching almost 19 per cent. Another is that people are more likely—and this is a good thing—to identify that they have a mental health problem. Both the Labour motion and the Tory amendment would have more credibility if they even referenced those factors.

I will start with the devastating fallout from Covid. On the situation in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, I received the following response from the chief executive of NHS Borders:

“Regrettably, the Community Mental Health Team were experiencing pressure from the Covid-19 backlog and the demand for the Neurodevelopmental Disorder assessments. As a result, NHS Borders are implementing the existing secondary care referral criteria. Therefore, only patients assessed as meeting level 4 (complex) will progress for assessment by the CMHT. This is in line with the National Autism Implementation Team recommendations”.

The Mental Health Foundation has said:

“National and localised ‘lockdowns’ ... removed the social connections and day to day support that significantly contribute to positive mental health and happiness.”

I move on to inequality. Of course, that takes me on to inflation, which is currently over 10 per cent generally, with food price inflation still running at over 19 per cent—those are Office for National Statistics figures. Added to that is the cost of heating and credit cards, never mind mortgages. The Tories’ cost of living crisis means that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society are more likely to experience poorer mental and physical wellbeing, lower life satisfaction and feelings of loneliness. That is supported by new research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which states:

“More than a quarter of adults in Scotland have accessed the NHS due to the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on their mental or physical health.”

That is further confirmed by the findings of See Me Scotland, which in February found that 59 per cent of people in Scotland say that the cost of living crisis is impacting on their mental health. A poll carried out for the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland found that 52 per cent of Scots are concerned about the impact of rising prices on their mental health. There was no mention of that from any of the Conservative speakers in the debate.

The impact of the pandemic was bad enough, especially for those who were already vulnerable, but it has been compounded by the highest inflation rates in generations. What is welcome, but challenging, is the gradual erosion of the stigmatisation of mental health issues. More people are therefore coming forward for assessment in the first instance, which is excellent. However, it is no wonder that, in that context, demands are high and pressures are unparalleled. The Opposition parties should at the very least acknowledge that and, in the case of the Tories, they should admit a modicum of responsibility, given the cost of living crisis.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on a general point. In my time in Parliament we have had several instances of standards recommendations and discipline of various members, but I am concerned that the issue raised by Ross Greer has merit in that we do not appear to keep a note of precedent. In any court proceedings, there is a note of precedent of the kind of penalties that have been imposed in similar circumstances.

All that I ask is about who and why and whether we should keep a note of precedents of decisions made in the circumstances and the various disciplinary consequences that occur for members. I think that that is fair. The issue does not influence my decision in this case, but we have to take a view on it in fairness to any member who may subsequently be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

I, too, offer my condolences to people who lost family, friends and neighbours because of Covid, and I recognise the situation of people who are still suffering from long Covid. For them all, none of this is over and Covid is still very much with us. A colleague whom I met at the weekend has just come down with it. I, myself, evaded the virus until late last year.

I also record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in delivery of health services and in caring settings. We might not be clapping and rattling pot lids at 8 pm any more, but I have not forgotten—and never will forget—the debt that our society owes them and Governments across the globe for their joint efforts to combat the virus. I also record the enormous commitment of the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, whose daily updates were valued by many people, whether they supported her Government or not.

However, I must take Sandesh Gulhane and other members to task over what they presented as the purer-than-pure role of the UK Government during the Covid pandemic. What about Randox Laboratories, for example? Owen Paterson MP, who is a former Cabinet minister, received £500,000 to advise Randox, which—strangely—was awarded, without competition, a £137 million contract for Covid-19 testing. That contract was later renewed despite 750,000 Covid tests having to be recalled because of safety concerns.

What, too, of the contracts for personal protective equipment that went to the Tories’ pals on the VIP fast-track list, who had no experience of PPE, and what of the some £4 billion-worth of unusable PPE that was bought in the first year and had to be incinerated?

Who can forget the scandal in which a company that was associated with Michelle Mone, who had previously been elevated to the House of Lords, was awarded a PPE contract worth more than £100 million, which shocked even Rishi Sunak? Let us put some context around how the UK Government acted during the pandemic.

I turn to the vaccines, which have been our saviours. As other members have said, we were told that developing and testing vaccines for application would take a decade at the very least, as had been the case in the past. It took a global pandemic for Governments, together with the scientific community, to have Covid vaccines developed in a highly accelerated fashion. That shows that it can be done and, perhaps, could be done in other areas of medicine. Where there is a will there is a way.

As others have said, that underlined how much we should thank our scientific communities. It is not breaking news that they collaborate on research. My son is a research scientist—although not in the field that we are debating—and he collaborates internationally. I give those communities my gratitude.

I am in the over-75 age group, so I benefit from the vaccine programme. Just yesterday, when I also had the pneumococcal vaccine, I received my sixth Covid vaccination. My previous Covid vaccinations were accompanied by shingles and flu vaccines—I have arms like a colander. Only with the first vaccination did I have a reaction, which was to shiver violently for hours. That was then, and I have had no reaction since. I say to others—especially people in my age group, and people who are not in my age group who are frightened of vaccines—please get vaccinated and, like me, take the other vaccines that are on offer, if they are suitable.

Delivery is much improved. In the early days, I found myself in a long queue with a two-hour delay before people were being taken in, so I left and came back on another date. Those days are gone; yesterday, I went straight through.

I agree with the minister that there is more adaptability applied to what constitutes a convenient place for vaccinations. However, my vaccination yesterday was at Ocean Terminal, where signage was poor and there was quite a long walk to the facility. That was fine for me, but it proved to be a challenge for some people with mobility issues. Also, locating the site became a bit of a mystery tour for me and others. Perhaps the NHS could ensure that the authorities review signage and accessibility.

As for the future, I note that the World Health Organization has downgraded Covid so that it is no longer a global emergency, although I believe that some nations are working on an international protocol to prepare for an outbreak—I hope that one does not occur—in autumn and winter. Given that health is a devolved issue, has the Scottish Government been engaging with the UK Government, along with the other UK nations, on that protocol?

When I was isolated at home for 12 weeks, I wrote a Covid diary—partly as therapy, but also to remind me of what it was like for me and others and to remind me to be grateful that, somehow, we collectively worked our way through it. One day, my grandchildren might find it interesting.

To ask the Scottish Government what measures can be taken to accelerate the prosecution of criminal cases. (S6O-02221)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. As the main witness in a trial for threatening behaviour to me, I had to give evidence on incidents spanning from 2017 to 2020, the trial having been deferred from 2022 to earlier this year. The case against Peter Morris was found to be not proven. No one can determine that the outcome was due to delays in prosecution, but what data is there regarding a possible connection between delays in the prosecution process and conviction rates?

I want to pick up on Jim Fairlie’s comments. Fish are sentient, and they feel pain. It is not a sudden death. I am not talking about them having a heart attack and dying; it is a painful process when fish die in factory farms. If there was 25 per cent mortality in a flock of 400 sheep, that would mean saying goodbye to 100 of them. That puts the dynamics of it into some kind of perspective.

I absolutely support salmon farming in Scotland, but I want it to be done with the welfare of the animals at heart as well as the production of a good product. There are then the ancillary matters that Edward Mountain mentioned—we have accidentally become a team. The antibiotics that are put in to combat the conditions in which the fish are kept and that lead to an increase in the lice are, in fact, a bad thing in themselves.

I just wanted to make that comment in reflecting on what my colleague Jim Fairlie said, because I do not find the figure of 25 per cent acceptable. Convener, if there is a 10 per cent drop off in livestock, out of 400 sheep, we would have 40 of them perishing. I cannot imagine that that is correct by a long shot.