Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for lodging amendment 1.

In moving amendment 5 and speaking to all the amendments in the group, I want to be clear that I am happy with the spirit of the bill and the collaborative nature of the approach that the Parliament has taken in moving forward through each stage to ensure that the women involved are reimbursed at the earliest possible time.

My amendment 5 would ensure the broadest scope for the qualifying residence element of the bill. As the minister stated, the committee has always agreed that that is the correct approach. Amendment 5 would ensure that any women who had mesh implant removal undertaken by the NHS but who were not ordinarily resident in Scotland would be included in the eligibility criterion, so that they could seek expenses and so on.

Towards the end of our discussions at stage 1, the committee touched on the rights of all women who have been adversely affected by transvaginal mesh surgery and who had any surgery in Scotland. Therefore, I lodged amendment 5 in the interests of clarifying the bill and ensuring that parts of it are not unclear for those who are affected.

I appreciate the discussion that we have had on the amendments and accept that there will be time before stage 3 to discuss the issues further and get things right for people. As a result, I seek to withdraw amendment 6.

Do you want me to go on, convener?

Thank you for that, minister; that is what we are looking for—training across the board. Can you give us a wee bit more clarity on the 51 practitioners? Are they new?

In moving amendment 6, I clarify again that my amendments 6 to 9 aim to be helpful in ensuring that the spirit of the bill and the committee’s discussion are captured in the bill as passed.

Amendments 6 and 7 seek to add wording that will give clarity to section 1. The committee sought to ensure eligibility for someone who incurred costs in supporting a person to have treatment, and my amendments 6 and 7 would allow that to happen.

Amendment 8 would extend the bill to cover those who might have begun the process and, therefore, incurred costs but for whom, unfortunately, the process has been halted due to travel or surgery restrictions “relating to coronavirus”.

Amendment 9 is a simple amendment that lays out the meaning of coronavirus.

I seek the committee’s support for this group of straightforward amendments.

I move amendment 6.

As the convener said, last night we heard from several people with lived experience and it was striking that, although we are all affected by the effects of Covid-19, for the mothers and fathers in this category there are some major things that we need to address right now and going forward. Does the panel have any advice on the return to services that seem very different across Scotland? What things might need to be put in place to support this group of people in the next year or so?

I thank all the witnesses. There is so much that we could pick up on.

Because of the time, I will just pick up on the notion that we need to go from talk to action. That is very clear—we need to get things done. Are there good examples that we should be looking at in other countries? We know that the evidence is there; it is clear what we need to do. Are there good examples of countries that have taken action and are starting to see outcomes? That question is for David or Kim.

I am interested to hear your view on the digital strategy. You have stated that you look at the strategy in terms of data and what you call IT solutions. Do you think that that is the best way of making progress in that regard?

My second question concerns the difference between the strategic-level thinking in Public Health Scotland and the thinking at the local level, which is driven more by a business-as-usual approach than by consideration of the initiatives and changes that could be put in place in order to benefit public health in general. How can we move that forward?

My question is about rights for care home residents. We know what happened during the pandemic. Does the minister feel that the opening up of care homes to visitors provides adequate access for family and friends to ensure the wellbeing and health of residents?

The minister briefly mentioned CAMHS, which is very important for young people and their families. We know that waiting times have been quite long. I wonder whether you can give us some information on three aspects relating to CAMHS. The first is waiting times, which you have touched on. We need to get it right for people by getting waiting times down.

Secondly, there are a number of rejected referrals to CAMHS. The Government has acknowledged that and has said that more work needs to be done. What can be done for those young people?

The third aspect relates to unmet need. We know that when schools were closed because of Covid there was a drop in the number of referrals to CAMHS. Medical staff have identified that young people might have missed a window, so we should ensure that they get any support that they need at this time.

I want to ask a wee bit more about unmet need. Do you have a plan? Have you spoken to any organisations about what we might do to identify young people who have been missed?