Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate for Scottish Labour.

The bill empowers the Scottish Government to reimburse women for private healthcare costs relating to transvaginal mesh removal surgery by putting in place a scheme for making reimbursement payments. The bill will include, for example, travel and hotel accommodation costs in relation to the surgery—and quite rightly so.

I want to use much of the time that I have to herald the great work done by the women who experienced life-altering mesh surgery and campaigned strongly to get us to where we are today. I think that all of us in the chamber—this has been mentioned—have heard from someone who has been affected. The women should be thanked for ensuring that we in the Parliament listened to serious concerns from our constituents. Every member of the Scottish Parliament should take time to recognise the efforts of those women and reflect on the steps that were taken to get us here, not least so that we do not make the same mistakes again.

We can never celebrate enough serious democratic engagement by those at the sharp end in our society. I encourage other groups that feel that they may have been treated unjustly to come forward to their Parliament. It is their Parliament, and it is our duty to help them.

Scottish Labour supports the bill at stage 3, as we have done, critically, throughout the process. It speaks to the cross-party spirit of the bill as presented today that we have reached a proposal that meets the needs and expectations of most of the women who put the issue under the spotlight so boldly many years ago. They are my priority, and I trust that they are satisfied today.

It is welcome that Jackie Baillie’s amendment was accepted at stage 2. It ensured that, although the mesh removal surgery must have been arranged by a specific date in the scheme, it does not have to have taken place by that date. The minister clarified that in his speech, and we thank him for doing so.

Although my amendments fell at stage 2, I met the cabinet secretary afterwards, and I am assured that the scope of bill, as passed, will ensure that all the women who suffered and paid for corrective treatments or part treatment can be reimbursed, and that the Government is actively seeking to ensure that that happens.

I will caveat my comments by saying that there is still a long way to go in rectifying the injustice of mesh and setting Scotland out as an example of how we can shift the balance.

We should continue to be open and receptive to the concerns of the women and those like them who have similar experiences. We must always offer our attention and respect to those with first-hand experience of the issue and we must accept that, for a long time, the received wisdom and official response to how the women were treated were wrong.

As I am sure other members know, the reforms have come about as part of a lengthy and well-considered response to reasonable worries that were expressed by those who were so unfairly given this treatment. Securing adequate reimbursement is not only practical, fair and just but a way of expressing our regret as a nation that anyone could be left in the pain and distress that so many women were left in. We must learn from this and ensure that it is never allowed to happen again.

Scottish Labour supported Sue Webber’s amendments because we thought that the bill’s scope should be as wide as possible. We must ensure that any perceived lack of clarity is stricken from the bill and that all those who are affected are given clear communication about what they are rightfully entitled to. Everyone who is entitled to reimbursement must receive it without delay.

I thank my colleagues on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, many of whom are in the chamber, for their work on the bill in recent months. We worked well together and we moved things forward in a timely manner. I trust that we will soon arrive at a resolution that addresses the problem that the bill was introduced to deal with. As a committee member, I have been impressed by the detailed work on and care that has been taken over the issue. I think that we can all agree that the bill’s general principles are moral and just.

I trust that we can now get the bill over the line and deliver on the promise of justice that I and Scottish Labour are absolutely committed to. The committee worked hard to get to this point, and I thank its members.

I thank everyone who has spoken in this necessary debate for their contributions. I thank Siobhian Brown, who spoke on behalf of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee. I hope that she will take back to the committee an account of how we have progressed through the debate and the fact that everyone wants to get the bill through stage 1, so that we can offer people support.

As many speakers have noted, the evidence tells us that Covid is responsible for the greatest shifts in our health service, our economy and our society for generations. I thank Jim Fairlie for his remarks on that. Few other things have wreaked the damage that the virus has, and we will require significant legislation both now and well into the future to deal with it. I note Murdo Fraser’s points about legislation, which Gillian Mackay also commented on. I think that we all agree that we are glad that we are getting on with the job and will support the bill at stage 1.

As many of us have continued to say throughout the pandemic, and as has been remarked in this afternoon’s debate, the pandemic is not only a health crisis but an economic one, too. The startling effects that multiple lockdowns, limits on travel and unpredictable self-isolation rules have had on businesses and workers are truly incredible. Nearly two years into the pandemic, we still cannot fully grasp the extent of the damage, and it will be felt for many years to come.

As has been mentioned, the damage is always felt the most by those who bear the brunt of other things—people who are underpaid, overworked and, often, underappreciated. For a minimum-wage worker to have to self-isolate and take on all that that entails continues to be a harrowing experience. Such people have desperately needed our support and they still need it now. Far too few people even knew about the grants. Siobhian Brown made a very good point about women not knowing that grants were available and therefore not accessing them. I have also heard that the lengthy process that people require to go through in order to receive them has put many people off applying. We have talked about the fact that that inefficiency has to change, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that.

It is important that no one feels that they have been penalised simply for doing the right thing. Properly administered self-isolation grants will enable people to self-isolate without having to worry. Equally, they will provide great benefit to the rest of society, as they will maintain the number of people who follow self-isolation rules, simply because people will know that they can afford it. That is essential for us all. Jackie Baillie and Dr Gulhane spoke about that. We all, perhaps, know someone who has worried when they have been required to self-isolate. Such people may have had no desire to breach the rules, but the financial consequences of self-isolating may be too much for them. Low-wage workers, the self-employed and precarious workers are just a few examples.

The grants therefore represent an investment in us all and in public health. They are not, as some might have characterised them, a handout. As such, I reiterate my party’s position that we broadly support the bill at stage 1. The Scottish Government is correct in its intention to introduce separate legislation so that we can distribute help to those who have faced the sharpest end of the problem, but we must do so with full recognition of the extent of the financial penalty that so many have faced.

We will continue to scrutinise the bill as it progresses, to ensure that it is fit for purpose—and, in particular, to scrutinise how the Government will raise awareness of the grants. Many members spoke about that. If we cannot adequately inform people of what they are entitled to, we cannot be surprised when they fail to take on board what they require to do.

I thank everyone for the debate.

The SNP Government’s commitment to fair work is questionable at best, but the fact that a job advert released last year at Scottish Government-owned Prestwick airport advertised a job as paying less than the real living wage is simply shocking. Can the cabinet secretary tell us why, after almost a decade of the Government owning Prestwick airport, it still does not pay the real living wage and give its employees—many of whom live in my region—the proper wage that they deserve?

It is a huge area, but we do not have a lot of time, so I will be direct in my questioning.

We know that groups such as people from poorer backgrounds and children with learning disability have more difficulty in accessing mental health services. What can we do to improve access for children, young people and their families?

We have talked a lot about the cuts to local authorities. I am keen to know whether the witnesses think that those have affected people. I am concerned about that issue.

I cannot see all the witnesses at the moment.

I thank Martin Whitfield for bringing the issue to the chamber. I want to mention briefly the work of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, which took really strong evidence from the groups that Martin has spoken about.

There is one issue that I would like the member to respond to. A professional occupational therapist has raised the fact that, for some children, access to physical and leisure activities is too expensive or too far away, and that such activity might help in the family’s recovery. Will Martin Whitfield and the minister respond to that?

At Tuesday’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, a leading occupational therapist, Suzanne Shields, called on parliamentarians to give

“children and families access to free physical and leisure activities, with support in place.”

Does the minister agree that that is a key area that the Scottish Government must focus on as an immediate priority in relation to mental health policy? What assurances can he give today to the many children and families for whom physical and leisure activities are either too expensive or too far away?

To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it has made to support the rural economies of Scotland’s islands, in light of the anticipated impact of the omicron variant. (S6O-00612)

Island economies are facing serious challenges as a result of Covid and its variants, and they have lost almost £20 million of funding following Brexit. That is reflected across all Scotland’s islands, where many residents feel abandoned and unable to afford housing and transport. Can the cabinet secretary outline whether the currently outdated assessment of the needs of islanders and the industries connected to island tourism will be reviewed in light of the now worsening impact of Covid?

I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. As a party, we have been at the forefront of arguing for a better settlement for people who are in need of mental health support. With the pandemic further stretching the resources of our NHS, there is no better time than now to discuss that crucial issue.

I welcome the fact that mental health is receiving more attention and that it appears that we are beginning to turn a corner in recognising its vital importance to the wellbeing of the country. However, I make it clear that recognition on its own will not push the needle forward. Doing that will require considered and targeted investment over a long period of time, including significant investment in staffing levels. We must match the increased funding in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I will be honest. We need a minister and a Government that place the needs of others before the need to spend time in this chamber patting themselves on the back. Our staff and those who need the service deserve better; they deserve better than the self-congratulatory Government motion that is before us.

Scotland’s mental health provision is well below that which taxpayers deserve, and that puts undue pressure on staff who are working day and night to provide a world-class service. I think that it is fair to say that, for the most part, the Scottish Government’s record on the issue has been dismal, that the general public recognise that and that their perception is that mental health is treated as a second-class consideration.

I am fed up with Government party back benchers using that as an excuse to not properly fund services. The need for proper funding must be recognised.

To return to NHS services, Scottish Labour’s amendment notes that

“the 18-week waiting time targets for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services ... has never been met”

and, on top of that, we have heard that there are

“almost 2,000 children and young people on the waiting list who have waited over a year to begin treatment”.

I do not think that we would leave someone waiting for a year if they had a serious physical injury, so why does the minister not address that situation? Beyond the individuals who are directly affected, those figures tell the story of thousands of extended families, and they speak to us about this. They are constantly worried about their loved ones.

At the bottom of much of the problem is continued underinvestment. The Government’s motion papers over some of the cracks, but it is not anywhere near enough to turn the ship around and address the very real issues of staff shortages. The truth is that only this Government can take the blame for it. Its lack of planning has resulted in such failures for our staff and the workforce. Our NHS staff deserve much better.

I would ask the minister the questions, but he already knows the answers, because the previous speaker mentioned that there are more than 1,000 vacancies for mental health nurses and almost 100 consultant psychiatrist vacancies across Scotland. Will he tell us how many of those vacancies will be filled, and whether they will be filled over the next 12 months?

Staff shortages are undermining our efforts to improve services, to get people who are experiencing poor mental health the right treatment and to support staff wellbeing. Those things do not seem to be a priority. It takes time and long-term planning to get them in place, but a quick pat on the back is preferred. Short-termism will not cut it. It looks as though the Scottish Government’s own target to recruit 800 mental health workers by 2022 will be missed. Of those positions, 100 have not even been created. Let us be honest—it was not even an ambitious target. Those statistics do not make for positive reading.

However, there is an alternative. Scottish Labour believes that every GP practice should have access to mental health professionals to support patients close to home and reduce pressures on GPs who are already struggling to deal with their growing case loads. It is our contention that, in order to do that, mental health funding should be increased to at least 11 per cent of the NHS budget. Doing so would signal to young people, in particular, that this Government is taking mental health seriously.

We can see developing a consistent pattern, whereby the Government comes to the chamber to announce targets that are designed to address long-term problems. Those targets are missed, and then it simply starts the cycle again.