Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am delighted to support Sarah Boyack in this important debate. Adequate healthcare is a basic right that everyone should enjoy. That includes the right to be vaccinated against Covid.

Had we taken that approach globally, rather than simply considering Covid as a national issue, we might not be in the situation that we are in now. From the first moments that the crisis struck, a strange territorialism emerged rather than the co-operation that we need. Whether it means seeking to apportion blame to China or looking at vaccination tables like a football league, that attitude is wrong.

Prevention and co-operation have worked at their best in the rapidity of the vaccine production and the goodwill from members of our own communities, who have looked after each other. Every one of us has been impressed by that spirit. I assure members that not one person to whom I have spoken thinks that it is wise to deprive others of the vaccine simply to protect corporate intellectual property.

We must also recognise that the idea that the vaccines were created by the private sector alone is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as solely private sector research and development when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Most of the technologies and formulas that were used to reach the point at which a vaccine could even be made possible began decades ago in state-funded laboratories throughout the world. The pharmaceutical companies have found success on the back of others’ work; it is not a solo effort.

By refusing to make the formulas and vaccines available globally, we are simply shooting ourselves in the foot as well as dooming millions to the worst possible exposure to Covid. A significant number of those millions will die. We can have lockdown after lockdown but, in a global and free-flowing economy, the movement of people will always bring new cases and new strains back to our shores.

Why, then, should companies that have benefited from state subsidy and public research be able to deprive in-need countries of vaccine technology and know-how or make them completely unaffordable? Those acts are the worst aspects of market capitalism and truly shameful.

The fact is that plenty of people have looked at Covid as an opportunity and raked in cash. Whether it is dodgy personal protective equipment companies with links to UK ministers or multinational retailers hiking up prices, a cash grab is going on and it must not be allowed to happen with people’s health.

We have at least some good fortune in the UK, where tests, vaccines and treatments are all free. Sadly, in the world’s wealthiest nations, people are expected to bankrupt themselves to fund simple drugs such as insulin and are now being asked to pay for Covid tests, too. Their homes are being taken away and their livelihoods are being ruined just so that they can make it to the next month.

I know that my party says this a lot, but thank goodness for the NHS and the fantastic work of the pioneers in the 1940s. Otherwise, we, too, could have ended up with a similar system based on primal greed and selfishness.

In the spirit of that legacy, I back Sarah Boyack’s call to the Prime Minister. We must waive intellectual property rules and insist that the vaccine know-how and technology be shared via the World Health Organization’s Covid-19 technology access pool as soon as possible. Britain should lead the way on something positive, rather than spending all our time discussing how to cut overseas aid or close our borders to fleeing refugees. We must do the right thing. That would be a Christmas message to send to the world.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the US blockade in Cuba, which has been imposed for more than five decades, must now be ended to allow the Cuban economy to recover from the pandemic and trade freely with key markets?

I commend my colleague Martin Whitfield for the work that he has done on the issue and for standing so strongly beside the North Berwick community.

A petition that gains thousands of signatures from local residents who care deeply about their hospital and their community is a call for health boards and the Government to listen. Clearly, that call has not been listened to and the views of the public have been ignored in relation to the continued closure of the community ward at Edington hospital.

The pandemic has restricted how we live our lives, but decision makers are still able to do consultations using virtual meetings and other platforms. The fact that the decision has been made without any real consultation with the public, as we have heard, should be a concern to us all, and I hope that the cabinet secretary recognises that it simply should not have happened.

Health services are at their best when they are local—when people are familiar with the setting and environment and have a connection to it. Closing a hospital that has provided more than 100 years of good care and service to its local community will undoubtedly have adverse impacts on the community that it has served for so long.

In the aftermath of a pandemic, people will, and the Scottish Government and health boards should, recognise the importance of local community care. Its importance is heightened that bit more when the building in which the care is provided has been a staple of the community for so long, with generations brought up knowing the hospital and linking many personal memories to it. We should be doing all that we can to protect, not close, hospitals such as Edington.

We all understand the severe pressures that the NHS is under, and we know that staffing is an issue in some areas—although not at Edington hospital, as we have heard. It is incumbent on the Scottish Government to provide the resources to create new posts and address staff shortages wherever they are, and it is important that people know that their local services are valued.

The NHS has carried us through the pandemic; it is the very best of our country and our proudest possession, but the underfunding and undervaluing of health services by Government has led us to a situation where staff in community care facilities are being moved to centralised health hubs, which should not be the case.

Let me be clear: the Scottish Government’s underfunding and undervaluing of the health service long predates the pandemic. Lessons need to be learned and should have been learned long before now.

The people of North Berwick understandably feel as though a big part of the community has been torn away from them. They are understandably unhappy at the lack of consultation and understandably concerned about the future of their local hospital. They have not been communicated with and I hope that the cabinet secretary can give them some reassurance that the Scottish Government is doing all that it can to secure the hospital’s future and communicate with the public.

I reiterate a point that I have made throughout the debate: health services are best when they are delivered locally, are easily accessible and serve local communities. The fact that the local hospital that we are debating has such a history and connection to the people whom it serves is an added benefit that should be preserved for as long as possible. The people of North Berwick deserve first-class local services on their doorstep. They deserve to be part of the consultation and to be listened to.

I thank Craig Hoy for bringing the debate to the Parliament.

We all know that GPs are under enormous strain and pressure as a result of the pandemic. However, in East Ayrshire, there have been cases of significant issues with practices communicating decisions to local residents, which has led to many people not even being able to book appointments or discuss treatment plans. What can the Scottish Government do to ensure that residents in East Ayrshire receive the best possible GP services and that they receive them in a timely manner?

I thank all the witnesses for their input so far. As the convener said, I want to talk about the workforce. One of the biggest things that struck me was evidence from the Royal College of Nursing that suggested that we can make the biggest difference to improved mental health provision if we address staff vacancies and the workforce, as there are significant problems with the workforce in the area of mental health. I know that the Government is trying to address the issue, but it is important that we understand what workforce planning it is doing for specialist perinatal mental health services. Has the Government done any workforce planning? One of the things that we hear from nursing organisations is that the retention of good and well-trained staff is key. Do you have any feedback on that?

Yes, thank you.

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.