Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank my fellow members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, who are all here today, for their work on the bill over recent weeks.

I welcome this opportunity to open the debate for Scottish Labour, as our party has been at the forefront of this issue for years. I afford particular recognition to the efforts of the former Lothian MSP Neil Findlay to get justice for the women who have been affected by mesh. He and members of other parties across the chamber recognised early that they were dealing with an unspeakable injustice, and that we simply could not let it pass.

Before I begin my comments on the bill, I want to share my recognition of the women who have campaigned relentlessly to keep the issue on the agenda in Scotland. Their efforts have increased awareness of this serious problem not only here, but across the UK. Their campaigning has meant that, unlike many other people who never receive the compensation that they deserve, the women are close to justice. It is a brilliant story of courage and tenacity, and one of which Scotland should be proud. However, only by saying that we got it wrong in the first place and by rectifying mistakes can we truly embrace that pride. Certainly, we can do so only after those who are out of pocket have the record set straight.

Every member should take time to recognise the efforts of the women, and to reflect on the steps that have been taken to get us to this point—not least, so that we do not make the same mistakes again. We can never celebrate enough serious democratic engagement by the people who are at the sharp end in our society, so I encourage other groups who feel that they have been treated unjustly to come forward. This is their Parliament and it is our duty to help them.

As others have, I want to thank again the women who forced us to listen to them. I thank them for coming forward, I thank them for making us listen and I thank them for sharing their stories. I know that that must have been difficult.

The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is recommending that the general principles of the bill be supported; my party shares that recommendation. As a member of the committee, I have been impressed with the detail in, and the care that has been taken over, the bill. We can all agree that the general principles are moral and just.

A quick timeframe for getting the bill over the line is necessary, because the women who have been affected by mesh have suffered more than enough. I will be looking for guarantees on that, as we proceed. It is now our duty to make certain that the bill delivers on its promise of fairness.

Although the financial implications might seem to be relatively small, for those who will be helped the bill is worth an unimaginable amount. It represents recognition of their fight and of the fact that they were right all along.

During committee meetings, I was struck by the lengths to which many women have gone in order to get their mesh removed. We have heard some examples of that. For a good number of women, it involved travelling across the world. The committee heard stories of women travelling across the world who had to live in hotel rooms before their operation and after their surgery because they required to stay for treatment. We can all imagine how much, in those circumstances, we would have wished to be home with our loved ones while we were recovering. People did not commit to such steps lightly; as a result, we cannot approach the issue lightly.

That is not to say that there are not concerns that need to be addressed. There has been some recognition of that, but we need greater clarity and it being made plain who will qualify for mesh removal reimbursement and who will not. Throughout the process, I have been contacted by women who find the proposals either difficult to understand or imprecise. We can make adjustments to ensure that no one misses out. That point has been addressed by the convener and the cabinet secretary. A bit of peace of mind can go a long way, so I am glad that we addressed many such worries during the committee hearings, and that we are doing so again in the debate.

We are considering in the chamber some of the hidden complexities that many people who are observing the debate from afar might not have considered. There is a strong case for individuals who had their original mesh surgery done by NHS Scotland, but who were not ordinary residents in Scotland at the time of their removal surgery, being eligible for reimbursement. I hope that the cabinet secretary will reassure us on that, and that the bill will include such a provision.

The last thing that anyone wants is for us to end up with the women again feeling ignored or short changed by the system. I, and others, made that clear to the cabinet secretary in committee, and I have been assured that that will not be the case. However, the Government can equally be assured that any deviation from those expectations will not be accepted by Scottish Labour or the women involved.

The cabinet secretary has committed, quite rightly, to being flexible in determining what costs will be reimbursed under the terms of the bill, but the committee has argued that much greater detail is required—perhaps to be included at later stages—for cross-party support to be gained. However, we have been reassured by the cabinet secretary’s acceptance of the points that have been made by members, so I trust that that will be realised.

Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1. However, if the reasonable expectations of the women are not sufficiently met, we will, before the bill can be passed, lodge amendments to ensure that the principles that have been laid out today are delivered.

Again, I thank everyone who has been involved in the bill for their hard work. I look forward to its next stages and to passing serious and life-changing legislation of which we can all be proud.

At the end of June 2021, Public Health Scotland reported that the number of children and young people who had been waiting more than a year for mental health services had doubled since the end of June 2020. Can the minister advise the Parliament what examples of alternative support the Government has in place for those children who are on very long waiting lists or who may have been rejected by the service?

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?

The minister is aware that for those in our most deprived areas, an equally important issue, which is relevant to supply chains and the food and drink industry, is that of affordable access to sufficient amounts of nutritious food. Can the minister explain why the Scottish National Party and Green MSPs failed to support the progress of a right to food bill at the committee stage last month? What action is the Scottish Government taking to address hunger and food insecurity, particularly in our rural communities?

The Scottish Government’s own 2019 Scottish health survey reported that the number of people in the most deprived areas of Scotland who smoke regularly is more than five times the number of people in the least deprived areas who smoke regularly. Given that there is a direct link between smoking and the increased likelihood of those from deprived areas experiencing ill-health or early death, does the Government think that it is doing enough to look specifically at reducing smoking in our most vulnerable communities?

This is what the Government does time and again. It tries to move the debate away from what we know will solve many of those problems. The trade unions tell us that offering that wage to staff would have a positive result.

As the colder nights approach, we may be in serious difficulty no matter what, but if we start the work now and the Government delivers for NHS staff, we can return to this place in the months and years to come with a sense of achievement.

I thank Clare Adamson for bringing this important debate to the chamber. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I am proud to highlight the importance of pancreatic cancer awareness month, and of marking world pancreatic cancer day tomorrow.

Pancreatic cancer is truly one of the most aggressive cancers and is perhaps, sadly, the deadliest common cancer in our country. It is a cancer that often brings an abrupt end to the lives of the people whom it targets. In my local health board, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, it has killed between 50 and 70 people every single year for the past decade. That is 50 to 70 more families being devastated year after year.

A close family friend died from pancreatic cancer many years ago and I am sure that today he will be thought of by so many people, including my parents and family, who have some very fond memories of him.

The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted our lives in many ways, but one of the most concerning impacts has been the reduction in levels of early cancer diagnosis. Staff shortages, pressure on the NHS, and long general practitioner waiting times have, among a host of other factors, contributed to figures that Cancer Research UK calls “devastating”.

Admittedly, the context of there being a global pandemic has impacted on the ability of health services across the world, but in Scotland we must act with purpose to reverse those concerns, resume early detection and give those who have cancer the best chance of life.

However, it is absolutely devastating that, even after diagnosis and treatment, many of the people who are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer are not given that chance of life, due to their symptoms not being noticed or treated with concern until too late. Therefore, it is important to highlight again that the

“key symptoms of pancreatic cancer include abdominal or back pain or discomfort, unexplained weight loss or a loss of appetite, yellowing of the skin or eyes and/or itchy skin, a change in bowel habits, nausea or vomiting, and indigestion that does not respond to treatment”.

Just as important is that it be made very clear to the public that the NHS is—even although it is under strain and is still suffering from staff shortages—open and accessible, and that if a member of the public has concerns, it is better to have a medical examination than to wait until it is too late. The importance of public awareness of the symptoms and of the fact that treatment and examination are available, should people need it, cannot be overstated. Everyone in the chamber would agree that any person who is concerned should go and seek treatment.

As Clare Adamson rightly mentions in her motion, despite the fact that some progress has recently been made, the survival rates for pancreatic cancer have remained stubbornly similar for far too long, so it is incumbent on all of us to do more, to act and to raise awareness of this awful disease in order to help people to secure the early diagnosis and treatment that can be so vital to their future.

As I often do, I want to bring to members’ attention the health inequalities that underpin cancer survival rates. According to Public Health Scotland, greater deprivation is linked to poorer survival rates from cancer. We must strive to do something about that. It is unjust and unfair that that remains the case in Scotland in 2021. Much more work needs to be done to address the clear health, social and economic inequalities that mean that a person’s postcode can make the difference between their having a stronger chance and their having a weaker chance of survival from the deadly disease.

I thank the organisations, which many members have mentioned, that have done so much work to raise awareness of pancreatic cancer. The value and importance of their work cannot be overstated; as parliamentarians, we must do all that we can to support them.

As we continue to make progress in our recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, as we hope we will, the Scottish Government needs to ensure that its priorities include addressing late diagnosis and focusing on early intervention. It must also do more to tackle the widespread health inequalities that, to this day, remain a stain on our society and adversely impact people from our most deprived areas.

Again, I wish all those who are involved in pancreatic cancer awareness month the very best, and I thank Clare Adamson.

It starts with pay, wellbeing measures and workforce planning, not spin.

Does the member acknowledge that there were staffing problems before Covid and that it is not just Covid that has caused those problems?