Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much for the information that you have given, which is much appreciated. I wonder whether Dr Lamont or Dr Mathers can clarify something for the record. You have provided some information, but it would be useful to know the average waiting time and the longest waiting time. How long have the women who have been waiting the longest had to wait to be seen by the service?

Women are referred to the service, but we cannot be clear why they have not been seen yet—it is sometimes just a long process. Is that what you are saying?

Dr Lamont, do you have anything to add?

For me, today’s meeting has raised the issue of the importance of the non-surgical side of treatment. I am sure that the same is true for other members, so I really appreciate the fact that the witnesses have spoken about that. A lot of the issues have been covered as we have gone through the evidence session.

Do we need to do anything on communication with health boards around that? Should there be an expansion of the multidisciplinary team in relation to pain management? A lot of work is being done on pain management in the community and with other services that provide that. Would that be helpful for women who cannot, or choose not to, go down the surgical route?

I nominate Paul Sweeney.

Paul Sweeney was chosen as deputy convener.

That was very helpful. Thank you.

I would really appreciate getting that data. People come to us as individuals as well, and it is important for us to be able to feed back. These long, long waits for women have been going on for years and it is our job to scrutinise things and make sure that everything is being done.

Where women have chosen the other option—to go down south or across to Dr Veronikis—is anybody currently waiting for a referral on in the system or has everyone who has requested that option to date had a referral on?

Do the figures that you quoted mean that eight women, who have chosen a different pathway, are waiting to get their final referral?

I hope that Marie McNair will know and recognise that I very much support a lot of what she has said about local community groups and organisations in relation to the cost of living crisis. Will she show support for local government in Scotland by agreeing that, to connect all that work, we need really strong and well-funded local government?

I have heard that we all agree across the chamber that tackling social isolation and loneliness must be a priority for Government and Parliament. It is welcome to see increased funding to directly address those issues, which I know that the minister cares a great deal about.

However, as my colleague Paul O’Kane mentioned, work to tackle social isolation and loneliness must be connected across sectors and must be aimed towards genuine long-term improvement rather than short-term fixes.

Ruth Maguire’s contribution on the difference between social isolation and loneliness was very good, and I thank her for that.

It is right that we highlight how loneliness in particular can impact anyone. Age Scotland highlighted that, and the quote is worth repeating:

“more than 100,000 older people in Scotland felt lonely all or most of the time, the equivalent of one older person on every street in Scotland.”

That is the stark reality for many people.

We know from research that feelings of loneliness are also common among young adults, as Willie Rennie told us in his contribution. That confirms that loneliness and social isolation are not unique to one group or age bracket; those feelings are felt widely across society, and it is therefore right that our approach to tackling those issues is broad in its focus.

Although it is important to note that the loneliness and social isolation issues that we face have existed for many years, we know that the pandemic exacerbated feelings of loneliness and social isolation across our country. It is crucial that we recognise that as a public health issue and approach it in that way.

I note with interest that the Government has not included in its motion deprivation as one of the key factors that contribute to loneliness. The Scottish household survey of 2020 highlighted that just more than a quarter of people in the least deprived areas reported feeling lonely some or all of the time; that figure was 44 per cent in the most deprived areas, which is a stark difference.

There is a clear link between loneliness and poverty, which the minister mentioned. I hope that she will consider that and speak about it in her closing remarks. People in our poorest communities feel that there are far fewer welcoming places and opportunities to meet new people and far fewer places in which people can meet up and socialise in those communities. That is simply the reality for many people in Scotland. It is a direct result of relentless cuts from a UK Government that has imposed austerity on towns and villages. However, the Scottish Government also has responsibility, and the cuts to council budgets year on year—and therefore cuts to the hearts of our communities—contribute. I would like some honesty about that.

Inequalities in Scotland hold back communities, limit potential and isolate individuals. The figures that I have read out should anger us, but they should not surprise us. They are the result of decisions taken by Governments, and we need to be honest if we are going to address them.

If we are serious about tackling loneliness and isolation, we need more than £3.8 million; we need a shift in focus and priorities that supports investment in tackling health inequalities and is based on tackling inequality and deprivation more widely. We need funding for local government that respects the role that local government plays in service delivery, and we need a focus on having the strongest public sector possible that is supported and complemented by other sectors, and not reliant on them.

As members have mentioned, the information in the Mental Health Foundation report that just less than 40 per cent of Scottish adults would not report feelings of loneliness is of significant concern. I think that another member mentioned that. Those figures are heart-breaking. Loneliness is a significant challenge that many Scots face, and we should not forget that some people will not raise the issue.

The importance of a preventative approach cannot be overestimated. Services must be connected, the public and the voluntary sector must work hand in hand, and we must invest in local communities, ensure that local provision exists for social activities, and reduce feelings of loneliness for anyone who needs mental health support.

I pay tribute to organisations that do a lot to support their communities day to day with very precarious funding. I think that the minister is aware that we need to address the sustainability of some of the very small groups that Christine Grahame mentioned.

Loneliness and social isolation are serious challenges that our population faces, and they can have devastating impacts on individuals, families and communities. The funding announced for tackling social isolation and loneliness is absolutely welcome, but we know that, in our most deprived communities in particular, those feelings are widely held because of a serious lack of investment in services due to cuts to councils and the lack of a joined-up approach across sectors to focus on service delivery. We also know that we need to monitor progress as we try to increase funding and develop policy change.

That we have had the chance to debate the topic today is welcome. I hope that the minister will consider the points that I and other members across the chamber have raised. It is important that we stop widespread social isolation and loneliness and tackle their root causes in our communities.