Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 12 February 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 387 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Miscarriage Care

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I think that it is absolutely true that the facility is important for staff, too.

I was talking about the situation of women who have to travel to Aberdeen and how difficult it is, as members of a small community, to have other people come up and ask whether they are going on holiday or whatever. Therefore, the private space at Sumburgh airport is important, and I pay tribute to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which engaged with the request that such a space be provided. Nothing can take away the mix of emotions that are present, but anything that helps to blunt the sharp edges is worth while.

We should also consider what could be done for inhabitants of the far north of Scotland, for whom there is a lot of travel involved in accessing women’s healthcare.

Across the UK, the national bereavement care pathway is implemented with varying degrees of success, although Scotland is considered to be ahead of the rest of the UK when it comes to the provision of care in that area. We do not have to look far for a model of mental health support that is considered to be excellent. NHS Tayside’s mental health package for those who have experienced baby loss includes self-referral, open-ended care and support for both parents.

To help to improve services, we need to have a better understanding of the number of miscarriages, and work is well under way to establish routine miscarriage data collection in the maternity setting, while separate work is under way to secure access to data that is held in primary care for national analysis. The Sands charity has called for annual reporting on miscarriage rates, once we have a better understanding of the number of miscarriages, to enable the Government to monitor whether rates are decreasing or increasing. That will help with the introduction an outcome-based target to reduce the miscarriage rate.

I take comfort in the knowledge that, in Shetland right now, there is a memorial wall that reflects the unforgotten in a suite named after the constant shining light in the night sky of the northern star, which is well famed for its guidance.

16:04  

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Miscarriage Care

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate on behalf of Scottish Liberal Democrats, and I am grateful, too, for the time that the Parliament has been given to discuss the important topic of miscarriage care. I associate myself with the condolences extended by the minister and in the motion, which we will support.

In June 2021, I lodged an amendment to a motion on women’s health—which was not selected for debate—that raised the question of the provision of dedicated facilities for perinatal loss. Former Shetland resident Louise Caldwell, who, I think, is in Parliament this afternoon, has bravely campaigned on the issue after her miscarriage experience, when she was required to deliver on a labour ward. As I indicated in 2021, it is difficult to imagine how hard it must be to be met with newborn baby photos on walls, thank you cards, baby cries and proud partners. Official guidance says that separate facilities should be provided, but women’s experience shows that recognition of the issue does not always translate into reality.

Since that time, there has been improvement, which is due in no small part to Louise’s campaign. Last November in Shetland, the northern star bereavement suite at the Gilbert Bain hospital marked its first anniversary. The suite is designed for parents who have suffered an early pregnancy loss, such as miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. It was co-designed with the NHS team in Shetland and the baby loss charity Sands. I pay tribute to all who were involved in making that facility a reality. Feedback from patients has reportedly been very positive, despite the circumstances in which people use the service, and families have found comfort in placing their baby’s name on the memorial wall.

Shetland Sands also played a key part in developing a private space in Shetland’s Sumburgh airport for women who require to travel to Aberdeen on commercial flights when there are complications with their pregnancy. I do not think that people understand how difficult it must be for someone from a small community, who is travelling and is in the departure lounge—

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Beatrice Wishart

With each council area devising its own visitor levy scheme, there is no universal assurance that patients from island and rural areas who require overnight accommodation to access healthcare and treatment outwith their home areas will not be impacted by the levy. What will the Scottish Government do, therefore, to ensure that island patients are not penalised when attending mainland hospitals?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 23 January 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I am sympathetic to the intention behind Ross Greer’s amendments 17 and 18. Alongside other members, I have previously called for the Scottish Government to ban shock collars because they compromise dog welfare and can in some cases result in behavioural problems. However, I am unable to support amendments 17 and 18 because I do not believe that they constitute a full ban on the sale, supply and purchase of such devices. As such, they do not present the most comprehensive, effective approach for a ban.

I am also concerned that, because the amendments were lodged at such a late stage in the parliamentary process, there has been insufficient time to give them due scrutiny and ensure that their effect matches their aim. I note Ross Greer’s response to Edward Mountain on that point.

I would like to take this opportunity to repeat my call on the Scottish Government to bring in a full ban on shock collars. I would be grateful if the minister would provide an update on the Scottish Government’s work on that issue and on any work that it is doing on other aversive training methods.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill

Meeting date: 23 January 2025

Beatrice Wishart

Christine Grahame has shown dedication and determination in her efforts to bring her bill to the Parliament. I, too, pay tribute to her hard work in advocating for action to improve dog welfare. I thank the organisations that shared their expertise when giving evidence to the committee and for providing briefings on the bill.

As other members have mentioned, figures from the SSPCA show that, in the past five years, the organisation has conducted more than 690 investigations into the puppy trade and rescued more than 260 puppies. It is clear that action is needed.

The bill aims to improve dog welfare in Scotland through measures focusing on the demand side. Keeping a pet dog is a major responsibility. When people purchase dogs without the necessary research—through carelessness or lack of knowledge—they can end up purchasing dogs from puppy farms. The Covid lockdowns saw rises in dog ownership and a subsequent increase in the low-welfare puppy trade, in which dogs are bred for profit, with no consideration for welfare. The bill is therefore a timely intervention.

Under the bill, the Scottish ministers must make a code of practice to be followed by people who want a dog to keep as a pet, as well as by people who are selling or giving away a dog. Under the code, potential individual owners will be asked to consider whether their situation is suited to owning a dog and whether they will be able to provide for the dog’s needs throughout its life.

The aim of the code is to establish a more responsible and informed approach to acquiring and owning a dog, which should make considered purchases from reputable breeders the norm, resulting in fewer dogs suffering in the low-welfare trade. Buying a puppy from the back of a van in a supermarket car park, without seeing the conditions in which it and its mother were housed, is not a responsible and informed approach.

The bill requires the Scottish ministers to be responsible for ensuring public awareness and understanding of the code. For the bill to be successful, it is essential that awareness is as widespread as possible. The Scottish ministers should consider how best to publicise the code among harder-to-reach groups and how to ensure not only that people are aware of the code but that they put it into practice.

During the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, there was discussion about microchipping and the complexities of the current set-up—there are multiple databases. The Scottish Government expressed its openness to working with the rest of the UK in a four-nations approach to create a single database. Although that is outside the scope of the bill, I look forward to updates from the Scottish Government on discussions with counterparts in the rest of the UK on that important issue.

Before I conclude, I will comment on shock collars and other aversive training methods. As I stated when debating Ross Greer’s amendments, I have previously called for the Scottish Government to ban shock collars, because they compromise dog welfare and can, in some cases, result in behavioural problems. Although the bill is not the vehicle for such a ban, it is time for the Scottish Government to act on that issue. A ban could go hand in hand with the provisions of the bill to improve dog welfare.

I once again offer my congratulations to Christine Grahame. I look forward to the implementation of the bill and hope that it will have a positive impact on dog welfare in Scotland.

17:48  

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Women’s State Pensions (Compensation)

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I, too, pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners across the country and welcome those who are in the gallery today.

Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the motion. I hope that the Scottish Government’s motion is concise enough to garner support from across the chamber, in order to send a strong message to the UK Labour Government that its decision not to pay compensation to the 1950s women who were affected by the DWP’s maladministration is wrong.

Liberal Democrats have long supported a just outcome, in line with the ombudsman’s findings, for the group that has become known as WASPI. Last week, I spoke in Kenneth Gibson’s similar members’ business debate supporting the call for compensation to be paid. Liberal Democrat MP colleagues also took part in last week’s Westminster Hall debate supporting the call for compensation. Liberal Democrats at Westminster requested data from the House of Commons library, which, through the use of population estimates, indicates that around 3.5 million women across the UK could be impacted by the UK Government’s decision. It is estimated that more than 300,000 women in Scotland, and more than 1,300 in my constituency, could be affected.

I thank Age Scotland for its briefing, which highlights the shocking figures that just under a quarter of single women pensioners live in relative poverty, that two thirds of pension credit claimants are women and that, by their late 50s, women’s pension wealth is equivalent to less than two thirds of men’s.

The Labour Party should be ashamed to even contemplate ignoring these women, who all their lives have faced adversity as they lived through a different time—a man’s world. They have taken everyday, rational decisions about their lives to look after children, parents and loved ones at the expense of earning. They are a generation of women who were without maternity leave or free childcare, who have contributed to the economy, often in multiple low-paid jobs, and who have taken on caring roles for parents and relatives. They thought that they could retire at an agreed age, only to find that the goalposts had been moved. This is the generation who have done so much to fight for women’s rights.

What is indisputable is that the UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s independent report recommended that the UK Parliament should urgently identify a mechanism for providing an appropriate remedy and that financial compensation should be paid to the women affected.

The PHSO has described the UK Government’s decision not to act on its recommendation as “extremely rare”. My MP colleague Wendy Chamberlain stated in a Westminster Hall debate that

“it is really important for the Government to help us to have trust in institutions such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman by adhering to decisions made by it”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 January 2025; Vol 760, c 135WH]

Wendy Chamberlain followed that up with a question to the leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell. In response, the Commons leader stated that

“an apology was issued, but we did not feel that the compensation being proposed was proportionate or would be a fair use of public funds at this time.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 January 2025; Vol 760, c 495.]

What does

“a fair use of public funds at this time”

actually mean? It means that not delivering compensation is the Labour Party’s choice, which it can reverse to rectify the injustice that it has already accepted warrants an apology. The Labour Government’s decision, which threatens to allow millions of women across the UK to face poverty and undermines an independent institution that helps the state to function, is not only cruel and unusual; it is a betrayal of women who thought that voting Labour would lead to justice for the WASPI campaign.

Before the 2024 general election, the Prime Minister was happy to be photographed with WASPI campaigners. The Labour Party has always declared itself to be a party of equality—the party of Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott, who, for decades, have championed women’s rights and challenged misogyny. I pay tribute to the Scottish Labour colleagues who spoke in the WASPI debate last week. That may not have been easy, but it is often hard to stand up for what is right. I call on the UK Labour Government to do what is right and compensate those affected.

The Conservatives left our economy in a shambles, but pensioners should not be asked to pay the price. The Liberal Democrats will continue to support the WASPI campaign. The UK Labour Government must urgently change course and rethink its shameful decision.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

A9 Dualling Programme

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I welcome the committee’s debate and its final inquiry report, and I thank all those who were involved in making it a reality, including the petitioner. The inquiry has proved that the Scottish Parliament is open to Scotland’s citizens and that public petitions can have an impact.

I will touch on some of the inquiry’s findings and the Scottish Government’s response to it. It should not be forgotten that at the heart of all this is the fact that the A9 continues to be a dangerous road, with many people sadly having lost their lives when travelling on it. Communities the length of the route, tourists and haulage vehicles use the road to get to where they need to go and to keep services and goods deliveries running across the country. Swift action to address the problems on the A9 has been needed for many years, and continuous delays are a failure of the Scottish Government.

I will highlight and elaborate on some of the inquiry’s findings. The report states that the 2025 target for dualling was missed not due to one single issue or incident but, instead, because of the Scottish Government’s

“failure to reach agreement on programme funding”.

That is thought to have

“significantly contributed to progress stalling as the programme was reaching the procurement and construction stages.”

That might have been remedied with

“an individual whose main or only focus was to progress the A9 dualling programme”.

With the rapid turnover of SNP transport secretaries in recent years, it is little wonder that that was raised as a concern, although I note that the Scottish Government disagrees with those points in its response.

I also note the finding that

“A lack of open, external discussion of the challenges being faced in the delivery of the A9 dualling programme has negatively impacted public confidence in Transport Scotland and its ability to deliver major infrastructure projects within the timescales it says it will”.

It is of great concern that confidence in a Government body such as Transport Scotland is being questioned. The Scottish Government has responded to the committee to say that Transport Scotland’s ability to deliver has not been negatively impacted. There seems to be a misreading of concerns about confidence in the body. Significant effort will need to be ploughed into addressing the public’s confidence in Transport Scotland, and I hope that the Scottish Government will take that on board. Particular attention needs to be paid to addressing confidence in Transport Scotland among communities in the north of Scotland, as projects in central and southern Scotland being completed before the completion of the A9 dualling has led to a confidence deficit in those northern communities, which was picked up by the inquiry.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the inquiry’s proposal of routine and regular sharing of information with the Parliament as a key way to address concerns about the transparency of decision making on major projects such as those on the A9. I welcome the Scottish Government’s agreement in principle to that.

If I may, I will remark on something that is slightly outside the inquiry. The A9 north of Inverness is also a critical road for the communities that it connects. I recognise that Transport Scotland’s work on safety issues covers the whole of the A9, and it is important that regular assessments are made, as we know that that section of road is vital in ensuring access to public services.

The importance of the A9 in connecting large parts of Scotland means that improving safety on the route should be a priority for the Scottish Government. Dualling the road will help with that, and a new report by the Scottish Government to accelerate that is welcome. I also note that the Government expects to complete work on the £5 million programme of additional measures to enhance safety on the route in advance of dualling by March this year. After so many deadlines being missed, that one needs to be met. Progress on the A9 needs to be realised swiftly for the safety of communities up and down Scotland that use the route.

15:43  

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Health and Social Care (Rural Scotland)

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I thank Tim Eagle for raising this important topic in the chamber. In addition to the list of facilities that need replacement that is included in the motion, I once again raise the need for a new-build Gilbert Bain hospital to serve residents in Shetland. The hospital also serves a wide maritime area because of Shetland’s geographic position. It is often the closest available medical facility for fishing vessels, offshore energy sites and passengers from cruise ships in the North Sea.

Last year, 134 ships carrying more than 138,000 passengers visited Shetland, and some had to visit the Gilbert Bain hospital. The coastguard rescue helicopter regularly flies to Lerwick to land patients who have been airlifted from vessels or oil rigs for treatment at the hospital. It is long past time that the 1950s-designed hospital was replaced with a modern, fit-for-purpose facility. I once again put on the record my call for progress on a new hospital for Shetland.

There is much that could be said on the subject that we are debating this evening but, as time is not on my side, I will limit my remarks to some of the issues that Shetland patients face. The first is travel. NHS Shetland has arrangements with mainland health boards, such as NHS Grampian, to provide the healthcare that is not available in Shetland. However, the impact that communication, or miscommunication, between different hospital departments can have on island patients was raised with me recently.

One of my constituents was required to stay in an Aberdeen hospital for a night longer than necessary because they were waiting for a prescription from the hospital pharmacy. Had there been a more pragmatic approach, they could have been discharged and the further night in a hospital bed in Aberdeen would have been avoided. The script could have been handed to the patient and they could have taken it to a pharmacy in Aberdeen and been able to fly home that evening.

The rules on the reimbursement of travel costs also impact on access to healthcare. For Shetland residents on the island of Bressay, the only way to reach the hospital or health centre in Lerwick is by ferry across a mile of water. The current travel rules allow reimbursement only when patients travel more than 5 miles by sea, which raises the question of why 5 miles was set as an arbitrary limit. Either there is a stretch of water that needs to be crossed or there is not.

That, too, needs a pragmatic approach. I welcome the fact that NHS Shetland is running a six-month pilot scheme in which Bressay residents may claim for a trip to the Lerwick health centre. That follows both the community council and I raising the financial impact on patients, which can be significant when a series of frequent and recurring appointments is necessary.

Underlying all those issues are the challenges of depopulation that rural and island Scotland faces, which are highlighted in the motion. The lack of infrastructure, housing and digital connectivity impacts on recruitment and retention of NHS staff and, in turn, the reduced healthcare provision exacerbates depopulation.

Technology allows us to embrace new forms of healthcare, which can be transformative for healthcare provision, particularly in rural and island areas with small populations, but the lack of reliable digital connectivity makes the credibility of that prospect distant until real action is taken to improve rural and island high-speed broadband. Age Scotland found that, in Scotland, 25 per cent of people aged over 60 do not use the internet, which is another barrier to healthcare through technological means when we consider that 27 per cent of the population in rural areas are aged 65 plus. Addressing healthcare needs in rural and island healthcare includes investment in infrastructure.

I just about have time to let members know that, when I visited the Out Skerries community last summer, the poor information technology connection at the nurse’s house was the subject of debate. I had been told that, when the general practitioner had been in the isle a few days previously, they were unable to get online.

I am out of time.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Highlands and Islands)

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing this important debate to the chamber. The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report “Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Highlands and Islands” fills an identified gap in evidence on economic, social and cultural rights in rural Scotland, and I extend my thanks to all the researchers and participants who were involved in the project.

The report demonstrates many long-standing and interconnected issues that I have previously raised in the chamber. Its findings are familiar to those of us with experience of life in rural and island Scotland. The report confirms that much of the housing stock in the region is old, poorly insulated and prone to damp, mould and expensive heating costs. That rings true for Shetland, which has among the highest rates of fuel poverty in the country. The irony that the islands are in the centre of the country’s energy production area is not lost on those of us who live there.

The fact that building costs are higher than in other areas of Scotland is an evident barrier to house building in Shetland. There has been a slowdown in construction as a result of the pandemic and Brexit, which, along with the increased cost of construction materials, has resulted in insufficient available stock and building capacity.

The report found that, in some areas, a lack of housing is the single biggest factor that is contributing to depopulation. That can lead to people leaving the region, but it can also—as is happening in Shetland—result in people moving from islands and rural areas to towns.

The lack of affordable and available housing is cited as the biggest barrier to filling key worker and professional roles. Another significant barrier to participation in employment is poor digital access, which also exacerbates social isolation. The Scottish Government is already well aware that parts of the Highlands and Islands suffer from digital exclusion, and it must do more to enact targeted and comprehensive solutions to bridge that digital divide.

Regarding barriers to the right to health, the report notes that there is particular concern about the provision of maternity and gynaecology services in Caithness and Sutherland, which is an issue that my MP colleague Jamie Stone has long been campaigning on. Since maternity provision in Wick was downgraded, more than 14,000 patients a year have had to travel to Inverness, and no risk assessments on patient safety are carried out. Women who were surveyed reported feeling unsafe and terrified by the journey and by the possibility of giving birth en route. Due to delays in accessing the hospital in emergencies, some women have been left with loss of fertility. The situation is unsustainable and is putting patients at risk. I urge the Scottish Government to review the maternity model for the north of Scotland.

Patients across the Highlands and Islands incur substantial costs in accessing healthcare. As the report states, reimbursement

“rarely covers the actual costs of travel and ... accommodation.”

I am not surprised that the report found that some people choose not to access healthcare due to travel costs. For Shetland patients, attending an appointment on the Scottish mainland often involves spending multiple nights away because of transport schedules, which increases the cost. I have pressed the Scottish Government for action on its promised review of the patient travel scheme. It must prioritise that as a matter of urgency.

Scotland’s islands and rural areas are home to resourceful and supportive communities, but those communities should not be left to fill the gaps that are highlighted in the report. The Scottish Government should take seriously people’s reported feelings of despair and of being neglected. It is not too much to ask for people who live in the Highlands and Islands not to be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. I ask the Government to review its policies to address the concerns that are raised in the report. It is time for the Government to be serious about supporting rural and island Scotland.

13:19  

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Women Against State Pension Inequality (Compensation)

Meeting date: 15 January 2025

Beatrice Wishart

I thank Kenneth Gibson for bringing this important debate to the chamber. We will all agree that we have heard some excellent speeches. I also thank the 1950s women—the WASPI women—some of whom are here tonight, for all their hard work over many years in bringing this injustice to the fore. I, too, am a 1950s woman. I thought that I should declare that in the interest of transparency.

In June last year, I spoke in a debate on WASPI compensation after the UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s final report recognised the maladministration and ruled that the women who are affected should receive compensation. It feels like groundhog day to be outlining—once again—why compensation should be paid, and imploring the UK Government to reverse from its stated position that it will not do so.

We should recognise the groundhog day of those women who acted in a perfectly rational way to make decisions about their lives and planned for one retirement date, unaware that changes to their pension entitlement would cruelly snatch away those plans, with many of them finding that out just before their 60th birthdays. I seems that all their subsequent years of campaigning for justice have come to nothing.

As a member of the cross-party group on WASPI, I have heard testimony about the impact of the changes and have called for compensation for the maladministration. I will continue to stand with WASPI women.

The PHSO recommended that the UK Parliament urgently identify a mechanism for providing an appropriate remedy, and recommended financial compensation to the women who are affected. The PHSO has described the UK Government’s decision not to act on its recommendation as “extremely rare”.

I thank Close the Gap for its briefing for the debate, and I highlight the line that says that

“This refusal to provide fair compensation is an injustice which reflects decision making which penalises women, many of whom are already experiencing low pay and poverty, and sustains systemic gender inequality.”

I cannot help but think that there is an air of misogyny around the decision-making that has taken us to where we are today. Those women worked all their lives, often from the age of 15 or 16 and often in low-paid jobs, while raising families and having other caring duties without the financial support that women today take for granted, including paid maternity leave and free childcare.

My Westminster MP colleague Steve Darling said of Ms Kendall’s announcement:

“The new government has turned its back on millions of pension-age women who were wronged through no fault of their own, ignoring the independent Ombudsman’s recommendations, and that is frankly disgraceful.”

However, the Government is not merely turning its back—it is ignoring previous support by the Labour Party for a remedy when it was the Opposition.

The Conservative Party has also avoided its responsibilities. Having created the changes in the first place, it failed to notify the women who would be affected and left the Government without any plans to pay compensation.

To conclude, I say that blame can be passed between the parties, but it does not change the fact that 1950s women have been badly let down, and the only response from the Labour Government is, “Tough.” That is shameful, but the WASPI voice has not been silenced.

18:37