Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Rona Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber.

The impact of adverse childhood experiences on individuals’ lives can be scarring, devastating and long lasting. Memories of childhood often stay with us, but, for many, those memories are not ones to look back on fondly.

As we have heard from others in the debate, poverty, abuse, neglect and other ACEs cause significant mental and physical difficulty for people in our country and they can also impact on an individual’s personal development.

However, in understanding more about ACEs, it is important to note that research conducted across the UK tells us that adverse childhood experiences are more likely to be experienced in areas of high deprivation. That highlights yet another devastating health inequality in our country, which needs to be addressed with purpose.

Moreover, as outlined by Public Health Scotland, an ACE survey of adults in Wales found that, compared to people with no ACEs, those with four or more ACEs—as has been mentioned—are more likely to have been in prison, develop heart disease, frequently visit their general practitioner, develop type 2 diabetes, have committed violence in the past 12 months or have other health-harming behaviours.

That is deeply concerning to us all, and I consider it important that the Scottish Government conducts a similar ACE survey with adults in Scotland to ascertain whether the impacts are similar, given that Public Health Scotland has advised that there could be a similar prevalence in the Scottish population.

However, we have to be absolutely clear that ACEs should not define an individual’s life or stop them from being successful or content. It is crucial that support is in place for children, young adults and adults to come forward and talk about their experiences. There can be no room for stigma in those discussions, and it is important that such support is accessible, free and comfortable for those who come forward.

The fact that adverse childhood experiences occur for children during a period of innocence and the unknown makes the impact that bit more significant. That is why I fully support calls from the 70/30 campaign to reduce incidence of adverse childhood experiences by at least 70 per cent by 2030, as we have all agreed in the chamber tonight.

That is not only an achievable target but a necessary one. It is one that we must meet if we are to be proactive and deliver for those who have experienced such events. We must invest more in early years. We must place more focus on addressing health inequalities. We must conduct research and analyse data to ensure that there is the most up-to-date information, where it does not exist already, to allow us to take actions that are underpinned by solid evidence.

In this chamber, I regularly call on the Scottish Government to do more to eradicate poverty. I do so because failure to act equates to a failure to stand up for those who, for whatever reason, struggle in life and need us to stand up for them in modern society. Adverse childhood experiences link closely to poverty and inequality. Therefore, to be effective in our endeavours, we must address the root causes. Doing so allows us to support those who are growing up in the most deprived areas today, and it allows us to hope that we can reduce the number of people who have an adverse childhood experience in the future.

The debate is important because it reaffirms the view of us all in the chamber—I have heard this from every speaker, and it is a matter that we all care about—that we must discuss this issue and address it. By working together, we can progress. My hope for the future is that no child will suffer adverse childhood experiences and that they will all grow up happy and content in their lives. We, as parliamentarians, can help that to happen.

I have found the evidence really useful, but I am particularly interested in finding out how we can encourage young people from poorer backgrounds to take part in sport and other activities that use green spaces. Some of the earlier comments about local services and local government funding were therefore music to my ears.

What are the barriers for young people both in and outwith schools with regard to accessing sport and other activities? What do we as parliamentarians need to do to break down those barriers and give people, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, the opportunity to take part?

That would be great.

No, that confirms some of the work that we need to do, which is helpful.

Endometriosis is a painful and often debilitating condition that requires high standards of care and treatment. Commitments in the women’s health plan are, of course, very welcome, but can the minister outline what investment the Scottish Government will be making in endometriosis research? Will she commit to regularly updating Parliament on progress, given that we know just how crucial research will be in better understanding the causes, in developing better treatments and, ultimately, in finding a cure for endometriosis?

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I thank everyone who has contributed to this necessary debate.

As others have noted, the reforms in the bill have come about as part of a lengthy and considered response to reasonable worries expressed by those who were so unfairly treated. Scottish Labour warmly welcomes the agreement by all parties that securing adequate reimbursement is fair and just and expresses our regret that anyone could be left in such pain and distress for so long.

Gillian Martin rightly indicated that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee will be keeping an eye on the progress that the bill provides for women. As Emma Harper reiterated, this is not the end of the committee’s work. We have much more to do in reassuring women that we can have a world-class service in future.

We thank all the women who shared their stories again and again. Craig Hoy made that point well.

I thank Paul O’Kane for reminding us of the work that was done before this session of Parliament. I can only imagine the work that happened beforehand. We thank Jackson Carlaw, Neil Findlay and Alex Neil in particular, as well as all the committees that worked to bring the bill to this stage. It has been long awaited and we thank all those who worked on it over those years.

Scottish Labour fully supports the overall aims and principles of the bill and wants to see it in place as soon as possible. As many members have said, far too many women have gone through traumatic experiences since having mesh fitted. It is right that the Scottish Government should cover any related costs and it is imperative that the bill moves forward quickly after we—as I hope we will—agree to it at decision time.

The bill includes travel and hotel accommodation costs. We are assured from the bill and the guidance that it will cover all the cut-off dates and the evidence to review if someone is refused payment. The cabinet secretary indicated that someone has been appointed to administer the scheme. That is all very welcome.

We need the legislation now. I am glad that we are getting on with the job. I reiterate my party’s position: we support the bill. We will, of course, continue to scrutinise the Government to ensure that the bill is fit for purpose and to see how the Government will raise awareness so that women know that they are entitled to reimbursement. If we cannot adequately inform people of what they are entitled to, we cannot be surprised when they fail to take up that offer.

Scottish Labour hopes that the debate will give the affected women reassurance that we will move forward. I thank everyone who has contributed today.

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.