Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will come on to address those issues.

There are so many personal stories. We have heard many of them; the experiences of young people, in particular, stand out. They are often in pain and, in many cases, they are very lost and have nowhere to turn. What do they face? They face long waiting lists. For some, getting a first appointment and continued treatment could be the difference between life and death but, in many cases, that comes far too late.

Evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has repeatedly shown that people face long waits, with no community alternatives or basic local service provision being available. Young people and mental health organisations have repeatedly told us that the shrinking provision of local services is impacting on wellbeing. The Scottish Government’s response is to cut local government funding again. Scottish National Party members must surely recognise that that must change, and change rapidly.

I thank the panel for coming along. Much of what has been discussed has involved things that need to be done and support that needs to be given to address inequalities and prevention.

I want to pick up on a couple of things. In their evidence to us, young people said that lots of support is available when they are in crisis but there is not so much support available on the journey or on the way towards crisis. What do the witnesses think about that? Have you experienced that, and is there some way of looking into that?

I am also interested in hearing from the panel about how we deal with poverty and take a whole-family approach. I have heard about that before, but I would like a wee bit more information on that.

We talk a lot about Government investment, funding and finances, and I am sure that people have views on what we need to do there. What things do we need to do differently that are not just about the financial provision? Could the panel give a wee bit of feedback on that, too, please?

I would be particularly interested in hearing from Kirsty-Louise Hunt about what kind of things people say they need before they are in crisis.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for bringing such an important debate to the chamber. I know that she has championed the cause for many years.

As we have heard, endometriosis is thought to impact a staggering one in 10 women worldwide. Endometriosis UK highlights the point that its impact can be seen from puberty to menopause and, in some cases, can last a lifetime. The painful, often debilitating condition impacts many women in our country and across the globe, but awareness of it remains low and it is not given the prominence that it deserves.

Tonight’s debate will take steps towards raising awareness of endometriosis, but we must go much further: we must listen to people who have lived experience of the condition and to experts such as those at Endometriosis UK so that we can deliver what they believe is necessary to improve the day-to-day lives of people who live with the condition now, and of those who might live with it in the future.

That means that members such as me must hold the Scottish Government to account and ensure that it reaches its target of reducing the shockingly high diagnosis time of more than eight years to less than a year. We must also fight for equal access to proper care and ensure that all women have a central point of support that can provide assistance related to the impacts of endometriosis.

I welcome Maree Todd’s work on, and commitment to, the women’s health plan. Although progress has been made on it, we must acknowledge that much more needs to be done. It is fair to say that making faster progress would benefit the women who live with the condition.

We must also commit to providing age-appropriate menstrual wellbeing education. Only by removing the stigma surrounding the discussion of menstrual wellbeing will we raise awareness and tackle the issues that are staring us in the face.

Endometriosis is a condition in which tissue similar to that in the lining of the womb starts to grow in other places, such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. Its main symptoms include painful periods; pain in the lower abdomen, pelvis or lower back; pain during and after sex; difficulty becoming pregnant; and discomfort when going to the toilet. It causes many women a long time of suffering and social and mental health problems.

One of the main difficulties that is highlighted by people with lived experience of the condition, Endometriosis UK and a wide range of healthcare professionals is that such symptoms can be attributed to many other conditions and illnesses. The condition is often missed, or it takes a long time to be diagnosed. It is therefore vital that we call for greater research into the presentation and causes of endometriosis, so that women can be provided with high-quality treatment at a much quicker rate than at present. We must also hope that research produces alternative treatments and, at some point in the future, a cure.

As we have heard, a significant amount of work is already being undertaken in our communities by individuals, groups and organisations. I have had the pleasure of meeting groups, such as the group in the Scottish Borders, that are doing a tremendous amount of work to support those who live with the condition and to hold us decision makers and those in the health services to account. We must commend the work that individuals and organisations do, because, without their support, advice and advocacy, many more women would have faced the difficulties alone.

I once again thank Rachael Hamilton for highlighting the importance of raising awareness of the condition, and I thank members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that this debate is the start and not the end of a heightened focus on the condition in the Parliament and beyond.

Tackling inequality and poverty is, I believe, absolutely what we, as MSPs, are here to do. That goes for every portfolio. In almost every one of our evidence sessions we have heard from experts that in order to tackle health inequalities we have to tackle poverty. We have been advised that we have to be politically brave on the issue, so my question is this: are you prepared to be politically brave? Can you give us examples of what you believe we can do, and give us timeframes for that? It is very important that we know the timeframes within which we will measure outcomes.

Yes. It is referred to in our papers. Where could we use that approach quickly for people?

We have heard evidence on the Scottish Government’s place-based community-led approach. Will you give examples of where that will make a difference?

I know that we are short of time, convener, but I hope that we can make a commitment to come back to the issue.

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.

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.