Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the US blockade in Cuba, which has been imposed for more than five decades, must now be ended to allow the Cuban economy to recover from the pandemic and trade freely with key markets?

We all know that GPs are under enormous strain and pressure as a result of the pandemic. However, in East Ayrshire, there have been cases of significant issues with practices communicating decisions to local residents, which has led to many people not even being able to book appointments or discuss treatment plans. What can the Scottish Government do to ensure that residents in East Ayrshire receive the best possible GP services and that they receive them in a timely manner?

I thank all the witnesses for their input so far. As the convener said, I want to talk about the workforce. One of the biggest things that struck me was evidence from the Royal College of Nursing that suggested that we can make the biggest difference to improved mental health provision if we address staff vacancies and the workforce, as there are significant problems with the workforce in the area of mental health. I know that the Government is trying to address the issue, but it is important that we understand what workforce planning it is doing for specialist perinatal mental health services. Has the Government done any workforce planning? One of the things that we hear from nursing organisations is that the retention of good and well-trained staff is key. Do you have any feedback on that?

Yes, thank you.

I thank the minister for lodging amendment 1.

In moving amendment 5 and speaking to all the amendments in the group, I want to be clear that I am happy with the spirit of the bill and the collaborative nature of the approach that the Parliament has taken in moving forward through each stage to ensure that the women involved are reimbursed at the earliest possible time.

My amendment 5 would ensure the broadest scope for the qualifying residence element of the bill. As the minister stated, the committee has always agreed that that is the correct approach. Amendment 5 would ensure that any women who had mesh implant removal undertaken by the NHS but who were not ordinarily resident in Scotland would be included in the eligibility criterion, so that they could seek expenses and so on.

Towards the end of our discussions at stage 1, the committee touched on the rights of all women who have been adversely affected by transvaginal mesh surgery and who had any surgery in Scotland. Therefore, I lodged amendment 5 in the interests of clarifying the bill and ensuring that parts of it are not unclear for those who are affected.

I appreciate the discussion that we have had on the amendments and accept that there will be time before stage 3 to discuss the issues further and get things right for people. As a result, I seek to withdraw amendment 6.

Do you want me to go on, convener?

Thank you for that, minister; that is what we are looking for—training across the board. Can you give us a wee bit more clarity on the 51 practitioners? Are they new?

In moving amendment 6, I clarify again that my amendments 6 to 9 aim to be helpful in ensuring that the spirit of the bill and the committee’s discussion are captured in the bill as passed.

Amendments 6 and 7 seek to add wording that will give clarity to section 1. The committee sought to ensure eligibility for someone who incurred costs in supporting a person to have treatment, and my amendments 6 and 7 would allow that to happen.

Amendment 8 would extend the bill to cover those who might have begun the process and, therefore, incurred costs but for whom, unfortunately, the process has been halted due to travel or surgery restrictions “relating to coronavirus”.

Amendment 9 is a simple amendment that lays out the meaning of coronavirus.

I seek the committee’s support for this group of straightforward amendments.

I move amendment 6.

I thank Jenni Minto for bringing her important motion to the chamber for debate. She gave a lovely speech.

The debate allows us to consider and connect two important elements: the life-saving technology that we are lucky to have available to us and the community that brings it to our doors to ensure that, whenever possible, lives are saved.

We have heard a bit about cardiac arrest from members who have spoken before me. Sudden cardiac arrest occurs suddenly and often without warning. It is the abrupt loss of heart function, breathing and consciousness. We need to understand and remind ourselves that death occurs within minutes if the victim does not receive treatment. Therefore, it is important that we raise understanding and awareness of the condition. Debating in the Scottish Parliament can be a step towards raising that awareness but, as members know, we must go further in our campaigns after the debate.

Figures that we have heard reveal that, every year, more than 3,000 people in Scotland experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The British Heart Foundation’s figures show that only one victim in 10 survives. However, crucially, the chance of surviving a cardiac arrest jumps from 6 per cent to 74 per cent if the casualty is in a shockable rhythm and a defibrillator is deployed within three minutes. That statistic shows clearly why it is important, as the motion states, to have accessible community defibrillators that are well maintained and easily available to every community.

If we are to reduce deaths from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, it is important that people know how to use the defibrillators. It is important that we train people to use them and that they feel confident in using them. Understanding that, with quick decisive action, we can save a life gives us all great purpose to do more. Access to defibrillators is vital to saving lives. I say to Jenni Minto that I would happily support any of the campaigns that she advances from the debate.

I also pay tribute to the communities that fundraise for and maintain defibrillators, which are life-saving pieces of equipment. In my community of Mauchline, a well thought out strategy has, following some fantastic fundraising, resulted in a community defibrillator being based at the centre of the village, with another due to be installed in another part of the village. The Mauchline Community Association, which is based at Centre Stane, has implemented a plan that includes good maintenance, ensuring that there is a high level of local understanding about how to access and use the equipment and registering it with the Circuit. Those measures are to be commended in any community and I am proud of the efforts in my village.

As I mentioned, my local defibrillator is registered with the Circuit, the national defibrillator network. The network provides a national overview of where defibrillators can be found and connects to the NHS ambulance services throughout the United Kingdom. That ensures that, in the crucial moments after a cardiac arrest, the defibrillators can be accessed quickly to help to save lives. At the moment, many defibrillators are never used because emergency services do not know where they are. That can cost lives and it is why it is important that the Circuit’s infrastructure is available.

I reaffirm a key point that I have made in previous debates: inequalities in health and healthcare cannot be ignored. It is no different in this instance. People from more deprived areas in Scotland are almost twice as likely to have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and are 60 per cent less likely to survive to leave hospital than those from less-deprived areas. We must not forget those factors when planning for the future. It is crucial that the Government addresses inequality as a matter of urgency before it is too late for more people. Key to that is tackling the root causes of health inequality.

I again acknowledge the importance of the motion and commend the work of the volunteers and organisations that raise awareness of the issue. I thank members for contributing to this important debate.

I welcome the commitment to incorporate into law the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is a measurable and moral step that we must take together as a country, and I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing the debate to the chamber. However, no one will be surprised to hear me say that we can always do a lot more. I would like to focus on some tangible rights that we should be pursuing at home, but first I must briefly reflect on a broader concern.

I would love to see human rights become a universal standard with which we can build a better world—however, in reality, that is far from happening. We need only cast our memories back to a fortnight ago, when 27 people drowned in the English Channel trying to reach our shores. Far too many people have already forgotten about that news story—it has been pushed aside by the daily churn of the 24-hour news cycle.

What happened to the rights of those 27 people? Did they disappear when they left home for a better life? The situation is truly shameful, and we must keep their story in the spotlight. Their fate does not surprise me, however, given that a Tory Government at Westminster thinks that it is funny to ignore its own rules and to laugh at Covid restrictions while people die. We can only imagine its lack of concern for people beyond our borders. Their story must remain in the spotlight.

To return to matters at home, I do not need to tell my fellow MSPs that children in schools are too hungry to concentrate, and that parents are not eating meals so that their children can be fed. In 2019, 31 per cent of single-parent households in Scotland reported being food insecure. One in 10 people living in the UK is, or is at risk of being, malnourished.

Labour-led councils in North Lanarkshire and North Ayrshire have taken positive steps towards addressing hunger during school holidays, with the club 365 and summer voucher schemes. I am sure that all members welcome those steps, but the Scottish Government has to do more and to be more radical in ensuring that they are rolled out across Scotland.

The fact that we need those schemes confirms the desperate need for a right to food, which is not currently enshrined in Scots law. Fortunately, thanks to my colleagues Rhoda Grant and, previously, Elaine Smith, we will soon have the opportunity, here at home, to secure that right. I ask that all members—particularly Government backbenchers—support that at the first opportunity.

Linked to that, as part of a wider concern about health, the UNCRC states that children should have the right to leisure, play and culture, and that Governments must play an active role in ensuring that that happens. How are we doing in Scotland? A report commissioned by the Observatory for Sport in Scotland highlighted that

“there is evidence of decreasing participation rates in sport outside school lessons and high levels of drop-out by girls as they move into their teenage years.”

We also know that, between 2014 and 2018, the average charges per hour increased for five-a-side football, badminton, squash, table tennis, golf, and swimming for kids. Furthermore, participation in physical activity and sport among those living in the most deprived areas is considerably lower than in the least deprived areas. That division will last past childhood, and it accounts in part for increased mortality at all stages of life. The Scottish Government must do more if it seeks to claim that it is taking an active part in realising children’s right to leisure, play and culture.

It is positive that the Scottish Government appears keen to adopt the UNCRC into Scots law, but it is equally concerning that hunger is on the rise and that the cost of sport in Scotland is unaffordable and getting worse. If we recognise the importance of securing formal rights that will push us forward as a country and give the next generation a platform from which it can flourish, we can begin to change that trajectory. The UNCRC is a welcome start but, as I often say in the chamber, we have plenty more to do.

I again thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing the debate to the chamber.